Archdukes; Cynicism; and World War I: Crash Course World History #36 Video Lecture | A Complete Guide to World History : 1 - World Knowledge

Hi, I’m John Green, this is Crash Course
World History, and today we’re gonna talk
about World War I. The so-called, Great War?
World War I wasn’t the most destructive
war, or the first total war, and it certainly
wasn’t - despite its billing - the war to
end all wars. But it was the war to change
all wars. World War I changed our outlook,
it normalized cynicism and irony, which, I
think you’ll agree, are kind of dominant lenses for
describing our world today. Basically, I’d argue
that World War I helped make possible everything from
The Simpsons to intentionally unattractive mustaches.
Mr. Green, Mr. Green! are you referring to
me?
Oh, Me From the Past, you’re an embarrassment
to our family. Also to all our other selves.
[theme music]
Most people think of World War I as a tragedy
because it didn’t need to happen and didn’t
really accomplish much, except for creating
social and economic conditions that made World
War II possible. So when we talk about the causes of
the war, inevitably, we’re also assigning blame.
The immediate cause was, of course, the assassination
in Sarajevo of the Austrian Archduke Franz
Ferdinand on June 28, 1914, by a Bosnian Serb
nationalist named Gavrilo Princip. Quick aside:
It’s worth noting that the first big war
of the 20th century began with an act of terrorism.
So Franz Ferdinand wasn’t particularly well-liked
by his uncle, the Emperor Franz Joseph - now
that is a mustache! But even so, the assassination
led Austria to issue an ultimatum to Serbia,
whereupon Serbia accepted some, but not all,
of Austria’s demands, leading Austria to
declare war against Serbia. And then Russia,
due to its alliance with the Serbs, then mobilized
its army; Germany, because it had an alliance
with Austria, told Russia to stop mobilizing,
which Russia failed to do, so then Germany
mobilized its own army, declared war on Russia,
cemented an alliance with the Ottomans, and then
declared war on France, because, you know, France.
Germany’s War plan, the Schlieffen Plan,
required that it invade France in the most
expedient way possible, which as you can see
is via Belgium, And Great Britain was a friend
of Belgium - I mean, as much as anyone can be a friend
of Belgium - and so they declared war on Germany.
So by August 4th, all the major powers of
Europe are at war with each other. By the
end of the month, Japan, honoring its alliance
with Britain, would be at war with Germany
and Austria as well. When all was said and
done, counting colonies and spheres of influence,
the world map would eventually look like this.
You’ll never guess who wins.
So there were many opportunities NOT to mobilize
and declare war, none of which were taken.
Some blame the web of alliances itself, which
is what Woodrow Wilson tried to fix with the
League of Nations. Some blame Russia, the
first big country to mobilize. Some blame
Germany for the inflexibility of the Schlieffen
Plan. Leninists claim war grew out of imperialism
and was fueled by capitalist rivalries; and
others claim it was a war between Germany’s
radical modernism and Britain’s traditional
conservatism.
But if I had to assign blame, I’d go with
the alliance system and the cultural belief
that war was, in general, good for nations.
War helped define who was "them" and who was
"us", and doing that strengthened the idea
of us. And before World War I, war was perceived
to be necessary and often even glorious.
The trench warfare on the Western Front is
most famous for its brutal futility - Great
Britain and France on one side, Germany on
the other, with no man’s land between. World
War I was a writer’s war, and there’s
a lot of metaphorical resonance in living
men digging holes where they would in time
die. The lines of trenches on the Western
Front covered only about 400 miles as the
crow flies, but because of the endless zigzagging,
the trenches themselves may have run as much
as 25,000 miles.
But the stalemate of trench warfare wasn’t
seen on every front. Especially at the beginning
of the war, there was a lot of offensive movement,
especially in the initial German strikes,
especially on the Eastern Front, the Germans
were pretty successful against the Russians,
who had a large but pretty hapless army. Also,
for those blessed few of you who sat through
all of Lawrence of Arabia, you’ll remember
that T. E. Lawrence’s exploits took place
in the context of World War I, with the British
battling the Ottomans.
This brings up an important point: World War
I featured combatants from around the world
- Britain’s army, especially, included soldiers
from India, Africa, Australia, New Zealand,
and Canada, who was just happy to be invited.
Africans served with the French, and for a
lot of these people, their experiences helped
build nationalist movements when survivors
returned home after the war.
That’s about as close as we get to a silver
lining. The war itself was incredibly destructive.
Over 15 million people were killed and over
20 million wounded. In France, 13.3% of the
male population between the age of 15 and
49 died in the war. The war also saw a lot
of civilians die, especially in the Ottoman
Empire where more than 2 million of the 3
million people killed were non-combatants.
But like so many other wars, World War I’s
most efficient killer was disease. Stupid
disease, always hijacking history. Dysentery,
typhus, and cholera were rampant, and otherwise
minor injuries would prove fatal when gangrene
set in. I mean, 25% of arm wounds among German
soldiers were fatal. And that’s not even
to mention the famous influenza epidemic that
broke out toward the end of the war, which
killed three times as many people as the war itself.
The main reason the war was so deadly was
the combination of new technology and outdated
tactics. While we may think about tanks, airplanes
and poison gas, all of which made their debut
in the First World War, the two most devastating
technologies were American: machine guns and
barbed wire. Attempting to march in lines
towards an enemy’s trench, soldiers of both
sides were mowed down by machine gun fire.
According to one German machine gunner at
the battle of the Somme in 1916, “The [British]
officers went in front. I noticed one of them
walking calmly, carrying a walking stick.
When we started firing we just had to load
and reload. They went down in their hundreds.
You didn’t have to aim, we just fired into
them.” At the Somme, the British lost 60,000
men in the first day of fighting. Remember
the old colonialist verse, “Whatever happens
/ we have got / the maxim gun / and they have
not”? Yeah, well, now everybody had machine guns.
One of the things we try to remember here
at Crash Course is that people both make history
and are made by it. World War I brings this
fact into stark relief because we know so
much about the soldiers who fought in it,
and how they wrote about the war really changed
our relationship with systemic violence.
For most soldiers, there was nothing glamorous
or heroic about this war. For the British,
for example, the trenches were two things
above all: wet and smelly. The dampness came
from the fact that the British trenches were
in the wettest part of Flanders. The smell
was mainly decomposing flesh. Nothing glorious
about that.
On the upside, soldiers were at least rarely
hungry, and there was a lot of food from home,
which is worth underscoring, because it reminds
us that home wasn’t very far away. Even
for the British, at their closest the front
was only 70 miles from England. They could
read newspapers from London one day later
than Londoners could.
While going “over the top” - Stan, no
puns in this episode! - Right, while going
“over the top” of the trench to cross
no-man’s land and attack the enemy trench
is what lights our romantic imagination, most
soldiers’ lives were dominated by the fear
of shelling. According to a journal published
by French soldiers: “There’s nothing more
horrible in war than being shelled. It’s
a form of torture that the soldier can’t
see the end of. Suddenly he’s afraid of
being buried alive... The man stays put in
his hole, helplessly waiting for, hoping for,
a miracle.”
Although soldiers then, as now, lived under
conditions it's difficult to imagine, there
was more than even the threat of death to
distress them. According to German officer
Ernst Jünger, it was not “danger, however
extreme … that depresses the spirit of men,
so much as over-fatigue and wretched conditions.”
And for most soldiers, especially the British
and French, the pay for their efforts was
pitiful. So why did they even keep fighting?
Duty, nationalism, loyalty to comrades, and
fear of being shot for desertion all played a role.
But so did alcohol. As one British medical
officer said: “Had it not been for the rum
ration, I do not think we should have won
the war.” Ernst Jünger also remarked on
the propensity of soldiers to drink their
troubles away: “Though ten out of twelve
had fallen, still the last two, as sure as
death, were to be found on the first evening
of rest over the bottle drinking a silent
health to their dead ‘companions’ ”.
Oh, it’s time for the open letter? Whew!
An open letter to alcohol. I wonder what’s
in today’s secret compartment.
Oh, shocking, it’s a golf club. And an actual
disco golf ball made by a crash course fan!
Dear Alcohol - oh, that’s...
Like disease, you’ve been a key figure in
human history, despite not actually being
a person, and for millennia, you’ve played
an important role in war, often helping soldiers
do their duty, often distracting them from it.
But here’s the thing, alcohol, in my experience,
which is extensive, if you need to be drunk
to do something, you should maybe not do the
thing. Unless of course, the thing is golf.
Best wishes, John Green.
So what did we take away from the so-called Great
War? Well, not much. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble.
The Treaty of Versailles, which ended World
War I, fixed the blame for the war on Germany,
which proved ruinous to the German economy
and destructive to its political institutions.
And unless you’re really nostalgic for totalitarian
communism, you’ve gotta say that World War
I was also a disaster for Russia, because
it facilitated the rise of the Bolsheviks.
The Russian Revolution had two phases. In
the first phase, called the February Revolution,
because get this, it occurred in February,
army mutinies and civil unrest forced the
overthrow of the Romanov dynasty which had
been in power in Russia since, like, forever,
to use a proper historian term.
The monarchy was replaced by a provisional
government led (eventually) by Alexander Kerensky,
which made the terrible decision to keep Russia
in the war, which led to the October Revolution,
so called because it happened in October,
in which Vladimir Lenin and his Bolsheviks
took over, famously promising the Russian
people “peace, bread, and land.” To which
the Russian people responded, “Hey, you
just named of our three favorite things.”
Lenin’s first big achievement was signing
a separate peace with Germany and getting
Russia out of the war, which was helpful to
him since he needed to fight a civil war that
wouldn’t end until 1922. This might’ve
helped Germany, too, except the US entered
the war on the side of the British and the
French.
Which led to another outcome of the war: increased
geopolitical influence for the U.S. The U.S.
was already becoming a major economic power,
and being able to avoid the destruction and
loss of manpower associated with World War
I certainly didn’t hurt. The war helped
catapult the U.S. from being a debtor nation
to a creditor one, and Wilson’s leading
role in the negotiations at Versailles – even
though he actually didn’t get what he wanted
– made America a big player on the world
stage for the first time. Thanks, Thought Bubble.
So just so we don’t get completely Eurocentric,
another major outcome of the war was the end
of the Ottoman Empire and the emergence of
the nation-state of Turkey. The rest of the
world saw some change too, but not much for
the better. In Africa, Britain took Germany’s
colonies, and even though Indians fought and
died in a higher percentage than Americans
in World War I, India didn’t gain any real
autonomy.
All these terrible outcomes led to a general
sense of disappointment in literary circles,
And this feeling of pointlessness and cynicism
was expressed by the writers of the “lost
generation.” It was a war full of loss:
Millions of people were lost. Traditional
ideals of war’s nobility and heroism were
lost as well: I mean, what is heroism when
you’re just sitting in a trench, waiting
to be blown up?
And after World War I, war might be necessary,
but it would never again be glorious. We see
this shift in the writing and art that emerged
from the Great War as artists transitioned
from romanticism to modernism. Think of Hemingway’s
The Sun Also Rises, which is about a men rendered
not noble but impotent by war. This dark,
cruel irony here - you go to war to become
a man and war takes away the organ often called
“your manhood” - that defined Hemingway’s
worldview. And it also defines ours.
Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week.
Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan
Muller, our script supervisor is Meredith
Danko, our Associate Producer is Danica Johnson.
The show is written by my high school history
teacher Raoul Meyer and myself, and our graphics
team is Thought Bubble.
Last week’s phrase of the week was "unless
you are the Mongols" (we brought it back for
you), if you’d like to suggest future phrases
of the week, or guess at this week’s, you can
do so in comments, where you can also ask questions
that will be answered by our team of historians.
Thanks for watching Crash Course, and, as we
say in my hometown, Don’t Forget To Be Awesome.