The Road to Hell? Intentions, Uncertainty and the Origins of World War I - Sebastian Rosato

Comments · 180

• JO

  @joeblow9657 · 2 years ago

  This man says he's British but he sounds like someone from Massachusetts and it's throwing my for a loop.

  11

• DA

  @Dav1Gv · 4 years ago

  Perhaps Zuber is right that Schlieffen did want the army increased in size to execute his plan. However his argument that the Germans planned defensive battles and were drawn into the advance to the Marne is arguably totally undermined by their invasion of Luxemburg before the declaration of war and their ultimatum to Belgium during mobilisation demanding free passage for their armies and offering compensation at France's expense when they won. Also the well known quote about being lost once Schlieffen's notes had come to an end cleary indicated an intention to invade. Having 90% of your army in the west facing the numerically smaller enemy and only 10% facing the Russians, admittedly with Austria, hardly suggests a defensive intention.

  24

• BO

  @Bob.W. · 8 years ago

  His explanation of how the German advance into Belgium and France just looked like the Plan is lame.  If they weren't following it why on earth would they have invaded Belgium and brought England in?  Totally unbelievable.

  20

• TH

  @TheLoyalOfficer · 5 years ago

  "Not wrong but they don't stand up to scrutiny."

• NI

  @nicholashomyak2473 · 8 years ago

  If the British 6 Divisions come in after the slaughter then their aid may be effective and psychological in the continuation of the war crisis..

  1

• 4O

  @4OHz · 1 year ago

  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSXT6LxXxRs&amp;t=1213">20:13</a> You’re right, it didn’t have to happen but in the effort to check Germany’s growing empire and their near parity to match Great Britain’s sea going power, Great Britain thought it a good idea to jump right into the opportunity

• RE

  @RemoteViewr1 · 8 years ago

  We think of our defining war as The Civil War. &nbsp;Check out the stats on that one.

  7

• LO

  @logangustavson · 3 years ago

  Interesting ideas and perspectives, &nbsp;though I feel the speaker didn&apos;t go in depth into any of the topics nearly enough. For instance, I remain unconvinced about the Schlifen plan and a few other things<br><br>All in all, a good lecture that raises important questions

  1

• MA

  @Mandibil · 3 years ago

  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSXT6LxXxRs&amp;t=2087">34:47</a> There was no inflation to talk of in 1912, what is your source ?

• MA

  @Marmocet · 8 years ago

  I find Russia&apos;s behavior in 1914 hard to understand. I realize they had commitments to Serbia, but they weren&apos;t ironclad and I don&apos;t understand why the Tsarist regime would want to fight what they knew could blow up into a major war when they had just fought and lost a war against Japan in 1905 that sparked a revolution that threatened to topple their entire regime. I also find it hard to understand why they would want to support a regicidal Serbian regime when the Romanovs themselves had been subject to regicide and ongoing attempts on the lives of members of their royal family and their government by radicals and ethnic nationalists.

  38

• عل

  @علي-ش7ث8ب · 3 years ago

  <b>IT WAS A DIVINE RETRIBUTION</b>

• KA

  @kaegan9698 · 8 months ago (edited)

  One thing that he said about the alliance system not being a cause of the war implies that it was a factor. If, &nbsp;as he says, that the Germans were afraid that if they did not help Austria-Hungary then the Austrians &nbsp;would turn to the Western nations for allies and then Germany would have no allies. And once Germany attacked France, &nbsp;Britain had to help in order to prevent Germany from becoming too powerful. So &nbsp;the alliance system can be said to be a cause of the war.