Welcome to the Deep Dive, where we really dig
into complex sources to pull out the essential
knowledge you need. Today, we are tackling a
truly massive topic, one that really shaped the
entire 20th century, World War I. Yeah, it's
huge. And it's a conflict that people at the
time knew was different. I mean, they started
calling it the Great War or even the World War
right away, like in 1914. That early. Wow. Absolutely.
And its scale, just the sheer horror of it, led
to that, well, that tragic but kind of hopeful
phrase, the war to end war. Which, sadly, it
wasn't. It ran from July 28, 1914 to November
11, 1918. So what is that, four years, three
months, give or take? Exactly. Four years, three
months, and 14 days that just fundamentally rewired,
you know, the world. And the cost, it's almost...
Well, it's hard to really wrap your head around
it. Our sources point to over 9 million military
deaths straight off. Yeah, it's something like
5 .5 million plus for the allies, over 4 .3 million
for the central powers. But that's just the soldiers
in uniform. Right. Because when you add in civilian
casualties, people displaced, dying from famine
or disease linked to the war. The estimates shoot
up, don't they? They really do. Historians talk
about a total toll closer to 30 million people.
It's staggering. Staggering. And there's this
other dimension, too, which often gets maybe
not overlooked, but less emphasized. You mean
the Spanish flu? Exactly. The timing is just
horrific. The war ends and bam, this deadly pandemic
sweeps the globe. And it's not just timing. The
sources are pretty clear that the war itself
was a massive accelerator. Think about it. Millions
of people crammed together, trenches, camps,
troop ships. Terrible conditions. Awful. Perfect
breeding grounds. And then you move these huge
numbers of potentially infected people all around
the planet. The war basically created the highway
for the pandemic. Massive dislocation, weakened
immune systems. It was a perfect storm. That
combination, war and plague. It really underscores
the sheer scale of the global disruption we're
talking about. It really does. So our mission
today, then, is to go beyond just, you know,
the assassination in Sarajevo and the mud of
the Western Front. We want to unpack the deeper
stuff. Right. The long -term geopolitical forces,
the tensions that built up for decades, the things
that made the whole system so fragile. And then
how did that specific spark, the July crisis,
actually ignite the whole thing? How did the
technology of war change so drastically? And
the consequences, of course. The peace treaties,
this redrawn map, the seeds of future conflict,
it's all connected. Okay, let's dive in. Where
do we start to understand how Europe got so unstable
in the first place? What was the foundation?
Well, you really have to go back further than
1914. Think about the 19th century. For a long
time, Europe had this system called the Concert
of Europe. That was about maintaining balance,
right, after Napoleon. Exactly. A sort of equilibrium
among the major powers. But that got seriously
disrupted around 1871. Two big things happened.
The rise of a unified German empire after the
Franco -Prussian War. Which was a huge shift
in power right in the center of Europe. A massive
shift. And at the same time, you have the slow,
steady decline of the Ottoman Empire in the southeast.
So the old balance was just gone. And that Franco
-Prussian War left a really deep scar, didn't
it? Especially in France. Oh, absolutely. You
mentioned revanchism. French policy after 1871
was, well... heavily influenced by this desire
for revenge against Germany. It wasn't just about
politics. It was cultural. They'd lost Alsace
-Lorraine. Right. Key territories, rich in resources.
They became these powerful symbols of national
humiliation. So almost any interaction with Germany
after that was viewed through this lens of, you
know, one day we'll get it back. So you've got
Germany rising, the Ottomans declining, France
wanting revenge. That sounds like a recipe for
trouble. It was. And it pushed everyone towards
locking themselves into these defensive alliances,
the famous web of alliances. OK, so you had the
Triple Alliance on one side, Germany, Austria,
Hungary and Italy. That was formed back in 1882.
Correct. And in kind of opposing them, you had
the Triple Entente. Now, this wasn't quite a
formal military alliance in the same way, more
like a set of cooperative agreements. That was
France, Russia and... The UK, right. Right. Through
things like the Entente Cordiale in 1904. Exactly.
The Entente Cordiale between Britain and France
and then the Anglo -Russian Convention in 1907
brought Russia into that alignment. But looking
at these alliances on paper, how strong were
they really? Were they ironclad guarantees? That's
the fascinating part. They look solid, but underneath?
Not so much. Take the Triple Alliance. Our sources
highlight this secret deal Italy made. Italy?
What did they do? Well, back in 1902, so more
than a decade before the war, Italy secretly
agreed with France that they'd stay neutral if
Germany attacked France. Wait, so Italy, a member
of the Triple Alliance with Germany and Austria
-Hungary, basically promised France they wouldn't
help their own allies? Pretty much, yeah. It
effectively nullified their commitment within
the Triple Alliance, at least regarding an attack
on France initiated by Germany. So why did Germany
and Austria even count on Italy then? Were they
just ignoring this wishful thinking? I think
it was a bit of both. Maybe some denial. Maybe
they thought they could persuade Italy when push
came to shove. But fundamentally, it shows how
shaky these alliances could be. They were meant
to deter war. But they ended up being transmission
belts for it. Exactly. Instead of guaranteeing
peace, they made it almost inevitable that a
small conflict would drag everyone in. They became
instruments of escalation, not stability. And
fueling all this tension alongside the alliances
was this massive arms race. A terrifying arms
race, yeah. Huge increases in military spending
driven by technology and, frankly, paranoia.
The most obvious example is probably the Anglo
-German naval race. Right. Kaiser Wilhelm II
wanted a German navy that could challenge Britain's
Royal Navy, which had ruled the waves for centuries.
He did. It was a huge departure from Bismarck's
earlier, more cautious foreign policy, which
always tried not to provoke Britain. Wilhelm
wanted Germany to have its place in the sun,
and a big navy was part of that vision. And this
race had a pivotal moment, didn't it, with one
specific ship? HMS Dreadnought. Launched in 1906.
You really can't overstate its impact. What made
it so revolutionary? It had two key things. All
big guns of the same caliber, allowing for better
fire control, and steam turbine engines, making
it much faster. In an instant, Dreadnought made
every single battleship afloat, including Germany's
brand new ones, basically obsolete. So all that
money Germany had already spent? Kind of wasted.
Essentially, yes. They'd poured fortunes into
building a fleet, and suddenly the British had
leapfrogged them technologically. Now Germany
had to spend even more enormous sums just to
try and catch up to this new standard. So strategically,
it was a disaster for Germany. A massive strategic
blunder. They spent enough to guarantee Britain
would see them as a threat and likely join any
war against them, but they never invested enough
to actually beat the Royal Navy. And did that
failure lead them to shift focus? It did. Around
1911, 1912, Germany realized the naval race was
probably unwinnable, or at least too costly.
They initiated what's called the Rüstungswende,
basically, an armament turning. They pivoted
back to focusing massive investment on the army.
Why the army specifically? Fear of Russia. Simple
as that. After its defeat by Japan in 1905, Russia
started recovering economically and militarily
much faster than anyone expected. And they were
building railways. Crucially, yes. They were
rapidly expanding their railway network, especially
near Germany's eastern border. Now, German war
planning, like the famous Schlieffen Plan, depended
entirely on being able to mobilize faster than
Russia. To compensate for Russia's massive population
of Venice. Exactly. So Russia building railways
that could speed up its mobilization? That was
seen in Berlin as an existential threat. They
felt their window of opportunity, their speed
advantage, was closing fast. And you can see
this in the spending figures, can't you? Oh yeah.
The numbers are stark. Military spending by the
six big European powers. Britain, France, Germany,
Russia, Austria -Hungary. Italy went up by over
50 % in real terms just between 1908 and 1913.
Everyone was getting ready. Everyone was actively
preparing for a major war. The atmosphere was
incredibly tense. And the place where all these
tensions seemed to converge, the real flashpoint,
was the Balkans. The powder keg of Europe, as
it was famously called. And the key destabilizing
factor there was the continuing decline of the
Ottoman Empire. The sick man of Europe. Right.
As the Ottomans weakened, everyone else, Russia,
Austria, Hungary, the newly independent Balkan
states themselves, saw opportunities to gain
territory or influence. Russia saw itself as
the protector of the Slavs, didn't it? Like Serbia.
It did, but Russian policy was actually quite
complex. They wanted influence, sure, but they
were also wary of a really strong Slavic state,
like an expanded Serbia, controlling the strategically
vital Bosporus and Dardanelles Straits. Ironically,
they sometimes preferred a weak Ottoman Empire
controlling the Straits to a strong, ambitious
Balkan power. So it wasn't simple. And this region
just kept erupting, didn't it? Crisis after crisis.
You had the Bosnian crisis in 1908, 1909, where
Austria -Hungary formally annexed Bosnia and
Herzegovina. That massively angered Serbia and
Russia. Because Serbia saw Bosnia as rightfully
theirs, or at least destined for a greater Serbia.
Exactly. And many Bosnians were Serbs. Then you
had the Balkan Wars in 1912 and 1913. These wars
basically kicked the Ottomans almost entirely
out of Europe, but they also led to Serbia nearly
doubling in size and becoming much more powerful
and assertive. Which, for Austria -Hungary, must
have been terrifying. Absolutely existential.
Remember, Austria -Hungary was this huge, multi
-ethnic empire with lots of its own Slavic populations.
Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Slovenes, Poles, Ukrainians,
and Serbs. A strong, nationalistic Serbia right
on its border, acting as a magnet for South Slavs.
loyalty. Vienna saw that as a direct threat to
the empire's very survival. So nationalism, declining
empires, competing ambitions, rigid alliances,
an arms race. The stage was well and truly set.
Perfectly set. All it needed was a spark. And
that spark came on June 28, 1914 in Sarajevo.
Yes. Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who was the heir
to the Austro -Hungarian throne, and his wife
Sophie were assassinated during a visit to Sarajevo,
the capital of Bosnia. The assassin was Gavrilo
Princip. He was a Bosnian Serb, part of a group
called Young Bosnia. That's right. And critically,
our sources confirm Princip and his collaborators
were supplied with weapons and training by Serbian
nationalist extremists, specifically elements
within a shadowy group called the Black Hand,
which had ties to Serbian military intelligence.
Now, the immediate reaction in Vienna, it's interesting.
One source we looked at said the news. Almost
failed to make any impression whatsoever initially.
It is surprising, isn't it? You'd expect immediate
outrage, maybe spontaneous grief. But it seems
at first it didn't quite register as this empire
shattering event. But that changed. Very quickly.
As historian Christopher Clark puts it, officials
in Vienna soon realized this was an opportunity.
They saw the assassination not just as a tragedy,
but as a pretext. Clark calls it a 9 -1 -1 effect,
a terrorist act loaded with historical meaning
that could completely change the political chemistry.
Change it in what way? To finally deal with Serbia.
They saw this as the perfect justification to
crush Serbian nationalism and interference in
Bosnia once and for all. They weren't looking
for justice. They were looking for a reason to
go to war. And that led to the diplomatic maneuvering
in July 1914, the so -called July Crisis. Austria
issues an ultimatum to Serbia. On July 23rd.
And this ultimatum, when you read it, it's clearly
designed to be impossible for Serbia to accept
fully. It had 10 demands, but some were particularly
provocative, weren't they? Absolutely. The most
crucial ones demanded that Serbia allow Austrian
officials to operate on Serbian soil to suppress
anti -Austrian groups and even participate in
the investigation into the assassination. That's
a direct violation of sovereignty. No independent
nation could really accept that. Precisely. Serbia
actually gave a very conciliatory reply. They
mobilized their army, but agreed to almost all
the demands except those specific points about
Austrian officials operating within Serbia. But
that wasn't good enough for Austria. Not at all.
Austria immediately declared the reply unsatisfactory,
broke off diplomatic relations, and cruefully
declared war on Serbia on July 28, 1914. So the
first domino falls. And then the alliance system
kicks in just as feared. Exactly. Russia saw
itself as Serbia's protector. Facing Austria's
declaration of war, Russia began to mobilize
its massive army along the Austrian border on
July 30th. Now, Germany's role here is critical.
They were allied with Austria -Hungary. Yes.
And they had given Austria what's known as the
blank check earlier in July, basically promising
full support for whatever Austria decided to
do about Serbia. But Germany played the timing
quite carefully. How so? They actually delay
their own mobilization until July 31st. They
wanted Russia to mobilize first so they could
frame Russia as the aggressor. This was really
important for public opinion back home in Germany,
especially to get the socialist parties to support
the war effort. So they wait for Russia to mobilize,
then they demand Russia stop. Right. Russia refuses.
So Germany declares war on Russia on August 1st.
And because of their war plan, the Schlieffen
plan, war with Russia automatically meant war
with France, Russia's ally. So Germany declares
war on France two days later on August 3rd. OK,
so Austria, Serbia, Russia, Germany, France are
all in. What about the UK? Britain's entry is
the final piece and it hinges on Belgium. Britain,
going way back to the 1839 Treaty of London,
had formally guaranteed Belgium's neutrality.
And Germany's war plan, the Schlieffen Plan.
Absolutely required German armies to march through
neutral Belgium to attack France from the north.
It was the cornerstone of their strategy for
a quick victory. Did Germany think Britain would
just ignore the treaty? The German chancellor
famously dismissed the treaty as a scrap of paper.
They seriously miscalculated Britain's commitment
or perhaps Britain's willingness to use it as
a reason to enter the war against a rival power.
When German troops crossed into Belgium on August
4th, Britain issued an ultimatum demanding they
withdraw. Germany refused. And Britain declared
war. Britain declared war. The conflict was now
truly continental. And with Britain involved,
it became global because of the British Empire.
While all these declarations are happening, what's
going on back in the Balkans on the ground? The
violence starts almost immediately. even before
the major armies clash. In places like Sarajevo
and across Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Austro
-Hungarian territory with large Serb populations,
authorities actively encouraged anti -Serb riots.
So, neighbor turning against neighbor. Yes, often
fueled by existing tensions and actively stoked
by the authorities. Our sources mention thousands
of prominent Serbs being arrested over 5 ,500
and estimates of up to 2 ,200 executed. They
even used special militias like the predominantly
Bosniak Schutzkorps to carry out some of these
actions. A brutal start, and the initial Austrian
military campaign against Serbia itself. It was
a disaster for Austria. Despite the chaos and
the size difference, the Serbian army, battle
-hardened from the Balkan Wars, inflicted stunning
defeats on the invading Austrians in August 1914
at the Battles of Sur and Kolobara. Really, an
upset victory. A major upset victory, one of
the biggest of the 20th century, arguably. And
it had huge strategic importance. It forced Austria
-Hungary to divert significant forces to the
Serbian front throughout 1914, weakening their
efforts against Russia on the much larger eastern
front. Serbia's resistance really mattered. Okay,
so the war is global. Germany's grand strategy,
the Schlieffen Plan, was all about avoiding a
long two -front war by knocking France out quickly.
Within six weeks, that was the idea. before Russia
could fully mobilize its huge army. But it didn't
work. The plan failed. Why? What went wrong?
Well, several things. The plan itself had been
modified from the original by the German Chiefs
of Staff, Boltke the Younger. Schlieffen's original
concept was incredibly bold, a massive right
hook through Belgium, with almost all the forces
concentrated there. Moltke weakened that right
hook, didn't he? He did. He shifted troops to
strengthen the left flank in Alsace -Lorraine,
partly out of caution, partly for political reasons.
This arguably made the crucial right wing too
weak to deliver the knockout blow. And then there
were decisions made on the ground during the
advance. Yes. As the German First Army under
von Klick approached Terrace, he made a critical
decision. Fearing his flank was exposed, he turned
inward, southeast of Paris, instead of continuing
the planned wide sweep around the city. And that
created an opening. A fatal gap. It opened up
a space between his army and the German Second
Army. The French, along with the small but professional
British Expeditionary Force, BEF, spotted this
gap and launched a desperate counterattack. The
First Battle of the Marne. The First Battle of
the Marne, early September 1914. It halted the
German advance. It wasn't a total rout, but it
was a decisive strategic defeat for Germany.
The chance for a quick victory was gone. And
the realization must have set in quickly. It
did. There's that chilling quote attributed to
the German crown prince Wilhelm around that time,
supposedly saying to an American reporter, we
have lost the war. It will go on for a long time,
but lost it is already. He saw that the two -front
war Germany dreaded was now inevitable. So after
the Marne, both sides tried to outflank each
other, heading north towards the coast. Right,
the so -called race to the sea. Neither side
could outflank the other. And the result was
this continuous line of trenches digging in,
stretching all the way from the English Channel
down to the Swiss border, about 400 miles. The
Western Front stalemate. And you can even see
their strategic thinking in how they built the
trenches, can't you? You really can. German trenches
were generally much better constructed from the
start, often deeper, more reinforced, sometimes
with concrete, better bunkers. Why? Because they
knew they were stuck there. Basically, yes. They
accepted the reality as a long defensive war
in the West while they dealt with Russia. The
Allies, on the other hand, especially initially,
tended to build less permanent trenches. Because
they still believed they could break through.
Exactly. They kept thinking their trenches were
just temporary positions, holding the line until
the next big offensive would finally restore
mobile warfare. That belief cost countless lives.
And it led to this horrifying mismatch. Old tactics
against new defensive tech. Precisely. You had
generals ordering massed infantry assaults, soldiers
advancing shoulder to shoulder, basically 19th
century tactics. Straight into 20th century defensive
firepower. Machine guns in concrete pillboxes,
miles of barbed wire, and incredibly powerful,
accurate artillery. The result was industrialized
slaughter on an unprecedented scale. And when
the offensives failed, they looked for technological
solutions, sometimes horrific ones. Like chemical
warfare. The Germans first used chlorine gas
on a large scale at the Second Battle of Ypres
in April 1915. It caused panic and broke the
Allied line initially. Which was a violation
of international treaties, right? The Hague Convention.
It was. And while gas ultimately didn't prove
decisive countermeasures like gas masks were
developed, winds were unpredictable. Its psychological
impact was enormous. It became one of the most
feared aspects of the war. How many casualties
are attributed to gas? The estimates are around
1 .3 million casualties overall, maybe 90 ,000
fatalities. But the terror it inspired went far
beyond the numbers. But offensive technology
eventually started to catch up, didn't it, by
later in the war? Slowly, yes. The British pioneered
the tank, starting with prototypes like Little
Willie. The idea was an armored vehicle that
could cross trenches, crush barbed wire, and
attack machine gun posts. Did they work well
initially? They had lots of problems. Mechanical
breakdowns, slow speed, vulnerability. But by
1917, 1918, used en masse and coordinated with
infantry and artillery, they started to make
a difference in breaking this stalemate. You
mentioned artillery earlier. That changed dramatically,
too. Hugely. Probably the most important tactical
innovation. Artillery shifted from mostly direct
fire, where you could see the target, to sophisticated
indirect fire. How did that work? Using maps,
mathematics, and crucially new communication
methods. Spotter aircraft or observers on the
ground could use field telephones to relay target
coordinates back to gun batteries miles behind
the lines. So they could hit targets they couldn't
even see? Exactly. And they could concentrate
fire from hundreds of guns onto a small area
with devastating accuracy. This ability to deliver
massed, precise artillery fire became the key
to both defense and offense on the Western Front.
But trying to break through these defenses, even
with new tech, led to these battles of attrition
with unimaginable costs. Verdun in 1916. Verdun,
a 10 -month meat grinder. The Germans intended
to bleed France white. It became this symbol
of French determination that they shall not pass
spirit. But the cost? Estimates range from 700
,000 up to nearly a million total casualties
on both sides. Just horrific. And the Somme also
in 1916. The Somme is infamous, especially for
the British. That first day, July 1st, 1916,
the British Army suffered 57 ,500 casualties.
57 ,000 in one day. In one day. It remains the
single bloodiest day in British military history.
The total battle lasted months and cost the British
around 420 ,000 casualties, the French 200 ,000,
and the Germans maybe half a million. Over a
million casualties from minimal territorial games.
It forces you to ask, what were the commanders
thinking? Did they truly believe this was the
only way, or were they just trapped in this mindset
of attrition? That's a debate historians still
grapple with. Was it incompetence, stubbornness,
or a grim acceptance that this was the terrible
price of industrialized warfare? Probably a mixture
of all three. And even if you survived the shelling
and the attacks, the trenches themselves were
deadly. Absolutely. Disease was rampant. Trench
foot, caused by constant wet and cold, could
lead to gangrene and amputation. Typhus, spread
by lice, was a major killer, especially on the
eastern front. One source mentioned it killed
200 ,000 people in Serbia alone back in 1914.
Plus dysentery, influenza. Exactly. The battlefield
wasn't just a killing zone. It was a breeding
ground for disease, amplifying the suffering
and contributing to that later Spanish flu pandemic
we talked about. It was death from shells. bullets,
gas, and germs. While the Western Front gets
a lot of attention for that static trench warfare,
the war was obviously global, and other fronts
were often much more fluid. Let's look at the
Eastern Front. Right, the fighting between Germany
and Austria, Hungary on one side and Russia on
the other. This was a vast theater of war, characterized
by huge distances, sweeping maneuvers, and enormous
armies. Russia surprised Germany with how fast
they mobilized initially, didn't they? They did.
They attacked into East Prussia within about
15 days, much quicker than the Schlieffen plan.
had anticipated. This forced Germany to pull
troops away from the Western Front right at that
critical moment of the Battle of the Marne. Arguably,
Russia's speed helped save France early on. But
that speed came at a cost for Russia. It did.
The Russian army was enormous, the famous Russian
steamroller, but it lacked the heavy artillery,
the logistical support, the industrial base to
sustain a long modern war. They suffered huge
losses and devastating defeats early on, like
the Battle of Tannenberg in 1914, which essentially
destroyed a Russian army and drove them out of
Germany. Yet they kept fighting for years. Was
there a point where Russia seemed to be gaining
the upper hand? There was a major moment in 1916,
the Bruslov Offensive. General Alexei Brusilov
launched this massive attack against the Austro
-Hungarian lines in Galicia using innovative
tactics. What was different about it? Instead
of one huge, predictable bombardment on a narrow
front, Brusilov used short, intense barrages
across a very wide front, followed by surprise
infantry attacks at multiple points. It shattered
the Austrian lines. How successful was it? Initially,
incredibly successful. It was perhaps the most
successful Allied offensive of the entire war
in terms of territory gained and prisoners taken.
It caused panic in the central powers. And it
had wider effects. Definitely. It forced the
Germans to pull vital troops away from the Battle
of Verdun in the west to bail out the Austrians.
It relieved pressure on the Italian front. And
it finally convinced Romania to join the Allies,
hoping to gain territory from Austria -Hungary.
But it sounds like there was a downside, too.
A massive downside. The offensive cost the Russian
army maybe a million casualties. And while it
devastated the Austro -Hungarian army, it also
bled the Russian army white. It used up Russia's
last reserves of trained manpower and material,
fueling the growing discontent and exhaustion
back home that would explode into revolution
the following year. Brusilov's success paradoxically
hastened Russia's collapse. Okay, let's shift
focus to the Middle East. The Ottoman Empire
joined the Central Powers later in 1914. Why
was that significant? Hugely significant. It
opened up entirely new fronts. Suddenly, Russia
was threatened in the Caucasus region. And critically
for Britain, the Ottomans threatened the Suez
Canal in Egypt. The lifeline to India and the
rest of the British Empire. Exactly. Protecting
the Suez Canal became a top British priority.
The Ottomans also controlled the Dardanelles
Straits, cutting off the easiest sea route for
the Western Allies to supply Russia. The Ottoman
entry didn't start well for them militarily,
did it, in the Caucasus? No, it was a disaster.
And Verpascha, the Ottoman leader, launched this
ambitious winter offensive against the Russians
in the Caucasus Mountains at Sarikamish in December
1914. It was poorly planned. Soldiers weren't
equipped for the extreme cold. They lost something
like 86 % of their army, mostly to frostbite
and disease. Wow. But the Allies had... their
own disasters in the Ottoman theater, like Gallipoli.
Gallipoli, yes. The 1915 attempt by Britain and
France, heavily involving Australian and New
Zealand troops, the ANZACs to force the Dardanelles
Straits and capture Constantinople. It was a
bloody failure. Huge casualties on both sides.
But elsewhere in the Middle East, the British
eventually had more success. They did. British
imperial forces, often using troops from India,
advanced through Mesopotamia, capturing Baghdad
in 1917. And another campaign pushed across the
Sinai Desert into Palestine, eventually capturing
Jerusalem. Figures like T .E. Lawrence of Arabia
were involved in supporting the Arab revolt against
the Ottomans there. This theater also saw one
of the darkest events of the war, didn't it?
Yes, the Armenian Genocide. Starting in 1915,
the Ottoman government, under the cover of war,
initiated systematic deportations and massacres
of its Armenian Christian population. They claimed
it was a security measure. That was the pretext,
that Armenians were potentially disloyal or collaborating
with Russia. But the scale and brutality forced
marches into the desert. Mass killings led historians
to classify it as genocide. Estimates are around
1 .5 million Armenians died. Similar atrocities
were also committed against other Christian groups
like Assyrians and Greeks. And Turkey still denies
it was genocide today. Officially, yes. It remains
a deeply contentious issue. Okay, let's move
to another front, the Italian front. Italy started
in the Triple Alliance but switched sides. They
did. In 1915, Italy joined the Allies, tempted
by promises of gaining Austro -Hungarian territory
after the war areas like Trentino and Istria
down the Adriatic coast. What was the fighting
like there? It's sometimes called the White War,
isn't it? Yes, because so much of it took place
high up in the Alps and the Dolomites. The geography
was just nightmarish for warfare. Trenches and
mountains. Literally. Soldiers had to hack trenches
out of rock and ice. Fighting often happened
at incredibly high altitudes. Avalanches were
a constant danger, sometimes killing more men
than the enemy. Supply was a logistical nightmare.
And the Italian commander, Cadorna, he had a
reputation. A terrible reputation. Luigi Cadorna
believed solely in the mass frontal assault.
He launched 12 major battles along the Asanzo
River between 1915 and 1917. 12 battles in the
same place. Basically, yes. Trying to break through
the Austrian mountain defenses, they gained almost
no ground, but suffered horrific casualties,
something like half a million Italian combat
deaths during the war, many of them in these
feudal Isonzo offensives. Did the front ever
break? It did, but initially against the Italians.
In 1917, a combined German -Austrian offensive
at Caporetto utterly shattered the Italian lines,
causing a massive retreat. It almost knocked
Italy out of the war. But they recovered. They
regrouped with Allied help along the Piave River.
And then right at the end of the war, in late
October 1918, the Italians launched their own
final offensive at Vittorio Veneto. This time,
the Austro -Hungarian army, already disintegrating
from internal nationalist pressures, just collapsed.
That victory essentially ended the war on the
Italian front and precipitated the final breakup
of the Austro -Hungarian Empire. Lastly, let's
touch on the war at sea beyond the dreadnought
effect. Germany tried commerce raiding. Early
on, yes. Ships like the SMS Emden had some spectacular
successes sinking Allied merchant ships around
the globe. But the Royal Navy's dominance was
too great. The surface raiders were hunted down
fairly quickly. So Britain controlled the surface,
and they used that control to blockade Germany.
A naval blockade, yes. It was hugely controversial.
Britain declared the North Sea a military area.
mined international waters, and stopped and searched
neutral ships heading for Germany, seizing goods
they considered contraband, including food. Which
arguably violated international law at the time.
It did, but it was incredibly effective. Over
time, the blockade caused severe shortages of
food and essential raw materials inside Germany
and Austria -Hungary, contributing significantly
to domestic unrest and weakening their war effort.
And Germany's response to the blockade led directly
to U .S. entry, didn't it? It did. Their main
weapon against the blockade was the U -boat,
the submarine. Initially, they tried to follow
prize rules warning ships before sinking them.
But to be truly effective against the British
blockade, they felt they needed to attack without
warning. Unrestricted submarine warfare. Exactly.
They first tried it in 1915, sank the Lusitania,
caused outrage in the US, and backed down. But
by early 1917, Germany was getting desperate.
The war was dragging on. The blockade was biting
hard. So they decided to gamble. A massive gamble.
They announced they would resume unrestricted
submarine warfare, sinking any ship, neutral
or allied, found in the war zone around Britain.
They knew this would almost certainly bring the
United States into the war. So why do it? They
calculated that they could starve Britain into
submission by sinking ships faster than they
could be replaced, forcing Britain out of the
war before the U .S. could mobilize its army,
train it, transport it across the Atlantic, and
make a difference on the battlefield. A race
against time. A desperate race against time.
They thought they could win the war with the
U -boats before America arrived in force. But
the gamble failed. It failed. The U -boats initially
caused huge losses, but the Allies eventually
countered them effectively. mainly by adopting
the convoy system. Grouping merchant ships together
with warship esports. Precisely. It made it much
harder for U -boats to find and attack targets
without being detected and counterattacked, especially
once escorts got better anti -submarine weapons
like depth charges and listening devices called
hydrophones. The U -boat threat was contained,
Britain wasn't starved out, and the U .S. entered
the war. So 1917 becomes this absolutely pivotal
year. You have the U .S. entry, but also the
collapse of Russia. Right. Russia had endured
staggering losses, the economy was collapsing,
there were severe food shortages in the cities,
and the Tsar's government had lost all authority.
This led to the February Revolution in 1917,
which overthrew the Tsar. The provisional government
that took over tried to continue the war? They
did, which was a disastrous decision. The army
and the country were just exhausted. This paved
the way for the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, to
seize power in the October Revolution, promising
peace, land, and bread. And peace meant getting
out of the war. Immediately. One of the first
things the Bolsheviks did was seek an armistice
with Germany. The negotiations led to the Treaty
of Brest -Litovsk in March 1918. Which was incredibly
harsh on Russia, wasn't it? Extremely punitive.
Russia lost vast territories. Finland, the Baltic
states. Poland, Ukraine, basically a huge chunk
of its most valuable industrial and agricultural
land. Lenin accepted the terms because he believed
revolution would soon sweep Germany anyway, and
he needed to consolidate Bolshevik power within
Russia. So Russia is out. This must have been
a huge boost for Germany. On paper, yes. They
could finally transfer hundreds of thousands
of veteran troops from the Eastern Front to the
West. They no longer faced a major two -front
war. But they were racing against the clock.
Absolutely. Because the other huge event of 1917
was the United States declaring war in April.
Triggered by the resumption of unrestricted submarine
warfare and also things like the Zimmerman telegram.
Right. The U .S. entry was a massive turning
point. Not immediately in terms of troops on
the ground. It took time to raise, train and
transport the American Expeditionary Forces,
AEF. But psychologically and economically, it
was huge. How many troops did the U .S. mobilize?
Eventually. Through the draft, the Selective
Service Act, they mobilized about 2 .8 million
men for the AES. Just getting them equipped and
shipped to France was a colossal logistical undertaking.
And the commander of the AEF, General Pershing,
he had strong ideas about how his troops should
fight. He did. John J. Pershing insisted that
the AEF operate as a distinct, independent American
army under American command. He resisted pressure
from the British and French commanders to simply
feed American soldiers into their existing depleted
units as replacements. Why was that so important
to him? Pershing believed in what he called open
warfare. He felt the static, attrition -based
trench warfare practiced by the Allies was wrong
and that the American soldiers' natural offensive
spirit was better suited to maneuver in decisive
attacks. He didn't want his fresh troops ground
down on the same costly stalemate. Did that cause
friction? It certainly did. The Allies desperately
needed manpower, and Pershing's insistence on
training and deploying as a separate army took
time. But ultimately, the arrival of this large,
fresh, and independently operating American army
in 1918 provided the crucial edge the Allies
needed. So Germany knows the Americans are coming
in force. They have this window of opportunity
after Russia's collapse. Their last chance. They
had to win the war in the West before the American
presence became overwhelming. This led to the
massive German spring offensive operation Michael
launched in March 1918. And initially it was
incredibly successful, wasn't it? Astonishingly
successful by WWF pay standards. Using new stormtrooper
infiltration tactics and overwhelming artillery,
they broke through the British lines and advanced
up to 60 kilometers in unheard of distance on
the Western Front since 1914. It looked like
they might actually win. But they couldn't sustain
it. They couldn't. Logistics, again. They shot
their bolt. They basically exhausted their last
reserves. And this set the stage for the Allied
counteroffensive. The Hundred Days Offensive.
Starting in August 1918. Now, the Allies had
the advantage. More tanks, improved artillery
coordination, incorporating sound ranging and
flash spotting, air superiority, and critically,
the growing strength and offensive power of the
American Army fighting alongside the revitalized
British, French, and Dominion forces. At this
time, the German lines broke. They started to
crumble. The Battle of Amiens on August 8th was
called the Black Day of the German Army by Ludendorff
himself. Allied attacks were now consistently
breaking through. German morale... already low
after the failure of the spring offensive and
years of blockade, began to collapse. And things
were falling apart for Germany's allies, too.
Yes, it became a domino effect. In late September,
an Allied offensive on the Mastonian Front, also
called the Salonika Front, broke the Bulgarian
lines, the Vardar Offensive. Bulgaria quickly
sued for peace and capitulated on September 29th.
Cutting off the Ottoman Empire. Exactly. Isolated.
Facing British advances in Palestine and Mesopotamia,
the Ottoman Empire signed an armistice at the
end of October. Austria -Hungary, facing the
Italian victory at Vittorio Veneto and completely
dissolving internally as its various nationalities
declared independence, signed an armistice in
early November. So Germany was left completely
alone. Completely isolated, its army being pushed
back relentlessly on the Western Front and facing
collapse at home. What happened inside Germany?
Revolution broke out. It started in early November
with sailors in the ports of Kiel and Wilhelmshaven
mutinying, refusing orders to sail out for a
final suicidal battle against the Royal Navy.
The unrest spread rapidly. Soldiers and workers
formed councils demanding peace and the Kaiser's
abdication. And the Kaiser finally went. Yes.
Facing pressure from his generals who told him
the army would no longer follow him. And with
revolution spreading, Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated
on November 9th. A republic was declared in Berlin.
And the new government immediately sought an
end to the fighting. Immediately. They signed
the armistice with the Allies in a railway carriage
in the forest of Compiègne. It came into effect
at 11 .00 a .m. on November 11, 1918. The guns
finally fell silent. Hashtag ChagShag7. Aftermath,
consequences, and enduring legacy. The war is
over. But the world is completely changed. The
immediate geopolitical impact is just enormous,
isn't it? Irreversible. Four huge ancient empires
simply ceased to exist. The Russian Romanov dynasty
gone. The German Hohenzollern empire gone. the
Austro -Hungarian Habsburg Empire shattered into
pieces, and the Ottoman Empire finished. And
in their place, a whole new map of Europe starts
to emerge. Based, at least in theory, on President
Woodrow Wilson's principle of national self -determination.
You see the birth or rebirth of independent nations
like Poland, Finland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia,
which was formed around the core of pre -war
Serbia. Romania expanded significantly too, didn't
it? Yes, achieving Greater Romania, By incorporating
Romanian -speaking territories from the former
Russian and Austro -Hungarian empires, the whole
political geography of Central and Eastern Europe
was redrawn. But then came the peace treaties.
And they were problematic, to say the least.
Especially the Treaty of Versailles with Germany.
Signed exactly five years after the assassination,
June 28, 1919. Versailles is probably one of
the most controversial treaties in history. And
much of that controversy centers on Article 231.
The War Guilt Clause. Right. Now, our sources
make it clear its primary purpose wasn't just
moral condemnation, though it certainly felt
that way to Germans. It was more of a legal foundation.
Exactly. It required Germany to accept responsibility
for all the loss and damage caused by the war,
which the Allies argued was imposed upon them
by German aggression. This legal acceptance of
responsibility was seen as necessary to justify
the massive reparations the Allies intended to
demand. But the effect in Germany was devastating.
Utterly. It caused profound humiliation and resentment
across the entire political spectrum. Germans
universally rejected the treaty as a dictated
peace they had no say in. And that sense of injustice
was immediately exploited by nationalist groups.
Fueling this stab in the back myth. Precisely.
the idea that the german army hadn't actually
been defeated in the field but was betrayed by
weak politicians socialist jews and others on
the home front who signed the armistice and the
treaty It was a corrosive lie, but incredibly
potent in post -war Germany. And the reparations
themselves, the numbers were astronomical. The
final sum was set in 1921 at 132 billion gold
marks, which was just an impossible figure. Even
Allied experts at the time knew Germany couldn't
possibly pay that much. Some sources suggest
the real expectation was closer to 50 billion.
So why set the figure so high? Politics. Largely.
Yes, public opinion in allied countries, especially
France and Britain, demanded that Germany pay
for the immense costs of the war. The high figure
was partly symbolic, partly political appeasement.
And the way the payments were structured was
also deeply flawed, wasn't it? Critically flawed.
This is where it gets fascinatingly complex and
shows the long shadow. Germany couldn't pay directly
from its own economy, especially after losing
territory and resources under Versailles. So
a system evolved. particularly under the Dawes
Plan, 1924, and Young Plan, 1929. Where the U
.S. lent money to Germany. Exactly. American
banks lent huge sums to Germany. Germany used
that money to make its reparation payments to
the Allies, primarily France and Britain. And
what did France and Britain do with that money?
They used it to pay back their own massive war
debts. to the United States. So U .S. money was
basically flowing in a circle. U .S. loans to
Germany and German reparations to allies, allied
debt payments back to the U .S. That's the essence
of it. A highly unstable triangle of debt and
payments completely dependent on the continued
flow of American capital. Which stopped abruptly
in 1929. When the U .S. stock market crashed
and the Great Depression began, American loans
dried up overnight. The entire circular system
collapsed. Germany defaulted on its reparations.
The Allies defaulted on their war debts. It deepened
the depression globally and fueled political
extremism, especially in Germany. But the debt
didn't just vanish, did it? That detail about
the final payment. That's incredible, isn't it?
Even though the reparations themselves were effectively
canceled or suspended in the early 1930s, some
of the underlying bonds related to the loans
taken out of the Dawes and Young plans remained.
Germany finally paid off the last installment
of interest on those specific bonds on October
3rd, 2010. 2010, 92 years after the war ended.
That really brings home the long -term financial
consequences. It absolutely does. Beyond finance
and politics, the human cost was just immense,
leaving deep social scars. France, for example,
lost around 1 .4 million soldiers, a huge chunk
of its young male population. And there were
the severely wounded. You mentioned the Galcasse.
The broken faces, yes. An estimated 15 ,000 French
soldiers suffered horrific facial disfigurements
from shells, shrapnel, burns. Early plastic surgery
was only just beginning. Many faced lifetimes
of pain, operations, and terrible social stigma.
How did society cope with that? It was incredibly
difficult. Many were hidden away, unable or unwilling
to face the public gaze. They were a brutal,
visible reminder of the war's savagery, challenging
the heroic narratives. Their presence forced
society to confront the real cost of the conflict.
But the war also brought about some positive
social changes, or at least accelerated them,
like for women. Definitely. With millions of
men away fighting, women moved into the workforce
in unprecedented numbers, in factories, on farms,
in transport, even in policing. They proved they
could do the jobs previously reserved for men.
And that helped the suffrage movement. Immensely.
How could governments deny the vote to women
who had played such a crucial role in the war
effort? In Britain, the U .S., Germany, and many
other countries, women gained the right to vote
either during or shortly after the war. It was
a major step forward for women's rights. And
outside Europe, the war forged new national identities,
too. Yes, particularly for the Dominions of the
British Empire. Gallipoli is the prime example
for Australia and New Zealand. The ANZACs. The
ANZAC acts. Although Gallipoli was a military
defeat, the immense courage and sacrifice shown
by Australian and New Zealand troops fighting
so far from home became a foundational myth for
both nations. It was seen as their baptism of
fire the moment they stepped onto the world stage
as distinct nations, not just extensions of Britain.
Anzac Day, commemorating the Gallipoli landings,
is still a hugely important national day in both
countries. Hashtag tag Avio. Conclusion and final
thought. So looking back across everything we've
covered, if you had to distill the story of World
War I, how would you frame it? It feels like
a story of almost managed failure, doesn't it?
That's a good way to put it. It's a story that
starts with a fragile international system built
on suspicion and flawed alliances. Then a diplomatic
crisis that wasn't contained, but actively escalated.
Leading to a war defined by technology outpacing
tactics, causing unimaginable slaughter. Exactly.
And ending with a peace treaty that, while redrawing
the map, was so punitive and poorly designed
that it arguably sowed the seeds for the next
world war just 20 years later. It's why historians
sometimes struggle with WWI, isn't it? As one
source noted, it often lacks that clear good
versus evil narrative that many people see in
World War II. Right. It feels more like a catastrophic,
almost systemic failure. A tragedy born out of
miscalculation, nationalism, imperialism, and
a failure of diplomacy on all sides. It's morally
complex and deeply unsettling. And the unsettling
part isn't just historical. There's a final thought,
a really stark reminder that the war isn't entirely
over, even today. You mean the physical remnants.
Yeah. The effects are literally still on the
ground in France and Belgium. The Iron Harvest.
It's astonishing. Every year, farmers in the
old battlefield areas still plow up tons of unexploded
ordnance, shells, grenades, mortars, sometimes
chemical munitions. Still dangerous after more
than a century. Absolutely deadly. Bond disposal
teams are constantly at work. People are still
killed or injured by WWI explosives every few
years. And it's not just the explosives. The
land itself is scarred. Deeply scarred. Some
areas, particularly around Verdun, were so saturated
with chemical residues and heavy metals from
the millions upon millions of shells fired that
the soil remains poisoned. Sources indicate that
even now, over 100 years later, the original
biodiversity hasn't returned. Certain zones are
still considered unsuitable for normal agriculture
or habitation. So the final thought for you,
our listener, is this. What does it really mean
for a war to be over? When its physical legacy,
the unexploded bombs still waiting beneath the
soil, the poisoned earth that struggles to recover
continues to shape the landscape and even pose
a threat to life more than a century after the
armistice. It makes you think about the true
lasting cost of conflict. A powerful and sobering
thought to end on. Thank you for joining us on
The Deep Dive. We'll see you next time.