Why did Britain join WW1 (Short Animated Documentary)
video description
Date: 2026-09-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
embreis2257
2: 02 [Britain-Germany-US alliance] tbh, as much as this idea makes sense (given the Germans were the biggest group of migrants in the US by that time) it was almost impossible to achieve with the American mindset.
'. and the Germans didn't think that a naval ally would be much use in a future war. ' this view makes both sense but is ultimately inept. in the 18th century Britain proved to be a complicated ally when fighting continental wars. it provided money but little to no soldiers on the ground. even spectacular Royal Navy victories were of little impact to the ally having to face large armies on their turf.
during the Napoleonic wars, at least in the final phase, Britain deployed troops on the continent and Wellington had a noticeable impact.
in the early 20th century, what the Germans apparently didn't consider was the changing nature of war and the need for resources. granted, every government and certainly every military high command failed to acknowledge war has become industrialised and a modern peer-conflict on this level will be very different from any war of the past and certainly from any war these generals ever fought in their entire life. they simply couldn't fathom what they are in for.
to their peril, Germany didn't put enough thought into securing the flow of vital imports to keep the war machine running. a naval power as ally would help secure trade routes and the import of goods necessary to fuel the war effort. that's something new in the planning for a war as earlier wars weren't fought on an industrial level.
with Britain on her side or even remaining neutral (and the US unlikely to have reasons for joining the war) France would have stood no chance to win this conflict they were itching for since 1871.
reply
2: 02 [Britain-Germany-US alliance] tbh, as much as this idea makes sense (given the Germans were the biggest group of migrants in the US by that time) it was almost impossible to achieve with the American mindset.
'. and the Germans didn't think that a naval ally would be much use in a future war. ' this view makes both sense but is ultimately inept. in the 18th century Britain proved to be a complicated ally when fighting continental wars. it provided money but little to no soldiers on the ground. even spectacular Royal Navy victories were of little impact to the ally having to face large armies on their turf.
during the Napoleonic wars, at least in the final phase, Britain deployed troops on the continent and Wellington had a noticeable impact.
in the early 20th century, what the Germans apparently didn't consider was the changing nature of war and the need for resources. granted, every government and certainly every military high command failed to acknowledge war has become industrialised and a modern peer-conflict on this level will be very different from any war of the past and certainly from any war these generals ever fought in their entire life. they simply couldn't fathom what they are in for.
to their peril, Germany didn't put enough thought into securing the flow of vital imports to keep the war machine running. a naval power as ally would help secure trade routes and the import of goods necessary to fuel the war effort. that's something new in the planning for a war as earlier wars weren't fought on an industrial level.
with Britain on her side or even remaining neutral (and the US unlikely to have reasons for joining the war) France would have stood no chance to win this conflict they were itching for since 1871.
reply
history_matters
What was completely overlooked here is that the British didn't give a damn about the July Crisis. That is why the first cabinet meeting of July 1914 did not take place until the 22ndnearly four weeks after the assassination. And the main topic of that meeting was the Irish Question. At the same time, the then-Chancellor of the Exchequer and future Prime Minister, Sir David Lloyd George, reported that the long-negotiated naval agreement with Germany was all but finalized; the only reason it hadn't yet been signed was that the British representative had been laid up in bed for over two weeks with a stubborn summer flu. It promised significant savings on naval armaments. Lloyd George also emphasized that British-German relations were better than they had been in years. None of this nonsense really adds up! The English could have resolved the issue of the German march through Belgium differentlyjust as London and Berlin had jointly prevented the two Balkan Wars from escalating into a conflagration only a short time earlier. But, as a military historian and World War I specialist from New England once put it, England decided to join the war that ultimately ruined it.
reply
What was completely overlooked here is that the British didn't give a damn about the July Crisis. That is why the first cabinet meeting of July 1914 did not take place until the 22ndnearly four weeks after the assassination. And the main topic of that meeting was the Irish Question. At the same time, the then-Chancellor of the Exchequer and future Prime Minister, Sir David Lloyd George, reported that the long-negotiated naval agreement with Germany was all but finalized; the only reason it hadn't yet been signed was that the British representative had been laid up in bed for over two weeks with a stubborn summer flu. It promised significant savings on naval armaments. Lloyd George also emphasized that British-German relations were better than they had been in years. None of this nonsense really adds up! The English could have resolved the issue of the German march through Belgium differentlyjust as London and Berlin had jointly prevented the two Balkan Wars from escalating into a conflagration only a short time earlier. But, as a military historian and World War I specialist from New England once put it, England decided to join the war that ultimately ruined it.
reply
storminmormin14
Every time I hear the British reasoning and our reasoning for getting involved in WW1 the more abhorrent I find it. It was so pointless, circuitous, and all based on bad assumptions.
The British didn’t want to even bother keeping their empire just a few decades later.
Worrying about Germany surpassing them in global naval power was a concern about the number 3 nation becoming the number 2 nation. The US was significantly more dominant in industrial capacity and they refused to recognize it.
And because the entente were vindictive after it was over we got the 3rd Reich and everyone was worse off than if they’d just let the continental Europeans duke it out.
reply
Every time I hear the British reasoning and our reasoning for getting involved in WW1 the more abhorrent I find it. It was so pointless, circuitous, and all based on bad assumptions.
The British didn’t want to even bother keeping their empire just a few decades later.
Worrying about Germany surpassing them in global naval power was a concern about the number 3 nation becoming the number 2 nation. The US was significantly more dominant in industrial capacity and they refused to recognize it.
And because the entente were vindictive after it was over we got the 3rd Reich and everyone was worse off than if they’d just let the continental Europeans duke it out.
reply
antosqa7343
My honest take is for sea power to fight the bloody land battle is a death sentence. If all Britain was doing were naval operations, and sometimes limited land battles on the far end corner of enemy territories ( for example some operations versus Ottomans ) they would emerge in a way better shape after WWI. The way they fought WW2, precisely. Maybe the lesson was only learnt after the horrors of WWI, but by that time it was too late. Britain couldn't sustain 2 bloody wars like that. So that is why I always wondered what would Britain be should they avoid the trench warfare part of history.
reply
My honest take is for sea power to fight the bloody land battle is a death sentence. If all Britain was doing were naval operations, and sometimes limited land battles on the far end corner of enemy territories ( for example some operations versus Ottomans ) they would emerge in a way better shape after WWI. The way they fought WW2, precisely. Maybe the lesson was only learnt after the horrors of WWI, but by that time it was too late. Britain couldn't sustain 2 bloody wars like that. So that is why I always wondered what would Britain be should they avoid the trench warfare part of history.
reply
PMGF
Sir Edward Grey was always deliberately vague with his foreign policy, hard to imagine today but cabinet & Asquith, 'just let him get on with it'. Foreign policy wasn't considered to be as important, Grey would frequently have secret conversations with ambassadors & sign backroom deals without parliament knowing. Asquith didn't even know if he could/would go to war, so when Grey verbally agreed with the French that Britain would stand to defend their sovereignty it was little more than a gentleman's agreement. One which would have unimaginable consequences.
reply
Sir Edward Grey was always deliberately vague with his foreign policy, hard to imagine today but cabinet & Asquith, 'just let him get on with it'. Foreign policy wasn't considered to be as important, Grey would frequently have secret conversations with ambassadors & sign backroom deals without parliament knowing. Asquith didn't even know if he could/would go to war, so when Grey verbally agreed with the French that Britain would stand to defend their sovereignty it was little more than a gentleman's agreement. One which would have unimaginable consequences.
reply
TheAbzug
Didn't Edward Grey more or less have his own 'agreements' or 'Gentlemen's promise/word with various foreign nations that he had built up over his years at the Foreign Office, so he had more or less promised British support without running it past cabinet or the government
So when war was imminent and the government found out, they found themselves stuck in his diplomatic web. So it was Sir Edward Grey thinking he was a very cunning diplomat and politician before finding he'd actually boxed his country into a corner
reply
Didn't Edward Grey more or less have his own 'agreements' or 'Gentlemen's promise/word with various foreign nations that he had built up over his years at the Foreign Office, so he had more or less promised British support without running it past cabinet or the government
So when war was imminent and the government found out, they found themselves stuck in his diplomatic web. So it was Sir Edward Grey thinking he was a very cunning diplomat and politician before finding he'd actually boxed his country into a corner
reply
Kackpuh
6: 33 hits the nail on the head. All the other stuff may be true somewaht, or better the history leading up to it. But the one clear reason for both World Wars was that Britain feared the loss of its Empire. It couldn't risk Germany getting too strong. That's it. If they could have seen the future, they wouldn't have fought in the wars, because that's what ultimately lost them their Empire.
reply
6: 33 hits the nail on the head. All the other stuff may be true somewaht, or better the history leading up to it. But the one clear reason for both World Wars was that Britain feared the loss of its Empire. It couldn't risk Germany getting too strong. That's it. If they could have seen the future, they wouldn't have fought in the wars, because that's what ultimately lost them their Empire.
reply
history_matters
As someone who lived in the Samoan islands, I'd love for you to do a video on anything related to them! They've had two civil wars (or one, depending on how you slice it, an incredibly timely hurricane that changed them, being taken over by New Zealand in WWI, Robert Louis Stevenson, Japanese plans to invade, and so much more.
reply
As someone who lived in the Samoan islands, I'd love for you to do a video on anything related to them! They've had two civil wars (or one, depending on how you slice it, an incredibly timely hurricane that changed them, being taken over by New Zealand in WWI, Robert Louis Stevenson, Japanese plans to invade, and so much more.
reply
Castor586
So what you're saying is that the battle to keep the Left vs the Right in power to outdo the other has been a struggle as old as time, rather than a recent internal conflict And this is during a time that was deemed to be the predecessor to the Greatest Generation of humanity
Politics really do $uck in the end
reply
So what you're saying is that the battle to keep the Left vs the Right in power to outdo the other has been a struggle as old as time, rather than a recent internal conflict And this is during a time that was deemed to be the predecessor to the Greatest Generation of humanity
Politics really do $uck in the end
reply
Nizzots
I've heard that oil was a big factor. Britain has switched from coal, which they had plenty of, to oil for there navy and factories had just occurred. They didn't have oil of there own and wanted the oil in The Ottoman Empire but Germany signed an agreement with them which prevented them from having any of it.
reply
I've heard that oil was a big factor. Britain has switched from coal, which they had plenty of, to oil for there navy and factories had just occurred. They didn't have oil of there own and wanted the oil in The Ottoman Empire but Germany signed an agreement with them which prevented them from having any of it.
reply
history_matters
I feel like there's more analysis to be done on Britan having a lot of the same concerns before WWI that hindsight says they really should have had before WWII.
But I suppose a stance of We shouldn't have been involved in the last one! Makes plenty of sense in the interwar period.
reply
I feel like there's more analysis to be done on Britan having a lot of the same concerns before WWI that hindsight says they really should have had before WWII.
But I suppose a stance of We shouldn't have been involved in the last one! Makes plenty of sense in the interwar period.
reply
lamb-mz2sd
Britain had to participate so that it would be losing and require the help of USA. And in exchange for the help, a particular piece of land would be given to a particular banking family to further the progress of a particular -ism. World is a stage and everything goes by the script.
reply
Britain had to participate so that it would be losing and require the help of USA. And in exchange for the help, a particular piece of land would be given to a particular banking family to further the progress of a particular -ism. World is a stage and everything goes by the script.
reply
sausagejockyGaming
at the end you mention a naval war and Britains army not fighting on land, this obviously didnt happen, but is that actually the original British intention and if so what event caused them to change their mind and deploy an absolutely massive amount of troops on land
reply
at the end you mention a naval war and Britains army not fighting on land, this obviously didnt happen, but is that actually the original British intention and if so what event caused them to change their mind and deploy an absolutely massive amount of troops on land
reply
Wilhelm-oh3kn
6: 42
This massive reparations where so huge, that france needed two full years to pay them.
Yes, the reparations were that massive.
Fortunately france will respond this courtesy a few decades later after WW1 with absolut similar reparations, right
reply
6: 42
This massive reparations where so huge, that france needed two full years to pay them.
Yes, the reparations were that massive.
Fortunately france will respond this courtesy a few decades later after WW1 with absolut similar reparations, right
reply
OleOlson
The real reason is that the UK's chief foreign policy since the Norman conquest was to maintain it's independence by deliberately keeping Europe divided. Germany was rising, and threatened to become the dominant nation in Europe, so England had to oppose them.
reply
The real reason is that the UK's chief foreign policy since the Norman conquest was to maintain it's independence by deliberately keeping Europe divided. Germany was rising, and threatened to become the dominant nation in Europe, so England had to oppose them.
reply
primpal08
Simply put. Germany was a rising star. They had eclipsed the French as the greatest power on the continent. They were a threat with their naval buildup. If they had competent leadership, Germany may have actually won (though the war would look much different.
reply
Simply put. Germany was a rising star. They had eclipsed the French as the greatest power on the continent. They were a threat with their naval buildup. If they had competent leadership, Germany may have actually won (though the war would look much different.
reply
DenishtheDanish
A huge regret! Single biggest mistake the British have ever committed. The cause of decline of the UK and collapse of its empire. Should have stayed out of it. But well. i guess some people in power wanted to be the 'savior of Europe'.
reply
A huge regret! Single biggest mistake the British have ever committed. The cause of decline of the UK and collapse of its empire. Should have stayed out of it. But well. i guess some people in power wanted to be the 'savior of Europe'.
reply
history_matters
someone once made a supercut of all of the people that have skipped through a field of flowers in history matters videos. I can't find it and I'd really like to see it again. if you know where to find it, link me please. Thank you.
reply
someone once made a supercut of all of the people that have skipped through a field of flowers in history matters videos. I can't find it and I'd really like to see it again. if you know where to find it, link me please. Thank you.
reply
hvern0n
If you put yourself in the shoes of a 1914 politician, the decision to go to war is understandable. They had no idea that it would last as long and be as devastating as it was. A war that brought down empires was unthinkable until this one
reply
If you put yourself in the shoes of a 1914 politician, the decision to go to war is understandable. They had no idea that it would last as long and be as devastating as it was. A war that brought down empires was unthinkable until this one
reply
franbalcal
girl idk why South America gets ignored, in the 1800s, the British empire invested and traded way more with the south american nations than they did even in their own colonies, much of the wealth of the British Empire came from there.
reply
girl idk why South America gets ignored, in the 1800s, the British empire invested and traded way more with the south american nations than they did even in their own colonies, much of the wealth of the British Empire came from there.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
