The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

Want to know what started WWI? (And every war and conflict in human history?)

Ego.

>> ^criticalthud:

Great vid but a little hazy on what started the war. There were the official reasons, and then the actual reasons. At this point history shows that the lead up and start of WWI was largely about geopolitics: 3rd world empires with their cheap resources and the rise of oil and technology. Even in that day and age, nations were quick to understand the importance and advantages of access to energy, especially oil, and other resources and raw materials. The only question was how the world and it's resources were to be divided.
it's pretty important to get this aspect right, because nothing has really changed, and geopolitical considerations dictate the foreign policy of most major countries, especially the US.


Yup, my favourite presentation of this information is:
http://videosift.com/video/Robert-Newmans-History-of-Oil

It's 45 minutes long, but an excellent mix of standup comedy and facts.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'john green, crash course, wwi, cynicism' to 'john green, crash course, wwi, first world war, great war, 1914, 1918, cynicism' - edited by calvados

>> ^criticalthud:

Great vid but a little hazy on what started the war. There were the official reasons, and then the actual reasons. At this point history shows that the lead up and start of WWI was largely about geopolitics: 3rd world empires with their cheap resources and the rise of oil and technology. Even in that day and age, nations were quick to understand the importance and advantages of access to energy, especially oil, and other resources and raw materials. The only question was how the world and it's resources were to be divided.
it's pretty important to get this aspect right, because nothing has really changed, and geopolitical considerations dictate the foreign policy of most major countries, especially the US.

Good points, but then again the name of the show is "Crash Course". I am extremely impressed with how well this web series can hit the broad strokes and even touch on a surprising amount of nuance considering each video/subject is roughly 10 minutes long... Almost all are easy upvotes from my point of view!

Great vid but a little hazy on what started the war. There were the official reasons, and then the actual reasons. At this point history shows that the lead up and start of WWI was largely about geopolitics: 3rd world empires with their cheap resources and the rise of oil and technology. Even in that day and age, nations were quick to understand the importance and advantages of access to energy, especially oil, and other resources and raw materials. The only question was how the world and it's resources were to be divided.

it's pretty important to get this aspect right, because nothing has really changed, and geopolitical considerations dictate the foreign policy of most major countries, especially the US.

>> ^Yogi:

Chomsky was right...Bush jailed people without trials indefinitely. Obama skips that step and goes straight to murder. It isn't legal, it isn't moral, Obama is worse than Bush and the American Empire is still kicking. We need to put it down here at home if we're going to have a chance at a civilized life.


I'll take a wild guess that everything Cenk is talking about most certainly did happen in Afghanistan and Iraq first during our dear leader "Junior Bush", let alone "during the Obama administration". I won't bother to say any more than that as any president that must inevitable go to war with another nation has failed his people (to some extent, some leaders are given no choice and some are caught off guard--but many use it like it's a fraternal right of the presidency--make war and no one complains) and we WILL be committing murder on the large scale, that will always be a partial description and definition of war; except for a few extraneous and special circumstances were we defend ourselves, but in the end we turn into the monster we tried not to be: WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Bosnia, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, South VS. North USA, even the Cold War and are malicious proxy wars...

Trust me this has been around a long time, might as well bring up the every presidents "expenditure" or whatever they ended up calling it in those days and ages. War really is one side murdering the other for not a single good reason between the two, but their own bigotry created by...

...Organizations (like Al Qaeda) are capable of strikes that can affect a city block (a large suicide bomb) typically and in a grand while one that effects perhaps 20 blocks (the World Trade Center, which was felt "afterwards much farther away than 20 blocks, it circled the globe)... But, overall they have an effect on a much smaller section of people. It's hard to decide what to give up sometimes as we see others suffering, but we do wish to help them. At some point though an organization is a small group that becomes a country; like our Republicans and Democrats, two flavors of a one flavor system (unless you like pure batshiat crazy, we have that one too).

Got in another debate with a hardcore conservative today. Different one this time. I learned some pretty awesome things.

1. If you spend more money on your military, it will always be stronger. No matter what! If you slightly reduce spending on your military while removing troops from conflicts such as Iraq, thereby freeing troops up for other things, your military will still be weaker.

2. Military might is virtually solely determined by number of people in it. China has a better military than the US. In fact, China could successfully land invade the US right now!!! When presented with the fact that China has not even attempted a land invasion of Taiwan because a portion of the US navy is sitting between the two, this was ignored. When I pointed out the US spends multiple times more than China does on military, and therefore he contradicted himself, this was promptly ignored because China apparently also has a better economy than the US, too.

3. When I disputed the proposition that China could successfully land invade the US by pointing out that amphibious assaults require air power, and China doesn't have sufficient aircraft carriers, I was told that air power is not required for a successful massive land invasion. For example, the only thing air power was used for during D-Day was patrols and to parachute some troops in behind enemy lines. They were not required to protect naval vessels carrying troops, nor did they participate in any significant bombings of Normandy. Also, the US successfully invaded Normandy without aircraft carriers, so the fact that China only has one aircraft carrier is irrelevant. I asked how China would get its air force over to the West Coast of the US without aircraft carriers, but that was ignored because an air force wasn't necessary.

4. When I pointed out multiple sources of info showing that air superiority was needed during D-Day, and was specifically sought out prior to even contemplating invasion, and the fact that I have a degree in History, taught it, and my concentration in college was WWI to the present, he responded that he knew more because he was in the navy for 8 years.

In the end, I was accused of thinking I knew more about everything than anyone else, and ridiculed for thinking I knew things because I went to college.

Sadly, this is a true story, and I'm related to this person.

I know there are idiots in every political group, but the amount of ignorance and idiocy coming out of the right these days is staggering, and so many of them are obnoxiously loud and proud about these kinds of views.

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^criticalthud:
@A10anis
WWII was an economic and resource war. As was every war the US has been in.
"Just" is a matter of perspective.
Vast sums were made by war profiteering during the war, but that paled in comparison to the influx of wealth following WWII and american global domination.

For you to say; "WWII was an economic and resource war. As was every war the US has been in." leaves you in the unenviable position of being an utterly ignorant commentator on issues you don't understand. Shush.


really? you think WWI started simply because franz ferdinand was shot, ...or WWII had nothing to do with Hitler's push into the middle east and western russian oilfields? or that vietnam and korea had nothing to do with the collision of economic systems (communist totalitarianism and capitalism). or Iraq has nothing to do with oil and Afghanistan has nothing to do with rare earth deposits? good vs. evil is just fine for star wars and the lord of the rings, but on planet earth, it's about competing economic interests.
"Just" war is another term for wrapping brutality in red white and blue and selling it to the masses.

Interesting video, could have done without the music. Reminds me of that guy in HBO's "Boardwalk Empire" with the prosthetic face from his WWI injury.

all valid points about movies cinemas etc....but seriously why is no-one talking about how crappy of a movie this is?

Its about a horse tied into wwi. Its like legends of the fall but instead of people...theres a horse. Or maybe its nothing like legends but still...seriously..... wwi patriotism repackaged with a horse

If you like war movies.....that was probably all the war scenes you're going to get.

'Be careful [sir dashing aristocratic dweeb) with me horse sir' ...'No problem (peasant boy) who despite his peasant baseness somehow managed to raise this noble horse despite....No wait, BECAUSE of his peasant simplicity managed to raise a fine noble horse and will somehow woo the wealthy girl.

*facepalm*.... to each their own.

I want to repeat first your original claim is the US outproduced the rest of the world many fold from 1700 to 1900, which as I stated is absurdly false.

Percentage of increases is NOT total GDP. Just because we grew more doesn't mean we outproduced another country. Higher GDP = higher production.

Right now, China's economy is growing faster than the US economy. Does that mean their GDP is higher? According to you, apparently, the answer is yes, but it's not. US GDP is higher than China.

Of course, this also doesn't take into account that population impacts GDP, as the larger your population, the more labor resources you have to produce goods and services. GDP per capita also comes into play in factoring relative productivity.

Using your own link, Great Britain's total GDP was higher than the US all the way up to 1913. Therefore, sometime between 1870 and 1913, the US GDP surpassed Britain and every other country on earth in raw amounts, but to claim we did from 1820 - 1913 is by your own data patently false. We outgrew everyone else, this is true, but we did not outproduce everyone else that entire time. In fact, for most of that time, we were outproduced by several Western European countries in raw amounts.

Then there's the question of GDP per capita.

In 1913, US population is estimated to be about 100,000,000. 517,000/100000000=0.00517

In 1913, the British population is estimated to be about 45,000,000. 225000/45000000 = 0.005.

IE, RIGHT ABOUT around 1913 the US began to be more productive per capita than Great Britain, but for most of 1870 to 1913 (and prior), Great Britain outproduced the US per capita. Therefore, your assertion the US outproduced every other country on earth per capita is wrong, and Great Britain outproduced the US in raw amount in 1870.

As I said, most historians do not consider the US an economic superpower until at least WWI. There's ample explanation for this. Great Britain industrialized before the US did. The US also suffered a massive interruption in economic production due to the US Civil War in the 1860s. This is plain as day fact, even with your own data you're providing.

And btw, what were the contributing factors to the US surge in production? Industrialization coupled with massive immigration. To discount the role of immigration into the US as a key contributor and say it was all about free market economics is ridiculous. Are you suggesting we need to allow Mexicans and anyone else to immigrate into the US again?! We also cashed in on imperialist gains at the expense of Mexico, gaining a massive amount of natural resources in the Mexican Cession. You don't honestly think the US Industrial Revolution would have been as wildly successful as it was without that massive resource of various metals, do you? So we're supposed to start taking land from other countries because it's god's will?

And now, to my absolute favorite part of your analysis. You attempted to show the US's slowing economic growth in the 20th century compared to the previous century, because that central banking and regulation we got post 1913 apparently really hurt us.

1820 - 1870 = 50 years
1870 - 1913 = 43 years
1913 - 1950 = 37 years
1950 - 1973 = 23 years
1973 - 1998 = 25 years

So how much did we grow comparing 1870-1913 vs 1950 - 1998, over a comparable time span?

526% vs. (7394598-1455916)/1455916 = 407%

Considering how unproductive humans were before and after industrialization, improving on top of that another 407% is EXTREMELY impressive. On top of that, US economic output was severely reduced because of the Civil War in the 1860s and had not recovered from it by any stretch of the imagination, so simply recovering from that would fuel a massive percentage increase. By 1950, we had already recovered from the Great Depression, and we STILL managed to grow the US economy 4x in the next 50 years.

Now, on top of that, keep in mind that with smaller numbers, percentage growth gets exaggerated compared to bigger numbers. IE, it's easier to double when you start with 1 than 1,000,000.

From 1820 to 1913, US GDP went from 12,548 to 517,383. From 1913 to 1998, we went from 517,383 to 7,394,598! That's less successful?! OH POOR US!

Compared to the rest of the world, we didn't grow as fast percentage wise from 1950-1998. We did however grow the most in raw amounts. By your analysis, Mexico has done a better job growing their economy from 1973 to 1998 than the US did because of percentage growth. Uhh, seriously?! growing 279,302 to 655,910 is more impressive than 3,536,622 to 7,394,598?! Then WHY ARE MEXICANS TRYING TO IMMIGRATE HERE!?

Why is Africa, Asia, etc. growing so much faster than we did? Because they are industrializing, which results in percentage gains greater than the switch to info tech because they're starting from a very low number. That doesn't mean they're outproducing us. It means they have more low hanging fruit to improve their productivity than we do. You're also cherrypicking another historically convenient time. Europe and Asia in 1950 were still recovering from the destruction of WWII, where entire cities were leveled. Simply rebuilding from that would give a massive boost. US industrial capacity was never threatened during WWII. Therefore, we won't start suddenly artificially lower in 1950 compared to a Japan, China, Germany, Britain, France, or Russia.

Your historical analysis is laughable. I have never seen anyone claim that the US economy was better off from 1800-1900 than they have been from 1900-2000. Kudos for attempting to provide statistics for your crackpot retelling of American history.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.
Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.
You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


Don't let facts get in the way of your clouded thinking.
http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf
We were the most prosperous country in the world prior to income taxes and the federal reserve.
In 1820, US GDP was less than 2% of the world's GDP. By 1913, US GDP was more than double any other country and 1/5 of the world's. Funny thing about freedom, it works.
From 1820 to 1870, US GDP increased 784% while the world GDP had only increased 59%. From 1870 to 1913, US GDP increased 526% while the world GDP had only increased 246%.
Period, Increase in US GDP, Increase in World GDP
1820 to 1870, 784%, 59%
1870 to 1913, 526%, 246%
1913 to 1950, 281%, 197%
1950 to 1973, 243%, 300%
1973 to 1998, 209%, 210%
And if you do the math per capita, the numbers are even uglier for the US 20th century.
But not surprising one thinks that printing money to pay for bombs and tanks makes a country prosperous. How's that government stimulus working out present day? Funny we still haven't paid off that debt from WWII stimulus. We've being paying the interest on it though.
Did expanding the monetary base (i.e. inflation) make us richer? The father of the theory that government stimulus is the way to fight severe downturns, John Maynard Keynes, famously said about inflation:
By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.

>> ^heropsycho:

Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.
Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.
You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?



Don't let facts get in the way of your clouded thinking.
http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf

We were the most prosperous country in the world prior to income taxes and the federal reserve.

In 1820, US GDP was less than 2% of the world's GDP. By 1913, US GDP was more than double any other country and 1/5 of the world's. Funny thing about freedom, it works.

From 1820 to 1870, US GDP increased 784% while the world GDP had only increased 59%. From 1870 to 1913, US GDP increased 526% while the world GDP had only increased 246%.

Period, Increase in US GDP, Increase in World GDP
1820 to 1870, 784%, 59%
1870 to 1913, 526%, 246%
1913 to 1950, 281%, 197%
1950 to 1973, 243%, 300%
1973 to 1998, 209%, 210%

And if you do the math per capita, the numbers are even uglier for the US 20th century.

But not surprising one thinks that printing money to pay for bombs and tanks makes a country prosperous. How's that government stimulus working out present day? Funny we still haven't paid off that debt from WWII stimulus. We've being paying the interest on it though.

Did expanding the monetary base (i.e. inflation) make us richer? The father of the theory that government stimulus is the way to fight severe downturns, John Maynard Keynes, famously said about inflation:
By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.

Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.

Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.

You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?