Видео

Is Armenian genocide fact ? Turkish president Erdogan keen to overcome Armenian issue, called on Armenia on 2005 to open its national archives and establish a joint committee of historians to research the event of 1915. Turkey has already opened its national archives to international scrutiny , but Armenia still keeps its archives closed and refused to respond to Turkey's call. It's crucial to approach with historical events with nuance , respect for diverse perspectives and reliance on credible and evidence based research conducted by qualified scholars and historians. During the first world war , the Ottoman Empire was attacked by Tsar Russia on its eastern front , emboldening Armenian terrorist to take up arms and engage in terrorism against Muslim Village and civilians. These acts have been documented and acknowledged historians and as well as by western military mission at that time. U can get full details from General James harbord's report . Copies of this historical record can be accessed US National Archives and Record Agency . Pl see " what happened in 1915 in eastern Anatolia?" RUclips Thanks for the chance to tell the truth.

Of course the 442nd was a bastion of activism. As their families are in internment camps, they fight hard in Europe and become the most decorated regiment in American history. The service of these troops is an expression of pointing out military inequality.

Dr Polk , one of my heroes!

amazing video except one of his last comments.........how do you spend over a trillion dollars in Iraq if you dont have a large military industrial complex......so....yeah hes completely wrong. He should have said not as large as then.

"my good friend little Donnie Rumsfeld"........def not a good guy to claim you are friends with......in case of guilty by association......Rumsfeld we now know is nothing but a liar, like most politicians

German 1916 strategy discussion: Falkenhayn: I can't deal with all these awful suggestions. I'll figure it out. SMDH. Look. Right there. Hill 304. Awwww, yeah. LET'S GET THAT HILL! May 1916: Falkenhayn: WHAT?!? NOTHING?!? NOT ONE?!? I quit. You all deal with this mess. FML.

Wish more Americans would watch this lecture

Dr. Faulkner is always interesting and entertaining. He has a real talent for public speaking.

Can we put to rest the myth that Falkenhayn was interested in Hill 304 to prevent enfilading artillery fire from the French? I'm going to postulate that he was more interested in the number specifically. But when the Germans arrived, it was a huge disappointment. So Falkenhayn rage quit and told the Kaiser, "Ich wurde ausgetrickst. Falsche Werbung. Ich bin so verärgert, dass du dieses Chaos allein bewältigen musst. Schicken Sie mich einfach nach Rumänien. Auf Wiedersehen." Book it. Lol. 🍻👍🏻

Unforgotten Ireland & Suffering of Irish people should not be forgotten .Long live Ireland & Irish People.

Fantastic! Thank you

Merci

As a teacher of US history, I'm getting a bit sick and tired of being lectured to by old men about what I am not teaching in my classroom. Textbooks might be incomplete, but my teaching sure as h--l was not. Give us in the classroom some credit.

Point well made and my comment here is not a rebuttal in the least but a question for why the scope isn't broader (I suspect that the answer is the public cares only about what is in front and what suits them, the latter is what I am interested in). The atrocities in the Philippines, what the British and French had been doing in the decades prior, poor baby Belgium knife at their throat mercilessly raping the Congo, the autocratic Hapsburg empire relatively benign and the autocratic Russian one about as bad as its stereotype and lastly and bizarrely ignored, the German atrocities in Africa all seem to have played such an insignificant part that, almost as yang to the yin of the mystery writer who said 'don't believe the British propaganda, the reality is bad enough' it seems to me that can be true while the reverse side of the coin is too: it's all about how you sell yourself.

This is pure gold!

Thanks for helping me with my history PGCE

My great grandfather became a legal us citizen to be an ambulance driver during WW1. His name was Harry Arthur Shean.

How many eras of survivors have I’ve served .

The same Russian revolutionaries already tried a coup in 1905 and failed. So the Czar taking command in 1915 was not the beginning of the revolution!!

Sitting about doing nothing! The Royal navy put the vast majority of it's resources into the ''Hunger Blockade'' starving up to 750.000 German civilians. It wasn't lifted till 1919 after the peace treaty was signed. After all Britain made alliances with it's traditional enemies France and Russia without parliaments consent or knowledge.

I love how Pär tells stories...he is a great guy!

WE NII MII PUU FOUGHT AGAINST THE FIRST CAVALRY IN 1877..MY NII MII PUU GRAMPA JOINED THE FIRST CAVALRY IN WW1...NOT ONE OF THEM WAS A CITIZEN OF THEIR OWN COUNTRY. DIDNT GET OUR CITIZENSHIP FOR AWHILE..THEY WERE STILL PISSED OFF AT US FOR FIGHTING BACK..

Played by woody harrelson in the movie

Really excellent presentation! Learned so much.

roses are red, violets are blue, trains, trams and buses come in all sorts of hue ;) my playlist #2 is about transportaion

Absolutely fascinating lecture, brilliantly researched and flawlessly delivered. The part about the battle-hardened French division moving cautiously & slowly ahead reminded me of the WW.II battle for Caen (after D-Day), where the cautiousness & slowness of the British & Canadian troops exasperated the US commanders in Normandy who were much more willing to sustain losses: same causes, same outcomes. One amusing detail : the lecturer (Dr Shawn Faulkner) has trouble mastering the correct pronunciation for the name of the Meuse river. He oscillates between (at the beginning) an imaginative "Mews" - which a Frenchman has real trouble to recognize - and (towards the end) something approaching the correct pronunciation, which would be [møz]. And lastly, the French equivalent of “Going Bloiey" is: "être Limogé", which remains to this day a recognized expression in the language. __ .

why💀

Great presentation!

“The sick man of Europe.” The mess known as Austria-Hungary.

In the first world war, the Choctaw were actually one of the first Nation to contribute this type of idea also.

Back to Back Champs babyyy! 😎💥🇺🇲

My Grandfather died there on June 7, 1918. He was a PFC, age 26, 16th Regiment. He never saw his son. I am honoring him today.

As an American, this whole presentation is an embarrassment. Both the Canadians and the Australians/New Zealanders had more of a role in the Entente victory than we did. Arguably, the Indians too. Even in 1918, they took more German-held territory than we did. I understand the American potential for 1919 is part of what convinced German leadership to surrender, but this dude is trying to argue that it was American combat actions that forced the surrender which is just wrong. We were still a second-rate army in autumn 1918, and fought like it. At best, the American potential gave the British and French the fortitude to hold back the German 1918 offensives. But "we" didn't physically do that. They did.

Monarchy does not fall there would of been no NAZIS

I will suggest to National WWI Museum to read and learn about Genocide of Indigenous peoples first!

Ther problems of Armenians is they are living with the past ! I cant believe how 90% of armenians are so stupid even most populations of armenians who living in europe and USA than owne country in Armenia.If you telling to the police my car stolen by my neighbour without law you can't prove this. There is international Law orgonisation in Holland ,only this international orgonisation can make this official decision! And as all world knows till today no one from armenian government will request from this organization to recognise this as a gonesode! The question why Armenian government didn't request , i can say there is no prove! This is next Armenians lie!

Very well done. Thank you.

Stevenson admits that he revised his own ideas. Nothing wrong with that if we keep in mind that he might do it again. Now this will be controversial, but I am going to say it without any ill will toward anyone. I am just reporting what I heard from a speech that I found on the web. I probably heard it on the web 15 years ago and it was decades before when it had been given. The context is 1917. That is the year of US entry into the war and it is also that in 1917 that the Balfour Declaration was issued. The speaker in the speech, a Jew turned Roman Catholic, stated that higher ups in England promised the Jews a homeland if they would get their brethren in America to convince the leaders in America to enter the war. I like this explanation for two reasons: 1) It is about back room deals and that is how things really get done in politics, and 2) war is about people using violence to get what they want. That is a truism. Clausewitz the 19th c German war theoretician stated that war is forcing others to do what you want them to do.

One of the reasons the Eastern Front is not in people memory is probably in part due to the names: Przemyśl was as big a fortress as Verdun and caused the Russians all kinds of headaches. But The Battle of Verdun commits itself to memory better than The Battle of That Place No One Can Pronounce.

This was a different understanding of the Paris Peace Conference and the resulting treaties (!) than I have ever heard before! All of the other explanations focused strictly on the Versailles Treaty with the Germans. Mention was occasionally made of the continued conflicts in other areas beyond the German treaty, but no explanations or details were given to broaden the understanding of the larger picture of the multiple problems in the rest of the world. I am really interested now in learning about this larger picture! Thanks so much!

Don’t like Billy Mitchell, ‘eh? He probably wouldn’t like you either l! 🤣🤣

This is absolutely delightful, Brett. Thank you so much for your amazing presentation, your wonderful book, and moreover you ebullient sense of humor.

My grandfather worked for the missouri pacific rr in falls city nebraska maintaining locomotives when ww1 started for the united states in 1917 he joined the us army did bootcamp in new mexico and went to france as a us army railroad engineer they were some of the first americans to arrive over there and they did not come back untill 1919

Excellent lecture! Going to get the book.

Look up the Battle of Amiens, August 8 1918 which Ludendorff called the Black day of the German army in the war. The Australian and Canadian corps advanced 8 miles in a day and began the 100 day advance which ended with the armistice on November 11.

Fantastic program

Always loved you guys' work.

How did Falkenhayn not consider that he could manage to bleed the French army but with a high risk of bleeding the German army at the same time? However, he was far from being an idiot. Okay, it's easy to write it more than a hundred years after the battle...

I'd always been a little ambivalent with the typical conventional wisdom that Jutland was "indecisive" or "inconclusive"; thanks for that perspective on its larger significance. It's easy to see why that perception dominates, of course. And it's easy to see how British opinion - whether among the public at large or within the UK govt and RN - was rather dissatisfied. But, "continuation of a status quo in which your navy already decisively dominates anyway" has to be counted as a strategic success, does it not? No matter how unsatisfying it may have been on an operational or tactical level. Another way to look at it might be that Jutland could not have been anything OTHER than strategically "indecisive", regardless of tactical outcome. If Jellicoe does win the tactically "decisive" victory which so many have said for a century that he should have, does that really change anything in the big picture? It's hard to see how it would have. It's not as if Britain would have been able to "blockade harder" than it was doing anyway. It's also not as if it was really the HSF which primarily denied a realistic amphibious threat to Germany's North Sea and Baltic coasts...submarines, mines, robust coastal defenses/artillery, and simple geography/hydrography seem to have been larger - or at very least equal - factors. It seems to me that a "decisive" (and necessarily far bloodier) Jutland would still have meant just what it did in the actual event: preservation - but no real improvement - of a status quo which already heavily favored Britain. So the only real difference would have been "merely" a lot more ships sunk and many thousands more British and German sailors killed. One could perhaps argue that Jutland's historical outcome - relatively light losses given the mammoth forces involved - was actually the best-case result for both navies. Short of the battle simply not having been fought at all, of course. Very much a "hindsight 20/20" take from a century-later perspective, I admit.

My Great Uncle was in the 320th infantry 80th division and was killed in action on the first day of this campaign.