The Arbutus Review • 2017 • Vol. 8, No. 1 • http://dx.doi.org/10.18357/tar81201716814

Unorthodox Professors: World War One in
Videogames and on YouTube

Jordan Crocker∗

University of Victoria
jordancrocker974@gmail.com

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to analyse the videogames Battlefield 1 and Victoria II and the
YouTube channels Crash Course World History and The Great War in order to show how these
forms of media represent the First World War. Given the centennial of the First World War in 2014
and the end of the centennial occurring in 2018, there has been increased attention brought to the
First World War, and therefore more representations of the war have been occurring in these media.
Specifically, these representations affect how younger audiences view the war and will impact their
knowledge of it. Although there has been scholarship in game studies, historians should engage
more often with videogames and YouTube in order to ensure the wider public is receiving adequate
historical representations from these media.

Keywords: First World War; videogames; YouTube; historical representation; Robert Rosenstone

In his seminal work on film and history, Robert Rosenstone struggled with the question of therepresentation of history in feature films. Famously, he concluded that
To accept film-makers as historians. . . is to accept a new sort of history. The medium
and its practices for constructing the past—all ensure that the historical world on film
will be different from that on the page. In terms of informational content, intellectual
density, or theoretical insight, film will always be less complex than written history. Yet
its moving images and sound scapes will create experiential and emotional complexities
of a sort unknown upon the printed page. . . the historical film can convey much about
the past to us and thereby provide some sort of knowledge and understanding—even if
we cannot specify exactly what the contours of such understanding are. (2012, p.181)

Here, Rosenstone argues that the medium of film should be understood as a legitimate form of
history and that our criteria for analysing film need to change (2012, pp. 171, 185). For example, as
our world changes, so too does technology. While film is now commonly discussed in academic circles,
there are other forms of media that are primarily based on moving images and grip us the same
way as film, such as videogames and YouTube. Videogames are electronic games that are played on
a TV or a computer and have an object or character that is controlled by a player. YouTube is
a platform where users create and share videos for viewing from the public. In 2005, media using
moving images experienced a major change, with the seventh generation of videogames beginning
(which is characterised by the mass market of videogames with cinematic graphics and a massive
increase in popularity). YouTube, coincidentally, was also founded this year and contributed to the
changes in media. Today, these media create experiences that cannot be had in a static text because
they introduce sound and images in order to engage and entertain, much like film. They are also
becoming increasingly popular, especially with younger people, yet film has ostensibly been studied

∗I would like to thank Dr. Peter Cook for his efforts as my supervisor and the Jamie Cassels Undergraduate
Research Awards for aiding me financially in my project.

mailto:jordancrocker974@gmail.com

The Arbutus Review • 2017 • Vol. 8, No. 1 • http://dx.doi.org/10.18357/tar81201716814

more than these new forms of media, although there is more scholarship becoming available, for
example, Chris Kempshall’s 2015 book, First World War in Computer Games and Adam Chapman’s
2016 article, “It’s Hard to Play in the Trenches: World War I, Collective Memory and Videogames.”

Overall, I argue that videogames and YouTube are becoming increasingly popular and as a
result are teaching young audiences about history. While some channels on YouTube do try to
take a documentary-style approach to history, videogames should be evaluated on how well they
convey historical information. Furthermore, I argue that, for the time being, videogames such as
Victoria II and YouTube channels such as Crash Course World History convey or represent historical
information about First World War adequately in terms of three criteria: trench warfare, the reasons
for the war, and the political alliance system, but that historians need to begin to advise on future
projects being developed by videogame developers and YouTube creators in order to allow for this
education to continue.

Before continuing, it is worth arguing how the elements of trench warfare, the reasons for the
war, and the political system of alliances are important aspects to the First World War. In The
Great War and the Making of the Modern World (2011), Jeremy Black reflects on the impact of the
trenches: “stalemate and trench warfare reflected the nature of modern industrial warfare once both
sides had committed large numbers of troops and lacked the ability to accomplish a breakthrough”
(pp. 57-58). Here, Black is explaining that stalemates and trench warfare were hallmarks of the
First World War. Essentially, trench warfare occurred when the two sides dug opposing trenches
from each other, with a “no-man’s land” in between. The two sides would shell and bombard the
opponents in the hopes of lowering morale, which was followed by an assault through no-man’s land.
Typically, this did not result in any real gains, but it did contribute to a significant loss of life and
fueled the pessimism of the soldiers and the general public about the war. This highlights how the
trenches were an element of the First World War, which contributed to making it a conflict that
was different from any other previous one.

The reasons for the war and the political alliance system are complex. It is difficult to determine
how the First World War began, but it is clear the assassination of the Archduke of Austria, Franz
Ferdinand, on 28 June 1914, ignited the tensions that had existed in Europe (Clark, 2012, p. 367).
These tensions existed due to a militant Germany, a humiliated France, an ambivalent United
Kingdom, and the competing Eastern powers of Austria-Hungary and Russia (Clark, 2012, p. 123).
Here, one can observe how many factors could have contributed to the First World War, but one
factor in particular can be analysed specifically because it helped to create the circumstances for
the First World War to become reality: the political alliance system (Clark, 2012, p. 122). The
alliance systems that existed during this period were the Triple Alliance between Germany, Italy,
and Austria-Hungary and, opposing the Triple Alliance, the Triple Entente (Clark, 2012, p. 122).
The Entente was a grouping of Russia, the United Kingdom (UK) and France, who were bound
together through mutual treaties of defence, such as the Anglo-Russian Convention (an agreement
between the UK and Russia), the Franco-Russian Alliance (between France and Russia) and the
Entente Cordial (between the UK and France) (Clark, 2012, p. 122). In the end, the elements
of trench warfare, the reasons for the war, and the political alliance system are the key aspects
that made the First World War unique and therefore crucial to include in historical representations
of the war. This is why these three elements are used to evaluate the historical representation of
videogames and YouTube.

Videogames

Beginning from humble origins such as the small-scale videogames of Pong in the 1970s,
videogames have become an increasingly influential force in the entertainment industry. According

The Arbutus Review • 2017 • Vol. 8, No. 1 • http://dx.doi.org/10.18357/tar81201716814

to the Pew Research Centre, 77% of men and 57% of women between the ages of 18 and 29 have
had some experience in playing videogames (Duggan, 2015, p. 2). Of course, this statistic considers
all videogames and genres, but the popularity of the historical videogame should not be overlooked.
For example, the popular videogame series Call of Duty had its beginnings with a game about the
Second World War in 2003. So far, the series has 13 titles and has been produced since the mid-2000s.
More recently, Battlefield 1 is an example of a historical videogame that has seen commercial success.
In fact, Battlefield 1 contributed heavily to the success of Electronic Arts (EA), the publisher of
the game. During the third quarter of 2016, EA reported a 7% increase in revenues to just over
$2,000,000,000 on an adjusted basis, which was helped by the strong sales of Battlefield 1 and other
games such as FIFA 17 (Tharakan, 2017, para. 8). The game’s success suggests that many young
people are playing Battlefield 1 and learning history from it, which provides the impetus for my
analysis. After all, if moving images can teach us about the past in distinct ways (as Rosenstone
concedes), one must ask whether videogames can reasonably contribute to a discussion of historical
events. While there are many games that can be analysed, this paper focuses on Battlefield 1 and
Victoria II.

Battlefield 1 is a first-person shooter (FPS) videogame that immerses players in the combat of
the First World War. As pointed out above, it was also one of the most commercially successful
games for EA in 2016. Battlefield 1 follows the model as set out in typical FPS games: fast-paced
action, unlimited respawns (that is, resurrections of players), and a point-of-view representing a
single protagonist. What makes Battlefield 1 unusual in the genre of FPSs is that the game has
a campaign that is told through six distinct war stories where the player assumes various roles as
soldiers on the side of the Allies (Version 1.09; Electronic Arts, 2016). While all these stories are
varied and make for interesting gameplay, perhaps the most interesting aspect of the game is the
prologue mission named “Storm of Steel.” In a jarring departure from the conventions of the FPS
genre, the death of the player’s character is final in the mission with no opportunities to respawn,
with the game even displaying their year of death. In a way, it personalises the war and puts faces
to the events.

Whereas Battlefield 1 places the player in the midst of combat on the ground, much like a
thematic sequence similar to the opening scenes of Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan, Victoria
II is more akin to the experience of playing the board game Risk. The game takes place between 1836
and 1936 (Version 3.03; Paradox Entertainment, 2010). The player directs one of the countries that
existed in 1836 and makes diplomatic, economic, and military decisions in response to circumstances
generated by the program’s algorithms. The game reproduces the basic technological and geopolitical
realities of the Victorian and First World War eras, but between the decision-making of players and
the computer-generated events, events may unfold in ways that depart radically from actual history.

For the purposes of this paper, Battlefield 1 and Victoria II will be analysed with regard to their
depiction of trench warfare, their explanations of the war’s causes, and the dynamics of the First
World War’s alliance system. While these games are not perfect representations of the First World
War, they bring the audience closer to the realities of the war through their representations of the
three criteria.

Battlefield 1 simulates for its players a Europe decimated by war seemingly without the horror
of the trenches. As gamers play throughout the single-player campaign, the earth is scorched and
mortars leave deep craters in the ground, but strangely absent from these war-torn areas are the
trenches. They make a brief appearance in the prologue mission of the game, “Storm of Steel,”
but most of the game is played through ruined cities or relatively open landscapes scattered with
occasional buildings (Version 1.09; Electronic Arts, 2016). In this way, the player is spared the
tedium of successive days of inaction in the trenches. Planes soar in the air and gas is a constant
danger, but artillery is almost absent and cover can be found anywhere; no-man’s-land does not

The Arbutus Review • 2017 • Vol. 8, No. 1 • http://dx.doi.org/10.18357/tar81201716814

exist. By doing so, Battlefield 1 appears to fail the audience in its representations of the past.
Of course, the game needed to earn money, so the combat was sped up. This is a problem with
historical representation.

Victoria II is also not a good representation of trench warfare, as battles are conducted as if the
player was the leader of a nation and leaders were rarely in the trenches. This means that battles are
fought using dice rolls, leadership ability, technology advantages, and the number of men involved in
combat (Version 3.03; Paradox Entertainment, 2010). While these are certainly important aspects
to any battle (dice rolls could be seen as a random chance factor that is outside of the player’s
control), certain elements are missing, such as the trench warfare experience of the common soldier.
Soldiers and battles turn into nothing but flashing red numbers (which let you know how many men
are lost per turn), and a single, impersonal, three-dimensional figure represents the entire army. Yet
Victoria II, while clearly not providing an experience that demonstrates the reality of trench warfare,
comes closer to the experience of decision makers and generals behind the lines, for whom the war
unfolded on maps and in memoranda.

In terms of the criteria to convey the reasons for the war, Battlefield 1 hardly examines the key
factors. The closest the game gets to discussing the reasons for the war comes during the prologue
mission, which is designed for the player to understand how needless and violent the First World War
turned out to be (Version 1.09; Electronic Arts, 2016). In this way, Battlefield 1 clearly showcases
the general belief of soldiers and the public in 1917-1918, in that the war was seen as unnecessary
and drained Europe of its sons (Brose, 2010, p. 150). It is understandable this was a strong belief
in the European population, as 31% or 21,000,000 European men who joined the army received
wounds. This does not include the figures for the dead (Brose, 2010, p. 151). Portraying the idea
that the war was a waste of lives is an admirable pursuit for a videogame and a valid historical
representation of the past as the game clearly emphasizes the horrors of war. However, the reason
for the war is not explicitly discussed in the game.

Victoria II better explains the reasons countries went to war. It is important to note though that
the First World War is not actually an inevitable event in all play-throughs of the game. Instead,
Victoria II forces the player to make alliances, manage a national economy, monitor class relations
domestically, and keep their country ahead in technology (Version 3.03; Paradox Entertainment,
2010). These systems are complex, and the game can be difficult to master as a result, but this is
also Victoria II ’s strength. By showing how complex managing a country can be and by identifying
all of the factors that contribute to an industrialised war machine, the game gives players a detailed
grasp of the situations that existed in the decades leading up to the First World War. While it does
not explain the beginnings of the First World War, Victoria II certainly allows for the player to
understand some of the calculations of the Great Powers and the forces that acted upon the leaders
of those nations in deciding to go to war, as the player must analyse how warfare will be harmful or
beneficial to their nation.

Both games have differing analyses for the reasons for the war, but they also have different ideas
on how to approach the systems of alliances that existed in Europe in 1914. Battlefield 1 does not
mention these alliance systems. In the game, the player is only given the goal of eliminating their
enemies (Version 1.09; Electronic Arts, 2016). The enemy happens to be whoever is attempting
to kill the player during the game, whether German or American. The game basically decides for
the player who the enemies and allies are, and the possibility of the player altering or influencing
those alliances is effectively foreclosed. While this might be an accurate reflection of the experience
of the average soldier, it does not engage critically with the idea of the alliance systems prior to
the outbreak of war. In fact, in single-player mode, users are only able to play as a combatant
representing a few of the warring powers: the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Italy,
Australia, and Arab nationalists. Russia and France can be added through downloadable content

The Arbutus Review • 2017 • Vol. 8, No. 1 • http://dx.doi.org/10.18357/tar81201716814

(DLC). It is the fact that the player is unable to take on the role of Germans or Austro-Hungarians
in this mode that is the most egregious weakness of Battlefield 1. Not allowing players to experience
the war through the eyes of a German or Austro-Hungarian soldier is problematic because it evokes
a sense of British and American righteousness and paints the German-speaking powers, much like
they were seen in the Second World War, as the undemocratic and militaristic enemies of the free
English-speaking world. Yet, history proves this interpretation is incorrect. While Germany and
Austria-Hungary deserve some blame for the First World War, the Entente powers of France, Russia,
and the United Kingdom were also responsible for the First World War (Clark, 2012, p. 123). As
Christopher Clark points out, “without the two blocs, the war could not have broken out the way
that it did. The bipolar system structured the environment in which the crucial decisions were made”
(2012, p. 123). Here, Clark does not blame a particular nation for the war, but rather blames the
bipolar alliance system. Therefore, it is not only German and Austro-Hungarian leaders who were
responsible for the war, but the alliance system that had divided the continent into opposing blocks.
Furthermore, this interpretation also shows how there were no villainous nations or great nations.
All nations were responsible (Clark, 2012, p. 123). Unfortunately, Battlefield 1 does not delve into
this nuance and instead leaves the player with the impression that the Germans are warmongering
and militant.

Victoria II ’s interpretation of the systems of alliances is more nuanced than Battlefield 1’s.
Playing as the leader of a great power in 1836, a gamer may decide to establish an alliance or
rivalry with any country that existed in the world (Version 3.03; Paradox Entertainment, 2010).
This allows for a range of counterfactual events. However, it is still possible for something similar
to the First World War to occur. Indeed, the game’s baseline starting point does place certain
countries within predetermined spheres of influence and virtually guarantees that conflict will occur
often over particular issues. For example, the artificial intelligence (AI: when software mimics the
cognitive functions of a human player by problem solving and learning from the player) of France in
the game often attempts to incorporate Alsace-Lorraine into its sphere of influence, and as Prussia,
Alsace-Lorraine is crucial in order to form Germany due to pre-determined win objectives set by
the game (Version 3.03; Paradox Entertainment, 2010). This sets up a conflict between France and
Prussia and will lead to tensions between France and the newly created Germany, similar to what
occurred in history (Clark, 2012, p. 124). Of course, Victoria II is a counterfactual game, and as a
result, France may not necessarily attempt to incorporate Alsace-Lorraine in its sphere of influence.
Instead, it could focus its attention somewhere different, or it may even decide to have an alliance
with Prussia. The opportunity to make history is one of the strengths of Victoria II, as it implicitly
argues for the notion that historical events are not inevitable but rather the result of extremely
complicated factors. However, even with this implicit argument, Victoria II does set preferences for
the AI, and the personalities of certain nations create the likelihood of certain outcomes occurring,
including a large conflict like the First World War (Version 3.03; Paradox Entertainment, 2010).
Moreover, given the counterfactual nature of the game, the First World War may not necessarily
break out over the area of Bosnia, but the probability of a global crisis occurring is still extremely
high. This is due to the international crisis system.

The international crisis system is a game mechanism that enables smaller, minor powers to
appeal to the eight Great Powers of the world in order to solve a dispute (Version 3.03; Paradox
Entertainment, 2010). For the smaller nation, a “backer” is required in the form of one of the eight
Great Powers. After this occurs, an international crisis is triggered. During an international crisis,
the Great Powers are encouraged to take a side in the conflict. In fact, if they decide to remain
neutral, there is a penalty to the nations. Unfortunately, the negative consequence of joining a
side is that afterwards the player becomes committed to that side of the conflict, and with each
Great Power joining in the crisis, it deepens and becomes more difficult to resolve. The process can

The Arbutus Review • 2017 • Vol. 8, No. 1 • http://dx.doi.org/10.18357/tar81201716814

take many months in-game to end, and with each day the game has a greater chance of creating a
World War between the Great Powers. To make a simple analogy to the First World War, Serbia
would be considered the smaller nation claiming lands in Austria-Hungary, and the Russian Empire
would be the backer of Serbia, precipitating the crisis after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.
Eventually, Germany would decide to choose the side of Austria, and France would choose the side
of Russia and Serbia. Italy would be a neutral third power and the United Kingdom would be
a supporter of France and Russia. Between the beginning of the crisis (the assassination of the
Archduke) and the war, the crisis was further deepened as negotiations failed between the Great
Powers and eventually war was declared. In this way, Victoria II ’s model can produce an accurate
simulation of the beginning of the war and is able to implicitly explain the beginning of the First
World War and the alliance system that existed in Europe at the time of the war. By doing this,
the game is a valid example of historical representation.

In summary, Battlefield 1 and Victoria II are two videogames that attempt to give players a
depiction of the past and have different strengths and weaknesses in how they attempt to achieve
this goal. On the one hand, Battlefield 1 excels when it is depicting the human element of war and
for giving an overall sense of what could have happened during the First World War, but it fails with
the elements chosen to be analysed in this paper; namely, Battlefield 1 does not cover trench warfare
in depth, nor does it discuss the reasons for the war or explain the political alliance system. It
does, however, give a good representation of the unnecessary nature of the war. On the other hand,
Victoria II sacrifices the personal for other elements. Trench warfare is not shown or examined in
detail, but the game covers the reasons for the war and the political alliance system. While it may
not always be accurate, Victoria II does certainly provide an example of how to represent the past
in videogaming. Overall, videogames may not be accurate, at least the ones in this analysis, but
this is a fairly simplistic argument to make. Similar to Rosenstone’s analysis of film, the evaluation
of videogames must also be on how well they represent history. In this way, Victoria II clearly gives
a sense of what occurred in the past and brings it closer to modern audiences, whereas Battlefield 1
fails almost every measure of the accuracy of historical representation, except for its depiction of
the emotional and human impact of the First World war.

YouTube

Modern audiences are not only using videogames to receive historical information. YouTube is
another platform that seeks to bring the past closer to the public. Similar to videogames, it also
informs a younger audience, but crucially, watching YouTube and playing a videogame are different
in terms of receiving information. While videogames require the active participation of the player,
YouTube offers more a passive way to engage with history and is an easy medium to access via
modern electronic devices. This could be why, according to YouTube’s most recent statistics, the
site boasts over a billion users and reaches more 18 to 49 year olds than any cable network in the
United States (YouTube, 2017, para. 1). This means YouTube is becoming increasingly popular and
is often looked to for entertainment, which occasionally includes content about history. YouTube is
a platform, so this paper will analyse two YouTube channels instead of the platform itself. These
channels are Crash Course World History and The Great War and they will be analysed in relation
to the same elements used to assess videogames: trench warfare, the reasons for the war, and the
First World War alliance system. This paper argues that these channels aim to teach their viewers
about the past and give an accurate representation of history.

Crash Course World History is a video series created by the Green Brothers, Hank and John
(“Crash Course,” n.d.). It is essentially a survey course for those who are curious about the past. The
First World War makes an appearance in four episodes: “How World War I Started: Crash Course

The Arbutus Review • 2017 • Vol. 8, No. 1 • http://dx.doi.org/10.18357/tar81201716814

World History 209,” “Who Started World War I: Crash Course World History 210,” “Archdukes,
Cynicism, and World War I: Crash Course World History #36,” and “America in World War I:
Crash Course US History #30.” In this series, John Green explains complex historical problems as
well as the generally accepted history of the war. According to the creators, the purpose of Crash
Course is to “create free, high-quality educational videos used by teachers and learners of all kinds”
(“Crash Course,” n.d.). The series is thus explicitly pedagogical in intent.

Another video series on YouTube with content on the First World War is The Great War. This
series follows the First World War week-by-week with a very in-depth narrative account of the war
in order to mark the centennial of the conflict (“Indy Neidell,” n.d.). The channel even includes
some special episodes about certain countries, people, and groups (“Indy Neidell,” n.d.). The team
behind The Great War describe themselves as a “dedicated group of around five Berlin-based people
most of whom work full time for this project as employees of Mediakraft Networks, a German multi
channel network” (“Indy Neidell,” n.d., para. 2). While the channel does not go into a vast amount
of detail about the war, it does discuss the significant points.

Whereas the two videogames analyzed do not often display trench warfare, the YouTube channels
both examine the trenches in some capacity. Crash Course World History discusses the trenches
during “Archdukes, Cynicism, and World War I,” as host John Green says: “The lines of trenches
on the Western Front covered only about 400 miles as the crow flies, but because of the endless
zigzagging, the trenches themselves may have run as much as 25,000 miles” (“Archdukes,” 2012,
3:14–3:40). Here, there are specific details about the trenches that the video discusses and they use
the trenches in order to transition into another of their topics. For example, after Green delivers
the line about trenches, he immediately states that trench warfare did not exist in every theatre
of war, and in fact, he uses this as an opportunity to briefly introduce the more forgotten Eastern
Front and the Ottoman theatre of war (“Archdukes,” 2012, 3:14–3:40). This creates a video that is
constantly engaging and allows Green to mention multiple areas of interest to the audience, without
sacrificing accuracy.

The Great War also covers trench warfare, but does this with specific videos about trench warfare.
For example, their video “Trench Warfare in World War 1” identifies the trenches as a worthwhile
topic in itself because, as host Indy Neidell explains, “When people think of the First World War,
one of the very first images that comes to mind is of soldiers in the filthy muddy trenches, fighting,
smoking, or just being miserable” (“Trench Warfare,” 2014, 0:00–0:15). While Neidell appears to
betray his channel’s objectives for covering the trenches (it is a popular topic and therefore the
video will generate more views, which will generate more revenue), the video itself covers much
about the trenches. The history of trenches, how they came about, how they were supplied and
what their conditions were, are all covered by Neidell (“Trench Warfare,” 2014, 0:15–12:02). Indeed,
the detail with which Neidell covers the trenches seems to resonate with viewers, judging by the
view count of the episode, which has one of the highest number of views on the channel, at 483,566
as of April 4, 2017 (“Trench Warfare,” n.d.). Furthermore, The Great War makes sure to cite their
materials in the description of their video. Their sources are often recent (the oldest work cited is
from 2000) and include both German and English works by respected academics such as Peter Hart
and John Keegan (“Trench Warfare,” n.d.).

While YouTube channels may be factually correct in their discussions on trench warfare, the
reasons for the outbreak of the First World War are also an important barometer of how YouTube
channels portray the past. Crash Course addresses the reasons for the war explicitly in a video
series titled “How World War I Started” and “Who Started World War I.” In “How World War I
Started,” Green explains how difficult it can be to describe how a historical event occurred:

The question we’re looking at today is how. And that’s a much more modest question
because we can simply discuss a series of events but it’s still a complicated one because

The Arbutus Review • 2017 • Vol. 8, No. 1 • http://dx.doi.org/10.18357/tar81201716814

when you’re talking about how, you’re always picking from an uncountable number of
things that happened. (“How World War I Started,” 2014, 1:39–1:50)

Here, Green explains an important aspect about historical understanding; namely, he is examining
not only how the war occurred, but also how the audience must be careful in analysing the past
and how cause and effect impact our understanding of what occurred. This is a surprising account
of history, as Green moves away from a simple narrative account of the war but also moves into
the significance of historical study itself. Of course, Green does examine how the war occurred,
but he also does this in-depth and critically. For example, in “Who Started World War I,” Green
discusses how previous historians have argued that it was German militarism that began the war. He
examines this argument through speaking to his “Me from the Past” persona who typically supplies
Green the most commonly agreed-upon response in public discourse. Essentially, “Me from the Past”
is John Green, but before he became educated about the subject matter. For the public, this is an
effective device for showing how consciousness can be transformed through historical investigation.
The following is a conversation on the reasons for the beginning of the First World War:

Me from the Past (MP): “Mr. Green, Mr. Green! That’s easy, the Germans started the
war.”
Green: “Well, Me from the Past, as it happens many historians and British politicians
would agree with you. I mean, you have an opinion that can be defended. . . ”
MP: “. . . Maybe they. . . really liked war? I’m not really in the defending positions
business. . . ”
Green: “. . . there’s more to life than that.” (“Who Started World War I,” 2014, 0:19–0:43)

This quote exemplifies Green’s engaging with commonly understood public discourse and prompts
Green’s excursion into who started the war because, as he notes, history is more complicated than
the Germans simply wanting war. He discusses how this argument began in the 1960s when Fritz
Fischer identified Germany as the chief cause of the war, but he also explains this idea likely began
in public opinion due to Germany’s guilt being written into the Treaty of Versailles in Article 231
(“Who Started World War I,” 2014, 1:09–1:29). He also explains how it could be understandable that
the European public would believe in German aggression being the main reason for the war given
how the Second World War began due to the German invasion of Poland, and given the proximity
of the Second World War to readers of the 1960s (“Who Started World War I,” 2014, 1:29–1:45).
Having stated these points, Green goes on to refute the idea of Germany being solely responsible
for the war. He accomplishes this by pointing out the irony of him living in the United States, a
country that spends more on national defence than any other nation on Earth:

Attributing characteristics like militarism or authoritarianism to entire national popu-
lations is a little problematic. Also, one nation’s militarism is another nation’s strong
national defence, and when you live in the country, as I do, that spends more on defence
than any other nation, it’s probably not that good of an idea to call people militaristic.
(“Who Started World War I,” 2014, 1:58–2:20)

Here, Green makes history relevant to the present and begins to encourage the audience to question
their own views and how similar they could be to the people of the past.

The Great War takes a slightly different approach to the reasons for the war, as it operates
under a constrained structure: namely, a week-by-week narration of the main events of the war. The
channel does not provide a forum to analyse the arguments for the war and largely stays on the
narrative and event-focused path. In the episode “The Outbreak of WWI—How Europe Spiraled

The Arbutus Review • 2017 • Vol. 8, No. 1 • http://dx.doi.org/10.18357/tar81201716814

into the Great War,” Neidell emphasizes the assassination of the Archduke of Austria-Hungary and
the blank cheque given to Austria by Germany. Similar to Crash Course, The Great War attempts
to dispel the idea that Germany was solely responsible for the war. As Neidell notes, “as an aside
here—[the idea to go to war] was the opinion of the generals and some government leaders but it was
not the opinion of the German people at large” (“The Outbreak,” 2014, 3:30–3:38). Here, Neidell
argues against the contemporary popular opinion that Germany started the war and also continues
the idea of teaching the audience about what really happened. Neidell even points out that on
July 6, 1914, the Kaiser took a three-week vacation to Norway (“The Outbreak,” 2014, 4:12). As
Neidell says, “[this] is kind of not what you’d do if you were basically the most powerful man in the
world [and about to go to war]” (“The Outbreak,” 2014, 4:12). In this quote, Neidell does not offer
any significant discussions about history, but he does suggest that commonly agreed upon opinions
in the public (and some academic circles) do not always constitute the truth of history. While it
would have been better for The Great War to look at the wider academic discourse, because this
would make it more legitimate in the eyes of historians, the channel offers a solid narrative account
of the war and attempts to make its own argument for the reasons for the First World War. The
channel does this by discussing how Austria-Hungary was the main culprit in the war. As Neidell
states, “Everybody except Austria thought [that the Serbian response to the Austrian ultimatum]
was just fine, but Austria was determined to go to war” (“The Outbreak,” 2014, 6:02–6:08). Here,
The Great War is able to position itself in wider debates on the reasons for the First World War
and also is able to later convey the complexity of placing blame on a country for the First World
War, as multiple powers were involved.

The final point of examination in this paper is to assess if the YouTube content creators are able
to get it right in regards to how the channels represent the political alliance system that existed in
the First World War. Crash Course World History begins this discussion with the video “How World
War I Started.” The main focus of this episode is to examine the events of July and August 1914
and how an assassination turned into a pan-European conflict. Green uses an animation, “Thought
Bubble,” to explain what occurred and how the alliances led to war. Instead of the audience watching
Green sitting in his chair, this device continues to hold the audience’s attention while moving images
(cartoon figures) show the complexities of a topic. Green provides a voice-over for the animations as
he continues to examine the occurrences leading up to an event. Green informs the viewer that,
while he usually does not make a point of addressing dates specifically in the show, he will make
an exception for the origins of the First World War because of the sequence of events and their
importance to the history of the war (“How World War I Started,” 2014, 5:52–5:58). Green then
goes on to mention that Russia had begun pre-mobilization efforts on July 25, 1914 and was the
first nation to mobilize on July 30, 1914 (“How World War I Started,” 2014, 5:58–7:04). Austria
had declared war on July 28, 1914, but as Green explains, this war was isolated between Serbia and
Austria, with Russia not being threatened directly (“How World War I Started,” 2014, 5:58–7:04).
Germany warned Russia to stand down, but mobilized on August 1, 1914 and declared war on Russia
(2014, 5:58–7:04). France also mobilized on August 1 in support of Russia, and Germany formally
declared war on France on August 3, 1914 (2014, 5:58–7:04). Here, Green sorts through the minutiae
of explaining both how the war began and how the alliances precipitated these declarations of war,
ultimately tying the significance of the war to lessons for the contemporary audience. Green states,

Please remember that we are always in the middle of a ”how.” Those living in June and
July of 1914 could never have imagined how significant that month would be for human
history. . . we also can’t imagine what our decisions today will mean in 100 years. (“How
World War I Started,” 2014, 8:19–8:35)

Here, Green once again makes sure to insert gravity into the value of present actions and how history

The Arbutus Review • 2017 • Vol. 8, No. 1 • http://dx.doi.org/10.18357/tar81201716814

is constantly being made.
The Great War may not dwell on the broader historical implications, but still presents an

accurate account of the alliance system. The video “Europe Prior to World War I: Alliances and
Enemies” not only explicitly examines Europe’s web of alliances, but also mentions why the alliances
existed. Neidell looks at the historical rivalry between Germany and France, Russia’s fears for
the Dardanelles, and even the shaky alliance between the United Kingdom and France (they still
had plans to invade each other in the early 20th century) as background to why the alliances
existed in the way they did in 1914 (“Europe Prior to World War I,” 2014, 5:58–6:45). Neidell
specifically delves into why the British may have sought protection from their historical rival France
by explaining the Anglo-German naval race and explores how Germany provoked Britain to seek
further protection by challenging Britain’s major defence: their navy (“Europe Prior to World War I,”
2014, 7:06–8:52). While Neidell and the Great War team may not challenge commonly agreed-upon
ideas about the beginning of the war, they give a better sense of the motivations of the European
powers by explaining how the situation in June 1914 came to be. For example, in Russia’s case,
Neidell speaks of Russia’s previous humiliations by Japan in 1905 and Russia’s inability to prevent
Bosnian annexation in 1908, a factor that contributed to the Tsar’s later readiness to aggressively
defend Russian interests in the Balkans (“Tinderbox Europe,” 2014, 6:55–7:00). In this way, The
Great War alludes to a key principle in historical studies; namely, that history does not fit into a
clean timeframe. For instance, the reasons for the First World War cannot be determined by looking
at the year 1914 alone: One must go back to 1905 and (much more often) go back even further to
understand events in history. Indeed, one may even examine the Mughal Empire to understand
Russian aggressiveness, as an example. The point is that The Great War teaches the audience about
the complex and causal relationship of history, and how, to understand one event, historians must
look back even further.

In the end, YouTube may not be a conventional medium to understand the past, yet these
channels demonstrate a conscious striving for accuracy in the pursuit of historical truth and to
represent how history actually was. The channels Crash Course World History and The Great War
all address trench warfare, the reasons for the war and the First World War alliance system in their
own ways, but fundamentally share this same core principle. These channels also seek to educate
their audiences, and with many young people turning to YouTube increasingly for entertainment
and learning, this may not be a negative development in the way history is disseminated to the
public.

Conclusion

On one hand, Battlefield 1 and Victoria II have different strengths and weaknesses when looking
through the lens of how the games represent the First World War through trench warfare, the
reasons for the war, and the systems of alliances that existed before the war. Battlefield 1 gives the
audience a good sense of how the war was perceived and the human toll of the war, but is guilty of
oversimplifying the war to make it more appealing to audiences. Victoria II is about diplomacy,
and as a result, showcases the difficulty of negotiations between the world powers and how difficult
it must have been to stop a political crisis from devolving into war. On the other hand, the two
YouTube channels Crash Course World History and The Great War attempt to depict the past
as it actually was and adhere more closely to a documentary style approach, where truth is the
first objective. As one can appreciate from these channels, the ideas of this truth of the war can
vary, due to the different interpretations of what was important to the ideas of trench warfare, the
reasons for the war and the systems of alliances. Much like a debate between academics, individuals
with different biases decide that some elements are more important. In fact, John Green alludes to

The Arbutus Review • 2017 • Vol. 8, No. 1 • http://dx.doi.org/10.18357/tar81201716814

this when he says,

Looking at the diplomatic causes of the war also reveals something to us about the
pitfalls of writing history. . . historians have to sift through all of these sources and make
choices about which ones to emphasize. . . we had to make choices that many of you will
disagree with. Either because you don’t think we gave enough evidence or because you
don’t like the things that we emphasized, and that’s great. It’s these constructive and
critical conversations that lead us to dig deeper, to consult more primary sources, to
read more broadly, and that in turn leads to a richer understanding of the world and a
more engaged life. (“Who Started World War I,” 2014, 9:25–10:11)

Here, Green acknowledges the biases of the show and acknowledges that its interpretation of the war
is not necessarily the only one that can be made, making Crash Course good educational material,
not only about the First World War, but also about history itself.

Young audiences are engaging with videogames and YouTube and are learning about history
through these media by playing games such as Victoria II and for watching channels such as Crash
Course. Due to the centennial of the conflict in the 2010s, the First World War has captured the
public’s imagination and as a result is increasingly represented through these media. These forms
of media also appear to be here to stay, and will only continue to capture more of the public’s
imagination in the future. Therefore, we, as historians, need to engage with these media regularly in
order to ensure the past is represented adequately. Some specific recommendations on how to engage
with these media include setting up a public history course, reaching out to software developers (and
vice versa), starting a YouTube channel, writing articles and reviews, or even mentioning videogames
and YouTube to classes by bringing them up in discussions or by showing short clips. By using
some of these recommendations, historians will be able to engage more critically with these media.

The Arbutus Review • 2017 • Vol. 8, No. 1 • http://dx.doi.org/10.18357/tar81201716814