2013 Hagey Lecture: Margaret MacMillan - Choice or Accident: The Outbreak of World War One
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Thursday, September 19, 2013 at 8:00 pm in the Humanities Theatre, Hagey Hall.
Professor Margaret MacMillan is regarded as a leading historian of the British Empire at the turn of the 20th century. She is an officer of the Order of Canada, a member of the Royal Society of Literature, and a professor of history at Oxford University. In addition to numerous articles on Canadian and world affairs, Professor MacMillan has written several award-winning books, including The Uses and Abuses of History and Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World.
Waterloo's premier invitational public lecture series since 1970, the Hagey Lectures are co-sponsored by the Faculty Association and the University of Waterloo.
One of the very best experts of the First World War. And, of course a brilliant speaker. Thanks.
Could listen to Margaret MacMillan all day on any historical subject.
What a lucid, comprehensive and insightful lecture on such a complex topic. The best I've ever seen by far. Thanks very much for sharing.
Shameless propaganda for the unthinking sheep.
Ryan Delmar How....?
@@flashers.5212 bu7hb7u by I y6
Found it very thought provoking in regards to 'accidents' sometimes guiding the course of history. I found myself going back and listening to it a second time, so I could make notes of the incidents and research a little more on my own. Very much enjoyed this lecture and the presentation style of Prof. MacMillan. In researching other works she has done, found out she is the great-granddaughter of David Lloyd George. Very interesting.
Don't you just love it when your teacher send you an hour long lecture to watch... Apart from that this is a very good explanation for such a complicated topic
Why, is an hour an eternity for you?
Starts at 6:00
Simply, noone is better than Margaret.
Enjoyed this. My tutor recommended another Margaret Macmillan interview, as part of our course. This lecture was thought provoking and I look forward to viewing it again
Wow ! An amazing lecture !!! The lady is a star !!! Thank you so much for this ! Panagiota Angelopoulou-Anoni
Great lecture always worth exploring the past to understand the present.
The following dialog from the film _Double Indemnity_ is relevant...
_That was it, Keyes, and there was no use kidding myself any more. Those fates I was talking about had only been stalling me off. Now they had thrown the switch. The gears had meshed. The machinery had started to move and nothing could stop it. The time for thinking had all run out. From here on it was a question of following the time table, move by move, just as we had it rehearsed._
Don't forget the Navy and way Britain used it a lot of countries were exploiting rather than sharing .
"All great events have been distorted, most of the important causes concealed.... If the history of England is ever written by one who has the knowledge and the courage, the world would be astonished. " this quote is from Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. Europe was peaceful for most of 18th century --- what changed??? Industrial revolution gave power to new class of people.
There has been no more accurate summary of what took place during the French Revolution than by F E Groenfield who writes, "The French Revolution therefore, was the essentially chaotic and often violent process by which political power passed into the hands of those who already possessed economic power". In the words of one economic historian, "It make the bourgeoisie the masters of the world".
Brilliant
She said at 1:18:42 that greater powers don't want to restrain their smaller power allies because it would make the greater powers look weak and afraid of war. There's more to it than that. It's also because they don't want to lose their allies.
Germany didn't restrain Austria-Hungary primarily out of fear of losing them, not out of fear of looking weak. (Ms. McMillan said as much during the lecture.) Germany didn't want them to align with France. The French were already in an alliance with Russia-a non-democratic country-so aligning with Austria-Hungary wouldn't have bothered them.
Dr Margret MacMillan is a brilliant lecturer, especially her articulation is quite understandable even for not native English speakers. Unfortunately, she tends to blame mainly the Germans and the Austrians for the outbreak of WW 1.
Why is it so frequent that they don't manage to install working microphones?!
There was great eagerness for war among some in France. It was thought that with Russia in the fight, Germany would have its hands full, and France could get Alsace-Lorraine back.
She could not be more wrong about Kaiser Wilhelm II, who was completely sympathetic to social reforms and workers, ultimately dismissing his family's paladin, the Machiavellian Otto von Bismark, over these differences. He had a soft heart. Wilhelm wanted colonies? So what. They were the second largest economy in the world after the United States and had the best land military by far. Great Britain and the United States were playing gunboat diplomacy, but it's somehow sinister because Wilhelm wanted a Navy and Empire? Even the lazy Italians were playing empire games (Desert empires, that is). Wilhelm comes off very well in the July Crisis, he clearly did not want war and what he did to stop it is very well-documented.
The Russians caused the war. Serbia was a province of Austria-Hungary, their military attempted to assassinate Emperor Franz Josef, failing that they settled on the Archduke (Ironically, a total reformer and probably the only realistic champion of Serbian autonomy). Russia had its eyes on the Bosporus and Istanbul, the feckless Czar was incapable of stopping his own internal warmongering power-brokers, and they began mobilizing, basically the equivalent of racking a 9mm and pointed it at your opponent. Wilhelm II tried to mediate, he warned his cousin the Czar, he even attempted to tell his own warplanners to send his armies east to fight the Russians and not France. This is one of his telegrams to Czar Nicholas basically saying you need to back down. He was anything but the hothead McMillan makes him out to be.
Berlin, 31. July 1914
On your appeal to my friendship and your call for assistance began to mediate between your and the Austro-Hungarian Government. While this action was proceeding your troops were mobilised against Austro-Hungary, my ally. thereby, as I have already pointed out to you, my mediation has been made almost illusory.
I have nevertheless continued my action. I now receive authentic news of serious preparations for war on my Eastern frontier. Responsibility for the safety of my empire forces preventive measures of defence upon me. In my endeavours to maintain the peace of the world I have gone to the utmost limit possible. The responsibility for the disaster which is now threatening the whole civilized world will not be laid at my door. In this moment it still lies in your power to avert it. Nobody is threatening the honour or power of Russia who can well afford to await the result of my mediation. My friendship for you and your empire, transmitted to me by my grandfather on his deathbed has always been sacred to me and I have honestly often backed up Russia when she was in serious trouble especially in her last war.
The peace of Europe may still be maintained by you, if Russia will agree to stop the milit. measures which must threaten Germany and Austro-Hungary.
Serbia was not a province of Austria-Hungary
@@matthiasm4299 Still did not give the the right to assassinate the A-H heir to the throne and his wife.
Bollocks!
Don't give Vienna a blank check if your only plan on the table is "if the Russians mobilize, we'll invade Belgium."
It's an irrational response out of all proportion to the problem Russian mobilisation presented.
Germany started World War I.
How anyone can deny that fact, is beyond me.
It is a toss up between Professors MacMillan and Christopher Clark as to who has the most comprehensive overview of the events leading to the disaster of 1914-18 and on.
Perhaps it is best to say that they complement each other.
At 41:50 mins, a widely accepted but flawed view that Germany's navy was a threat to GB in any way.
The Risk Theory was intended to avoid a blockade of German ports as during the Franco-Prussian War in 1871, because any navy which tried that again would either be annihilated OR (in the case of the Royal Navy) gravely weakened.
It was a defensive policy.
Proof of this is.
1. All German big guns ships were essentially short range North Sea and Baltic vessels.
2. Germany had no major naval bases around the world.
3. Germany built no tenders or coal supply ships to use these big gun battleships anywhere else but the Baltic and North Sea.
4. Germany had few cruisers (suitably for LR world-wide patrols), but many Battleships and destroyers (called torpedo boats, and much smaller than the destroyers in other navies). In other words, excellent to break a blockade.
IMHO, the British fear of a threat was an over-reaction.
Greg Pesano IMO it's a matter of opinion.
The German HSF was not strong enough to blockade the British isles, nor effective enough to sever connections between GB and her overseas colonies.
It could therefore not be seen as a active threat, but rather a "passive" threat.
macsporan How would a numerically inferior navy destroy a numerically superior navy?
Unless some disaster occured such as a Travalgar. There was no danger at all. ..
Napoleon lost at Trafalgar but was far from finished. If the British lost at sea they were finished. Admiral of the Fleet Lord Jericho was the 'only man who could lose the war in an afternoon' . This thinking went back to the Spanish Armada in 1588. Jutland showed that the British could have lost.
"Great powers get dragged along by smaller powers" or allies. Similar to the relationship between the US and Israel.
Some small allies make great power so much smarter
Margaret MacMillan is like a rock star
Yes...loud, stupid, useless and harmful.
whats your problem with her?
Blatant propaganda, like most "historians."
Ryan Delmar and can you explain what that propaganda is ??? why you disagree
Very good, I would have liked to have heard more with regard to social darwinism, only because I amhaving problems finding usable, primary sources for a project of my own.
Try an H.G.Wells' appendix. Or got on google scholar. There is a ton of stuff out there. What project are you up to atm?
With regard to western European perceptions of the combatant nations in the Russo-Japanese and Balkans wars.
Interesting. The pre-WW1 Russo-Japanese war is one I know very little about.
Having explained the political structures, their operations, leaders, the game theory mindset of too high a cost of backing down next time, the draewing up of sides, and the increased lethality of the war machines, she then takes the conclusion that it was all inexplicable. Well, duh, she just explained it. It was not done by deliberate overall design, but it was the logical possibility, simply realized.
I might not comment at all, but for the very obvious point that we now have nuclear and biological genetic weapons, are quite fond of war and will find a way to repeat it. The presence of nukes is a sure sign this will go down faster than a knive fight in a phone booth. This is the scariest video I have evet seen.
Like the passengers on Agatha Christie's Orient Express, _all_ the major powers of Europe plus Serbia were responsible for the outbreak of the Great War. Any one of them could have stopped the "dominoes falling" by pulling out of their alliance, thus ceasing the storm of ultimatums.
They memed themselves into killing 10 million soldiers.
Wars do not happen accidentally. They are the products of competition for power and money. All the rest are useless words
MacMillan comes on at 6:21
Margaret MacMillan is the great grand-daughter of Lloyd George.
Excellent.
Given that the British king (who died a few years before WW1) with the entente had encircled the new biggest power in Europe, Germany, and tried to destroy it's navy which they were building up, it is obvious that he wanted to keep on being the biggest empire. They forced Germany into a war to make it weaker. So no, not an accident but the result of decades of politics by Great Britain.
Also to say that after Napoleon until WW1 Europe had known peace is pure nonsense. There were wars constantly. Prussia against France, the revolutions of 1848/49 throughout Europe, Russia against Turkey, the Crimean wars, etc.
Interesting background to the events, unfortunately short on detail about how the events unfolded in 1914 between the assassination of the Arch Duke and the actual outbreak of war.
To leave it to accident and a few choices was a little disappointment.
The roles of Russian, German and French military advisers along with their desires to act before it was to late.
Putting pressure on the Tsar, Kaiser and French Government.
Why did the British decide to give Germany an ultimatum, why did the Germans ignore it.
It was more complicated.
In a 54 minute lecture you cannot expect to have an exhaustive going over of every
detail. For that sort of thing you may have to invest some of your own time and effort.
See ''Remembrance Day ceremony 2018 Hervey Bay.'.
This talk was very depressing.
This is all fine and good. Prof. MacMillan's lecture is intelligent and eloquent. However! Hermann Goering famously described the reality: Tell people their country is being attacked and they drink the Kool-Ade And it's not just the uneducated masses. I quote a big bold statement at top of Page 86 of the May-June 2022 Yale Alumni Magazine from man who graduated in the same class as me, 1968: "Jamie Harris writes about Ukraine, 'This horrendous aggression is a wake up call for all countries and people who care about a democratic way of life.'" ~ I try to get a Letter to the Editor not even opposing TV Commando Z's war but just saying I did not attend my commencement ceremony but stood in my "cap and gown" at a gate to the Old Campus with a little tin can collecting donations for Vietnam quaker War Relief from people who did attend (I got $130). My little note is not printed. Go figure!
She says 101 years ago, in 2013 it was 99 years ago. But she's an historian not a mathmetician.
She acknowledges the mistake at @1:02:48
Russia Germany France Britain Austria-Hungary 'the old boy network' honed to a tee.
The British parliament did not pass the first legislation saying YES to war. The second time when parliament agreed to go to war LITTLE BELGIUM had been invaded. BUT someone out there go and find the commercial agreements with Britain and the Belgium Congo In Africa over mineral rights. Who lobbied the British government re the Belgium commercial interests thinking the war would be OVER by CHRISTMAS
tsar nicholas the second of france
Tsar Nicholas the second of France !!!
Well I heard this, too. A slip of the tongue. She did not, in making this mistake, refer to Nicholas as “tsar. “
49:10 There was barbed wire in the American Civil War? Well that's new. The first patent for it was until two years after the war. And it was 9 years after the war that mass manufacturing of it was possible. You kinda oops big time on this one Dr MacMillan.
قيادية.
Brits and Americans referred to Germans as The Hun.
Thomas Sharon Anderson Cynthia Lee Jeffrey
Clark George Robinson William Perez Charles
Again historians are omitting the essential !
Walker Angela Moore Mary Hall Ronald
يعني يا مارغة ريت من الجمهور. أ. ديني. كندا sécurité.
MacMillian is great at 'look how brilliant I am and how much I can remember and speaks of', but is hopeless, or afraid of, analysis (might sully her pretend brilliance). Much of the detail is pedantic and correct but just muddies the waters.
And she does not address the topic as titled nor does she come to a conclusion; was it choice or accident?
The cause of the war was pretty straight forward and understandable when you look at the decision making process and decision makers (rather than look at all the factors and the settings for war). Understanding starts when you realise general war was not the aim - it was actually against the National Interest of each of them. Each of the initial protagonists, Germany, Russia and AH, were aiming for very limited and specific war aims.
When Germany was dealing with Russia she never knew who the apparent decision maker was they should address or deal with. One day it was the PM then, the Tsar and then the Foreign Minister. And the same with Germany. Do you think that the German Foreign Office was consulted and the ramifications were considered before Germany sovereignty was handed to AH by the Blank Cheque? And the back channel communications between the German General Staff and the AH General Staff etc. I wouldn't call it conspiracy or plotting (although close to it) but rather cross purposes and lack of defined responsibilities and the lack of a managed decision making process - too many self important, narrow focused, narrowed minded and unmanaged cooks.
And the same through out Europe as illustrated by the British 'are we in or out' decision making and the back channel military conversations/commitments. No one is without blame, it is all by degrees.
As MacMillian so aptly depicts Europe at peace for 100 years was meeting her potential, and developing and making great strides in economies, knowledge, technology, arts, education, communications etc, but the political decision making and mind set was back in 1814. Even during the war they were horse trading and empire building with scant regard for nationalism. self determination or any other politically liberal principles. And as MacMillan points out, our world today was shaped by these 'horse deals' and still suffers the consequences with much of the world's instability and wars being able to trace back to the decision making before and after WW1. The decision making process and the division of responsibility, and the quality, character and education of the decision makers may have improved but not with the clarity, decisiveness or quantum improvement necessary.
And fence sitting by historians mounts to not learning from the mistakes of history.
Was it accident or choice? It was neither but rather a failure of leadership and decision making process fueled by gross stupidity, self satisfaction and complacency, dereliction of responsibilities and arrogance of the self appointed and supposed elite of all of Europe.
+Graeme SYDNEY Well, I enjoy Dr. MacMillan's lectures and learn a lot as I am not well read. As to the cause of WW I, IMHO, it was because men turned their backs on Jehovah God and opted for Satan and his cadre. As Kipling said and as it is written in the Bible, the wages of sin is death (oh, and horrible slaughters accompanied by the most awful painful injuries both temporary and permanent). It is leaders, politicians, who provoke wars and then sit in the comforts of their chambers and make profits off the blood spilled. A visit to the Zero Aggression Project by Perry Willis and Jim Babka is worth a look. Also, might check out Lysander Spooner's No Treason No. 6, The Constitution of No Authority and then head on over to Marc Stevens' No State Project. All the candidates for president in the US are "Statists," i.e. they believe in the use of aggression against the very people who will vote for them. How diabolically and idiotically ironic is that; vote to enslave one's self and one's friends, neighbors, family and millions of strangers. Stupid is as stupid does - Forrest Gump's mom.
+WJack97224
" it was because men turned their backs on Jehovah God and opted for Satan and his cadre." Stupid is a s stupid writes - me, 2016.
"As Kipling said and as it is written in the Bible ....," Kipping is a novelist and the bible is a fairy tale - some quote. Here's a heads up - Moses didn't speak to a burning bush, the Jews are not Gods Chosen People, there is no contract with God; Jesus is the son of a man and not the son of God - someone screwed Mary; and Mohammad never spoke with God. These are all fairy tales and the construct of men for the purposes of men.
It is understandable that you like Dr MacMillan's non-analytical approach and her simple regurgitation of history given your non-analytical and simple unthinking regurgitation religion.
Think before you write, think for yourself, argue rationally and support with factual evidence.
+WJack97224 lay off the drugs son
+Graeme SYDNEY though i agree that jacks comment is unhelpful u should take ur own advice and think before u write. smarter people than u and me believe in those religions that u write off so easily, and no one will abandon there religion because some youtube commenter said "everything you believe in is wrong" without anything to back it up
Agree - she good at describing but refuses to analyse - long on what vv short on why!!!
Wonderful lecture, but... WWI did start over oil! And over Baghdad Bahn. Germans had found oil (ca. 1901-1903) and stricken deals with Iraq, British hadn't liked it at all. British Empire was only as strong as its navy. British Navy running on coal, while Germany dictate oil prices??. So they started messing up in the Balkans, to ward off oil transports from Iraq to Germany (The Balkan Wars, nationalists movements) And in the Middle East, to bury Germany's ally, the Ottoman Empire, by raising their own, new, full of oil, and easy to control ones (Europe's got hiccups today from this)... What started as Europe's mess, became a World War after all
germerny lost the war cuz it was a falure of prussian miltery stragy
Mrs. Margaret MacMillan your lecture abut I world war, is so naive and untrue, that I ask my self who give you a professor diploma ?????
If you ever try again to speak or write about anything from history please do the job do not try to make your view with no argument for your story.this is my most thrown 1 h of time in my life .
We can tell by your eloquence that you yourself are a highly educated professional.We'll all, I'm sure, defer to your expertise. Thank you for exposing "Mrs." MacMillan as the charlatan she is.
To answer your question about her 'professor diploma', that would be Oxford.
brian177 And we all know what a lousy and low quality university Oxford is ;-)
apis, unless you are just trolling DO enlighten us as this talk seemed to me one of the best I've heard on this subject.
+macsporan Almost all !!! Expect who was engaded in war.
Firs but not the last is the roll of Serbia in war " as agressor " .This is not true. Serbia is a victim of crazy politic of Austo-Hungary and Vaticam also.
apis1488 Is it not the case that the Black hand gang were set up, trained (in the park) and encouraged by members of the Serbian government, even if they were careful not to go through official channels to do it?
I thought her book The War that Ended Peace was an absolute masterpiece. Also very good talk. Thanks for sharing.
I have her book "Paris 1919" every single young person should have to read this book in high school, then they will understand how we got into the mess we are in today.
Margaret MacMillan is an excellent lecturer. She never disappoints.
Excellent lecture by the genius and legendary Margaret "Tasty Big Mac" MacMillan
Very good, I would have liked to have heard more with regard to social darwinism, only because I amhaving problems finding usable, primary sources for a project of my own.
What an absolutely fantastic historian and speaker. Now I am interested in World War I as never before. Absolutely fantastic and marvellous.
.
I've watched hours of videos of why the war started. I still have no idea. It simply doesn't make sense.
Greed. Britain, France, Russia and Italy agreed on carving up the ottoman empire. Germany was spoiling the game. Collapsing the Ottoman Empire would have encircled Germany and created spoils. In the end, when the great provocation came to pass, Germany signalled that it wasn’t taking this lying down.
The catastrophe was the result of the determination on both sides to achieve their grand aims. Germany was betting that the others would shrink away from its determination. The other sides doubled down on their plan. In the end, Germany was broken and the Ottoman Empire carved up.
The answer to the question who started the war is… Franz Ferdinand’s chauffeur. If he hadn’t made that wrong turn and stalled the engine right in front of Princip, Franz and Sophie might have survived an otherwise bad day in Sarajevo. There’s no guarantee the war wouldn’t have started later somehow but perhaps if it’d been another time of year when everyone wasn’t on vacation, etc., etc. Who knows. But that chauffeur has always been my Prime Suspect.
If Princip had gone for a pee!
No assassination.
His bladder is the most guilty human organ in history.
It was Conrads fault!
There I said it!
ديني وإرهابي.
لا تعتقيليني.
Soon the fulfillment of Isaiah 2:4 will take place:
"He will render judgment among the nations and set matters straight respecting many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, nor will they learn war anymore."
We will enjoy absolute peace, for all the tragical events will be forgotten, according to Isaiah 65:17:
"For look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be called to mind, Nor will they come up into the heart."
And there is more.
Very erudite and interesting talk. An extremely interesting, and so very well written book on the beginings of the War is that by Barbara Tuchman' "August 1914". Well worth a read
One of the best syntheses of the "MAIN" explain for WWI given.
So were lobsters fish or not?
At 25:00 mins. Wow. Sounds like today's military industrial complex.
For German history also read Europe -The Struggle for supremacy by Brendan Simms
The Bushes supported the eugenics movement.
fantastic lecture
I'm not hearing any analytical history here. Like who funded the pamphlet warning about Germany's manufacturing threat? All the mindsets that were swirling speaks of media control, just like now. I'm only 30mins in so will edit if I revise my position, but this is a nice narrative but poor history so far.
"Ever since the war we have been trying to figure out what was responsible for it". Hey, Lady, how about " Human Nature"?
Nothing in human nature says we need to murder millions of men. That's a copout answer. Might as well blame God and yell at the sky