Margaret MacMillan: Planning War Before 1914

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 30 окт 2024

Комментарии • 96

  • @MrDaiseymay
    @MrDaiseymay Год назад +3

    ABSOLUTELY STUPENDOUS. i'M IN MY EIGHTIES, AND HAVE ABSORBED TO TEACHINGS AND OPINIONS OF MANY GREAT MILITARY HISTORIANS; PROFESSOR MARGARET MacMILLAN, IS AMONG THE VERY BEST.

  • @halwarner3326
    @halwarner3326 3 года назад +12

    She is one of the best lecture's ever. I have listened to so many of her lectures..

  • @Birch37
    @Birch37 3 года назад +7

    What an amazing and knowledgeable woman you are Prof Margaret. Thankyou!

  • @KP-yq8id
    @KP-yq8id Год назад +5

    Great analysis. I wish I had had access to this resource when I was doing A Level history. Thank you 😊

  • @toobadbrother
    @toobadbrother 3 года назад +8

    i am very honoured to listen to the complete trilogy of the lecture.

  • @manuelgonzales2570
    @manuelgonzales2570 2 года назад +4

    Excellent lecture!

  • @aon10003
    @aon10003 7 лет назад +11

    Very good lecture-

  • @davidsabillon5182
    @davidsabillon5182 5 лет назад +8

    Great lecture

  • @jeromesassani9537
    @jeromesassani9537 3 года назад +2

    Thanks for the subtitles.

  • @charlesvanderhoog7056
    @charlesvanderhoog7056 Год назад +2

    Professor MacMillan details what Henry Kissinger calls "Into the vortex" in his brilliant book "Diplomacy". There was no reason for the First World War to come about but it did because of what politicians all across Europe and the USA thought between 1898 and 1914. Margaret MacMillan delivers a highly interesting exposition of what really happened then.

  • @ryanprosper88
    @ryanprosper88 9 лет назад +12

    It's terrible to think that the alliances were so insecure and fragmented and yet the powers went to war for each other anyway and so many people died for the sake of these alliances that were not sensible to begin with.

    • @Cotswolds1913
      @Cotswolds1913 7 лет назад +1

      It was all out of fear over what would happen if they let their rival win. Germany with more land to the east turning their attention to France at some future date. Russia making Germany's situation untenable if they let Austria-Hungary collapse or give Russia more time to industrialize.

    • @billolsen4360
      @billolsen4360 2 года назад

      The peoples' tax money at work! Make sure you give birth to plenty of sons because they're needed as cannon fodder when the fat old generals, admirals, royals and government bureaucrats in their comfy villas and palaces decide to send them into another war. France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Britain, Italy, the Ottoman Empire are all simply marvelous places with fine people or simply horrible places with awful people, depending on who we can make an alliance with.

    • @Kannot2023
      @Kannot2023 Год назад +1

      The only agresive alliance was of Central Powers, Italy and Romania declined to join Austria and Germany in war. Germany could decline to enter in war. The alliances could be broken.

    • @abc_13579
      @abc_13579 2 месяца назад

      @@Cotswolds1913Exactly. Let me add to your list England's fear of a mighty Germany if Britain sat back and let the Axis powers win. And then, of course, there's Austria-Hungary's fear of looking weak if they wouldn't respond forcefully to the assassination of their crown prince. Austria-Hungary knew that Belgrade wanted to expand its territory to encompass all of the southern Slavs. The territory Serbia hoped to obtain was part of the Austria-Hungarian Empire.

  • @gerryjamesedwards1227
    @gerryjamesedwards1227 3 года назад +2

    Having seen several historians cite the British blockade of Germany as part of the shift towards total war, but it wasn't new in the twentieth, or even the nineteenth, century; it was the blockades of the Dutch, French and Spanish Navies during the the 17th and 18th century that had contributed significantly to the Royal Navy's superiority in seamanship, evident in all the battles of Hood, Jervis and Nelson. The Brest blockade during the Napoleonic wars lasted for more than twenty years, with ships of the line travelling a straight course between two points on the chart, calm or gale, and a swarm of frigates, sloops and brigs cruising for blockade runners or delivering mail and supplies. Meanwhile the opposition was cooped up in port, unable to train in real sailing or navigation, and with the crews gradually becoming unfit and dissolute or outright deserting.

  • @charlesvanderhoog7056
    @charlesvanderhoog7056 Год назад +2

    37:30 - 37:45. Football player Johan Cruyff taught: "To score, you have to shoot." General Von Schlieffen, in 1893: "To win, you have to attack." I like these parallels. For the famous Rinus Michels, the inventor of modern football (soccer) in the 1960's, famously said: "Football is war." So we can conflate these two fields of human endeavour. LOL

  • @georgealdridge9453
    @georgealdridge9453 Год назад +1

    Ms. MacMillan elucidates an explanation of the causes of a war that seems inexplicable.

  • @goedelite
    @goedelite 3 года назад +4

    "...and so Europe had four years of stalemate and HAS REALLY NEVER RECOVERED FROM THAT." That failure to have recovered has allowed the US to strive for hegemonic power and to lead Europe and the world towards great catastrophe in 2021.

    • @davidreidenberg9941
      @davidreidenberg9941 3 года назад +1

      Sure and the U.S. had to bail the British and French’s chestnuts out of the fire twice.

    • @ennediend2865
      @ennediend2865 3 года назад +2

      The suicide of Europe ...
      Very accurate expression !

  • @gerry343
    @gerry343 3 года назад +3

    I'm glad the lecture was not given by the guy who introduced Margaret MacMillan!

  • @ianshaver8954
    @ianshaver8954 3 месяца назад

    I think the idea that you could get what you wanted through threatening war, and the refusal to back down from the threat of war, made a European war inevitable. But this war, with this cast of countries on each side, was not inevitable.

  • @levd1292
    @levd1292 6 лет назад +1

    MacMillan mentions German failure to plan for a long war. That was because German military planners knew, correctly, that Germany would be at a disadvantage with a long war. Clauswitz wrote that if a German plan for a quick victory failed, that left only one alternative. Seek a negotiated settlement. This is why Moltke told the the Kaiser, after the German defeat at the Battle of the Marne, "the war is lost." At that point Germany should have proposed a cease fire and negotiations.

    • @powerdriller4124
      @powerdriller4124 2 года назад +1

      Clauswitz was wrong, he was too pessimistic giving Russia a resilience She did not have. While worse than too much optimistic when ignoring that there were a factor called "the USA." Germans were having terrible time in the Front patch were they had to face 50,000 Canadians; the 2 million Yanks that were going to be in France in 1919 promised that the Canadian problem was gonna be at least 40 times worse.

    • @Kannot2023
      @Kannot2023 Год назад

      ​@@powerdriller4124 Austria lost war in 1915, Germany could not cover Austria with its army. So war was lost for Germany

  • @leosnijders4954
    @leosnijders4954 3 года назад +2

    British isolation? How about Rosenblum, Sacharov and others?

  • @stevenyourke7901
    @stevenyourke7901 3 года назад +2

    Ms. McMillan is the great-granddaughter of David Lloyd George, British PM during WW1.

    • @jezalb2710
      @jezalb2710 2 года назад

      Good for her

    • @stevenyourke7901
      @stevenyourke7901 2 года назад

      @@jezalb2710 I see you’re not very impressed with her pedigree.

    • @jezalb2710
      @jezalb2710 2 года назад

      @@stevenyourke7901 I am impressed with her knowledge and a very good presentation. Pedigree has nothing to do with it. Unless you suggest otherwise.

    • @stevenyourke7901
      @stevenyourke7901 2 года назад

      @@jezalb2710 I’m impressed with her presentation, too. Her pedigree doesn’t matter unless it biases her but I don’t get that impression. It’s just a curious coincidence.

    • @jezalb2710
      @jezalb2710 2 года назад

      @@stevenyourke7901 there was a comment left by somebody in relation to another presentation of hers. And her pedigree was held against her

  • @h.e.hazelhorst9838
    @h.e.hazelhorst9838 Год назад +1

    Excellent lecture, very interesting! A question that comes to my mind: the role of pacifists seems to be very limited. I believe this is because pacifists are by nature ‘passive’, also towards extremism in their own country. Isn’t this an interesting subject to discuss in a future lecture?

    • @ГлебВерховский-п2р
      @ГлебВерховский-п2р 10 месяцев назад

      According to the conservative worldview of the time, pacifism was a position typical for weak, spoiled, efeminate men (women's opinion didn't matter at all). No man wanted to seem that way.

  • @miguepreza5870
    @miguepreza5870 5 лет назад +3

    If germany had made and effort to keep britain out of the war they has won they had had no blockade , France mistakes in 1914 had Made them surrender and they migth use all its force in the east against Russia

    • @powerdriller4124
      @powerdriller4124 3 года назад +1

      Not to invade Belgium was the only way to keep Britain out. Which meant having to invade France through the French strongest border. And that did not guarantee a future British rethinking of entering the war.

    • @powerdriller4124
      @powerdriller4124 2 года назад

      Brits would have reconsidered going to war, Belgium would have not mattered, if they had learned on time how much territory the Germans were going to take from Russia. Not going to war would have been a historical strategic mistake to be regretted forever.

  • @williamryder9785
    @williamryder9785 9 лет назад +6

    they couldn't have move the camera to see the graphic???

    • @TheDavidlloydjones
      @TheDavidlloydjones 8 лет назад +1

      What we have here is us an audience for a new technology which we have taken for granted -- RUclips, a major form of education from here on out -- and on the other hand we have a bunch of producers who are doing us a huge favour by sticking a camera in the room and pointing it vaguely in the direction of the front of the room, so shut up and be grateful. They're pioneers, see?
      It seems to me we have two legitimate demands right now: echo-free audio, and video which includes the speakers' major graphics.
      Any producer who can't give us those two has no place in the business, seems to me.

    • @dreamdiction
      @dreamdiction Год назад

      Videography is a field which is heavily populated by low IQ people, they have no comprehension of what she is talking about but they will put their own names in the end credits.

    • @Archibald_von_Munch
      @Archibald_von_Munch Год назад

      No, evidently not.

  • @hpvspeedmachine4183
    @hpvspeedmachine4183 4 года назад +1

    Skip directly to 0:58, dont waste time

  • @mauer594
    @mauer594 2 года назад +1

    Seems 21:43 is precisely what happened in Ukraine. As Mearsheimer said, Ukraine was "led down the primrose path" believing they would join NATO.

    • @Kannot2023
      @Kannot2023 Год назад

      Mearsheimer doesn't know anything about Eastern Europe, Ukrainians,Poles,Baltics,Romanian will fight Russia regardless if we have NATO on our back or not.

    • @ГлебВерховский-п2р
      @ГлебВерховский-п2р 10 месяцев назад

      No, this did not happen in Ukraine. You Putin's apoligists have a very warped view of history.

  • @giovannidepetris6335
    @giovannidepetris6335 Год назад

    In my simple mind it all started because Russia could not convince Serbia to come clean in order to control the enraged Austrian after Sarajevo .

    • @tulycreme
      @tulycreme 3 месяца назад

      Could not or didn't want to

  • @christopherdematteo8645
    @christopherdematteo8645 Год назад

    Considering my extensive knowledge of WWI, I am amazed at how much I don't know whenever I hear this erudite woman 📖📗

  • @cavecanem7075
    @cavecanem7075 Год назад

    Wonka ask Is it true?

  • @johnbooker7150
    @johnbooker7150 3 года назад

    I luv me some M & M....

  • @johnniebee4328
    @johnniebee4328 8 лет назад +10

    Seems very illogical, and crazy, that the Germans thought by building a strong Navy the British would react by becoming friendlier toward Germany

    • @11Kralle
      @11Kralle 8 лет назад +3

      +Jonny Boozewitz Tirpitz and Wilhelm II. were surrounded by sycophants - the crazy part would be the "forced friendship". The 'Germans' had no say in their goverment; not even the Reichstag could coerce the Kaiser to do as they decided. I think, it was a bold gamble of the general staff gone horrible wrong.

    • @TomfromExeter
      @TomfromExeter 8 лет назад +2

      I know what you mean. But French strength and Russian strength 'forced' Britain to become friendly with them. Japanese strength made them a useful ally to Britain. The Germans seem to have been hoping something similar might happen. 'Friendly' in diplomatic terms means concerned.

    • @geraldfriedman71055
      @geraldfriedman71055 6 лет назад +1

      Tom Brearley wrong. It was French and Russian weakness that led Britain to move towards them from concern that they would fall to Germany.

    • @slightlyconfused876
      @slightlyconfused876 6 лет назад +1

      Very much in the tradition of Napoleon, They need not love me just as long as they fear me.

    • @mtlicq
      @mtlicq 4 года назад

      4 years ago comment already. Anyways, Germany and British (Empire) were buddies, even allies for centuries, even recently until some influencers changed the minds of British gov't, then the people through mainstream media propaganda. Germany's navy was to protect German merchant ships and protect the few German colonies, not at all originally intended for war against Britain. Also, it seemed very illogical, and crazy, that Britain backed down and sided with the US after threats from a US politician, in the late 1890's. US had only 2 ships in the Carribean and Britain had 42. After many decades of loss and resentment for the American revolution, they certainly were not allies before, but Brits did a 180° u-turn on their attitude on the US and started to count them on the same side, afterall, they were of British racial stock anyway.

  • @ИринаКим-ъ5ч
    @ИринаКим-ъ5ч Месяц назад

    Anderson Barbara Rodriguez Sharon Rodriguez Paul

  • @markprange2430
    @markprange2430 Год назад

    43:27 eminence grise

  • @EquipteHarry
    @EquipteHarry 27 дней назад

    Anderson Mark White Robert Williams Deborah

  • @EquipteHarry
    @EquipteHarry 27 дней назад

    Robinson Sharon Perez Barbara Thompson Shirley

  • @ДмитрийДепутатов
    @ДмитрийДепутатов Месяц назад

    Lee Gary Anderson Joseph Jones Jeffrey

  • @valdorhightower
    @valdorhightower Год назад

    The Germans were idiotics. The Army didn't talk to the foreign office about the effect of violating Belgium and its brining Great Britain into the war. As the French Army wouldn't violate Belgium neutrality and it was impossible for the French to successfully breakthrough the German defenses in Alsace-Lorraine, there was no need to attack France in 1914. Germany could have remained on the defensive in the west and used the majority of the German Army against Russia. This would have kept Austo-Hungarian forces from being crushed by Russia and England would have remained neutral. After disposing of Russia, Germany could have crushed France.

  • @danwinters3397
    @danwinters3397 2 года назад +1

    This broad knows everything about ww1

  • @juliusmoore4187
    @juliusmoore4187 3 года назад

    Zz

    • @tdofeldt5742
      @tdofeldt5742 3 года назад

      This isnt for you

    • @Birch37
      @Birch37 3 года назад

      Don't watch and don't be a dickhead