Very insightful lecture. I would note that the U.S. Navy during the French Revolution/Napoleonic War did not only play a role during the 1812 War, but there was also the Quasi-War with France in the Caribbean. There was also the action with the Barbary Pirates, but that did not affect France and Britain to any extent.
I like his breakdown in the end of the relative strengths of China and the US looking into the years ahead---points out a number of factors few take into account, while acknowledging the problem posed by the US debt.
The similarities between Gibraltar and Singapore were maritime pinch points, and as long as it was held, they dominated seas and as you said, separated nations.
Professor Paul Kennedy is a fine historian, fascinated by great power decline. But, in his "The Rise an Fall of the Great Powers" -written during the cold war period - I seem to recall that he ventured into future scenarios, and predicted the decline of US naval power and Soviet maritime ascendancy. Well, we know how that played out.
Maybe he picked the wrong communists. So, what's the difference in picking Russia over China. Granted our response may be different, but he also echoed CNO ADM Mike Mullen when the CNO told congress that our greatest threat is the national debt, as Professor Kennedy stated/re-emphasized here.
Every naval strategy talk ever Professor: "naval strategy is important" Student: "professor can you tell us about a practical application of naval strategy and what form it took?" Professor: "no"
To be fair, it is not the place of an academic historian to give methods of practical application of strategy. He may certain opinions about it, but you’d need to share a couple of pints with him in order to hear them.
Would lecture 15 from www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/masters-of-war-history-s-greatest-strategic-thinkers count? The description they give is "Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor? Discover Japan’s reasoning and why it failed, and you’ll see how the United States applied Mahan’s and Corbett’s strategies to defeat Japan, from Plan Dog to Midway to Guadalcanal to the end game in 1945." Which is an accurate description of the lecture. It comes after lectures dedicated to Mahan and Corbett respectivly.
by the way i built the submarines USS Alabama and USS San Juan out of the Electric Boat. in my spare time i designed a new class of coastal assault vessel i dubbed the LIBERTY project.
and that ladies and gentlemen is a classical lecture.. done in the classical style.. repetition is an important part of teaching.. Adam Smith in Wealth Nations does the same repetition as the next 0 new thought or idea is introduced and added to the subject.. allowing the students to stay with him.
@@1Maklak and yet the constant repeating of what was just said as a reminder and just prior to adding a new piece of information is a classic method of teaching students a complex subject.. have you read Smith's Wealth of Nations' ?
@@1Maklak indeed a thick book and written in arcane 18th C English which can be difficult to follow.. and full of repetition :-) I cite it as an example of a well tested species of lecturing.. remember back in the day paper was expensive so people had to revert to memory and repetition is the best way to absorb new knowledge... as to being boring as a commentator above states I think that is a matter of opinion.. and revealing of natural interest of listener or reader
His point about immigration was not a good one. The problem isn't that immigration occurs; the problem is how it occurs. He props up his criticism with what looks very much like an either/or fallacy.
He misses looking at how financially restricted the Navy is now. He is a romantic. He promotes warfare in a strange way. We must free ourselves from the debt, for this reality is our obstacle for defense.
What lecture did you watch?. He said nothing of the sort. He said if you want to be a great power you have to have great economy . Pretty simple really.
@@Mulberry2000 Defence anyway is childish & romantic, the only defence is being obviously able & willing to hurt aggressors(or someone else willing & able to do it on your behalf.) Not their military forces, but the people who fund, arm & direct those forces.
Time wasting. Gave up at 38 minutes. He had said nothing interesting, but kept saying it over and over again. It had the feel of a former BS artist well into mental decline.
While those are valid points, they have been made well and often for decades, and I assume that anyone viewing either because of the title or the speaker would already be aware of them. So the (non-rhetorical) question is what did you value in what you saw - for example, new perspective - that would help readers of your comment know whether or not to invest their time.
And what have you contributed to strategic thinking or what books have you published recently? Or are you in fact, just some guy on the internet. And I'm sure the next thing you will say is how qualified you are and that your an expert. Your not. If you were, someone might know who you are.
He is, first and foremost, a teacher. A profession I also happen to be in. When giving a lecture you are teaching, repitition is an important tool in the arsenal of a teacher. Even a lecture like this is teaching. In fact Guest Lecturers are a very important part of any good students curriculum. As for his qualifications, I am willing to bet they are FAR superior to your own. He, after all, is a world renowned and respected expert in his field. You however, are simply yet another commentor on RUclips.
i did 4 years of submarine service and 2 years of jungle fighting. when their shipping is gone members of my branch can go home. no ship is unsinkable. he is just re-hashing Capt. Mahan's fucking words.
The U-Boats wasted their time attacking merchantmen. They should have used the convoy to lure warships gathering to protect. A freighter sunk is nothing. A destroyer or cruiser sunk is a nail in the coffin of England. A year of that tactic MIGHT have worked.
I'm not sure how you could even know ww2 happened and still be under the impression that this did not occur. Still, it is much more difficult, broadly speaking, to catch warships unaware. Convoys travel with significant distances between ships, a major reason why escorts had a difficult job protecting merchantmen.. It is one thing to spot and avoid torpedoes heading for intercept with ones self, quite another to spot torpedo, warn a ward. Higher masts, local ads, faster speeds, greatly increased rates of turn, hull construction better designed to survive torpedo strikes... etc.. The irony would be though, that GB would have emerged from the war in a much much stronger position if the emphasis had primarily been on warships. A merchantman is not one ship full of sailors & goods, it is every trip & every cargo that ship would ever carry over it's lifetime.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Very insightful lecture. I would note that the U.S. Navy during the French Revolution/Napoleonic War did not only play a role during the 1812 War, but there was also the Quasi-War with France in the Caribbean. There was also the action with the Barbary Pirates, but that did not affect France and Britain to any extent.
One of the best lectures I’ve listened to on strategic thinking
I like his breakdown in the end of the relative strengths of China and the US looking into the years ahead---points out a number of factors few take into account, while acknowledging the problem posed by the US debt.
It was all well presented, but around the last two minute parting comments were right on Point!
Fantastic lecture!
i read his book when i was in highschool. that was like 8 yrs ago. and i like it ;D
23:28 WW1
35:05 WW2
32:12: Professor Kennedy encounters War Game Red at the Marine Memorabilia shop in Marblehead, Massachusetts.
The similarities between Gibraltar and Singapore were maritime pinch points, and as long as it was held, they dominated seas and as you said, separated nations.
Very interesting talk. Thanks for sharing.
I skipped over this lecture many times because I thought the speaker was a Priest. Turns out he's not. Glad I checked it out.
Professor Paul Kennedy is a fine historian, fascinated by great power decline. But, in his "The Rise an Fall of the Great Powers" -written during the cold war period - I seem to recall that he ventured into future scenarios, and predicted the decline of US naval power and Soviet maritime ascendancy. Well, we know how that played out.
Maybe he picked the wrong communists. So, what's the difference in picking Russia over China. Granted our response may be different, but he also echoed CNO ADM Mike Mullen when the CNO told congress that our greatest threat is the national debt, as Professor Kennedy stated/re-emphasized here.
Interesting talk - I'd never considered Great Britain's control of Gibraltar forced the French to have a "2-ocean sailing navy" back in the day.
The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, Falklands War, and Operation Praying Mantis have been more recent conflicts that were naval-oriented.
Every naval strategy talk ever
Professor:
"naval strategy is important"
Student:
"professor can you tell us about a practical application of naval strategy and what form it took?"
Professor:
"no"
To be fair, it is not the place of an academic historian to give methods of practical application of strategy. He may certain opinions about it, but you’d need to share a couple of pints with him in order to hear them.
Would lecture 15 from www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/masters-of-war-history-s-greatest-strategic-thinkers count?
The description they give is "Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor? Discover Japan’s reasoning and why it failed, and you’ll see how the United States applied Mahan’s and Corbett’s strategies to defeat Japan, from Plan Dog to Midway to Guadalcanal to the end game in 1945." Which is an accurate description of the lecture. It comes after lectures dedicated to Mahan and Corbett respectivly.
Paul Kennedy reminds me of the actor who played the part of Cicero of the BBC Series "Rome".
+phtevlin I cannot unsee it now!
You sure you don’t mean Bishop / Cardinal Fisher from The Tudors?
by the way i built the submarines USS Alabama and USS San Juan out of the Electric Boat. in my spare time i designed a new class of coastal assault vessel i dubbed the LIBERTY project.
All that fresh water . . .
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
and that ladies and gentlemen is a classical lecture.. done in the classical style.. repetition is an important part of teaching.. Adam Smith in Wealth Nations does the same repetition as the next 0 new thought or idea is introduced and added to the subject.. allowing the students to stay with him.
The last time I heard intonation like that was in a Church during a sermon.
@@1Maklak and yet the constant repeating of what was just said as a reminder and just prior to adding a new piece of information is a classic method of teaching students a complex subject.. have you read Smith's Wealth of Nations' ?
@@MartinIDavies Not yet, it is a thick book.
@@1Maklak indeed a thick book and written in arcane 18th C English which can be difficult to follow.. and full of repetition :-) I cite it as an example of a well tested species of lecturing.. remember back in the day paper was expensive so people had to revert to memory and repetition is the best way to absorb new knowledge... as to being boring as a commentator above states I think that is a matter of opinion.. and revealing of natural interest of listener or reader
His point about immigration was not a good one. The problem isn't that immigration occurs; the problem is how it occurs. He props up his criticism with what looks very much like an either/or fallacy.
He misses looking at how financially restricted the Navy is now. He is a romantic. He promotes warfare in a strange way. We must free ourselves from the debt, for this reality is our obstacle for defense.
free ourselves from debt by returning to Clinton era taxation rates, in fact, a surplus of funds over deficit and debt.
What lecture did you watch?. He said nothing of the sort. He said if you want to be a great power you have to have great economy . Pretty simple really.
@@Mulberry2000 Defence anyway is childish & romantic, the only defence is being obviously able & willing to hurt aggressors(or someone else willing & able to do it on your behalf.) Not their military forces, but the people who fund, arm & direct those forces.
Pretty uniform
Taylor Michael Perez George Wilson Thomas
Time wasting. Gave up at 38 minutes. He had said nothing interesting, but kept saying it over and over again. It had the feel of a former BS artist well into mental decline.
While those are valid points, they have been made well and often for decades, and I assume that anyone viewing either because of the title or the speaker would already be aware of them.
So the (non-rhetorical) question is what did you value in what you saw - for example, new perspective - that would help readers of your comment know whether or not to invest their time.
And what have you contributed to strategic thinking or what books have you published recently? Or are you in fact, just some guy on the internet.
And I'm sure the next thing you will say is how qualified you are and that your an expert. Your not. If you were, someone might know who you are.
Douglas Moran I think I’ve seen you before. I suspect that you’re an anglophobe incapable of any serious concentration.
He is, first and foremost, a teacher. A profession I also happen to be in. When giving a lecture you are teaching, repitition is an important tool in the arsenal of a teacher. Even a lecture like this is teaching. In fact Guest Lecturers are a very important part of any good students curriculum.
As for his qualifications, I am willing to bet they are FAR superior to your own. He, after all, is a world renowned and respected expert in his field. You however, are simply yet another commentor on RUclips.
paul kennedy: real academic star respected in the world
douglas moran : foolish keyboard warrior
i did 4 years of submarine service and 2 years of jungle fighting. when their shipping is gone members of my branch can go home. no ship is unsinkable. he is just re-hashing Capt. Mahan's fucking words.
The U-Boats wasted their time attacking merchantmen. They should have used the convoy to lure warships gathering to protect. A freighter sunk is nothing. A destroyer or cruiser sunk is a nail in the coffin of England. A year of that tactic MIGHT have worked.
I'm not sure how you could even know ww2 happened and still be under the impression that this did not occur. Still, it is much more difficult, broadly speaking, to catch warships unaware. Convoys travel with significant distances between ships, a major reason why escorts had a difficult job protecting merchantmen.. It is one thing to spot and avoid torpedoes heading for intercept with ones self, quite another to spot torpedo, warn a ward. Higher masts, local ads, faster speeds, greatly increased rates of turn, hull construction better designed to survive torpedo strikes... etc..
The irony would be though, that GB would have emerged from the war in a much much stronger position if the emphasis had primarily been on warships. A merchantman is not one ship full of sailors & goods, it is every trip & every cargo that ship would ever carry over it's lifetime.
TERRIBLE. save your time. He brings nothing to the table
just evil empires plain and simple
Illegals aren't taking the Professor's job.