Tides, Tectonic Plates & Talismans All Over Again - Dr. Gary Armstrong
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 июл 2024
- Dr. Gary Armstrong, Professor of Political Science at William Jewell College, describes and critiques the reemerging debate among political scientists over the causes of World War I, including the role of structural factors and the shift in the global balance of power.
Presented at the World War I Historical Association Symposium, "The Coming of the Great War," November 8-9, 2013.
Recorded November 9, 2013 in J.C. Nichols Auditorium at the National World War I Museum at Liberty Memorial.
For more information about the National WWI Museum and Memorial visit theworldwar.org
The best lecture of the entire series of lectures on the channel.
Great Britain actually did have plans for Pre-emptive war and they were even approved and were going to be carried out. The thing that stopped them was opposition form economic circles that feared the effect it would have on economies.
Approved by whom?
Just as a side note, The Finnish government under the Czar passed universal franchise in 1906. The first elections in 1907 saw the election of the first 19 female MPs ever (out of 200 seats).
Don't agree with most of the conclusions including those regarding China. But it was interesting and presented many facets that deserve more attention.
Kunal Lal I was looking for a comment like this, glad I found it. +1 agree
Disturbing similarities But not balanced by key differences.. 1. Intertwined economies, trade and investments, 2. Transparency and immediacy of social media and 3. Public attitude to war (in both countries)
Did the UK accept French agenda because Germany did not accept UK Anglo-German policy? Joe Chamberlain wanted Germany to join the UK-US friendship, not accepted it was offered to France?
I found it kind of jarring to jump between WW1 and the present but use present tense language for both. "Russia is building a massive military"... ok, when? In 1908
How can colony powers (that controlled several times the number of subjects in the colonies compared to the citizens allowed to vote) count as liberal democracies?
Anyone can be a colonial power that is why.
The same way the US is in no way an Empire, but is absolutely The Global Empire.
@@dewittbourchier7169 But you can be either a liberal democracy or a colonial power. Both systems are mutual exclusive.
@@norbertblackrain2379 I'm guessing that a restrictive view of democracy "at home" is being assumed. You're not wrong to question it and it does come off as apologist for a country that has its hands and boots in such a staggering amount of foreign territories at the time. But there is at least something to be said about how the "home government" operates with respect to "domestic affairs". Its hypocritical and in many ways morally repugnant, but it is at least logically consistent within a certain sphere
@@norbertblackrain2379 "...you can be either a liberal democracy or a colonial power. Both systems are mutual(sic) exclusive."
Nope. Armstrong says that the 1910 USA and Britain were (liberal) democracies (see 48:00 and 57:50) but were also (and the USA certainly still is -- see Puerto Rico and other possessions) colonial powers.
You can only listen to Slim Pickens but so long
Finland and the United states in 1942 in what Finland calls the Continuation war, is an example of 2 liberal democracies at war with each other. Vichy France and the United states at the same time might be a second example. Plus the Contra war of US vs Nicaragua. In WW1, both Germany and the UK were constitutional monarchies with similar levels of democracy though not total. In the UK then or now.
Finland was not a liberal democracy. Killing the same percentage of your population as Stalin in the Great Purges is not a sign of a liberal Democracy.
It's very convenient that it doesn't count as war when you fund military coups and/or death squads in a country that elected a guy who wants to do land reform.
Um, Finland and the USA were never at war. Which two liberal democracies are you referring to?
Go and collect your $400!
By the way… the Irish can vote … 🎤 drop…
Academics are always jabbering about "arguments" and liberals are always yakking about "power"
Big yikes on that mass shooter part
what?
Again very interesting. All these theories suggest WW1 was inevitable. Which is where they all fail.
The crisis in 1914 should not have lead to War. All the leading diplomats in Germany France and UK thought it would be resolved almost right up until mobilization occurred.
Fear of what would happen if mobilization was delayed, caused mobilization to take place. Once mobilization was inevitable war became inevitable due to the inability to overcome the fear mobilization would not be fast enough to win. Britain almost stood aside. The British cabinet was divide right up to the last moment. Probably would have remained a biased neutral if Germany had not invaded Belgium. France mobilization was a response to fear as much as her alliance commitments. The Germans believed it could be a local conflict. Fear of the Russian Mobilization caused the Germans mobilization which was pre planned to be directed at France 1st. The Russians were responding to the Austrian ultimatum by mobilization and to fear of German mobilization. The Austrians were acting under the impression the Germans would support their actions. Without the belief Germany would support their actions the ultimatum would not have occurred. The Kaiser and the Germans completely underestimated the response by both Austria and Russia a long with believing the Tsar would have similar feeling as his about the regicide of the Austrian heir. And complete misunderstanding of each other’s motives. A almost incomprehensible tragedy off errors and circumstances lead to war none of them wanted.
STOP SENDING ME THIS STUFF.
Wouldn't all wars fought since wwii- with *the exception* of the Falkland Islands where two *progressive liberal* Western nations went to war- been of a preventative nature?
Argentina was ruled by a military dictatorship during the Falklands War. The war was started by the military Junta
Your definition of democracy is completely self contradictory because the economic system of a democracy must be chosen by the majority. and it cannot be chosen by the majority if it is set in stone by definition. A democratic majority has a right to vote in a socialist, feudalist or anarchist or any other economic system in a democracy and that right cannot be infringed upon by any self contradicting "definition of democracy"
Might not a radical change in economy require an amending of its constitution regarding private property rights, for instance?
Hence *liberal* democracy in the technical sense liberal not the modern vernacular. So yes technically you can have a socialist democracy. But you cannot have socialism *and* individual liberties.
I don't find very convincing the proposition that liberal democracies won't make war on each other (56:57).
This seems to me to rely both small sample size and convenient definitions.
Armstrong concedes that he doesn't require that women be able to vote for a democracy to be considered liberal. (And colonies are OK too, if the USA is and was a liberal democracy.) How about slaves? Was the USA a liberal democracy before December 6, 1865? If it was (and I will assert it was) then, IMHO, so was the CSA and the War of Northern Aggression was a war between two liberal democracies. (Armstrong supplies an unsupported "no" at 24:50, but I don't see why not.)
Are the wars between India and Pakistan really deeply affected by the exact degree to which they are democratic at any given time? No democracy is ever perfect.
And then there's the invasion of Iceland by Britain in 1940. Iceland shared a monarch with Denmark but was considered a separate country and when the Brits invaded the government of Iceland protested, "charging that its neutrality had been 'flagrantly violated' and 'its independence infringed'." There wasn't any fighting back, but I'm not seeing the relevance of that -- I assert that it was a war by one liberal democracy on another. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasion_of_Iceland
Returning to the subject of my first paragraph, arguing about the exact span of the franchise necessary for a democracy to be "liberal" is besides the point. The claim is that given sufficient liberality, however defined, the voting population will restrain the governments it elects from embarking on wars against other similar democracies. I'm finding it difficult to see why whether women or 18 year-olds or colonials or slaves can vote ought affect that effect.