Politics and the First World War - Professor Sir Richard Evans
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 тра 2024
- The First World War put unprecedented strains on the economic, social and political systems of all the combatant nations. A year after the war ended, the Great European Empires had collapsed, and new, extremist ideologies, from fascism to communism, had emerged to disturb the postwar political world.
This lecture explores the reasons for the radical political changes that made the First World War the seminal catastrophe of twentieth-century Europe.
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
Great lecture. I read somewhere once that the sacrifices that people in the combatant countries were called to make made it nearly impossible to negotiate a peace. The government that accepted anything less than a clear victory would not long survive the popular backlash.
I wish the lecture had delved a little deeper into the pressures that led the US to enter the war. Almost implied that Wilson was inclined to join the Entante Powers earlier except the notion of fighting along side autocratic Russia was unpalatable. What about the loans made by US banks to France and the UK? Was there any concern that these might not be repaid in the event of a Central Powers victory?
A fine lecture, which points out the scenery, but seldom dawdles to take it in. Lovely work, directed with barely suppressed passion for topic.
The map of Austria-Hungary (min. 12) is wrong. The border between Italy and Austria was at the north end of Lake Garda. For centuries. Even the german speaking part of Southtyrol is missing on this map, which was the big prize for Italy, presented by Britain, to betray their allies and join war against Austria. This mistaken map is some kind of poor, because easy avoidable.
12:04 the left map is innacurate, between France and Germany and between Austria and Italy
How so? No, it isn't.
16:20 "Why did the Japanese defeated the Russians, why did they had a naval victory?"
My answer would have been "'Cause the Kamchatka was on the other side!?"
This speech was a real Tums Festival
At least someone closed the ****ing doors.
@@tamlandipper29 his annoyance at everything always brings a smile to my face
The map of post-war Europe shown by the professor at 12:46 isn't accurate. The whole peninsula of Istria was annexed to Italy after the war. In the map, it is shown as being part of Jugoslavia.
I must say that the maps used in this English lecture are unbelievably amateurish,as if someone just drew the maps from memory,rather than use existing maps that are extremely accurate in the borders of the period in question!
There is certainly potential for improvement. E.g., I was surprised to see a Vietnamese map of the Schlieffen plan (32:05), and the map of pre and post war Europe at 12:00 is simply ridiculously inaccurate - just look at the borders of Poland ... but besides this a very insightful and interesting lecture!
I think the map, being modern, such that the viewer can recognise where they are, rather than how it was.
I don't know what you guys are on about. The maps are accurate.
22:51, Hmm, the Germans fight genocidal wars, but the Brits inventing the Concentration Camp and carrying out genocide against Boers and Blacks is not mentioned in the same terms?
They did a rotten job of exterminating the Boers if that was their intent.
Christopher Szabo oh for gods sake, I’m sure a reasonable percentage of the people who enjoy history lectures at this level know all about British concentration camps during that shameful period & unlike you, you sanctimonious buffed up Szabo any right minded Briton feels genuine remorse for the less than honourable behaviour of the British military Nobody was trying to exterminate the Boers or rule them by terror & this lecture is about the politics of the First World War. You make the common mistake of those who lack insight & or imagination by looking back at history through 21st Century eyes & so you add or learn nothing to any debate & seek only ways reinforce your own preconceived bigoted opinions.
@@johnries5593 If ineptitude were a disqualifier I doubt any British achievement would remain!
You are correct. However, the Boers were a guerilla force of farmers, forcing their will upon the ruling power, no matter how bad you view that power. How would YOU have overcome the Boers? You are all mouth and no answers, old man.
WHOOPS! Looking at the map of Warsaw Pact countries, it shows Ireland as a part of Russia???!!!
British lecturers are much better than American one's. Can't put my finger on it. More straight forward delivery I think.
Usually (not necessarily in this case, but this case permits it) more fact-based than opinion based lectures here.
Have you ever attended the American school system? It's essentially an indoctrination of edited and rewritten documented history. Essentially only the most naive people in society fully make it through.
its the accent :p
Is this the famous Hollywood celebrity Rich Evans?
41:11. "French, British and Colonial forces conquered Namibia (?). No, it was German SWA and ONLY SA troops took it.
You have been reading from the Book of Propaganda, chum.
The map at 12:30 is lousy...
How so? It is not 'lousy'.
he should of had some water with him
HE's always hoarse, and coughing. He NEVER has water. It's a thing. It makes me think his College hates him. Somebody give the man a glass of freakin' water!
43:43 "this led to Woodrow Wilson to declare war against Germany." Woodrow Wilson, or any U.S. president for that matter, couldn't/can't make a declaration of war, only Congress can do that. The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces, but cannot declare war.
53:37. Hmm, Czechoslovakia was a funny "democracy". Votes were weighted according to your ethnicity! So it was an Apartheid state. Hungary had an elected government, but British wartime propaganda STILL influences a top historian like this. Isn't that sooo depressing!?
Depressing? Perhaps you would rather have a National Socialist State (NAZI)?
I agree with you @Christopher Szabo.
I"ve found in my travels that duelling is still a preferred manner of upholding honor between nations. My personal favorite has always been shotguns at three paces. So...how mad are ya? :)
Shotguns? Sounds like a blast, Bud. :0)
He speaks with no conviction when talking about the Zimmerman telegram.
Johnnyc drums ,hey I'm trying to get up too speed on this. Do you have information on the Zimmerman telegram? How about the Black Hand Serbs, anything on them?
The British cut the German undersea cables.
The British cracked the American diplomatic code early on.
Messages to and from Germany and America were deciphered by the British.
The British could manipulate both parties.
The British problem was how to notify the Americans of the Zimmerman telegram between Germany/Mexico in a way that the Americans would not suspect the British were spying on them and had cracked their diplomatic code.
@@Johnnycdrums The Zimmerman Telegram was probably an earlier version of the MI-6 story about Iraq's yellow cake uranium, weapons of mass destruction, and centrifuges.
I would challenge the notion and description of the political system of 1914 as been bi-polar. This is misleading. It was in fact a balance of power, a concept that Europe had been working with for centuries, and the driving principle behind Britain's foreign policy and the keystone of Britain's world hegemony.
In 1908 Germany was happy with the balance. In 1914 Germany felt threatened by what she perceived as a changing balance of power against her. In 1914 Germany was predicting that by 1917 Russia's military capacity and investment would mature and Russia would become a direct threat to German interests.
Germany's answer was to have a preventative war against Russia. To do that the balance of power alliances system meant she would have to also fight France and Britain. The balance of power meant that she didn't have the resources to fight both. It should have stopped there and Germany should have pursued diplomatic means to have a counter balance to Russia. It was possible. It was in Britain's interest to maintain the balance of power in Europe and despite Germany's foolish antagonism common ground was possible.
In 1914 Germany knew that the military situation was a Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) scenario but they foolishly and hype-optimistically decided they had the best trained, best prepared, the best best best of everything military and they could smash France in 6 weeks and then turn and defeat Russia at their leisure.
A great Plan - not!
No plan B here, no alternative, bust or bust through, do or die. Of course it took Von Moltke 8 weeks to realise what he had done - and became a gibbering mess. He might have been a dumb ar*e but he knew when he had screwed up and when he was beat. The others took 4 years and millions of lives and treasure to realise. And then they blamed everyone other than themselves.
Germany's leadership in 1914 put everything into the military basket and then gambled.
And then did it again 25 years later.
That is the main cause but there is still plenty of blame and responsibility to go around throughout Europe. The politicians didn't just loss control of the military they also lost control of the diplomats and indeed the decision making process. It was a muddle of vague responsibilities and reporting at all levels in all governments.
I agree to not making direct comparisons between 1914 and China now. China has had more experience of successfully running empires and foreign policy than any other country on Earth.
Having said that the other begging comparison is with Russia. Russia feels like Germany did in 1914, she feels surrounded, hard done by and encroached upon - and she is a 'loose canon' lead by an over-confident 'loose canon' more interested and swayed by military power and old empires than the economics and the people.
+Graeme SYDNEY Very well written and very well thought out but I can't help chuckling that If I respond with another theory we will just continue the 100 year old debate of why. Just a quick note (not that it matters) the Schieflin plan of 1892 is not even close to what Moltke the younger had in 1914. One could argue that it was changed so often that there was a plan A-Z back up. The problem was the plan was in a box and everything in the box was fiddled with instead of a new box. Its almost as if the original plan was like a homework assignment that was due the next day so this was thrown together to stay out of trouble with the Kaizer. LOL
the problem is than some countries abandoned the balance of power scenario, that is to say France and Russia became very keen for a conflict to result in all out German war even if it began in the Balkans, while Britain had little margin for keeping the balance of power by being civil with Germany because they were now allied to the French. I think it is definitely fair to point out how whereas before the map of alliances was a web with countries often having somewhat contradictory foreign policies the situation changed to one with two blocs.
more fish and chips!
German empire not taking over Austrian empire at some point like in 1880 was a massive error .as was the loss of Germans peoples to US . free a few of the nations in Austrian part . Polish Romanian and Serbian bits , and Hungry if they liked .may have stopped ww1
Good books to unterstand German History
1. Europe - Struggle for supremacy by
Brendan Simms
2. „Diplomacy“ by Henry Kissinger
Too simplistic... just a repetition of popular books with a notable lack of understanding of actual details..
Very much a pedestrian textbook survey.. please professor share something more than the "standard" interpretation.
Baffling selection of maps
Napoleon Bonaparte:" If you say you are going to take Vienna-take Vienna".
FlashForward:
WWII:
US Military leaders :We have the Nazis on the run. We can and should drive on straight into Berlin!
US Civilian leaders: Nope, sorry. We gave Berlin to the Soviets.The war will soon be over, anyway.
What could possibly go wrong?
Vietnam War:
Military: This war is unwinnable under current restrictions. Let's "declare victory" and bring our boys home.
Civilian: Nope, we are committed. The "honor" of the USA is at stake, Cold War, you know. Send in some more of our boys. What could possibly go wrong ?
Gulf War I:
Military: We have driven all of the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Let's drive into Baghdad and get rid of "Little Hitler"Saddam once and for all.
Civilian: Nope. We got a GREAT VICTORY. Saddam is defeated and isolated. I don't need another war and a bigger body count before the next election. Besides, what could possibly go wrong?
WHY DOES HISTORY KEEP REPEATING ITSELF?
This moderator shows clear bias, as a result his views and analysis of WW1 is highly subjective......
there is no such thing as objective historical analysis.
I liked it until the end. His failure to mention the Balfour Declaration is pathetic.
Good luck getting out of mum's basement 😂😂
Because everything has to be about Israel
In a cablegram sent from Europe on May 29, 1914, President Wilson's chief adviser Colonel House predicted the war. He said, "Whenever England consents, France and Russia will close in on Germany and Austria." That is what happened. Russia arranged the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand, which was done by a Serbian terrorist organization, and in the subsequent crisis France and Russia mobilized their forces knowing this would trigger Germany's defensive plan. To cover up the conspiracy, another assassination occurred in Paris. All this is documented in my book "Twelve American Wars."
Have you heard of the theory that continental European nations were planning to build railroads across Asia and eventually across the globe and that this undermined Britains hegemony of the seas, so that it was the British who started the war? Was Zimmermann letter a British Intel fakery? There is nothing new under the sun.
invading for money
Germany was the superior nation in 1914 - and Britain amd France and Russia was only number two! So - Germany was encircled and the disaster was only a question of time!
+Ralf Rath Germany was a long way from being superior in 1914. LOL
+Ralf Rath "Superiority" has a lousy track record. What would make anyone think like that with what we see in this world?
+Ralf Rath Well then what happen to superior in 1918? Unbelievable!
+Shapka militarily it clearly surpassed every other nation. no questions whatsoever.
It's more like the UK was number 1 and see Germany was dangerously on its way to surpass it
No mention of the influence of bankers and banking on the war. How very British....
You really should learn how Qingdao is and has always been pronounced by the Chinese.
I'm surprised that there is no religious comments when social Darwinism was mentioned, we don't want to live in a Darwinist society that would be one of the goals society frees us from but you've only got to mention Darwin and it's looked at like it all atheists fault,then again I'm not surprised there are no religious comments as this video would come under educational
Terrible. Doesn't bring in any understanding of 'empire' - obvious conflict between and uniform conflict with Nationalism. In fact, understands Russian desire to destroy serfdom as entirely subjective... as though something accepted. Waste of time.