The period is so complicated with so many actors with their own disabilities and idiosyncrasies that reading the book twice will still leave you confused, yet enlightened. As a former Grunt, I long ago learned to hate all those who send young men to war and show my respects to soldiers who fell on all sides. I share professor Clark's view that all players deserve much of the, (how should I put this?) Blame. I appreciated Clark's answer on the Ukraine war although I could see he was walking on eggs, looking for the right words. Margaret MacMillan adds to the mix of causes the failure of The Second International to live up to its internationalist, working class, ideals and fall back on nationalism. It is a great and much needed book.
*Questions* 1:05:34 Blame vs Responsibility. (Uncommon Evil vs Common Misbehavior amongst many.) "No single state is playing by a different rulebook than the others [before, during WWI] 1:09:00 No one in 1914 feared war enough, did not fear how bad it was going to be. 1:11:55 The War in Iraq & Syria, Turmoil in Middle East. 1:13:45 The Middle East has a combination of older and newer causes of the Turmoil. 1:14:27 Yugoslav War 1990s. 1:16:07 The Kosovo Question. Serbia, victims of history, WWI, WWII, Civil War in Serbia, Bombing of Belgrade. A Century of Trauma in Serbia 1900-2000. Complex Geopolitics, unresolved issues. 1:18:29 "The Winners Write The Peace" Winners set the terms, harsh/fair/soft 1:22:15 Would Women's Rights have taken off if World War did not happen? 1:25:55 Discourse of Commemoration 1:30:00 Franco-Russian Alliance.
I think Australia would rather have had the 60,000 WW1 dead back, rather than have the war known as its 'coming of age' and 'baptism of fire'. Think of how many families and successes could have come if those dead had instead been permitted to live natural, productive , lives. Then there is the destructive effect on the survivors and their families, the PTSD, alcoholism, suicides and domestic violence and neglect. Goes for any war, really.
I do think the fate of the ANZACs is very sad really. Such a great future for both countries and not to live to see it for a European war is sad. I remember them on November 11.
Where was this version of this lecture given. Sorry I didn’t hear or pick it up. It speaks volumes of these students who obviously speak English as a second language and are asking articulate /well reasoned questions. Ahha it’s the Netherlands- those wacky Dutch!
Yes...... The Franco Prussian war and subsequent Alliance was the unfinished business. Also, the complete lack of interdependency among ALL European states due to dominant monarchical rule. There were too many Entente arrangements which not all European countries knew of except when protecting their own interests.
Google up "19th century wars," and you'll see a bevy of skirmishes. Seems the politicians of 1914 were living in the past, unaware of the destructive nature of 20th-century weaponry.
Amazing lecture on an important phase of history. But the past is never dead. Current geopolitical is as fluid as was in 1914 only difference is way more advanced weapons. God bless our race
The overriding issue to me was the rising chaos in the Balkans and the coming modernization of the Russian military. This rendered the German and Austrian position more and more precarious, and so when an opportunity arose for them to start a preventative war when they thought that they still had an advantage, they took it. The gamble was not completely foolish, better execution of the Schlieffen Plan might have carried the day in a relatively short amount of time. Once defeated on the Marne, however, the war turned into a slow motion death spiral for the Central Powers.
this needs more views. Prof Clark has, to date, in my opinion, presented the most cogent and well thought out synopsis of the causes of this most wide reaching conflict. WW1 set up and initiated almost every, and I would dare to say, *every* succeeding conflict, the human world has since had to endure.
This kind of trusting attitude and refusal to check historians' Wikipedia pages for any controversies is why David Irving still has followers. If you had bothered, you would've known this guy's partisan bias right away.
The one student asking at 1:15:00 point if a conflict in Ukraine could cause potentially a world war is pretty astute. I really hope the answer to that question is a negative one in 2023.
You must not get lost in the detail and lose sight of the major actors, and what they were, and are, doing. Who stood to gain? Wars do not just happen, and nations do not sleepwalk into them. There is always a major player who is pushing for war. In 1914 it was Britain. In 2023 it is the United States of America, which is now, as Britain was then, a declining Empire trying to maintain it's hegemony by means of a desperate gamble. Ukraine was supposed to bring down the Russian Government. Russia was to be Balkanised and controlled by puppet politicians, like Navalny. Iran would have been attacked by Israel and Saudi Arabia, backed by the USA, crazy as the idea is. NATO would then advance on China from the west, through Russia, from the south, through Australia and Southeast Asia, and from the east, through the United States, Hawaii and the Philippines. This was the American Century plan, and it has failed, principally because Ukraine, backed by NATO, could not defeat Russia. Just remember, Ukraine has lost some 400,000 men killed, so far, many more maimed and injured. This is on a par with Passchendaele. It is WW3 already. NATO will not now enter the conflict, though they would likely have done so if Russia had folded, as 'peacekeeping troops'. The risk is the irresponsible use of nuclear weapons by the failing power.
Question?. Who wants WAR??? Answer!!! Bankers who make-Up a FAKE reason for war so these banisters can make bigger profits from the BLOOD of innocent people.
Although the combatant countries claimed honor and coming to the defense of others as arguments for war, my cynical side thinks that they all were in it for their own selfish countries advantage. I would like to hear lectures detailing why they couldn’t stop. Why did Wilson’s Peace without Victory plan not take hold? It was so obvious by the end of 1914 that it was futile.
It's still surprises me, that no one is questioning the territorial gains that Serbia, Greece and Montenegro made in the Balkan wars in 1912 and 1913...
Like it was their lands, so it fills me with a lot of joy that Europe not only went for the first party but also danced on a second one. God is great!!!!
@@junopuno7011 Maybe you are good-looking, but talking is not your strong side. The World does not exist from the time you learn to read. Google the World map (Europe) development from 1000 AD till today, and you will be surprise how stupid your "Surprise is" .
'Our shadows will roam across Vienna, lingering in its courts and striking fear into the hearts of the nobility.' The Serbs have demonstrated to the world numerous times that regardless of a nation's size, it has the right to oppose an occupier, no matter how formidable, and to achieve liberation. This embodies the classic David versus Goliath narrative, symbolizing the spirit of freedom confronting an all-consuming empire. Hats off to Gavrilo, a man of PRINCIPle.
There was no blame assigned in the treaty of Versailles. Look at the so-called "war guilt clause" it just says the Germans pay for the damage they caused.
Chris isn't just right, he is SO right that he is wrong to not say in even stronger tones, what there is nothing but conclusive evidence for, and has been since this war ended- that is, that WWI NEVER ended, and continues even today. Of course, all history could be considered a continuation of past events, but WWI goes beyond just causing, to actually INVENTING, a world in which we all live, and perhaps always will; a world of "diplomacy" that is in fact thinly veiled imperialism while claiming to be the opposite, a world of "balance of power" logic that is derived from a real hatred of others while claiming to be a mere defensive, protectionist tactic, a world of fighting economically, politically, strategically, and militarily for supremacy, even upon a planet SO technologically advanced that any decent, moral, or even simply intelligent species would have long ago realized that there is nothing left scarce enough over which to fight, and the technologically and resource-abundant condition of our species should enable every human to live a peaceful, abundant, and fulfilling life. Still, fight we do, and perhaps always will, because WWI did not just begin with Sleepwalkers, it convinced an entire human population to abandon all freedoms, self-determination, social development, liberal thinking, and in a word, LOVE, and adopt fear and hatred as daily routines and as principles of the organization of societies. Four or five thousand years ago in China, we know that some influential minds were spawning beliefs and sects who were teaching peaceful, pacifist, loving doctrines, and those "religions," for lack of a better term, spread far and wide, even during many wars and struggles. For thousands of years thereafter, while Jesus came and went, and Mohammed, and others who taught love or at least restraint and tolerance to one degree or another, the belief in love continued to be a value encouraged in circles of faith, and in social-economic thinking and sciences, all the time "at war" WITH war, and few professed to know who would win, love or hate. WWI, at least to my mind, convinced a large majority of an allegedly intelligent species, that love, restraint, or even tolerance had no place in the "modern" world, since the threats were so close, so immediate, so lethal, so inhuman, so aggressive, so never-ending. And THAT is why WWI is never ending, or at the very least, has not yet ended.
Clark renounces the search for blame but preserves a demand for responsibility. In his extensive, perhaps comprehensive book, the impetus for this lecture, he in fact does build a substantial case for the major responsibility lying on the Serbs and the Russians (not the peoples but the respective governments). Prime Minister Pasic [diacritical marks unavailable on my keyboard, unfortunately] of Serbia knew about the plans to attack Franz Ferdinand; yet he rejected the Austrian effort to find and to extradite the criminals responsible. Russian Foreign Minister Sazanov rejected any Austrian effort to take action against the brutal, public murder of the heir to the Austrian throne, and he mobilized Russian armed forces before any other power had taken such an irrevocable step (indeed, as Clark details, both the French and Russian postwar document collections falsify the Russian action by postdating documents and inserting a spurious, nonexistent diplomatic report). Let us, not in emotional transport but calm, impartial judgement agree now that the primary responsibility for the outbreak of an unanticipated world war in 1914 lies on the diplomats willing to initiate a Third Balkan War.
Having also read his book it’s not clear to me that he does apportion responsibility to one party. For example and in response to one of your points, the Russians wouldn’t have mobilised without French encouragement.
This all sounds like an attempt to hide the ball on what really went on. Take the evidence for Pasic being involved in the conspiracy - all "discovered" by the Austrians during the occupation of Serbia. Why do I say "discovered"? Because the chain of custody starts and ends with a party entirely disposed to make up evidence to justify the war post hoc. Note that this is also the reason Serbia rejected the specific Austrian demand that it did - the demand that Austrian police be allowed to take part in the investigation, ie. extend their jurisdiction to Serbian territory - since it would allow them to easily _make up evidence_ implicating anyone they wanted and making up full-fledged gov't support for the assassination, which could then be used for a declaration of war. Which, as anyone who knows of the Szogyeny telegram knows, was the Austrians' and Germans' goal from Day 1. Also, the statement that Russia mobilized before anyone else is a flat lie. That was Serbia on July 24th, in expectation of Austria's mobilization the next day on the 25th. Russia went into partial mobilization later that day to indicate to Austria that it meant business. Three days went by, Austria declared war on Serbia. On the 29th, Tsar Nicholas starts telegraming the Kaiser to get him to tell the Austrians to back down and avoid war; the Kaiser refused. The Germans then give the Russians an ultimatum to stand down within 12 hours on _midnight of the 30th,_ in a move designed for all the world to make sure the officials have as little time as possible to do so. Also, to trust anything Clark says is quite rich when he is well-known to be an ardent Germanophile and rather "economical" with facts and events in the timeline to support his conclusions, especially given the wealth of evidence about German efforts since 1918 to falsify German actions and intentions during the war and the years leading up to it. ref: the picture presented by Kurt Riezler's diary as compared to that presented by his personal letters to his mistress, dug up by Rohl.
I wonder if hes spent alot of time in London or the greater UK, because he doesnt sound Australian at All, He sounds more Highborn British than any type of Australian ..
Why is that someone gets to write a pack of absolute lies and yet I can't reply to any of them and actually see my comments when I refresh the page? Absolute BS from UA-cam...
a hypothetical question for the good professor. let's assume that the Japanese invaded his country Australia and became their overlords and let's assume that the Japanese emperor paraded triumphantly through say, Adelaide and instead of Gavrilo - say Gavin , being born into humiliating existence-shoots the emporer. is Gavin a terrorist? its not like he went to Tokyo-he shoots an occupier and who wouldn't? very disappointing from supposedly a renowned historian - to falsely claim that the Serbs were 40% at that time when they were the majority. WW1 and WW2 changed that
(1) The World War I Allies conspire to not mine the Danish Straits, such mining allowing the Allies to control the Baltic Sea, which means the British and Russian navies can hook up, allowing troop landings all across the Baltic coastlines, resulting in Germany being knocked out of the war before the war begins; the mining of the Danish Straits checkmates Germany. However, Germany is allowed to mine the Danish Straits, knowing their critical importance to her entry into the looming war. Germany also bullies Denmark into placing mines in the straits. Once Germany moves on the straits, Britain and Russia conspire to not use their minesweepers to remove the mines! Why isn't this in our history books? Why didn't the press of the day sound the alarm about the critical importance of controlling the Danish Straits? Where were the calls for inquiries into the Danish Straits fiasco that allowed World War I to take place? (2) The World War I Allies conspired to not deploy the 50,000 strong Czech Legion to oust Lenin & Bolsheviks in Saint Petersburg. The Check Legion was encamped southeast of Kiev, 600 miles south of Saint Petersburg, but instead of sending the legion 600 miles north to destroy Lenin & Bolsheviks, the Allies send the legion 6,000 miles across Russia to Vladivostok for evacuation, thereby allowing the redeployment of one-million German soldiers from the Russian Eastern Front to the Western Front! Why would the Allies want Russia out of the war, knowing they would now probably lose the war with the arrival on the Western Front of one-million German soldiers? Who told the Bolshevik Central Committee that it was safe to go ahead with the Kerensky coup, allaying their fears that the Allies had no intention of easily destroying the Bolsheviks? Why didn't the press call for inquiries into the Czech Legion fiasco?
1. You know Germany had destroyers that could sink any minesweepers hanging around in the area, right? Right? 2. Why are you pretending that 50k troops would be enough to oust the Bolsheviks or that the Czech Legion being evacuated caused the Bolsheviks to choose peace, when the Bolsheviks themselves had serious internal wrangling over the question of whether they should continue the war or not?
@@asimplepolyp5641 says, "You know Germany had destroyers that could sink any minesweepers hanging around in the area, right? Right?" By early 1914, the Royal Navy had more than 350 torpedo boat destroyers (TBDs) and cruisers, in addition to 20 Town cruisers, and 15 Scout cruisers. "Why are you pretending that 50k troops would be enough to oust the Bolsheviks or that the Czech Legion..." The Bolsheviks had no army to protect it, other than civilians who were termed Red Guards. The Czech Legion made mince-meat out of the Germans every time they confronted Germans, so the girlish Red Guards were an insult to the martial prowess of the Czech Legion, later eviscerating the newly formed Red Army (formed in February 1918), resulting in the Czech Legion taking over more territory than did Alexander the Great. "...the Bolsheviks themselves had serious internal wrangling over the question of whether they should continue the war or not?" The Bolsheviks came to power proclaiming "Bread and Peace", then three weeks later (Nov. 26) we have Armistice talks between Germany and Russia, but the Allies could care less that Russia was pulling out of the war, where one-million Germans would soon be facing Allied forces on the western front. Which is why today we have the West's Marxist co-opted institutions enabling the fake "collapse" of the USSR, as the following illustrates... The hammer & sickle logo is still attached to Aeroflot aircraft! Leningrad Oblast is still called Leningrad Oblast! Engels city is still called Engels! The Russian military's official newspaper is still called RED STAR (1924-2024), where the four Soviet era awards the newspaper won are still on the masthead... (1) Order of the October Revolution (2) Order of Lenin (3) Order of the Red Banner (4) Order of Victory The Russian Orthodox Church was never purged of its KGB clergy! All 6,000 monuments of Lenin remain standing throughout Russia, zero being destroyed! Lenin's Tomb still resides at Red Square! The State Seal of the USSR remains atop the Duma building, where at night it's illuminated for clear viewing by pedestrians/motorists! How can the above be, you ask? Simple, the West conspired to not conduct the required verification of the fake "collapse" of the USSR, and naturally the Marxist co-opted media didn't report this lapse, nor report the following... "The basic weapon in the Soviet political armoury is the KGB with its 5 or 6 million secret agents inside the USSR. Together, the Party and the KGB have fabricated controlled political opposition in the main cities of the USSR and in the national Republics. Together they have chosen and trained the organisers, leaders and activists of the new 'democratic', 'non-Communist', 'nationalist' and 'independent' organisations which are mushrooming under the Soviet 'multi-Party system'. Even non-democratic groups like the anti-Semitic 'Pamyat' movement are creatures of the regime. Gorbachev is not the creator of a true multi-Party system: he is not a Soviet Stolypin intent on saving Russia through capitalism.” - KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, ‘The Perestroika Deception‘, September-November 1990, p. 123. ...and... "Official and unofficial Soviet statements have referred to resignations from the Party, to an overall loss in its membership and even to the possibility of its long-term disintegration. The New York Times of 4 November 1990, quoting the Central Committee paper ‘Glasnost’, gives a decline in membership of from over 19 million to 17.7 million. A more reliable figure can be derived from the representation at the Party’s 1990 Congress. This was attended by 4,700 delegates each representing 5,000 Party members - indicating a total membership of 23.5 million, a figure consistent with the increase in the strength of the Central Committee from over 300 to 412 members.” -- The Perestroika Deception, KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, (1995), pp. 122-123. Google: internet archive the perestroika deception Nice try, Comrade!
@@brian78045 _"By early 1914, the Royal Navy had more than 350 torpedo boat destroyers (TBDs) and cruisers, in addition to 20 Town cruisers, and 15 Scout cruisers."_ Which were all deployed where? That's right, patrolling the sea lanes for U-boats and surface raiders, and keeping the battleship forces properly screened. _" __*_[1]_* The Bolsheviks had no army to protect it, other than civilians who were termed Red Guards. *_[2]_* The Czech Legion made mince-meat out of the Germans every time they confronted Germans, so the girlish Red Guards were an insult to the martial prowess of the Czech Legion, *_[3]_* later eviscerating the newly formed Red Army (formed in February 1918), resulting in the Czech Legion taking over more territory than did Alexander the Great."_ 1. When the November Revolution happened, large swathes of the Russian army defected en masse to the Bolsheviks. The army units in western Ukraine stayed mostly loyal, but the ones in eastern Ukraine, Belarus and northern Russia defected. Far from defended only by simple militias, St. Petersburg was in fact _surrounded_ by newly communist forces. 2. That is a lie. They did well against _Austrian_ units all the way through, which is not high praise since the Russians in general did pretty well against them. _Everyone_ did well against them. They fared _okay_ against the Germans, and only distinguished themselves from the rest of the Russian army at the time by the fact that the rest of the Russian army was disintegrating, and a lot of Russian units were also joining the Reds. 3. Also a lie. They negotiated with the Bolsheviks in Ukraine to go east, which they were allowed to do on the condition they gave up most of their weapons. They got to Siberia before Trotsky changed his mind and ordered them arrested, but the small Bolshevik forces in that area were too weak to stop them. They then ran east to Vladivostok as fast as possible, where they met up with White forces and helped them defeat the Bolsheviks in most of Siberia. Then the Bolsheviks recaptured the area around Lake Baikal with a large force, and suddenly the Czechs were encircled again. _It took an American intervention force to rescue them._
@@asimplepolyp5641 says, "Which were all deployed where? That's right, patrolling the sea lanes for U-boats and surface raiders, and keeping the battleship forces properly screened. " The German U-Boat campaign didn't start in earnest until February 1915. At the start of the war Germany had only 33 U-Boats. And only 30 were available as of February 1915, of which 16 were destroyed. "1. When the November Revolution happened, large swathes of the Russian army defected en masse to the Bolsheviks. The army units in western Ukraine stayed mostly loyal, but the ones in eastern Ukraine, Belarus and northern Russia defected. Far from defended only by simple militias, St. Petersburg was in fact surrounded by newly communist forces." The Russian Army was demobilized by Trotsky on November 27, 1917. A civil war between those regiments loyal to Kerensky and those siding with the Bolshevik coup would spell the end of the Bolsheviks, so the whole Russian Army was sent packing. "2. That is a lie. They did well against Austrian units all the way through, which is not high praise since the Russians in general did pretty well against them. Everyone did well against them. They fared okay against the Germans, and only distinguished themselves from the rest of the Russian army at the time by the fact that the rest of the Russian army was disintegrating, and a lot of Russian units were also joining the Reds." At the Battle of Bakhmach (March 1918), the Czech Legion whipped Germans and Austrians. "3. Also a lie. They negotiated with the Bolsheviks in Ukraine to go east, which they were allowed to do on the condition they gave up most of their weapons. They got to Siberia before Trotsky changed his mind and ordered them arrested, but the small Bolshevik forces in that area were too weak to stop them. They then ran east to Vladivostok as fast as possible, where they met up with White forces and helped them defeat the Bolsheviks in most of Siberia. Then the Bolsheviks recaptured the area around Lake Baikal with a large force, and suddenly the Czechs were encircled again. It took an American intervention force to rescue them." The Czech Legion didn't make its own orders (!), the Czech Legion was ordered by the Allies to move east to Vladivostok for evacuation, and as they did so they still fought the Red Army, conquering more territory than Alexander the Great. As I said, the Allies could care less if they lose the war, with the looming prospect of one-million German soldiers moving to the Western Front. You show your true Marxist identity by your silence to the following shocking facts... The hammer & sickle logo is still attached to Aeroflot aircraft! Leningrad Oblast is still called Leningrad Oblast! Engels city is still called Engels! The Russian military's official newspaper is still called RED STAR (1924-2024), where the four Soviet era awards the newspaper won are still on the masthead... (1) Order of the October Revolution (2) Order of Lenin (3) Order of the Red Banner (4) Order of Victory The Russian Orthodox Church was never purged of its KGB clergy! All 6,000 monuments of Lenin remain standing throughout Russia, zero being destroyed! Lenin's Tomb still resides at Red Square! The State Seal of the USSR remains atop the Duma building, where at night it's illuminated for clear viewing by pedestrians/motorists! How can the above be, you ask? Simple, the West conspired to not conduct the required verification of the fake "collapse" of the USSR, and naturally the Marxist co-opted media didn't report this lapse, nor report the following... "The basic weapon in the Soviet political armoury is the KGB with its 5 or 6 million secret agents inside the USSR. Together, the Party and the KGB have fabricated controlled political opposition in the main cities of the USSR and in the national Republics. Together they have chosen and trained the organisers, leaders and activists of the new 'democratic', 'non-Communist', 'nationalist' and 'independent' organisations which are mushrooming under the Soviet 'multi-Party system'. Even non-democratic groups like the anti-Semitic 'Pamyat' movement are creatures of the regime. Gorbachev is not the creator of a true multi-Party system: he is not a Soviet Stolypin intent on saving Russia through capitalism.” - KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, ‘The Perestroika Deception‘, September-November 1990, p. 123. ...and... "Official and unofficial Soviet statements have referred to resignations from the Party, to an overall loss in its membership and even to the possibility of its long-term disintegration. The New York Times of 4 November 1990, quoting the Central Committee paper ‘Glasnost’, gives a decline in membership of from over 19 million to 17.7 million. A more reliable figure can be derived from the representation at the Party’s 1990 Congress. This was attended by 4,700 delegates each representing 5,000 Party members - indicating a total membership of 23.5 million, a figure consistent with the increase in the strength of the Central Committee from over 300 to 412 members.” -- The Perestroika Deception, KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, (1995), pp. 122-123. Google: internet archive the perestroika deception
@@brian78045 > _The German U-Boat campaign didn't start in earnest until February 1915. At the start of the war Germany had only 33 U-Boats. And only 30 were available as of February 1915, of which 16 were destroyed._ On the other hand, you know what _was_ available at the time? Von Spee's squadron in the Pacific, the SMS Emden, and a bunch of merchant raiders like the SMS Cap Trafalgar. > _The Russian Army was demobilized by Trotsky on November 27, 1917. A civil war between those regiments loyal to Kerensky and those siding with the Bolshevik coup would spell the end of the Bolsheviks, so the whole Russian Army was sent packing._ Also wrong. The Russian army was still fighting on the frontlines up until Trotsky's boneheaded move at Brest-Litovsk of "no war, no peace". Up until Brest-Litovsk, even those units not loyal to Lenin and Trotsky were at least willing to not mutiny against their new leaders for the sake of wartime unity. It was only after the Bolsheviks ended the war and sold out vast tracts of Russian land to the Germans that serious resistance started popping up to Soviet rule. > _At the Battle of Bakhmach (March 1918), the Czech Legion whipped Germans and Austrians._ Incorrect. They (along with a larger force of Bolsheviks, btw) were besieged at a rail terminal by a slightly smaller force of Germans and Austrians who were far away from any supporting units. After being repulsed once, the besiegers then decided it wasn't worth their while to dig them out and let them pass eastward. > _The Czech Legion didn't make its own orders (!), the Czech Legion was ordered by the Allies to evacuate east to Vladivostok for evacuation, and as they did so they still fought the Red Army, conquering more territory than Alexander the Great. As I said, the Allies could care less if they lose the war, with the looming prospect of one-million German soldiers moving to the Western Front._ It was ordered to evacuate east _so it could go to France._ By the time they got to Vladivostok, the Bolsheviks had already done Brest-Litovsk, so the Entente suddenly wanted them to help the Whites defeat them and get Russia _back into the war!_ Also, you cling onto "conquering more territory than Alexander the Great" as if it's some kind of holy idol. I've got news for you: conquering a thousand miles long by ten feet wide of railroad does not constitute actual _conquest,_ and it most especially doesn't constitute conquest of the hundreds of miles of endless forest on either side of it. They ran east until they linked up with White forces, they liberated some cities with them, and that's it. > _You show your true Marxist identity by your silence to the following shocking facts..._ Man, take your pills, you're seeing Reds in your toilet again. > _The hammer & sickle logo is still attached to Aeroflot aircraft! Leningrad Oblast is still called Leningrad Oblast! Engels city is still called Engels! The Russian military's official newspaper is still called RED STAR (1924-2024), where the four Soviet era awards the newspaper won are still on the masthead..._ So you expected that if I were not a Marxist, I would've mentioned this in my reply to your insane babbling about WW1? Do you realize how disconnected these two subjects are? > _How can the above be, you ask? Simple, the West conspired to not conduct the required verification of the fake "collapse" of the USSR, and naturally the Marxist co-opted media didn't report this lapse, nor report the following..._ Even if I accepted all of that as true, I still wouldn't have mentioned it *_IN A THREAD EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT WW1._*
@@markprange2430 I understand what he is saying. Tell me what’s Ukraine’s blame in this situation? The West’s blame is for letting Russia in the Western civilization, hoping it will become a normal country integrated into Western world through investments, access to technologies, open borders. Russia should have remained behind the Iron Curtain where it belongs like the rabbit animal. The way I see it, the far right and the far left (academia included) in the West work in unison to undermine democracy. We saw that in Weimar republic in advent of WW II, see it now in the US.
The world did not sleepwalk into war, so Professor Clark's fundamental premise is flawed from the outset. The various problems, pressures and minor conflicts across Europe were exploited and encouraged so that any spark could launch the alliance which had been formed over the previous 20 years for the purpose of destroying Germany and prevent it competing industrially with the Britain. The principal actor was the British Empire. The Triple Entente had been formed with France and Russia, both of whom had old grudges or territorial ambitions. They were to assault Germany on opposite fronts, in a form of proxy war, leaving Britain to pick up the pieces. If it had not been Sarajevo there would have been another flashpoint. It was easy to manipulate the populations to believe that war would be a glorious game where they would emerge victorious, and of course, who could defeat Britain, the unipolar global superpower of its day. The Kaiser was desperate to avoid war. Germany was the last country to declare war. But the British upper class government ignored his desperate approaches and went on holiday to their country houses. When they returned the world was at war. They had underestimated Germany and overestimated themselves. What was Germany's and ultimately Hitler's biggest grievance about Versailles Treaty? The War Guilt clause, which they were forced to accept, and from which everything else followed. The true guilt lay with a cabal of people at the heart of the British Government, including Winston Churchill. That is what happened, expressed in a nutshell, the rest are red herrings. At its heart it is not complicated.
If Putin visited occupied Ukraine and was assassinated by a local would that local be called a terrorist or a hero ? Bosnia was annexed by Austria and the Austrian Archduke was regarded as the occupier of Bosnia Princip was a Bosnian (ethnic Serb) . Princip wasnt even a Serb nationalist he described himself as a Yugoslav (south slav) nationalist . Other members of his assassin group were Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croats making it a pan Yugoslav grouping wanting liberation from occupation .
A better example would be if it was Putin's nephew and wife were murdered - and also that they were persona non grata to Putin and sympathetic with Ukrainians
It means the Europe was and still is barbarous, hegemonic, colonial, manipulative, arrogant and bellicose, which is the cause of the major disasters of humanity
Says the person (Clark) with a vested professional interest in NOT assigning blame to the Germans and dismissing or memoryholing any evidence that forces him to have to do so.
@@asimplepolyp5641 If you're going to blame Germany then tell me your argument as to why they were to blame. I'm honestly curious. I love debate and discussion about this
@@rockytoptom Some terms to start with: 1912 German Imperial War Council, Friedrich von Bernhardi, Kurt Riezler's letters and redacted diary, the Nuremberg aircraft hoax. Since the early 1900s, the German general staff had become convinced that Russia was going to eventually become unbeatable in a war (in 1910, they believed this point would come by 1916), and almost universally believed that Germany would have to attack Russia soon or never. If it did not act soon, Germany would become subservient to Russia and lose its great power status. They also believed that capturing lebensraum in the east, which had been pushed for by popular politicians since Bismarck's time, was the only way to secure German global supremacy and racial prosperity for all time. France and Russia were allies, so any war against one would involve the other, so all Germany needed was to provoke a war with either one. However, Germany also needed Austria on its side and Britain out of the war, so it couldn't fire the first shot. So they planned to start diplomatic incidents which would cause the other nation to declare war on Germany. In 1905, they instigated the 1st Moroccan Crisis with France, but France refused to fight and Britain looked like it would support France, so it fizzled out. In 1908, they gave the Austrians carte blanche to start the Bosnian Crisis in the hopes that they could provoke a Russian declaration of war against Austria. But the Russians backed down, so the chance was lost again. In 1911, they started the 2nd Moroccan Crisis; this time, Britain came down firmly on France's side and Germany had to back off. In December 1912, the Germans held a war council to discuss what to do, now that it was highly likely Britain would side against Germany in any future war; most attendees wanted to go to war immediately to take maximum advantage of their temporary military superiority against the Russians, but Tirpitz nixed that by pointing out that the reconstruction of the Kiel Canal wouldn't be finished until late 1914, so they couldn't fight both the British and Russian fleets at the same time until then. Look up the wikipedia page for the war council to see some of the results. Those results are damning, but there are two results which the page doesn't show: (1) the Kiel Canal's reconstruction was sped up several months so it would be ready by _June_ 1914 instead of October 1914, and (2) the German army was doubled in size from 1912 to 1914, an increase much higher than any other nation in that time. From that point onward, the Germans were going to take any opportunity for war that they could, which is why they pressed the Austrians as hard as possible to attack Serbia when the Archduke was assassinated. However, even then the Russians didn't take the bait. On the 26th, the British tried to arrange a mediation of the crisis; Russia accepted, Germany and Austria refused. The next day, Austria declared war on Serbia. The Russians half-mobilized to show the Austrians they meant business, but got no response; tsar Nicholas pleaded with the kaiser to talk the Austrians down, but he refused. So the Germans, tired of trying to get the Russians to declare war, finally did it themselves by giving the Russians an ultimatum to stop mobilizing within 12 hours _on midnight_ to make sure they would run out the deadline. They then fabricated a hoax of a French bombing raid on Nuremberg to declare war on them under the guise of self-defense. And the rest is history. By the way, at the end of WW1, the Germans went out of their way to censor and hide all evidence of the war council as part of a campaign to hide evidence that would make them appear 1000% guilty of starting the war and with very evil intent, and it would only reemerge into public consciousness when Fritz Fischer discovered and publicized the minutes from the meeting. Read "Clio Deceived: Patriotic Self-Censorship in Germany after the Great War" for details. This is why the war guilt clause hit such a nerve with the Germans; it was _true_ - in fact, if anything it was understating the truth.
@@asimplepolyp5641 And yes, I was able to see your reply when I followed your directions, my response cannot even be posted. I keep getting an error message. It's probably because it's half a book hahah
It was not true that air bombs were used for first time in italo - libia war. That happened for first time in balkan war when our strong Bulgarian army laid siege of Odrin!!!
Kaiser had a withered arm so he overcompensated by pushing for war, a war that had a few opportunities to back away from. No no no, he had to show that he was a real tough man!
@jamesbowden4871 yes, by nationality, you are correct. But he's been in Great Britain at Cambridge for 35 years and his accent sounds much more British than Australian to me.
Is he? That's unfortunate because it could only mean he's an easily fooled man. It doesn't require a complex analysis to see that Putin is a despot playing a president. Protecting his power is why so many Russian and Ukrainian children have to die.
There's absolutely no reason why the audio is sold weak UA-cam has got it set Professional Standards and stick by them after all if they can shut you down because they don't like what you said why do they serve this crap up to us
Brilliant lecture. Chris is a genius 👏
The period is so complicated with so many actors with their own disabilities and idiosyncrasies that reading the book twice will still leave you confused, yet enlightened. As a former Grunt, I long ago learned to hate all those who send young men to war and show my respects to soldiers who fell on all sides. I share professor Clark's view that all players deserve much of the, (how should I put this?) Blame.
I appreciated Clark's answer on the Ukraine war although I could see he was walking on eggs, looking for the right words.
Margaret MacMillan adds to the mix of causes the failure of The Second International to live up to its internationalist, working class, ideals and fall back on nationalism.
It is a great and much needed book.
Which Margaret MacMillan book are you referring to? I’d be interested.
*Questions*
1:05:34 Blame vs Responsibility. (Uncommon Evil vs Common Misbehavior amongst many.)
"No single state is playing by a different rulebook than the others [before, during WWI]
1:09:00 No one in 1914 feared war enough, did not fear how bad it was going to be.
1:11:55 The War in Iraq & Syria, Turmoil in Middle East. 1:13:45 The Middle East has a combination of older and newer causes of the Turmoil.
1:14:27 Yugoslav War 1990s.
1:16:07 The Kosovo Question. Serbia, victims of history, WWI, WWII, Civil War in Serbia, Bombing of Belgrade. A Century of Trauma in Serbia 1900-2000. Complex Geopolitics, unresolved issues.
1:18:29 "The Winners Write The Peace"
Winners set the terms, harsh/fair/soft
1:22:15 Would Women's Rights have taken off if World War did not happen?
1:25:55 Discourse of Commemoration
1:30:00 Franco-Russian Alliance.
Thanks for this work
At the beginning of each war, both sides usually claim it will be a short war
"Home by christmas"
I think Australia would rather have had the 60,000 WW1 dead back, rather than have the war known as its 'coming of age' and 'baptism of fire'. Think of how many families and successes could have come if those dead had instead been permitted to live natural, productive , lives. Then there is the destructive effect on the survivors and their families, the PTSD, alcoholism, suicides and domestic violence and neglect. Goes for any war, really.
They scammed the poor Australians. I visited their graves in Galipolli. What a waste of human lives.
I appreciate this perspective
I do think the fate of the ANZACs is very sad really. Such a great future for both countries and not to live to see it for a European war is sad. I remember them on November 11.
Where was this version of this lecture given. Sorry I didn’t hear or pick it up. It speaks volumes of these students who obviously speak English as a second language and are asking articulate /well reasoned questions. Ahha it’s the Netherlands- those wacky Dutch!
Yes...... The Franco Prussian war and subsequent Alliance was the unfinished business. Also, the complete lack of interdependency among ALL European states due to dominant monarchical rule.
There were too many Entente arrangements which not all European countries knew of except when protecting their own interests.
Google up "19th century wars," and you'll see a bevy of skirmishes. Seems the politicians of 1914 were living in the past, unaware of the destructive nature of 20th-century weaponry.
Amazing lecture on an important phase of history. But the past is never dead. Current geopolitical is as fluid as was in 1914 only difference is way more advanced weapons. God bless our race
40:31, Clark believes that the debate of WW1 is not stale, but fresh.
a 'plop' is a human-recognised sound so cannot be inaudible.
The overriding issue to me was the rising chaos in the Balkans and the coming modernization of the Russian military. This rendered the German and Austrian position more and more precarious, and so when an opportunity arose for them to start a preventative war when they thought that they still had an advantage, they took it. The gamble was not completely foolish, better execution of the Schlieffen Plan might have carried the day in a relatively short amount of time. Once defeated on the Marne, however, the war turned into a slow motion death spiral for the Central Powers.
this needs more views.
Prof Clark has, to date, in my opinion, presented the most cogent and well thought out
synopsis of the causes of this most wide reaching conflict.
WW1 set up and initiated almost every, and I would dare to say,
*every* succeeding conflict, the human world has since had to endure.
He gave another, earlier lecture that has since been made private, and I believe that one had more views
@@deekohelath8164 the one from the WW1 memorial and museum in KC?
@@deekohelath8164 there is also one that Gresham College presented 8 years ago
@@Great-Documentaries you'll get a girlfriend someday. You can do it lil fella!
This kind of trusting attitude and refusal to check historians' Wikipedia pages for any controversies is why David Irving still has followers. If you had bothered, you would've known this guy's partisan bias right away.
The one student asking at 1:15:00 point if a conflict in Ukraine could cause potentially a world war is pretty astute. I really hope the answer to that question is a negative one in 2023.
You must not get lost in the detail and lose sight of the major actors, and what they were, and are, doing. Who stood to gain? Wars do not just happen, and nations do not sleepwalk into them. There is always a major player who is pushing for war. In 1914 it was Britain. In 2023 it is the United States of America, which is now, as Britain was then, a declining Empire trying to maintain it's hegemony by means of a desperate gamble. Ukraine was supposed to bring down the Russian Government. Russia was to be Balkanised and controlled by puppet politicians, like Navalny. Iran would have been attacked by Israel and Saudi Arabia, backed by the USA, crazy as the idea is. NATO would then advance on China from the west, through Russia, from the south, through Australia and Southeast Asia, and from the east, through the United States, Hawaii and the Philippines. This was the American Century plan, and it has failed, principally because Ukraine, backed by NATO, could not defeat Russia. Just remember, Ukraine has lost some 400,000 men killed, so far, many more maimed and injured. This is on a par with Passchendaele. It is WW3 already. NATO will not now enter the conflict, though they would likely have done so if Russia had folded, as 'peacekeeping troops'. The risk is the irresponsible use of nuclear weapons by the failing power.
To the contrary, there is ample grounds for assertion that the war in Ukraine has the potential to cause another world war.
Question?. Who wants WAR??? Answer!!! Bankers who make-Up a FAKE reason for war so these banisters can make bigger profits from the BLOOD of innocent people.
5:00, a humorous statement.
Although the combatant countries claimed honor and coming to the defense of others as arguments for war, my cynical side thinks that they all were in it for their own selfish countries advantage.
I would like to hear lectures detailing why they couldn’t stop. Why did Wilson’s Peace without Victory plan not take hold? It was so obvious by the end of 1914 that it was futile.
It's still surprises me, that no one is questioning the territorial gains that Serbia, Greece and Montenegro made in the Balkan wars in 1912 and 1913...
Like it was their lands, so it fills me with a lot of joy that Europe not only went for the first party but also danced on a second one. God is great!!!!
@@junopuno7011 Maybe you are good-looking, but talking is not your strong side. The World does not exist from the time you learn to read. Google the World map (Europe) development from 1000 AD till today, and you will be surprise how stupid your "Surprise is" .
1:33:48 A very prescient, analytical take on current events
It was a knee jerk blame the victim take.
@@barrybarnes96If you’re incapable of rational thought I guess it might seem like that.
Why isn’t Austria ever held responsible for the outbreak WWI?
@@Great-Documentaries ....you obviously have NOT listened to Professor Clark !?
All is Conrads fault!
Or England? It was England that turned it into a global war.
The assasinations succeeded in provoking Austria. Austrian retaliation was expected by all sides.
Because of famous propagandists like Clark, Ferguson and McMeekin, who play with the evidence for their own separate agendas.
'Our shadows will roam across Vienna, lingering in its courts and striking fear into the hearts of the nobility.' The Serbs have demonstrated to the world numerous times that regardless of a nation's size, it has the right to oppose an occupier, no matter how formidable, and to achieve liberation. This embodies the classic David versus Goliath narrative, symbolizing the spirit of freedom confronting an all-consuming empire. Hats off to Gavrilo, a man of PRINCIPle.
21:29, details of the actual assassination.
What was the date of this lecture? Google synopsis says Nov 18, 2014, but the date on the video above is in June of 2022.
The lecture was given on 18-11-2014, but (re)uploaded in 2022.
There was no blame assigned in the treaty of Versailles. Look at the so-called "war guilt clause" it just says the Germans pay for the damage they caused.
Chris isn't just right, he is SO right that he is wrong to not say in even stronger tones, what there is nothing but conclusive evidence for, and has been since this war ended- that is, that WWI NEVER ended, and continues even today.
Of course, all history could be considered a continuation of past events, but WWI goes beyond just causing, to actually INVENTING, a world in which we all live, and perhaps always will; a world of "diplomacy" that is in fact thinly veiled imperialism while claiming to be the opposite, a world of "balance of power" logic that is derived from a real hatred of others while claiming to be a mere defensive, protectionist tactic, a world of fighting economically, politically, strategically, and militarily for supremacy, even upon a planet SO technologically advanced that any decent, moral, or even simply intelligent species would have long ago realized that there is nothing left scarce enough over which to fight, and the technologically and resource-abundant condition of our species should enable every human to live a peaceful, abundant, and fulfilling life.
Still, fight we do, and perhaps always will, because WWI did not just begin with Sleepwalkers, it convinced an entire human population to abandon all freedoms, self-determination, social development, liberal thinking, and in a word, LOVE, and adopt fear and hatred as daily routines and as principles of the organization of societies.
Four or five thousand years ago in China, we know that some influential minds were spawning beliefs and sects who were teaching peaceful, pacifist, loving doctrines, and those "religions," for lack of a better term, spread far and wide, even during many wars and struggles.
For thousands of years thereafter, while Jesus came and went, and Mohammed, and others who taught love or at least restraint and tolerance to one degree or another, the belief in love continued to be a value encouraged in circles of faith, and in social-economic thinking and sciences, all the time "at war" WITH war, and few professed to know who would win, love or hate.
WWI, at least to my mind, convinced a large majority of an allegedly intelligent species, that love, restraint, or even tolerance had no place in the "modern" world, since the threats were so close, so immediate, so lethal, so inhuman, so aggressive, so never-ending.
And THAT is why WWI is never ending, or at the very least, has not yet ended.
1:03:35, the July Crises.
Clark renounces the search for blame but preserves a demand for responsibility. In his extensive, perhaps comprehensive book, the impetus for this lecture, he in fact does build a substantial case for the major responsibility lying on the Serbs and the Russians (not the peoples but the respective governments).
Prime Minister Pasic [diacritical marks unavailable on my keyboard, unfortunately] of Serbia knew about the plans to attack Franz Ferdinand; yet he rejected the Austrian effort to find and to extradite the criminals responsible. Russian Foreign Minister Sazanov rejected any Austrian effort to take action against the brutal, public murder of the heir to the Austrian throne, and he mobilized Russian armed forces before any other power had taken such an irrevocable step (indeed, as Clark details, both the French and Russian postwar document collections falsify the Russian action by postdating documents and inserting a spurious, nonexistent diplomatic report).
Let us, not in emotional transport but calm, impartial judgement agree now that the primary responsibility for the outbreak of an unanticipated world war in 1914 lies on the diplomats willing to initiate a Third Balkan War.
Having also read his book it’s not clear to me that he does apportion responsibility to one party. For example and in response to one of your points, the Russians wouldn’t have mobilised without French encouragement.
This all sounds like an attempt to hide the ball on what really went on. Take the evidence for Pasic being involved in the conspiracy - all "discovered" by the Austrians during the occupation of Serbia. Why do I say "discovered"? Because the chain of custody starts and ends with a party entirely disposed to make up evidence to justify the war post hoc. Note that this is also the reason Serbia rejected the specific Austrian demand that it did - the demand that Austrian police be allowed to take part in the investigation, ie. extend their jurisdiction to Serbian territory - since it would allow them to easily _make up evidence_ implicating anyone they wanted and making up full-fledged gov't support for the assassination, which could then be used for a declaration of war. Which, as anyone who knows of the Szogyeny telegram knows, was the Austrians' and Germans' goal from Day 1.
Also, the statement that Russia mobilized before anyone else is a flat lie. That was Serbia on July 24th, in expectation of Austria's mobilization the next day on the 25th. Russia went into partial mobilization later that day to indicate to Austria that it meant business. Three days went by, Austria declared war on Serbia. On the 29th, Tsar Nicholas starts telegraming the Kaiser to get him to tell the Austrians to back down and avoid war; the Kaiser refused. The Germans then give the Russians an ultimatum to stand down within 12 hours on _midnight of the 30th,_ in a move designed for all the world to make sure the officials have as little time as possible to do so.
Also, to trust anything Clark says is quite rich when he is well-known to be an ardent Germanophile and rather "economical" with facts and events in the timeline to support his conclusions, especially given the wealth of evidence about German efforts since 1918 to falsify German actions and intentions during the war and the years leading up to it. ref: the picture presented by Kurt Riezler's diary as compared to that presented by his personal letters to his mistress, dug up by Rohl.
📍1:16:23
17:31, Grumpy old man.
I wonder if hes spent alot of time in London or the greater UK, because he doesnt sound Australian at All, He sounds more Highborn British than any type of Australian ..
He probably had training to loose his Aussie accent
Clark Melissa Wilson Gary Clark John
Why is that someone gets to write a pack of absolute lies and yet I can't reply to any of them and actually see my comments when I refresh the page? Absolute BS from UA-cam...
a hypothetical question for the good professor.
let's assume that the Japanese invaded his country Australia and became their overlords and let's assume that the Japanese emperor paraded triumphantly through say, Adelaide and instead of Gavrilo - say Gavin , being born into humiliating existence-shoots the emporer.
is Gavin a terrorist? its not like he went to Tokyo-he shoots an occupier and who wouldn't?
very disappointing from supposedly a renowned historian - to falsely claim that the Serbs were 40% at that time when they were the majority. WW1 and WW2 changed that
ua-cam.com/video/tET2W03IEZk/v-deo.htmlsi=mvugbR3RXyVuHQC2
Thomas Helen Lopez Sandra Hall Michelle
14:36, "....Google Earth."
(1) The World War I Allies conspire to not mine the Danish Straits, such mining allowing the Allies to control the Baltic Sea, which means the British and Russian navies can hook up, allowing troop landings all across the Baltic coastlines, resulting in Germany being knocked out of the war before the war begins; the mining of the Danish Straits checkmates Germany. However, Germany is allowed to mine the Danish Straits, knowing their critical importance to her entry into the looming war. Germany also bullies Denmark into placing mines in the straits. Once Germany moves on the straits, Britain and Russia conspire to not use their minesweepers to remove the mines!
Why isn't this in our history books?
Why didn't the press of the day sound the alarm about the critical importance of controlling the Danish Straits?
Where were the calls for inquiries into the Danish Straits fiasco that allowed World War I to take place?
(2) The World War I Allies conspired to not deploy the 50,000 strong Czech Legion to oust Lenin & Bolsheviks in Saint Petersburg. The Check Legion was encamped southeast of Kiev, 600 miles south of Saint Petersburg, but instead of sending the legion 600 miles north to destroy Lenin & Bolsheviks, the Allies send the legion 6,000 miles across Russia to Vladivostok for evacuation, thereby allowing the redeployment of one-million German soldiers from the Russian Eastern Front to the Western Front!
Why would the Allies want Russia out of the war, knowing they would now probably lose the war with the arrival on the Western Front of one-million German soldiers?
Who told the Bolshevik Central Committee that it was safe to go ahead with the Kerensky coup, allaying their fears that the Allies had no intention of easily destroying the Bolsheviks?
Why didn't the press call for inquiries into the Czech Legion fiasco?
1. You know Germany had destroyers that could sink any minesweepers hanging around in the area, right? Right?
2. Why are you pretending that 50k troops would be enough to oust the Bolsheviks or that the Czech Legion being evacuated caused the Bolsheviks to choose peace, when the Bolsheviks themselves had serious internal wrangling over the question of whether they should continue the war or not?
@@asimplepolyp5641 says, "You know Germany had destroyers that could sink any minesweepers hanging around in the area, right? Right?"
By early 1914, the Royal Navy had more than 350 torpedo boat destroyers (TBDs) and cruisers, in addition to 20 Town cruisers, and 15 Scout cruisers.
"Why are you pretending that 50k troops would be enough to oust the Bolsheviks or that the Czech Legion..."
The Bolsheviks had no army to protect it, other than civilians who were termed Red Guards. The Czech Legion made mince-meat out of the Germans every time they confronted Germans, so the girlish Red Guards were an insult to the martial prowess of the Czech Legion, later eviscerating the newly formed Red Army (formed in February 1918), resulting in the Czech Legion taking over more territory than did Alexander the Great.
"...the Bolsheviks themselves had serious internal wrangling over the question of whether they should continue the war or not?"
The Bolsheviks came to power proclaiming "Bread and Peace", then three weeks later (Nov. 26) we have Armistice talks between Germany and Russia, but the Allies could care less that Russia was pulling out of the war, where one-million Germans would soon be facing Allied forces on the western front.
Which is why today we have the West's Marxist co-opted institutions enabling the fake "collapse" of the USSR, as the following illustrates...
The hammer & sickle logo is still attached to Aeroflot aircraft! Leningrad Oblast is still called Leningrad Oblast! Engels city is still called Engels! The Russian military's official newspaper is still called RED STAR (1924-2024), where the four Soviet era awards the newspaper won are still on the masthead...
(1) Order of the October Revolution
(2) Order of Lenin
(3) Order of the Red Banner
(4) Order of Victory
The Russian Orthodox Church was never purged of its KGB clergy! All 6,000 monuments of Lenin remain standing throughout Russia, zero being destroyed! Lenin's Tomb still resides at Red Square! The State Seal of the USSR remains atop the Duma building, where at night it's illuminated for clear viewing by pedestrians/motorists!
How can the above be, you ask? Simple, the West conspired to not conduct the required verification of the fake "collapse" of the USSR, and naturally the Marxist co-opted media didn't report this lapse, nor report the following...
"The basic weapon in the Soviet political armoury is the KGB with its 5 or 6 million secret agents inside the USSR. Together, the Party and the KGB have fabricated controlled political opposition in the main cities of the USSR and in the national Republics. Together they have chosen and trained the organisers, leaders and activists of the new 'democratic', 'non-Communist', 'nationalist' and 'independent' organisations which are mushrooming under the Soviet 'multi-Party system'. Even non-democratic groups like the anti-Semitic 'Pamyat' movement are creatures of the regime. Gorbachev is not the creator of a true multi-Party system: he is not a Soviet Stolypin intent on saving Russia through capitalism.” - KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, ‘The Perestroika Deception‘, September-November 1990, p. 123.
...and...
"Official and unofficial Soviet statements have referred to resignations from the Party, to an overall loss in its membership and even to the possibility of its long-term disintegration. The New York Times of 4 November 1990, quoting the Central Committee paper ‘Glasnost’, gives a decline in membership of from over 19 million to 17.7 million. A more reliable figure can be derived from the representation at the Party’s 1990 Congress. This was attended by 4,700 delegates each representing 5,000 Party members - indicating a total membership of 23.5 million, a figure consistent with the increase in the strength of the Central Committee from over 300 to 412 members.” -- The Perestroika Deception, KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, (1995), pp. 122-123.
Google: internet archive the perestroika deception
Nice try, Comrade!
@@brian78045 _"By early 1914, the Royal Navy had more than 350 torpedo boat destroyers (TBDs) and cruisers, in addition to 20 Town cruisers, and 15 Scout cruisers."_
Which were all deployed where? That's right, patrolling the sea lanes for U-boats and surface raiders, and keeping the battleship forces properly screened.
_" __*_[1]_* The Bolsheviks had no army to protect it, other than civilians who were termed Red Guards.
*_[2]_* The Czech Legion made mince-meat out of the Germans every time they confronted Germans, so the girlish Red Guards were an insult to the martial prowess of the Czech Legion,
*_[3]_* later eviscerating the newly formed Red Army (formed in February 1918), resulting in the Czech Legion taking over more territory than did Alexander the Great."_
1. When the November Revolution happened, large swathes of the Russian army defected en masse to the Bolsheviks. The army units in western Ukraine stayed mostly loyal, but the ones in eastern Ukraine, Belarus and northern Russia defected. Far from defended only by simple militias, St. Petersburg was in fact _surrounded_ by newly communist forces.
2. That is a lie. They did well against _Austrian_ units all the way through, which is not high praise since the Russians in general did pretty well against them. _Everyone_ did well against them. They fared _okay_ against the Germans, and only distinguished themselves from the rest of the Russian army at the time by the fact that the rest of the Russian army was disintegrating, and a lot of Russian units were also joining the Reds.
3. Also a lie. They negotiated with the Bolsheviks in Ukraine to go east, which they were allowed to do on the condition they gave up most of their weapons. They got to Siberia before Trotsky changed his mind and ordered them arrested, but the small Bolshevik forces in that area were too weak to stop them. They then ran east to Vladivostok as fast as possible, where they met up with White forces and helped them defeat the Bolsheviks in most of Siberia. Then the Bolsheviks recaptured the area around Lake Baikal with a large force, and suddenly the Czechs were encircled again. _It took an American intervention force to rescue them._
@@asimplepolyp5641 says, "Which were all deployed where? That's right, patrolling the sea lanes for U-boats and surface raiders, and keeping the battleship forces properly screened. "
The German U-Boat campaign didn't start in earnest until February 1915. At the start of the war Germany had only 33 U-Boats. And only 30 were available as of February 1915, of which 16 were destroyed.
"1. When the November Revolution happened, large swathes of the Russian army defected en masse to the Bolsheviks. The army units in western Ukraine stayed mostly loyal, but the ones in eastern Ukraine, Belarus and northern Russia defected. Far from defended only by simple militias, St. Petersburg was in fact surrounded by newly communist forces."
The Russian Army was demobilized by Trotsky on November 27, 1917. A civil war between those regiments loyal to Kerensky and those siding with the Bolshevik coup would spell the end of the Bolsheviks, so the whole Russian Army was sent packing.
"2. That is a lie. They did well against Austrian units all the way through, which is not high praise since the Russians in general did pretty well against them. Everyone did well against them. They fared okay against the Germans, and only distinguished themselves from the rest of the Russian army at the time by the fact that the rest of the Russian army was disintegrating, and a lot of Russian units were also joining the Reds."
At the Battle of Bakhmach (March 1918), the Czech Legion whipped Germans and Austrians.
"3. Also a lie. They negotiated with the Bolsheviks in Ukraine to go east, which they were allowed to do on the condition they gave up most of their weapons. They got to Siberia before Trotsky changed his mind and ordered them arrested, but the small Bolshevik forces in that area were too weak to stop them. They then ran east to Vladivostok as fast as possible, where they met up with White forces and helped them defeat the Bolsheviks in most of Siberia. Then the Bolsheviks recaptured the area around Lake Baikal with a large force, and suddenly the Czechs were encircled again. It took an American intervention force to rescue them."
The Czech Legion didn't make its own orders (!), the Czech Legion was ordered by the Allies to move east to Vladivostok for evacuation, and as they did so they still fought the Red Army, conquering more territory than Alexander the Great. As I said, the Allies could care less if they lose the war, with the looming prospect of one-million German soldiers moving to the Western Front.
You show your true Marxist identity by your silence to the following shocking facts...
The hammer & sickle logo is still attached to Aeroflot aircraft! Leningrad Oblast is still called Leningrad Oblast! Engels city is still called Engels! The Russian military's official newspaper is still called RED STAR (1924-2024), where the four Soviet era awards the newspaper won are still on the masthead...
(1) Order of the October Revolution
(2) Order of Lenin
(3) Order of the Red Banner
(4) Order of Victory
The Russian Orthodox Church was never purged of its KGB clergy! All 6,000 monuments of Lenin remain standing throughout Russia, zero being destroyed! Lenin's Tomb still resides at Red Square! The State Seal of the USSR remains atop the Duma building, where at night it's illuminated for clear viewing by pedestrians/motorists!
How can the above be, you ask? Simple, the West conspired to not conduct the required verification of the fake "collapse" of the USSR, and naturally the Marxist co-opted media didn't report this lapse, nor report the following...
"The basic weapon in the Soviet political armoury is the KGB with its 5 or 6 million secret agents inside the USSR. Together, the Party and the KGB have fabricated controlled political opposition in the main cities of the USSR and in the national Republics. Together they have chosen and trained the organisers, leaders and activists of the new 'democratic', 'non-Communist', 'nationalist' and 'independent' organisations which are mushrooming under the Soviet 'multi-Party system'. Even non-democratic groups like the anti-Semitic 'Pamyat' movement are creatures of the regime. Gorbachev is not the creator of a true multi-Party system: he is not a Soviet Stolypin intent on saving Russia through capitalism.” - KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, ‘The Perestroika Deception‘, September-November 1990, p. 123.
...and...
"Official and unofficial Soviet statements have referred to resignations from the Party, to an overall loss in its membership and even to the possibility of its long-term disintegration. The New York Times of 4 November 1990, quoting the Central Committee paper ‘Glasnost’, gives a decline in membership of from over 19 million to 17.7 million. A more reliable figure can be derived from the representation at the Party’s 1990 Congress. This was attended by 4,700 delegates each representing 5,000 Party members - indicating a total membership of 23.5 million, a figure consistent with the increase in the strength of the Central Committee from over 300 to 412 members.” -- The Perestroika Deception, KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, (1995), pp. 122-123.
Google: internet archive the perestroika deception
@@brian78045 > _The German U-Boat campaign didn't start in earnest until February 1915. At the start of the war Germany had only 33 U-Boats. And only 30 were available as of February 1915, of which 16 were destroyed._
On the other hand, you know what _was_ available at the time? Von Spee's squadron in the Pacific, the SMS Emden, and a bunch of merchant raiders like the SMS Cap Trafalgar.
> _The Russian Army was demobilized by Trotsky on November 27, 1917. A civil war between those regiments loyal to Kerensky and those siding with the Bolshevik coup would spell the end of the Bolsheviks, so the whole Russian Army was sent packing._
Also wrong. The Russian army was still fighting on the frontlines up until Trotsky's boneheaded move at Brest-Litovsk of "no war, no peace". Up until Brest-Litovsk, even those units not loyal to Lenin and Trotsky were at least willing to not mutiny against their new leaders for the sake of wartime unity. It was only after the Bolsheviks ended the war and sold out vast tracts of Russian land to the Germans that serious resistance started popping up to Soviet rule.
> _At the Battle of Bakhmach (March 1918), the Czech Legion whipped Germans and Austrians._
Incorrect. They (along with a larger force of Bolsheviks, btw) were besieged at a rail terminal by a slightly smaller force of Germans and Austrians who were far away from any supporting units. After being repulsed once, the besiegers then decided it wasn't worth their while to dig them out and let them pass eastward.
> _The Czech Legion didn't make its own orders (!), the Czech Legion was ordered by the Allies to evacuate east to Vladivostok for evacuation, and as they did so they still fought the Red Army, conquering more territory than Alexander the Great. As I said, the Allies could care less if they lose the war, with the looming prospect of one-million German soldiers moving to the Western Front._
It was ordered to evacuate east _so it could go to France._ By the time they got to Vladivostok, the Bolsheviks had already done Brest-Litovsk, so the Entente suddenly wanted them to help the Whites defeat them and get Russia _back into the war!_
Also, you cling onto "conquering more territory than Alexander the Great" as if it's some kind of holy idol. I've got news for you: conquering a thousand miles long by ten feet wide of railroad does not constitute actual _conquest,_ and it most especially doesn't constitute conquest of the hundreds of miles of endless forest on either side of it. They ran east until they linked up with White forces, they liberated some cities with them, and that's it.
> _You show your true Marxist identity by your silence to the following shocking facts..._
Man, take your pills, you're seeing Reds in your toilet again.
> _The hammer & sickle logo is still attached to Aeroflot aircraft! Leningrad Oblast is still called Leningrad Oblast! Engels city is still called Engels! The Russian military's official newspaper is still called RED STAR (1924-2024), where the four Soviet era awards the newspaper won are still on the masthead..._
So you expected that if I were not a Marxist, I would've mentioned this in my reply to your insane babbling about WW1? Do you realize how disconnected these two subjects are?
> _How can the above be, you ask? Simple, the West conspired to not conduct the required verification of the fake "collapse" of the USSR, and naturally the Marxist co-opted media didn't report this lapse, nor report the following..._
Even if I accepted all of that as true, I still wouldn't have mentioned it *_IN A THREAD EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT WW1._*
4:50 "semiotic"
weak audio
I can hear it with ease but I am using Yamaha studio monitors.
To be conveniently audible the volume needs to be increased.
Not just Poland but also Israel was proclaimed after the WW1.
The language and culture of these lands far older than artificial 'borders'. No body declares anything. Politics is bs.
Energetic presentation and tour of historians. But not a lot of substance.
I am disgusted by Clark’s shifting blame for the war in Ukraine away from Putin and blaming EU. Up to this point, I really enjoyed this lecture.
It was typical blame the victim 'analysis'.
I think he was mainly blaming you for it and he does have a point.
He was saying that, as in the lead-up to the Continental War, no side was blameless.
@@markprange2430 I understand what he is saying. Tell me what’s Ukraine’s blame in this situation? The West’s blame is for letting Russia in the Western civilization, hoping it will become a normal country integrated into Western world through investments, access to technologies, open borders. Russia should have remained behind the Iron Curtain where it belongs like the rabbit animal. The way I see it, the far right and the far left (academia included) in the West work in unison to undermine democracy. We saw that in Weimar republic in advent of WW II, see it now in the US.
What is the deal with historians and bad takes on current events.
The world did not sleepwalk into war, so Professor Clark's fundamental premise is flawed from the outset. The various problems, pressures and minor conflicts across Europe were exploited and encouraged so that any spark could launch the alliance which had been formed over the previous 20 years for the purpose of destroying Germany and prevent it competing industrially with the Britain. The principal actor was the British Empire. The Triple Entente had been formed with France and Russia, both of whom had old grudges or territorial ambitions. They were to assault Germany on opposite fronts, in a form of proxy war, leaving Britain to pick up the pieces. If it had not been Sarajevo there would have been another flashpoint. It was easy to manipulate the populations to believe that war would be a glorious game where they would emerge victorious, and of course, who could defeat Britain, the unipolar global superpower of its day. The Kaiser was desperate to avoid war. Germany was the last country to declare war. But the British upper class government ignored his desperate approaches and went on holiday to their country houses. When they returned the world was at war. They had underestimated Germany and overestimated themselves. What was Germany's and ultimately Hitler's biggest grievance about Versailles Treaty? The War Guilt clause, which they were forced to accept, and from which everything else followed. The true guilt lay with a cabal of people at the heart of the British Government, including Winston Churchill. That is what happened, expressed in a nutshell, the rest are red herrings. At its heart it is not complicated.
Are these niall Ferguson's theses?
ua-cam.com/video/tET2W03IEZk/v-deo.htmlsi=0Vm-238l4GTNBUY6
Ah, perfidious Albion, tricking Germany into violating Belgian neutrality and committing war crimes against unarmed civilians.
What books do you recommend to see in detail the arguments for that line of thinking?
@@michaelmanning5379 Your comment can only be seen by clicking Newest. Problem.
If Putin visited occupied Ukraine and was assassinated by a local would that local be called a terrorist or a hero ?
Bosnia was annexed by Austria and the Austrian Archduke was regarded as the occupier of Bosnia Princip was a Bosnian (ethnic Serb) . Princip wasnt even a Serb nationalist he described himself as a Yugoslav (south slav) nationalist . Other members of his assassin group were Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croats making it a pan Yugoslav grouping wanting liberation from occupation .
A better example would be if it was Putin's nephew and wife were murdered - and also that they were persona non grata to Putin and sympathetic with Ukrainians
Jones Lisa Thompson Melissa Johnson Larry
It means the Europe was and still is barbarous, hegemonic, colonial, manipulative, arrogant and bellicose, which is the cause of the major disasters of humanity
Serbian terrorists kicked it off, then russia mobilised first.... Because they felt "threatened" lol... Ever heard that line before?
ua-cam.com/video/tET2W03IEZk/v-deo.htmlsi=yCjfWG1cu2c2zb65
Lies, as can be proven by even a casual google search for the timeline of events in July and August.
More than half the questions at the end are about blame.
LSTEN TO THE MAN - BLAME IS FUTILE
What a bunch of idiots. "Let's blame someone!"
Says the person (Clark) with a vested professional interest in NOT assigning blame to the Germans and dismissing or memoryholing any evidence that forces him to have to do so.
@@asimplepolyp5641 If you're going to blame Germany then tell me your argument as to why they were to blame.
I'm honestly curious. I love debate and discussion about this
@@rockytoptom Some terms to start with: 1912 German Imperial War Council, Friedrich von Bernhardi, Kurt Riezler's letters and redacted diary, the Nuremberg aircraft hoax.
Since the early 1900s, the German general staff had become convinced that Russia was going to eventually become unbeatable in a war (in 1910, they believed this point would come by 1916), and almost universally believed that Germany would have to attack Russia soon or never. If it did not act soon, Germany would become subservient to Russia and lose its great power status. They also believed that capturing lebensraum in the east, which had been pushed for by popular politicians since Bismarck's time, was the only way to secure German global supremacy and racial prosperity for all time.
France and Russia were allies, so any war against one would involve the other, so all Germany needed was to provoke a war with either one. However, Germany also needed Austria on its side and Britain out of the war, so it couldn't fire the first shot. So they planned to start diplomatic incidents which would cause the other nation to declare war on Germany. In 1905, they instigated the 1st Moroccan Crisis with France, but France refused to fight and Britain looked like it would support France, so it fizzled out. In 1908, they gave the Austrians carte blanche to start the Bosnian Crisis in the hopes that they could provoke a Russian declaration of war against Austria. But the Russians backed down, so the chance was lost again. In 1911, they started the 2nd Moroccan Crisis; this time, Britain came down firmly on France's side and Germany had to back off.
In December 1912, the Germans held a war council to discuss what to do, now that it was highly likely Britain would side against Germany in any future war; most attendees wanted to go to war immediately to take maximum advantage of their temporary military superiority against the Russians, but Tirpitz nixed that by pointing out that the reconstruction of the Kiel Canal wouldn't be finished until late 1914, so they couldn't fight both the British and Russian fleets at the same time until then. Look up the wikipedia page for the war council to see some of the results. Those results are damning, but there are two results which the page doesn't show: (1) the Kiel Canal's reconstruction was sped up several months so it would be ready by _June_ 1914 instead of October 1914, and (2) the German army was doubled in size from 1912 to 1914, an increase much higher than any other nation in that time.
From that point onward, the Germans were going to take any opportunity for war that they could, which is why they pressed the Austrians as hard as possible to attack Serbia when the Archduke was assassinated. However, even then the Russians didn't take the bait. On the 26th, the British tried to arrange a mediation of the crisis; Russia accepted, Germany and Austria refused. The next day, Austria declared war on Serbia. The Russians half-mobilized to show the Austrians they meant business, but got no response; tsar Nicholas pleaded with the kaiser to talk the Austrians down, but he refused. So the Germans, tired of trying to get the Russians to declare war, finally did it themselves by giving the Russians an ultimatum to stop mobilizing within 12 hours _on midnight_ to make sure they would run out the deadline. They then fabricated a hoax of a French bombing raid on Nuremberg to declare war on them under the guise of self-defense. And the rest is history.
By the way, at the end of WW1, the Germans went out of their way to censor and hide all evidence of the war council as part of a campaign to hide evidence that would make them appear 1000% guilty of starting the war and with very evil intent, and it would only reemerge into public consciousness when Fritz Fischer discovered and publicized the minutes from the meeting. Read "Clio Deceived: Patriotic Self-Censorship in Germany after the Great War" for details. This is why the war guilt clause hit such a nerve with the Germans; it was _true_ - in fact, if anything it was understating the truth.
@@rockytoptom My reply got yeeted, but you can see it if you sort by Newest and go to this comment thread. It's a long post.
@@asimplepolyp5641 And yes, I was able to see your reply when I followed your directions, my response cannot even be posted. I keep getting an error message. It's probably because it's half a book hahah
It was not true that air bombs were used for first time in italo - libia war. That happened for first time in balkan war when our strong Bulgarian army laid siege of Odrin!!!
kwkwkw
Kaiser had a withered arm so he overcompensated by pushing for war, a war that had a few opportunities to back away from. No no no, he had to show that he was a real tough man!
This is a common, and cliched but entirely incorrect assessment of what happened. The Kaiser did not want war, the documentation is there to prove it.
Everything sounds smarter when spoken in British. No one would take him seriously if he gave the exact same lecture sounding like Forrest Gump.
He's Australian.
@jamesbowden4871 yes, by nationality, you are correct. But he's been in Great Britain at Cambridge for 35 years and his accent sounds much more British than Australian to me.
Nobody would take him seriously if they actually read his critics' assraping of his work.
THE BOLSHEVIKS
George Galloway says the truth , making the bad and hypocrites angry
General Stupidity.....
I wonder what Clark thinks now about being a Putin apologist.
Much the same - that Putin was provoked. Obviously.
Is he? That's unfortunate because it could only mean he's an easily fooled man. It doesn't require a complex analysis to see that Putin is a despot playing a president. Protecting his power is why so many Russian and Ukrainian children have to die.
There's absolutely no reason why the audio is sold weak UA-cam has got it set Professional Standards and stick by them after all if they can shut you down because they don't like what you said why do they serve this crap up to us
The audio sounds fine to me.
Thomas Frank Moore Michael Brown Kevin