Tans Lecture | How Europe Went to War in 1914 | Christopher Clark | 2014
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 чер 2024
- The European continent was at peace on the morning of Sunday 28 June 1914, when Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie Chotek arrived at Sarajevo railway station. Thirty-seven days later, it was at war. In its complexity and swiftness of evolution, the “July Crisis” of 1914 is without parallel in world history. How was this rapid escalation possible? Why did an international system that had maintained continental peace for generations fail to prevent war in 1914? When did war become inevitable?
In this lecture, Christopher Clark revisits the century-old debate on the outbreak of the First World War, highlighting the complexity of a crisis that involved sudden changes in the international system, the entanglement of regional and continental tensions and rapid interactions between a plurality of great powers. Drawing on his own research and on recent trends in the historical literature, he proposes fresh perspectives on an old question.
Christopher Clark is Professor of Modern European History at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of St. Catharine’s College. His best-selling history of Prussia, Iron Kingdom. The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600 - 1947, won several prestigious prizes and its critical reception gave him a public profile that reached well beyond the academic world. His latest book is a study of the outbreak of the First World War: The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914.
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.
Thanks for this work
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.
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.
At the beginning of each war, both sides usually claim it will be a short war
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.
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.
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!
5:00, a humorous statement.
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.
a 'plop' is a human-recognised sound so cannot be inaudible.
'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.
1:03:35, the July Crises.
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.
📍1:16:23
21:29, details of the actual assassination.
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.
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" .
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
17:31, Grumpy old man.
To be conveniently audible the volume needs to be increased.
(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?
weak audio
I can hear it with ease but I am using Yamaha studio monitors.
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.
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!!!
4:50 "semiotic"
14:36, "....Google Earth."
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.
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.
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
Energetic presentation and tour of historians. But not a lot of substance.
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!"
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.
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
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
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.
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.
THE BOLSHEVIKS
General Stupidity.....
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.
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
George Galloway says the truth , making the bad and hypocrites angry
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.
In 1:17:00 Mr. clarke is talking about the serbian Trauma that the 20 century has been for the Serbs. And also referring to that serbian people had lost much more lives than any other nation in the Balkans, we should not forget that serbia committed heavy atrocities against local populations from 1877 until the outbreak of the WWI. So in my relatively opinion the serbian people needed that loss. Ita from Gods will :))))