Got a bit tired of two questioners going on with their 'questions' for a ridiculous length of time... I have encountered such people at various intellectual talks and gatherings and there's generally some underlying intellectual ego thing motivating it. Granted they were both historians who had also worked on this topic but you can be concise and keep your words down. It's a talk for everyone to listen to and any audience member to ask a question, consider the people around you and the time factor. And there's only one person down to give a lecture. And what a speaker! After two talks from this chap I am in awe of his knowledge of this subject.
I also can't believe how people can hog a question period, talking on and on as though they've legitimately stolen the podium. I've seen it many times.
Christopher Clark- that's the perfect name for a superhero alter ego... mild mannered lecturer by day, battles the evil doctor spatula by night... that kind of thing.
This guy is an absolutly incredible speaker and historian. As an Australian, it is sadly very rare to be able to look up to a truely great thinker from down under.
Sounds like a good idea for an App. French Question Identifier. Just apply to any lecture and the long winded French questions will be clearly time marked in the video track. Maybe even a 10 second warning before they start with a selector that asks if you want to skip this question!😄
Just watching the History of Europe on tv, in Australia tonite, which he is narrating. He makes history sound as it should be fascinating and amazing. Very proud he is Australian. 💁🏼♀️😊
Me too! Leyes hope our nationalism does t start another war ha ha. Loved it how he broke out of his faux English accent back to good ol’ farken ‘strayan.... lol
@@drgeorgekI’m Canadian and nato & many countries like your own is now sending arms to Ukraine. It’s debateable if we started another war, but we didn’t force Putin to invade Ukraine. I believe that was his own decision for his legacy , land grab and to try and save Russia from there future of population stagnation. I believe it will fail. Russia will be broken up into many states. I’ll have to wait and see just like me commenting to this opinion. Cheers.
Yeah you should be proud of Christopher Clark. Taking this discussion as an example - what a tough format - interrogated by verbose historians in multiple languages. I have heard him interviewed also in German. Extraordinary grasp of an enormous subject. And even-tempered and good-natured. I have played that "Just want to emphasise that he said that he appreciated my book. In fact that's all he said". moment a dozen times since I first heard it.
It's fascinating to see how this discussion still evokes emotions. People still identify themselves with "their" countries. In Fischer's case it's the other way round but his viewpoint had biogrophical motivations too because of his own role in WW 2. But this doesn't diminish his arguments of course. I once read an article that british soldiers helped archeological excavation in England shortly after WW 1. When it turned out they had discovered anglo-saxon buildings and graves that proved how much english history and culture was coined by anglo-saxons from what is now northern Germany and southern Danmark, they were extremely disappointed. discontent, and depressed. Clearly they identified Anglo-Saxons with Germans and themselves with the Celtic-Roman inhabitans. In the 2004 movie "King Arthur" Anglo-Saxons where even played by German actors. Very strange. I wonder what would happen if you make a movie about the Battle of Hastings. I can't imagine an English crowd would identify with French speaking Normans...
of course, it diminishes Fishers arguments, when he obviously was looking to morally compensate feelings of his own guilt by an overly stressed anti-german view. with this distancing from "german national perspectives" he could also morally distance from his ns-past, not only for himself but also in the eyes of the allies who embraced him.
People settle lands , mix with locals then adopt their identities. Seems commendable to me. Brits hate the concept of being invaded. I was at a commemoration of the Battle of Hastings..;.,the Norman acting , celebratory Hungarian horsemen ,were visibly shocked, when the crowd booed them off the field. Brits and our laws identify as Anglo Saxons not lawless Norman's.
Jesus. Christopher speaks with more authority about early 20th century geopolitics and everyone who ever thought about it than I could speak about what I had for lunch yesterday.
Great scholar, interesting POV, generous spirit and GSOH; Christoper Clark is a jewel! Agree about the two wind bag questioners-- poor sign of their intellectual capabilities in being unable to ask short, sharp questions...
I think they were heavyweights in their own right in a room where everyone knew that so it may have been that it was reasonable to hear a bit from those people. Clark did even say he would have adjusted his book for some of the comments! Not often you hear a reply like that from a prestigious academic
Putting forward an answer before the question, hypothetical arrangements of history are natural to thinking about probabilistic correlations of currency, ie it's self-defining consistency with the continuous process, which is the fact that this particular existence/event, is a fundamental functional phenomenon, here-now-forever. So the "Great Game" on the real-time Shakespearean Stage is the Forever War of predator-prey opportunities. The philosophical play of Hamlet and the catastrophic finish sums up the situation, stylishly.
"Who is to blame for the war?" has the same answer as the culprit in "Murder on the Orient Express" - they _all_ did it. Any one of the principle powers could have stopped the war before it started if they wanted to.
It’s even more complex than that, because no nation exclusively WANTED a war, there were differing opinions within the leadership of all these nations. Every nation had some hardline warmongers as well as people who tried to deescalate. The various empires weren’t unified in their thinking, they all had those driving for war and those trying to preserve peace. Ironically perhaps Czar Nikolas, kaiser Wilhelm and Franz Joseph actually tried to maintain peace or at least deescalate the situation, but they all had ministers, statesmen and ambassadors that were war mongers and sadly the war hawks won out. For instance franz Joseph had his mail literally withheld or intercepted by his ministers, some even lied to him and said Serbian army was shelling Austrian positions before war had actually begun. The Hungarian prime minister who wanted peace had his communications with the emperor blocked…..czar Nikolas cancelled his mobilisation order when he realised what was happening, his chief of staff literally said NO to him…..kaiser Wilhelm was on holiday and behind his back the German foreign ministers were basically doing things contrary to his orders. Bethman Holbeck kept colluding with the Austrian foreign ministers to encourage war with Serbia, the kaiser found out and cut his holiday short, then tried to withdraw German unconditional support but it was too late. He suggested a limited occupation of Belgrade and to have a mediation of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to make it more reasonable, this of course never happened as behind his back his ministers and cooked up this ultimatum to be designed to be rejected and justify the invasion. The Serbs didn’t help themselves by doing nothing to root out the black hand and purge government and military officials who were involved with these secret organisations. So it’s not entirely unreasonable that Austria wanted a war with them. All the monarchs of these 3 empires tried to pull back and deescalate to varying degrees.
Great speech, and very interesting angles of analysis. It is a pity though, in a speech dedicated to France and the origins of WW1 that he didn't even mention the "loi des trois ans", ie. the French law passed in 1913, extending the time of military service from 2 to 3 years. This was a clear shift from France, in fact Clemenceau, towards war. This was one of the pieces in the politics of "Guerre a outrance" of the French republic.
Great lecture, the part with a monologue in French for somewhere between 10 minutes and 3.5 hours while everyone else sits there waiting for the room to deplete of oxygen was not exactly a high point but that's outside of anyone elses's control. And the handling of it after of course was great.
Wow. Some very good questions. Amazing how prof.Clark lines up events like 1914 with Dallas and 9/11. How about the Battle of Spionkop, Blockade of German and Austrian harbors 1904-1919, Royal Navy exercise just two weeks before the assassination, invasion of Russia in 1919/1920 ? Who was Wilhelm Wassmussen ?
This is a much better version of Christopher Clark's conference than his Gresham College one! A lot more "meat"... and I must say this is partly thanks to the long-winded "question" by the french-speaking gentleman. Anyway Clark's point of view is extremely interesting.
Since the time of this lecture the world politics offers greater reminiscence of WW1 then the one mentioned by prof. Clark, particularly the rise of populism in Europe.
There was a lecture he did to a bunch of students where they asked him questions afterwards pertaining to the Ukrainian crisis that has been removed within the last month, does anyone know where that lecture was held and if there are any other copies of it up?
1:00:18 Uncertainty led to last war but certainty will bring the next. Someone has a computer whos only job is to calculate percentage chance of war and as soon as that counter goes above their arbitrarily set threshold the cost of going to war will drop compared to the cost of not going.
Great lecture and book Professor Clark. This is staged at Univ of Quebec a Montreal (not Cambridge)? The important step: to view the history with fresh eyes, not with the known result retrospectively. Riveting speaker, knowledgeable and diplomatic in the face of drawn out information-dump questions. Thank you for providing.
Chez les français il y avait toujours le sous-entendu de l'idée d'une guerre de revanche pour la perte d'Alsace et une partie de la Lorraine, issue de la Guerre Franco-Prussienne de 1870-71.
Equally, you could argue the other way. There were two big alliance blocks which increased paranoia and ensured any war would be widened. Like the cold war stand off.
Speaker introducing Clark "He is actually a german historian but that should not prevent us from enjoying from what he has to say" *laughter by the audience* Sums it up basically.
I do wish historians would stop talking about "The Schlieffen Plan" which is an infamous piece of historical myth making. What they actually mean is Moltke's plan to deploy the bulk of The German Army into Belgium. So why not say so? There's an amusing anecdote about how Moltke (in 1913?) thought it would be interesting to examine Schlieffen's thoughts about how to fight a war in Belgium. He then had to ask Schlieffen's daughters to send him the relevant papers, because he'd written them after his retirement and never submitted them to The German Army.
Clark: 'the First World War is not a James Bond movie that has a villain in a smoker's jacket, stroking a white cat with a prosthetic hand' Question: yes yes yes, but...its all germanys fault, n'est pas? 😂
V. interesting lecture. A pity however that Prof Clark's assessment of French connivance in the war's creation omits to mention France's funding of Russia's western military district railways, enabling Russia to mobilise much faster than would otherwise have been possible - thus adding to German paranoia and enabling Prussian militarists to call for an early war. He also neglects to mention French funding of Serbian forces which inflamed Belgrade's desire for a Greater Serbia. Germany aside, it seems to me that the two countries 'mugged' (in both senses of the word) by French geopolitical cunning were its allies (Russia and Britain). Neither had much to gain from war with Germany (in many ways the British people were closer to the Germans than to either the Russians or French). In contrast, France (desperate to recover self-respect as well as Alsace- Lorraine) had a motive as well as the means. It's a measure of the fix that Foreign Secretary Grey got himself into by over-committing to France that he convinced (just) his Cabinet colleagues to enter the war largely on the grounds of 'honour' and the commitment to Belgium. To the extent that the Entente bound British honour to France, the commitment was principally naval. Had the BEF not been sent, with French forces hundreds of kilometres out of position (focused on Alsace-Lorraine) who knows how France would have fared? Lost within weeks as in 1870 probably. The Brits were also duped by 'plucky Belgium' which had secretly negotiated a side-deal with Germany to allow them to invade France via SE Belgium so long as they kept east of the river Sambre.) With friends like these, who needs enemies?! The longer term irony (for Brits) is that, having twice in the 20th century come to France's rescue, the French have been nothing but antagonistic towards the British ever since - De Gaulle for example. There must be a French equivalent of the English expression: 'No good deed goes unpunished!' No wonder the Brits are eurosceptic!
@@TomfromExeter you should just read Clark's book "The Sleepwalkers". It makes the case fairly convincingly that the French and Austrians were both looking to find an excuse to rope their stronger partners (Russia/Britain and Germany, respectively) into a war for their own ends. The elements of the Serbian state that sponsored the assassinations were thinking along similar lines. These were deeply, deeply irresponsible, you might almost say outright evil men.
@@mjxw You're right. Having read Sleepwalkers I take all Alan's points. And sadly the Black Hand must rank as one of the most 'successful' terrorist organisations ever. The assassinations seem to have played out just as they hoped.
@@mjxw They were not evil men They were deeply patriotic Frenchmen who did the right thing as prescribed by duty and honor in order to recover the two provinces of Alsace Lorraine stolen by the German empire. The only way to prevent World War I would have been for the German empire to restitute the provinces of the Alsace Lorraine back to France, and the Germans were not going to do it. We have to salute the sense of honor, the patriotism, the bravery and the dedication of the French people who never gave up hope after 43 long years that one day, they would fight and defeat Germany in order to recover the provinces of the Alsace Lorraine. And Russia/Britain were not the strongest partners, because it was the French army which bore the brunt of the fighting against the German armies, and it was French field marshal Foch as supreme allied commander who received the surrender of the German armies in 1918 on the western front, and it was French field marshal Franchet d'Esperey as supreme allied commander who received the surrender of the Austrian/Bulgarian/Turkish armies in 1918 on the Eastern front.
@@matcha1693 5% of France's entire population *died* in World War 1. Another 10% were wounded. An entire generation of young men killed, wounded, and maimed in the war. All so that France could have returned two small border provinces that were half-German to begin with? Not to mention, if what you're saying is true, whatever honor they preserved was more than offset by the vast, dishonorable lie they told their allies about the war's cause. You have a funny definition of "patriotic".
I am surprised everyone talks about German war guilt but no one ever talks about Austria war guilt. If anyone was guilty of starting WWI, it was Austria not Germany, surely?
I find myself comparing the responsibility for WWI to be an exercise in no fault insurance assignment of liability. There was a terrible accident that resulted in loss of life and property and all the drivers that collided in the intersection all contributed to making this a terrible tragedy.
Germany was the guilty one, because the way the Gerries were by 1914. Too civilized and refined and clean in some ways, and too savage and cruel and hateful in others. Too Bavarian and too Prussian at the same time. So, the real guilty one was Prussia.
no nation exclusively WANTED a war, there were differing opinions within the leadership of all these nations. Every nation had some hardline warmongers as well as people who tried to deescalate. The various empires weren’t unified in their thinking, they all had those driving for war and those trying to preserve peace. Ironically perhaps Czar Nikolas, kaiser Wilhelm and Franz Joseph actually tried to maintain peace or at least deescalate the situation, but they all had ministers, statesmen and ambassadors that were war mongers and sadly the war hawks won out. For instance franz Joseph had his mail literally withheld or intercepted by his ministers, some even lied to him and said Serbian army was shelling Austrian positions before war had actually begun. The Hungarian prime minister who wanted peace had his communications with the emperor blocked…..czar Nikolas cancelled his mobilisation order when he realised what was happening, his chief of staff literally said NO to him…..kaiser Wilhelm was on holiday and behind his back the German foreign ministers were basically doing things contrary to his orders. Bethman Holbeck kept colluding with the Austrian foreign ministers to encourage war with Serbia, the kaiser found out and cut his holiday short, then tried to withdraw German unconditional support but it was too late. He suggested a limited occupation of Belgrade and to have a mediation of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to make it more reasonable, this of course never happened as behind his back his ministers and cooked up this ultimatum to be designed to be rejected and justify the invasion. The Serbs didn’t help themselves by doing nothing to root out the black hand and purge government and military officials who were involved with these secret organisations. So it’s not entirely unreasonable that Austria wanted a war with them. All the monarchs of these 3 empires tried to pull back and deescalate to varying degrees.
I compliment Prof.Clark for the lecture, but wold like to hear a name of the Bulgarian historian on the Great War, to name him or her, just like Prof. Clark does the other historians,
Very insightful, but difficult to follow as he speaks very very quickly and the thick accent doesn't help . The strung out questions in French, the guy thinks that he's giving the lecture. I speak French and it's most frustrating, why doesn't he shut him up?😱😱
Je constate (vers 1:06) que, comme tous les grands hommes remarquables (il n'y pas de grands hommes pas remarquables), le Professeur Clark est gaucher.
I believe on the question of intelligence France and Russia were way better informed about Germany and AH than Germany and AH were about them. Joffre was extremely confident because he understood the numerical weakness of The German Army. Both Germany and AH were astonished by the speed of Russian mobilization, which far exceeded their expectations.
Books about World War I are not popular in the USA because they are depressing nor films about it because few American's understand the purpose. The world’s great European powers destroyed a generation of men in pointless bloody battles. Few Americans realize that World War I was America’s worst foreign policy blunder that killed millions and set the stage for World War II.. When the “Great War” began in 1914, royals and generals hoped for swift victories. However, advances in technology, mostly machine guns and artillery, allowed concentrated firepower to annihilate attacking formations. The war in France bogged down into a bloody stalemate and the construction of fortified positions ensured that any offensive would grind to a stop. The king of England and Germany were first cousins who grew up together, so a peaceful resolution was likely in 1916. The problem was that British bankers had loaned its government lots of money and most could not be repaid. They wanted to win the war so they could loot Germany by requiring Germans to pay reparations so the British government could repay them. If they could lure the powerful USA to join the war, victory was assured. They blocked peace efforts and used their agents of influence to manipulate the USA into joining the war. Soon after President Wilson was elected with the promise to stay out the war, he worked with Congress to declare war. As a result, the war dragged on for two more bloody years before enough American men and material arrived in France to turn the tide. The war was unpopular back home, leading Wilson to censor the US mail by blocking anti-war newsletters and magazines. He threw thousands of political opponents in jail, implemented a draft to fill out the Army, and sent these reluctant Americans into battle with little training and poor equipment. The Americans fought bravely, but the Germans had three years of combat experience and chewed up American units foolishly thrown into frontal attacks that had little chance of success. After four years of war, the Germans had no more manpower to replace losses, and surrendered based on a just peace promised by President Wilson. That never happened and Germany was looted and humiliated, which led to the rise of the Nazis and World War II.
Germany was neither looted nor humiliated after the war - it was allowed a surprising amount of post-war autonomy, instead simply having its borders mildly adjusted and removing its ability to wage destructive wars in the future. As for the rise of Naziism, surely the larger causes of that lie in the great depression, the already existing xenophobia in Germany, and the poor economic decisions of German leaders at the time?
@spikedpsycho you are spot on about no reason for US to enter the war. I would add the UK also had no reason to enter this 'great war'. The public in the UK were fed a myth that German naval building and Germany breaking Belguim neutrality were a reasons that threaten UK interests. It is very similar to 2003 US and UK invasion of Irak based on wepons of mass distruction.
The Ruhr area, Germanys (and Europes) Industrial heartland was occupied by France who extracted its production facilities and the Saar province was annexed. The Saar was annexed again after 1945 up till 1955 btw with the French trying unsuccessfully to keep it by forcing referendums not unlike Russia nowadays btw. I presume the Americans ensured that things went down democratically and the Germans in the Saar rejected the French position.
Christopher ist mittlerweile vom Historiker zum Klimatologen mutiert. Wirklich schade, er sollte sich weiter mehr auf die preußische Geschichte fokussieren.
Knowing the average intelligence of an average politician I think I finally got it. These people thought they were still fighting a XIX century war. A few cavalry charge, a couple of exchanges in the field and everyone goes back home with medals and war tales. Unfortunately, in the meantime, machine guns were invented and smokeless powders and planes and fantastic artillery. So they started the usual festival without knowing where it would end up. And they kept one fighting, until 1917, in the same old Napoleonic fashion. If you remove those technical discoveries, the WWI would have been much less lethal than the American civil war. Because no one kills like an American.
Ok what was that? Just curious - what is the man’s academic thesis or commentary on the events - and the involvement of Russia and France? That was 28 minutes academic administrative butt-kissing (par for the course for academics) - but after that I thought he would talk about….his work and his theories (?). That was terrible - I should have been listening to football mews i stead of whatever that was
He always underplays the effect of the French Revanchiste attitude: the plan to run a replay of 1870, but winning this time. In The Sleepwalkers he digs up plenty of evidence that the French political class were planning for this war, looking forward to it, and working hard to keep the Russians ‘solid’, as he says in the lecture. And yet, in the face of the evidence that he himself has collected, he constantly slides away from the obvious conclusion, and argues that the war was ‘multi-polar’, too complex to explain, and so on. It’s very odd to watch.
“ "In all my years at school I saw no other reason to live than the possibility of recovering our lost provinces." Raymond Poincaré, President of France from 1913 onwards.
yea no that is not what is being said tho.. almost the opposite, that the obsession w guilt is a hinderance to understanding the 'how', but if you need to include blame, germanys leaders were not blameless in starting the war by any account
What about the Blanc check kaiser sent to the Austrian,sure it was not for a world war,still contributed to the mess. Austrian would have never declared war if they new Germany was not on their side and Russia would interveen. That's exactly why blame shifted towards them,not entirely 100% Germany fault,but they contributed hugely
The first acts of war committed by Austria-Hungary and Germany were reactions to prior acts of war committed by Serbia and the Entente respectively. This is a reality so obvious that any denial of the contention that the First World War was a war of unilateral Entente-Serb aggression is far more likely to be motivated by politics than stupidity.
Far too complicated and in depth study. As far as I see it, none of the major players which eventually got involved in WW1 could afford to stay out of it. The background, in a nutshell. In a limited Balkan war between Austr-Hung and Serbia, Austr-Hung would have simply rolled over Serbia, and won easily. Russia would not have been pleased. In a European war between Austria-Hung on one side and Serbia /Russia on the other, the latter would have won easily. Germany would not have been pleased. In a European war between Germany/Austr-Hung pitted against Russia/Serbia, The Central Powers would have won easily. France would not have been pleased. In an extensive continental war between Germany/Austria-Hung and Russia/Serbia/France there was the very real danger that the Central Powers would have won. GB would not have been pleased. My personal conclusion is much simpler. No country could have AVOIDED from getting involved. Therefore the leaders of ALL countries made excuses, for which their respective populations would be willing to fight for. Very simple. Arguments about "percentages of guilt" are a wasted effort.....
+Ralph Bernhard : Sorry pal I disagree with you MASSIVELY. ie: 'Austr-Hung would have simply rolled over Serbia, and won easily' ??? what the hell? Mate loose comments like yours make history enthusiasts cringe. Actually, That 'easy' roll over only happened once Germany joined Austria's drive through Serbia.
diver05 We may gladly discuss this at length, in case you are interested in a debate. I wrote that A-H would have easily rolled over, IF Russia had not involved itself. In that case, there would not have been the need to defend the long border between A-H and Russia. In that case, the FULL military potential of both A-H and Bulgaria (which would have 'jumped on the band wagon') could have concentrated on tiny Serbia. If you read my initial comment in context, the 'easily rolling over Serbia' part is ONLY valid for the scenario of Russia not involving itself. Of course, with Russian involvement, A-H would have (or in fact did have to) also defend her border with Russia, greatly reducing the forces available to fight Serbia.
plenty of woulds and could. point is that AH was not capable to attack Serbia properly. We can talk endlessly about if it would have been possible if the entire AH-Army where at the serbian border. But they werent´t because of the Russians playing allies to the Serbs. That´s the way it was and that´s why it became what it was, a World War. It is, unfortuately, really that easy. And on top of that there was, as Professor Clark quite easy to understand put it, plenty of backstory in the run-up to the war. We Austrians always blame the Serbs, most of the rest of the world blames the Germans, some the Russians and some the Italians (always the backstabbers). It is as intricate as the day Franz-Ferdinand was shot. Just saying if they would have done that than that would have happened is just wrong because there was no way to stop the procedures once the AH-Ultimatum was posted. Sometimes things are complicated. And WW I is all the way up there.
I don't think Clark would disagree. The point he makes is that French support for Russia in your first scenario -- "In a limited Balkan war between Austr-Hung and Serbia, Austr-Hung would have simply rolled over Serbia, and won easily. Russia would not have been pleased" -- encouraged Russia to get involved as per your second scenario.
@@TomfromExeter Correct. Russia and France were really the "key" to avoid the spillover of the Balkan Crisis into a continental European war. That is also the reason why London leaned so heavily on Paris to back down from supporting St. Petersburg. Because Serbia was really only a geostrategic "barrier" between central Europe (dominated by Berlin/Vienna/Budapest) and the Ottoman Empire. IMO, Wilhelm II's guilt was that he thought he could break out of the encirclement of the Central Powers (by Russia and France) without consequences. In fact he was so sure that Russia had been scared off from supporting Serbia (like happened in 1908) that he went on holidays. His "guilt" was his naivety, thinking that his family relationships to the other ruling elites and few threats would ward off war. Of course the ruling elites in Europe all knew that Serbian leadership was most likely in on the assassination (as we know today), but they didn't want Berlin and Vienna/Budapest breaking out of the Cordon Sanitaire either (meaning that a further alliance with Istanbul would be unopposed, and no other "barriers" possible). Russia could then also have written off *their* dream of access to the Med via the Dardanelles for all time... Russia and France wanted to avoid the alliance Berlin-Vienna-Budapest-Istanbul at all costs. In fact, had France withdrawn her support of Russia, the Tzar would have had no other option of backing down. To take it further: if Russia had simpky urged Belgrade to accept the ultimatum, there would have been no war at all. Not even anybody "losing face", except the perpetrators in Belgrad... Not even a limited war in the form of the Austrian-Hungarians encircling of Belgrade in order to enforce concessions (the initial war plan). Had Belgrade accepted full responsibility for the actions of the military and political leaders who aided the Bosnian Serb assassins, there would have been a criminal investigation, and a bloodless regime change as there had been countless times in Europe's history. 40 million lives saved. Well, at least in 1914 :-)
".... major war imminent, they would have told you 'no'....". First of all, words are words, not concrete acts; also, leaders in particular lie as a matter of high policy. And other observers saw things differently. When US President Wilson's emissary, Col. House, returned from a trip to Europe - I don't remember exactly when, c. late 1913-early 1914 - he told WW "the place is a tinderbox...". American journalist Granville Fortescue reported at about the same time: "France has bought Russia....war inevitable and soon"; and etc. Fritz Fischer? an ex-Nazi stormtrooper who made his post Round II apologies by hugely exaggerating his own country's role in the inception of Round I of the 20th Century World War. In fact: 90% of all written history consists of the victors - and their collaborators - blaming the defeated, with the same nonsense repeated over and over again by academic and then coffee table historians. That's why, notoriously, we can learn nothing from our terrible, actual history....at least as distorted and written up by (most) historians. " ...Balkan tripwire not the result of a (French) plot that steadily matured over time...". Of course it was: by 1914 it was the rotten fruition of a 43-year long, post Franco-Prussian War French effort to diplomatically and then militarily encircle and destroy Germany (and its allies) so as to regain the "Lost Provinces" and never, ever again be challenged by a united German nation-state. Also by 1914: there were signs of an English-German raaprochement due to Germany finally giving up its ambitions to challenge British naval supremacy; thus 1914 became now or never for the French, because without the English fleet blockading and starving Europe Central into submission, the French understood that even France + Russia stood little chance of defeating Germany/Austria. At the point of the plot, Poincare and the French Secret Service operated through the Serbian Black hand: a bubbling cauldron of hot-for-war-and-SouthSlav Empire terrorists headquartered in Belgrade. Most of the rest you know....except for this: eventually the Serb regime itself arrested and executed Col. Apis and his top BH lieutenants on bogus "treason" charges. This occurred in 1917 at Salonika, when and where the Serbs were entirely under the French thumb. Because: dead men write no memoirs.
Vow! Someone is telling the real truth at last! This is the first time someone is telling the truth, as opposed to the ridiculous propaganda lies spouted by this professor Clark.
The only point on which I would disagree is the significance of the English German rapprochement by 1914. It was never a serious attempt at English German rapprochement. The negotiators kept going on back and forth with proposals to limit the scope of the German naval build up, but nothing really came out of the English German negotiations.
Colonel Dimitrovic who led the Black Hand was a real life hero. He received three bullet wounds while leading the assassination of King Alexander of Serbia.
it's very very boring the way prof. Clark tells it. Mensch sind Sie doch aber ein lang. weiliger Sprecher Herr. dr. Clark. Plus all the itmes we've already seen appear on our plates , multiple times.
Got a bit tired of two questioners going on with their 'questions' for a ridiculous length of time... I have encountered such people at various intellectual talks and gatherings and there's generally some underlying intellectual ego thing motivating it. Granted they were both historians who had also worked on this topic but you can be concise and keep your words down. It's a talk for everyone to listen to and any audience member to ask a question, consider the people around you and the time factor. And there's only one person down to give a lecture.
And what a speaker! After two talks from this chap I am in awe of his knowledge of this subject.
''some underlying intellectual ego thing motivating it' ha ha brilliantly put, my thoughts exactly. Also agreed on the merits of the speaker.
+thomas price It is Quebec, the official language is French.
+Tommybob 13 He's STILL going!! 6 minutes 5 seconds!!
I also can't believe how people can hog a question period, talking on and on as though they've legitimately stolen the podium. I've seen it many times.
Couldn't Mr Clark have told him that the answer to his question could be found outside in the corridor behind a door with a figure of a man on it?
Christopher Clark- that's the perfect name for a superhero alter ego... mild mannered lecturer by day, battles the evil doctor spatula by night... that kind of thing.
That was Clark from Kent.
Lol
The French guy who asks the long question could be his Nemesis.
This guy is an absolutly incredible speaker and historian.
As an Australian, it is sadly very rare to be able to look up to a truely great thinker from down under.
He’s in my opinion one of the most learned historians (concerning WW I) today.
Agree!
The French “questioner” does go on-the bane of any Q & A!
Loved the way Clark reverted to his Australian accent when recounting his grammar school days back in Australia.
I had no idea he was ozzy
For those who want to skip the very long winded question in French, jump to 1:11:32
Sounds like a good idea for an App. French Question Identifier. Just apply to any lecture and the long winded French questions will be clearly time marked in the video track. Maybe even a 10 second warning before they start with a selector that asks if you want to skip this question!😄
Just watching the History of Europe on tv, in Australia tonite, which he is narrating. He makes history sound as it should be fascinating and amazing. Very proud he is Australian. 💁🏼♀️😊
Me too! Leyes hope our nationalism does t start another war ha ha. Loved it how he broke out of his faux English accent back to good ol’ farken ‘strayan.... lol
@@drgeorgekI’m Canadian and nato & many countries like your own is now sending arms to Ukraine. It’s debateable if we started another war, but we didn’t force Putin to invade Ukraine. I believe that was his own decision for his legacy , land grab and to try and save Russia from there future of population stagnation. I believe it will fail. Russia will be broken up into many states. I’ll have to wait and see just like me commenting to this opinion. Cheers.
Yeah you should be proud of Christopher Clark. Taking this discussion as an example - what a tough format - interrogated by verbose historians in multiple languages. I have heard him interviewed also in German. Extraordinary grasp of an enormous subject. And even-tempered and good-natured. I have played that "Just want to emphasise that he said that he appreciated my book. In fact that's all he said". moment a dozen times since I first heard it.
Clark is a BEAST! Humorous, wise and perfect timing. Always a treat.
At least two of the audience don't know the difference between a question and windbaggery.
They wouldn't be French would they?
@@trojanthedog Are you psychic or something?
They’re French they assume
They own the world
@@ian_b Yes, and I believe you and I are on the same wavelength!😃
@@trojanthedog 😀
It's fascinating to see how this discussion still evokes emotions. People still identify themselves with "their" countries. In Fischer's case it's the other way round but his viewpoint had biogrophical motivations too because of his own role in WW 2. But this doesn't diminish his arguments of course.
I once read an article that british soldiers helped archeological excavation in England shortly after WW 1. When it turned out they had discovered anglo-saxon buildings and graves that proved how much english history and culture was coined by anglo-saxons from what is now northern Germany and southern Danmark, they were extremely disappointed. discontent, and depressed. Clearly they identified Anglo-Saxons with Germans and themselves with the Celtic-Roman inhabitans. In the 2004 movie "King Arthur" Anglo-Saxons where even played by German actors. Very strange. I wonder what would happen if you make a movie about the Battle of Hastings. I can't imagine an English crowd would identify with French speaking Normans...
of course, it diminishes Fishers arguments, when he obviously was looking to morally compensate feelings of his own guilt by an overly stressed anti-german view. with this distancing from "german national perspectives" he could also morally distance from his ns-past, not only for himself but also in the eyes of the allies who embraced him.
Drrrdrrrrrrrrr=rrdrrrdrrrrrrrrdrrrrrrrrrrdrdrrrdrrrrrrrrrrr=rrrdrrdrdddrrdrrrrrrddrrrrrrrrdrrddrrdr=rrrrrrdrrrrrrdrrrrrrrr=rrr=rr==rrrrrr=rrrrrrr=d==rdrrrrrrrr==r=rrrrrrrrrrr=rrrrrrrrrrr=rrrrrr=rrrdrdr=rrrrrrrrrrrrdrd=rr=r=rrrr=drrr=rrrdrdrrrrdrrrrrdrrdrrrrrrrrrrrrdrrrrr=rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr=rrrrrrrrrrrrrdr=rrrrrrrrrrrdrrrrrrdrdrrdrr=rrdrrrrrdrrrrrrrrdrrrddddrrrdrrrrrdrrdrrrd=rrrrddrrrdrrr=ddrrrrr=rdrdrrrr=rrdrrrrrrrrrr=rrrd=rrddrrrrdrrddddddrrrrrrdrdrrrrrrrdrrdrdrrrr=rrdd==drrdrrr=rrrrrrdrrrrrrrrdrdr=rrrrrrr=rrrrrrddrrrrdrrdrrrdrdrdrrrrrdr5rr=trdrdrrrdrrrdrrrdrrrdrrrrrdrrrddrrrrdddrdrrrdddrrrrdrd=drrrrrrddrrdrdrrdrrdtrrddrr=rrd=r4=rdrrrrrddd=rrrrrrrrd=5drrrrrdrddrdrd=rrdrrrrrrrrrrrr=r5d5=r=rrrrdrr=rdrrrrrdrrrdrrrrrrrrdrrrrr=rrrrrdrrrrr=rrrrdrrrrddrr=rrrrdrrdrdrrrrrrrrrrrrrdrrrrrrr4drrdrr=r=rddrdrd=r=d=rrrrrrrrrr=r=dr=r=rrdrr=ŕrrrrdrrr=drrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr====rrrdrr=d=r=r=r=rrr=r==rrrrrd=drdr====drrrd=rdrd=r==rrrrr=rrrrrrrrrrrrrr=r=rdrrr=ddrr=rrrrr=dr=rrrrrrrr=rrr=rrdrrrrrrrrrrr=d=rdrrdrrd===rrr4drrrrr=r=rr=rrrrrrrrrrrrr4=rrrd=drr===rr=rrrrrdrrrdrrrrrd=ddrrrrrr==r=rr=rrdrrr=rrr=r==r=rrrrrrd=rrrdrrr==rrr=dddrr=====r=r==rr=r=r==rddr=r=r=r=drr=drrrdd==r=r==r=rrdrrd=r==r==rdrrrrrrrddrrrr=rrrdrrrr=rrrrdrrrrdrddrrrrrrrrrrr=rrrrrrrr=rrddrrrrd=drdrr==rr4rrrrdrddrr5rddrr=rdrd=rrr5r5rrd=drrrrrrrr=drrdrrrrrrrrdrrr=rrrdrrrrddrrrdrrddrrrdrdrddrdrdrrrrrdddddrrrrrrrrr=rrr=r=rrrrrrrrrrrr=rr=r=rrr==rrrrrd=drr=rr==rr=r=dr====rdrrrrr===r==rr=d=drrdddrrr=drddddrrrdr==d=d=dd=ddrrrrrr=rr=ddr=rrrr=r=rrdrrd=rrrddrr4dd=r=d5d=drrrrrrr=rr=drrrrddrd=rrr=rdrrr=rdrr=rdrr=ddd=rdddrdd=rrd==rrrr=ddrdrdrrrd=rdrdrdrrrrrrr=rdddrdrdrdrrdddrrrdrrrddrrdrrddddddddddrdrddrddrdrdrddrrrrdddrdrdrd=drdrddddrddrd=drrddrrdrdrdr5d=rrrdrrddr==rrdr=rdr=r=rrrdrdrddrdrr==drrdrdrrrdrd=rd=drdrddddrd=rrrdddrrrrrrddrrdrrrrr=rdrrd=rdrrrrdrdr=r===rrdrd=drrrd==dr=rrd===rrd=rrddrrdrrdrrrrdrddrdrrrrr=rd==rrrrr=rrdr=rrrrdrr==rdrrrrr=rrrdrr=rdrrr=rr=rd=d=r=d=rr=r=r=rrrrrrrrr=d==rrr==rrrd=rrrrrrdrrrrrrrrr==rrrrrrrdrrrdrrrrrrrrrdrrrrrrrdrdrdrrdrrrdrrrdrddrrrddrrrrrrr=rrd=rrrddrrrrrdr4rrrrrddddrddrrrrddddrdrrddrrdrdddrrdd5ddrddddddrddrdrdrrddddrrrdrrrdrrdddrdddrdddddddrdrdrrrrddrddrdrrdrdrrrdr==ddd==rrdrdrdrdrdrdr==rrdrrr=rdrrdddrrrrrrrdrrrrdrrddddrdrrdrdrrr=rrrrrdrrrdrr=rrrrr=rddrdrrr=rrddrddrrdrdr
People settle lands , mix with locals then adopt their identities. Seems commendable to me. Brits hate the concept of being invaded.
I was at a commemoration of the Battle of Hastings..;.,the Norman acting , celebratory Hungarian horsemen ,were visibly shocked, when the crowd booed them off the field. Brits and our laws identify as Anglo Saxons not lawless Norman's.
@@nightwish1000
Hunh? What guilt? You're babbling, fool.
@@michaelramus8162 "Anglo Saxons not lawless Norman's."
Lawless Norman's what?
Or do you mean "Normans," the plural of "Norman"?
Fascinating to hear Prof Clark questioned by his peers - thanks for posting. Agree about the 'long duree' of some of the questions ;)
Loved the book, Sleepwalkers. Wish I could ask questions too.
I’d love to sit at a table with him and ask him the many questions that I have in my mind of WW I !
Me too!!!
@@RachelleLeigh-tk5oc Rachel, I’m very impressed at the knowledge he has on the subject of WWI !
What a great and knowledgable speaker!
These videos literally never get old
An absolutely wonderful talk, so engaging. Thank you for posting.
Jesus. Christopher speaks with more authority about early 20th century geopolitics and everyone who ever thought about it than I could speak about what I had for lunch yesterday.
Great scholar, interesting POV, generous spirit and GSOH; Christoper Clark is a jewel! Agree about the two wind bag questioners-- poor sign of their intellectual capabilities in being unable to ask short, sharp questions...
The war is over and we lost… GWTW
I think they were heavyweights in their own right in a room where everyone knew that so it may have been that it was reasonable to hear a bit from those people. Clark did even say he would have adjusted his book for some of the comments! Not often you hear a reply like that from a prestigious academic
Putting forward an answer before the question, hypothetical arrangements of history are natural to thinking about probabilistic correlations of currency, ie it's self-defining consistency with the continuous process, which is the fact that this particular existence/event, is a fundamental functional phenomenon, here-now-forever. So the "Great Game" on the real-time Shakespearean Stage is the Forever War of predator-prey opportunities.
The philosophical play of Hamlet and the catastrophic finish sums up the situation, stylishly.
"Who is to blame for the war?" has the same answer as the culprit in "Murder on the Orient Express" - they _all_ did it. Any one of the principle powers could have stopped the war before it started if they wanted to.
It’s even more complex than that, because no nation exclusively WANTED a war, there were differing opinions within the leadership of all these nations. Every nation had some hardline warmongers as well as people who tried to deescalate. The various empires weren’t unified in their thinking, they all had those driving for war and those trying to preserve peace. Ironically perhaps Czar Nikolas, kaiser Wilhelm and Franz Joseph actually tried to maintain peace or at least deescalate the situation, but they all had ministers, statesmen and ambassadors that were war mongers and sadly the war hawks won out. For instance franz Joseph had his mail literally withheld or intercepted by his ministers, some even lied to him and said Serbian army was shelling Austrian positions before war had actually begun. The Hungarian prime minister who wanted peace had his communications with the emperor blocked…..czar Nikolas cancelled his mobilisation order when he realised what was happening, his chief of staff literally said NO to him…..kaiser Wilhelm was on holiday and behind his back the German foreign ministers were basically doing things contrary to his orders. Bethman Holbeck kept colluding with the Austrian foreign ministers to encourage war with Serbia, the kaiser found out and cut his holiday short, then tried to withdraw German unconditional support but it was too late. He suggested a limited occupation of Belgrade and to have a mediation of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to make it more reasonable, this of course never happened as behind his back his ministers and cooked up this ultimatum to be designed to be rejected and justify the invasion. The Serbs didn’t help themselves by doing nothing to root out the black hand and purge government and military officials who were involved with these secret organisations. So it’s not entirely unreasonable that Austria wanted a war with them. All the monarchs of these 3 empires tried to pull back and deescalate to varying degrees.
A very interesting and gracious speaker
Great speech, and very interesting angles of analysis. It is a pity though, in a speech dedicated to France and the origins of WW1 that he didn't even mention the "loi des trois ans", ie. the French law passed in 1913, extending the time of military service from 2 to 3 years. This was a clear shift from France, in fact Clemenceau, towards war. This was one of the pieces in the politics of "Guerre a outrance" of the French republic.
3:13 Clark begins
Great lecture, the part with a monologue in French for somewhere between 10 minutes and 3.5 hours while everyone else sits there waiting for the room to deplete of oxygen was not exactly a high point but that's outside of anyone elses's control. And the handling of it after of course was great.
Wow. Some very good questions. Amazing how prof.Clark lines up events like 1914 with Dallas and 9/11. How about the Battle of Spionkop, Blockade of German and Austrian harbors 1904-1919, Royal Navy exercise just two weeks before the assassination, invasion of Russia in 1919/1920 ? Who was Wilhelm Wassmussen ?
This is a much better version of Christopher Clark's conference than his Gresham College one! A lot more "meat"... and I must say this is partly thanks to the long-winded "question" by the french-speaking gentleman. Anyway Clark's point of view is extremely interesting.
Since the time of this lecture the world politics offers greater reminiscence of WW1 then the one mentioned by prof. Clark, particularly the rise of populism in Europe.
There was a lecture he did to a bunch of students where they asked him questions afterwards pertaining to the Ukrainian crisis that has been removed within the last month, does anyone know where that lecture was held and if there are any other copies of it up?
This ?
ua-cam.com/video/9XwIVAyft2w/v-deo.htmlsi=UTF6XtoLF4sZpFeL
Maastricht University in the Netherlands
I watched that recently somewhere.
Thank you so much for this objective account!
1:00:18
Uncertainty led to last war but certainty will bring the next. Someone has a computer whos only job is to calculate percentage chance of war and as soon as that counter goes above their arbitrarily set threshold the cost of going to war will drop compared to the cost of not going.
always a pleasure listening to Clark 😌
Great lecture and book Professor Clark. This is staged at Univ of Quebec a Montreal (not Cambridge)?
The important step: to view the history with fresh eyes, not with the known result retrospectively. Riveting speaker, knowledgeable and diplomatic in the face of drawn out information-dump questions. Thank you for providing.
Have some confidence in yourself. STAND, my son, STAND!!!!! You speak English better than 99% of us.
very interesting lecture about the outbreak of the First World War
Chez les français il y avait toujours le sous-entendu de l'idée d'une guerre de revanche pour la perte d'Alsace et une partie de la Lorraine, issue de la Guerre Franco-Prussienne de 1870-71.
WW1, the big modernizer.
Interesting approach: 1914 more resembles 2016 than it resembles 1970.
I think this is true.
Equally, you could argue the other way. There were two big alliance blocks which increased paranoia and ensured any war would be widened. Like the cold war stand off.
great video
1:05:11, the long winded question in French.
Speaker introducing Clark "He is actually a german historian but that should not prevent us from enjoying from what he has to say" *laughter by the audience*
Sums it up basically.
I do wish historians would stop talking about "The Schlieffen Plan" which is an infamous piece of historical myth making.
What they actually mean is Moltke's plan to deploy the bulk of The German Army into Belgium.
So why not say so?
There's an amusing anecdote about how Moltke (in 1913?) thought it would be interesting to examine Schlieffen's thoughts about how to fight a war in Belgium.
He then had to ask Schlieffen's daughters to send him the relevant papers, because he'd written them after his retirement and never submitted them to The German Army.
Does it really matter what it was called? The Germans had inked plans to invade France via Belgium prior to the war and they executed them.
Clark: 'the First World War is not a James Bond movie that has a villain in a smoker's jacket, stroking a white cat with a prosthetic hand'
Question: yes yes yes, but...its all germanys fault, n'est pas?
😂
Great intro music
Woah, hold on Chris. The Archduke is dead?
I know! It’s fucking crazy! Waiting to get the morning paper to see what’s going on.
omfg that questioner at 1:08:00 hours. Seems like no one listens to him in his personal life.
So disrespectful to everyone taking a whole 7 minutes out of the event.
That’s the moderator’s fault. As soon as he started going off, the moderator should have stepped in and forced him to wrap his commentary up.
V. interesting lecture.
A pity however that Prof Clark's assessment of French connivance in the war's creation omits to mention France's funding of Russia's western military district railways, enabling Russia to mobilise much faster than would otherwise have been possible - thus adding to German paranoia and enabling Prussian militarists to call for an early war. He also neglects to mention French funding of Serbian forces which inflamed Belgrade's desire for a Greater Serbia.
Germany aside, it seems to me that the two countries 'mugged' (in both senses of the word) by French geopolitical cunning were its allies (Russia and Britain). Neither had much to gain from war with Germany (in many ways the British people were closer to the Germans than to either the Russians or French). In contrast, France (desperate to recover self-respect as well as Alsace- Lorraine) had a motive as well as the means.
It's a measure of the fix that Foreign Secretary Grey got himself into by over-committing to France that he convinced (just) his Cabinet colleagues to enter the war largely on the grounds of 'honour' and the commitment to Belgium. To the extent that the Entente bound British honour to France, the commitment was principally naval. Had the BEF not been sent, with French forces hundreds of kilometres out of position (focused on Alsace-Lorraine) who knows how France would have fared? Lost within weeks as in 1870 probably.
The Brits were also duped by 'plucky Belgium' which had secretly negotiated a side-deal with Germany to allow them to invade France via SE Belgium so long as they kept east of the river Sambre.) With friends like these, who needs enemies?!
The longer term irony (for Brits) is that, having twice in the 20th century come to France's rescue, the French have been nothing but antagonistic towards the British ever since - De Gaulle for example. There must be a French equivalent of the English expression: 'No good deed goes unpunished!'
No wonder the Brits are eurosceptic!
Alan, you raise some interesting points. Are you able to point me at the sources for them?
@@TomfromExeter you should just read Clark's book "The Sleepwalkers". It makes the case fairly convincingly that the French and Austrians were both looking to find an excuse to rope their stronger partners (Russia/Britain and Germany, respectively) into a war for their own ends. The elements of the Serbian state that sponsored the assassinations were thinking along similar lines. These were deeply, deeply irresponsible, you might almost say outright evil men.
@@mjxw You're right. Having read Sleepwalkers I take all Alan's points. And sadly the Black Hand must rank as one of the most 'successful' terrorist organisations ever. The assassinations seem to have played out just as they hoped.
@@mjxw They were not evil men
They were deeply patriotic Frenchmen who did the right thing as prescribed by duty and honor in order to recover the two provinces of Alsace Lorraine stolen by the German empire.
The only way to prevent World War I would have been for the German empire to restitute the provinces of the Alsace Lorraine back to France, and the Germans were not going to do it.
We have to salute the sense of honor, the patriotism, the bravery and the dedication of the French people who never gave up hope after 43 long years that one day, they would fight and defeat Germany in order to recover the provinces of the Alsace Lorraine.
And Russia/Britain were not the strongest partners, because it was the French army which bore the brunt of the fighting against the German armies, and it was French field marshal Foch as supreme allied commander who received the surrender of the German armies in 1918 on the western front, and it was French field marshal Franchet d'Esperey as supreme allied commander who received the surrender of the Austrian/Bulgarian/Turkish armies in 1918 on the Eastern front.
@@matcha1693 5% of France's entire population *died* in World War 1. Another 10% were wounded. An entire generation of young men killed, wounded, and maimed in the war. All so that France could have returned two small border provinces that were half-German to begin with? Not to mention, if what you're saying is true, whatever honor they preserved was more than offset by the vast, dishonorable lie they told their allies about the war's cause.
You have a funny definition of "patriotic".
aren't the deaths from disease always greater than those killed in action?
not in WW1 I think 🤔
Yes, the Spanish flu killed more soldiers than the fighting itself. ua-cam.com/video/e79Kg9umrIw/v-deo.html
Not always, I think it was true for Napoleon in Russia, American Civil War...etc.
I am surprised everyone talks about German war guilt but no one ever talks about Austria war guilt. If anyone was guilty of starting WWI, it was Austria not Germany, surely?
Why would they?
The Dual Monarchy disintegrated at the end of the war.
It committed a maximally destructive form of suicide.
@@alanpennie hang on, so did the Hohenzollern monarchy and government
@@jeffersonwright6249
There were some changes at the top but The Reich marched on, diminished but mostly intact.
@@alanpennie fair point. And it helped that egregious idiot Franz Joseph died 1916. But by god I would not have been so merciful!
Margaret Macmillan in the book, The War that Ended Peace, points the finger at Austria.
I was going to ask a ten minute 'question' also.....lol.
1:08:19 you and me both man
I find myself comparing the responsibility for WWI to be an exercise in no fault insurance assignment of liability. There was a terrible accident that resulted in loss of life and property and all the drivers that collided in the intersection all contributed to making this a terrible tragedy.
I find Christopher Clark's argument completely unconvincing.
You did? Well I differ from you, for I found it very instructive!
Germany was the guilty one, because the way the Gerries were by 1914. Too civilized and refined and clean in some ways, and too savage and cruel and hateful in others. Too Bavarian and too Prussian at the same time. So, the real guilty one was Prussia.
Er wirkt beim Vortrag ein wenig nervös, so als müsste er die Reaktionen des Publikums fürchten.
Helmut Gehrmann Es waren da lauter Herren, die die Geschichte des 1. Weltkrieges sehr gut kannten.
no nation exclusively WANTED a war, there were differing opinions within the leadership of all these nations. Every nation had some hardline warmongers as well as people who tried to deescalate. The various empires weren’t unified in their thinking, they all had those driving for war and those trying to preserve peace. Ironically perhaps Czar Nikolas, kaiser Wilhelm and Franz Joseph actually tried to maintain peace or at least deescalate the situation, but they all had ministers, statesmen and ambassadors that were war mongers and sadly the war hawks won out. For instance franz Joseph had his mail literally withheld or intercepted by his ministers, some even lied to him and said Serbian army was shelling Austrian positions before war had actually begun. The Hungarian prime minister who wanted peace had his communications with the emperor blocked…..czar Nikolas cancelled his mobilisation order when he realised what was happening, his chief of staff literally said NO to him…..kaiser Wilhelm was on holiday and behind his back the German foreign ministers were basically doing things contrary to his orders. Bethman Holbeck kept colluding with the Austrian foreign ministers to encourage war with Serbia, the kaiser found out and cut his holiday short, then tried to withdraw German unconditional support but it was too late. He suggested a limited occupation of Belgrade and to have a mediation of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to make it more reasonable, this of course never happened as behind his back his ministers and cooked up this ultimatum to be designed to be rejected and justify the invasion. The Serbs didn’t help themselves by doing nothing to root out the black hand and purge government and military officials who were involved with these secret organisations. So it’s not entirely unreasonable that Austria wanted a war with them. All the monarchs of these 3 empires tried to pull back and deescalate to varying degrees.
I compliment Prof.Clark for the lecture, but wold like to hear a name of the Bulgarian historian on the Great War, to name him or her, just like Prof. Clark does the other historians,
Very insightful, but difficult to follow as he speaks very very quickly and the thick accent doesn't help . The strung out questions in French, the guy thinks that he's giving the lecture. I speak French and it's most frustrating, why doesn't he shut him up?😱😱
45:36, 47:50, Clark gets a laugh from the audience.
Je constate (vers 1:06) que, comme tous les grands hommes remarquables (il n'y pas de grands hommes pas remarquables), le Professeur Clark est gaucher.
I believe on the question of intelligence France and Russia were way better informed about Germany and AH than Germany and AH were about them.
Joffre was extremely confident because he understood the numerical weakness of The German Army.
Both Germany and AH were astonished by the speed of Russian mobilization, which far exceeded their expectations.
Books about World War I are not popular in the USA because they are depressing nor films about it because few American's understand the purpose. The world’s great European powers destroyed a generation of men in pointless bloody battles. Few Americans realize that World War I was America’s worst foreign policy blunder that killed millions and set the stage for World War II..
When the “Great War” began in 1914, royals and generals hoped for swift victories. However, advances in technology, mostly machine guns and artillery, allowed concentrated firepower to annihilate attacking formations. The war in France bogged down into a bloody stalemate and the construction of fortified positions ensured that any offensive would grind to a stop. The king of England and Germany were first cousins who grew up together, so a peaceful resolution was likely in 1916.
The problem was that British bankers had loaned its government lots of money and most could not be repaid. They wanted to win the war so they could loot Germany by requiring Germans to pay reparations so the British government could repay them. If they could lure the powerful USA to join the war, victory was assured. They blocked peace efforts and used their agents of influence to manipulate the USA into joining the war. Soon after President Wilson was elected with the promise to stay out the war, he worked with Congress to declare war.
As a result, the war dragged on for two more bloody years before enough American men and material arrived in France to turn the tide. The war was unpopular back home, leading Wilson to censor the US mail by blocking anti-war newsletters and magazines. He threw thousands of political opponents in jail, implemented a draft to fill out the Army, and sent these reluctant Americans into battle with little training and poor equipment. The Americans fought bravely, but the Germans had three years of combat experience and chewed up American units foolishly thrown into frontal attacks that had little chance of success. After four years of war, the Germans had no more manpower to replace losses, and surrendered based on a just peace promised by President Wilson. That never happened and Germany was looted and humiliated, which led to the rise of the Nazis and World War II.
Germany was neither looted nor humiliated after the war - it was allowed a surprising amount of post-war autonomy, instead simply having its borders mildly adjusted and removing its ability to wage destructive wars in the future.
As for the rise of Naziism, surely the larger causes of that lie in the great depression, the already existing xenophobia in Germany, and the poor economic decisions of German leaders at the time?
@spikedpsycho you are spot on about no reason for US to enter the war. I would add the UK also had no reason to enter this 'great war'. The public in the UK were fed a myth that German naval building and Germany breaking Belguim neutrality were a reasons that threaten UK interests. It is very similar to 2003 US and UK invasion of Irak based on wepons of mass distruction.
The Ruhr area, Germanys (and Europes) Industrial heartland was occupied by France who extracted its production facilities and the Saar province was annexed. The Saar was annexed again after 1945 up till 1955 btw with the French trying unsuccessfully to keep it by forcing referendums not unlike Russia nowadays btw. I presume the Americans ensured that things went down democratically and the Germans in the Saar rejected the French position.
Average weeaboo opinion
The French get a kick hearing their own voice.
1. Klasse im Schnellsprechen: Wer hetzt ihn hier?
Gonzalez Mary Jackson Shirley Lopez Elizabeth
Christopher ist mittlerweile vom Historiker zum Klimatologen mutiert. Wirklich schade, er sollte sich weiter mehr auf die preußische Geschichte fokussieren.
Get some glasses that fit, kind sir.
😊😊
Harris Kevin Lopez Gary Lopez Michael
Knowing the average intelligence of an average politician I think I finally got it. These people thought they were still fighting a XIX century war. A few cavalry charge, a couple of exchanges in the field and everyone goes back home with medals and war tales. Unfortunately, in the meantime, machine guns were invented and smokeless powders and planes and fantastic artillery. So they started the usual festival without knowing where it would end up. And they kept one fighting, until 1917, in the same old Napoleonic fashion. If you remove those technical discoveries, the WWI would have been much less lethal than the American civil war. Because no one kills like an American.
Ok what was that? Just curious - what is the man’s academic thesis or commentary on the events - and the involvement of Russia and France? That was 28 minutes academic administrative butt-kissing (par for the course for academics) - but after that I thought he would talk about….his work and his theories (?). That was terrible - I should have been listening to football mews i stead of whatever that was
He always underplays the effect of the French Revanchiste attitude: the plan to run a replay of 1870, but winning this time. In The Sleepwalkers he digs up plenty of evidence that the French political class were planning for this war, looking forward to it, and working hard to keep the Russians ‘solid’, as he says in the lecture. And yet, in the face of the evidence that he himself has collected, he constantly slides away from the obvious conclusion, and argues that the war was ‘multi-polar’, too complex to explain, and so on. It’s very odd to watch.
“ "In all my years at school I saw no other reason to live than the possibility of recovering our lost provinces." Raymond Poincaré, President of France from 1913 onwards.
1:11:30 is when the ridiculous triggered Frenchman shuts up after his long winded question
Verbeux!
Jones Joseph Harris Daniel Johnson Lisa
Don’t forget China’s Qing dynasty!
In Hibbing i
Na scheiss mich an , was für eine Geschichte , Iam Prometheusianer
The Frenchman’s question was longer than their fighting in WWII.
It took a century, but the truth is starting to come out: German wasn’t to blame for the war. Russian and French machinations were primarily to blame.
That is not the conclusion Clark reaches. He argues there were multiple guilty parties, including, but not solely, Germany.
yea no that is not what is being said tho.. almost the opposite, that the obsession w guilt is a hinderance to understanding the 'how', but if you need to include blame, germanys leaders were not blameless in starting the war by any account
50:00 eg
What about the Blanc check kaiser sent to the Austrian,sure it was not for a world war,still contributed to the mess. Austrian would have never declared war if they new Germany was not on their side and Russia would interveen. That's exactly why blame shifted towards them,not entirely 100% Germany fault,but they contributed hugely
Wtf
The first acts of war committed by Austria-Hungary and Germany were reactions to prior acts of war committed by Serbia and the Entente respectively. This is a reality so obvious that any denial of the contention that the First World War was a war of unilateral Entente-Serb aggression is far more likely to be motivated by politics than stupidity.
all colonial thieves united in one room
Far too complicated and in depth study.
As far as I see it, none of the major players which eventually got involved in WW1 could afford to stay out of it.
The background, in a nutshell.
In a limited Balkan war between Austr-Hung and Serbia, Austr-Hung would have simply rolled over Serbia, and won easily. Russia would not have been pleased.
In a European war between Austria-Hung on one side and Serbia /Russia on the other, the latter would have won easily. Germany would not have been pleased.
In a European war between Germany/Austr-Hung pitted against Russia/Serbia, The Central Powers would have won easily. France would not have been pleased.
In an extensive continental war between Germany/Austria-Hung and Russia/Serbia/France there was the very real danger that the Central Powers would have won.
GB would not have been pleased.
My personal conclusion is much simpler.
No country could have AVOIDED from getting involved. Therefore the leaders of ALL countries made excuses, for which their respective populations would be willing to fight for.
Very simple.
Arguments about "percentages of guilt" are a wasted effort.....
+Ralph Bernhard : Sorry pal I disagree with you MASSIVELY.
ie: 'Austr-Hung would have simply rolled over Serbia, and won easily' ??? what the hell? Mate loose comments like yours make history enthusiasts cringe. Actually, That 'easy' roll over only happened once Germany joined Austria's drive through Serbia.
diver05 We may gladly discuss this at length, in case you are interested in a debate.
I wrote that A-H would have easily rolled over, IF Russia had not involved itself. In that case, there would not have been the need to defend the long border between A-H and Russia.
In that case, the FULL military potential of both A-H and Bulgaria (which would have 'jumped on the band wagon') could have concentrated on tiny Serbia.
If you read my initial comment in context, the 'easily rolling over Serbia' part is ONLY valid for the scenario of Russia not involving itself. Of course, with Russian involvement, A-H would have (or in fact did have to) also defend her border with Russia, greatly reducing the forces available to fight Serbia.
plenty of woulds and could. point is that AH was not capable to attack Serbia properly. We can talk endlessly about if it would have been possible if the entire AH-Army where at the serbian border. But they werent´t because of the Russians playing allies to the Serbs. That´s the way it was and that´s why it became what it was, a World War. It is, unfortuately, really that easy. And on top of that there was, as Professor Clark quite easy to understand put it, plenty of backstory in the run-up to the war. We Austrians always blame the Serbs, most of the rest of the world blames the Germans, some the Russians and some the Italians (always the backstabbers). It is as intricate as the day Franz-Ferdinand was shot. Just saying if they would have done that than that would have happened is just wrong because there was no way to stop the procedures once the AH-Ultimatum was posted. Sometimes things are complicated. And WW I is all the way up there.
I don't think Clark would disagree. The point he makes is that French support for Russia in your first scenario -- "In a limited Balkan war between Austr-Hung and Serbia, Austr-Hung would have simply rolled over Serbia, and won easily. Russia would not have been pleased" -- encouraged Russia to get involved as per your second scenario.
@@TomfromExeter Correct.
Russia and France were really the "key" to avoid the spillover of the Balkan Crisis into a continental European war.
That is also the reason why London leaned so heavily on Paris to back down from supporting St. Petersburg.
Because Serbia was really only a geostrategic "barrier" between central Europe (dominated by Berlin/Vienna/Budapest) and the Ottoman Empire.
IMO, Wilhelm II's guilt was that he thought he could break out of the encirclement of the Central Powers (by Russia and France) without consequences. In fact he was so sure that Russia had been scared off from supporting Serbia (like happened in 1908) that he went on holidays.
His "guilt" was his naivety, thinking that his family relationships to the other ruling elites and few threats would ward off war.
Of course the ruling elites in Europe all knew that Serbian leadership was most likely in on the assassination (as we know today), but they didn't want Berlin and Vienna/Budapest breaking out of the Cordon Sanitaire either (meaning that a further alliance with Istanbul would be unopposed, and no other "barriers" possible).
Russia could then also have written off *their* dream of access to the Med via the Dardanelles for all time...
Russia and France wanted to avoid the alliance Berlin-Vienna-Budapest-Istanbul at all costs.
In fact, had France withdrawn her support of Russia, the Tzar would have had no other option of backing down.
To take it further: if Russia had simpky urged Belgrade to accept the ultimatum, there would have been no war at all. Not even anybody "losing face", except the perpetrators in Belgrad...
Not even a limited war in the form of the Austrian-Hungarians encircling of Belgrade in order to enforce concessions (the initial war plan).
Had Belgrade accepted full responsibility for the actions of the military and political leaders who aided the Bosnian Serb assassins, there would have been a criminal investigation, and a bloodless regime change as there had been countless times in Europe's history.
40 million lives saved.
Well, at least in 1914 :-)
Rude academic 1:29:05
mirsam. (Ar) = pencil
pen = qalam (Ar)
Two massively long lectures by the audience. Is there anything more annoying?
".... major war imminent, they would have told you 'no'....". First of all, words are words, not concrete acts; also, leaders in particular lie as a matter of high policy. And other observers saw things differently. When US President Wilson's emissary, Col. House, returned from a trip to Europe - I don't remember exactly when, c. late 1913-early 1914 - he told WW "the place is a tinderbox...". American journalist Granville Fortescue reported at about the same time: "France has bought Russia....war inevitable and soon"; and etc. Fritz Fischer? an ex-Nazi stormtrooper who made his post Round II apologies by hugely exaggerating his own country's role in the inception of Round I of the 20th Century World War. In fact: 90% of all written history consists of the victors - and their collaborators - blaming the defeated, with the same nonsense repeated over and over again by academic and then coffee table historians. That's why, notoriously, we can learn nothing from our terrible, actual history....at least as distorted and written up by (most) historians. " ...Balkan tripwire not the result of a (French) plot that steadily matured over time...". Of course it was: by 1914 it was the rotten fruition of a 43-year long, post Franco-Prussian War French effort to diplomatically and then militarily encircle and destroy Germany (and its allies) so as to regain the "Lost Provinces" and never, ever again be challenged by a united German nation-state. Also by 1914: there were signs of an English-German raaprochement due to Germany finally giving up its ambitions to challenge British naval supremacy; thus 1914 became now or never for the French, because without the English fleet blockading and starving Europe Central into submission, the French understood that even France + Russia stood little chance of defeating Germany/Austria. At the point of the plot, Poincare and the French Secret Service operated through the Serbian Black hand: a bubbling cauldron of hot-for-war-and-SouthSlav Empire terrorists headquartered in Belgrade. Most of the rest you know....except for this: eventually the Serb regime itself arrested and executed Col. Apis and his top BH lieutenants on bogus "treason" charges. This occurred in 1917 at Salonika, when and where the Serbs were entirely under the French thumb. Because: dead men write no memoirs.
Vow! Someone is telling the real truth at last!
This is the first time someone is telling the truth, as opposed to the ridiculous propaganda lies spouted by this professor Clark.
The only point on which I would disagree is the significance of the English German rapprochement by 1914.
It was never a serious attempt at English German rapprochement.
The negotiators kept going on back and forth with proposals to limit the scope of the German naval build up, but nothing really came out of the English German negotiations.
Colonel Dimitrovic who led the Black Hand was a real life hero.
He received three bullet wounds while leading the assassination of King Alexander of Serbia.
@@matcha1693 Cope
it's very very boring the way prof. Clark tells it. Mensch sind Sie doch aber ein lang.
weiliger Sprecher Herr. dr. Clark. Plus all the itmes we've already seen appear on our plates , multiple times.
More nonsense from Sr Clarke
How did he manage to talk so much without saying anything
I guess you have a problem understanding very meaningful content.
@@vercingetorix3414 maybe the sound was off. . .
man that is terrible
Ok bot
@@DogeickBateman wow ace comeback duff boi!
Page 288
Dan. = abbrev. for: 1 Bible. Daniel. 2 Danish.