Its simple, greedy politicians leading people down a path of destruction. Few socieities ever fight for resources such as water, land or oil because most nations have none, people instead fight for pride (our civilization is better) or for ideals (like we do not agree with their ways so we will invade them and teach them our ways). But war never starts from the lower classes
Yet she's also so naive. Listen to her comments about Putin, talking about his actions as though he's just an ordinary leader with grievances, rather than an expansionist dictator who believes his neighbors aren't real countries and their people aren't a real people and any resistance to being "turned back into Russians" must be eradicated through any means necessary - the very essence of the attitude that has led to the most horrible atrocities in history. Or her false history of the EU, the "popular history", that the EU formed because you had a bunch of people who learned that war was bad, and decided that they didn't want war anymore, and unified. It's a nice happy story that Europeans tell themselves to feel better about themselves, and feel smug against other countries. When in reality, Europeans had fought endless wars, both within Europe and overseas, and each time decided war was bad, but continued waging wars with each other nonetheless. What changed after WWII was that Europeans started *losing wars* against their *colonies* . They were decolonized, largely forceably, by their colonial peoples, and their economic order they relied on collapsed as a result. They were basically forced to turn to elsewhere to rebuild their markets, and turned to each other as the only viable option. The countries that decolonized the earliest turned to the European project the earliest. Those that decolonized the latest turned to it the latest. There's a direct 1:1 correspondence.
Margaret MacMillan delivers as per usual. Been consuming content of her here on youtube lately. She is extremely knowledgeable. I need to read some of her books.
If you enjoy her lectures you may also enjoy Dr. Stephen Kotkin as well. His expertise is in Eurasian studies but I find him to be on a similar level as MacMillan.
@@MrTylerStricker Thank you. I have watched many of his lectures and I'm currently reading his book on Stalin (finished the first one, reading the second one). I know very well :D
@@Frankenberryoneone His Stalin series is really fantastic. The end of 'Waiting For Hitler' will just make you want to read the long-in-development-but-as-yet-unreleased third volume!!
The best book on WW1 I am aware of is 'Goodbye to All That' by Robert Graves, who was an officer on the British side and later became Professor of Poetry at Oxford. He isn't much interested in the causes of the war but is good on what it was like to fight in it and the private attitudes of those obliged to take part.
Two books of fiction that provide vivid accounts of what it was like in the maelstrom of the Western Front are _Her Privates We_ by Frederic Manning and _The General_ by C.S. Forester. They are not accounts of rats and lice, mud, bloated corpses and the nastiness of the trenches. They explore the minds of the people as they go through the unstoppable motions of surviving in an alien reality. Highly recommend.
"War is a Racket, it always has been", it is where the blood of young men is turned into gold for the few. The Hell with War! Words out of General Smedley Butler's book, War is a Racket.
Reading the book "The Balkan Wars 1912-1913: Prelude to the First World War" by Hall, Richard C. can also provide a lot information about why WW1 started in that way.
The disintegration of the 2nd International is an extremely underrated historical event in terms of its role in society adopting "Western-style liberal democracy" for many countries & governments. It's implosion was a huge blow to popular government. Often unheard of in mainstream circles & usually overlooked in terms of its potential significance & greater importance...
Oh hey the un and its idea, even tho is far from flawless, the league of nations showed that a international organization cant try to stop countries in its tracks and instead its brtter to be a spot for international diplomacy with standarts
@crimony For now the instance in history in which it did not repeat itself is the Cuban missile crisis. The reasons for it can be summed up by a quote from Noam Chomsky "I dont know what kind of weapons will be used in World War 3, but I know which ones will be used in WW4: sticks and stones"
It is always amazing to me how Europe did not learn anything from the American Civil War. If the Confederacy had had as much industrial capacity as the USA, things would have turned out differently. And even still the war lasted 5 years.
Europeans did study the civil war tho. One of the conclusions of why the conflict lasted so long was that the victor in a battle couldn't eliminate the enemy army. Why? Because unlike Europeans who conducted relentless pursuits with light cavalry to finish off the fleeing enemy, Americans in 1800s didn't have nearly as much skill with light cavalry and couldn't translate their battlefield success into a victorious war. Americans during the civil war were not really militarily skilled, one of the famous quotes is that (I'm paraphrasing) "Our armies have not been trained properly, sir! We can't go to battle like this!" "It's fine, the enemy is also similarly untrained". USA did not have conscription to maintain the military skill of its population nor an established tradition of officers, contrary to Europeans who regularly fielded huge armies with millions of reservists at back home ready to fill holes and decades long schools dedicated to studying the way of war. The reason WW1 started long is entirely different from American Civil War.
@@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022 interesting. We did have West Point but all the best fighting age generals went to the South. That quote was from the time of Bull Run which was first real engagement of the war. But you are right that the North had poor generals. Lincoln was very frustrated. Much like Churchill in WWII as a matter of fact. The more things change the more they stay the same.
@@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022 I would turn that on its head and say that is precisely what the European powers should have learned from the Civil War. They failed to draw the correct lessons, and thus found themselves in an interminable conflict which proved extremely costly to bring to an end.
@@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022 What broke the back of the Confederacy was Sherman's marching through Georgia and laying waste to everything the Union (USA) army encountered. If this had not happened the Confederate army could have retreated south into Georgia and regrouped because until Sherman arrived on the scene the railroads, steel works and farms were intact. Atlanta was a major rail junction between the north and the west.
Great lecture & lecturer. War is INEVITABLE. Every time we assume it is done somewhere else then it surfaces under our noses. Few people, clans, tribes, states, countries, monarchies, armies, etc. always want back what they lost when they were weak / weakened. And, they want more of what they already have. Were I part? HIstory and humans usually proves out that "War is ALWAYS INEVITABLE".
I agree with every word you said. Would you please edit your comment to make it more readable? You're saying something important; I wish you would've expressed yourself more clearly so others could more easily understand your message. Thank you.
Her comment about the Second International calling a strike is not so clear cut. Look at the US. It is always the working classes who most easily succumb to nationalism.
I always enjoy Professor MacMillan's lectures. She always paints a vivid picture of the past and it's limitations on the options of people caught up in it wake. However, I think her comparison between Serbia of 1914 and Israel of today is not correct. Most of Israel's wars have been forced on it by aggressive neighbors. Even today, there are no peace treaties with Syria or Lebanon. Waves of terrorist strikes in turn obligate her to defend herself by maintaining garrisons in the West Bank and attacks in Gaza.
This is a really good talk. The point that Europeans during the Edwardian period felt themselves above war seems to me crucial. We in the US now understand this after 1/6. Living history.
Are you referring to the capital riot? How are we supposed to take you all seriously. The comparison is beyond absurd, a profound intellectual failure and a total indictment of your concepts and morality.
I wonder if I have witnessed this about other speakers without noticing.. Margaret MacMillan never issues any “ums” or “ahs” during these lectures on WWI on UA-cam that I have viewed. None. Same thing on a C-Span sit down interview with random questions.
Even the most supercell comparison of Israel with North Korea is appalling g in its ignorance. In that, MacMillan shows the reason we seem doomed to repeat history. How can you learn from it when your emotions so obviously govern your “thinking.”
The popular misconception that the General Staff on both sides were unprepared for the industrial scale of the conflict cannot hold water Surely the officers studied The American Civil War in detail or did they ?
12:30 I love how she says it was brutal that the British would have handed Angola to the Germans without consulting the Portugese. It doesn't even cross her mind that the Angolans might also want a say in the matter.
@@benoplustee I don't deny that she had some fantastic insight. I suppose this is just kind of a blind spot of hers descending from the ruling aristocracy.
@@mikespencer4922 it would have been worth making the point explicitly, in a historical talk, that the angolans were not consulted and maybe even that this fits into a careless colonial/ imperial pattern that still characterized the era. It would have taken 5 seconds to make the barest mention. It's an oversight on Macmillan's part.
They Europeans political class had long planned for, militarily planned for, militarily armed up for, a war. The Europeans rightly estimated that one day, should the right opportunity present itself, they were going to enthusiastically 100% engage in a slugfest, in pursuit of natural interests and to do so at the expense of other nations. Surprise! They did it! What kind of myopic retrospective is required to realize that SOMETHING would eventually have done it? General President Washington in the 1700's suggested the USA out tonaboid entangling alliances. His prudence was based on observations of history in Europe. He didn't offer explanations, he didn't need to. If the alliances werent necessary, no harm, no foul. If they were necessary, it is a neon flashing sign that the alliances were so to act as a backstop to violence that nations would have predatory acted in their absence. The calculus for war included the inclination to let slip the dogs of war, now and again. A history of continuous struggles, including war, punctuated by brief periods of peace. The interludes were simply that. To wit, The Great War, perhaps beginning in 1914 didn't conclude in any meaningful way until 1945. The take away lesson is that our current world is no different in its attitude towards war. Whilst regrettable, lamentable, and cautionary, the inevitable once again approaches. The circuit breakers popping open in 1963 and 1982 were signal moments. We must move to a world beyond war. Eisenhower said he didn't know how World War 3 would be fought, but the follow on ear would be fought with sticks and stones. In your gut, ask yourself who cares the actual mechanisms of WW1, 2. 3? THE paramount question, in a nuclear, biological, chemical world is how we as a world committ to resolving national differences PEACEFULLY.
*Divide and rule.* Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and *divide and "gain an advantage"* if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened. The word "rule" also constitutes a "trigger", or natural aversion, which would mean psychologically oposing a theory, simply based on the words used. At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness). Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please, lol. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today *still* carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact). One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. *Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.* From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy." Elements of this technique involve: - creating or encouraging divisions ... - to prevent alliances that could challenge ... - distributing forces that they overpower the other - aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate - fostering distrust and enmity Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories." [editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things] *"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.* There is an entire palate of examples of "dividing Europe" on multiple levels, and gain an advantage (see below comments thread for a few). These multiple examples are not "anecdotal", or "cherry picked", but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of "others", because unity = strength). Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it. *"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene* And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump ("Trump Doctrine") and others... All of these terms can be googled for more context. Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily. What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London? *London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.* Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars. *A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).* The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians. A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine. *It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.* The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..." A declaration which would not last long. LOL, no. They were *not* satiated. After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence". The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895. To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied... *How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?* Answer: favoratism. "Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well. *It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.* Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism. Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, *and* at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today. *A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.* Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else. Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
6:59 ...that the ?????? on the size of armies... Anybody got a clue about what she is saying? I do not know what word she is speaking and it sounds foreign to me. HELP
Well, with all those lessons learned, here we go again. One consistent pattern does emerge however. A Russian-backed assassin, followed by Russian mobilization kicked off WW1. Then a Russian mass murderer forged an alliance with a neighboring mass murderer to invade Poland, kicking off WWII. Then while much of Europe post 1945 followed a road to peace and prosperity, Russia launched a Cold War that lasted two generations. And when the Cold War finally ground to a halt, with the collapse a second Russian Empire, a truncated Russia got back to launching hot wars again, this time against its former slave states, Chechnya, Georgia, and now Ukraine. Is it just me, or doesn’t it seem that wherever there is trouble, especially in Europe, you almost always find a Russian despot lighting the match?
After reading Paris 1919 I formed an appreciation for Ataturk who wasn’t intimidated by the victorious great powers and managed to negotiate a pretty good deal out of the fall of the Ottomans. But my final conclusion was that the war was a result of the 3 cousins fighting over “my dick is bigger than yours”.
It does for me too. I have collected 8 books on the Great War and read so many articles yet it's unimaginable how Europe fell into such catastrophy. It's intriguing to know that they had 37 days known as the July Crisis to defuse the flame after June 28. The sinking feeling I have all the time when I study the Weimar republic. 20 years of prelude to a Second even more catastrophic World War. I made sure that I will continue my research and share my readings to others to Never Again and Never Forget
@@joaquinpraveenvishnu8509 About 4 years ago I decided to study German history and its been quite fascinating. Many discoveries made me realize just how much I didn't know about, well, Europe really . Then, like a scratch on an old record where the needle just can't get over, there is this Great War. It was mindlessly bloody and started by a mindless group of countries all in the name of......... Please you tell me, I can't really get my head around it.
@@ritchie9030 the Battle of Somme on July 1 1916, within few hours of the battle the British Empire lost 57,470 men. In total, more than 700,000 British soldiers died with France losing more than 1.4 million of them. Wars and consequences of wars must be spoken from the soldiers point of views. I wonder, was it worth it? The confident Woodrow Wilson walked out of Paris with head held high bcoz of his 14 points and the League of Nations, even winning a Nobel peace prize. Yet , he failed to convince the US Congress to join the League. Warren Harding ran for President in 1920 to 'return to normalcy' citing Wilson's mastery works as useless. Being an American, Wilson failed to grasp the European way of thoughts which only European understand. Americans largerly was out of the First World War up to April 1917. Wilson asked the Congress to only declare war after the Zimmermann telegram on German interest to ask Mexico to join in. Weird moments. We could go on and on... Germany on the other hand, I'd need a whole day to talk haha
@@joaquinpraveenvishnu8509 It is a complicated matter... And we Americans, from the very beginning of our nation decided to stay out of European conflicts. Then after 3 years of stalemate and death something had to give ... Then the peace accords were, for the most part, thought out poorly and the rest of the 20th century became a bloodbath...
Thank you Professor MacMillian ..... I learn something new everytime I watch one of your lectures. 👍👍😊😊 *"War was not something that 'we' (Europe) do."* (anymore) Hmm ...... Tell that to Putin in this day and age! Europe (Merkel/EU) didn't wake up in 2014 ..... 100 years after the Great War began. (I suppose that there are those who believe that Russian culture is not part of European culture ....)
Good analysis. But missed on human motivation to become omnipotent/influential. Imperialist state or martial state is a natural progression. Its opposite has become unappealing, you see more than ptofit, you see a lesser people waiting to be conquered, you want a worship or recognition too. Great civilizations did benefit a lesser prople now and then. Untill the lesser people ealise their ruler has the same flaws as them. There is an eventual rejection of high handed rule/ruler. Europe is an unique case, many are industrial powers, most are equal people, they did not want an exrenal power to lead them. All of them wanted that enviable historical status of being the benign ruler of the lesser worlds. Human engagement is a given, the power alliances develop in time and entrap the big empires more than the many other forms of human engagement. Now big powers want accomplices for both domination and for profit. These dark deals pull down civilizations, Rome had too many of them, the over rule of a civilization did not happen from the territories but it was mocked by their very own martial ruler/s and generals.
A rambling speech to set the stage of various factors making war less or more likely, and then almost nothing about the decisions of the various actors in the summer 1914. In true revisionist fashion, there is not a word about German imperialism. The only decision explained is that of Austro-Hungary, for which nationalism in the Balkans represented an existential threat. This would mean that going to war was not “stupid” for Vienna, but a risk worth taking to try to avoid the breakup of the empire. Elie Halévy made that point in the 1920s muck more succinctly and elegantly. Tout ça pour ça…
I understand my comment will be taken as one behind, but the one behind precedes the one in front, and the one in front precedes the one behind, with and within the right tensor in a matrix. I have a question, which I cannot answer, I know the answer, I currently understand it's structural function, yet I still cannot answer. The question is this....! {How can fascism together with nazism loose the war, and win the world as a consequence of losing the war....?} And a bonus cheeky one...! How can someone capitalise from such a formidable structure, (((( I have a soul as capital )))).
This is a good analysis for the. 20 th century...I would like to say the Serb who wanted to break up AUSTRO - HUNGARIAN EMPIRE , was also the liberator for all colonial people under WHITE RACE EUROPEAN CONTROL ... SERBIA and CHINA influenced each other ...in future CHINA will influence SERBIA which will play an important Role in the Balkan in the next 20 years ....2042 ..SINO - AMERICAN WAR
the complexity that is assumed to be at the root of WW1's start, (pardon my rephrasing) is looking at the forest, and remarking on how many different trees there are... the root was european imperial colonialism fuelled by capitalist greed mixed with substantial nationalist hubris
"the root was european imperial colonialism" This played very little, to no part in the outbreak of WW1. Indeed, in the years and months before the outbreak of the war Britain had been in negotiations with Germany with respect to the latter taking over Portuguese colonial holdings in Africa. This move was wholly supported by Britain, and she had even managed to supply sources of British finance capital to help Germany fund such a venture. The issue of the Berlin/Baghdad railway had largely been settled and any other such colonial differences were trivial and non-consequential to the events of June/July 1914. However, I'm more than happy to hear your reasoning's behind your comment.
@@bolivar2153 your highlighting of anglo-german discussions about divvying up Africa and the Middle East, I think reinforces, rather than counters, my point
@@kidmohair8151 Nopes, it doesn't. Imperial issues were, by and large, settled to the common benefit of all involved. Still waiting to hear your reasoning for imperialism as a cause of WW1 though... Is it going to be a long wait, or do you have some gems of wisdom to share?
These people are trying to speak ignorance to the ignorant people, but the truth is, it’s all religious. The guy from Serbia shot a king from Germany.😊
Rather explain, who gained the most from mass-stupidity... *Divide and rule.* Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and *divide and "gain an advantage"* if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened. The word "rule" also constitutes a "trigger", or natural aversion, which would mean psychologically oposing a theory, simply based on the words used. At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness). Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please, lol. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today *still* carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact). One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. *Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.* From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy." Elements of this technique involve: - creating or encouraging divisions ... - to prevent alliances that could challenge ... - distributing forces that they overpower the other - aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate - fostering distrust and enmity Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories." [editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things] *"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.* There is an entire palate of examples of "dividing Europe" on multiple levels, and gain an advantage (see below comments thread for a few). These multiple examples are not "anecdotal", or "cherry picked", but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of "others", because unity = strength). Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it. *"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene* And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump ("Trump Doctrine") and others... All of these terms can be googled for more context. Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily. What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London? *London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.* Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars. *A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).* The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians. A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine. *It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.* The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..." A declaration which would not last long. LOL, no. They were *not* satiated. After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence". The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895. To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied... *How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?* Answer: favoratism. "Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well. *It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.* Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism. Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, *and* at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today. *A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.* Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else. Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
@@jozette-pierce Actually, most historians are biased in one or another way. That's ok. The problem comes when you look down on other doesn't agree with you. I'm sorry but youtube doesn't allow me to see all points in this thread so i can be off. Its a chance i have to take.
IT IS SO VERY VERY STRANGE - YOU HAVE ALL THSES INDIVIDUALS / BOTH EUROPEAN AND AMERIKAN / - WHO SPEND THEIR LIFE GIVING LECTURES IN BOTH EUROP[E AND AMERIKA - ABOUT THE VARIOUS / WARS / - AND THERE ARE PERSONS WHO I HAVE COME TO BELIEVE ARE INTERESTED - THE QUESTION IS / EHY / - BECAUSE - / ABSOLUTRELY NOTHING IS OR HAS BEEN LEARNT BY BOTH SIDES - AND WHO PAYS FOR THESE POINTLESS EENDEAVORS - AH WELL
This haughty women is making the same mistake man has always made throughout history and that is thinking that our current way of doing things is the correct one. Her condescending tone made this lecture hard to listen to especially when she uses terms like “ crackpot” and “absurd”. I will bet though none of us will be around.. that in 100 years people will listen to this and think it absurd because the world will have changed so much to be unrecognizable today.
@Doug Bevins , The Bible teaches us that when Adam and Eve sinned, then the perfection of mankind was lost and so we are subject to the temptations of Satan and that is exactly the root of the disastrous wars perpetrated by political leaders; people follow Satan's acolytes to their deaths.
She is really a technical imposition. She has no idea about European history. The agitation against Deutschland is embarrassing. And if you think that the Allies, especially the British and Americans, "liberated" Europe, then please remember how the Germans were driven to starvation by the hundreds of thousands after the First World War and how millions of Germans were deliberately killed during the war - the genocide of the Americans and British on the Rheinlandwiesen AFTER WW2 continues to be covered up. And to stand there today with a halo when the Germans were supposed to have been exterminated as early as 1914 is really a strong piece of work. So go to youtube and type in Rheinlandwiesen, look how the Alies brutally killed the Germans.
@@agneschamot7284No. The official death rate for Germans held by the American military was among the lowest experienced by surrendered combatants during and after the war, which is not surprising as the prisoners were held for only a few months. You can not compare these with the death camps of Nazi Germany.
This professor's comment about the US -Israel relationship is disrespectful and stupid. Israel does not act thoughtlessly which would embarass the US, its protector. Israel acts to keep itself alive and protect its citizens, and not to spread power or control. On the contrary, oftentimes Israel has to act or make decisions inspite of the negative positions the US takes. That is not embarassment to the US. But it is a detriment to Israel, which is struggling to survive. Example, the USS Liberty eavsdropping on Israel manuvers during the 6 Day war in Sinai, and sharing it with Egyptian military intelligence to the detriment of Israel and its young soldiers. Another example, is Obama refusing to veto an anti-Israel UN resolution at the end of his presidential term, to Israel's detriment. But worse is this professor juxtaposing the next example of North Korea doing things that embarass its protector China. What stupidity to compare or juxtapose North Korea and Israel. An out of control rogue Communist dictatorship should never be compared to a liberal, progressive, Western democracy that respects due process and the rule of law, such as Israel.
Agree with you on all your points. Important that you put them forth. Obama dealt Israel a cruel populist blow to appeal to his potential domestic politics(also an extreme personal dislike of Netanyhu)
@@ritchie9030 I am not Israeli. While I use analysis and stick to the issue, you use personal attacks and fraudulent insinuations like a typical shallow idiot.
The eugenics movement was taken seriously by serious intellectuals because it put forward a serious argument that to this day hasn't been entirely refuted. In fact, more modern research in genetics supports some of the eugenicists' claims, if not their policies.
Can we just stop that the idea the weak must be culled? It's been about 80 years showing us where that road leads us. "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
here we have a statement without support. thus can only be dismissed, Now we have the bloodwork that unites our species with the very first people being black Africans. The eugenics movement had all the human emotional bias and just enough knowledge for trouble.We know better now.
@@stephendavis6620 "Eugenics" is something practiced on a routine, ongoing basis to improve the health of agricultural crop species and farm animals to make them more productive and healthy. This is where the idea for eugenics came from. The idea was to apply the same general techniques to the human population that we apply to crops and farm animals with great success. I am not advocating eugenics, I am merely noting that the principles it is based on work. To say that eugenics has been disproven somehow is simply false.
One of the takeaways from many of her lectures is that history is a lot more complicated than most people want to admit.
It is very simple. Human nature has an evil conservative bias that must be controlled with education, diversity, and civil rights for all.
Its simple, greedy politicians leading people down a path of destruction. Few socieities ever fight for resources such as water, land or oil because most nations have none, people instead fight for pride (our civilization is better) or for ideals (like we do not agree with their ways so we will invade them and teach them our ways). But war never starts from the lower classes
56:09 56:09
Yet she's also so naive. Listen to her comments about Putin, talking about his actions as though he's just an ordinary leader with grievances, rather than an expansionist dictator who believes his neighbors aren't real countries and their people aren't a real people and any resistance to being "turned back into Russians" must be eradicated through any means necessary - the very essence of the attitude that has led to the most horrible atrocities in history.
Or her false history of the EU, the "popular history", that the EU formed because you had a bunch of people who learned that war was bad, and decided that they didn't want war anymore, and unified. It's a nice happy story that Europeans tell themselves to feel better about themselves, and feel smug against other countries. When in reality, Europeans had fought endless wars, both within Europe and overseas, and each time decided war was bad, but continued waging wars with each other nonetheless. What changed after WWII was that Europeans started *losing wars* against their *colonies* . They were decolonized, largely forceably, by their colonial peoples, and their economic order they relied on collapsed as a result. They were basically forced to turn to elsewhere to rebuild their markets, and turned to each other as the only viable option. The countries that decolonized the earliest turned to the European project the earliest. Those that decolonized the latest turned to it the latest. There's a direct 1:1 correspondence.
Everything is always more complicated than laymen think.
Best lecture I have heard on pre-Great War europe. Knowledgable and beautifully delivered. A template for all lecturers to follow.
Margaret MacMillan delivers as per usual. Been consuming content of her here on youtube lately. She is extremely knowledgeable. I need to read some of her books.
She thinks like a woman and doze not see the economic moment picture as cause of this awwone pogrom
@Bro. ThoR Oh dear bro you don't like women who think! Congratulations you sexist idiot!
If you enjoy her lectures you may also enjoy Dr. Stephen Kotkin as well. His expertise is in Eurasian studies but I find him to be on a similar level as MacMillan.
@@MrTylerStricker Thank you.
I have watched many of his lectures and I'm currently reading his book on Stalin (finished the first one, reading the second one). I know very well :D
@@Frankenberryoneone His Stalin series is really fantastic. The end of 'Waiting For Hitler' will just make you want to read the long-in-development-but-as-yet-unreleased third volume!!
What a fantastic speaker with a massive body of pertinent knowledge. Thanks for running her talks on UA-cam.
I find her the best contemporary historian of first world war
This is prophetic, accurately explains what is going on today.
Putin grabbed Crimea in 2014 (using a veneer of legality ... It wasn't well disguised)
"Europe" (EU, Merkel, Hollande) did not wake up.
Watching again... Taking a clip to share, thanks to all for making this talk happen!
Doctor Margaret eloquently compiled reasons and the political and economic, social and cultural environment of Europe before WW1❤❤
The best book on WW1 I am aware of is 'Goodbye to All That' by Robert Graves, who was an officer on the British side and later became Professor of Poetry at Oxford. He isn't much interested in the causes of the war but is good on what it was like to fight in it and the private attitudes of those obliged to take part.
Check out "Storm of Steel" by Ernst Junger. Barbara Tuchman's "Guns of August" is still relevant.
i would also recommend Peace To End All Peace by David Fromkin
Two books of fiction that provide vivid accounts of what it was like in the maelstrom of the Western Front are _Her Privates We_ by Frederic Manning and _The General_ by C.S. Forester. They are not accounts of rats and lice, mud, bloated corpses and the nastiness of the trenches. They explore the minds of the people as they go through the unstoppable motions of surviving in an alien reality. Highly recommend.
"War is a Racket, it always has been", it is where the blood of young men is turned into gold for the few. The Hell with War! Words out of General Smedley Butler's book, War is a Racket.
A racket that goes back to the store age.
Buffy St. Marie's amazing song of the same name.
General Smedley Butler the only one that refused to sellout!
A brilliant woman love her presentations
She is discussing very well almost my entire undergraduate experience.
Margaret Macmillan is a Canadian national treasure!
Reading the book "The Balkan Wars 1912-1913: Prelude to the First World War" by Hall, Richard C. can also provide a lot information about why WW1 started in that way.
Thank you, I just bought it !
The disintegration of the 2nd International is an extremely underrated historical event in terms of its role in society adopting "Western-style liberal democracy" for many countries & governments. It's implosion was a huge blow to popular government. Often unheard of in mainstream circles & usually overlooked in terms of its potential significance & greater importance...
“Popular government” is a very dangerous thing - perhaps the most dangerous form of government.
Can anyone document an instance where learning from history prevented it from being repeated?
Can you point to a single instance where history repeated itself? My contention is that the idea is a fallacy.
Oh hey the un and its idea, even tho is far from flawless, the league of nations showed that a international organization cant try to stop countries in its tracks and instead its brtter to be a spot for international diplomacy with standarts
@@pedronabais1456 But even recent history in Vietnam didn't prevent us from entering Afghanistan.
@@crimony3054 i didnt say was all cases and those 2 situations are vastly diferent still...
@crimony For now the instance in history in which it did not repeat itself is the Cuban missile crisis. The reasons for it can be summed up by a quote from Noam Chomsky "I dont know what kind of weapons will be used in World War 3, but I know which ones will be used in WW4: sticks and stones"
It is always amazing to me how Europe did not learn anything from the American Civil War. If the Confederacy had had as much industrial capacity as the USA, things would have turned out differently. And even still the war lasted 5 years.
Europeans did study the civil war tho. One of the conclusions of why the conflict lasted so long was that the victor in a battle couldn't eliminate the enemy army. Why? Because unlike Europeans who conducted relentless pursuits with light cavalry to finish off the fleeing enemy, Americans in 1800s didn't have nearly as much skill with light cavalry and couldn't translate their battlefield success into a victorious war.
Americans during the civil war were not really militarily skilled, one of the famous quotes is that (I'm paraphrasing) "Our armies have not been trained properly, sir! We can't go to battle like this!" "It's fine, the enemy is also similarly untrained". USA did not have conscription to maintain the military skill of its population nor an established tradition of officers, contrary to Europeans who regularly fielded huge armies with millions of reservists at back home ready to fill holes and decades long schools dedicated to studying the way of war.
The reason WW1 started long is entirely different from American Civil War.
@@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022 interesting. We did have West Point but all the best fighting age generals went to the South. That quote was from the time of Bull Run which was first real engagement of the war. But you are right that the North had poor generals. Lincoln was very frustrated. Much like Churchill in WWII as a matter of fact. The more things change the more they stay the same.
@@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022 I would turn that on its head and say that is precisely what the European powers should have learned from the Civil War.
They failed to draw the correct lessons, and thus found themselves in an interminable conflict which proved extremely costly to bring to an end.
Rhett Butler tried to warn his fellow southerners!
@@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022
What broke the back of the Confederacy was Sherman's marching through Georgia and laying waste to everything the Union (USA) army encountered. If this had not happened the Confederate army could have retreated south into Georgia and regrouped because until Sherman arrived on the scene the railroads, steel works and farms were intact. Atlanta
was a major rail junction between the north and the west.
Kyle's Mom blamed Canada.
The sound does not synchronise with the picture
The moderator made clear that the Q&A was to consist of questions and not comments meandering into questions.
But almost no one got the memo.
Excellent as always. How does she not get thirsty???
Great lecture & lecturer.
War is INEVITABLE. Every time we assume it is done somewhere else then it surfaces under our noses. Few people, clans, tribes, states, countries, monarchies, armies, etc. always want back what they lost when they were weak / weakened. And, they want more of what they already have. Were I part? HIstory and humans usually proves out that "War is ALWAYS INEVITABLE".
I agree with every word you said. Would you please edit your comment to make it more readable? You're saying something important; I wish you would've expressed yourself more clearly so others could more easily understand your message. Thank you.
Her comment about the Second International calling a strike is not so clear cut. Look at the US. It is always the working classes who most easily succumb to nationalism.
I always enjoy Professor MacMillan's lectures. She always paints a vivid picture of the past and it's limitations on the options of people caught up in it wake. However, I think her comparison between Serbia of 1914 and Israel of today is not correct. Most of Israel's wars have been forced on it by aggressive neighbors. Even today, there are no peace treaties with Syria or Lebanon. Waves of terrorist strikes in turn obligate her to defend herself by maintaining garrisons in the West Bank and attacks in Gaza.
What total bollox
This is a really good talk. The point that Europeans during the Edwardian period felt themselves above war seems to me crucial. We in the US now understand this after 1/6. Living history.
Oh good Lord, comparing scribbling on Pelosi's desk with the deaths of millions of Europeans. And I thought the Left couldn't get any more hysterical.
Are you referring to the capital riot? How are we supposed to take you all seriously. The comparison is beyond absurd, a profound intellectual failure and a total indictment of your concepts and morality.
In the Q+A Ms McMillian attributes the attitude of so-called scholars the way we might describe media pundits...
I wonder if I have witnessed this about other speakers without noticing.. Margaret MacMillan never issues any “ums” or “ahs” during these lectures on WWI on UA-cam that I have viewed. None. Same thing on a C-Span sit down interview with random questions.
But wow this is good. I had a freshman seminar on the year 1919 oh so many years ago. She is hitting on a lot we had discussed.
Even the most supercell comparison of Israel with North Korea is appalling g in its ignorance. In that, MacMillan shows the reason we seem doomed to repeat history. How can you learn from it when your emotions so obviously govern your “thinking.”
NO ! The Europeans cannot be forgotten for what they started in 1914...
George Santayana revisited: Those who cannot forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Video and audio seem to be several minutes out of sync.
The popular misconception that the General Staff on both sides were unprepared for the industrial scale of the conflict cannot hold water Surely the officers studied The American Civil War in detail or did they ?
See 'Remembrance Day ceremony 2018 Hervey Bay.' Lest We Ever Forget.
42:57, those who think that war is a natural part of human society and is good for society.
Regarding the power of nationalism, I think it was Samuel Johnson who said that patriotism and religion are the last resort of the scoundrel!
She speaks so well
1:01:20 can anyone give more context? what decaying hulk on the danube exactly?
Austria-Hungary
@@littlefluffybushbaby7256 ty
Would it be possible to turn on closed captioning, please?
She is every bit as dynamic as her illustrious forebear
Nice general comments about modern situation - that’s not enough said to my mind
A significant portion of the GDP of the USA is on account of its defence/ armament industry and it's arms exports.
Humans have more in common. National pride and arrogance are inherent in all nations.
12:30 I love how she says it was brutal that the British would have handed Angola to the Germans without consulting the Portugese. It doesn't even cross her mind that the Angolans might also want a say in the matter.
Bit of an oversight yes ! Still a great lecture imo
@@benoplustee I don't deny that she had some fantastic insight. I suppose this is just kind of a blind spot of hers descending from the ruling aristocracy.
@@beback_ doubtless ! A pity. Good of you to point it out
Behind what sort of strength do you think Angola could provide any authority to have say in their control????
@@mikespencer4922 it would have been worth making the point explicitly, in a historical talk, that the angolans were not consulted and maybe even that this fits into a careless colonial/ imperial pattern that still characterized the era. It would have taken 5 seconds to make the barest mention. It's an oversight on Macmillan's part.
Brilliant. 👏👏👏
The Cause Of The War That Ended Peace IS Know, "They" Lie In The Shadows,"their" Name Must NOT B-Spoke.
ii can tell your name, a cretin
This day in 1914 the Archduke and his wife were murdered. This day in 1919 The Treaty of Versailles was signed.
The power and resilience of tribalism….National, cultural, religious, linguistic.
Leading eugenic thinkers did not know what Mendel knew.
The British were responsible for it. No need to whitewash History.
They Europeans political class had long planned for, militarily planned for, militarily armed up for, a war. The Europeans rightly estimated that one day, should the right opportunity present itself, they were going to enthusiastically 100% engage in a slugfest, in pursuit of natural interests and to do so at the expense of other nations. Surprise! They did it!
What kind of myopic retrospective is required to realize that SOMETHING would eventually have done it? General President Washington in the 1700's suggested the USA out tonaboid entangling alliances. His prudence was based on observations of history in Europe. He didn't offer explanations, he didn't need to.
If the alliances werent necessary, no harm, no foul. If they were necessary, it is a neon flashing sign that the alliances were so to act as a backstop to violence that nations would have predatory acted in their absence. The calculus for war included the inclination to let slip the dogs of war, now and again. A history of continuous struggles, including war, punctuated by brief periods of peace. The interludes were simply that. To wit, The Great War, perhaps beginning in 1914 didn't conclude in any meaningful way until 1945.
The take away lesson is that our current world is no different in its attitude towards war. Whilst regrettable, lamentable, and cautionary, the inevitable once again approaches. The circuit breakers popping open in 1963 and 1982 were signal moments. We must move to a world beyond war.
Eisenhower said he didn't know how World War 3 would be fought, but the follow on ear would be fought with sticks and stones.
In your gut, ask yourself who cares the actual mechanisms of WW1, 2. 3? THE paramount question, in a nuclear, biological, chemical world is how we as a world committ to resolving national differences PEACEFULLY.
*Divide and rule.*
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and *divide and "gain an advantage"* if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened. The word "rule" also constitutes a "trigger", or natural aversion, which would mean psychologically oposing a theory, simply based on the words used.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please, lol.
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today *still* carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
*Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.*
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
*"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.*
There is an entire palate of examples of "dividing Europe" on multiple levels, and gain an advantage (see below comments thread for a few). These multiple examples are not "anecdotal", or "cherry picked", but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of "others", because unity = strength).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
*"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene*
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump ("Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
*London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.*
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
*A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).*
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
*It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.*
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were *not* satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
*How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?*
Answer: favoratism.
"Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
*It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.*
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, *and* at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
*A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.*
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
6:59 ...that the ?????? on the size of armies... Anybody got a clue about what she is saying? I do not know what word she is speaking and it sounds foreign to me. HELP
That the old limits...
Well, with all those lessons learned, here we go again. One consistent pattern does emerge however. A Russian-backed assassin, followed by Russian mobilization kicked off WW1.
Then a Russian mass murderer forged an alliance with a neighboring mass murderer to invade Poland, kicking off WWII. Then while much of Europe post 1945 followed a road to peace and prosperity, Russia launched a Cold War that lasted two generations.
And when the Cold War finally ground to a halt, with the collapse a second Russian Empire, a truncated Russia got back to launching hot wars again, this time against its former slave states, Chechnya, Georgia, and now Ukraine.
Is it just me, or doesn’t it seem that wherever there is trouble, especially in Europe, you almost always find a Russian despot lighting the match?
offense is no longer realistic. defense is where the money is. armies can sit while we produce (since we make so much crap)
Thomas Charles Rodriguez Edward Garcia David
After reading Paris 1919 I formed an appreciation for Ataturk who wasn’t intimidated by the victorious great powers and managed to negotiate a pretty good deal out of the fall of the Ottomans.
But my final conclusion was that the war was a result of the 3 cousins fighting over “my dick is bigger than yours”.
This war haunts me deep in my psyche.
It does for me too. I have collected 8 books on the Great War and read so many articles yet it's unimaginable how Europe fell into such catastrophy. It's intriguing to know that they had 37 days known as the July Crisis to defuse the flame after June 28. The sinking feeling I have all the time when I study the Weimar republic. 20 years of prelude to a Second even more catastrophic World War. I made sure that I will continue my research and share my readings to others to Never Again and Never Forget
@@joaquinpraveenvishnu8509 About 4 years ago I decided to study German history and its been quite fascinating. Many discoveries made me realize just how much I didn't know about, well, Europe really .
Then, like a scratch on an old record where the needle just can't get over, there is this Great War. It was mindlessly bloody and started by a mindless group of countries all in the name of......... Please you tell me, I can't really get my head around it.
@@ritchie9030 the Battle of Somme on July 1 1916, within few hours of the battle the British Empire lost 57,470 men. In total, more than 700,000 British soldiers died with France losing more than 1.4 million of them. Wars and consequences of wars must be spoken from the soldiers point of views. I wonder, was it worth it? The confident Woodrow Wilson walked out of Paris with head held high bcoz of his 14 points and the League of Nations, even winning a Nobel peace prize. Yet , he failed to convince the US Congress to join the League. Warren Harding ran for President in 1920 to 'return to normalcy' citing Wilson's mastery works as useless. Being an American, Wilson failed to grasp the European way of thoughts which only European understand. Americans largerly was out of the First World War up to April 1917. Wilson asked the Congress to only declare war after the Zimmermann telegram on German interest to ask Mexico to join in. Weird moments. We could go on and on... Germany on the other hand, I'd need a whole day to talk haha
@@joaquinpraveenvishnu8509 It is a complicated matter... And we Americans, from the very beginning of our nation decided to stay out of European conflicts. Then after 3 years of stalemate and death something had to give ... Then the peace accords were, for the most part, thought out poorly and the rest of the 20th century became a bloodbath...
Thank you Professor MacMillian ..... I learn something new everytime I watch one of your lectures. 👍👍😊😊
*"War was not something that 'we' (Europe) do."* (anymore)
Hmm ...... Tell that to Putin in this day and age!
Europe (Merkel/EU) didn't wake up in 2014 ..... 100 years after the Great War began.
(I suppose that there are those who believe that Russian culture is not part of European culture ....)
How about 3 cousins ruled England Germany Russia ????
"Blank checks". Serbia had a blank check from Russia.
I need to watch this daily
it was actually named "THE WORLD OF YESTERDAY"
Good analysis. But missed on human motivation to become omnipotent/influential.
Imperialist state or martial state is a natural progression. Its opposite has become unappealing, you see more than ptofit, you see a lesser people waiting to be conquered, you want a worship or recognition too.
Great civilizations did benefit a lesser prople now and then. Untill the lesser people ealise their ruler has the same flaws as them. There is an eventual rejection of high handed rule/ruler.
Europe is an unique case, many are industrial powers, most are equal people, they did not want an exrenal power to lead them. All of them wanted that enviable historical status of being the benign ruler of the lesser worlds.
Human engagement is a given, the power alliances develop in time and entrap the big empires more than the many other forms of human engagement.
Now big powers want accomplices for both domination and for profit. These dark deals pull down civilizations, Rome had too many of them, the over rule of a civilization did not happen from the territories but it was mocked by their very own martial ruler/s and generals.
So the brexit script was written over 100 years ago.
A rambling speech to set the stage of various factors making war less or more likely, and then almost nothing about the decisions of the various actors in the summer 1914. In true revisionist fashion, there is not a word about German imperialism. The only decision explained is that of Austro-Hungary, for which nationalism in the Balkans represented an existential threat. This would mean that going to war was not “stupid” for Vienna, but a risk worth taking to try to avoid the breakup of the empire. Elie Halévy made that point in the 1920s muck more succinctly and elegantly. Tout ça pour ça…
She had about 45 minutes to give this talk. Not a month of Sundays.
A very foolish & rather cheep comment.
@@AshHanks-nl5bnmoreover she has argued elsewhere that Britain was, on balance, right to enter the war to check German imperialism.
نظام عمال حديثها ونظام موظفين وتوظيف معاك أكبر زعيم في العالم.
Miller Deborah Davis Anthony Garcia Ruth
Maybe they can come to conclusion they all hold responsibility for the violence
Slogan of the Second International “Krieg dem Kriege!” “War on War!”
32:34 because there's nothing weird or crackpot about it
The 1st World War is that the one when the french didn't surrender? Edit and the one America financed
❤❤❤❤
ومن الجمهور.
I understand my comment will be taken as one behind, but the one behind precedes the one in front, and the one in front precedes the one behind, with and within the right tensor in a matrix.
I have a question, which I cannot answer, I know the answer, I currently understand it's structural function, yet I still cannot answer. The question is this....!
{How can fascism together with nazism loose the war, and win the world as a consequence of losing the war....?}
And a bonus cheeky one...! How can someone capitalise from such a formidable structure, (((( I have a soul as capital )))).
This is a good analysis for the. 20 th century...I would like to say the Serb who wanted to break up AUSTRO - HUNGARIAN EMPIRE , was also the liberator for all colonial people under WHITE RACE EUROPEAN CONTROL ... SERBIA and CHINA influenced each other ...in future CHINA will influence SERBIA which will play an important Role in the Balkan in the next 20 years ....2042 ..SINO - AMERICAN WAR
Lewis Jose Lee Donald Moore Angela
Blame Canada!
the complexity that is assumed to be at the root of WW1's start,
(pardon my rephrasing) is looking at the forest,
and remarking on how many different trees there are...
the root was european imperial colonialism
fuelled by capitalist greed mixed with substantial nationalist hubris
"the root was european imperial colonialism" This played very little, to no part in the outbreak of WW1. Indeed, in the years and months before the outbreak of the war Britain had been in negotiations with Germany with respect to the latter taking over Portuguese colonial holdings in Africa. This move was wholly supported by Britain, and she had even managed to supply sources of British finance capital to help Germany fund such a venture. The issue of the Berlin/Baghdad railway had largely been settled and any other such colonial differences were trivial and non-consequential to the events of June/July 1914.
However, I'm more than happy to hear your reasoning's behind your comment.
@@bolivar2153 your highlighting of anglo-german discussions about divvying up Africa and the Middle East, I think reinforces, rather than counters, my point
@@kidmohair8151 Nopes, it doesn't. Imperial issues were, by and large, settled to the common benefit of all involved. Still waiting to hear your reasoning for imperialism as a cause of WW1 though... Is it going to be a long wait, or do you have some gems of wisdom to share?
تنفسي ولا تهلعي. ديني ومعارضة. ولا أريد أن أكون عام أ.
She confused between Analysis of peace for push for peace.
Yo, Maggie: you've forgotten the Crimean War from October 1853 - March 1856. Russia vs Britain, France & the Ottoman Empire.
No she didn't. She menions it in almost every speech of hers online
She said "most conflicts".
Not all of them.
ZOG megaphone. 😮
ثم وباء ميكرون.
These people are trying to speak ignorance to the ignorant people, but the truth is, it’s all religious. The guy from Serbia shot a king from Germany.😊
Rather explain, who gained the most from mass-stupidity...
*Divide and rule.*
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and *divide and "gain an advantage"* if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened. The word "rule" also constitutes a "trigger", or natural aversion, which would mean psychologically oposing a theory, simply based on the words used.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please, lol.
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today *still* carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
*Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.*
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
*"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.*
There is an entire palate of examples of "dividing Europe" on multiple levels, and gain an advantage (see below comments thread for a few). These multiple examples are not "anecdotal", or "cherry picked", but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of "others", because unity = strength).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
*"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene*
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump ("Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
*London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.*
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
*A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).*
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
*It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.*
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were *not* satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
*How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?*
Answer: favoratism.
"Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
*It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.*
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, *and* at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
*A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.*
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
The reason is obvious: free-market capitalists wanted to replace the monarchies of Europe. I should get a free PhD. 😂
Yes. Call Harvard. I'm sure they will give you one. Who needs that 5-6 years of academic pain!
War is caused by rebellion against God’s teachings and greedy loving of self interest!
34:56 absolutely wrong, there's nothing new about nationalism
colonialism!
British historians is always poisinous against the one who doesnt agree with them.
She's not British, idiot
@@Rowlph8888 So what?
It means you will not get truly objective (truthful or unbiased) assessments out of them.
@@jozette-pierce Actually, most historians are biased in one or another way. That's ok. The problem comes when you look down on other doesn't agree with you. I'm sorry but youtube doesn't allow me to see all points in this thread so i can be off. Its a chance i have to take.
قيد غوغل ويتيوب المعلومات. التراب.
IT IS SO VERY VERY STRANGE - YOU HAVE ALL THSES INDIVIDUALS / BOTH EUROPEAN AND AMERIKAN / - WHO SPEND THEIR LIFE GIVING LECTURES IN BOTH EUROP[E AND AMERIKA - ABOUT THE VARIOUS / WARS / - AND THERE ARE PERSONS WHO I HAVE COME TO BELIEVE ARE INTERESTED - THE QUESTION IS / EHY / - BECAUSE - / ABSOLUTRELY NOTHING IS OR HAS BEEN LEARNT BY BOTH SIDES - AND WHO PAYS FOR THESE POINTLESS EENDEAVORS - AH WELL
This haughty women is making the same mistake man has always made throughout history and that is thinking that our current way of doing things is the correct one.
Her condescending tone made this lecture hard to listen to especially when she uses terms like “ crackpot” and “absurd”.
I will bet though none of us will be around.. that in 100 years people will listen to this and think it absurd because the world will have changed so much to be unrecognizable today.
Haughty as she is knowledgeable.
You are being very envious.
@@jezalb2710 no I just can’t stand arrogance with anyone intelligent or not. With true intelligence also comes humility and I stand by my statement.
مثل البشر.
Had to get that lefty, Jew bashing, anti- Israeli, anti-American dig in, at the end, during the Q&A. Sad.
The masses followed false religion and thus intentionally and intentionally turned their backs on God and thus became the acolytes of Satan.
@Doug Bevins , The Bible teaches us that when Adam and Eve sinned, then the perfection of mankind was lost and so we are subject to the temptations of Satan and that is exactly the root of the disastrous wars perpetrated by political leaders; people follow Satan's acolytes to their deaths.
She is really a technical imposition. She has no idea about European history. The agitation against Deutschland is embarrassing. And if you think that the Allies, especially the British and Americans, "liberated" Europe, then please remember how the Germans were driven to starvation by the hundreds of thousands after the First World War and how millions of Germans were deliberately killed during the war - the genocide of the Americans and British on the Rheinlandwiesen AFTER WW2 continues to be covered up. And to stand there today with a halo when the Germans were supposed to have been exterminated as early as 1914 is really a strong piece of work. So go to youtube and type in Rheinlandwiesen, look how the Alies brutally killed the Germans.
Rheinwiesenlager - sorry - look it up and have an Impression how the Alies acht like Nazis
@@agneschamot7284No. The official death rate for Germans held by the American military was among the lowest experienced by surrendered combatants during and after the war, which is not surprising as the prisoners were held for only a few months. You can not compare these with the death camps of Nazi Germany.
This professor's comment about the US -Israel relationship is disrespectful and stupid.
Israel does not act thoughtlessly which would embarass the US, its protector.
Israel acts to keep itself alive and protect its citizens, and not to spread power or control.
On the contrary, oftentimes Israel has to act or make decisions inspite of the negative positions the US takes. That is not embarassment to the US. But it is a detriment to Israel, which is struggling to survive. Example, the USS Liberty eavsdropping on Israel manuvers during the 6 Day war in Sinai, and sharing it with Egyptian military intelligence to the detriment of Israel and its young soldiers. Another example, is Obama refusing to veto an anti-Israel UN resolution at the end of his presidential term, to Israel's detriment.
But worse is this professor juxtaposing the next example of North Korea doing things that embarass its protector China. What stupidity to compare or juxtapose North Korea and Israel. An out of control rogue Communist dictatorship should never be compared to a liberal, progressive, Western democracy that respects due process and the rule of law, such as Israel.
Joe Silver, Oh, the Mossad can handle it all.
The settlements keep multiplying, at innocents' expense...
I think you may be overly sensitive. I would be too if I was an Israeli.
Agree with you on all your points.
Important that you put them forth.
Obama dealt Israel
a cruel populist blow to appeal to his potential domestic politics(also an extreme personal dislike of Netanyhu)
@@ritchie9030 I am not Israeli. While I use analysis and stick to the issue, you use personal attacks and fraudulent insinuations like a typical shallow idiot.
I said you were overly sensitive, you then called me an idiot. I think you have anger issues.
A reminder the God loves you and Jesus died for your. sins💓. ( not tryna force)
The eugenics movement was taken seriously by serious intellectuals because it put forward a serious argument that to this day hasn't been entirely refuted. In fact, more modern research in genetics supports some of the eugenicists' claims, if not their policies.
Can we just stop that the idea the weak must be culled? It's been about 80 years showing us where that road leads us.
"Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
@@robertmoore6149 Eugenics =/= "the weak must be culled".
@@Marmocet It is the logical conclusion. From involuntary sterilization to concentration camps.
here we have a statement without support. thus can only be dismissed,
Now we have the bloodwork that unites our species with the very first people being black Africans. The eugenics movement had all the human emotional bias and just enough knowledge for trouble.We know better now.
@@stephendavis6620 "Eugenics" is something practiced on a routine, ongoing basis to improve the health of agricultural crop species and farm animals to make them more productive and healthy. This is where the idea for eugenics came from. The idea was to apply the same general techniques to the human population that we apply to crops and farm animals with great success.
I am not advocating eugenics, I am merely noting that the principles it is based on work. To say that eugenics has been disproven somehow is simply false.