This lecture got me to think in ways I haven't thought before. Excellent mental exercise.

@XanthusBarnabas

2 жыл бұрын

He was a guest lecturer during a Mid-East Pol-Sci course I attended (1995/1996-ish, Univ. of VA)...smart guy...

Good lecture, but the camera work was terrible, as it focused almost entirely on the speaker and left you to guess what may have been on his slides.

@davidsabillon5182

5 жыл бұрын

I agree. Other lectures switch to the slide when needed. Hopefully they'll rectify this in the coming years.

Excellent, very interesting

Lowering the height recommendation was not such a bad idea for trench warfare with machine guns.

@michaelsommers2356

3 жыл бұрын

It was more a matter of not being able to find enough people of the required height. During the Boer War the British found that such a huge fraction of recruits did not meet the physical requirements that they had trouble filling the ranks.

@Doc_Tar

3 жыл бұрын

Until the soldiers had to go over the top, I'd imagine.

Fantastic talk - learned so much!

Highly relevant today for those politicians and pundits who object to opening negotiations with Putin. How else can the Ukraine war end? The book Mr. Armstrong refers to at the 14 minute mark- Strategic Surrender, by Paul Kecskemti- is available free on the internet.

@derantorkiarig4592

Жыл бұрын

No, not really. At least not if we want to keep the western system of order intact. Then, negotiations with Putin are out of the question. Besides, it's not on the west to propose those negotiations. It's up to Russia. The West has no war aims against Russia besides restoring the territorial integrity of Ukraine; in other words, the status quo ante bellum (ante bellum 2014, that is). Russia is the party which seeks to gain something here. It's up to them to give up on that. And if they do, we can have peace tomorrow. If they don't, there won't be peace, because Ukraine can not decide to abolish itself, and the West can not decide to abolish its principles, either, because that would mean the definite end of Western hegemony. Thus, there's only two option how the war in Ukraine ends: Ukraine wins, driving Russia off its territory, or Russia decides that depleting Ukrainian military stockpiles by facetanking missiles with their recruits while simultaneously making themselves outcasts on the world stage is not a winning strategy, and they give up on their war aims. But of course, they can't do that, since that would mean that Putin is ousted, and Putin will do everything to prevent that. That's the funny thing about this: old Russia is already dead at this point. They can't win, because even if they win the war, they'll lose the peace.

@jona.scholt4362

10 ай бұрын

Exactly. And those who call for a negotiated settlement just seem to think that Putin/Russia would abide by any sort of settled peace. Why would Putin do that? What motivation would he have to honor any sort of treaty when he's already broken others? Any treaty would just legitimize Putin's false claims and would act merely as an armistice so Russia could rearm when the sanctions would inevitably be lifted. To advocate any peace that doesn't result in the full repatriation of Ukrainian lands would not only be an immoral betrayal, it would only embolden Putin and make him far more dangerous.

Great lecture. Thanks.

Good talk. There are surely many reasons peace didn't come in 1915 but I think surely, after the Battle of the Frontiers, accepting peace without something to show for it would have been political suicide for every big European power. After that level of violence, there must have been something like emotional shock.

good presination Gary! I have some errata for you: Russian Ministers of the Interior after PN Durnovo fates: PA Stolypin 1906 Apr-Sep 1911 assassinated AA Makaov Sep 1911-Dec 1912 shot REDs NA Maklakov Dec 1912-Jul 1915 shot Reds Prince NB Shcherbatov Jul-Sep 1915 dies in exile 1943 AN Khvostov Sep 1915-Mar 1916 shot Reds BV Sturmer Mar-Jul 1916 dies in prison 1917 AA Khvostov Jul-Sep 1916 died 1921 AD Protopopov Sep 1916-Feb 1917 shot reds so not all of them died violently as you said and in Durnovo's wiki bio

@benoplustee

2 жыл бұрын

I mean you could argue that dying in prison is "not a peaceful end" pretty easily. Also he only mentioned the next 6 not the next 8

I'm pretty sure he meant "...why PEACE did not break out in 1915..." at 16:40

The whole series has trouble with audio. This can barely be heard.

What is that book he mentions about Russia’s plans, Reign of Steel?

@albrechtvonwallenstein2952

2 жыл бұрын

Ring of Steel: Germany and Austria-Hungary at War, 1914-1918

This is also quite relevant to what we see in Ukraine right now, respectively there could be paralels to why Russia is still pressing their effort... Seems people and wars never change.

What is that top bidder game called? He says Martin smth invented it in 1971,

@Great-Documentaries

2 жыл бұрын

Wait. So you watched this entire lecture on World War 1 during 1915 and THAT is your only question?

April 25 1915 Gallipoli

@bruceismay5440

2 жыл бұрын

Another thing in the 15 days

And all this time, I thought Iran was between Iraq and a hard place!

If the discovery of major oil in Iraq came after the war, why was Britain looking to have direct control of Basra before that discovery?

@benoplustee

2 жыл бұрын

Likely had to do with access to/protection of India

@deepcosmiclove

10 ай бұрын

The Brits are still in Basra.

@keithmcmullen1433

2 ай бұрын

They discovered it sooner. Enemy on the Euphrates by Ian Rutledge does a great job chronicling the years of discovery.

Yes the Austrians were out to settle some old scores. They were chomping at the bit to start a war against the Southern Slavs.

@jonathanccast

3 жыл бұрын

Actually most groups of "southern slavs" were under Austrian rule at the time (and didn't appreciate being reduced to subjection to Serbia instead)

@user-yk4ey3xl9s

3 жыл бұрын

Jonathan Cast incorrect

If I'm not mistaken Austro Hungarian War aimes didn't change in this timeframe, and italians neither. AH would be a mixture of autocratic and democratic and Italy the same.

The Russians periodically go through bouts of extreme public temperance. Putin is trying to lead a more moderate one now, so encouraging a more relaxed and less strong alcohol drinking culture. Furthermore earlier in the 19th Century they had ended the Vodka monopoly and then had to take it back because they needed the revenue. Russia had a problem that the Soviet Union did not it was under bureaucratized. There were not enough civil servants around to make the government run effectively. Whatever else Soviet bureaucracy did it made sure a lot of things got done that otherwise would not have happened.

He said Russia had 2/3 on the Ottoman Front?!

@scottn7cy

4 жыл бұрын

I believe I heard him say Russia had 2/3 facing the Austro-Hungarians

I am astonished that the British and the French Empire are classified as democratic and none authoritarian powers. The majority of the humans controlled by these powers had no democratic rights at all like for example the Indians or the people living in French Indochina. Only a small to tiny minority of the people of these colonial empires had any democratic rights.

His one big weakness is his refusal to acknowledge Wilhelmine Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire as liberal democracies. I do think that Wilhemine Germany especially was a liberal democracy. This was settled pretty decisively when both Wilhelm liberalised and gave an opening to the SPD making them a legitimate Party and when the Reichstag seized control of the military budget away from the executive and the executive had to recognise that actually as the Reichstag had the votes and that a military led dictatorship would not be sustainable that they were subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is true that the Kaiser and his ministers had autocratic pretensions but that was because they all knew their power was slipping away .

you quote Kissinger, I go listen to someone sane.

@williamtell5365

Жыл бұрын

I despise Kissinger. But look deeper and you'll find someone who was thoughtful, though deeply flawed. He wasn't a visceral warmonger.