ABSOLUTELY STUPENDOUS. i'M IN MY EIGHTIES, AND HAVE ABSORBED TO TEACHINGS AND OPINIONS OF MANY GREAT MILITARY HISTORIANS; PROFESSOR MARGARET MacMILLAN, IS AMONG THE VERY BEST.

What an amazing and knowledgeable woman you are Prof Margaret. Thankyou!

She is one of the best lecture's ever. I have listened to so many of her lectures..

Four years of stalemate and I think Europe has never recovered from that. How very true. One survivor Donald Christopher Smith wrote; In 1914 the public schools Officers Training Corps annual camp was held on Salisbury Plain. Lord Kitchener was to review the cadets but the imminence of the war kept him away and General Smith-Dorrien was sent instead. He surprised the two or three thousand cadets by declaring that war should be avoided at almost any cost, that war would solve nothing the whole of Europe and more besides would be reduced to ruin and the loss of life would be so large that whole populations would be decimated. In our ignorance many of us felt ashamed of a British general who uttered such depressing and unpatriotic sentiments but during the next four years those of us who survived the Holocaust - probably not more than one quarter- of us learn how right the general’s prognosis was and how courageous he had been to utter it.

Great analysis. I wish I had had access to this resource when I was doing A Level history. Thank you 😊

Excellent lecture!

i am very honoured to listen to the complete trilogy of the lecture.

Professor MacMillan details what Henry Kissinger calls "Into the vortex" in his brilliant book "Diplomacy". There was no reason for the First World War to come about but it did because of what politicians all across Europe and the USA thought between 1898 and 1914. Margaret MacMillan delivers a highly interesting exposition of what really happened then.

Very good lecture-

Great lecture

Thanks for the subtitles.

It's terrible to think that the alliances were so insecure and fragmented and yet the powers went to war for each other anyway and so many people died for the sake of these alliances that were not sensible to begin with.

@Cotswolds1913

6 жыл бұрын

It was all out of fear over what would happen if they let their rival win. Germany with more land to the east turning their attention to France at some future date. Russia making Germany's situation untenable if they let Austria-Hungary collapse or give Russia more time to industrialize.

@billolsen4360

Жыл бұрын

The peoples' tax money at work! Make sure you give birth to plenty of sons because they're needed as cannon fodder when the fat old generals, admirals, royals and government bureaucrats in their comfy villas and palaces decide to send them into another war. France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Britain, Italy, the Ottoman Empire are all simply marvelous places with fine people or simply horrible places with awful people, depending on who we can make an alliance with.

@Kannot2023

11 ай бұрын

The only agresive alliance was of Central Powers, Italy and Romania declined to join Austria and Germany in war. Germany could decline to enter in war. The alliances could be broken.

Having seen several historians cite the British blockade of Germany as part of the shift towards total war, but it wasn't new in the twentieth, or even the nineteenth, century; it was the blockades of the Dutch, French and Spanish Navies during the the 17th and 18th century that had contributed significantly to the Royal Navy's superiority in seamanship, evident in all the battles of Hood, Jervis and Nelson. The Brest blockade during the Napoleonic wars lasted for more than twenty years, with ships of the line travelling a straight course between two points on the chart, calm or gale, and a swarm of frigates, sloops and brigs cruising for blockade runners or delivering mail and supplies. Meanwhile the opposition was cooped up in port, unable to train in real sailing or navigation, and with the crews gradually becoming unfit and dissolute or outright deserting.

Ms. MacMillan elucidates an explanation of the causes of a war that seems inexplicable.

37:30 - 37:45. Football player Johan Cruyff taught: "To score, you have to shoot." General Von Schlieffen, in 1893: "To win, you have to attack." I like these parallels. For the famous Rinus Michels, the inventor of modern football (soccer) in the 1960's, famously said: "Football is war." So we can conflate these two fields of human endeavour. LOL

Ms. McMillan is the great-granddaughter of David Lloyd George, British PM during WW1.

@jezalb2710

2 жыл бұрын

Good for her

@stevenyourke7901

2 жыл бұрын

@@jezalb2710 I see you’re not very impressed with her pedigree.

@jezalb2710

2 жыл бұрын

@@stevenyourke7901 I am impressed with her knowledge and a very good presentation. Pedigree has nothing to do with it. Unless you suggest otherwise.

@stevenyourke7901

2 жыл бұрын

@@jezalb2710 I’m impressed with her presentation, too. Her pedigree doesn’t matter unless it biases her but I don’t get that impression. It’s just a curious coincidence.

@jezalb2710

2 жыл бұрын

@@stevenyourke7901 there was a comment left by somebody in relation to another presentation of hers. And her pedigree was held against her

"...and so Europe had four years of stalemate and HAS REALLY NEVER RECOVERED FROM THAT." That failure to have recovered has allowed the US to strive for hegemonic power and to lead Europe and the world towards great catastrophe in 2021.

@davidreidenberg9941

3 жыл бұрын

Sure and the U.S. had to bail the British and French’s chestnuts out of the fire twice.

@ennediend2865

2 жыл бұрын

The suicide of Europe ... Very accurate expression !

British isolation? How about Rosenblum, Sacharov and others?

Excellent lecture, very interesting! A question that comes to my mind: the role of pacifists seems to be very limited. I believe this is because pacifists are by nature ‘passive’, also towards extremism in their own country. Isn’t this an interesting subject to discuss in a future lecture?

@user-oc6dh2yp2w

5 ай бұрын

According to the conservative worldview of the time, pacifism was a position typical for weak, spoiled, efeminate men (women's opinion didn't matter at all). No man wanted to seem that way.

I'm glad the lecture was not given by the guy who introduced Margaret MacMillan!

@billolsen4360

Жыл бұрын

Amen, brother!

MacMillan mentions German failure to plan for a long war. That was because German military planners knew, correctly, that Germany would be at a disadvantage with a long war. Clauswitz wrote that if a German plan for a quick victory failed, that left only one alternative. Seek a negotiated settlement. This is why Moltke told the the Kaiser, after the German defeat at the Battle of the Marne, "the war is lost." At that point Germany should have proposed a cease fire and negotiations.

@powerdriller4124

Жыл бұрын

Clauswitz was wrong, he was too pessimistic giving Russia a resilience She did not have. While worse than too much optimistic when ignoring that there were a factor called "the USA." Germans were having terrible time in the Front patch were they had to face 50,000 Canadians; the 2 million Yanks that were going to be in France in 1919 promised that the Canadian problem was gonna be at least 40 times worse.

@Kannot2023

11 ай бұрын

​@@powerdriller4124 Austria lost war in 1915, Germany could not cover Austria with its army. So war was lost for Germany

they couldn't have move the camera to see the graphic???

@TheDavidlloydjones

7 жыл бұрын

What we have here is us an audience for a new technology which we have taken for granted -- KZread, a major form of education from here on out -- and on the other hand we have a bunch of producers who are doing us a huge favour by sticking a camera in the room and pointing it vaguely in the direction of the front of the room, so shut up and be grateful. They're pioneers, see? It seems to me we have two legitimate demands right now: echo-free audio, and video which includes the speakers' major graphics. Any producer who can't give us those two has no place in the business, seems to me.

@dreamdiction

11 ай бұрын

Videography is a field which is heavily populated by low IQ people, they have no comprehension of what she is talking about but they will put their own names in the end credits.

@Archibald_von_Munch

10 ай бұрын

No, evidently not.

I luv me some M & M....

If germany had made and effort to keep britain out of the war they has won they had had no blockade , France mistakes in 1914 had Made them surrender and they migth use all its force in the east against Russia

@powerdriller4124

3 жыл бұрын

Not to invade Belgium was the only way to keep Britain out. Which meant having to invade France through the French strongest border. And that did not guarantee a future British rethinking of entering the war.

@powerdriller4124

Жыл бұрын

Brits would have reconsidered going to war, Belgium would have not mattered, if they had learned on time how much territory the Germans were going to take from Russia. Not going to war would have been a historical strategic mistake to be regretted forever.

43:27 eminence grise

Seems 21:43 is precisely what happened in Ukraine. As Mearsheimer said, Ukraine was "led down the primrose path" believing they would join NATO.

@Kannot2023

11 ай бұрын

Mearsheimer doesn't know anything about Eastern Europe, Ukrainians,Poles,Baltics,Romanian will fight Russia regardless if we have NATO on our back or not.

@user-oc6dh2yp2w

5 ай бұрын

No, this did not happen in Ukraine. You Putin's apoligists have a very warped view of history.

Skip directly to 0:58, dont waste time

@jezalb2710

2 жыл бұрын

I did waste

Wonka ask Is it true?

Seems very illogical, and crazy, that the Germans thought by building a strong Navy the British would react by becoming friendlier toward Germany

@11Kralle

8 жыл бұрын

+Jonny Boozewitz Tirpitz and Wilhelm II. were surrounded by sycophants - the crazy part would be the "forced friendship". The 'Germans' had no say in their goverment; not even the Reichstag could coerce the Kaiser to do as they decided. I think, it was a bold gamble of the general staff gone horrible wrong.

@TomfromExeter

7 жыл бұрын

I know what you mean. But French strength and Russian strength 'forced' Britain to become friendly with them. Japanese strength made them a useful ally to Britain. The Germans seem to have been hoping something similar might happen. 'Friendly' in diplomatic terms means concerned.

@geraldfriedman71055

6 жыл бұрын

Tom Brearley wrong. It was French and Russian weakness that led Britain to move towards them from concern that they would fall to Germany.

@slightlyconfused876

6 жыл бұрын

Very much in the tradition of Napoleon, They need not love me just as long as they fear me.

@mtlicq

3 жыл бұрын

4 years ago comment already. Anyways, Germany and British (Empire) were buddies, even allies for centuries, even recently until some influencers changed the minds of British gov't, then the people through mainstream media propaganda. Germany's navy was to protect German merchant ships and protect the few German colonies, not at all originally intended for war against Britain. Also, it seemed very illogical, and crazy, that Britain backed down and sided with the US after threats from a US politician, in the late 1890's. US had only 2 ships in the Carribean and Britain had 42. After many decades of loss and resentment for the American revolution, they certainly were not allies before, but Brits did a 180° u-turn on their attitude on the US and started to count them on the same side, afterall, they were of British racial stock anyway.

In my simple mind it all started because Russia could not convince Serbia to come clean in order to control the enraged Austrian after Sarajevo .

This broad knows everything about ww1

Zz

@tdofeldt5742

2 жыл бұрын

This isnt for you

@Birch37

2 жыл бұрын

Don't watch and don't be a dickhead

The Germans were idiotics. The Army didn't talk to the foreign office about the effect of violating Belgium and its brining Great Britain into the war. As the French Army wouldn't violate Belgium neutrality and it was impossible for the French to successfully breakthrough the German defenses in Alsace-Lorraine, there was no need to attack France in 1914. Germany could have remained on the defensive in the west and used the majority of the German Army against Russia. This would have kept Austo-Hungarian forces from being crushed by Russia and England would have remained neutral. After disposing of Russia, Germany could have crushed France.

Considering my extensive knowledge of WWI, I am amazed at how much I don't know whenever I hear this erudite woman 📖📗