Love this presentation and the presenter was excellent. IDK what people are griping about with his sense of humor. How delightful to see someone with an actual sense of irony and facetiousness. WWI was a terrible, terrible catastrophe (I completely agree with the reference he used re: the effects on the rest of the 20th and 21st century) but a little irony helps and keeps it from being a dead boring recitation of facts. Well done, Professor Clark.
Clarks's book, "Sleepwalkers" is one of the best books, on the events leading up to the First World War. Those who are content to believe the myth that the allies are totally innocent, and the Central Powers were totally at fault, won't like Clark's book. On the other hand, they might learn something.
One of my favorite historians! Every bit as brilliant as the late Sir John Keegan and one of greatest living military historians, Sir Michael Howard!!!! I could listen to Dr. Clarke for hours!!!!
This is at least 6 lectures in one. A summary of the state of the art without a hint of dry cataloguing or overcrowding. An extraordinary feat of academic breadth and presentational skills.
This is one of the best TH-cam videos on this subject. In most of the other similar ones, the speakers spend a great deal of time trumpeting their backgounds & experiences, and that of their associates, bhah, blah, blah...before saying anything informative about the topic. This one gets down to the "nitty gritty" right away.
I hear you as I’m a retired professor and the long intros listing honors and awards and the number of books published etc before the speaker begins a lecture is so tedious yet very common. Academics love building up CVs and puffing up visiting scholars.
I’ve read many accounts of the murders of the Archduke and his wife, and yet I never knew that day was the date of their wedding anniversary. Their marriage was one of the few genuine love matches (obviously most aristocratic marriages were political and/or thoroughly capitalistic in nature) and thinking that the doomed Archduke was begging his wife - his darling he loved desperately - not to die is heartbreaking. Excellent lecture based on Professor Clark’s superb and groundbreaking book - Sleepwalkers - that challenges the simplified narratives about how WWI actually developed - not the outdated “good guys” vs “bad guys.” Great presentation!
How frightfully well spoken for an aussie is Prof Clark. I've been a student of this seminal event in the creation of the modern world since I was a lad. My Grandad served in WWI though spoke of it very rarely. Prof Clark rates on par with Barbara Tuchman, whose book "Guns of August" I was given by a favorite (great-great!) aunt when I was about 12 (1970). In 1971 I wrote my first serious history paper on the subject, although in those days I too was enthralled by the fading old-world pomp and glorious uniforms. I loved to be able to quote Bismarck as having predicted WWI beginning with"some damned foolish incident in the Balkans..." Since then I've looked harder at related problems compounded by Sykes / Picot, the Balfour declaration, and the general repudiation of the Arab / Islamic polities in the Middle East once they had served their short-term purposes for the victorious western (proto-multinational corporate) powers. A second "Scramble for Africa in 1919 (minus Bismarck's Germany) provided gratuitous spoils of war. Tuchman's first book "Bible and Sword" is still a useful study of British influence in the Holy Land from Richard "Lionheart" up to the Suez crisis. The toxic results of the Six Day War and the fate of the West Bank came later. (How many Israeli leaders from Rabin to Sharon have been swallowed whole in this hateful conflagration positing the triumph of "religious" ideology over reason & enlightenment ?) Of course political and financial exhaustion was clearly expressed by victorious post-war governments regarding the senselessness of WWI. It was the first modern war, and millions hoped it would actually be "the War to End All War". Which led to fanciful diplomatic attempts like the Kellogg-Briand treaty outlawing war and limiting global armaments, and explained America's geo-political comfort zone - Isolationism. With the collapse of Russian military influence after the Soviets' protracted civil conflicts (1919-22), and limited British or French military willingness in their Southeast Asian colonies, the resulting power vacuum emboldened Japan's confidently aggressive policies in China and the Far East following the global financial crash in 1929.
From a completely different field, my interest is the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, I completely agree with the notion that rethinking the question is *always* at the heart of seeking an answer.
In the years before the War there was British feeling that Germany needed to be taught a lesson. In France there was a feeling that France could not lose if Russia and France warred against Germany, and that France would get Alsace-Lorraine back. In Russia there was a resolve not to be humiliated and treated with dismissive disregard.
I read this book in 2014 and found it detailed but very insightful and a very enjoyable read. I formed the impression that France got off lightly in the subsequent Treaty of Versailles which laid the blame for starting the war soley on Germany (the motto "Vae Victus" seemingly applied). France actively encouraged Russia to virtually surround Germany thereby provoking it into action. Read the book, and when finished, read "The Vanquished: Why the First World war failed to End" by Robert Gerwarth, it will complete the picture and give a very good understanding of how present day Europe has evolved politically.
Interesting insight. I hardly think France can be blamed for allying itself with Russia though, after all it was weaker than Germany (manpower, industry, armed forces quality) and lay directly in its path. It made political sense to shore up its position. If anything it was the Germans own fault for leaving their alliance with the Russians expire in the 1890's. As for blaming Germany for kicking things off, I agree. It was unjustified though after being invaded, pillaged and suffering approx 5 million battle casualties such a French reaction is understandable.
Michael, it was two guys in the French Foreign Office who seemed hell bent on avenging France's defeat in the Prussina-Franco war of 1870/71 who egged on the Russians!
True but my point still stands. Whether thinking of avenging the 1870 defeat or just protecting itself, France was not in a position to do either alone. It was outnumbered, outgunned and outproduced by the Germans. It made nothing but sense to ally with Russia in the face of the German threat (look at what happened in 1870 when isolated)
Michael, two other goods books I would recommend you read, if not already done so, are, The Vanquished by Robert Gerwarth and Hitler: Ascent by Volker Ulrich. They make good "follow on " books to The Sleepwalkers
Dammit, I thought this was a documentary. I gave it a thumbs down for my own dumb mistake.. which, realizing how unfair it was, I undid. Then I watched it and changed it to a thumbs up. Usually, presentations bore me. This guy does it PROPERLY. Well done!
Thanks for a clear and concise setting the stage. Good post. A piece of absolutely first rate fiction pertaining to the tensions and misunderstandings leading to Europe's Great War, and one well recommended by all kinds of authorities on the times, is Thomas Mann's "The Magic Mountain". It is a really fine read and a piercing look into human society in microcosm.
Having watched this and read some of the comments, Clark is a writer - I do facilitation and public speaking for a living but it's not easy and most people absolutely dread it. So cut him some slack. People often seem to want to use 'What caused the war' as a means of assigning blame. We are still discovering and re-interpreting motives and drivers which point to a far more complex narrative than is traditionally taught. For example, Czarist Russia classified Ukrainians as Little Russians ie part of the motherland who spoke Russian with an accent. Austria-Hungary fostered Ukrainian or Ruthenian nationalism in Galicia as a counter weight to the primarily Polish landlords who dominated landholdings there. Pre-1914 Slav nationalism in Bosnia and elsewhere was not the same as wanting to be part of Serbia, despite Russian claims to the contrary. Those fault lines remain with us today. You cannot understand the apparent insouciance with which nations contemplated war in 1914 (the 'Sleepwalk') unless you appreciate the ubiquity in the late 19th or early 20th century of social theorists like Darwin, Nietzsche or Marx who routinely used the language of struggle in their writings. The first assumption common to European leaders was that evolution applied to nations and races as much as species ie they either triumphed or went under to superior foes. Those theories and their implications eg eugenics were common in many countries (including the US) until 1945 and beyond. The second assumption was that any war would only last a couple of months; there were books 'proving' that global trade made long wars impossible. We know it lasted four years and cost millions of lives - they didn't. Understanding that makes the huge efforts by Asquith and Grey to maintain party unity in July 1914 much more understandable if you consider that they fully expected to be back arguing about Home Rule for Ireland in early 1915.
The content is excellent...the presentation is lacking significantly. Public speaking is difficult but he is especially inept. U should teach him how to do it properly.
Prof Clark Manages to put an interesting twist of his own,that along with the analogies he uses throughout this talk make it more interesting in today's terms. Reminded me of my High School American History Teacher .Only thing is we were fed propaganda in the 60's and 70's in high school still are
You won't find this in the newspaper reports or the Australian government's public statements but the first world war saw the end of Australians' feeling that they owed England as their motherland by inheritance. Those who returned were imbued with a certain knowledge of their superiority as decent fighting men - so much is true. But they were utterly disenchanted - disgusted - by the behaviour of English officers in Gallipoli. Fellows 'leading from behind', sitting in their tents having tiffin while the Australians and New Zealanders were sent orders insanely dangerous to the meanest intelligence and impossible to hold in practice. One heard remarks like this whenever the war was mentioned by the returned soldiers and a woman who was then in her twenties, and who I interviewed in her nineties said calmly enough that Australian society changed forever, 'Those who died were the idealists and the visionaries who would have made Australia a fine country; those who remained were those more concerned for themselves and their money." That's dichotomy explains our election of Whitlam, and his defeat (some say by Murdoch); it explains our electing Rudd... and the immediate 'top-down' efforts to undo that election. But we've never felt English since WW1.
The title of this lecture is a bit misleading. There is practically no history mentioned after June 28th 1914. He does not deal at all with the July crisis. Instead, he concentrates and justifies why he wrote a book about how the factors prior to June 1914 led to a world war. This, in the context of dozens of other books on the subject. He asks not 'why' things happened, but 'how'. It's an interesting lecture. but if you want to know what happened as a consequence of Archduke Ferdinand's assassination, you'll need to look elsewhere.
Great presentation of (some of) the contents of a terrific book. With respect to presentation style, I guess tastes differ; I like Clark's witty asides and don't find his speaking style at all "breathless," etc.
I couldn't agree more. I for one, absolutely love his little asides, a good deal of which (prime example: 12:18 the archduke's bodyguard, count Harrach, unfortunately "but in very Austrian fashion standing on the wrong side" of the car and thus unable to protect his master) seem to fly right over the audiences collective heads.
The Archduke was, in my opinion , set up due in part to his moderate foreign policy. He was an opponent of the exaggerated plans for expansion in the Balkans and the aggressive war policy being pursued by Chief of Staff Conrad von Hötzendorf against Serbia fearing that the Military was simply not strong enough. Moreover, his relationship with Franz Joseph was far from satisfactory. That he had only one Austrian bodyguard standing on the 'wrong' side of the car is reminiscent of Kennedy's secret service guards being withdrawn from the back of Kennedy's car prior to entering Dealey Plaza. The Archduke assassination was a plot hatched at the highest levels of the Austrian government for a pretext to go to war with Serbia. One that they were ill equipped to pursue but , with Germany giving unconditional support, pursed anyway.
Young-Bosnians were not a serbian nationalists, but yugoslavian nationalists, and there is big difference between the two. Even though most of them were ethnically Serbs, all of them were also Yugoslavs politically. Just read the testimonies of Princip, Ilic or Jevtic, who by the way, defines Young Bosnia as a modernist literary group, and also theoretical works of their master-minds Dimitrije Mitrinovic and Vladimir Gacinovic. Without knowing the context of Serbo-Croatian- Muslim relationships in Bosnia and Herzegovina you cannot fathom the essence of the Sarajevo event.
Agree. But I think the author understood the relations in Bosnia but ignored it to "push the book" in the direction he wanted. And in the western literature there are very few, or even no book that describes situation in Bosnia as it really was at that time. In western coutries it is somehow normal that Austria got the right to simply occupy Bosnia. Muslims and Serbs were strongly agains it. Only Roman Catholics (so to say Croats) were for austrian occupation, and they made about 14 % of all Bosnia population. And when Austria occupied Bosnia they tried to invent the "bosnian" nation....and that try failed of course, but gave idea to present Muslims (Bosniaks) in Bosnia to claim that there is a Bosnian nation with three religion. Also the said that there is a "bosnian" language. Croats and Serbs say there are "Bosniaks" and "Bosniaks" language but not Bosnian. The situation with creating and defining the states and nations according the political moment is totaly stupid and can lead nowhere except to some new conflicts.
Can the group around Princip in any way be compared with the Bosnian Serbs who grouped around Radovan Karadzic in the 90's ? What are people in Bosnia- Herzegovina thinking about theories that Princip and his group where aided with money and/or weapons by either Serbian, Austrian, Russian and or British groups, or where they acting on their own.
This lecture is a long introduction and then.... nothing. I assume we will have to read his book to know the answers. On the outbrake of WW1 I Always found it odd that Germany was to blame for it as the German emperor was on holiday on a boat in Norway at the outbrake of war and could hardly be reached. He also commented that he did not believe war was imminent (which I do believe, otherwise you are not on a boat in Norway). Very mysterious.
+Ronald de Rooij You are overestimating how much decisional power the Kaiser had. He wasn't a classical absolute monarch like Louis XIV. The planning and diplomatic work was done by his cabinet. Wilhelm II going on a vacation had little influence on how the German Imperial government worked.
+Klavikule You are right of course, but you are missing my point. The fact that the emperor was on vacation, far away, at the outbreak of WW1, is an indication that he (and I assume his Cabinet) had no clue that war was coming. Therefore they must also had no real intention of starting a war, at least not in the immediate future. Still, it happened.
+Ronald de Rooij Kaiser Wilhelm's holiday to Norway is often mentioned in conjunction with an effort to deescalate the July crises. Since the holiday was planned in advance, cancelling the trip would have seemed as if the German leadership was "up to something". In contrast, French PM Poincare, known for his extremely anti-German attitude, went on a visit to St. Petersburg. This visit was also planned in advance. Cancelling that trip, would have gone a long way to deescalate the tensions caused by the July Crises. The trip went ahead as planned, leaving the German leaders with a feeling of "what are they up to?"
It was not a catastrophe for Poland? "A total of 2 million Polish troops fought with the armies of the three occupying powers, 450,000 died and close to one million were wounded." The fact that Australians and Canadians were all volunteers in WWI makes is even more catastrophic, from my perspective...I am not sure how Mr. Clark defines "catastrophe"?
He was clearly referring to the fact, that at the beginning of WW1 Poland didn`t exist as an independent nation, and was rather a part of Russia. Poland was recreated as a Nation by the treaty of Brest Litovsk, and later by the treaty of Versailles which adds some additional border changes especially in the west. So without the war Clarke insists, there would probably be no free polish nation. If you just look to the amounts of casualities and wounded, the war was catastrophic for all participating major powers
Not to forget that this newly formed Poland was the most aggressive nation in Europe after WW1. It treated its minorities bad, it had military conflicts with All its neighbours for gathering some more land and make a new Great Poland. So Poland never had the victim role.
I think Clark is repeating opinions of those who live in the new countries that came to exist after the war, rather than his own opinion. Basically Poles, Yugoslavians, Czechs, and Slovaks are saying that the creation of their countries were worth 12 or 13 million deaths, of other people.
He us referring to nation building. For Poland their nation was an outcome of the war. For Australia it is said they went from six recent colonies to being bound together as an Australian nation. Technically his statement has merit. It is, however, a sad way to build a nation; sacrificing oneself, on the other side of the world, for a war that should not have occurred.
"F. Fisher thesis - the 5 German provocations .. I do no longer agree with them, although they are all true THEY SHOULD BE EMBEDDED in the LARGER PICTURE .."
At 18:00 mins Clark's effort to portray the assassins as "good" terrorists is flawed. He also mentioned that these young men were armed with grenades. Grenades kill indiscriminately, so in that context, the assassins did not care if a missed grenade killed innocent bystanders. The fact that the grenade tossed at the car glanced off and exploded under the following vehecle, is pure chance. It could just as well have rolled into the crowd lining the streets.
***** That would be 'the freedom fighter' vs. 'the terrorist' chain of argument. What was Nelson Mandela? Freedom fighter or terrorist? Castro? Minutemen? Mau Mau? Boxer Rebellion? VC? Arafat? IRA? Freedom fighters, or terrorists?
Don't blame the T of Versailles for the blame cause - the Germans first used the 'not guilty' in the 1916 peace offer and claimed compensation for the war.
I heard that this guy's (re)vision of WW1 history is very popular in Germany. Also, it would be important to know, if anyone, than - who funded his research. And, in the end, to see what other historians think of this pearl of historiography.
Agree. At the end i do not see much researcs in the authors work. He selected the sources so that he can mould the book the way he wanted. He wanted to promote Europe, so to wirte this book for the present moment, i would not be surpsised if some EU found financed the book. It is astonishing that there is no single book writing really fair about this topic. After more that 100 years we still fight the same battle, how to shift responsibility for the biggest calamity till that time. And no one also tried to find out who really stood behind the so called "Black Hand" in Serbia....there some evinedences that the main officers of the Black Hand were mason...and mason were under the anglosaxon control in the Balkan region....that could lead us to some further conclusions that are not even mentioned in this book, and I think it will be ever mentioned.
@@dejandejan5911 : As always in important questions lots of misinformation going on, some blaming the Serbs (Black hand), some blaming the Russians, some blaming the Austrians themselves (Franz Ferdinand was supposedly too soft) and some are blaming the English (they are supposed to have financed the operation by way of contacts in Thessaloniki). I have not heard from people blaming the French, the Germans or the Turks, but maybe there are also conspiracies blaming those countries.
As a not native english speaker I do not speak an write english corectly but you will excuse me for possible mistakes in the text. I read the book The Sleepwalkers and made some simple statistics: Serbia or Serbs is mentioned 1497 times. Germany or german is mentioned 1556 times Russia or russian is mentioned 2039 times Britain or british is mentioned 872 times France or french is mentioned 1110 times Austria or austrian is mentioned 1035 times Belgium is mentioned 49 times I must say I am dissapointed with the book, also with the choise of sources used by Mr Clark, and with obvious intention of the author to shift strong responsibility for the WWI to Serbs or Serbia. Small countries like Belgium are hardly mentioned, but German attack on France via Belgium territory caused Britain to enter war. Belgium is mentioned only 49 times in the whole book, and small Serbia 1497 times. To state theat serbian prime minister Pasic knew about the preparation for the assasination is Sarajewo is without any evidence, and sounds really ridiculous. Who on Earth in Serbia would provoke mighty Austria after two Balkan wars Serbia just fought? On the other side Austria Hungary is described almost as democratic state, although it was a classical police state with no real democracy at all. In Bosnia the serfdom was not abolished till the WWI, could someone imagine it in Europe in 20th century? In whole Bosnia and Herzegowina were only 4 gymnasium, and no university in 20th century. That is unbeliveable but it is true. Most of the serfs that remained were otrodox Serbs , Austria did not want to make old muslim landowners and noblitiy hostile, and kept the serfdom in Bosnia. (not completely abolished as said). Also to use Bulgarian source in the macedonian question when you write about Serbia is insane I must say, because the two sides were enemies in the Second Balkan War and were oponents in macedonian question for decades before the war. To describe serbian King, author used Vladimir Dedijer as a souse and Dedijer was a komunist propagandist after the WW2 when Komunist Party came to power in Yugoslavia, also Dedijer wrote 20-30 years after the events described in this book, so he is a sourse very disputable. All in all, book leaves one bitter taste among all who would like to be objective, more than 100 years after the war there are it seems so, old interesrs, old way of thinking as if we in the pre war period. No one can forbid an author his Anglosaxon way of thinking but historian must be fair and very careful by using the sources for one book that should describe and elaborate such an important topic as a beginning of the world war and causes of the war.
The author did not blame Serbia for the War. Blame for the War comes from a bizarre set of circumstances and diplomatic failures. Having read the book twice, and talking with friends who have read the book, no one really blames the Serbs. Europe was a tinderbox ready to go off. Just that the first shooting started in the Balkans.
Blame Franz Josef for being reactionary. Blame the Kaiser for trying to provoke a war with Great Britain. Blame the Ottoman Empire for trying to remain relevant. Blame the Czar for wanting a war to prop up his regime. Blame French bankers for wanting war to get their money back from the Russians. The list goes on and on.
@@johnmassoud930 of coursew there is no explicit blame of Serbia but in the text there are several chapters that blame Serbia heavily. That find it very unfair and is historical forgery. No more no less. In my first comment it is elaborated.
@@johnmassoud930 yes the list goes on...blame on the first place british government who did not wanted to make consetions to Germany , nowhere, none in Africa, none in Asia. And if there would be some consetions they would be given on the cost of someone else (Russia or France). The same followed about 20 years after causing partly the second war. If you want to be open and fair you have to add british on the list.
@@dejandejan5911 : True, the British are just as well to blame as all other parties, especially the group around Grey, Rhodes and the royal family who wanted an alliance with France and Russia against Germany. With hindsight this was not a good move, not for Britain and also not for Europe.
England was losing money because the Germans could do it better and the banks were in danger of not getting paid when the English firms go bankrupt Germany was taking over the world's economy because they did things better and this was a problem for investors of the English and also problems in Ireland so the war could and probably was economic in cause.
A nation that fought two world is superior - even if this nation has lost two world wars! Why? To answer this question we have only to ask: what is war? Or what is the meaning of war for a nation? This question is indeed a big question. There are people in history who had already answered this question. Do you know who and what are their reasons?
At the 35 minures mark I thought he had accidentally turned a page. I was on the eege of my seat for the rest of that minute, thinking "when is he going to notice?". Turns out he hadn't turned the page so he just continued. Sorry about the spoiler ^^
Yes ower king ask for help and there was e treaty from londen 1830 that says that GB will defend belguim if it is attack it still stands today so thank you GB
Whoever started this war...does it matter? Millions of people soldiers and civilians died - that is what is important. And those responsible for it "the leaders" (it doesn't matter which country, politician, military etc.) got away with it. And millions died...
1959xerox 1959xerox yes, it matters. if you walk outside and find bodies in your yard and two people standing thier with guns, knowing who started the shooting and why would be very important don't you think? if they said, those guys tryed to kill us and everyone just said ok. you either have two hero's or two cold blooded killers in your neighborhood. biiiiiiiig difference.
To "The Griffenn": in reply to your comment which can't be found here? "my comment marked as spam" by you? For the millions and civilians who died....a big difference to what you wrote...
It was a decision taken under the strategic dictates of Germany's military situation in the hopes of achieving a quick victory. If the Germans hadn't done it, the British had their own plans ready to invade Belgium, also for strategic reasons.
The expectation of a Two-front War and the danger of having its industrial heart, the Ruhr-Area right on the Belgian border being invaded by France (which happened right after the war actually).
He does not blame a single person or nation for starting the war, rather he tries to explain how the european powers had came to the point, that a local political conflict at the balkan was capable to turn into full scale war.
According to my research, World War I was instigated by Russia, France, and Britain. Russia arranged the assassination of Austria's Archduke Ferdinand. In the subsequent crisis, Russia and France mobilized their armies, knowing that the mobilizations would trigger outnumbered Germany's defensive plan, which called for a swift attack on France through Belgium. The invasion of Belgium then served as Britain's excuse to enter the war. Britain had a well-trained expeditionary force prepared, and it quickly was sent to Belgium. Each of the Allies had its own motives for going to war. The Russian and French motives were territorial. Britain wanted to weaken Germany as an economic competitor. For details and documentation, see my book "Twelve American Wars."
Why WW1? Step 1: Forget everything you know Step 2: Look at a map of pre-WW1 Europe. Step 3: Notice the location of Serbia Step 4: Assert that Serbia (and Romania) formed a barrier. Step 5: Remove the "barrier" of Serbia, and one gets a "land bridge" between Germany and Austria-Hungary on the one side, and her potential allies of Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire on the other side. Step 6: Deduct that some powers wanted this "land bridge", and other powers wanted to avoid it... Now, guess which powers wanted that land bridge, and guess which powers wanted to avoid it. "History" is so simple, if you look at maps every now and then :-)
+Ralph Bernhard Well it maybe would be better to just leave all these Balkan nations alone.... they might cause trouble again in the future...as one can see they seem to hate each other anyway..
UsoundsGermany Good point. The problems of the past stemmed from these ethnic groups being pushed or forced into artificial entities (Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia) by larger, more powerful nations with their power play games. They are all independent now, and seem to be doing just fine. As a general remark, and not only true for the Balkans: If bigger more powerful nations recognize the right of people to decide for themselves, there is generally peace (unless of course there are other justifiable causes for grievances)
trauko1388 Well, yes. I actually agree with that. But, wars usually have multiple causes, which build up over years and decades. My theory is just one of many causes. If you wish to counter it, then point out why the facts I use are not valid. In other words, why the land connection to potential allies, creating a blockade free zone, is not a motivation to attack a small rogue pain in the arse neighbor. Austria already had long term plans to attack Serbia, going back to 1906. You can even google that (Austrian Chief of Staff, General Hotzendorf)
Ralph Bernhard Serbia ran a campaign of murder and terror against Turkey well before that, once they got rid of the Turks they started to do the same agaisnt the Austrians and they of course didnt like it. THERE WAS NEVER EVER ANY TALK OF A LAND BRIDGE ANYWHERE! Serbia had good relations with AH until they went to the Russians and started to do their biding like dogs, that is why you have an insignificant country like Serbia provoking and mobilizing against AH when no sane small country would ever do that against a great European power. They kept at it until they attacked the AH monarchy directly and the war started, it became general once the Russians supported them in spite of their crimes. Is as simple as that. The blockade as done in WW1 was illegal and no one even considered it pre-war sicne it would create conflict with the neutrals including the US, but since the crazy US president wasnt actually neutral everything went out the window.
+Ralph Bernhard the argument against what you say (deliberate war for strategic gains by central powers) is basically Clark's book. I certainly can't make his argument any better than he does in 550 pages. if you have any particular bits you don't agree with let me know.
Very Disappointed in this; Spends most of the time reviewing well known facts about the assassination, and then seems to basically just defend himself for writing a new history book on subject. Never got to the subject matter of the title, except maybe last few minutes, after waiting and waiting.
Sorry, maybe they are facts "very well known" to some senior historians, but to the broader public. The public only knows there was an old grumpy noble man who appeared to be not even the emperor himself was murdered in Belgrade by a Serb extremist, and then all of a sudden hell broke loose because of a bunch of insane alliances. That is all what the public knows, if they pay attention at all. And to this day, I did not know that the famous "picture after the assassination" did NOT depict the arrest of Gavrilo Princip but of someone else 3 days later ...
BEST ADVICE--BUY THE DVD, AND WATCH THE BBC'S MASTERPIECE DOCUDRAMA '' 37 DAYS''. BRILLIANTLY RECONSTRUCTED FROM ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS AND PRIVATE DIARIES, NEVER SEEN BY THE PUBLIC BEFORE, ALL THE WORDS SPOKEN BY EVERY MAJOR PERSON INVOLVED, BY EVERY MAIN PROTAGONIST, IS WONDERFULLY PORTRAYED BY FIRST RATE ACTORS, WHO ALSO RESEMBLED THEM CLOSELY. I CAN'T RECCOMMEND IT ENOUGH.
Tiresome to see the old story chewed tasteless over and over again... Like it was the shooting of some aristocrat somewhere far of that caused millions of people to take all sorts of machinery and kill each other in the mud... It is a madness culminating from very different tendencies in men and machine.
I'm a WW1 historian, BA in history and I stopped watching at 36:00 minutes. This lecture is absolutely horrible. Worst I've ever seen. He talks in great detail about the assassination of the archduke which is informative but not necessary, then talks about some of the aftermath of the war, then just seems to go off on random tangents. I'm convinced this guy doesn't know all that much about the causes of this war and the video is titled to describe the causes. At least change the title of the video to random rants about WW1 so it's not misleading. The long-term causes of this war date back to 1870. And you know it's true because Bismarck predicted WW1 some 20 years before it happened. He could've talked so much more about French revanchism, the emergence of the German empire as the dominant european power, Tirpitz and the naval rivalry, the scramble for Africa and colonial rivalry/jealousies, the arms race(shells), pan-slavism, the system of alliances, the balkan wars, nationalism, militarism and military plans so on and so forth. The archduke assassination was simply the immediate cause of a long-term boiling pot that boiled over. Thumbs down for this poor lecture.
Strange how these governments can immediately wrap up an investigation after a major incident yet utterly handicapped before the incident. The comment about journalism should be taken as an intriguing one. His observation of the incident in animation depicted as being "operatic", is just that, it was meant to encourage an emotional outburst though the artist and the publisher knew the image was false. It was the Emperor of the French who is quoted as saying, An image is worth a thousand words. Both Prince Bismarck and Metternich had cautioned their respective emperors to avoid this area at all cost before each left office. The decline of the Old man of Europe (the Ottoman) was the result of French and English conspiring to "gut" a once needed ally. For the British against both Russia and France, for France against Russia. Turkey is a NATO ally for a reason. Since, America is the spawn of the British Empire, who was shock to discover during World War 2, the US threatened Britain with an invasion of its colonies. Why, would these two monarchs consider such an alliance for such an expedition. Since, Britain and France were busying themselves trimming the old man's whiskers. Britain encouraged Austria, who was broke because; in order to appease a multi-ethnic populace who had suffered as the result of their ethnicity being anything other than German for decades upon decades, who now being educated were demanding independence hence the Paris of the East movement and the subsequent romanticism. The Austrian emperor was being pushed by Britain (and France) to avoid Russian expansionism. Forcing an empire on the brink of an economic disaster to grab land, fill the bank once again. It was also the Austrian draconian measures on the people after the assassination which gave the response fuel. It was that French emperor, who began this German unification movement having joined many German states. So, when Bismarck came to seal the fate of fellow Germans, in Austria who were busying themselves looking down on fellow Europeans of a diverse background though citizens of Austria. Prussia was creating a modern Germany. Which included territories which were also Russian. Russia, being themselves equally broke before losing to the Japanese (British ally) in the Pacific to the horror of Russian social Darwinian ideology of being among the superior race against one of the many inferior races. Russia, hoping to retrieve land taken by the Germans claimed religious loyalty and intervened against Austria who they knew was an ally of Germany. Nicholas, an autocrat with a sensitive soul assumed while Russia remained stagnant and nostalgic militarily, the Germans were also to his own dynastic destruction. All European monarchs are crowned in their military uniforms. Their palaces are decorated in military victories and pageantry. Yet, somehow Europe is at peace because the wars were no longer fought (in) Europe though wars have always being fought in Europe the last major one being against France, with Russia the only obstacle against a European continent under the heel of a French emperor with Corsican roots.
The events described are very interesting, but this man is not a good speaker. He constantly hesitates before he finishes a statement - I suppose he's doing his best, but it would have been better if someone else had delivered this lecture.
According to the tabloids he was. In reality he was quite a decent man with limited intelligence, a little clumsy, in a way he reminds me of prince Charles.
@@roodborstkalf9664 A very decent nutter who should have our sympathy, said Churchill, who knew him. A government that could not govern, a great people without a government. And European rivalries caused the war, as is the explanation for most wars. Clumsy is another word for unbalanced prejudice, and Hitler said clumsy indeed to naval race with England, I doubt if anyone would ever think to hang Charles Windsor!
- "New ways of understanding the crisis"?Mediocre little private circus about hand grenades in that time.Gavrilo Princip?The three monarchies then disappeared, but that's beyond your understanding.
How..its.simple..German Empiry asking a lot colonies much more .. like United Kingdom,France .its .resurs for industry.. Serbia is to be on the road on the Austrohungarian empiry.. Asking any reaaons..
the main problem is that Serbs made their home on the crossroad. If you move just a little bit from the crossroad the situation is much different (Romania, Greece even Bulgaria). But the main cause of the war is that old colonial owners (Britain and France) did not wanted to make any real consetions to Germany. Germany needed raw materials, more and more, mankind was leaving age of coal and was entering age of petrol, the same caused the second war no 20 years after the first one, among the other causes of course.
Clark obviously thinks he needs to be a stand-up comic as well as an academic. He peppers all his lectures with a succession of cheap jibes: I heard him in a semi-public context poking fun at Admiral Tirpitz for swathing his beard in the equivalent of pantyhose and suggesting that Fritz Fischer even came up with his theory about German war aims because he had "mental health issues" and claiming that most of what he published was written by his academic assistants, What I miss is any sense of personal humility: he castigates everybody else who doesn't happen to agree with him and luxuriates in all the media attention he is currently receiving.
Al, hello. Adm. Tirpitz needed a comb. Eggheads publishing with help from assistants: This is a novelty. You people seldom publish without student-slaves or others in the "Ivory Tower" of London. Learning how to give a public presentation might serve your interests --- and obvious jealousy. Next time you speak to a group, remember: Putting folk to sleep won't get you on the telly nor will your audience take a snooze or walk out on your prodigious gluteous-maximus. Do read "The Anti-Wind-Bag" by Tarbelle Toot-Tate.
+Dr. Alexander Hall Well I rather have some dry Brits humour in a speech than only dry facts :) In fact most good presentations need a certain amount of humour (imho)
Love this presentation and the presenter was excellent. IDK what people are griping about with his sense of humor. How delightful to see someone with an actual sense of irony and facetiousness. WWI was a terrible, terrible catastrophe (I completely agree with the reference he used re: the effects on the rest of the 20th and 21st century) but a little irony helps and keeps it from being a dead boring recitation of facts. Well done, Professor Clark.
Clarks's book, "Sleepwalkers" is one of the best books, on the events leading up to the First World War. Those who are content to believe the myth that the allies are totally innocent, and the Central Powers were totally at fault, won't like Clark's book. On the other hand, they might learn something.
Well said!
One of the best presentations yet seen on the preludes to the Great War. Kudos to Professor Clark and Gresham College.
I just picked up the book “How Europe Went to War in 1914” Christopher has a great sense of humor. Great video.
One of my favorite historians! Every bit as brilliant as the late Sir John Keegan and one of greatest living military historians, Sir Michael Howard!!!! I could listen to Dr. Clarke for hours!!!!
This is at least 6 lectures in one. A summary of the state of the art without a hint of dry cataloguing or overcrowding. An extraordinary feat of academic breadth and presentational skills.
This is one of the best TH-cam videos on this subject. In most of the other similar ones, the speakers spend a great deal of time trumpeting their backgounds & experiences, and that of their associates, bhah, blah, blah...before saying anything informative about the topic. This one gets down to the "nitty gritty" right away.
Must be an UK idiot to say that--- and say NITTY_GRITTY (sic)
I hear you as I’m a retired professor and the long intros listing honors and awards and the number of books published etc before the speaker begins a lecture is so tedious yet very common. Academics love building up CVs and puffing up visiting scholars.
I’ve read many accounts of the murders of the Archduke and his wife, and yet I never knew that day was the date of their wedding anniversary. Their marriage was one of the few genuine love matches (obviously most aristocratic marriages were political and/or thoroughly capitalistic in nature) and thinking that the doomed Archduke was begging his wife - his darling he loved desperately - not to die is heartbreaking. Excellent lecture based on Professor Clark’s superb and groundbreaking book - Sleepwalkers - that challenges the simplified narratives about how WWI actually developed - not the outdated “good guys” vs “bad guys.” Great presentation!
"Ships, they built ships, that upset the British, you should never build ships because it upsets the British" This line is so hilarious, I love it
How frightfully well spoken for an aussie is Prof Clark. I've been a student of this seminal event in the creation of the modern world since I was a lad. My Grandad served in WWI though spoke of it very rarely. Prof Clark rates on par with Barbara Tuchman, whose book "Guns of August" I was given by a favorite (great-great!) aunt when I was about 12 (1970). In 1971 I wrote my first serious history paper on the subject, although in those days I too was enthralled by the fading old-world pomp and glorious uniforms. I loved to be able to quote Bismarck as having predicted WWI beginning with"some damned foolish incident in the Balkans..."
Since then I've looked harder at related problems compounded by Sykes / Picot, the Balfour declaration, and the general repudiation of the Arab / Islamic polities in the Middle East once they had served their short-term purposes for the victorious western (proto-multinational corporate) powers. A second "Scramble for Africa in 1919 (minus Bismarck's Germany) provided gratuitous spoils of war. Tuchman's first book "Bible and Sword" is still a useful study of British influence in the Holy Land from Richard "Lionheart" up to the Suez crisis. The toxic results of the Six Day War and the fate of the West Bank came later. (How many Israeli leaders from Rabin to Sharon have been swallowed whole in this hateful conflagration positing the triumph of "religious" ideology over reason & enlightenment ?)
Of course political and financial exhaustion was clearly expressed by victorious post-war governments regarding the senselessness of WWI. It was the first modern war, and millions hoped it would actually be "the War to End All War".
Which led to fanciful diplomatic attempts like the Kellogg-Briand treaty outlawing war and limiting global armaments, and
explained America's geo-political comfort zone - Isolationism. With the collapse of Russian military influence after the Soviets' protracted civil conflicts (1919-22), and limited British or French military willingness in their Southeast Asian colonies, the resulting power vacuum emboldened Japan's confidently aggressive policies in China and the Far East following the global financial crash in 1929.
Wonderful reflections on why it is still relevant to study World War I [21:39] to [38:21]
From a completely different field, my interest is the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, I completely agree with the notion that rethinking the question is *always* at the heart of seeking an answer.
In the years before the War there was British feeling that Germany needed to be taught a lesson. In France there was a feeling that France could not lose if Russia and France warred against Germany, and that France would get Alsace-Lorraine back. In Russia there was a resolve not to be humiliated and treated with dismissive disregard.
exactly
I read this book in 2014 and found it detailed but very insightful and a very enjoyable read. I formed the impression that France got off lightly in the subsequent Treaty of Versailles which laid the blame for starting the war soley on Germany (the motto "Vae Victus" seemingly applied). France actively encouraged Russia to virtually surround Germany thereby provoking it into action. Read the book, and when finished, read "The Vanquished: Why the First World war failed to End" by Robert Gerwarth, it will complete the picture and give a very good understanding of how present day Europe has evolved politically.
Interesting insight. I hardly think France can be blamed for allying itself with Russia though, after all it was weaker than Germany (manpower, industry, armed forces quality) and lay directly in its path. It made political sense to shore up its position. If anything it was the Germans own fault for leaving their alliance with the Russians expire in the 1890's. As for blaming Germany for kicking things off, I agree. It was unjustified though after being invaded, pillaged and suffering approx 5 million battle casualties such a French reaction is understandable.
Michael, it was two guys in the French Foreign Office who seemed hell bent on avenging France's defeat in the Prussina-Franco war of 1870/71 who egged on the Russians!
True but my point still stands. Whether thinking of avenging the 1870 defeat or just protecting itself, France was not in a position to do either alone. It was outnumbered, outgunned and outproduced by the Germans. It made nothing but sense to ally with Russia in the face of the German threat (look at what happened in 1870 when isolated)
Michael, two other goods books I would recommend you read, if not already done so, are, The Vanquished by Robert Gerwarth and Hitler: Ascent by Volker Ulrich. They make good "follow on " books to The Sleepwalkers
Thanks for the tips Gerry. Id heard of Gerwarths book but just hadnt got around to getting it yet. Id be interested to read his perspective
One of the best authors on this subject, wonderful lecture!
Dammit, I thought this was a documentary. I gave it a thumbs down for my own dumb mistake.. which, realizing how unfair it was, I undid. Then I watched it and changed it to a thumbs up. Usually, presentations bore me. This guy does it PROPERLY. Well done!
Thanks for a clear and concise setting the stage. Good post.
A piece of absolutely first rate fiction pertaining to the tensions and misunderstandings leading to Europe's Great War, and one well recommended by all kinds of authorities on the times, is Thomas Mann's "The Magic Mountain". It is a really fine read and a piercing look into human society in microcosm.
Having watched this and read some of the comments, Clark is a writer - I do facilitation and public speaking for a living but it's not easy and most people absolutely dread it. So cut him some slack.
People often seem to want to use 'What caused the war' as a means of assigning blame. We are still discovering and re-interpreting motives and drivers which point to a far more complex narrative than is traditionally taught. For example, Czarist Russia classified Ukrainians as Little Russians ie part of the motherland who spoke Russian with an accent. Austria-Hungary fostered Ukrainian or Ruthenian nationalism in Galicia as a counter weight to the primarily Polish landlords who dominated landholdings there. Pre-1914 Slav nationalism in Bosnia and elsewhere was not the same as wanting to be part of Serbia, despite Russian claims to the contrary. Those fault lines remain with us today.
You cannot understand the apparent insouciance with which nations contemplated war in 1914 (the 'Sleepwalk') unless you appreciate the ubiquity in the late 19th or early 20th century of social theorists like Darwin, Nietzsche or Marx who routinely used the language of struggle in their writings.
The first assumption common to European leaders was that evolution applied to nations and races as much as species ie they either triumphed or went under to superior foes. Those theories and their implications eg eugenics were common in many countries (including the US) until 1945 and beyond.
The second assumption was that any war would only last a couple of months; there were books 'proving' that global trade made long wars impossible. We know it lasted four years and cost millions of lives - they didn't. Understanding that makes the huge efforts by Asquith and Grey to maintain party unity in July 1914 much more understandable if you consider that they fully expected to be back arguing about Home Rule for Ireland in early 1915.
The content is excellent...the presentation is lacking significantly. Public speaking is difficult but he is especially inept. U should teach him how to do it properly.
Darwin was not a social theorist. And Nietzsche was not a serious one.
@@markb8468 My thoughts exactly. He could do with a little streamlining, or a speech writer.
I like the way you put it, well done.
Thank you for asking How instead of Who or Why. Cheers great video, will consider purchasing the book
Prof Clark Manages to put an interesting twist of his own,that along with the analogies he uses throughout this talk make it more interesting in today's terms. Reminded me of my High School American History Teacher .Only thing is we were fed propaganda in the 60's and 70's in high school still are
I'm reading the book, masterful work
Wars are relatively easy to start but can be very very difficult to end. Who says one individual cannot have much effect on history?
Princip certainly had a massive influence on history.
Great presentation. Thought provoking.
I'll say Russia being the first to mobilize was the final spark that blew the lid off.
It was Putin
Russia only partly mobilised. Besides, they had done it before as a threat and Germany had not reacted
@@Gwynbuck >partly mobilised
lol you say that when you have 500 000 Russians rolling up on your East Prussian towns
According to the famous historian Sir Baldrick Smellipants, WW1 started when "a fellow named Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry".
23:27. "So--not a starry hour of diplomatic prognosis"!
You won't find this in the newspaper reports or the Australian government's public statements but the first world war saw the end of Australians' feeling that they owed England as their motherland by inheritance. Those who returned were imbued with a certain knowledge of their superiority as decent fighting men - so much is true. But they were utterly disenchanted - disgusted - by the behaviour of English officers in Gallipoli. Fellows 'leading from behind', sitting in their tents having tiffin while the Australians and New Zealanders were sent orders insanely dangerous to the meanest intelligence and impossible to hold in practice. One heard remarks like this whenever the war was mentioned by the returned soldiers and a woman who was then in her twenties, and who I interviewed in her nineties said calmly enough that Australian society changed forever, 'Those who died were the idealists and the visionaries who would have made Australia a fine country; those who remained were those more concerned for themselves and their money." That's dichotomy explains our election of Whitlam, and his defeat (some say by Murdoch); it explains our electing Rudd... and the immediate 'top-down' efforts to undo that election. But we've never felt English since WW1.
General John Monash was German speaking Jew
As an Aussie, totally agree
The title of this lecture is a bit misleading. There is practically no history mentioned after June 28th 1914. He does not deal at all with the July crisis. Instead, he concentrates and justifies why he wrote a book about how the factors prior to June 1914 led to a world war. This, in the context of dozens of other books on the subject. He asks not 'why' things happened, but 'how'. It's an interesting lecture. but if you want to know what happened as a consequence of Archduke Ferdinand's assassination, you'll need to look elsewhere.
Excuse me. I forgot I had a screen name. My actual name is Eugene Windchy.
To be honest everything leading up to the assassination of the Archduke is way more interesting than what followed.
Greetings to everyone from Walt's class.
Let's just blame Denmark
Hey... we tried to sell bacon to both side to make everyone happy and full.
We should have had the Nobel peace prize for friendly food. 😂😂
Why not? Both George V and Nicolas II's mothers were Danish princesses.
A suburb book for this (artist) non historian is gaining much insight from. Many thanks Christopher.
What a wonderful funny genius he is. Fantastic :)
Great presentation of (some of) the contents of a terrific book. With respect to presentation style, I guess tastes differ; I like Clark's witty asides and don't find his speaking style at all "breathless," etc.
I couldn't agree more. I for one, absolutely love his little asides, a good deal of which (prime example: 12:18 the archduke's bodyguard, count Harrach, unfortunately "but in very Austrian fashion standing on the wrong side" of the car and thus unable to protect his master) seem to fly right over the audiences collective heads.
The Archduke was, in my opinion , set up due in part to his moderate foreign policy.
He was an opponent of the exaggerated plans for expansion in the Balkans and the aggressive war policy being pursued by Chief of Staff Conrad von Hötzendorf against Serbia fearing that the Military was simply not strong enough.
Moreover, his relationship with Franz Joseph was far from satisfactory.
That he had only one Austrian bodyguard standing on the 'wrong' side of the car is reminiscent of Kennedy's secret service guards being withdrawn from the back of Kennedy's car prior to entering Dealey Plaza.
The Archduke assassination was a plot hatched at the highest levels of the Austrian government for a pretext to go to war with Serbia. One that they were ill equipped to pursue but , with Germany giving unconditional support, pursed anyway.
Hey that's my name
Young-Bosnians were not a serbian nationalists, but yugoslavian nationalists, and there is big difference between the two. Even though most of them were ethnically Serbs, all of them were also Yugoslavs politically. Just read the testimonies of Princip, Ilic or Jevtic, who by the way, defines Young Bosnia as a modernist literary group, and also theoretical works of their master-minds Dimitrije Mitrinovic and Vladimir Gacinovic. Without knowing the context of Serbo-Croatian- Muslim relationships in Bosnia and Herzegovina you cannot fathom the essence of the Sarajevo event.
Agree. But I think the author understood the relations in Bosnia but ignored it to "push the book" in the direction he wanted. And in the western literature there are very few, or even no book that describes situation in Bosnia as it really was at that time. In western coutries it is somehow normal that Austria got the right to simply occupy Bosnia. Muslims and Serbs were strongly agains it. Only Roman Catholics (so to say Croats) were for austrian occupation, and they made about 14 % of all Bosnia population. And when Austria occupied Bosnia they tried to invent the "bosnian" nation....and that try failed of course, but gave idea to present Muslims (Bosniaks) in Bosnia to claim that there is a Bosnian nation with three religion. Also the said that there is a "bosnian" language. Croats and Serbs say there are "Bosniaks" and "Bosniaks" language but not Bosnian. The situation with creating and defining the states and nations according the political moment is totaly stupid and can lead nowhere except to some new conflicts.
Can the group around Princip in any way be compared with the Bosnian Serbs who grouped around Radovan Karadzic in the 90's ? What are people in Bosnia- Herzegovina thinking about theories that Princip and his group where aided with money and/or weapons by either Serbian, Austrian, Russian and or British groups, or where they acting on their own.
This lecture is a long introduction and then.... nothing. I assume we will have to read his book to know the answers. On the outbrake of WW1 I Always found it odd that Germany was to blame for it as the German emperor was on holiday on a boat in Norway at the outbrake of war and could hardly be reached. He also commented that he did not believe war was imminent (which I do believe, otherwise you are not on a boat in Norway). Very mysterious.
+Ronald de Rooij You are overestimating how much decisional power the Kaiser had. He wasn't a classical absolute monarch like Louis XIV. The planning and diplomatic work was done by his cabinet. Wilhelm II going on a vacation had little influence on how the German Imperial government worked.
+Klavikule You are right of course, but you are missing my point. The fact that the emperor was on vacation, far away, at the outbreak of WW1, is an indication that he (and I assume his Cabinet) had no clue that war was coming. Therefore they must also had no real intention of starting a war, at least not in the immediate future. Still, it happened.
+Ronald de Rooij Kaiser Wilhelm's holiday to Norway is often mentioned in conjunction with an effort to deescalate the July crises. Since the holiday was planned in advance, cancelling the trip would have seemed as if the German leadership was "up to something".
In contrast, French PM Poincare, known for his extremely anti-German attitude, went on a visit to St. Petersburg. This visit was also planned in advance.
Cancelling that trip, would have gone a long way to deescalate the tensions caused by the July Crises.
The trip went ahead as planned, leaving the German leaders with a feeling of "what are they up to?"
+Franny328 afsd Hmm interesting thought.
Klavikule while the cats away the mice will play....
If the Germans had not invaded Belgium the outcome might have been different? Just a thought?
It was not a catastrophe for Poland? "A total of 2 million Polish troops fought with the armies of the three occupying powers, 450,000 died and close to one million were wounded." The fact that Australians and Canadians were all volunteers in WWI makes is even more catastrophic, from my perspective...I am not sure how Mr. Clark defines
"catastrophe"?
He was clearly referring to the fact, that at the beginning of WW1 Poland didn`t exist as an independent nation, and was rather a part of Russia. Poland was recreated as a Nation by the treaty of Brest Litovsk, and later by the treaty of Versailles which adds some additional border changes especially in the west. So without the war Clarke insists, there would probably be no free polish nation.
If you just look to the amounts of casualities and wounded, the war was catastrophic for all participating major powers
Not to forget that this newly formed Poland was the most aggressive nation in Europe after WW1.
It treated its minorities bad, it had military conflicts with All its neighbours for gathering some more land and make a new Great Poland.
So Poland never had the victim role.
I think Clark is repeating opinions of those who live in the new countries that came to exist after the war, rather than his own opinion. Basically Poles, Yugoslavians, Czechs, and Slovaks are saying that the creation of their countries were worth 12 or 13 million deaths, of other people.
He us referring to nation building. For Poland their nation was an outcome of the war. For Australia it is said they went from six recent colonies to being bound together as an Australian nation. Technically his statement has merit. It is, however, a sad way to build a nation; sacrificing oneself, on the other side of the world, for a war that should not have occurred.
Great lecture! This book is on my list....maybe I'll bump it up to the top!
Get his book, its great.
It is great but is the exactly same lecture presented elsewhere ( Tanz/s lecture etc)
"F. Fisher thesis - the 5 German provocations .. I do no longer agree with them, although they are all true THEY SHOULD BE EMBEDDED in the LARGER PICTURE .."
At 18:00 mins
Clark's effort to portray the assassins as "good" terrorists is flawed.
He also mentioned that these young men were armed with grenades.
Grenades kill indiscriminately, so in that context, the assassins did not care if a missed grenade killed innocent bystanders.
The fact that the grenade tossed at the car glanced off and exploded under the following vehecle, is pure chance. It could just as well have rolled into the crowd lining the streets.
***** That would be 'the freedom fighter' vs. 'the terrorist' chain of argument.
What was Nelson Mandela? Freedom fighter or terrorist?
Castro? Minutemen? Mau Mau? Boxer Rebellion? VC? Arafat? IRA?
Freedom fighters, or terrorists?
Don't blame the T of Versailles for the blame cause - the Germans first used the 'not guilty' in the 1916 peace offer and claimed compensation for the war.
I heard that this guy's (re)vision of WW1 history is very popular in Germany. Also, it would be important to know, if anyone, than - who funded his research. And, in the end, to see what other historians think of this pearl of historiography.
Agree. At the end i do not see much researcs in the authors work. He selected the sources so that he can mould the book the way he wanted. He wanted to promote Europe, so to wirte this book for the present moment, i would not be surpsised if some EU found financed the book. It is astonishing that there is no single book writing really fair about this topic. After more that 100 years we still fight the same battle, how to shift responsibility for the biggest calamity till that time. And no one also tried to find out who really stood behind the so called "Black Hand" in Serbia....there some evinedences that the main officers of the Black Hand were mason...and mason were under the anglosaxon control in the Balkan region....that could lead us to some further conclusions that are not even mentioned in this book, and I think it will be ever mentioned.
@@dejandejan5911 : As always in important questions lots of misinformation going on, some blaming the Serbs (Black hand), some blaming the Russians, some blaming the Austrians themselves (Franz Ferdinand was supposedly too soft) and some are blaming the English (they are supposed to have financed the operation by way of contacts in Thessaloniki). I have not heard from people blaming the French, the Germans or the Turks, but maybe there are also conspiracies blaming those countries.
As a not native english speaker I do not speak an write english corectly but you will excuse me for possible mistakes in the text.
I read the book The Sleepwalkers and made some simple statistics:
Serbia or Serbs is mentioned 1497 times.
Germany or german is mentioned 1556 times
Russia or russian is mentioned 2039 times
Britain or british is mentioned 872 times
France or french is mentioned 1110 times
Austria or austrian is mentioned 1035 times
Belgium is mentioned 49 times
I must say I am dissapointed with the book, also with the choise of sources used by Mr Clark, and with obvious intention of the author to shift strong responsibility for the WWI to Serbs or Serbia. Small countries like Belgium are hardly mentioned, but German attack on France via Belgium territory caused Britain to enter war. Belgium is mentioned only 49 times in the whole book, and small Serbia 1497 times. To state theat serbian prime minister Pasic knew about the preparation for the assasination is Sarajewo is without any evidence, and sounds really ridiculous. Who on Earth in Serbia would provoke mighty Austria after two Balkan wars Serbia just fought?
On the other side Austria Hungary is described almost as democratic state, although it was a classical police state with no real democracy at all. In Bosnia the serfdom was not abolished till the WWI, could someone imagine it in Europe in 20th century? In whole Bosnia and Herzegowina were only 4 gymnasium, and no university in 20th century. That is unbeliveable but it is true. Most of the serfs that remained were otrodox Serbs , Austria did not want to make old muslim landowners and noblitiy hostile, and kept the serfdom in Bosnia. (not completely abolished as said).
Also to use Bulgarian source in the macedonian question when you write about Serbia is insane I must say, because the two sides were enemies in the Second Balkan War and were oponents in macedonian question for decades before the war. To describe serbian King, author used Vladimir Dedijer as a souse and Dedijer was a komunist propagandist after the WW2 when Komunist Party came to power in Yugoslavia, also Dedijer wrote 20-30 years after the events described in this book, so he is a sourse very disputable. All in all, book leaves one bitter taste among all who would like to be objective, more than 100 years after the war there are it seems so, old interesrs, old way of thinking as if we in the pre war period. No one can forbid an author his Anglosaxon way of thinking but historian must be fair and very careful by using the sources for one book that should describe and elaborate such an important topic as a beginning of the world war and causes of the war.
The author did not blame Serbia for the War. Blame for the War comes from a bizarre set of circumstances and diplomatic failures. Having read the book twice, and talking with friends who have read the book, no one really blames the Serbs. Europe was a tinderbox ready to go off. Just that the first shooting started in the Balkans.
Blame Franz Josef for being reactionary. Blame the Kaiser for trying to provoke a war with Great Britain. Blame the Ottoman Empire for trying to remain relevant. Blame the Czar for wanting a war to prop up his regime. Blame French bankers for wanting war to get their money back from the Russians. The list goes on and on.
@@johnmassoud930 of coursew there is no explicit blame of Serbia but in the text there are several chapters that blame Serbia heavily. That find it very unfair and is historical forgery. No more no less. In my first comment it is elaborated.
@@johnmassoud930 yes the list goes on...blame on the first place british government who did not wanted to make consetions to Germany , nowhere, none in Africa, none in Asia. And if there would be some consetions they would be given on the cost of someone else (Russia or France). The same followed about 20 years after causing partly the second war. If you want to be open and fair you have to add british on the list.
@@dejandejan5911 : True, the British are just as well to blame as all other parties, especially the group around Grey, Rhodes and the royal family who wanted an alliance with France and Russia against Germany. With hindsight this was not a good move, not for Britain and also not for Europe.
England was losing money because the Germans could do it better and the banks were in danger of not getting paid when the English firms go bankrupt Germany was taking over the world's economy because they did things better and this was a problem for investors of the English and also problems in Ireland so the war could and probably was economic in cause.
The US had the largest economy by 1890 and is yet to give it up.
A nation that fought two world is superior - even if this nation has lost two world wars! Why? To answer this question we have only to ask: what is war? Or what is the meaning of war for a nation? This question is indeed a big question. There are people in history who had already answered this question. Do you know who and what are their reasons?
Excellent lecture !
IS IT--AND WHAT DO YOU MEASURE IT BY ?
13:34, the last words of Franz Ferdinand.
Funny thing about the photo of princip. It might not be him.
It is not him. The photo was taken 2 days later it is a round up !
I just buy this book, great stuff!
At the 35 minures mark I thought he had accidentally turned a page. I was on the eege of my seat for the rest of that minute, thinking "when is he going to notice?". Turns out he hadn't turned the page so he just continued. Sorry about the spoiler ^^
:-) -'
Britain was in this world war because of Belgium - this explains all!
+Ralf Rath Thats what the politicians told the rabble so they would go and die willingly...
Indeed, fighting for the independence of 'little' Belgium in 1914, shelling 'little' Ireland for trying to achieve independence in 1916
Michéal Ó hAodha
So true... and yet people are dumb enough to keep repeating the Belgium mantra.
Yes ower king ask for help and there was e treaty from londen 1830 that says that GB will defend belguim if it is attack it still stands today so thank you GB
Of course.
Whoever started this war...does it matter? Millions of people soldiers and civilians died - that is what is important. And those responsible for it "the leaders" (it doesn't matter which country, politician, military etc.) got away with it. And millions died...
1959xerox 1959xerox yes, it matters. if you walk outside and find bodies in your yard and two people standing thier with guns, knowing who started the shooting and why would be very important don't you think? if they said, those guys tryed to kill us and everyone just said ok. you either have two hero's or two cold blooded killers in your neighborhood. biiiiiiiig difference.
Good book to read: John V. Denson: A Century of War
To "The Griffenn": in reply to your comment which can't be found here? "my comment marked as spam" by you?
For the millions and civilians who died....a big difference to what you wrote...
OF COURSE WE NEED TO KNOW, AND IF YOU REALLY WANT TO--SEE MY RECOMMENDATION ABOVE.
3:09 So the poor old ostrich died for nothing?
Who forced Imperial Germany to invade Belgium?
It was a decision taken under the strategic dictates of Germany's military situation in the hopes of achieving a quick victory. If the Germans hadn't done it, the British had their own plans ready to invade Belgium, also for strategic reasons.
The expectation of a Two-front War and the danger of having its industrial heart, the Ruhr-Area right on the Belgian border being invaded by France (which happened right after the war actually).
The Russians.
What side was the Couple shot at left or right ?
Who does Clark blame for starting the first world war?
He does not blame a single person or nation for starting the war, rather he tries to explain how the european powers had came to the point, that a local political conflict at the balkan was capable to turn into full scale war.
Very correct what "Drakon" wrote in reply to your question. Read Clark's excellent book!
Lol his Inner Australian Comes through!
Drink every time you hear "in any case".
Lost in the trees.
According to my research, World War I was instigated by Russia, France, and Britain. Russia arranged the assassination of Austria's Archduke Ferdinand. In the subsequent crisis, Russia and France mobilized their armies, knowing that the mobilizations would trigger outnumbered Germany's defensive plan, which called for a swift attack on France through Belgium.
The invasion of Belgium then served as Britain's excuse to enter the war. Britain had a well-trained expeditionary force prepared, and it quickly was sent to Belgium. Each of the Allies had its own motives for going to war. The Russian and French motives were territorial. Britain wanted to weaken Germany as an economic competitor. For details and documentation, see my book "Twelve American Wars."
sources? (other than your book)
Why WW1?
Step 1: Forget everything you know
Step 2: Look at a map of pre-WW1 Europe.
Step 3: Notice the location of Serbia
Step 4: Assert that Serbia (and Romania) formed a barrier.
Step 5: Remove the "barrier" of Serbia, and one gets a "land bridge" between Germany and Austria-Hungary on the one side, and her potential allies of Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire on the other side.
Step 6: Deduct that some powers wanted this "land bridge", and other powers wanted to avoid it...
Now, guess which powers wanted that land bridge, and guess which powers wanted to avoid it.
"History" is so simple, if you look at maps every now and then :-)
+Ralph Bernhard Well it maybe would be better to just leave all these Balkan nations alone.... they might cause trouble again in the future...as one can see they seem to hate each other anyway..
UsoundsGermany Good point.
The problems of the past stemmed from these ethnic groups being pushed or forced into artificial entities (Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia) by larger, more powerful nations with their power play games.
They are all independent now, and seem to be doing just fine.
As a general remark, and not only true for the Balkans:
If bigger more powerful nations recognize the right of people to decide for themselves, there is generally peace (unless of course there are other justifiable causes for grievances)
trauko1388 Well, yes. I actually agree with that.
But, wars usually have multiple causes, which build up over years and decades.
My theory is just one of many causes.
If you wish to counter it, then point out why the facts I use are not valid. In other words, why the land connection to potential allies, creating a blockade free zone, is not a motivation to attack a small rogue pain in the arse neighbor.
Austria already had long term plans to attack Serbia, going back to 1906.
You can even google that (Austrian Chief of Staff, General Hotzendorf)
Ralph Bernhard
Serbia ran a campaign of murder and terror against Turkey well before that, once they got rid of the Turks they started to do the same agaisnt the Austrians and they of course didnt like it.
THERE WAS NEVER EVER ANY TALK OF A LAND BRIDGE ANYWHERE!
Serbia had good relations with AH until they went to the Russians and started to do their biding like dogs, that is why you have an insignificant country like Serbia provoking and mobilizing against AH when no sane small country would ever do that against a great European power.
They kept at it until they attacked the AH monarchy directly and the war started, it became general once the Russians supported them in spite of their crimes.
Is as simple as that.
The blockade as done in WW1 was illegal and no one even considered it pre-war sicne it would create conflict with the neutrals including the US, but since the crazy US president wasnt actually neutral everything went out the window.
+Ralph Bernhard the argument against what you say (deliberate war for strategic gains by central powers) is basically Clark's book. I certainly can't make his argument any better than he does in 550 pages. if you have any particular bits you don't agree with let me know.
Very Disappointed in this; Spends most of the time reviewing well known facts about the assassination, and then seems to basically just defend himself for writing a new history book on subject. Never got to the subject matter of the title, except maybe last few minutes, after waiting and waiting.
Sorry, maybe they are facts "very well known" to some senior historians, but to the broader public. The public only knows there was an old grumpy noble man who appeared to be not even the emperor himself was murdered in Belgrade by a Serb extremist, and then all of a sudden hell broke loose because of a bunch of insane alliances. That is all what the public knows, if they pay attention at all. And to this day, I did not know that the famous "picture after the assassination" did NOT depict the arrest of Gavrilo Princip but of someone else 3 days later ...
My God, this guy waffles on. What are his main points, his main arguments on the main debates?? Jesus... people do get paid for old rope.
I am fascinated by the history around WW1. I do not find the speaker's attempts at humor
regarding the murder of the archduke and his wife amusing.
14:25, the famous picture of the arrest of Gavrilo Princip is not the arrest of Princip!
Dudes got hella brains
Clark is clearly bright. But his documentary ''The Story of Europe'' is a monument to his own narcissism. It is all about him.
I am at the 32 minute and didnt actually heard anything of a significant relevance.
BEST ADVICE--BUY THE DVD, AND WATCH THE BBC'S MASTERPIECE DOCUDRAMA '' 37 DAYS''. BRILLIANTLY RECONSTRUCTED FROM ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS AND PRIVATE DIARIES, NEVER SEEN BY THE PUBLIC BEFORE, ALL THE WORDS SPOKEN BY EVERY MAJOR PERSON INVOLVED, BY EVERY MAIN PROTAGONIST, IS WONDERFULLY PORTRAYED BY FIRST RATE ACTORS, WHO ALSO RESEMBLED THEM CLOSELY. I CAN'T RECCOMMEND IT ENOUGH.
under the estimating of 1914, i myself will including the documentaries of 44 . code name LiLi
Tiresome to see the old story chewed tasteless over and over again... Like it was the shooting of some aristocrat somewhere far of that caused millions of people to take all sorts of machinery and kill each other in the mud... It is a madness culminating from very different tendencies in men and machine.
Actually watching this talk or even read the book would be helpful before making statements. The assassination is only the introduction.
yeah you think so? you might be right there. then my comment is just about the intro.. wich bumped me off. have a nice day!
Lars Brodersen yeah, really
I'm a WW1 historian, BA in history and I stopped watching at 36:00 minutes. This lecture is absolutely horrible. Worst I've ever seen. He talks in great detail about the assassination of the archduke which is informative but not necessary, then talks about some of the aftermath of the war, then just seems to go off on random tangents. I'm convinced this guy doesn't know all that much about the causes of this war and the video is titled to describe the causes. At least change the title of the video to random rants about WW1 so it's not misleading.
The long-term causes of this war date back to 1870. And you know it's true because Bismarck predicted WW1 some 20 years before it happened. He could've talked so much more about French revanchism, the emergence of the German empire as the dominant european power, Tirpitz and the naval rivalry, the scramble for Africa and colonial rivalry/jealousies, the arms race(shells), pan-slavism, the system of alliances, the balkan wars, nationalism, militarism and military plans so on and so forth. The archduke assassination was simply the immediate cause of a long-term boiling pot that boiled over.
Thumbs down for this poor lecture.
Something mildly distasteful about the jokes in this video.
6:14, this picture is the closest of Google Earth. hahahahahaha!
THE POWER OF OTTOMAN EMPİRES!!!
Long gone.
Strange how these governments can immediately wrap up an investigation after a major incident yet utterly handicapped before the incident. The comment about journalism should be taken as an intriguing one. His observation of the incident in animation depicted as being "operatic", is just that, it was meant to encourage an emotional outburst though the artist and the publisher knew the image was false. It was the Emperor of the French who is quoted as saying, An image is worth a thousand words.
Both Prince Bismarck and Metternich had cautioned their respective emperors to avoid this area at all cost before each left office. The decline of the Old man of Europe (the Ottoman) was the result of French and English conspiring to "gut" a once needed ally. For the British against both Russia and France, for France against Russia. Turkey is a NATO ally for a reason. Since, America is the spawn of the British Empire, who was shock to discover during World War 2, the US threatened Britain with an invasion of its colonies.
Why, would these two monarchs consider such an alliance for such an expedition. Since, Britain and France were busying themselves trimming the old man's whiskers. Britain encouraged Austria, who was broke because; in order to appease a multi-ethnic populace who had suffered as the result of their ethnicity being anything other than German for decades upon decades, who now being educated were demanding independence hence the Paris of the East movement and the subsequent romanticism. The Austrian emperor was being pushed by Britain (and France) to avoid Russian expansionism. Forcing an empire on the brink of an economic disaster to grab land, fill the bank once again. It was also the Austrian draconian measures on the people after the assassination which gave the response fuel. It was that French emperor, who began this German unification movement having joined many German states. So, when Bismarck came to seal the fate of fellow Germans, in Austria who were busying themselves looking down on fellow Europeans of a diverse background though citizens of Austria. Prussia was creating a modern Germany. Which included territories which were also Russian. Russia, being themselves equally broke before losing to the Japanese (British ally) in the Pacific to the horror of Russian social Darwinian ideology of being among the superior race against one of the many inferior races. Russia, hoping to retrieve land taken by the Germans claimed religious loyalty and intervened against Austria who they knew was an ally of Germany. Nicholas, an autocrat with a sensitive soul assumed while Russia remained stagnant and nostalgic militarily, the Germans were also to his own dynastic destruction. All European monarchs are crowned in their military uniforms. Their palaces are decorated in military victories and pageantry. Yet, somehow Europe is at peace because the wars were no longer fought (in) Europe though wars have always being fought in Europe the last major one being against France, with Russia the only obstacle against a European continent under the heel of a French emperor with Corsican roots.
The events described are very interesting, but this man is not a good speaker. He constantly hesitates before he finishes a statement - I suppose he's doing his best, but it would have been better if someone else had delivered this lecture.
the Kaiser was a nut case was the main reason.....
According to the tabloids he was. In reality he was quite a decent man with limited intelligence, a little clumsy, in a way he reminds me of prince Charles.
@@roodborstkalf9664 A very decent nutter who should have our sympathy, said Churchill, who knew him. A government that could not govern, a great people without a government. And European rivalries caused the war, as is the explanation for most wars. Clumsy is another word for unbalanced prejudice, and Hitler said clumsy indeed to naval race with England, I doubt if anyone would ever think to hang Charles Windsor!
verbose
He is hilarious almost to the point of irreverence
- "New ways of understanding the crisis"?Mediocre little private circus about hand grenades in that time.Gavrilo Princip?The three monarchies then disappeared, but that's beyond your understanding.
How..its.simple..German Empiry asking a lot colonies much more .. like United Kingdom,France .its .resurs for industry..
Serbia is to be on the road on the Austrohungarian empiry.. Asking any reaaons..
the main problem is that Serbs made their home on the crossroad. If you move just a little bit from the crossroad the situation is much different (Romania, Greece even Bulgaria).
But the main cause of the war is that old colonial owners (Britain and France) did not wanted to make any real consetions to Germany. Germany needed raw materials, more and more, mankind was leaving age of coal and was entering age of petrol, the same caused the second war no 20 years after the first one, among the other causes of course.
Must be from the bush, the way he beats about it.
Clark obviously thinks he needs to be a stand-up comic as well as an academic. He peppers all his lectures with a succession of cheap jibes: I heard him in a semi-public context poking fun at Admiral Tirpitz for swathing his beard in the equivalent of pantyhose and suggesting that Fritz Fischer even came up with his theory about German war aims because he had "mental health issues" and claiming that most of what he published was written by his academic assistants, What I miss is any sense of personal humility: he castigates everybody else who doesn't happen to agree with him and luxuriates in all the media attention he is currently receiving.
And quite rightly, he's a fucking darn good historian in case you've forgotten.
Al, hello. Adm. Tirpitz needed a comb. Eggheads publishing with help from assistants: This is a novelty. You people seldom publish without student-slaves or others in the "Ivory Tower" of London. Learning how to give a public presentation might serve your interests --- and obvious jealousy. Next time you speak to a group, remember: Putting folk to sleep won't get you on the telly nor will your audience take a snooze or walk out on your prodigious gluteous-maximus. Do read "The Anti-Wind-Bag" by Tarbelle Toot-Tate.
+Dr. Alexander Hall It's an Australian thing, the comedy.
+Dr. Alexander Hall Well I rather have some dry Brits humour in a speech than only dry facts :) In fact most good presentations need a certain amount of humour (imho)
Dr. Alexander Hall I find him a very compelling presenter and much better some levity than dry, droning facts facts facts.
Great information, haven't read the book but i hear thats great too.. not the best presenter.
if he only could have presented this lecture in english it would have been informative, the
only thing I heard was audible jumble.