I am constantly amazed that nobody brings up the fact that the OTTOMANS sided with the Central Powers only after Winston Churchill who was the Lord of the admiralty glommed the two capitol ships being built for Turkey in Great Britain. This was a turning point in Ottoman/ British relations.
Presentation was fine. However, he quite a bit messed it up in the Q&A part. A total misperception of the Syrian issue. All wrong about Asad after 7 years. .
His job depends on him being wrong about that ! He's be fired and could not work at any university if he spoke the truth about ONGOING geopolitics. He's only allowed to be "right" , about things that don't matter anymore.
What’s always been fascinating is the fact that Great Britain and Russia were major rivals especially when it came to the Great Game over Central Asia, Persia and the Black Sea. For example, we saw Britain temper Russia’s expanding might during the Crimea War and side with the Ottomans but the British also had their religious ideological rivalry with the Ottomans and their alliances would fluctuate w their domestic political situation. Very interesting how it ended up playing out into WWI. The threat to British interests in India shifted from a rival Russia pushing further in Central Asia and threatening British territories to an Entente allied Ottoman Empire threatening to rouse their Muslim populations in India and Egypt.
Did our military leaders in the early 1960´s read his Seven Pillars of Wisdom even once?????????? We might have spared ourselves a great deal of money, prestige and human lives, American and Vietnamese, had they done so!!!!!!!!!!!
up until Dr Calvert opined that the UAR fell apart, because Pan-Arabism was not cohesive enough, that arabs were naturally fractious, I had not thought that what he was saying was really so far out or worth remarking on... but once that was stated without reference to British, French and specifically US efforts to undermine the desire of arabs to unite as a bloc so as to not be in thrall to either the west or the east in the years of the cold war, I could not let that go. That was just a little too much sweeping under the carpet for my liking, and a little too much US self-exculpatory propaganda.
I loved 7 Pillars when I first read it long ago. Since then I've become aware of the many shadows that hang over it and it's creator. This was an excellent and nuanced presentation. I'm going to rip a copy for the future.
The Arabs wanted so much power as an ethnicity and were focused sorely on the power. The British and the French played them and the Arans still haven't learnt from this experience...Sad!!
No the Arabs as the presenter said were very heterogenous in their ideas and desires for the future of the Middle East. The Arab Revolt was a British creation that sought to cynically manipulate Islam and nascent Arab nationalism under the banner of the Hashemites. Sherif Hussein was tired of being his de facto independence being encroached by the Young Turks and wanted to rule a new Arab Caliphate ruled by his family. Who said that all Arabs wanted a Hashemite Islamic Caliphate? Some wanted a nation many wanted reform and autonomy under the Ottoman Empire and some were either afraid or disgusted by the idea of betraying the Caliphate. So I think it’s not so much being focused sorely on the power as it was the British making hundreds of vague promises to various parties and backing out of them and promising more and the Arabs being heterogenous in their desires whether in terms of statehood, nationalism, religion even the diverse tribes too.
Worrying window on American academia ? Machiavelli tells politicians to deal with the world as it actually is, rather than how they might imagine it to be ? From an American perspective the world they seem to imagine is founded upon their own founding story, with the result that everything is viewed through the prism of a 'Popular' republic being the model that fits all humanity. Clearly the actions, and subsequent failure of the USA in trying to impose such a model in both Iraq and Afghanistan since the early years of the present century, ought to demonstrate the fallacy what amounts to a very myopic vision of the world ? Obviously this lecture is some years old now, but even so, the good Dr ought to have realised that ISIS came about precisely because of the USA's efforts in deposing that 'Bad Man' Sadaam, and was an unholy alliance between the displaced Iraqi regime groups, and an militant Islamic clergy who were themselves given relevance by the dogs breakfast that post war Iraq became. It was not an invention of the Assad government as seems to be suggested here. Given that one assumes that the US government is ultimately advised by people such a Dr Calvert, and likely some of the attendees to this lecture, it may be safe to assume that American foreign policy will continue to bear great similarity to that presented by Wilson's 14 points of WWI vintage, and continue to fall short of the mark.
This guy is being censored. The conflicts in the middle east was always about oil. Not because Hitler wanted a third front. Weird how no one is allowed to say it. Not even historians.
Because it was always more complicated than that you arrogant loon. It's not weird we just read more. It was a factor - one that he did mention but really super not the driving one until the late 70's.
You’re right. So to often I have been disappointed in some of the presentations in this series as too often some of the historians read their lectures rather than present them. I may be wrong but it seems to show a lack of depth of understanding their material where they are supposed to be “domain experts.”
I am constantly amazed that nobody brings up the fact that the OTTOMANS sided with the Central Powers only after Winston Churchill who was the Lord of the admiralty glommed the two capitol ships being built for Turkey in Great Britain. This was a turning point in Ottoman/ British relations.
Have you read Fromkin’s book A Peace to End all Peace? He talks about that in the beginning of his book
Presentation was fine. However, he quite a bit messed it up in the Q&A part. A total misperception of the Syrian issue. All wrong about Asad after 7 years. .
His job depends on him being wrong about that ! He's be fired and could not work at any university if he spoke the truth about ONGOING geopolitics.
He's only allowed to be "right" , about things that don't matter anymore.
No one in the audience can come up with a question about Lawrence or WW I. Disappointing end to an excellent presentation.
Noteably, what would TEL make of the ISIS/ISIL?
I just like hearing the talk not the Q and A.
The teacher was the worst. She did not even have a question, but just wanted to "correct" him.
Why did that lady at 1:10:10 waste a question? She used the time for her personal opinion, rather tasteless,
In My Opinion
This was a very interesting presentation. Very impressed by Dr Calvert, obviously well informed and understands the nuances. Learned alot .
What’s always been fascinating is the fact that Great Britain and Russia were major rivals especially when it came to the Great Game over Central Asia, Persia and the Black Sea. For example, we saw Britain temper Russia’s expanding might during the Crimea War and side with the Ottomans but the British also had their religious ideological rivalry with the Ottomans and their alliances would fluctuate w their domestic political situation. Very interesting how it ended up playing out into WWI. The threat to British interests in India shifted from a rival Russia pushing further in Central Asia and threatening British territories to an Entente allied Ottoman Empire threatening to rouse their Muslim populations in India and Egypt.
Did our military leaders in the early 1960´s read his Seven Pillars of Wisdom even once?????????? We might have spared ourselves a great deal of money, prestige and human lives, American and Vietnamese, had they done so!!!!!!!!!!!
up until Dr Calvert opined that the UAR fell apart,
because Pan-Arabism was not cohesive enough, that arabs were naturally fractious,
I had not thought that what he was saying was really so far out or worth remarking on...
but once that was stated without reference to British, French and specifically
US efforts to undermine the desire of arabs to unite as a bloc
so as to not be in thrall to either the west or the east in the years of the cold war,
I could not let that go.
That was just a little too much sweeping under the carpet for my liking,
and a little too much US self-exculpatory propaganda.
I loved 7 Pillars when I first read it long ago. Since then I've become aware of the many shadows that hang over it and it's creator. This was an excellent and nuanced presentation. I'm going to rip a copy for the future.
TE was an oddball. Certainly a long way from the figure created by his book and the fashionable press...
Thanks for Uploading.
The Arabs wanted so much power as an ethnicity and were focused sorely on the power. The British and the French played them and the Arans still haven't learnt from this experience...Sad!!
As a Turk, thats just betrayal.
May Allah curse anyone who betrayed the Caliphate
Does that not make the British look so much worse tho???
@@anate9amin
No the Arabs as the presenter said were very heterogenous in their ideas and desires for the future of the Middle East. The Arab Revolt was a British creation that sought to cynically manipulate Islam and nascent Arab nationalism under the banner of the Hashemites. Sherif Hussein was tired of being his de facto independence being encroached by the Young Turks and wanted to rule a new Arab Caliphate ruled by his family. Who said that all Arabs wanted a Hashemite Islamic Caliphate? Some wanted a nation many wanted reform and autonomy under the Ottoman Empire and some were either afraid or disgusted by the idea of betraying the Caliphate. So I think it’s not so much being focused sorely on the power as it was the British making hundreds of vague promises to various parties and backing out of them and promising more and the Arabs being heterogenous in their desires whether in terms of statehood, nationalism, religion even the diverse tribes too.
we alaways said .. this arabe world thing .. is a set up
I think this guy goes to show how bad modern academia is...the Arab Spring was about a natural revolt as the Lawrence of Arabia was involved with.
I fail to see the meaning of your comment but I do detect a grammatical error.
Very interesting. Great questions afterwards .
Worrying window on American academia ? Machiavelli tells politicians to deal with the world as it actually is, rather than how they might imagine it to be ? From an American perspective the world they seem to imagine is founded upon their own founding story, with the result that everything is viewed through the prism of a 'Popular' republic being the model that fits all humanity. Clearly the actions, and subsequent failure of the USA in trying to impose such a model in both Iraq and Afghanistan since the early years of the present century, ought to demonstrate the fallacy what amounts to a very myopic vision of the world ? Obviously this lecture is some years old now, but even so, the good Dr ought to have realised that ISIS came about precisely because of the USA's efforts in deposing that 'Bad Man' Sadaam, and was an unholy alliance between the displaced Iraqi regime groups, and an militant Islamic clergy who were themselves given relevance by the dogs breakfast that post war Iraq became. It was not an invention of the Assad government as seems to be suggested here.
Given that one assumes that the US government is ultimately advised by people such a Dr Calvert, and likely some of the attendees to this lecture, it may be safe to assume that American foreign policy will continue to bear great similarity to that presented by Wilson's 14 points of WWI vintage, and continue to fall short of the mark.
This guy is being censored. The conflicts in the middle east was always about oil. Not because Hitler wanted a third front. Weird how no one is allowed to say it. Not even historians.
I think there's a reason historians don't mention Hitler wanting a third front in world war 1.
Because it was always more complicated than that you arrogant loon. It's not weird we just read more. It was a factor - one that he did mention but really super not the driving one until the late 70's.
Maybe because Hitler is one of the most despicable people in the planets history and giving him any sort of credit would Ignite more antisemitism
Fantastic talk! Especially the Q&A session
You’re right. So to often I have been disappointed in some of the presentations in this series as too often some of the historians read their lectures rather than present them. I may be wrong but it seems to show a lack of depth of understanding their material where they are supposed to be “domain experts.”