This talk was recorded in November 2018. Today (2021) we still do not pay enough attention to the pandemic then called Spanish Flu. Congratulations to the person in the audience to make the question. The presentation was excellent. Congratulations Professor Graydon Tunstall. Thank you to the organisers for sharing it. 🌹
Interesting talk highlighting the linkages between the various fronts and focusing on salient facts, a relief from the usual mantra of historians "it is more complex than that" or "there are different perspectives". On Italy [16:28] to [25:11]
I agree with both of you, EurojuegosBsAs and Joshua Tucker, that while the content was interesting, Professor Tunstall's presentation was incoherent at times. For example, why does he continually refer to the last Austro-Hungarian Emperor (1916-18) as Kaiser Karl, when he was the Emperor Karl? Kaiser, as we all know, was the title of Wilhelm II, the German monarch, but it was not the title of the Habsburg monarch. Also, Tunstall mentions how Italy first joined the Triple Alliance with Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1882, and then declared its neutrality in August 1914 (though the Italians had already left that alliance long before), but then he doesn't mention until later in the talk that Italy joined the Triple Entente through the Treaty of London in May 1915 and entered the war then. He just glosses over that. Again, incoherent presentation. He is now an emeritus professor at the University of South Florida, but I'm not sure I would have enjoyed his lectures if I had been a student there. By the way, I teach history myself at a community college, so I know good historical teaching when I hear it.
@@brianforbes8325 kaiser is simply German for emperor. Karl 1 is was an emperor and therefore a kaiser. In German he is indeed referred to as Kaiser Karl.
The French were trying to save their own blood? Perhaps they were, however the speaker seems to have forgotten that other than Serbia, France suffered a greater casualty ratio per capita than every other country in the world during WWI. 1.4 MILLION dead. That figure includes the French Colonial dead or missing (in WWI MIA pretty much meant the same as KIA). Total number of French Colonial Troops killed in WWI? 58,000. Total deaths in France attributed directly to the war totalled 4.3 % of their entire population. This does NOT include pandemic deaths. Obviously a disproportionately large percentage of these deaths were suffered by males of fighting age. For the US to have suffered the same percentage of casualties it would have had to have suffered 4.3 million dead, just dead. Perhaps that should put it into perspective for you. France suffered more dead alone in WWI than the US suffered total casualties for BOTH World Wars. That you can stand there and state the French used their Colonial troops to save their own blood, when the figures show you are totally, utterly, and contemptibly incorrect is nothing short of astounding. They shed plenty enough of their own.... 1.34 million of their own compared to 58,000 Colonial troops..... If they were using those Colonial troops to absorb casualties they were not doing a very good job of it were they? Colonial troops were used as Assault Troops by the French for the same reason Australian and Canadian Troops were among the finest Assault troops in the Commonwealth Armies. Because they were very, very good.
you still agree with the underlying premise - they were trying to save their own. Using scale and proportion does not detract from the case. Especially in light of France (and the other colonial powers) treatment of their colonies post-war. I think an off-hand comment in this summarized talk is a great nod to this fact rather than something to be attacked. I am not at all swayed by the scale or percentage argument, it does nothing to detract from that one should be accepting to how the colonial history playing out in ww1 was a fact. He is perfectly right to ''stand there'' and make an off-hand nod. ''Most of these French colonial troops served in Europe. However, the majority of the Africans served as labourers or carriers in Africa. In total, as Hew Strachan has noted, over 2 million Africans were involved in the conflict as soldiers or labourers; 10 percent of them died, and among the labourers serving in Africa, the death rates may have been as high as 20 percent. .'' Written bySantanu Das Dr Santanu Das is the author of Touch and Intimacy in First World War Literature (Cambridge, 2005) and the editor of Race, Empire and First World War Writing (Cambridge, 2011) and the Cambridge Companion to the Poetry of the First World War (2013). His book India, Empire and the First World War: Words, Images and Objects is forthcoming from Cambridge University Press. There is a humdrum to pick out favorably statistics while french colonials died in ww1. Again, an off-hand comment recognizing them is perfectly apt, especially in a talk like this.
@@rikterandersson3568 No, it was nonsense, as the debunking "scale and proportion" alganhar1 supplies clearly proves. From Tunstall's words you would conclude that a much, much larger proportion of French casualties were suffered by Colonial troops, and there is no excuse for his being so misleading.
It's a lecture done in USA by an American organization, like, what did you expect? Of course, most of the speakers are gonna be American, just like how most speakers in India will be Indian.
