Between the Rock and a Hard Place - Gary Armstrong

Подписаться 29 тыс.

Просмотров 47 тыс.

50% 1

Lecture given as part the National WWI Museum and Memorial's 2015 Symposium: Global War, 1915 | Empires at War, Churchill’s Gallipoli and an America Divided
For more information about the National WWI Museum and Memorial visit www.theworldwar.org

Опубликовано:

20 июн 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 44

@scottn7cy 5 лет назад

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

@XanthusBarnabas 3 года назад

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

@gustavschneider745 6 лет назад

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

@davidsabillon5182 5 лет назад

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

@johnmacdonald1878 2 года назад

Excellent, very interesting

@bim-ska-la-bim4433 2 года назад

Fantastic talk - learned so much!

@davidsabillon5182 5 лет назад

Great lecture. Thanks.

@thomasjamison2050 3 года назад

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

@michaelsommers2356 3 года назад

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

@Doc_Tar 3 года назад

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

@williamtell5365 Год назад

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

@josefchmelar9070 10 месяцев назад

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

@basilmcdonnell9807 Год назад

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

@derantorkiarig4592 Год назад

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

@jona.scholt4362 10 месяцев назад

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

@yukikaze3436 7 лет назад

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

@benoplustee 2 года назад

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

@stephenohara3014 6 лет назад

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

@markmaki4460 11 месяцев назад

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

@GUSCRAWF0RD 10 дней назад

Played by woody harrelson in the movie

@lolongo 2 года назад

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

@albrechtvonwallenstein2952 2 года назад

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

@lolongo 2 года назад

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

@Great-Documentaries 2 года назад

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

@christianfournier6862 5 дней назад

@lolonga.&.@Great-Documentaries= I empathize with the comment of @lolonga. He may have listened carefully to the lecture and even jotted down the names of the books that have been mentioned; but he missed the moment when Prof. Armstrong mentioned the name (09:24). The question is legit in my mind! I too am interested in the particulars of this experiment and it is difficult to find info on internet (e.g. a Wikipedia article) about this game without knowing the name - or an internet-searcheable definition of it. “The Dollar Auction” is the name of this game invented by Martin Shubik and published in 1971 in “The Journal of Conflict Resolutions”. There is a Wikipedia article about it. Prof. Gary Armstrong has added a twist to the game : in the original game, the highest bidder wins one dollar and pays his bid, and the second highest bidder must also pay his bid. In Armstrong's 'enhanced version' of the game, the highest bidder wins one dollar and pays his bid, and the second & third highest bidders must also pay their bid. In Armstrong's example given during the lecture, the three highest bids were 23, 22 and 20 dollars; that effectively makes the 65 USD he mentions. But the Professor has forgotten to deduct the 1 USD prize from his auctioneer gain, which is thus 64 USD. If he has bought 65 USD worth of pizzas, he too is a loser from this wicked game!...

@billolsen4360 Год назад

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

@bruceismay5440 2 года назад

April 25 1915 Gallipoli

@bruceismay5440 2 года назад

Another thing in the 15 days

@nirfz 6 лет назад

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

@dewittbourchier7169 4 года назад

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

@cedim620 4 года назад

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

@jonathanccast 3 года назад

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

@user-yk4ey3xl9s 3 года назад

Jonathan Cast incorrect

@lawrence9506 5 лет назад

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

@scottn7cy 5 лет назад

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

@paulcasey5204 2 года назад

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

@benoplustee 2 года назад

Likely had to do with access to/protection of India

@deepcosmiclove 11 месяцев назад

The Brits are still in Basra.

@keithmcmullen1433 2 месяца назад

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

@norbertblackrain2379 2 года назад

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

@dewittbourchier7169 4 года назад

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