Explaining the Outbreak of the First World War - Closing Conference Genève Histoire et Cité 2015 

One of the takeaways from many of her lectures is that history is a lot more complicated than most people want to admit.

Best lecture I have heard on pre-Great War europe. Knowledgable and beautifully delivered. A template for all lecturers to follow.

What a fantastic speaker with a massive body of pertinent knowledge. Thanks for running her talks on RU-vid.

I find her the best contemporary historian of first world war

Watching again... Taking a clip to share, thanks to all for making this talk happen!

The best book on WW1 I am aware of is 'Goodbye to All That' by Robert Graves, who was an officer on the British side and later became Professor of Poetry at Oxford. He isn't much interested in the causes of the war but is good on what it was like to fight in it and the private attitudes of those obliged to take part.

"War is a Racket, it always has been", it is where the blood of young men is turned into gold for the few. The Hell with War! Words out of General Smedley Butler's book, War is a Racket.

Margaret MacMillan delivers as per usual. Been consuming content of her here on youtube lately. She is extremely knowledgeable. I need to read some of her books.

Margaret Macmillan is a Canadian national treasure!

The disintegration of the 2nd International is an extremely underrated historical event in terms of its role in society adopting "Western-style liberal democracy" for many countries & governments. It's implosion was a huge blow to popular government. Often unheard of in mainstream circles & usually overlooked in terms of its potential significance & greater importance...

It is always amazing to me how Europe did not learn anything from the American Civil War. If the Confederacy had had as much industrial capacity as the USA, things would have turned out differently. And even still the war lasted 5 years.

Her comment about the Second International calling a strike is not so clear cut. Look at the US. It is always the working classes who most easily succumb to nationalism.

But wow this is good. I had a freshman seminar on the year 1919 oh so many years ago. She is hitting on a lot we had discussed.

Video and audio seem to be several minutes out of sync.

The sound does not synchronise with the picture

Kyle's Mom blamed Canada.

The moderator made clear that the Q&A was to consist of questions and not comments meandering into questions. But almost no one got the memo.

Even the most supercell comparison of Israel with North Korea is appalling g in its ignorance. In that, MacMillan shows the reason we seem doomed to repeat history. How can you learn from it when your emotions so obviously govern your “thinking.”

She speaks so well

12:30 I love how she says it was brutal that the British would have handed Angola to the Germans without consulting the Portugese. It doesn't even cross her mind that the Angolans might also want a say in the matter.

In the Q+A Ms McMillian attributes the attitude of so-called scholars the way we might describe media pundits...

Regarding the power of nationalism, I think it was Samuel Johnson who said that patriotism and religion are the last resort of the scoundrel!

They Europeans political class had long planned for, militarily planned for, militarily armed up for, a war. The Europeans rightly estimated that one day, should the right opportunity present itself, they were going to enthusiastically 100% engage in a slugfest, in pursuit of natural interests and to do so at the expense of other nations. Surprise! They did it! What kind of myopic retrospective is required to realize that SOMETHING would eventually have done it? General President Washington in the 1700's suggested the USA out tonaboid entangling alliances. His prudence was based on observations of history in Europe. He didn't offer explanations, he didn't need to. If the alliances werent necessary, no harm, no foul. If they were necessary, it is a neon flashing sign that the alliances were so to act as a backstop to violence that nations would have predatory acted in their absence. The calculus for war included the inclination to let slip the dogs of war, now and again. A history of continuous struggles, including war, punctuated by brief periods of peace. The interludes were simply that. To wit, The Great War, perhaps beginning in 1914 didn't conclude in any meaningful way until 1945. The take away lesson is that our current world is no different in its attitude towards war. Whilst regrettable, lamentable, and cautionary, the inevitable once again approaches. The circuit breakers popping open in 1963 and 1982 were signal moments. We must move to a world beyond war. Eisenhower said he didn't know how World War 3 would be fought, but the follow on ear would be fought with sticks and stones. In your gut, ask yourself who cares the actual mechanisms of WW1, 2. 3? THE paramount question, in a nuclear, biological, chemical world is how we as a world committ to resolving national differences PEACEFULLY.

The popular misconception that the General Staff on both sides were unprepared for the industrial scale of the conflict cannot hold water Surely the officers studied The American Civil War in detail or did they ?

NO ! The Europeans cannot be forgotten for what they started in 1914...

She is every bit as dynamic as her illustrious forebear

A rambling speech to set the stage of various factors making war less or more likely, and then almost nothing about the decisions of the various actors in the summer 1914. In true revisionist fashion, there is not a word about German imperialism. The only decision explained is that of Austro-Hungary, for which nationalism in the Balkans represented an existential threat. This would mean that going to war was not “stupid” for Vienna, but a risk worth taking to try to avoid the breakup of the empire. Elie Halévy made that point in the 1920s muck more succinctly and elegantly. Tout ça pour ça…

Brilliant. 👏👏👏

Thank you Professor MacMillian ..... I learn something new everytime I watch one of your lectures. 👍👍😊😊 *"War was not something that 'we' (Europe) do."* (anymore) Hmm ...... Tell that to Putin in this day and age! Europe (Merkel/EU) didn't wake up in 2014 ..... 100 years after the Great War began. (I suppose that there are those who believe that Russian culture is not part of European culture ....)

Nice general comments about modern situation - that’s not enough said to my mind

Humans have more in common. National pride and arrogance are inherent in all nations.

Well, with all those lessons learned, here we go again. One consistent pattern does emerge however. A Russian-backed assassin, followed by Russian mobilization kicked off WW1. Then a Russian mass murderer forged an alliance with a neighboring mass murderer to invade Poland, kicking off WWII. Then while much of Europe post 1945 followed a road to peace and prosperity, Russia launched a Cold War that lasted two generations. And when the Cold War finally ground to a halt, with the collapse a second Russian Empire, a truncated Russia got back to launching hot wars again, this time against its former slave states, Chechnya, Georgia, and now Ukraine. Is it just me, or doesn’t it seem that wherever there is trouble, especially in Europe, you almost always find a Russian despot lighting the match?

6:59 ...that the ?????? on the size of armies... Anybody got a clue about what she is saying? I do not know what word she is speaking and it sounds foreign to me. HELP

The power and resilience of tribalism….National, cultural, religious, linguistic.

This war haunts me deep in my psyche.

This is a good analysis for the. 20 th century...I would like to say the Serb who wanted to break up AUSTRO - HUNGARIAN EMPIRE , was also the liberator for all colonial people under WHITE RACE EUROPEAN CONTROL ... SERBIA and CHINA influenced each other ...in future CHINA will influence SERBIA which will play an important Role in the Balkan in the next 20 years ....2042 ..SINO - AMERICAN WAR

offense is no longer realistic. defense is where the money is. armies can sit while we produce (since we make so much crap)

I understand my comment will be taken as one behind, but the one behind precedes the one in front, and the one in front precedes the one behind, with and within the right tensor in a matrix. I have a question, which I cannot answer, I know the answer, I currently understand it's structural function, yet I still cannot answer. The question is this....! {How can fascism together with nazism loose the war, and win the world as a consequence of losing the war....?} And a bonus cheeky one...! How can someone capitalise from such a formidable structure, (((( I have a soul as capital )))).

The 1st World War is that the one when the french didn't surrender? Edit and the one America financed

Leading eugenic thinkers did not know what Mendel knew.

Rather explain, who gained the most from mass-stupidity... *Divide and rule.* Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and *divide and "gain an advantage"* if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened. The word "rule" also constitutes a "trigger", or natural aversion, which would mean psychologically oposing a theory, simply based on the words used. At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness). Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please, lol. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today *still* carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact). One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. *Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.* From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy." Elements of this technique involve: - creating or encouraging divisions ... - to prevent alliances that could challenge ... - distributing forces that they overpower the other - aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate - fostering distrust and enmity Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories." [editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things] *"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.* There is an entire palate of examples of "dividing Europe" on multiple levels, and gain an advantage (see below comments thread for a few). These multiple examples are not "anecdotal", or "cherry picked", but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of "others", because unity = strength). Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it. *"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene* And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump ("Trump Doctrine") and others... All of these terms can be googled for more context. Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily. What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London? *London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.* Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars. *A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).* The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians. A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine. *It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.* The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..." A declaration which would not last long. LOL, no. They were *not* satiated. After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence". The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895. To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied... *How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?* Answer: favoratism. "Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well. *It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.* Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism. Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, *and* at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today. *A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.* Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else. Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.

❤❤❤❤

"Blank checks". Serbia had a blank check from Russia.

So the brexit script was written over 100 years ago.

نظام عمال حديثها ونظام موظفين وتوظيف معاك أكبر زعيم في العالم.

IT IS SO VERY VERY STRANGE - YOU HAVE ALL THSES INDIVIDUALS / BOTH EUROPEAN AND AMERIKAN / - WHO SPEND THEIR LIFE GIVING LECTURES IN BOTH EUROP[E AND AMERIKA - ABOUT THE VARIOUS / WARS / - AND THERE ARE PERSONS WHO I HAVE COME TO BELIEVE ARE INTERESTED - THE QUESTION IS / EHY / - BECAUSE - / ABSOLUTRELY NOTHING IS OR HAS BEEN LEARNT BY BOTH SIDES - AND WHO PAYS FOR THESE POINTLESS EENDEAVORS - AH WELL

32:34 because there's nothing weird or crackpot about it

The British were responsible for it. No need to whitewash History.

it was actually named "THE WORLD OF YESTERDAY"

She confused between Analysis of peace for push for peace.

34:56 absolutely wrong, there's nothing new about nationalism

ومن الجمهور.

Brown Frank Johnson Linda Davis Brian

the complexity that is assumed to be at the root of WW1's start, (pardon my rephrasing) is looking at the forest, and remarking on how many different trees there are... the root was european imperial colonialism fuelled by capitalist greed mixed with substantial nationalist hubris

War is caused by rebellion against God’s teachings and greedy loving of self interest!

Had to get that lefty, Jew bashing, anti- Israeli, anti-American dig in, at the end, during the Q&A. Sad.

This haughty women is making the same mistake man has always made throughout history and that is thinking that our current way of doing things is the correct one. Her condescending tone made this lecture hard to listen to especially when she uses terms like “ crackpot” and “absurd”. I will bet though none of us will be around.. that in 100 years people will listen to this and think it absurd because the world will have changed so much to be unrecognizable today.

تنفسي ولا تهلعي. ديني ومعارضة. ولا أريد أن أكون عام أ.

ZOG megaphone. 😮

قيد غوغل ويتيوب المعلومات. التراب.

The reason is obvious: free-market capitalists wanted to replace the monarchies of Europe. I should get a free PhD. 😂

British historians is always poisinous against the one who doesnt agree with them.

مثل البشر.

The masses followed false religion and thus intentionally and intentionally turned their backs on God and thus became the acolytes of Satan.

This professor's comment about the US -Israel relationship is disrespectful and stupid. Israel does not act thoughtlessly which would embarass the US, its protector. Israel acts to keep itself alive and protect its citizens, and not to spread power or control. On the contrary, oftentimes Israel has to act or make decisions inspite of the negative positions the US takes. That is not embarassment to the US. But it is a detriment to Israel, which is struggling to survive. Example, the USS Liberty eavsdropping on Israel manuvers during the 6 Day war in Sinai, and sharing it with Egyptian military intelligence to the detriment of Israel and its young soldiers. Another example, is Obama refusing to veto an anti-Israel UN resolution at the end of his presidential term, to Israel's detriment. But worse is this professor juxtaposing the next example of North Korea doing things that embarass its protector China. What stupidity to compare or juxtapose North Korea and Israel. An out of control rogue Communist dictatorship should never be compared to a liberal, progressive, Western democracy that respects due process and the rule of law, such as Israel.

A reminder the God loves you and Jesus died for your. sins💓. ( not tryna force)

The eugenics movement was taken seriously by serious intellectuals because it put forward a serious argument that to this day hasn't been entirely refuted. In fact, more modern research in genetics supports some of the eugenicists' claims, if not their policies.

This is prophetic, accurately explains what is going on today.

A brilliant woman love her presentations

Can anyone document an instance where learning from history prevented it from being repeated?

colonialism!

Thomas Charles Rodriguez Edward Garcia David

I always enjoy Professor MacMillan's lectures. She always paints a vivid picture of the past and it's limitations on the options of people caught up in it wake. However, I think her comparison between Serbia of 1914 and Israel of today is not correct. Most of Israel's wars have been forced on it by aggressive neighbors. Even today, there are no peace treaties with Syria or Lebanon. Waves of terrorist strikes in turn obligate her to defend herself by maintaining garrisons in the West Bank and attacks in Gaza.

After reading Paris 1919 I formed an appreciation for Ataturk who wasn’t intimidated by the victorious great powers and managed to negotiate a pretty good deal out of the fall of the Ottomans. But my final conclusion was that the war was a result of the 3 cousins fighting over “my dick is bigger than yours”.

Good analysis. But missed on human motivation to become omnipotent/influential. Imperialist state or martial state is a natural progression. Its opposite has become unappealing, you see more than ptofit, you see a lesser people waiting to be conquered, you want a worship or recognition too. Great civilizations did benefit a lesser prople now and then. Untill the lesser people ealise their ruler has the same flaws as them. There is an eventual rejection of high handed rule/ruler. Europe is an unique case, many are industrial powers, most are equal people, they did not want an exrenal power to lead them. All of them wanted that enviable historical status of being the benign ruler of the lesser worlds. Human engagement is a given, the power alliances develop in time and entrap the big empires more than the many other forms of human engagement. Now big powers want accomplices for both domination and for profit. These dark deals pull down civilizations, Rome had too many of them, the over rule of a civilization did not happen from the territories but it was mocked by their very own martial ruler/s and generals.

This day in 1914 the Archduke and his wife were murdered. This day in 1919 The Treaty of Versailles was signed.

These people are trying to speak ignorance to the ignorant people, but the truth is, it’s all religious. The guy from Serbia shot a king from Germany.😊

42:57, those who think that war is a natural part of human society and is good for society.

Reading the book "The Balkan Wars 1912-1913: Prelude to the First World War" by Hall, Richard C. can also provide a lot information about why WW1 started in that way.

Young Joseph Hall Sandra Young Sharon

How about 3 cousins ruled England Germany Russia ????

Great lecture & lecturer. War is INEVITABLE. Every time we assume it is done somewhere else then it surfaces under our noses. Few people, clans, tribes, states, countries, monarchies, armies, etc. always want back what they lost when they were weak / weakened. And, they want more of what they already have. Were I part? HIstory and humans usually proves out that "War is ALWAYS INEVITABLE".

A significant portion of the GDP of the USA is on account of its defence/ armament industry and it's arms exports.

I wonder if I have witnessed this about other speakers without noticing.. Margaret MacMillan never issues any “ums” or “ahs” during these lectures on WWI on RU-vid that I have viewed. None. Same thing on a C-Span sit down interview with random questions.

Doctor Margaret eloquently compiled reasons and the political and economic, social and cultural environment of Europe before WW1❤❤

Maybe they can come to conclusion they all hold responsibility for the violence

See 'Remembrance Day ceremony 2018 Hervey Bay.' Lest We Ever Forget.

Excellent as always. How does she not get thirsty???

The Cause Of The War That Ended Peace IS Know, "They" Lie In The Shadows,"their" Name Must NOT B-Spoke.

Slogan of the Second International “Krieg dem Kriege!” “War on War!”

Would it be possible to turn on closed captioning, please?

Blame Canada!

ثم وباء ميكرون.

1:01:20 can anyone give more context? what decaying hulk on the danube exactly?

This is a really good talk. The point that Europeans during the Edwardian period felt themselves above war seems to me crucial. We in the US now understand this after 1/6. Living history.

Yo, Maggie: you've forgotten the Crimean War from October 1853 - March 1856. Russia vs Britain, France & the Ottoman Empire.

I need to watch this daily

She is really a technical imposition. She has no idea about European history. The agitation against Deutschland is embarrassing. And if you think that the Allies, especially the British and Americans, "liberated" Europe, then please remember how the Germans were driven to starvation by the hundreds of thousands after the First World War and how millions of Germans were deliberately killed during the war - the genocide of the Americans and British on the Rheinlandwiesen AFTER WW2 continues to be covered up. And to stand there today with a halo when the Germans were supposed to have been exterminated as early as 1914 is really a strong piece of work. So go to youtube and type in Rheinlandwiesen, look how the Alies brutally killed the Germans.