The Forgotten Realm on the Eve of the Great War: Austria-Hungary in July 1914 - John Deak
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 06. 2015
- Dr. John Deak, University of Notre Dame, discusses the Austro-Hungarian Empire during July of 1914, challenging traditional concepts of Austria-Hungary's doomed existence and the conglomerate state's complex position in Eastern Europe.
The lecture is part of the Hesburgh Lecture Series and is presented in partnership with the Notre Dame Club of Kansas City.
Recorded April 13, 2014 in J.C. Nichols Auditorium at the National World War I Museum and Memorial.
For more information about the National WWI Museum and Memorial visit theworldwar.org
It should be included in the AH Empire panorama the enormous intellectual productivity of it, in Science, Philosophy and Arts. The highest in the World by 1914. Four out of Five of the scientists that developed the Atomic Bomb were born in the AH Empire.
Even their army was big-brained, with Ludwig von Mises, Fritz Kreisler, Arnold Schoenberg, and Fritz Lang (among others) serving in the ranks at various points.
No wonder I am so smart lol!
Not!!!
"The highest intellectual productivity in the world by 1914" 🥱🥱
15 min. in and still not much about the Austria-Hungry Empire, you can just fast forward to 16:10, where he really begins. You won't miss anything.
Nothing actually important until he gets to about 28.00. Even then he thinks Edward Grey was the PM of Britain rather than the Foreign Minister.
@@tashatsu_vachel4477 haaaa!
Thanks!
Thank you!
Yup. Same comment. He lost the high schoolers after about 3 minutes.
If you are interested in Austria-Hungary around WWI, you ought to read the novels of Joseph Roth (for instance "The Radetzky March").
I would also recommend The good soldier Svejk by Jarslav Hasek.
Especially notable are the responses to the assassination of FF by a gathering of army officers of various ethnicities and parts of the empire. Very telling. Towards the last one-third of the book.
At 40:29, the photo on the bottom-left is not Princip though it is often used as the exact moment when Princip was arrested - conveniently in attendance was a newspaper photographer who sold the photo as Princip's arrest (see Christopher Clark)
What a great lecture; the missing piece of the puzzle that is the origin of WW1. Thank you for this : )
Highly suggest watching this at 1.25 speed to pick up the pace.
Thanks much for the suggestion! Now if we could just find a way to skip over every time one of these speakers say, "uhhhh".
Franz Ferdinand was not shot with a revolver. It was a browning model 1910 in .380acp, which is a modern slide action, blowback semi automatic pistol that you would recognize and be entirely usable to a modern shooter today.
If there's any confusion, the famous American M1911 and 9mm Browning Hi-Power are of the same "Lineage" although with a different locking system since those cartridges are too powerful for a simple blowback operation to contain.
Just an FYI, but often in German-language documents of the time you see references to semiautomatic pistols as “revolvers.” Don’t ask me why, but this was something that even experts, like arms manufacturers, were wont to do. So it may be something very specific from that time.
Something along the lines of a Ruger LCP. Indeed, contemporary design. Thanks for the post. I wonder what range he shot at. Modern .380 ballistics have improved vastly and are much more lethal. In the last couple years, notably so. But this was 107 years ago and he killed with a single round to each victim. How close was he?
@@RemoteViewr1 Quite close. No more than 5 meters. The car in which Ferdinand was traveling turned down the wrong street, the driver realized his mistake, but the car didn't have a reverse gear so they were actually pushing it backwards. It was effectively standing still. Princip walked right up to Ferdinand and shot him.
I saw it in the Military Museum in Vienna along with FF's car and the bullet hole in the side of the car.
It was a 9mm Browning (FN Belgian manufactured) supplied by Serb conspirators and looked as unreliable as cr*p. Of course, it was old.
Perhaps the most interesting lecture I’ve heard on the subject yet.
1:17:15 It's actually great to hear a professor _thanking_ someone for a difficult question.
It's a common tactic now. It's lost its charm
It actually happens all the time.
Happens all the time.
''Colonel Redl'' is an interesting movie about Austro-Hungarian empire !
Edward Grey was Britain's foreign minister, not prime minister.
Yes. Wasn’t Herbert Henry Asquith the Prime Minister at the outbreak of WWI?
Good catch.
I do like the fact that Dr. Deak has taken the time to humanize the participants. People are not cartoon characters (perceived needs for moral clarity notwithstanding). That doesn't make them less culpable, but does make them more understandable.
I have watched this lecture several times. Thank you for this excellent video.
I am sorry but this man have not clue what he talking about..
Indeed, me too! And I see worrying similarities with today. An 80 years old Joseph. Generals being used to doing how they wish. An out of the blue "commitment" of Prussia to support Austria in war. The roles are different, but the diplomatic failure is happening all over again!
interesting lecture but i highly recommend watching at 1.25 or even 1.5 speed. the lecturer talks slowly and with long breaks, it gets slightly annoying
I think this gives you more time to understand what he said, just in case you are used to think about something explained to you.
NOTA BENE: he teaches students - who can take notes !!!!!
Disagree tbh
@@benoplustee yeah, I like the ability to process. These are broad topics
Thank you
Brilliant lecture
Great lecture very entertaining Barry from England 👌👌👌
One of the best WWI book is "A World Undone" in audiobook presentation
The Austrian documents relating to the schleifen plan only finally became available to the west circa 1991 around the time of the fall of the Soviet Union. According to the Austrians own records the schleifen plan was never even war gamed and called for way more troops than the Germans had. There is an argument that it was only ever written to give cause for the Germans to massively expand the army which was schleifens real plan. That after he retired it was dusted off and used as an excuse to expand the army just as he had hoped and that it was never a serious plan. That the Germans true plan was to hold the line in the west and use their newly expanded Army to tackle the much weaker and ill equipped Russians. That the repeated victories of the Germans early on in the west only ended up looking like the schleifen plan because they felt compelled to advance as the French kept falling back but that they never really expected the French to be as weak as the were when it all started.
This really doesn't make sense. Sure, the Schliffen "Plan" was monumentally undercooked and certainly was a ploy to expand military spending, but it also dovetailed with what the Germans actually did. Holding the line in the West would not have involved the Germans declaring war on Belgium and Luxembourg (thus expanding their frontline) and going on a massive offensive deep in to France. It would have consisted of them sitting on the border of Alsace-Lorraine and cutting down French forces as they attacked (close to what they did on that sector of the front in the early days of WWI).
Moreover, the extreme deprivation of German bayonet strength out East and wargaming for a defense of East Prussia also doesn't make sense if the idea was that the Germans would focus on defeating the Russians first. Very much the opposite.
Simply put, you don't transfer Hundreds of Thousands of troops along with intricate weapon systems such as specialized siege mortars into a neutral country, if you're planning to "Hold the Line." You also don't have to suffer from the extreme problems of logistics on the march and transport capacity that the Germans suffered going through Belgium.
And if anything, the Germans monumentally underestimates the French and other Western Allied forces compared to the time table of what most German military thinking anticipated. They still defeated the French (and other Western Allied forces) in most large scale maneuver operations in 1914 but they failed to actually destroy or rout them like at Sedan (or in Tannenberg).
It also doesn't make the well-documented quotes of German leadership such as Moltke the Younger's "we have lost the war" message to Wilhelm II make much sense.
To anyone reading this in future, this claim has also been heavily disputed by recent scholarship.
SUBTITLES WHEN ?
The idea of a course on Hapsburg history sounds wonderful. But at the 14 min mark I wonder if I am going to be able to hear it!
Crazy how different the 20th century would have been if Franz Ferdinand would have changed his plan.
I think it would've been better with more dramatic pauses.
The pistol was not a revolver, it was a semi-automatic F.N. m1910. The pistols issued to the conspirators were produced in Belgium not Serbia, as the speaker stated.
"A diplomatic note with a time limit." Hmm.
Great speaker!
If you’re interested in this topic, look up a Boardgame called “Illusions of Glory “ it’s focused on the Eastern front in WW1, highly educational!
At 20:00 he states Hungarian is an impossible language..my wife is Hungarian and I have to agree ..probably not quite impossible but is definitely mind bending difficult..
Absolutely true , so is Finnish : same origins , Finno-Ugric.
Amazingly , no Indo- European languages...
( Finnish is not a Germanic language like Swedish and Norwegian are in the other two Scandinavian neighboring countries ).
@@ennediend2865 No, the Hungarian language is not Finno-Ugric.
It has been classified as such for political reasons and cannot be changed for political reasons, but the structure of the two languages is completely different. Does the Finnish language use "word bushes" like the Hungarian one? Make it clear if I'm wrong.
"Word bush" as:
- kör - circle
- kerek - round
- kerítés - fence
- kerék - wheel
- körít - garnish
...
You think Hungarian is impossible, try learning Dine. :-)
Superb lecture
Sir Edward Grey was NOT Prime Minister of Great Britain (as Dr. Deak mistakenly asserts 56 minutes into the lecture), he was the foreign secretary (Asquith was the liberal Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal government which Grey served in).
@Anthony owen - You noticed that too! Good, I was wondering about that. Maybe the prof didn't get enough sleep the night before.
on second thought, Edward Grey = 1st Viscount, and a major participant in British foreign policy, and together with Winston Churchill = 1st Lord of the Admiralty, acted above their station and the official PM was effectively a figurehead in the bureaucracy.
good lecture but pick up the pace a little bit, also would have liked to hear more about Kaiser Karl, after a lot of books and documentaries about World War I it seems that he was a very promising young leader with potential that due to such unfortunate circumstances never had a chance
That's the reason he isn't mentioned. He died. Historians usually dont like to do speculative history (Although that doesnt stop them from doing it all the time.)
@@TheMarkJoergensen You're thinking of Franz Joseph. Johnnie's talking about Karl.
Lecture starts at minute 16 +
What was the motive of the "Black Hand" murdering the King and Queen of Serbia? What, if anything, did Franz Josef do about it?
Johnnyc drums The Queen couldn't have children, she was 12 years older from king. She was his nanny while he was a prince. Also there was fight between 2 dynasties.
Johnnyc drums They hated the current king and his marriage to Draga who was way older antagonised him even further.They wanted for our foreign policy to change from Austrophiliac Obrenović dynasty to Karadjordjevic dynasty who were known to be supportive of Russia.Franz Joseph had nothing to do with it,it was in internal dynastic battle
The Black Hand was an independent terror organization covertly supported by the Serbian government. This enabled the official Serbian establishment to say they were not responsible.
@@larrybliss8330 Actually the Black Hand was not supported by the Serbian government at all. The sad and unfortunate truth is that the Serbian government was terrified of them. They did not have the means and courage to deal with them. Finally, Prince Regent Aleksandar Karadjordjevic dealt with them in the so called Salonika Trial (Solunski Proces) where Dragutin Dimitrijevic Apis and his followers were convicted and put to their death by the firing squad (not for the assassination of Franz Ferdinand but for treason and plotting the assassination of prince regent). Truth be told, a lot of the Black Hand members got killed during the battles of Cer and Kolubara and the defense of Belgrade.
It’s readily available sources why the Serbian king and queen were murdered.
quite intersting lecture. maybe orthodox serbia´s claim for influence in the balkans has to do with their self-understanding as main victors of the balkan wars 11/12, after resisting ottoman opression through the centuries, practically freeing this part of europe from islam rule (together with the other league-members). the recognition of independent albania 1913 by the great powers, blocking serbia´s and therefore russia´s access to the mediterranean also has to be respected.
Serbians had a strong sense of national destiny reinforced by their victory in a key battle against the Muslim army in the 14th century.
I like the video but 15 min as intro is really a bit stiff.
Historians are advanced librarians. "A bit stiff" is normal.
Grey was the Foreign Secretary not Prime MInister of the United Kingdom. The PM was Herbert Asquith., A very elementary error in what was an interesting talk.
Excellent information. Presented well.
I bit slow, but very clear.
Clarifies the key players
Presented as media reporter but not as deep historic analyzer
It was Imaginos Desdinova who started WWI
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginos#Concept_and_storyline
Franz Ferdinand wasn't killed because he was a dove. The Serbs actually liked him personally. Gravrilo actually went to see his speech in Sarajevo and cried during it. It was just that he was a representative of Austria and the monarchy. They would have done it to any representative.
If Queen Victoria had been alive the war never would have escalated past an Austrian Punic expedition. I feel like she had enough power over her grandchildren that she would have stopped the war in its tracks. Only if.
I think you're mistaken in that. The strategic imperatives of the war for all parties were quite strong. It's a romantic fantasy that this was a kind of intra-family, dynastic feud - borne, I think, of the nostalgic hope that if only reason had prevailed it could all have been avoided. In reality it was major militarized states protecting their own essential interests, all of them under the not-entirely-incorrect view that if they didn't fight in their existing alliances, they'd eventually be destroyed by their enemies piecemeal. A kind of prisoner's dilemma writ large.
Nothing actually important until he gets to about 28.00. Even then he thinks Edward Grey was the PM of Britain rather than the Foreign Minis
Typical Anglo-Saxon arrogance
I’m always Leary when we get the ‘CZcams-fact-check-context-box” I found the lecture wonderful. I wonder what he taught that the powers that be (online censors) didn’t like?
When there's a weak head of state the ministry works their plans.
Great for people who are not aquatinted with the Empire, but not for the well read or the informed
Austria-Hungary is the forgotten tragedy of WWI.
Remember when Bismarck said that the Balkans were not worth the bones of a single Prussian musketeer?
17:30 3 Armies!
Good explanation of the all dramatic happening that never came out in such a detail. Since the prof hails from the very area he has done his own research particularly on the black hand...! Since Bosnia Herzegovina opted to join the Austro-Hungarian empire for own convience and the WW1 erupted over the there after Ottoman had withdrawn it can be said that 1st World War been the consequence of the Turk rule...
BiH didn't decide anything, AiH invaded them.
Lord British it brought genocide is what it brought. Google and read Archibald Reiss ‘how AiH waged war in Serbia’ to see exactly what ‘culture’ it brought to the region.
Uesd a 380 not a relover
Relover is ♫what the world, needs now ♫ - Motown Music
9mm Browning made by FN in Belgium. It's on display in the military museum in Vienna.
People in “modern” nation states do not understand what the (roman/holy roman) emperor was to catholics in Europe, especially in their hearthland. Or sunni islam in the ottoman empire/caliphate. But if you have a multi etnic/cultural empire, you need something that transcends etnicity. If you do not you end up in the kind of terrible stuff that happened in the Balkans or the Middle East. The fact that Croatians, who in many modern notions of “etnicity” are quite similar to Serbs (almost same language, etnogenesis etc), were loyal to the end to the emperor speaks volumes about the nature of the empire. Catholicism and the Emperor held these empires together, just as allegiance to the Tsar held the Russian (Orthodox) empire together. It was the loss of legitimacy trough defeat and the subsequent treaty imposed on Austria that destroyed the empire. In fact if you look at the two groups who actually pushed to leave, were among the most influential and affluent (Italians and Czechs) The Czechs, who lived in Bohemia were literally on equal terms almost with the Germans in the Austrian parts of the empire. I say they were better off under the Habsburgs, who cared little about etnicity after they lost their influence in Germany and Italy, then the subsequent fates these countries suffered.
Ah the ever present old guy who quibbles over what sort of gun was used to kill Franz Ferdinand...
@James Handley
I know, right? I’m an old guy and I’m really sick of these old farts doing this! Guaranteed that old knucklehead got nothing out of an interesting lecture other than; “AcTUallY, iT WAs an AUtoMaTiC!”...
Historical facts informs some, others not so much. As a gun guy, it is of interest. To you, who cares. Oddly enough, in the many decades following JFKs assisination, the murder weapon was specifically a matter of controversy. It was highly relevant in assessing what had actually happened. Though it seems irrelevant to yourself, I find it fascinating.
Ah the ever present critic who thinks their pithy comment has meaning.
Nice to see a Powerpoint that is not just blank-and-white, TimesNewRoman. LOL.
Franz Konrad was everything but a good strategist…
He needed to speed things up.
about the answer question about german-hungarian dominance over the other ethnicities. (around 1:10:00) i have to disagree about one point:
yes, the monarchy built many roads/infrastructure, etc. i am glad that this was mentioned. in fact, if you nowadays travel the balkans you will see many train stations built during the monarchy which are still in use today.
but it is not to my knowledge that the ethnicities were able to get along/were happily coexisting. some examples: for one there were also discussions/demands already before 1900 going on about giving the slavs an own equal part just like the hungarians had gotten. the whole reason behind why the habsburg monarchy later on called it austria-HUNGARY was because the nationalist movement in hungary needed to be appeased. there is also a nice posse about the ethnicities not even being able to agree on a name for the train station (should the name be written in german, in hungarian or in croatian). the parliament before first world war was more or less not functioning: there were parties but in actuality the parliament split up based on ethicity.
for anybody interested in more about the history of austria-hungary during the first world war in a very entertaining and humorous way: go read "A Sailor of Austria" a historic novel by John Biggins. It describes quite some of the problems the monarchy faced
but i appreciated this informative upload
technically serbia declared war on germany on the 6th of august and not the other way round. but only de jure. if thats what you were asking.
(weird, i thought i had already replied...) well, technically serbia declared war on germany
The problems with coexistance mostly appeared with ethnic nationalism. Though Franz Joseph managed to inspire an empire-wide patriotism where national affiliation would go hand in hand with imperial fidelity
And if you take a look at the successor states those issue became much worse. The dissolution of the Habsburg empire was one of the biggest catastrophes for central Europe in modern history
i absolutely agree
Hahaha!!! What would you say if CIA develop a dark spec ops with no responsibility towards the president??? Like this doesn't exist.
Yea right
The Iran-Contras of the 1980s was peanuts compared to the big big CIA drug business of today, which started in the 1980s. The real Capos of the drug traffic are CIA officers and Banksters CEO´s; to put their blame to somebody else, they have the Mexican cartel chiefs.
I used to think that Austrian hungary of ww1 was the italy of ww2. It seems that they were braver than italians.
He says Plato to NATO but then ‘western civilisation starts with Christianity ‘- what?
He frames this lecture as one to explain the historically forgotten hapsburg empire and spends most of it recounting events that you could hear just as well on several different ww1 podcasts. Nothing at all about the economy of this weird state, little attention paid to how governance worked on the ground, nothing about the actual people living in the empire. Run of the mill political diplomatic history, meh
Great point. Where did the money come from?? Fighting wars against the Prussian’s while rebuilding most of the amazing building in Vienna. ???
I agree.
Gotta have a Netflix movie on Sarajevo shooting so historians get back to their business and avoid playing script writer.
There IS an Austrian film from several years ago.
I don't want to sound offensive, but all of these lectures are really annoying with their long, irrelevant, tedious intros.
Unfortunately, that's very typical of academics -- half of any talk is background information before they FINALLY begin to present their thesis.
I just wish they could talk to the microphone, or get someone to help! So many (probably) interesting lectures and uploads going to waste..
@ThjeLoyalOfficer, Well, someone had to say it. Thanks.
You can just skip ahead you know.
Dawg go reread the story. Details lol
Sorry , Emperor Franz Joseph did not rule the Monarchy for 66 years. Only since 1867 when the Austrian - Hungarian Monarchy has been established. Earlier, he called in the Russian army (Tsar Alexander) to help to put down the Hungarian revolution and freedom fight. In 1849 the Austrian army was beaten by Hungary so needed outside help to save the Hungarian throne for the Habsburgs. The combined Austrian and Russian army together overcame the Hungarians and a terrible vendetta and era of persecution followed.
The most progressive Hungarian leaders like Kossuth already started negotiating with the nationalities by giving them more rights. It was too little too late, history took a different turn.
This led to the Dual Monarchy which proved a very unwieldy arrangement.
Intro and blah blah blahing about Notre Dame ends around 10:00 and lecture about Austria-Hungary finally begins
30:05 Deak should better study the history of the US, for example in 1960s. That's exactly what was happening...
The only purpose of that lecture is to put blame for war on Serbia - and really nothing else.. With this level of knowledge every elementary school professor from Serbia can teach lessons this Hungarian, full of hate for Serbia and Serbs..
30:05 What would you guys say if the CIA had a secret black ops wing..... Yea we can only imagine hahaha... Like it doesn't have right!!!
The Austrian-Hungarian Empire was better then most that came after. The created states were further away from solving ethnical problems then the Empire ever was. Don't see that much good came out of the dissolution of that Empire.
Romanian, Czechs,Slovaks,Sloven and even Hungarian didn't has internal civil wars as the Bosnia,Serbia and Croatia. KuK created those ethnical problems. Some post KuK states solved their problems eventually some didn't.
Really interesting topic (to me, anyway) but gave up...yet another academic trying to be 'funny' and connect with a younger audience, not to mention the lackadaisical pace (perhaps meant to be 'cool'?). I was hanging out for the fascinating facts of this fascinating state but, like the classic rule for a Hollywood movie, if you can't grip me by 20 minutes...bye.
His tedious, long, irrelevant, slowly-delivered lecture is also really annoying.
Absolutely agree.
He says every. single. phrase. as if it's something incredibly profound. Just, like... speak normally.
Taking his class must be a nightmare.
This is way too sugarcoated. He makes the Austria-Hungary sound like an inept old good guy, trying to share happiness, but the wicked neighbors don't want it. He skipped over all of the instances when Austria-Hungary pressured and bullied it's smaller neighbours into obedience. There was a customs war with Serbia, there was an agreement with the Russians before the Russo-Turkish war in 1878. in which the Austrians got Russian aproval to occupy Bosnia, they had a military presence in the Novi Pazar sanjak (the goal of that was to stop communication between Serbia and Montenegro), they stopped Bulgaria and Serbia from reaching a customs union agreement... Not to mention the mistakes which a university professor should not allow himself to make, like bundling occupation and anexation of Bosnia, or not knowing who the British PM was at the time.
These American lecturers are fascinating - I don't think any one them got any real grasp on what Centreal Europe really was. The title is quite dismissive already. Forgotten by whom?
He also referred to the region as “Eastern Europe”, not Central Europe.
it will take me 82 min of this lecture to explain why is wrong to say that south slavs of austria hungary replaced one overlord with the other in 1919 and i am as far as it gets from expert, historian or economist could talk for days about that and not say all she or he knows, one simple example is that south slavs catholics who speak serbocroatian language were 2 million in 50 in austria hungary and one of the poorest population, became 2 million in 12 and economically strongest, what made them equal part in 1938 power share in jugoslavia or at least their ruling clique, in austria hungary they couldn't dream about such status, when jugoslavia felt apart it was because serbs were complaining that their strenght is not equal to their power, having the same vote as so called croats whose population is half as serb, or like slovens, macedonians and bosnians who are quarter of serbs, or hungarians and montenegroans who are less than one eight of serbs, besides empowering national elites in south slavic parts of austria hungary, in some aspects it didn't change much, 18th century maria theresa feudal civil law that stipulate different rules for different estates survived king alexander, marshal tito and fascist dictator tudman in so called republic of croatia which makes it unique in european union and similar to saudi arabia and thailand, that is legacy of habsburg rule, feudal law in 1918, dungeon of peoples
That is how Serbs view that part of history. That is not how Slovenes, Croats and Bosniaks view that time.
WESTERN CIVILIZATION?MOHANDAS GANDHI was once asked: “What do you think of Western civilization?” “I think it would be a good idea,” he replied. ...
Yes, true, and Gandhi also told the Jews to bare their necks to the Nazis and submit to their fate. He also made some very unflattering remarks about black Africans when he lived in South Africa.
This poorly researched scholar needs to read the diplomatic documents of the day.
Lots of complete, genuine rubbish in this trite, propagandist and superficial lecture. Par for the course. Anyone who wants to know the real truth about Austria-Hungary - and Serbia - would be better off reading "Folly and Malice: The Habsburg Empire, the Balkans and the Start of World War One" by John Zametica (Shepheard-Walwyn, 2017). It's got it all - what the Austrians really wanted, the Hungarians, Croatians, Serbians, Russians, British, etc. And a host of new stuff based on primary research, including the war guilt 'smoking gun'. After reading that book, the Archduke, the assassin and the Balkans will never seem the same again.
Can you be specific, re the real truth, now that you already read the book?
What is with the anti-serb bias? The Balkan wars where well know for autrocities on all sides.
When Austria enetered Serbia autricites started straight away vs Serbian civilians and military.
I am sure the Serbs whould have done they same if they got to occupy Bosnia or some part off AH proper. But to call teh serbs out for autricites when they where made by the Austrians on Serbia is a bit to much.
Look no further than Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
I got twelve minutes into it and he hadn't gotten to his subject yet. I bailed when he started talking about Star Trek.
So lecturer bravo!!! Btw, you really think that small tiny exhausted Serbia can cause World War? If so, then bravo for Serbia too!! But.... the truth is somewhere else... out of your long lasting boring lecture... Lets just ask ourself, who did need war that time. And the answer is there... Thats the real logical cause of the World War.. That profesor just needed some drama as american show bussines movie actor..Greetingss from evil Serbia
It feels like a whitewashing of Austria-Hungary and a vilification of Serbia, rather than anything objective
I heard the Russian attache paid and armed the assassin. Russia did it. Bolsheviks.
I wince every time I hear that America pronunciation of Notre Dame... This has to be one of the worst lectures I've ever listened to.
What a rambling waste of time