Britain and 1914 - Professor Vernon Bogdanor
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 06. 2014
- Professor Vernon Bogdanor unpicks the political and social ties that brought led to the first world war: www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and...
'Nations slithered over the brink into the boiling cauldron of war without any trace of apprehension or dismay', (Lloyd George, 1934). Britain has been blamed for not making the position clear following the murder of the Austrian Archduke at Sarajevo, and also for aligning with France and Russia, thus promoting the division of Europe into two camps. The government was accused of failing to avert the conflict and then involving Britain in an unnecessary war. Criticisms will be analysed to consider whether they are justified in the light of modern historical research.
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College Website: www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
He does give a bloody good lecture.
fascinating. Wish we'd had a history teacher like Mr Bogdanor at my 'orrible secondary school. I Might have actually listened....
I didn't get any education in my comprehensive school... I learned 2 facts in history: During the Paris Commune, women sold themselves for morsels or bread. And Foxy Ferdinand died in his sex chair. I'm not exaggerating, this was it. And I got a C as GCSE! Not even sure the second fact is true, although it seems Ferdinand I of Bulgaria was quite kinky.
The Serbs lost the battle of Kosovo, they didn't win it... it's celebrated more as a kind of glorious last stand.
There is some uncertainty around the outcome of the battle. It was thought to be a loss, even though the Ottomans retreated, and came back to establish their rule over the Serbs only 80 years later. However, after the Turks have opened they archives (few years ago) it seems that, from the Serbian perspective, the battle was either a victory, or, at the least, a draw. But I think this is beside the point. Many other nations create myths and celebrate certain battles from their history that they lost. For example the English (The Charge of the Light Brigade), the Americans (Alamo), Australians (Galipoli), etc...
@@stanko10 The British have lost many battles and some are even celebrated but they've always won the wars and hardly any are celebrated.
I've read several of Max hasting's works and, I must say, I quite agree with professor Bogdanor's assessment of his conclusions. Max is a popularist, making vast and sweeping assumptions, not backed up by any factual data.
I believe Hastings to be a superb researcher. His words are filled to the brim with factual data. I also happen to believe Hastings "bends" the data to fit his conclusions. Unfortunate, but true.
You said it better, I think.
I meant that his conclusions are not born out by his research.
Hastings concluded that Englands entry into the war was inevitable. He and the speaker actually agree. The professor doesnt want to admit it. :)
I wonder, was there a lecture on the Second World War? I've found lecture on events leading up to the war and Post-War Settlement, but no lecture on the Second World War. How come?
THE LONG ROAD TO WAR (2018) is, by far, the best documentary on this subject!
An outstanding exposition of the tragically unique concatenation of circumstances that caused a World War, and more. Please carry on removing the brainwashed scales from our eyes because: "There's none so blind that cannot see.' Thank you.
I believe the saying is: 'there are none so blind as those that will not see'
whats all this about revolvers, it was a 1910 FN .380 automatic pistol that did the deed
Who cares?
Yes the unionists do celebrate the battle of the Boyne, with gusto, its known as the glorious 12th, its a great day out, the kiddies eat ice cream, the adults drink beer, and they all sing songs, some of them quite unpleasant, and march all over the place banging oversized drums and blowing whistles and making sure the Catholics never forget. Northern Ireland is a strange place.
Good lecture, learned a lot..
The Battle of the Boyne was 1690, not 1689.
Thank you sir I learned a bit
53:20 "...Asquith again writing to his girlfriend (A wonderful historical source; I think more Prime Ministers should have girlfriends)..." LOL!!
The battle of the Boyne was of course, the 12th July 1690 not 1689.
@@TTIOMEdge Give the guy a break. It is OK to make one mistake isn't it?
How was Germany going to defeat France without going through Belgium and the agreements going back to 1830 meant war for England and England knew it.
And so did Germany. They had the option not to give a blank cheque, or if they had chosen to support, fight a defensive war. The German Schlieffenplan was the doomsday machine.
Germany defeated France in 1871 and did not go through Belgium. And in 1871, Germany did not control Alsace and Lorraine, which they did in 1914.
Very interesting perspectives.
dear vernon, at 0:2:30 you make the claim that the goverment of serbia is not involved in the assasination of franz ferdinand, that statement seems like you did not bother to check the facts or study the assasination... how can you make such a claim when the Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence was the man behind the assasins? i would very much like to hear your response on this and your sources.
@@Eideric Perhaps the civilian government was not the guiding hand, but almost certainly was aware of the plot. They lacked both the political will and the desire to restrain the Black Hand (financed and directed by Serbian military intelligence). Christopher Clark's "The Sleepwalkers" makes a fully convincing case of their guilt, if not outright culpability.
Sorry to say but there are many factual mistakes he makes.
"The French civilian government said: We can't break an international law even if it would benefit France to do so. That's the difference in my view between a parliamentarian country and a totalitarian country." Does this mean in your view, the UK has become a totalitarian country now?
Interesting lecture I am not in full agreement but would be interested if anyone could shed some light on the events of August 1 and the misunderstanding Sir William Tyrrell, Grey's private secretary,
brought a message to the German embassy. After subsequently receiving a personal call from Grey, Lichnowsky, at 11:14 a.m., sent a wire
to Berlin in which he indicated Grey had proposed that, if Germany
"were not to attack France, England would remain neutral and would
guarantee France's passivity."2 Three hours later, after another message from Grey via Tyrrell, Lichnowsky again telegraphed Berlin. He
reported that now Grey wished to make proposals "for England's neutrality, even in the event of our being at war with both France and
Russia."3 England was apparently retreating into isolation, leaving
Germany with a free hand to establish its hegemony over Europe.
Kaiser Wilhelm II understandably ordered champagne when word of
the second exchange reached him in Berlin.4 But such elation was
short-lived. King George responded to the Kaiser's acceptance of
Grey's first proposal by telegraphing that "there must be some misunderstanding
Perhaps the Russian Spring would have occurred anyway. There had been several abortive attempts already, including both ineffectual and effectual assassination attempts against the Tsars. It was a bloodbath waiting to happen. The hardships of the war simply exacerbated the effects of many chronic existential crises faced by the Empire.
A very interesting lecture, which taught me a lot about how the British government approached the run-up to the Great War and explains their actions. Of course, the British government acting in good faith doesn't mean that they were right about intervening against Germany. Things like the German ambassador guaranteeing the integrity of Belgium and the territory of France does show a German willingness to limit their ambitions.
That said, if we sympathize as I do with German fears of Russian industrialization and French revanchism, being paranoid regardless of what Britain could do in international conferences to assure them, we must equally extend such understanding to British fears of a German-dominated continent, regardless of what assurances Germany was willing to offer.
Ironically, it occurs to me that aside from our history, the best way for Britain to soothe her fears of an all-powerful Germany that would get its way on everything it wanted would be to join the war on their side, and respond to Germany taking its "place under the sun" by expanding its own. (Though even neutral-Britain might have been able to curtail Germany if it was victorious but exhausted, but of course people didn't think that the war would last that long.)
Serbia LOST the battle at Kosovo !
Well done . I noticed that too. The commanders of both armies were killed.
"the germans where compensated for not getting morrocco by getting a bit of africa" ehh wtf, i am sorry but no where did the germans state or desire to get morrocco but wanted to keep the open door policy from the treaty of madrid 1880...
i am getting very much the sense that vernon here is talking out his backside, so please find some very good and detailed sources to back up your gibberish vernon
Look at the title of his talk, and please reconsider.
Albania 58% Muslim/Islam
Bosnia and Herzegovina 51% Muslim/Islam
Kosovo 95% Muslim/Islam
Turkey 99% Muslim/Islam
Croatia 86% Catholic
Serbia 84% Orthodox Christian
Slovenia 57% Catholic
Montenegro 72% Orthodox Christian
North Macedonia 64% Orthodox Christian
Romania 81% Orthodox Christian
Bulgaria 94% Orthodox Christian
Greece 98% Orthodox Christian
Wonderful irony, the English who had subjugated, occupied and exploited half the planet using 'defense of small nations' as an excuse for war.
"...were the government of the moderate left. A bit like the Labour Party today." I would disagree. The Labour Party is hard/radicalfar left today. No questions about it. Just look at Jeremy Corbyn. He makes Mao look tame.
+журналист This talk was in 2014, not even Jeremy Corbyn had heard of Jeremy Corbyn back then, he's referring to the Blair/Brown New Labour party, which was indistinguishable from the Conservatives...
+журналист This talk was in 2014, not even Jeremy Corbyn had heard of Jeremy Corbyn back then, he's referring to the Blair/Brown New Labour party, which was indistinguishable from the Conservatives...
+журналист This talk was in 2014, not even Jeremy Corbyn had heard of Jeremy Corbyn back then, he's referring to the Blair/Brown New Labour party, which was indistinguishable from the Conservatives...
Jeremy Corbyn represents the ideals of original Labour party. To compare him with Mao is just silly.
Corbyn is worse than Mao? Corbyn represents the ideals of the Labour party before Blair... or Kinnock - ideals that were democratic socialist at best. Your statement is based on pure fantasy... or tabloid journalism, if you like.