Margaret MacMillan "The Uses and Abuses of History" [FULL]

[Galenspam]

look at what the Poles, Slovak, czech etc. did in 1917, 1918 and 1919, (and the poles from 1920-22, they "fought" for different forms of nationstates - not a western pan-slavic state. It is simply a misinterpretation to reduse the eastern european carpet of interests to such a simple model.

[EdwardRommel]

@Galenspam

Many books written at the time of WW1 blamed it on mainly an eastern European conflict of Tueton vs. Slav..and even Kaiser Wilhelm II described WW1 as a battle of Teuton vs. Slav.

The Archduke never ever should have been in Sarajevo..and the Serbs had accepted 8 of the 10 demands in the Austrian Ultimatum. Even the Kaiser said that "all grounds for war have been eliminated" when he saw the Serbian conciliatory response. Germany definately started WW1.

[amaxamon]

@EdwardRommel People refuse to accept this. The propagation of German kultur and ideals was the basic motivation for both world wars. The philosophy had its roots in the 19th Century and it took something like 100 years to take it out of circulation.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@amaxamon

'The propagation of German kultur and ideals was the basic motivation for both world wars. '

The reason for both wars was to play the nations against each other, destroying them while making a killing and setting the stage for global centralized control.

Indeed, since the League of Nations it's obvious to what extent Orwell's desciptive 'war to end all wars' is accurate.

Both world wars are the real motors behind the UN, behind structures such as the E.U and the neverceasing...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@amaxamon

...push towards a one world system. Making the world 'safe for democracy' has been a constant rationale.

It's really amazing so many people are in denial of this impending one world system, deeming it paranoid to entertain any thoughts whatsoever about the obvious AGENCY, the design and engineering of this global unit.

And of course even crazier the thought that a small number of people could control and stage world affairs completely circumventing democratic controls.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@amaxamon

This utterly onbvious situation has remained occult to the masses because they prefer keeping things simple in a deluded world of make believe.

If you don't understand that the wars were CREATED, DESIGNED, ENGINEERED, you'll have to resort to statements such as the one I quoted at the start, which is basically a propagandistic banality from the average history course that completely fails to address the larger picture.

[Galenspam]

(Continueining), and neither Imperial Russia nor Serbia had a Pan-Slavic aganda. They both imperial agandas. Look at how Russia treated their polish and ukrainian subjects as an example. Neither were there a Pan-Germanic aganda in the Central powers - especially not for Austra-Hungary how was basically fighting for keeping their empire together. The Pan-Germanic ideal arose again heavily at the end of the war with Austria-Hungary's defeat - but it was not at all a course for the war. Lastly,

[EdwardRommel]

@Galenspam

Russia and Austria had promised greater autonomy for Poland but mainly because they wanted the Poles on their respective sides.

But none of that negates the fact that in 1914 Germanics ruled Slavs but Slavs did not rule Germanics. Europe was out of balance. The Austrian annexation of Bosnia in 1908 was in violation of the Treaty of Berlin of 1878 which only gave Austria the right to administer Bosnia...not the right to annex it.

[EdwardRommel]

@Galenspam

Russia was often described as the "protector of the Slavs" and Nicholas II described the Austrian declaration of war on Serbia as "an ignoble war" when he requested the Kaiser to control Austria...so yes Imperial Russia did definately have a Pan-Slavic sympathy...even today Russia and Serbia are close friends.

[EdwardRommel]

@Galenspam

Of course Serbia had a Pan-Slavic agenda...she wanted to unite the south Slavs and create Yugoslavia...everyone knows that except for you!!

That's why the annexation of Bosnia in 1908 nearly started a major European war...except that Russia was still very weak from losing the war with Japan.

[Galenspam]

A very nice program. A good balanced talk with an appropriate tempo and good question (as well as good answers). nicely done Allan Gregg.

To Edward Rommel. I have to say that there is no basis for your claims. It is true that after the war - partly because of a search for meaning, and wilsonian idealism, the war BECAME partially about selfdetermination. But that was never the intent for the contemporaries. The rights of selfdeterminination were not applied outside W.Europe except of E.Prussia

[UTubeHelsinki]

Margaret MacMillan is absolutely superb! She understands human mind and greater historical development and can put them interestingly together. Paris 1919 is in my opinion the greatest example (together with Jonathan Spence and McNeill's) how to be on the same time academically so professional and still illustrate the history on a way we can easily understand it.

[EdwardRommel]

Ms. MacMilan is mistaken when she says WW1 was not really about defending democracy and that it was really about defending the British Empire.

It was about defending democracy because at its core WW1 was about Pan-Germanism vs. Pan-Slavism....but in 1914 the two teutonic empires ruled large areas of Europe with Slav majorities(Bohemia/Moravia Slovakia, Poland, Galicia, Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia ..but Slavs ruled no German majorities ..

So WW1 was about self-determination(aka Democracy)

[Th3Wab3]

@EdwardRommel i think you misunderstood she said defending the British Empire and the British way of life" Germany took a great stance that Britain inhibited development in the arts culture and so on... Germany did want to reform Europe and so she is right in that statement.. and by your statement self determination then would support that the Pan German movement was democracy in that their population greatly our numbered that of Britain & France...

[EdwardRommel]

@Th3Wab3

There is a fundamental difference between Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism...and it is this "In 1914 Teutonics occupied and ruled Slavs ...but Slavs did NOT occupy and rule Tuetonics".

So Pan-slavism was about Slavs being ruled by Slavs.

Pan-Germanism was about expanding Germanic rule over Slavs.

That's why fundamentally the Allies were in the right and the Dual Alliance of Germany and Austria was clearly in the wrong. Germans should not rule slavs.

[EdwardRommel]

@Th3Wab3

the British Empire practiced free trade wheas the German Empire was very protectionist with tariffs ans state owned monopolies like the German railroads. Even Americans had difficulty in dealing with the German Govt. on both trade agreements and also in International law issues like the Venezeula debt crisis of 1902 and the Manilla bay incident of 1898.

Germany somehow managed to provoke enmity in virtually every country in the world by 1914. That's not an easy thing to do!

[Th3Wab3]

@EdwardRommel as i intended to highlight German expansion most certainly threatened the British way of life.. these free trade systems and politics were more greatly related created and accepted by Britain German influence or reform would not completely comply to the vision that Britain had established.

[Th3Wab3]

@EdwardRommel well i think the error in that statement is in determining that "German Free Trade" had anything to deal with a government intransigence. German nationalism was nothing like British if any claims were made for nationalism Britain appeared to have the greatest coalescence.. post Bismark Germany was fragmenting back to its previous state.. Prussian expansion or Self determinism played a stronger role than any Austro-German Alliance..

[Th3Wab3]

@EdwardRommel "Germany somehow managed to provoke enmity in virtually every country in the world by 1914. That's not an easy thing to do!" i sure at the particular time Europe was in that standing what with it incessant imperial/colonial expansion... i'm sure the world didn't enjoy being dominated and at the top of the list would be England, France, Spain, Germany...

[EdwardRommel]

@Th3Wab3

The economic value to being imperialistic or to having colonies has been questioned. Just as American slavery was said to be not a benefit to the average white southerner but rather to an elite group of large landholders...so is the same about European colonialism. It mainly benefited the large landholders

.

Indeed, the German colonies were all mosquitoe infested money-losers that had to be subsidized by the German Govt. and places where no Germans wanted to visit.

[324wilson]

One of my fav. author!