"Catastrophe 1914: Europe goes to War," Sir Max Hastings, The University of Kansas

[@tiamatxvxianash9202]

Great to hear him speak. I've read his works for 40 years now. I'm glad he's spending time in the United States giving lectures.

[@ruchirchaturvedi7793]

Reading OVERLORD by Sir Hastings. Would recommend it to anyone interested in WW2. It's the perfect blend of astute military analysis and spellbinding storytelling.

[@yellowjackboots2624]

Hastings finally shows up at 9:41

[@theque6566]

Thanks for the heads up, 9:45 begins the lecture

[@DavidSmith-ee6df]

Sir Max rules. History is the best!

[@nateemond197]

I got this book when I got a Barnes & Noble gift card for Xmas 2 years ago. I haven't read it yet but it is the only book I have bought in 20 years

[@Cttocs1]

It is a tough read if you havn't read in a long time. If you are looking for an easier war book, try Antony Beevor - his books read like a story. very absorbing

[@georgeelmerdenbrough6906]

Not a well readerson myself but I would make the effort . So many questions remain about what exactly was the fuse that ignited the war .

[@rajyavardhan9481]

Just read catastrophe ,loved every bit of it.

[@ed_goblin]

That book is amazing! I learned so much we don't learn in school.

[@rajyavardhan9481]

Me too , in school ww1 is like Germany, Britain. , Kaiser and that's it ,this book provided me with a most profound study in the first month's of the great war .

[@DMU386]

@@rajyavardhan9481 if you’re looking for a good book about the beginning of the war read “the guns of august”

[@sgitell]

Intrigued by his comment about the U.S. Civil War. I can’t understand how the scholars and experts couldn’t look at Grant’s Overland Campaign and the Siege of Petersburg and see that that grim conflict of entrenchments and artillery was the future of war.

[@abc_13579]

At 23:30, you said only the Germans wanted a major European conflict, but the French wanted it, too, as explained in Christopher Clark's book "The Sleepwalkers." One reason is that France, although allied with Russia in 1914, worried that Russia, with its vast resources and huge population, would soon no longer need it and abandon it. Additionally, France feared Germany, the powerful country that defeated it in 1870 and took some of its territory. From France's point of view, a war in 1914 between Russia and Germany would be a chance to weaken Germany and slow the rapid growth of Russia, France’s potential future rival. As for Russia, it may not have wanted a major war to ensue, but it certainly had a significant role in causing it. It didn't need to order a total mobilization, nor did it need to mobilize right on Germany's border. It can be argued that the complete Russian mobilization was the most provocative act by any of the warring parties, making Russia perhaps the most culpable for the war’s outbreak. And one final point: Given that Austria-Hungary was Germany's only ally and that Germany was surrounded by enemies, to expect Germany to restrain Austria-Hungary is a lot to ask for. Serbia had been making a lot of trouble for Austria-Hungary, especially since the annexation of Bosnia, and after the assassination of Franz Joseph, Austria-Hungary was fed up with Serbia and itching to retaliate. Germany was reluctant to restrain-and potentially lose-their only ally on the continent. Moreover, it's rare in history to find a big power restraining its small power ally since doing so makes the big power seem weak, afraid to start a war. Countries always seek to avoid looking weak since weakness undermines deterrence. That's the idea behind Reagan’s motto “Peace through strength."

[@victorcross5949]

Why are these introductions so abysmally long?

[@MrDaiseymay]

agreed, they need drastic curtailing

[@TheYorkie2]

Cut the bs and get to the point😮

[@jaimesandoval1988]

They need to explain to the board why they spent money for the speaker

[@alastairhunter353]

Thanks Max !!

[@davemehelas5053]

Recommend Max’s Vietnam-An Epic Tragedy. A great and sad story.

[@thomasjamison2050]

"the losses from sore feet, it sounds very pedestrian...."

[@MrDaiseymay]

Oh Dear, I think you put your foot in it.

[@thomasjamison2050]

@@MrDaiseymay I just think that those who make complaints about sore feet truly deserve a good boot.

[@CanalGian2012]

Sorry what name did he say on 13:48 ? When he cites the work of someone who says that a Kaiserreich’s victory would have only meant an earlier EU

[@xvmcmxd]

He’s speaking Niall Ferguson. Brilliant historian.

[@paulmcclung9383]

Lecture starts at 10 minutes.

[@davemehelas5053]

Max does a great Churchill

[@TaskForce-nr7sd]

The Sleepwalkers book strongly suggests that although Russia's government played no role in the Archduke's assassination, the Russian military attache to Serbia had his own ideas. He gave Serb intelligence an assurance of Russian support, without asking his superiors. This is why Serb intelligence planned, supplied the assassins at Belgrade. You don't risk Austrian retaliation without some guarantee of Russian protection. WW-I is because of rogue, unauthorized actions by Russian attache and Serb intelligence, both done without the knowledge or approval of their civilian authorities.

[@palibrae]

French Colonial infantry massacred at Rossignol were not indigenous Africans as implied by the speaker. They were professional French soldiers, white Europeans.

[@gerardmatthewoleo1083]

wwww w wqaa twwarawwqt@ aaaaw w waqa # ww awww # wwwww errw # @######## aaaaww wwwaa# ww www # www a & qaa aaa@ @@w ww@a ,w wWwa aa# wa qqaa aa##@qA ## a@ wqtaw #@@@@w@ aaaw &## w ww w aw wwwwtaq w#at w£@@# www ## w wawewwwwa # wwaq qqaaaww wwaa awwaaw🕳️🕳️😶‍🌫️😶‍🌫️😭😙😶‍🌫️😭😮‍💨🥳😮‍💨😮‍💨😊 ww ww aw ww wwwaarawq a w ww wa@@ a wwwww🌜

[@allanr1515]

If the Kaiserreich was horrible what was Nicholas II's Russia? Far, far worse. If Russia had not collapsed would the allies have allowed Nicholas II's harder line autocratic rule over Poland, the Czechs, the Slovaks, the Balkans, Bulgaria and over the Bosphorous? The war for the Russians was all about the Turkish Straits. Would Britain have wanted the Russians to reign over those Straits giving the Russians domain over Persia and possibly threatening India? The Great War may have ended in the Great War II the same way Balkan War II followed immediately after Balkan War I. And by 1933 Hitler still would have been named Chancellor of Germany by von Hindenburg and the 1939-45 war would have happened but perhaps sooner. But in the end the Russians traded Tsar Nicholas for Tsar Stalin and everyone, including the Russians themselves, understood that they had over-rated "the Russian steamroller". My point is that Germany's Willy II was not the ruthless man Nicky II was though Nicky was France and Britain's ally. Maybe I should say less ruthless. The Russians committed their share of atrocities, especially against the Jews even though the Tsar had some 650,000 Russian Jews in his armies. It just occurred on the Eastern Front so it gets ignored by the Western Front enthusiasts.

[@Cttocs1]

It's not a competition

[@jonhart7630]

What are you talking about? Russia helped the Christian peoples in the Balkans liberate themselves from the Turkish despots.

[@georgeelmerdenbrough6906]

Thats a false dichotomy . There were bad actors on both sides .

[@georgeelmerdenbrough6906]

@@jonhart7630 Nicholas also was an incompetent iron fist .

[@jonhart7630]

@@georgeelmerdenbrough6906 No more incompetent than all the other great power rulers who got dragged into a catastrophic war.

[@chadgun4135]

Someone should take a close look at the driver of Ferdinands car imo

[@georgeelmerdenbrough6906]

The Kaiser was a very stable genius , too

[@Gorboduc]

Starts 9:45.

[@prophetic0311]

No Brit can resist imitating Churchill.

[@11Kralle]

Germany was already too big for its own good. France was too advanced and wealthy to shy away from allying with autocratic Russia. Austria-Hungary was a political joke with a german hook-line. Great-Britain was universally hated, yet saved by Edward VII. machinations. Russia was weakened enough economically, yet in need for a big military victory. The whole world was a powder-keg of social upheaval, a sasspool of the few in power organising manslaughter for millions of propagandised sheople.

[@georgeelmerdenbrough6906]

France advanced ? It was primarily agricultural .

[@McIntyreBible]

Mr, Hastings along with Christopher Clark and Margerate MacMillan are the preeminate historians on WWI.

[@McIntyreBible]

29:20, Hastings gets a laugh from his audience.

[@levd1292]

As Gore Vidal asks, "what's your preference, the Kaiser or Hitler?" That certainly worked out well.

[@eldragon4076]

four Beevor fans

[@francislouis5999]

Makes me dizzy to see how he turns his head up and down every 0.5 seconds.

[@McIntyreBible]

17:11, Hastings rejects this view of some historians.

[@user-qm7nw7vd5s]

Nearly ten minutes of blather before you let the guy talk?!

[@garypowell1540]

Sir Max should try better to remember that history is about past events it is not about predicting the future. We have no idea what the History of Europe would have been if the British and the Americans had simply said "thanks but no thanks" to the French and let them sort it out themselves. Speculation is interesting but a lot of things can happen over 100 years, some good, some bad, and much that is indifferent. To my knowledge, we can't run several universes at the same time with differing 'What if' scenarios however much fun and enlightening this would be. For example. What if Mary had a miscarriage? Maybe the world would be unrecognizable, or maybe some other kid would have come along a year or so later claiming to be the same thing, and so very little would have changed at all.

[@TrggrWarning]

So true, someone got what they wanted, at this point I doubt any of the primary combatants would count themselves among them.

[@MrDaiseymay]

Based on decades of research and high intelligence, he is perfectly capable and warranted in making assertions, not as fact, --but assertions. It's what all high ranking military are trained to do.

[@TrggrWarning]

@@MrDaiseymay lol reminds me of Colin Powell saying these are not assertions about Iraqi WMDs.... Accountability soon I hope

[@scottspencer6899]

Has max Hastings written a book on Afghanistan?

[@martinwetles]

It is impossible i would say to argue about July 1914 without taking in a whole lot of history form at least 1887 and the Bismarkian alliance system. If you simply start like Mr. Hastings does in june of 1914, of course it is easy to pin it all on the Germans. I also did not like his dismissive comments about Mr. Ferguson and his work on the conflict.

[@jimsandy4872]

Except for all the Bankers in the City of London who made a fortune in WW I.

[@ИринаКим-ъ5ч]

Jackson Kimberly Thompson James Smith Jeffrey

[@--Dani]

I couldn't agree more we cannot condemn our forefathers for their actions during that war through our so called more enlighten 21st century eyes, same for WW2 with stragic bombing and the atom bombs that were used to end the largest disaster in human history.

[@lanceheaps581]

Yeah it is easy to criticize when your life is not on the line.

[@ДмитрийДепутатов]

Davis Ronald Brown Scott Williams Sarah

[@rosesprog1722]

Britain had no obligation towards Belgium, there was a 1871 treaty of London recognizing Belgium's autonomy but there was no military defense obligation, British historians are still debating that one, Niall Ferguson goes as far as to say that Britain joining that war was the biggest mistake of the 20th century, It is Clear that Britain haf an empire to protect so that war had been planned and conceived a while ago by Lord Palmerston. Britain had the annoying tendency to eliminate the competition through unnatural alliances and military measures rather than using the traditional and accepted laws of commerce and fair competition, imagine, Churchill and Stalin despised each other, their alliance was very dark, they never sat besides each other, FDR was always between them so in the end, Britain list her empire trying to save it and in the process she killed millions and mentally ruined the European spirit for a long long time, some crimes destroy those who commit them much more than their victims.

[@jackreacher5667]

At last a person who Knows about Treaty's and not just a general survey of events in the past, It would also be better if the vast number of people who make comments on History videos on KZbin also had a better/working Knowledge of the Geneva convention, I salute you Sir.👏

[@rosesandsongs21]

@@jackreacher5667 Thenk you sir, you are very kind. The obligation to defend Belgium in WW1 (and Poland in WW2) appeared to me very unattractive in comparison with the number of human lives Britain had to pay to honor a "stupid piece of paper" signed eons ago by who knows who and who knows why, so much so that it started keeping me awake at night, I didn't eat anymore and eventually I fell in a deep deep depression... well, not quite but almost. SO, I asked my doctor and she prescribed me a week of serious research, renewable until the pathology had completely disappeared. It worked! He he. how I love words, anyway, I couldn't find anything to verify whether it was a legitimate reason for war or if those sneaky Brits had once again bullshitted everyone with their famously sinister balance of power principle... they had! So I started looking for documents, old newspapers, anything I could sink my teeth in, I really dug into this one and, unsurprisingly, it took about ten minutes and I had it. So: the first treaty of London in 1839 that created Belgium, recognized her legitimacy and forced upon her eternal neutrality (a Palmerston trick, an eternal landing site), this treaty was kind of binding, debatable but the revision of 1871, although more determined in it's intention did not include a plan of action, those vicious bastards had left a door halfway open, they could do whatever they wanted and either way, appear fully justified to the eyes of the world. Once again they had successfully defended their empire with those totally unethical and murderous but oh so British tricks. Continued...

[@rosesandsongs21]

@@jackreacher5667 I had my answer. A few weeks later, I found the ultimate "finasl nail in the coffin" of British Bulldog Bullshit. An unknown but providential French General by the name of Gen. Alexandre Percin who had given an interview to a French rag in 1925, he said: "I took a personal part in the winter of 1910-11 in a great campaign organized by the Superior Council of War, of which I was then a member but the question was not discussed as to whether we should follow the German lead in Belgium's territorial violation and if necessary, preceed the Germans ourselves or whether we should stop and wait for the enemy on our side of the Belgian border. That was a question of diplomscy rather than of a military kind but there is no doubt that any commander of troops who, in times of war learns that the enemy has the intention of occupying a location, the position of which gives him tactical advantage, has the imperative duty to try to occupy that point first himself, and as soon as ever he can. If any of us had said that out of respect for the treaty of 1839 he would, on his own initiative have remained on our side of the Belgian border, thus bringing the war on to French territory, he would have been scorned by his comrades and by the Minister of War himself." General Alexandre Percin in 'Ere Nouvelle' in 1925 And there we go, the world would never be the same and millions of lives were lost trying to save a dying, rotting empire through war, death and destruction rather than healthy competition, fairness and honesty... and I blame Churchill. Cheers.

[@jackreacher5667]

@@rosesandsongs21 In the same treaty if I am not mistaken (long time since I read this sort of stuff) the neutrality/defense of Denmark is also assured yet when Prussia went to war against the Danes In 1866 Britain did not interfere, a case of selective diplomacy,as Prussia at that time posed no threat to Britain. Nice talking to you,cheers.

[@rosesandsongs21]

@@jackreacher5667 I don't remember seeing that but it's very possible, at my age things get lost sometimes... Darn, I'm sure I had those treaties somewhere... Yes, nice talking to you too, take good care now, cheers.

[@SF-13z]

9:57

[@adielstephenson2929]

Why do they bother with all the crap at the start?

[@ralphbernhard1757]

Unfortunately London did not understand how "balance of power" works. Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books". Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"... London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"... EPISODE 1: "By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet." [Google: The_Great_Rapprochement] Sooooo gweat. Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends". What could possibly go wrong? EPISODE V: "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring". A "ring which ruled them all". The American Century. So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets. Now, fill in the blanks yourself. EPISODES II THRU IV... Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®) Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere. Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised. "Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...

[@rosesprog1722]

Indeed, The Gritish Empire, where the sun never sets, Because God would not trust them in the dark! Very just evaluation, you simply forgot to mention that FDR had said before the war that he was going to destroy the Gritish Empire, that it is Churchill who, by refusing all forms of compromise was in fact wholly responsible for bankrupting his country, for the was lasting 3 years more than it could have, that he bombed the 61 major German cities 125 times each killing... I don't know, that he let 3 or 4 million Bengalese starve to death, that he was working for Jewish bankers and that it was recently discovered that he was part of a dangerous ring of abusers but I haven't confirmed this one yet. The war was almost avoided when Lord Halifax opposed Churchill and proposed to make a deal with Germany ending the war and firing the "drunken bum" in 1940, one year after the start. Sadly, the fat bastard played one more bad trick of his own on the peace seekers and won. Just google: "War cabinet crisis, May 1940" I couldn't believe it. Also, maybe you know that but there is an excellent reportage about Keynes' visit to the US to borrow the billions for Britain. It's called "Britain and the USA, 1945-46" and it's on a channel called The History Room. I was amazed at your perfect description of this unknown episode and I loved your fwiends too! He he, that was cool. Cheers.

[@gopher7691]

So what?

[@levd1292]

Belgrade government not involved? No, but Intelligence branch of the Serb Army, was very much involved.How does he explain the weapons of the assassings had the stamp of the Serb Army arsenal stamp.? Usual British apologist position that while the "peaceful allies" were going about their business, the nasty Central Powers, got up one morning and said, "can't dance, and it's too wet to plow, might as well start a war." Without German defeat in World War 1, there would have been no Hitler. What's your preference, the Kaiser or Hitler? Hastings is a waste of time.

[@Cttocs1]

"Britain's leading military historian" - yeah, right - Antony Beevor all the way

[@martianemperor5137]

Nice sources...

[@eldragon4076]

NOPE

[@yellowjackboots2624]

Sod Beevor.

[@eddierousseau]

There are MANY good British historians on WW1 i.e. Gary Sheffield

[@castlerock58]

Another journalist spinning his narrative.

[@FrederickJohnSebastian]

What a contrast with Christopher Clark: Hastings is humorless, pedantic, and biased. He even speaks in dramatc demagogic tones. This passes for learned discourse?