Roskill Lecture 2018: Margaret MacMillan - Reflecting on the Great War Today

Historian Margaret MacMillan reflects on the meaning and significance of the Great War from the perspective of today: what it meant to Western civilization and to the world more broadly, and how we remember and commemorate it in our own time.
Margaret MacMillan is the Professor of History at the University of Toronto and the former Warden of St Antony’s College. Her books include Women of the Raj (1988, 2007); Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World (2001) for which she was the first woman to win the Samuel Johnson Prize; Nixon in China: Six Days that Changed the World; The Uses and Abuses of History (2008); and Extraordinary Canadians: Stephen Leacock (2009). Her most recent book is The War that Ended Peace. She is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and a Senior Fellow of Massey College, University of Toronto, Honorary Fellow of Trinity College, University of Toronto and of St Hilda’s College, University of Oxford, and sits on the boards of the Mosaic Institute and the editorial boards of International History and First World War Studies. She also is a Trustee of the Rhodes Trust and has just been announced as the Reith Lecturer for 2018.
She has honorary degrees from the University of King’s College, the Royal Military College, the University of Western Ontario, Ryerson University, Toronto, Huron University College of the University of Western Ontario, the University of Calgary and the University of Toronto. In 2006 Professor MacMillan was invested as an Officer of the Order of Canada and in 2015 became a Companion, also becoming a CH in the 2018 Honours List.
Find out more: www.chu.cam.ac.uk/news/2018/feb/2/roskill-lecture-2018/
Recorded: 31 January 2018

[@theque6566]

To get past the intro go to the 7 minute spot. Very enjoyable talk

[@davidtrindle6473]

Excellent! Thank you! History is subtle and complex.

[@scottscottsdale7868]

As I think back on my life, I took a Freshman Seminar in Fall of 1981 in college. It was titled 1919. I learned literally everything in the western world had been changed. Everything. I think it is a wonderful canvass for so many ways of thinking about everything. But then again I am a huge proponent of a liberal arts undergraduate education.

[@ottavva]

W.B.Yeats I know that I shall meet my fate Somewhere among the clouds above; Those that I fight I do not hate, Those that I guard I do not love.

[@bebopalooblog2877]

The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity

[@ottavva]

@@bebopalooblog2877 trying to impress with meaningless multi-syllabic words, eh ??

[@bebopalooblog2877]

@@ottavva it's a quote from Yeats you illiterate fool. Perhaps the single most famous quote for that matter. WTF is the matter with you? Google not working at your house?

[@ottavva]

@@bebopalooblog2877 yeats' quotes enter

[@halwarner3326]

Beautiful delivery.

[@ottavva]

only ''beautiful'' ??? it is BRILLIANT :) :)

[@jackmarksman1212]

Awesome talks by the way. :)

[@SoulTheMagnificent]

Margaret MacMillan has a beautiful voice and a very nice accent.

[@ottavva]

a wonderful lecture, one of the best I have heard a wonderful lecture, one of the best I have heard a wonderful lecture, one of the best I have heard a wonderful lecture, one of the best I have heard a wonderful lecture, one of the best I have heard

[@nervrzrawRIch-JF]

I don't understand? Could you elaborate?

[@terencenxumalo1159]

good work

[@Cotswolds1913]

Anyone know where MacMillan's thesis on India can be found?

[@Conn30Mtenor]

she has an email address.

[@debralittle1341]

Hindsight is always 20/20

[@dhastagirsheriff1723]

It is a great lecture with facts and figures of human history and human nature. The victor and the vanquished are the two sides of the same coin of one fighting for honor and the other fighting for conquest. Whether it is the war in Europe, Asia or North America or in the Indian subcontinent. Many are worshiped as heroes and many as dictators. Even now the world is on the edge of war- whether in Arab countries or Korean Peninsula or in Afghanistan or indirect proxy wars of cyber activity or economic front. I am reminded of the scene from Ten Commandments- Moses carrying the stones carved with the commandments asking people to choose between the truth and myth of luxury of lust, intoxication, and God of convenience. We see the honor clad American President wishing to assert the authority of the USA in the global scene, some playing the card of religion or the Iran- US clash of who holds sway in the nuclear world dictating who can have nuclear weapons or who cannot have such weapons of mass destruction. Amidst the battle between pride and fear, the world seems to run smoothly though technology has created another ghost of climate change, floods, drought, forest fires and even scarcity of water. Human race now lacks leaders with a vision that threatens human society. Yet this is a beautiful world with ordinary citizens as the flowers of living trying to live with Nature. These thoughts are of an ordinary citizen of the world who does not enjoy the privileges of a NATO soldier or the Ambassadors of different nations or the member of the UN. I am a global citizen who foresees the futility of power, arsenal, weapons of mass destruction manned or unmanned and could feel the anxious uncertainty of many threatened by human violence by any name. Yet this is a wonderful world with great human beings who wish to live and love each other.

[@jojogeneral2928]

Men do not fight for honour. That is the official excuse. Men fight for territorial expansion, control and resources. Often, for all three.

[@hyj4ck25]

"Facts" taken at face value deceive the uninformed mind. Sources must be examined... kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4DVe5yPmNaqqbM

[@tamar3218]

You have so many lords

[@h.e.hazelhorst9838]

Very interesting! Especially in the light of what happened in Ukraine… What puzzles me is that the military planners did not drawn their conclusions after the balkan wars in 1911 and 1912. In these conflicts, the power of the machine gun and modern artillery clearly shifted the strategic advantage to the defender.

[@nervrzrawRIch-JF]

Yep I bet hundreds of years later it'll be "thee world war" and itll combine the great war to ones that haven't even happened yet

[@jackmarksman1212]

Margaret, I have a book called "The Standard Dictionary of Facts" published in 1913 written by Henry Woldmar Ruoff that I read a fair amount of 20+ years ago comparing things from the turn of the last century to now (well the 1990's) It has a pamplet with it and thats called "Some Test Questions on The Standard Dictionary of Facts". I noted at the time that these facts do imply that war was inevitable, a build up of arms on both sides. Back then I had little interest in WWI and I could sense the tensions by the facts just in this book. I wonder if plans began back in 1906 when Britain launched the first dreadnaught. Germany seeing this as a great opportunity to begin building its fleet now to out build or at least match Britain's naval supremacy since all the pre-dreadnaught ships were now obsolete. If you do not have this book, I am willing to send it no charge so it gets some use.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

Confusing "causes" and "effects" is one of the basic logical fallacies. In fact it is easy to misdirect and point fingers when it comes to "who started it". One can simply gather up a bunch of random evidence, and then make theories (see "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy"). Anybody can do that. Fact? *London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy.* No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. 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. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends", not lasting alliances. Before 1871, a divided Central Europe, and the millions of subjects living here, were useful to those on the fringes (esp. to the UK and France), since the rulers in this disunity offered useful "tools" which could be allied with or "hopped onto" to effect a short-term solution in a crises or war (usually diplomatic, but also wars). The above is also known and acknowledged as the "not accept a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, in other words not speculative or disputed. London made every single German citizen "the rival/enemy" as a matter of policy, irrelevant of how crises/wars started, or who fired the first diplomatic/military shots, as long as Germany remained the strongest continental power/alliance. That came first. All these London policy standpoints (Splendid Isolation" = not "making eternal friends") were of course classical cases of "divide and rule" on the "elites/establishment"-level. The trick of dividing and ruling is to create just enough content = complacency to settle things down in the short term, but at the same time enough tension to ensure future strife/division. The "divider" creates default "favorites" (favoratism) and default "others", and "winners and losers", which they can then steer against each other if they wish, or unite if it's convenient. Sometimes planned, sometimes the result of unfortunate prior mistakes, but then exploited. Also note in such "games": there are no "eternal friends" or "eternal enemies". There are no "eternal rights" or "eternal wrongs". Only eternal interests. Or, as A.J.P. Taylor would say: keep the continent in an eternal state of tension. Once established, they started brainwashing young Brits to hate/dislike Germans and their leaders. *The technical term for this is "priming" and "conditioning".* From wiki: "Invasion literature (also the invasion novel) is a literary genre that was popular in the period between 1871 and the First World War (1914-1918). The invasion novel first was recognized as a literary genre in the UK, with the novella The Battle of Dorking: Reminiscences of a Volunteer (1871), an account of a German invasion of England...." Note. 1871 What happened in 1871? Oh right. Germany united, became the continent's strongest power, and was immediately considered as "a hostile nation" by "the few" (lords), before anything else even happened. Any majority opinions by people which might or might not have existed at the time did not matter. Of course as time progressed and the people gained more and more say in matters (much to the agony of the conservative leaders/money elites), the ways of "divide and rule" also adapted/morphed: to set up the self-reinforcing process of "priming" and "conditioning" of "the masses" which needed to turned against each other, the means of literature was created. As more people became literate, and as print became cheaper and cheaper (reaching larger and larger parts of the population as time passed), and the evolving liberty meant that a ruler could not simply go into a village and say "you, you, you, grab your pitchfork, there is a war going on" as time progressed (say, the 19th century). On a sidenote, today this process of "priming/conditioning" of the (mostly) young and inexperienced, is well-known when it became public how the Pentagon funds Hollywood movies which depict "certain people" as enemies. Of course, had Rambo and movies existed in the late 19th Century, he would've "fought Injuns", but it just so happens that he "fought commies" (Cold War) together with "our best fwiends the Muslims". Also movies with lotsa "Mexican looking types" (War on Drugs). Eternal cycles of friends one day, enemies the next... In the late-19th century, with the German economy growing, this was not coincidence of course. From another thesis: "Politicisation of a cultural stereotype: Germany and Germans in English literature "[The] description of the romantic character of Germans stood for an interpretation which had already reduced Germany's complex political reality... In the words of Robert Browning, the Germany of the early century was similar to 'a tall, old, quaint irregular town'..." *So Germans were "a quaint village" while they were "temporary/usefull best fwiends".* How cute... *By 1878.* "This was also accompanied by a similar change in political satire: in the Punch of March 1878, Bismarck appeared as a Germanic tribal chief suppressing his inferiors and displaying the `Vae Victis' (`Woe to the losers') as his new political motto. The Fortnightly Review of December 1878 accordingly commented on the Iron Chancellor: *'The German of the primitive time survives in him; or rather, he appears among us like the God Thor of the Scandinavian Olympus, bearing in mind his iron hammer, and unchaining the tempests'* (de Laveleye1878: 786)." Both from JÖRN LEONHARD Construction and Perception of National Images: Germany and Britain, 1870 - 1914 (available for download as PDF file) *Weird.* What a coincidence that the "cultured German" of the Dichter and Denker (Poets and Philosophers) turned into the barbarian "eternal Jermin" just as they united and become the continent's strongest power in 1871, replacing France as the "default hate group." *Was the above purely intent?* Not necessarily. Authors, journalists, the first movie makers, cartoonists and other contemporary "influencers" at the time who "jumped on the bandwaggon" didn't necessarily have evil intent. Wishing to simply "pay the bills" is not "evil". An effect of capitalism, not evil intent. In GB this process of "priming" and "conditioning" in the form of "invasion scare literature" (a term which can be googled for more info) against the Germans started almost the same time as they united (1871), formed an unbreakable unity (1879), and took over the role of "most likely to achieve continental hegemony" from France. Before that, "the Germans" were "best fwiends" of course... *Was the above "steered" or "a conspiracy theory"?* No, because that is the great thing about "free and liberal societies". *One doesn't have to convince every single person.* It is sufficient to convince just enough to get the ball rolling. Nothing new of course either, nor is it "conspiracy theory"-nonsense, since the process is self-reinforcing. If it sells (popularism), it will get copied. It is not necessarilly "steered" by dark-hooded figures in "back rooms". Once the ball rolls, the rest will follow in the wake.

[@Conn30Mtenor]

China's ambition to build a blue water navy to confront the USA seems to echo Germany's fleet.

[@robdewey317]

Yipping stops at 7:15

[@seanlander9321]

One of the legacies of WWI is the French war debt to Britain. The French haven’t paid a penny on their loans since 1931 which means the debt has increased to more than a trillion pounds.

[@lenabo9929]

Don't both still owe America

[@seanlander9321]

@@lenabo9929 Britain made the final payment in 2015.

[@ellenrichardson7819]

Applying the point of larger state having a smaller state as a client and the risks associated with that to US & NATO with it's Ukrainian client and loss of prestige & risk of larger war when little state fails . Professor could be predicting that in 2018 when she gave lectures

[@user-oc6dh2yp2w]

Ukraine is too big to be a client state. Ukraine is more like an unofficial ally of the US. Not helping Ukraine would actually lead to a larger war because Putin is dreaming of world domination.

[@cecilefox9136]

I live in Spain and was very disappointed by the meagre coverage on Spanish television!

[@briandelaney9710]

My great uncle served in France 2 weeks after coming back to Southern Ohio, he drowned in the Ohio River

[@abduljabarabboodi7690]

تحيه لك سيدتي !

[@ottavva]

19:26 ''volte-face'' ... the Italian political style ''SCIVOLARE''

[@neilsherman2680]

Causes of and consequences of WW1; so many opinions and so many contributing factors. And, so many ifs…..IF the Kaiser through his foreign minister had not given Austria-Hungary a “blank check” backing the war on Serbia, then perhaps Russia would not have started mobilization… just one of many IFs.

[@themsmloveswar3985]

Franz Ferdinand and his wife were extremely close friends of Wilhelm. He felt a certain obligation. Oddly the two individuals who could have stopped it were assassinated.

[@McIntyreBible]

21:04, MacMillan's belief of what contributed to the First World War.

[@Mandibil]

Federal reserve 1913 ??? anyone ?

[@ottavva]

1:10:52 only we did not have a bomb with a pin in it

[@Conn30Mtenor]

I don't think that Europe ever recovered from the Great War.

[@ottavva]

19:56 a ''volte-face'' ... Italian politics ''scivolare'' ...

[@robertewing3114]

I think she misses the point, nothing did happen for 20 years after 1919 except crisis management in the mid to late 1930s, the crises themselves the result of too little done before 1933, the treaty, like much law, was simply enacted as if it had the power itself to achieve its purpose. The Victor's relied too much on paperwork that was really quite meaningless to Germany. The academics tend to side with paperwork, in reality the law is nothing without action and the League of Nations was an example of law without meaning. It is also mistaken to suggest Chamberlain attempted still more meaningless paperwork, the reality of his actions is known from what he said and wrote privately, not what he said in public, and he was very much against the League hypocrisy, against Hitler obtaining power etc. The giant looney asylum is a building in which indoctrination subordinates the reality of dictatorship. No surprise two dictator like leaders were in summit, and no surprise academia attacked Chamberlain for it - the forces that caused the wars exist to this day, and Chamberlain won the battle at Munich, as Hitler ultimately concluded, the treaty of 1919 led to Hitler and thereby the inevitability of WWII.

[@ottavva]

45:00 WW1 did not end with CAPITULATION but rather just as a CEASE-FIRE

[@terry296xy]

Italy lost 650000 men in the first world but this woman hardly mentions it

[@tolyamochin4066]

А потому что англосаксы это те выблюдки, которые рксстраиваются, если их убивают. А вот на остальные народы мира им глубоко плевать.

[@themsmloveswar3985]

The Italian politicians who led instigated Italian involvement also hardly mentioned it.....

[@McIntyreBible]

14:03, the writer she quotes from shouldn't have taken his idea from Freud (who was nothing but a humanistic thinker!), but from the Holy Scriptures. The reason the good times didn't last was because "the heart of man is desperately wicked"

[@davidtrindle6473]

France didn’t “voluntarily” join the war; they were ATTACKED by the Germans and had to defend themselves. No question the Germans were most at fault. They were the first major country to mobilize; they had a culture idolizing war and military conquest; they invaded neutral belgium; they were the ones to introduce poison gas; German leaders lied to the people by insisting they were winning the war when they were actually losing, thereby convincing the people and many soldiers that they hadn’t really lost the war, leaving the German people enraged at the terms of the treaty of versaille, when the treaty was far more lenient with Germany than Germany had been to Russia at Brest lovask, or to France when Germany invaded and occupied them in 1870, where the Germans imposed draconian reparations and additional financial penalties, and the grabbing of Alsace Lorraine. It wasn’t until WWII that the arrogant Germans were crushed and finally admitted their horrendous aggression and hideous racism.

[@billrichter8871]

Margaret, President Trump had 4 years of peace, called NATO on their financial obligations and talked to islolated nations such as North Korea, your worries were unfounded.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

WW1 was a war of choice. Because each country which joined WW1 did so voluntarily, with the exception of Belgium. There were no binding defense treaties (like NATO is today). The leaders of each country therefore implemented what is known as "war of choice". Each nation only has its own historical leaders to blame. Blaming Germany for it, is a fallacious form of argumentation known as "outcome bias". That means that historical decisions once taken are judged by the outcome, rather than judged by what the original intention of the decision was. As far as "poor Belgians" as Casus Belli for GB and the Empire.... First off: "poor Belgians" was an emotional argument, same as "WMDs" and "Saddam Hussein involved in 9/11" back in 2003....and its always the same people who are going to be fooled by it. The young, and the ignorant. Belgium was a pretext for war for the British Empire. *British leaders had multiple chances and choices to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to.* British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB. In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war. *According to historians, the British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war", in other words, Belgium was Casus Belli.* Correct? *Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". In other words, no invasion, no Casus Belli...* Also correct? Berlin therefore approached London, stating just that. Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation). Foreign minister Grey refused, stating that GB reserved the right to join the war at any future point in time. That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext. British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to. Belgium was a so-called geostrategic barrier to ensure the Policy of Balance of Power, and protect the British Empire. GB fought WW1 for own interests, not the "safety of others" or any other emotional argument.

[@bolivar2153]

Germany didn't offer to respect Belgian neutrality. (Edit : Bethmann offered to "respect the Netherland's neutrality and integrity" and to "respect Belgium's integrity after the end of hostilities". Notice the difference?)

[@bolivar2153]

Britain offered to stay "neutral" if Germany did likewise. (Edit : As per the Grey/Lichnowsky "mis-understanding")

[@bolivar2153]

On 1 August 1914, Britain's cabinet voted not to join the war. On 2 August 1914, they voted again not to involve themselves in the war, and concluded that a limited "incursion" of German forces across the lower tip of Belgium from Luxemburg would not be of sufficient threat to Belgian sovereignty to warrant British involvement. Germany's march across the centre of Belgium towards Liege (as per the German mobilisation schedule) and it's declaration of war on Belgium rendered any such hopes futile.

[@bolivar2153]

Peace with Belgium was a matter between Belgium and Germany, not Britain. Germany demanded passage for her armed forces through Belgian territories to attack it's neighbour, France. Belgium, honouring it's commitment to the Treaty of London, and in compliance with the Hague Convention 1907 (V), refused. Germany, in breach of the Treaty of London and in clear and deliberate violation of the Hague Convention 1907 (V) invaded Belgium and declared war on her.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

@@bolivar2153 Thank you for confirming my main points, which are *"WW1 was a war of choice.* Because each country which joined WW1 did so voluntarily, with the exception of Belgium." ...and... *"Belgium was a so-called geostrategic barrier to ensure the Policy of Balance of Power, and protect the British Empire.* GB fought WW1 for own interests, not the "safety of others" or any other emotional argument."

[@Mandibil]

"I am not sure popular participation is always a good thing" ... that attitude is exactly why people are fed up with EU and "modern politics". If you are forced to "pay" taxes to a certain "group" of people, you obviously don't want some third party (whoever they may be) to come and leach off of it. But politicians need to dilute national resistance with "imports" who come for the "welfare" money. Academics are also there for the "welfare" money, so it is no wonder they cannot see a problem. You don't bite the hand that feed you !

[@halwarner3326]

You are spot on. Even I am guilty of this at times. Some people rely on redistribution as a means of survival. Particularly academics.

[@Mandibil]

@@halwarner3326 👍

[@tolyamochin4066]

Вы верно подметили - все историки запада получают деньги и социальные блага от правящих элит. Поэтому они никогда не будут критиковать тех, кто их кормит.

[@dennisroyhall121]

Those stupid sub titles cannot even give honour to the correct spelling of the name of the founder of the BBC- shame!

[@joevondemapfel]

She’s a good speaker but an average historian.

[@kelrogers8480]

No need to make excuses for Darwin. Eugenics and social Darwinism were just natural outworkings and applications of this theories! Mankind is just another animal, after all? No accountability for his moral choices, or to to anyone higher than himself. What else do you expect when you seek to do away with God in such a spectacular fashion? We reap what we sow, it's a spiritual law.

[@user-oc6dh2yp2w]

Nonsense. There is no such thing as god.

[@richardnailhistorical3445]

Margaret is on to something here - 'if you don't struggle you don't deserve to survive' .............I'll go along with that philosophy, it's been mine for my life. Don't think for one moment that 'survival of the fittest' does not apply to humans; it especially applies to humans! The fact that humans occasionally show compassion for another person does not mean that person isn't thinking of his own survival first. All of this socialism that is running rampant around the world currently is only due to the advancement of technologies in agriculture and transport. The UN, IMF and WB are destroying the environment of the planet by underpinning backward/3rd world and in some cases, barbaric societies, prompt jumping their social systems into 21st century THUS allowing them to now further exploit their environments which previously was not possible. This 'Triumvirate' of 'do-gooders' is exponentially promoting ecosystem collapse and when that happens we will see how 'equality' will prevail! Nobody wants a 'sustainable' planet! What Margaret does not understand about homo sapiens is that there was a split off of the species several million years ago where one branch is now called 'homo erections' who have no desire for sustainability, think everything is infinite, and love war for the glory alone!

[@richardnailhistorical3445]

@Psycho Killer well why don't you tell me mr. psycho? tell us all your backed up constipated knowledge your hiding from the rest of us, we're listening ......

[@RobertHearn-hu2br]

This is a typical academic who is completely clueless in regards to working people and soldiers because she has never done such let alone starved. Canadian historian deflecting the ugly truth that German people were so advanced in product manufacturing and distribution . England's corporate culture could not compete, so they instigate a war. Look at the history she forgets to mention the Rothchilds influence let the Boar War. People like her want to change history,disgusting I say.😀

[@RobertHearn-hu2br]

Doug Bevins wacko

[@shanejean5821]

@Doug Bevins How is he antisemiic???

[@shanejean5821]

@Doug Bevins I still dont get how mentioning Rothschild is antisemitic. This makes no sense

[@agneschamot7284]

Margaret MacMillan is the great-granddaughter of British Prime Minister David Lloyd George and thus not an objective historian. You can see this, by the way, in the nonsense she spouts about European countries. She actually thinks that Germany alone was to blame for the First World War and was the most aggressive nation in Europe. This is absolutely ridiculous and can be read in "The Sleepwalkers" with several sources. She is trying to keep her grandfather's legacy pure, but England was partly to blame for WW1 and what they did to the Germans. 100,000 starvation deaths in Germany after the Versailles Treaty, deliberately. They wanted to wipe out Germany France probably a bit more than David Lloyd George. Anyway, Ms MacMilan is an imposition as a historian.

[@ElviraTran]

Ironically, after having listened to MacMillan's 1914: Day by Day podcast on the BBC, I came to the opposite conclusion that you did. I felt that the podcast did a lot of work to advance the idea that Germany alone was NOT to blame for the war; Austria did its fair share to speed things along. In one of her talks about the Paris peace conference, she argues that Germany was apportioned all the blame because Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire fell apart after the war and so did not exist to be punished. Of course, the fact that she makes the case for spreading more blame among the Central Powers doesn't necessarily mean that she endorses a view of greater British responsibility, but as she says in the podcast: "There are always choices."

[@surkewrasoul4711]

Sorry , I am taken 😊😇

[@willboudreau1187]

I have listened to hour after hour Spellbound by Margaret McMillan's eloquence and depth of knowledge of History exceeded only by the breadth of her understanding as well as her supposed non-biased approach to her subject matter. I say the word supposed not to be flip or disrespectful but it has always been a curiosity to me listening to so much of her KZbin content that how quickly and frequently the term right wing comes out of her mouth compared to the equally odious term left-wing which has done arguably more damage to the world. It's a simple-minded test that this simple-minded commenter always uses to judge the bias or lack thereof of whomever I am listening to and trying to judge the veracity of. Just saying.