Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book TV 20140105

And it was really a pleasure to do and its a very, like i said, its a really happy story. Great. Thank you for your time. Up next on booktv, Margaret Macmillan Come International history professor at Oxford University examines the lead up to world war i. This is just over one hour. Welcome everybody to todays council on Foreign Relations meeting. I look back at the build up to the great war with Margaret Macmillan and Robert Massie. Im david amblin, editor of world policy journal and i would like to welcome our National Members participating in this meeting through the live screen. You know, i was sitting at lunch i have a little surprise for our two guests, because i checked 100 years ago today out of curiosity come november 4, 1913, the United States was preparing to muster 500,000 troops and gear up for war against a major power. President wilson had just given an ultimatum to that nations head of state but we didnt go to war. At least not them. That major power was on this side of the atlantic your it was mexico. The great menace of that moment. So i found this on the front page, where else, the new york times. The next 17 pages of that days paper there was not a single mention of europe. Wheres our two featured office today have chronicled very currently, the seeds of the real world war i already germinating. Europe was building towards a far broader and more deadly confrontation. Su27 alldistrict is my great pleasure to welcome margaret, her new book, the war that ended peace, as she was describing the world the most in pairs. And on the far side, robert, [inaudible] is masterful i must say. It of course showed how the great war truly proved the way to integrate current that were already building in your. And, of course, its been a great passion of mine, especially much of my life since college, especially my last book, coming out a new edition just in time for the ones anniversary of the actual start to the war next summer. Speaking of which there are many ways to approach the great turning point. Fundamentally come down to personalities and historical imperative. Margaret, in your new book i want to quote something on how you start off. Of code of few words. A few generals, crowned heads, diplomats or politicians have the power and authority to say either yes or no to mobilizing the armies compromiscompromis e to carry out the plans already drawn up by the military. The big question was, was it in fact im controllable forces that were inevitably or was it in the end individual . I dont think there were forces moving the world inevitably towards war. I am very reluctant in history to talk about inevitability. That means theres nothing we can do. I think there are choices and they think what you had before 1940 were forces pushing towards work, heightened nationalism, rivalries and arms race and so on. But you also get the same time strong forces for peace. Yet a lot of people in europe e thought we were so progressive, advanced that we will ever have a war again. You had a big middleclass peace movement, the workingclass and socialist movement which have said repeatedly they wouldnt take part in the capitalist war. So seems to me europe was poised between these different sorts of forces but i would myself use the word inevitable. Robert, so many of the works before and since but in dread not you point out the naval strength. We think of the great wars with the last great ground warfare. Was at the dreadnoughts are was at the people who are, in fact, pretty dreadful . [laughter] the dreadnoughts were created by the people. William the second was victorious oldest child. He spent his summers in england. He desired he was have english and he desired to be accepted by his english family and by the british people as that. And his mother was victoria soto oldest child victorious oldest child, et cetera, et cetera. Is also the heir to the german throne and he was subject to the imperial aptitudes and swagger and so forth of this marks germany. Germany became in that generation from the time that williams grandfather became emperor after the collapse of france, became the greatest industrial and military power on the continent with a great army. But i wholly agree, she said it better than i could, that all these factors, and osha, military and so forth, were at the disposition, not playthings but the apparatus which individuals were operating. And, therefore, it was very important who these individuals were, whether antecedents have been, dynastic we, genealogically, politically. Wilhelm was the emperor of germany. He was a physically afflicted and psychologically, i think, afflicted man. He had great power for i wont call it evil, but for destruction. And he was constantly shifting back and forth between a sort of paula desire to do good, to be recognized in europe as a factor for good, but im launched from what she said. I would say the dreadnoughts race was because wilhelm wanted a great navy, a high seas fleet. Britain and france had already gobbled up all the colonies but no one knew quite what the german navy was for. Certainly, the british didnt. They asked themselves, hes got the most powerful army in europe. Why does he need a great navy . Who i isnt supposed to be building against . At races and interesting point, market, it seems to me one of the seminal events of the lead up to the war and the war itself was really the end of a host of empires that were led by these great leaders. Its really a conflict that brought probably more empires to an end in one fell swoop than any other conflict probably in history. Youre the historian of course more than i. But did these empires, by 1913, had these empires and the people who ran than simply became untenable and this is one of the motive forces that got us into the conflict . I dont think they had become untenable. They thought they were still tenable. And nationalist movements which are going to tear them apart to pieces were very much the to do by the First World War when people in africa and asia saw with the europeans could do. They no longer believed in the myth these people are somehow better suited to ruled them than they were themselves. I think what happened in 1913 is so much of the world have been divided up into was a much left. There was china but i think there was a general feeling if we tried to do that we but really in the award, and there was the ottoman empire. But i think whats more important was this id you couldnt be this goes back to what Robert Massie was saying you could be a great without having any by. We dont think like that. That fashions in International Relations as much as there are in any other aspect of human activity. There was this belief are because britain was the comment our intellect to 14, that the empire was what made it dominant, that you can be a great power and that meant having entity. Certainly wilhelm is a huge part in this but you have to put not find exactly but the influence of captain alfred mohan, the American Naval thinker, is huge. He expressed the idea that great powers of empires. They have navies to you cant get rid of without having a navy to protect trade and your empire. I think wilhelm read that book, the influence of sea power upon history, and said im entranced. Ive never read anything so wonderful. He ordered the copies be put in the cabinet of every german get. I read somewhere that he said sermon should be given in german churches about those ideas which make for very odd sermons. This is true. [laughter] he always went overboard on things. Spent thats a very narrow slice slice into time. So really theres a very narrow slice of time that this sort of thing would becomes a critical and that the were individuals who headed up governments and so on who would be willing to back down in the face of that, right . The trouble with the wilhelm was both his personality, very erratic person who have this lovehate relationship with britain. He wanted to emulate them but he also feared them. Very coveted. He was in charge of a very powerful nation and it wouldnt have mattered if he didnt the british king because the british king had no power under the british constitution. Wouldnt have mattered if youre thinking about then you. It wouldve mattered for the albanians but not for the rest of your. But he was in charge of this are a powerful country at the heart of your. German reunification, you suddenly had this huge power and getting more powerful. I did have this very powerful army. When wilhelm of germany, he had a great deal of power under the german constitution. I think thats what made him so dangerous. This sort of imperial presidency doesnt seem to work very much anymore. Winston churchill, as you know very well, was able to dictate so many Different Things during the Second World War. Nowadays, cameron gave even get parliament to bow to his least well. The imperial presidency seems to be changing in some ways, or the imperial leader. Do you have that since . Well, certainly barack obama is an example of the president who struggling to enact this legislation his legislation and has struggled with decisions. I have always thought im a lifelong democrat, and i remember at allied adlai stevenson, the first count i voted for. But ive come to believe that in that period of the 50s, im in retrospect glad that Dwight Eisenhower was the president. He had the experience, maybe not the articulation, but the experience and the presence and reputation to stand up to khrushchev, and he had military superiority. But i think that well, personality matters. Im getting back to that. I think that the buildup of the german navy, which the kaiser hankered after for the reasons that market has eloquently expressed, was not intended as a real challenge to britain. It was intended as an add on to military power. Were going to be a great world power. And the british, who depended only the british army was expert, but tiny, relatively. They only had the navy. It gave them come it provided them with a pacs britannica. They police the seas for, among others, german commercial trade. But any evidence of another Power Building the building, grading the ability to invade, just cross the channel and bring the army into britain was unthinkable. And thats why liberal government came in in 1906. They had all kinds of social plans, education, old age and so forth. They spent every pound on battleships. Market, every historian sees major events like this through their own prism. Ajp taylor saw the approximate cost of the war as railway timetables giving with troop movements. The question is, and robert sees a lot of the prism is the dreadnought. What is your prism for this period, crucial period leading up to world war i . Probably a very refracted prism, more like a kaleidoscope. I have trouble in figure one main cause of the war and i dont think there is one. Its the congress of causes and its also timing. In particular sequence, it makes a difference. What you had by 1914 were certainly pressures building up that were tending towards war. You also had a growing acceptance of the possibility of war, which is very dangerous. What struck me more and more whenever there was a crisis, people didnt say if theres a war. They said when there is a war. There were real expectations they would be at some point a general european war. One of the images that was often used at the time was a thunderstorm. Its very oppressive, heavy. It was a relief to get it over with and then well all feel better and will have a quick, short war and have peace. What you also had was a very dangerous since by 1914 that we can get through these crises because they had been a series of crises, if you look at them even closer and closer together, then a series of crises in the balkans between 1911 and right up until 1914, it was this dangerous sense of complacency that weve got through all of these, well get to them again. In the summer of 1914, people didnt take it socially. The british were preoccupied with the possibility of civil war over ireland. If you look at british newspapers for most of july 1914, the headlines are about island, not about whats happening in the balkans. I think you get accommodation not enough people in positions of authority prepared to accept work to be used as an instrument of policy and without terrible expense even though they should have known better. And also an expectation that on the other hand, its another crisis, will probably get through it again. I think you didnt get them and i would say this is true of the british, who didnt people taking crisis is enough until it was almost too late. Im fascinated also by tinderboxes. I spent three years living in belgrade so the balkans are one of my prisms. My wife and i just traveled through albania earlier this year. Im fascinated as to the role you think that the tinderbox and that Tipping Point played in all of this. It seems to have been very crucial to the priorities of so many of the powers involved in this. Could this war have occurred i mean, it might have eventually have occurred that could have occurred without of some of a lot of the tensions in the balkans leading up to all the . I think it could have occurred because your great power rivalries. Britain and france went to war in 1898. Britain and russia would, came close to war in 1906. There were other causes. The balkans were particularly dangers because of where they were. There were a number of interest met. Rather like the middle east today oppressed the south china seas today, not just local interest. In the balkans unite us as a very active local nationalisms, and these were becoming more vociferous rather than less. What you also had were great power interest. You have the russians, i think what sort of sentimental stuff mostly the pants law stuff. And a warm water port which is much more important. And the straits going to the black sea into the mediterranean were hugely important for russia. Over half its grain exports went that way. It was vital, a vital sort of passageway for the russians. Vignette austriahungary seeing served as an existential threat which had to be destroyed before helped to destroy austriahungary. You are germany and italy. They had a sort of combination of very dangerous local rivalries with outside powers being dragged him. Robert, id be interested, because you have a perspective, a little bit longer perspective in terms of research over the last quarter century. Do you have any sense that anything weve learned since then through the archives, and market, since youve recently been archived you could probably respond to this as well, whether our thinking about this era has changed anyway since you first wrote dreadnought nearly a quartercentury ago. I mean, still very relevant. David, ive got five or six books to read that i know of, beginning with margaret, to learn what later, fresher research has taught us. Ive never felt ive never been asked this kind of a conference or panel on the subject, so ive not thought about it much. Ive been going back to russia. But i will be very interested to read what you and max hastings and the fellow who thinks the russians started the war robert meakin. Yeah. And others but i mean, the war began 10 months ago. Weve got five books now. Probably thats enough, but. [laughter] i dont think publishers or authors as, i dont know, would agree with me. So we can read and i am going, beginning with your book, to see what you say i need to think rethink your i would just say that, talking about the balkans, ive always thought that the hops were government hapsburg government indiana was very worried about disturbing influence, sort of magnetic pole on the serbs, on the slavs within the empire. They have been looking for an excuse to do something about it, if necessarily militarily, and increasingly military. And the pretext was perfect. The black hand, or a young man under the influence, assassinated the heir to the throne. And everybody in europe, nobody approved of a regicide, i dont know what you call it, an heiricide. [laughter] but will then when serbia gave its ultimatum, austria gave its ultimatum to serbia, along with a lot of other things, the final thing the serbs can accept was that austrians must be part of the judicial or panel, which was going to interrogate and trace back the connections that this assassination had to serbia and so forth. And the kaiser was aware, and the german generals staff was aware, that austria was germanys only ally in europe, that austria was crumbling in its adhesion to the Imperial Administration indiana, and theyd really needed to do something. And they decided were going to make this ultimatum, as they did. And they bombarded no great. Occupied and so forth. The emperors tried various ways to stop the progression to war. Willynicky letters and so forth. I have always seen that not is just a pretext, but i think what mark was saying, a culmination of this very dangerous opens situation, and then Everybody Knows the german generals staff had planned for war against france, when and if it happened, as a part of a war against russia. They were going to strike friends down first, six week wes the pairs, and it didnt turn out that way. Before we turn to our members, and since the council is not did you want speed im just agreeing with him. Good, excellent the we like agreement, and disagreement. Since the council is no force great thinking about todays world, id like to reflect on some lessons we might try we might draw on. Our world is facing similar challenges, some revolution in ideological, such as the rise of militant religious or social protest movements, others coming from the streets between rising and declining nations, such as china and the United States. I leave open the question of which is which. You continue, during previous crises, europes leaders and large parts of the people had supported them, have chosen to work matters out and to preserve the peace. This clearly failed. What lessons can we draw from this kind of a dynamic today, if there is any . Not very helpful ones, perhaps but i think certain precepts. I dont think history ever offers is very clear lessons but i think there is always i think this dangerous moment in International Relations were hit nations such as germany which are rising in power and as yet uncertain of how to express that power. They are often not very tactful. They are often wanting to place in the sun. You of nations which have been the hegemonic powers which perhaps dont always do enough to come at a these rising powers. I think it needs tax and management on both sides. I hope that something that the leaders of countries such as china and the United States, and iannouncing the United States s a declining power, that its no longer as powerful relative to other powers as it once was. Why didnt that work . Unit so many interrelationships, familial relationships, victoria and all of her offspring. Why didnt work then . I dont think the family relationships help at all. We all know how bitter family fight can be or civil wars can be. In the end the rules of these countries, nicholas ii, built on the second and george v were all cousins but indian that identify completely with the countries. So they identify themselves deeply with the country. But i think what you had was nationalist forces pushing, and its unfortunate one of the lessons, whats the word i want to you know, we all think that widespread democracy is a good thing, and Public Opinion is a good thing but Public Opinion can sometimes make relations between countries more difficult rather than less. If you think of china japan today, Public Opinion doesnt let helpful poor. You had an intense nationals opinion in europe before the First World War, spread of messed me which put pressures on governments even when they wouldve preferred to be accommodating. Apart from the need to adjust changing patterns in the world, is the great powers can sometimes get drawn into things by their lesser allies and sometimes dont have as much control as they would like to spin which with a lesser allies . Serbia which have been protected by russia which gave serbia sort of recklessness. I think the serbs behaved in a reckless way because they thought russia, big brother, is there. And austriahungary, which was a lesser ally of germany a hate in a reckless way. I think weve seen in the present age that great powers cant always control their small allies. Sometimes its very difficult. Rush answer your. Rush answer you, the United States and israel. United states and pakistan. China and north korea. Because the prestige of the greater power is tied up with its protection of a lesse lesser which indefinitely gives the lesser power a freer hand to behave as it wishes. Thats a good segue into our next segment. Id like to invite members to join our conversation with the questions. A reminder, this meeting is on the record. Wait for the mic of them. Speak directly into. Please stand, state your name and affiliation. You all know the do. Limit yourself to one question. Keep it concise to allow as many members as possible to be. We will start here and work ba back. Ralph, new york university. Professor macmillan, some years ago david frum and wrote a book on the same set get called europes last summer. The focus of the book was to say that the archvillain of the whole situation and if not from the would not have been a war. And that the kaiser was much less bellicose in the end than moltke. Do you agree with that . Its a wonderful book which are third enjoyed but its hard to sort out. In the end i think moltke, the chief of the german generals staff wouldve done with the kaiser told. The kaiser had the Constitutional Authority to make war or not to make war. And moltke was rather like the kaiser. They both talked in a blue chip away but they both often pulled back when moltke is not the man his uncle ben. Is ongoing and the architect of chairman victories with the unification of germany. I think that the kaiser been very from and on the side of peace, von moltke wouldnt have had no choice but to agree but in the end the kaiser gateway. I think he was affected by the knowledge that a number of his army officers, calling them william the timid. He said three times, i am not backing down this time. And i think is a dangerous sort of pressure on him to show that he really could be a bold and decisive leader. I mean, von moltke was prepared to go to war, although hes actually very pessimistic about germanys chances, i think indian it was the kaiser made the decision. We will go on debating it forever though i think. Did they kaiser want the maneuver stopped at the in . The question was, in the kaiser what the maneuver stopped at the end . The german mobilization plan was for a war on two fronts. They had at one point had a separate plan for waging a war on against russia in support of austriahungary, and they basically stopped updating the plan by 1913 which meant they didnt effectively have a plan. Are mobilization plan was a two front war. It was a beautiful blend. Piles of documents this site. They knew where everything was at every moment. It was extraordinary. I would blame the civilians who failed to appoint themselves with that plan and allowed a military to go on making plans when they should have known better. They should have looked at the plants. In the final crisis, the kaiser said to vo von moltke, can we jt mobilize against russia . Von moltke said it can be done. I think it couldve been done in the head o of the railway sectin lid on who was responsible for moving all these millions of troops and their equipment about said late on it couldve been done. I tend to believe him at the kaiser didnt have the nerve to stand up to the generals and to their expertise. Stephen blank. Two words of the most often associate with the war would be war and inevitability of they are connected. So a counterfactual question. Would it have been possible at any moment up to the actual beginning of the war for it to not have happened . Well, i mean, robert why dont you on this. I think so. You can certainly see the steps. When austria decides to issue its ultimate into serbia and destroy serbia, thats one state. The germans give up like check the austria hungry to back them. Thats a second state. I would argue russian mobilization which triggered a german mobilization, it would have been possible to stop. They have done this before. In a way i think is sort of brinksmanship that this time just went over the brink. In previous crises they accuse mobilization of what putting pressure on the other side so they could have stood down again. Once the germans went over the frontiers into belgium, luxembourg and france, then i think it was too late. That was one of the great flaws in the suspect of the plan, the short term, short name for the german plan, was that it was sort of seamless. You call that the soldiers, got them onto the trains, got the moving and they just moved seamlessly across the borders and into the attack. What the german plans did not build a more proper stopping points. Once they were on foreign soil, once the fighting had started it was impossible to stop. But they could have stopped any point up until the second of august. Excuse me. Do you think the british were expected those troops to move across the border into belgium at that point . I think once the germans started rolling, they feared it and they gave germany and ultimatum, very short ultimatum and said if we dont have by 11 p. M. On august the fourth that youve stopped, and they also wanted the germans to promise they would then switch all the troops from the west to the east against russia, where fighting had already started. I think at that point it was impossible to stop. The germans i said, was the German Military said they werent afraid of the british army. They called it a Contemptible Little Army and said, we will deal with it one hand tied behind our backs. The one empire whose aftershocks are still being felt with new trimmers everyday is the ottomans trimmers. I wonder if you could explore for us a bit what it was that led the ottomans decided into the war shortly after in 1914. What was their stake . You had on the central powerslide several countries ahead of the vendor adversaries before. They themselves had been nibbled away bit by bit. What do they hope to gain and what were the consequences with an ottoman politics and thereafter of the reverses that they were taking, even before the complete unraveling . Youve asked me a question i cant and cant answer. David frum can is the one who could really answer this. I think the ottomans made a calculation that the central powers were in a stronger position and would win and difficult relations with germany. It had been a German Military mission to train the ottoman forces, and the germans had led a great deal of money and when the process of constructing the berlin to baghdad really. The germans were seen as generally a more friendly and less of a menace than russia where there were huge complex. Their accomplice all the way along the common border in the caucasus, but also complex in the black sea. The ottomans were very well aware of the russian goal. The russians have been talking for quite a while that if they possibly could, they would seize the straits and that wouldve been a terrible blow for the ottoman empire. I think the ottomans calculated that their best bet was to join the central powers. To the ottomans it was a terrible burden. I mean, whats always amazing to me is that they managed to stay in the war as long as they did. But in the end it of course weakened them beyond the point of all. It brought the disintegration of the empire. But i think is very much a calculation, perhaps the wrong calculation, but at th the time, initially it seemed like they were going to do okay. Steven eisenberg, Macauley Honors College at City University of new york. This is a question for the warden. Margaret, now that youve written this book, does it make you think anything different about the conduct of the war itself . And if you are asked to do another edition of paris 1919, would you say new things . Well, i dont know if i do another edition of paris 1919, but the two questions about First World War i find increasingly interesting. Its one of the things i just refer to. We tend to focus on the horrors of the war and a tremendous strength of the war put on european societies and on the people who fought in the war and had to support the war, but one of the extra things is just how long they kept going. Even russia which is seen as the weakest of the great powers held together into 1970s and was capable of maintaining troops in the field. So it seems to me thats a question we havent yet fully explored. The second thing which strikes me more and more is, why on earth couldnt they stop it once it had started . When itd be concluded that your this dreadful stalemate on the western front, why was there no hope of peace . What was that kept them going on and on and on when it became clear that the war was consuming them all . I think both of those with eccentrics for really interesting books. Not by me maybe. [laughter] robert knapp. My question regards cosmology. In 1967, Fritz Fischer brought out the war aims of germany would use the archives deposit that the kaiser, von moltke comments have really taken event of a small crisis and snowbowl. He did not have access to many of the files in east german at the time. My question, having access to it now, do you agree that germany was the major cause of the war . Robert, do you want to give that one a try . I dont have access to it, because i havent i wrote my book 22 years ago. And i dont have the strength to do all the work that margarets going to do in the future to clarify all these items. And germany the war wouldnt have happened without germany. It would have happened in some form without, i think, all of the other continental powers. The germans ignored the treaty in i think was 1838 or 39, which created belgium, which prussia, the antecedent of the german empire, signed. Also i think austria, france and britain. And the british, behind that for britain was the to determine its the two determinants of british policy were royal navy must always be superior to any other power or group of powers. Thats all weve got. And there must be no continental launching pad adjacent to the British Isles which could be used as a stepping stone or a launching pad for an invasion by a continental army, which is, ipso facto, going to be larger. I think that the british stock to those rules sequentially. When they saw the germans building a great navy, they built. And there was a chill in british various british officials, including churchill, tried to draw down, tapered off, slow it, stop building so many. Why do we need these . If you will stop, we will stop. The kaiser basically said, nobody tells germany what to do. The british built learned, the british built their navy, we are going to ours, basically. And as far as the bilge and the belgian invasion, incursion, he became an invasion once belgium decided to resist, britain did that for two reasons. They explained it or excuse it, if you will, on this treaty. But they didnt want anybody that close. Napoleon have stood and looked across the channel. During and hitler did daring and hitler did. This was at century, i could not, but the kaiser. So they felt that they had to fight to preserve the security of the home islands. I dont know whether that answers your question, but i think that britain could have stayed out and perhaps would have, despite its understanding it wasnt a treaty, but its understanding with france, if the germans had invaded belgium. I dont know that. And thats another thing that that raises an interesting point the dish somebody needs to do a search on. Why they didnt stop in 191415. Part of the maven to the french recognize the consequences if germany have already seen germany defeated them [inaudible] when he was a young man watching prussian troops marching through paris. They could not tolerate that, right, for the people . The trouble was when once i felt like stopping, the other didnt. I think what also happened is once you get those hideous losses and some of the worst losses were taken in the opening battles in 1914, its difficult to say to your people, this was actually a mistake and were going to stop now and the borders are all going to remain to sing. We all know what happens once the killing starts and was the blood he shed. It becomes very difficult. David, i want to ask one question. I want to but in because, margaret, was there, whether any peace feelers during the war from either side . There were stomach who have been for secretary wrote a piece letter and then there was the same through the pope benedict, thank very much. Im a protestant so i dont follow these things as closely as i should. [laughter] there were peace feelers and i think there were some i think of sweden but how serious they were is difficult. There was a growing feeling that there should be peace in the Different Countries are you got the socialist who had voted enthusiastically for war credit now pulling back. But how serious those peace feelers were, i dont know him. Lets go for the back of the room right there. Dont want to ignore the back of the room. This is really a parlor game question can which im sure youve been asked before. If the plant had indeed worked and the germans did take pairs in six weeks competitive and the rest of the twists and she would have played out . Would all have been better off speak with what if. Theres an interesting new book the said there was no schlieffen plan at all but i think thats overstating it a bit. I think the best criticism of the polls schlieffen plan notion that you could knock france after quickly came from a german general who was not an admirer of general von schlitt and who said you cant roll up a great power and carry away like a cat in the bag. I think the french would have fought on. The army i think would remain largely intact. Its more likely that the germ wouldve found that they were doing with the sort of lowgrade war that the invasion and occupation of iraq have to do with. So im not sure the victory would have necessarily settle things quickly. I think the russians might have thought on. The russians suffered a huge loss at the battle of dannenberg in the late summer of 1914, but there was still a huge amount of russian force, and russia of course always had its great asset of land and its capacity to retreat into its interior. So it is possible. Just to go back to your original assumption that france might get sued for peace, it would have been i think a very unhappy continent of europe, if germany had won. If it managed to persuade the french to sue for peace, it probably would have taken a big chunk of the belgian and french coasts which wouldve brought that much closer to britain, and would have had a triumphal germinate within which i think the more reactionary elements and nationalistic elements would have been strengthened. Again as in europe there was sort of an interplay among forces. They were pacifist, moderate, socialist, liberal forces in germany. I think it wouldve been squashed by german victory. The reaction circles around the kaiser would often talk about cracking down, getting rid of the constitution, the solving the big unions and the socialist party i think would have had the upper hand. So i think europe would have been dominated by a rather unpleasant germany, which i suspect will become more authoritarian rather than less as the years went by. Sooner or later i think the british would have had to do something because from the british point of view, a continent dominated by one power is always a very bad thing. And you might have two generations of resistance. Yes. Margaret macmillan made, i thought, a very sound point speed could identify yourself, please . Sorry, frank wisdom. Margaret macmillan made an extraordinarily sound point in underscoring how commonplace this prospect of war became as you get close to 1914. I remember reading the same in your great book, how ordinary the thought of the war became the european statesmen and officials. But i have generation earlier, in the time of bismarck, of salisbury, of disraeli, europeans got their Heads Together and stayed out of for, put the preservation of balance in peace at a much higher level. What happened to european statesmanship in that have generation that made war so much more likely in 1914 . Well, thats a very good question. I think partly you always have to remember what people who are making the decisions are themselves remembering and what they have experienced. What you had in the generation of disraeli, and even gladstone, as people who remembered the napoleonic wars and what those have done the europe and how those had convulsed europe and have it really damaged european society. I think it was a willingness to invest a lot in peace and stability after 1815. By the time he reached the second half of the century, those memories have gone. It seems to me a bit like the generation to come out of the Second World War and want to try to build a new world order which will prevent such things happening again, and, of course, that generation moves from the scene and the and the generation dont have the same this are reactions because they simply havent expensed. I think the passage of time a difference. I think you also get, sometimes its just coincidence. Sometimes you get a good crop of statesmen, sometimes you dont. You had disraeli, you had melbourne, yet of course bismarck who was an extraordinary statesmen. My great criticism of bismarck is he was a genius 11 assistant behind that only he could operate. Thats what major and indie germany so problematic after his removal from office. But i think theyre sent it wasnt the same blindness and the same appreciation of what war could mean. And this is deeply human characteristic, that even as the evidence mounts up, we cant discount it or ignore it if it doesnt suit our preconceptions, and with plenty of evidence backing up that any future war, certainly by 1900, that involve a great powers was likely to be enormously costly and likely to be a stalemate, with neither side Strong Enough to overcome the other side because of the growing power of the defensive. The generals and those who thought about that candidate for the evidence or dismiss it. People to look at the american civil war. Those attacking the terrible losses, and european general said those are the americans, not proper soldiers. We fight proper worse. We can still do the attack. He got his time and time again. I think it was a genuine unwillingness. You also got another phenomenon, which i think you often get, and that is you got a Younger Generation by 1900 in germany, for example, who said were so tired of hearing from our fathers about how they fought in the glorious war of unification, we would like our own excitement. You get the same thing in france and also in britain and the Younger Generation saying weve missed out on all these glorious wars. Its very easy to see war as glorious when you havent experienced it. You do get the sense in your book that it was seen as a course conflict, people rushing to the front and so on. Yes. Not everyone greeted it with excitement. There was a lot of dismay when the war finally broke out. There was a sense we now have a chance to prove ourselves in ways we havent had up until now. Yes . [inaudible] thank you so much. Im allison silver. Im the executive editor of opinion at reuters. I have a question. You both have been talking about how there was this idea of a happy little war, that they hadnt experienced war in this kind of way before, and also you are also talking about the allies, about the lesser allies having some sort of control. And i was wondering if theres any comparison to be made with the neocons, who helped sort of create a drumbeat for war in going to iraq. Well, i should let the american answer this one. [laughter] actually, i think h think yod have a lot to say about it also. Do you want to go first . You know my opinion. Einfahrt said im a lifelong middle of the road democrat. That said, thats all im going to say. [laughter] and now across the atlantic. Well, i do think those who have an afterthought in the war can idealize it and talk about because weve now got, even in political leaders, weve got generations who havent themselves fought in the war. We had up until kennedy and nixon, or even george bush senior, people have experienced war firsthand. I think thats a very different attitude towards war. So did the generals. The generals are often much less gung ho on more than the civilians are because generals judges what is going to cost and what it means and the difficult it is to do. I do think he got among the neocons a certain you enjoyed elsewhere. You get in the canadian government at the moment a lot of talk about war and being tough. I think you should be careful with such talk, especially if youre not people are going to have to pay the price for it. Who were the neocons of the time . Of the 1900 . 1913 spent some of the generals, some of the statesmen, some of on both sides. Some of the verge and perilous who talked a lot about how we need to fight. We should look back an at the wd and say they were all lovely pacifists. But one footnote. Dictators a jam the kaisers father, friedrich, was not like his son. He married an english woman. He was a liberal. If he hadnt died of cancer after what, 99 days or 90 days, and handed fate handed the throne to this tormented child, tormented young man who needed to prove his manhood, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, i think given the german constitution, the power of the kaiser, which weve all cited as being a major factor, frederick could have one. He could have changed germany. Its one of the big what ifs i think. He had plans to make germany much more constitutional form of government, modeled on the english form, much more control over the government. I think he wanted to strengthen Civil Society in germany. He wanted to me to live peaceably with its neighbors. I think its one of the tragedies. I think he would have made a difference. His son despised them and really wanted to do everything in the opposite direction. I want to ask my friend margaret a way out question. Given the fact that the rising power, their true rising power was the United States and it was visible even at that time, could the United States or any outside party played a role in stopping this war, had they wished to do so, had they had the disposition . I think the United States was a rising power, just to go back to the first part, but so was germany. Whats interesting and relationship between britain and the United States is it was managed very well. They scared each other because they nearly came to war over venezuela and they backed out and they came to an understanding. I think its a very successful example of how changes in the balance in International Relations can be managed. I do think the United States could have stopped the war. To begin with, i think the United States quite rightly felt it was not its work, it had no interest in it. The atlantic was dividing it from europe. If the europeans wanted to go crazy, let them, and the United States from its perspective had very little at stake. The United States was a rising power. But not yet the power it was going to become. It was in the process of translating its very considerable and growing economic power into military power. It was beginning to build a big navy, but that was still pretty new. Its army was really very small, and the American Army at this stage i think was smaller than the army of italy, which was a much smaller power. I think the United States did have the capacity at this stage to intervene, and it didnt have the will. As far as we can tell from american lit opinion, theyve gone crazy over there, we dont want to get involved. And, of course, American Opinion was divided about which side the back. All the irish living in the United States werent going to back britain, or most of them work. You have a huge german population. Whats been estimated, a quarter of all americans were of german descent industry. It wasnt a clearcut which side if it had to choose the u. S. Would come down on. Quite a lot of poles and czechs as well. Remember in november 1913 the United States was mobilizing against against mexico. And they had plans to raise an army of 500,000 americans from an army smaller than had of italy, so they were distracted i think. And, of course, they had to worry about the great military power to the north, my own country. [laughter] let me add something. Woodrow wilson ran for a second term on the theme, he kept us out of war. It was the american entry into the war which made germany quick. After jutland, when the dreadnoughts deadlocked, the germans never came out again. The german admiral stanley, the naval staff, they get the kaiser and he agreed to let them put everything they have into submarines. They started torpedoing. They started on restricting uboat warfare. They were for peeling everybody, americans, no matter who came within a large blockade area. Wilson reluctantly during the fall of 1916 after his election in the winter trying to decide what to do, he gave the german ambassador not a real ultimatum to be set if you dont stop doing this, transferring american ships, something is going to happen. And, finally, they kept torpedoing. Americans were kind of, et cetera, et cetera. And wilson took it to congress and they voted overwhelmingly for war. The guys have actually said to the naval staff, to his naval staff, all this produced, precipitate an american response . The chief of the navy said, i promise your majesty, not one single american soldier will set foot on the continent of europe. In november 1914, there were 2 million in france, only 600,000 of them were in the at the front, and 2 million more in the United States training, everybody had been bloodied. They were dying in the hundreds of thousands. And he said, weve got to quit. We have time for one more very quick question. Conrad harper. The question for you is, have entered the age only of opinion with respect to have this war began . I asked the question in light of von rankes great observation that history is to be found in the archives. Can you determine what the real facts are based upon available information . Or shall we always be disputing these issues . I dont think theres much to be said discovered in the archives. Some things we know then destroyed the a lot of the german i cannot archives were destroyed in the Second World War. The russians took some back to moscow and i think pretty much released everything that had. The serbian archives havent been thoroughly explored yet but i doubt if they will add much to our general understanding. Its fairly clear that elements when the serbian government knew what was going on. Otherwise i think there are not any great undiscovered caches of documents. But i dont think were going to come to any agreement, because our viewpoint will keep changing and because it is such a complex event. So i think will keep on perhaps 15 or gathering more information. But i suspect this center will be sitting here 100 years from now, looking at the new batch of the world war and will be as far from agreement is better. I cant think of a better way to advertise. I want to thank again Margaret Macmillan and robert massey. And david ed homan. Thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] been that we are in the gallery at the washington museum. We are looking at polanski center, 1775 to 2012. The purpose is to highlight the rich, Cultural Heritage of the planets frozen frontiers. The alpine regions, arctic antarctica. Its a photograph of german artists, dating from 2008 and is exhibited sidebyside with the photographs by camilla seamens, also of east greenland. Her last iceberg series of 2006. Many people understand the importance of ice for the planet, reflective qualities that help regulate the claimant. Many people are unaware if there is a new consciousness in western culture about these regions. So it was important within the context of Climate Change to let people know the these regions are fundamental to her identity. Theres been a decline of education, moral education and replacing it with aspects of his programs for various therapeutic approaches. We have a tried and true method of civilizing boys. Through good sportsmanship, their coaches and more opaque then. Certainly from parents, must evolve from parent reinforcement from teachers. I just think weve kind of moved away from that. Second problem for boys and him right now talking about the boys as i believe now voice had become second class citizens in our school. Their problems are severely neglected. Again it is far less likely to go to college in his sister. You look across all ethnic groups. The boys are behind their female counterparts. The average 15yearold roy is reading about it here and a half behind her. Most importantly, there were disengaged. They have been a time when this wasnt a big problem. You could get a High School Degree and worked hard to make it in the middle class. Some educators at the Harvard Graduate School of education. Not anymore. Theres the new economy and the new pathway to the middle classes education beyond high school. I feel that problem i cant find each organization or government groups. The department of education is still talking about the shortterm because they were deeply influenced by the Early Research in the sucrose were shortchanged in the 1990s. We have a white house john the one women in gross pair the crows dont fall behind. Almost every significant metrics Christina Hoff sommers committee right that women in the u. S. Are now 62 and an associates degrees. 67 of bachelors degrees. 67 and masters degrees, 50 tapers and if factors, colleges mission officers. Baffled and concerned in panicked over male applicants. If male enrollment falls below 40 are below, female students begin to flee. Schools after hit the Tipping Point are helplessly watching as their campuses become like retirement villages with this terrified of winning competing for a handful of surviving then. Yes, there are campuses definitions officers are looking at 60 female. It seems to get worse each year. They are yes, nx. The administrator would do something about tracking more men. Theres one statistician, educational statistician. The truth is that its quite as a mystery of why the girls would be so much more aware of the importance of education and growth now have higher aspirations. Some people say no, this is only a manifest in the workingclass. This year, among the highest performers and take far marfans placement classes. They are more ambitious. A higher percentage go to graduate school. Again, i still rate this, what is happening with girls. It is inspiring. Some of it may be because the initiatives of the shortchanged girl movement. I wish that when they discovered that there are gender differences in education, i wish it had been that of becoming a girl parties in the end, it becomes a movement to improve the educational prospects of all children and how grocery they were behind. That would have meant, yes, more support for girls in math and science. Weve managed to close that gap. The tablet help boys in reading, writing, school engagement, just in general. Teachers have a bias against unruly student. Its understandable. Theyre five or six years old. I think we want to find a way to have a place for them and room for their personalities and high spiritedness. Is there a shortage of male teachers and does this have an effect . There are very few male teachers in elementary school. Slightly more in high school. This may be a slight exaggeration. The schools are run by women for girls. An overstatement, but not by too much. A lot of comments i made this a group of educators, researchers from the body of the school, why did you drop out . One little boy site that nobody wanted me there. Theres a lot of boys that feel that way. Its clear to him that they wanted name. Even at the level of what is the sign, a disco friendly and not so friendly towards boys. Recently come in nelson books and tracts over 85 of the print book market for the same nonfiction bestsellers. These reflect sales from december 31, 20 files to mac december, 2013. Proof of having followed by bill oreilly it wasnt just admiral mullen. Somehow if we can find just the right leader, especially in the military, he would deal to turn it on a ship of the state of pakistan. Sometimes you have to combat a narrative with a narrative. The islamic country has a special place in the world. And therefore some of the global rules dont apply to us. They kept gaining their aid. In the end, destined the nukes we said we were not taking. If nothing else, we broke a promise. That can only be combat and buy a narrative. If we develop a personal relationship with the tiebreaking guy on the other side, it will help us. Its not new. Admiral bolan was not the first to have the pakistani admiral. The chairman joint chiefs of staff a mention in my book. That was under president eisenhower. Again, the same phenomena going repeatedly coming meeting with the pakistani leader in building relations. Admiral mullen and often dirty work very hard. 26 meetings if anybody is a lot of meetings. He thought that general kalyani, a Pakistani Army chief was really wanted to find the Tipping Point where the desire to eliminate terrorists and his desire to maintain the military balance with india. He could find the Tipping Point where instead of india, pakistan to focus more and terrorism as a problem. Tom harkin argues the u. S. Is becoming a country run by and for the very rich. While a middle class is slowly being destroyed. Without a strong middle class commit the u. S. Is likely headed for an economic question that will make the Great Depression seem team. This is about an hour. Hot at thank you. Can you hear me . Surprises to radio station. They know how to do microphones. Thank you jeff, janet, laura, everyone who works with me. Im very honored to be here. To get right into this, you will recall i was here a couple years ago when a new book out about where i started Alexander Hamilton Sullivan Point for American Manufacturing in