این سخنرانی روش های جدید درک بحران جنگ در اروپا را در تابستان سال 1914 بررسی می کند. در مورد برخی از مشکلات تفسیر که بحث در مورد منشأ جنگ را تنگ کرده اند ، تأمل می کند. و طنین معاصر فاجعه را که اکنون تقریباً یک قرن قدمت دارد در نظر می گیرد.
 
نسخه های قابل چاپ و بارگیری از این سخنرانی از وب سایت کالج گرشام در دسترس است:
 
کالج گرشام از سال 1597 به صورت رایگان سخنرانی های عمومی ارائه می دهد. این سنت امروز با تمام 5 سخنرانی عمومی ما در هفته ادامه می یابد که به صورت رایگان از وب سایت ما بارگیری می شود. در حال حاضر بیش از 1500 سخنرانی رایگان برای دسترسی یا بارگیری از وب سایت وجود دارد.

وب سایت: gresham.ac.uk
توییتر: twitter.com/GreshamCollege
فیس بوک: facebook.com/greshamcollege.

لینک دانلود

39 پاسخ به “Sleepwalkers: چگونه اروپا در سال 1914 به جنگ رفت – کریستوفر کلارک”

  1. Dammit, I thought this was a documentary. I gave it a thumbs down for my own dumb mistake.. which, realizing how unfair it was, I undid. Then I watched it and changed it to a thumbs up. Usually, presentations bore me. This guy does it PROPERLY. Well done!

  2. The Sleepwalkers is written like a plenary indulgence granted by the unnamed Anglo-American elite that has profited from every major European war in the 20th century to those whom it would recruit again in its "association of helpers"– witting and unwitting instruments of neo-imperialism (aka globalisation).

    By ignoring any serious discussion of British Empire, its ruling elite, or the global economic and psychological warfare that was waged by it against its European competitors in the years between 1871 and 1914, this book shows that it is the author who was probably sleepwalking, not the European imperialists (today called the financial elite or the "1%-ers,") who together with Great Britain, through their puppet politicians, wantonly slaughtered more than 4 million people for their personal profit.

  3. Love this presentation and the presenter was excellent. IDK what people are griping about with his sense of humor. How delightful to see someone with an actual sense of irony and facetiousness. WWI was a terrible, terrible catastrophe (I completely agree with the reference he used re: the effects on the rest of the 20th and 21st century) but a little irony helps and keeps it from being a dead boring recitation of facts. Well done, Professor Clark.

  4. Long duree is the right approach. You can not dismiss Braudel by saying it was trendy in the 80s. He was right. All you talked about was jokes and gossips and feathers on hats, the foam on the waves…if this gossipy narrative is trendy today, it means another war is due I’m afraid.

  5. It looks like our politicians were just as corrupt then as they are now. Kaiser Bill was responsible for thousands of deaths. But was allowed to live to a ripe old age in luxury. As was the architect of Hitlers Death camps and crematoria. Crossing palms with silver is still very popular with our present Politicians.

  6. I heard that this guy's (re)vision of WW1 history is very popular in Germany. Also, it would be important to know, if anyone, than – who funded his research. And, in the end, to see what other historians think of this pearl of historiography.

  7. Strange how these governments can immediately wrap up an investigation after a major incident yet utterly handicapped before the incident. The comment about journalism should be taken as an intriguing one. His observation of the incident in animation depicted as being "operatic", is just that, it was meant to encourage an emotional outburst though the artist and the publisher knew the image was false. It was the Emperor of the French who is quoted as saying, An image is worth a thousand words.

    Both Prince Bismarck and Metternich had cautioned their respective emperors to avoid this area at all cost before each left office. The decline of the Old man of Europe (the Ottoman) was the result of French and English conspiring to "gut" a once needed ally. For the British against both Russia and France, for France against Russia. Turkey is a NATO ally for a reason. Since, America is the spawn of the British Empire, who was shock to discover during World War 2, the US threatened Britain with an invasion of its colonies.
    Why, would these two monarchs consider such an alliance for such an expedition. Since, Britain and France were busying themselves trimming the old man's whiskers. Britain encouraged Austria, who was broke because; in order to appease a multi-ethnic populace who had suffered as the result of their ethnicity being anything other than German for decades upon decades, who now being educated were demanding independence hence the Paris of the East movement and the subsequent romanticism. The Austrian emperor was being pushed by Britain (and France) to avoid Russian expansionism. Forcing an empire on the brink of an economic disaster to grab land, fill the bank once again. It was also the Austrian draconian measures on the people after the assassination which gave the response fuel. It was that French emperor, who began this German unification movement having joined many German states. So, when Bismarck came to seal the fate of fellow Germans, in Austria who were busying themselves looking down on fellow Europeans of a diverse background though citizens of Austria. Prussia was creating a modern Germany. Which included territories which were also Russian. Russia, being themselves equally broke before losing to the Japanese (British ally) in the Pacific to the horror of Russian social Darwinian ideology of being among the superior race against one of the many inferior races. Russia, hoping to retrieve land taken by the Germans claimed religious loyalty and intervened against Austria who they knew was an ally of Germany. Nicholas, an autocrat with a sensitive soul assumed while Russia remained stagnant and nostalgic militarily, the Germans were also to his own dynastic destruction. All European monarchs are crowned in their military uniforms. Their palaces are decorated in military victories and pageantry. Yet, somehow Europe is at peace because the wars were no longer fought (in) Europe though wars have always being fought in Europe the last major one being against France, with Russia the only obstacle against a European continent under the heel of a French emperor with Corsican roots.

  8. Young-Bosnians were not a serbian nationalists, but yugoslavian nationalists, and there is big difference between the two. Even though most of them were ethnically Serbs, all of them were also Yugoslavs politically. Just read the testimonies of Princip, Ilic or Jevtic, who by the way, defines Young Bosnia as a modernist literary group, and also theoretical works of their master-minds Dimitrije Mitrinovic and Vladimir Gacinovic. Without knowing the context of Serbo-Croatian- Muslim relationships in Bosnia and Herzegovina you cannot fathom the essence of the Sarajevo event.

  9. How frightfully well spoken for an aussie is Prof Clark. I've been a student of this seminal event in the creation of the modern world since I was a lad. My Grandad served in WWI though spoke of it very rarely. Prof Clark rates on par with Barbara Tuchman, whose book "Guns of August" I was given by a favorite (great-great!) aunt when I was about 12 (1970). In 1971 I wrote my first serious history paper on the subject, although in those days I too was enthralled by the fading old-world pomp and glorious uniforms. I loved to be able to quote Bismarck as having predicted WWI beginning with"some damned foolish incident in the Balkans…"
    Since then I've looked harder at related problems compounded by Sykes / Picot, the Balfour declaration, and the general repudiation of the Arab / Islamic polities in the Middle East once they had served their short-term purposes for the victorious western (proto-multinational corporate) powers. A second "Scramble for Africa in 1919 (minus Bismarck's Germany) provided gratuitous spoils of war. Tuchman's first book "Bible and Sword" is still a useful study of British influence in the Holy Land from Richard "Lionheart" up to the Suez crisis. The toxic results of the Six Day War and the fate of the West Bank came later. (How many Israeli leaders from Rabin to Sharon have been swallowed whole in this hateful conflagration positing the triumph of "religious" ideology over reason & enlightenment ?)
    Of course political and financial exhaustion was clearly expressed by victorious post-war governments regarding the senselessness of WWI. It was the first modern war, and millions hoped it would actually be "the War to End All War".
    Which led to fanciful diplomatic attempts like the Kellogg-Briand treaty outlawing war and limiting global armaments, and
    explained America's geo-political comfort zone – Isolationism. With the collapse of Russian military influence after the Soviets' protracted civil conflicts (1919-22), and limited British or French military willingness in their Southeast Asian colonies, the resulting power vacuum emboldened Japan's confidently aggressive policies in China and the Far East following the global financial crash in 1929.

  10. England was losing money because the Germans could do it better and the banks were in danger of not getting paid when the English firms go bankrupt Germany was taking over the world's economy because they did things better and this was a problem for investors of the English and also problems in Ireland so the war could and probably was economic in cause.

  11. BEST ADVICE–BUY THE DVD, AND WATCH THE BBC'S MASTERPIECE DOCUDRAMA '' 37 DAYS''. BRILLIANTLY RECONSTRUCTED FROM ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS AND PRIVATE DIARIES, NEVER SEEN BY THE PUBLIC BEFORE, ALL THE WORDS SPOKEN BY EVERY MAJOR PERSON INVOLVED, BY EVERY MAIN PROTAGONIST, IS WONDERFULLY PORTRAYED BY FIRST RATE ACTORS, WHO ALSO RESEMBLED THEM CLOSELY. I CAN'T RECCOMMEND IT ENOUGH.

  12. Very Disappointed in this; Spends most of the time reviewing well known facts about the assassination, and then seems to basically just defend himself for writing a new history book on subject. Never got to the subject matter of the title, except maybe last few minutes, after waiting and waiting.

نظرات بسته شده اند.