promises the metallic i'll desert. c me and let's take you through some of the headlines here now just here. now the situation of cala ford is stabilizing with military and civilian evacuation flight . now resuming it follows monday scenes of desperation and chaos of hundreds of afghans rushed the plains on the hallmark movies 10 to flee baton the ban on the land border with pakistan where the tale. bon enjoy some support from certain ethnic groups. things relatively com, toward home crossing is reopened for business now. after it was closed on sunday when the taliban took control of cobble. charlotte ballast has the latest from campbell. that waking up this morning to day to under taliban control in cobble and grace rask anniston, and we still don't know who is elidah,

how they plan to govern what this structure is going to be. i was told this morning by telephone context. that whole moved your head, which is the main communication spokes person, will be holding a press conference today. they said he would be holding it yesterday. it appears to be delays that will be today. now no one has ever seen his face. he's only repaired an audio clips with his face blurred, sir, it will be very interesting for them to finally reveal themselves. us president joe biden is defended, his decision to pull out troops. he says an endless military deployment is no solution. bye and also said american troops should not be expected to fight when afghan forces are unwilling to do so themselves. survive as of a powerful earthquake in haiti. and now having to cope with a tropical storm. heavy rain lashed, makeshift shelters in the southern city of like high 1400 people are known to have died. in fact, today's quite new zealand is moving into a snap,

locked down for 3 days after reporting its 1st local curve in 1900 infection in 86 months. the case was detected in oakland. it still not confirmed weather related cases. the highly contagious delta variant, only about 20 percent of the population is fully vaccinated. for the 1st time, the u. s. is declared a shortage of its at its largest water reservoir triggering mandatory cuts to some western states. lake me on the colorado river serves some 40000000 people. farmers in arizona are expected to see the biggest drop in supply. the region is struggling with a drought and record high temperatures. those a headlines, the news continues here now to sierra after the stream. we know what's happening in our region. we know how to get to places that others can all, i was just thrown here guy by the put he's on purpose. if i said i'm going, i'm the way that you tell the

story is what can make a difference. ah a they're welcome to the stream. i'm josh rushing, sitting in for me. ok today. now look, if you're watching this live on youtube, i want you to help me out to that box over there. that is a live youtube chair, and we have a producer sitting there waiting to get your questions and your comments to me. so that i can ask them during the show today and what show it as we're talking about war. and that's the title and the subject of one of the hottest books, a 2020. it got picked as a top 10 book by the new york times for nonfiction, and we're lucky enough to be joined by an author, margaret mcmillan. professor rick known as a professor of history at the university of toronto in an a meritus professor of

international history. and the former warden of st. anthony's college of university of oxford. and oxford is where she's joining us from today. good day professor, how are you? very well, thanks. all right, so let's start with a book. you've written a lot of books about that. the 20th century and then you wrote this one, which is a course about the 20th century, just known for these great wars, but it's actually a much more broad look at history on this one topic, a war. why did, why did you write it? i'm also curious, are you surprised at all by the response to it? well, the 2nd question is easy to answer. yes i am. it's something i've been thinking about for a long time, but i thought it will come out. it's a book that a few people might like, be nice to pick up some nice reviews, but i am, i am surprised. it's something i've been thinking about for a long time. if you do, history, war comes in and out of history a lot that has a huge impact on history. and i suppose war was in my own background like it's in the background of a lot of people. my age. my father was in the canadian navy,

both i in the 2nd world war, both my grandfathers were in the 1st of all, horace doctors. and so it was something i heard about as a child and for some reason it's a subject. the whole subject of war through the ages is something that is always fascinated me. it's interesting because every history book i've ever read, it's a war to prevalent part of it. the book isn't just about war. and are there a category of human experiences that you might put on the same level like love or sex or economy or like, what kind of category are you placing war in terms of human experience for as one of the great challenging experiences for human as i suppose it brings out both the best and the worst in human nature. it can have a profound impact on societies or it can be something that's somewhere else by other people. and we don't think about it very much, but i think it intensifies what it is to be human. i mean, in war your face was,

while you've been in war so you know, better than me. you're faced with the most elemental decisions. you have to try and save your life, you might have to try and take another life. you do things for other people you might not do in peace time. and so it is something i think, which is not natural to us necessarily, but it is an enormously testing part of what it is to be human. you know, it's not natural my most not natural experience of war, which i have been to many, many times as journalist and only once is ring as a marine. you have a reason that you're there, a purpose, be adjuster, unjust. but you definitely know why you're there. as a, as a journalist, when you're there, obviously you're there, it's important to witness it. but at the same time, you feel foolish finding yourself in that kind of like who finds himself on about a field without a weapon. i. it's just a weird, weird thing and if you ask yourself these questions like, what am i doing here? but you document in your book, you know, through time people being on the battlefield cameras,

when they 1st were there with cameras. and what have you found about the way people reflect on war? well, i think it depends whether you're there is an observer and i think if you're only there is an observer, i mean, of course your life is in danger and you're part of it in some ways. but you want fighting, and so you're not experiencing the same way. and what i'm very conscious of is i'll never really understand what it is to be in combat. and what i try to do is, is read about it, look at pictures about it. and i think the soldiers, those who find themselves often tried to capture that in the 20th century, their memoirs. and then when chief cameras came in the 1st world war, it was possible for a soldier to carry a very small, cheap cameron in the pocket of his uniform. they tried, i think, to record it as much as they could in their own ways. because i think they probably sense this was something that they wanted not to remember fondly but, but to capture because it was such a crisis moment in their lives. we have a question for you from someone from our community. this is caroline ball. she's an

academic librarian, in derby, and she has a question about steven pickers book, but you've mentioned a few times in your book carol, at our asking several times in this book. you mentioned stephen pinker, on his book, the better angels of our nature, in which she argues that violence has declined in human societies throughout history. i wonder having written this book that focuses exclusively on war. what you think about that argument? are we listening to the better angels of our nature and becoming less violent? or are we saying the same more, or maybe even becoming more violent? i wonder what you think about myself. stephen, think his book is enormously challenging, and i think very important. but i would make a distinction, i've been thinking about it a lot since i've read it and i've read other books which, which take i take issue with him. and what i would say is that we may be becoming in some societies less prone to random violence or less prone to use violence in our everyday lives. we don't expect people to come outside pubs anymore and roll

and we just approve of it. if that happens and it used to happen a lot more and we don't enjoy public executions or public displays of cruelty. so i think in some ways perhaps the better angels of our natures, at least in some societies, have run out. but war is quite different. it's not random violence wars organized violence and you can take someone who is perfectly peaceful and doesn't want to kill any. well, some turn that person into someone who is a disciplined warrior who will do it. and i think the crucial thing about wars that it's organized and in some ways the violence exertion of war. yes, there is violence over the violence. excited was purpose if it's intentional. and sometimes i think it's a great deal more devastating and cruel than the random violence when, when we just lash out. but are you making the argument that you think pinker is wrong? it is central argument that these are the least violent times in human history. i think it depends what you're talking about. if you're talking about certain societies, yes, they are enjoying least less violent times, although, i mean,

there are exceptions is own country. the united states has one of the highest homicide rates in the world. you know, it's way out on the end of one scale for most of the developed world. but what i think about war is it's not that sort of violence. it uses violence is an element, but war is highly organized and anthropologist sentiment. i've been thinking about it ever since war is the most organized human activities and you apply violence in war, but you do it often and very cold and calculating way and so war is not the same as the violence. you might see in societies where violence is endemic, what people used to beating each other up and then trying to kill each other or simply been cruel to each other. war is organized purpose of violence. and so i would say that in some ways we've been getting nicer, but we still have a tremendous capacity to organize ourselves for destruction and for killing others . you talk to us about how war shaped culture. i was really, i really enjoyed the last chapter of your book and you think about it going all the way back to homer in the iliad through a casa gornick,

or all the great writing that came out of war. we're one, he just, i don't know if that's fully appreciated, it as much as perhaps it should be. but before those 2 things with culture one is this war provokes the response and then people have great creativity and they try to make sense of it. i mean, some of the great racing that came out of the social war was those who were engaged in that war, trying to make sense of the war itself over this tremendous industrial killing machine, which europe and both, and painters and musicians as well. i think try and make sense of what they're trying to understand it because it's such a challenge to our understanding who we are and what we are. and so we're, i think will provoke among greater ashes, a very thoughtful and compassionate response. so you think of the castles guernica, that extraordinary painting needed after the italian f o. the defenseless bask town in the spanish civil war. one of the 1st times that civilians had been bombed from the air and it caused a tremendous response and produced one of the great paintings of the 20th century.

but culture also shapes when we look at war. and we know that culture can react to the horrors of war and portrayed, and the cultural artifacts can also try and portray or something glorious and the port trail of or something glorious minutes there in the end, even though the horror of or is there as well has also influenced people in their attitudes towards war. many of the young soldiers who went off to fight in the 1st or what, particularly from the middle and upper classes, had been educated on the classics. and they felt they were going off to fight a noble war like the trojan was, or like the roman wars. and so it works both ways. war will produce cultural, cultural responses and, and cultural creations. but those creations, in some cases, can also help shape our attitudes towards and help make, make us perhaps, ready to fight in some cases. there's also something in that about the way that we remember war. i want to bring in another comment. this is from an associate professor or history at uva, charlottesville, virginia,

named for sessions. one really important impact of war on society is how words remember then, how memories of war are used politically in the president. we take the imperial wars, the europeans american font, in the 181900104 instance, whether you see them now as instances of national glory or races. violence is really about what empire means to you today and how it relates to your contemporary values. who we see is heroes, and the villain of wars of the past is as much about who we identify with in the present as it is about what happens historically. when we look at the fights about monuments that have been going on over the last couple of years, american civil war monuments, european colonial monuments. this is what's really going on. and i think that's very true and i think it's true history in general,

but we are constantly re shaping our views of the processing, different questions of it, depending on what we're preoccupied within the present and what concerns we have about ourselves. and i think i quite agree. so when you look at the debate happening in the states over the civil war monuments, what's your take away from that? what does history tell us about that debate? well, how we look at monuments, changes, and a lot of the civil war monuments were put up. actually i hadn't realized how recent some of them was. some of them were put up in the fifty's when the civil rights movement was beginning to get go. and i think they put up very deliberately by white supremacists in the united states to show that we wanna and the last and to the, to the black americans, and you'd better watch it. and now of course, as american society is coming to terms with it, so racism, and with the tensions between the races, those monuments, again, a big thing that different lights. and i think this happens a lot that how we see things is very much affected by what's happening to us today . and i think it's quite right improper. we should question such things as we

question our histories. why does it seem normal, that every country on earth needs to train some of its young people to be killers and not unrestrained killers, but some kind of control killer, where it's okay to kill here and then, but not here. and now, how does that normalized? well, it's partly fear, i think it's fear that if we don't prepare ourselves others might attack us. i think here plays a very large part in preparations for war. i'm thinking about war and always has done. but there are those who believe and have believe that training people to be ready to fight is actually good for the nation. it helps to be it's mark nation strengths. it's good for young people to be given discipline. i mean, that was quite prevalent and a lot of european countries, for example, before the 1st world war. but somehow military shoes were what you wanted. discipline, willingness to sacrifice, willingness to die for your country or for or for whatever cause. and so i think

there are a number of things that dr. societies repair for war. one is clearly fear, but sometimes there are those in society. say we need to get ready because we may want to fight a war to take what we watch. the japanese militarist before the 2nd world war believe in a strong armed forces, so they could see more land on the mainland of china, so they could make a stronger japan. and so there are many motives wars, and many reasons why people do prepare to fight them. there's some missing parts of the book where you talk about the technological advancements that have come from war all the way from stirrups to silk shirts to steal ships and airplanes. we have to have a comment from. this is from a professor of history in florence, italy here, check us out. know the reach of societies on earth are fast approaching the moment when they will be able to wage war almost entirely by machines and automated systems without exposing their own men and women to destruction of the battle to.

so how will these change war, the propensity of our society is to wage war and the huge differential between the richest and the poor society hurts in these uneven relationship, i think isn't a question. and i didn't see any com. 40 answer these questions. i want to ask from are you to community didi. amelia says the west has made war worse than it was. people used to fight with swords and battlefield without children without women to innocent men. the western world has added fuel to the fire causing this. and so she's not that the advancement of war were becoming worse, and also i'd add one more thing. did you notice that the recent job was that happened in azerbaijan with are many other use of drones, for military writers are saying this signals a new age of warfare. but go ahead, if you want to comment about what it, what the video comment was. well,

i thought the 1st remark was, was, it was very good and i too am pessimistic because what's happening is it's possible to wage war at a great distance on people you never see, or people you never engage with. and that may make the waging boar much, much easier. so much of the war that has happened in the world since $945.00. not all but, but a lot of it has been powers fighting well away from their own territory, sending the armed forces abroad. and it's been possible for people in countries like united states or canada, my own country, or britain to see was something that others do happens elsewhere. and i think that is very, very dangerous. and i do worry about the growth of artificial intelligence and more of the growth of self guiding machines and more. and i think that is really worried . i think developed nations who want to wage that sort of war, however, will find that war may come to them. one of the things that the military in developed countries wearing a lot about now. and they showed as urban warfare and the possibility for small

urban guerrillas or small groups of people, often self recruited to wage war even on very powerful countries. so i think i see the future boards moving both in the very high tech level and often far away from the countries that are waging war, but also war of a low level which will cause a great deal of misery. as far as the west, being responsible for using technology and war, i think it's not just the west, any people's that has come across new technology has i think for about how it might be used to war. the models learned that the horse could be useful in war, it made them very effective warriors, and they learned how to make very, very powerful compet, bose development and steel. the production of steel was a great help to some of the armies that rampage through the middle east. so that i don't think the west just certainly in recent century is being responsible for a great deal of the technological advance in war. and indeed for

a great deal of the destruction of war. but it is, i think, something that is throughout human history, when a new technology comes along, societies have often wanted to see how they can use it for war. and that, i think is pretty much something that, that is part of humanity in for what i saw in iraq and afghanistan. and i wouldn't be surprised if you told me that the u. s. deployed more laptops and computers to those wars on the naked guns. i mean, it's really the signal that the information agent or mike that call for your book about rommel saying that the war is fought by quartermasters long before the battle begins. i think, you know, so much is put toward that kind of controlling and understanding information and logistics and supplies and, and all that. but what happened in as your original, which i just, i hinted at, is that this thing have been in a still made between these 2 territories for that, you know, 2030 years. and then they came in with a bunch of drones and within a month were able to force armenians into really a terrible comp, mizounos because of drone technology. so when you can do that without risking the

lives of the young people from your country, there becomes a disconnect between the political will that's required for politicians to conduct war and actually doing it. are there examples of that historically? where, where countries were maybe able to pay mercenaries to buy wars for them, so that they didn't require the political will, of their people. mercenary was, have been common throughout history and mercenaries have often come, understandably, from the poorest parts of the world. because it's the way i was in europe in the 16th and 17th century, the most nurse came from places like switzerland, ireland, scotland, because those are the poor parts of europe. and young men didn't have much opportunity in life. and war gave them at least a chance to leave and possibly to survive and possibly to get on in the world. but i think what we've also seen is always a search for a particular area and develop societies for types of technology that will enable

you to spare the lives of your own men. and it was great hope after the 1st world war that the airplane would make mass armies on the ground unnecessary. and that it would be possible to wage war at a distance using machines. and i think this is something that society keep on looking for the sort of solution that will enable them to get the edge over their enemies and not have to sacrifice their lives to the young people. i think what's also happening and it happens in different societies at different times, is the number of societies no longer are willing to see their young people sacrificed in war. i think the 1st and 2nd world war had a huge impact on public opinion in the countries that taught them. and i think in many countries is a real distaste now for risk rest risking the lives of those they would have risked in the past. we have another comment for someone in our youtube community right now . it is, is nationalism the main cause of modern celebration of war. i know nationalism played a big role in the great wars of the 20th century. and now we see nationalism on the

rise again with like trump in both narrow and bricks. it should we be? it's a canary. the coal mine we should be watching for i think nationalism has been a factor and warm it very much from the 18th, 19th century onwards, before that most people did not organize themselves or identified themselves as being part of national groups, but they didn't begin to do so nationalism as we know, as a very powerful force, it's like a religion and a way that people will do it for the sake of something that they see is much bigger than them, much more important than them, which will i live them and people are prepared to sacrifice and die for this thing called the nation. it's enormously important as a way of identifying ourselves. and i do worry because what nationalism so often does is not just say where a people bring us together. it also points out those who are excluded. it draws a line and it says they're not part of us and there are enemy. and so nationalism tends to want to find. opponents tend so much find enemies and therefore, i think is very dangerous. and we're seeing, i think,

arise of nationalism around the world. which i do think that potentially very dangerous. indeed, i'm in the recent clash in the hind mansions between india and china, engage nationalist passions in both countries. and there was a tendency to look on the other. the people on the other side is somehow your mortal enemy who would have to be confronted? so yes, i agree with the questioner. margaret, what's your favorite book on war? now that i've read your book, what's the next one you'd recommend to me? well, i start with the ad because it is both a masterpiece and a foundation, i think of world literature. but it also brings out the horror and yet the fatal attraction of war. you know, achilles is this great warrior and he's terrifying. and in some ways in human, but he's also greatly admired. and so i think i'd start with that, but i think i, it's hard to, to list all the things i think are wonderful. i tend to like the novels and the work for literature because they seem to me to capture something about war. i know

she leaned on tim o'brien's the things we carried a lot. that's an excellent one. my favorite is we die alone about the, the norwegian guy, yon buzzword, i think it's no, i'm mispronouncing his name, john balls. rude. have you read that book? we haven't. know, well, make notes. i'm a great admirer, tim o'brien, that american novelist. i mean, i think his description in vietnam and in the things they carries of what the sold went through. but he also gets at something which i think is a very important component. county board, that's a camaraderie. that's the feeling that those who are fighting have for each other. and i think he gets that very well indeed. i think it's a wonderful book. local people remember say 20300 years from now. what will be remembered about the 20th century? if we're still around it will be latin ever dust bins of history as well. i think people will look back at the 20th century as they are already looking back at

saying what an extraordinary century. i mean, in some ways, such great progress, enormous scientific and technological advances. social advances, not uniform, but certainly changes often for the better in societies and also what horrors that produce. how could this century have encompassed so much that was good about humanity in so much was bad. how could you produce these hideous tech dictatorships, the not to dictation of soviet dictatorship, a whole host of other dictatorships, miles dictatorship, totalitarian stays. how could it have improved the lives of so many people and also introduce killing on a mass scale? it's one of the most bloody centuries, i think in human history. and yet it has this paradox, and it also produce tremendous advances. an advantage in the way we think about each other, advances in human rights, advances in the sense, become in humanity. i don't know how people the future will characterize the 20th century. i think it will continue to be this extraordinary puzzle. if buzz aldrin

once told me that you know, 100 years now look back on the toys that are the only thing that will be remembered as war 2 and landing on the moon real quick. i got less than a minute, but i want to know if you had a nephew come to you and say they were thinking about joining the military or niece in less than a minute. what would you advise them? go and read about it. read them, memorize those who for if this is what you want and there are very good things about being in the military. yes. you will get an education, you will learn a lot from your people you meet. you'll meet some wonderful people. but remember that base what you're doing is repairing, if necessary to kill others and be killed. agent virus, margaret and they could definitely pick worse places and start than yearbook war. and that's what i'd recommend to start there and visit a v a hospital, maybe margaret, thank you for the time today and everyone in our audience. thank you. i'll see you next time. ah,

madagascar, a breathtaking tropical paradise where its former protectors are now wanting to very we follow their journey as they put their lives on the line. breaking. it's all medical on out of the euro. the us is always of interest, the people around the world. this is been going on for a number of what's being used to push the price by report. so just wanted to perspective to try to explain your mobile audience and why it's important that could impact their life at the height of the storm. water was still high, it would have been a pop by hey, this is an important part of the world. people pay attention to go out to do this very good at bringing the news to the world from bulgaria, the poorest nation,

the european union dropped by allegations of corruption, seemingly linked to the upper echelons of the countries. political in the aim of our earlier class was to get access to repeal money to europe in front of people in power investigation where the country goes from the carrier at the crossroads on a more than 10 years after the global financial crisis. you've taken home more than $480000000.00. your companies now bankrupt our economies in the state of crisis. i have a very casey question, a 1000000 lost at home in the us, who held responsible. i will be fabulously wealthy and i will not take any price for it. thank you, lloyd. the man who still was on al jazeera,

the who's evacuation flights resume from cobble airport. a day off, the thousands of afghans attempted to flee the army bomb takeover. but a different scene along the land border with pakistan inhabited by ethnic groups the toddy, bon, draw some support from ah, i'm sammy, they, dan, this is al jazeera live from the hall. so coming up joe biden. stan.