those days are not quite as distant as some suppose. we remember that a few people still alive today lived through them, albeit as children. 2014 will mark that centennial of the drama which profoundly influenced the history of the world. i spent the last three years writing a book describing both how the war came about and what happened on the battlefields

during its first months before the french lapsed into a stalemate. there is a widely held view, a delusion, as i shall argue, that the two world wars belong to different moral orders. nineteen -- robo one was a good war, world war ii was bad. the first subject was so horrendous that -- turned is that makes it of the two sides causes could badly to meant -- barely managed. they add a view of what they think happened. until 1941 britain defied the vast evil of nazism, berlin. in russia and the united states took this train encompassing the destruction of hitler. the struggle was nothing like as bloody as its predecessor, says some people kid themselves. the allies had better generals who understood that our soldiers should not be allowed to become the town's sacrifices.

but our ideas about the first world war i. much cloudier and indeed cannot fairly confused. even among educated people. if you have much idea why europe exploded, though they may know that a big league with an extravagant mustache got shot. the most widely held belief is that the conflict was simply a guessing mistake for which all the european powers share blame, it's folly compounded by the british incompetence of military commanders. this is what i would characterize as the poets greuel, first articulated by the likes of robert graves amid the modern blood they felt that no cause could be worth the slaughter. today some brave people and maybe also saw americans feel almost embarrassed that we finished up on the witness --

winning side, yet my own opinion is somewhat different. while the war was assuredly a colossal tragedy, there was a cause a stake. certainly, britain could not possibly have remained neutral, while germany secured e-germany over the continent. a german victory in world war -- world war i will simply have created something like the european union half a century earlier. that we, the british, not to mention the united states could have remained unbloodied by standards. more serious historians, however, including some of the best german ones see the 1914 kaiser reich as a militarized autocracy his victory would have been a disaster. i suggest that western civilization, almost as much reason to be grateful that the german ambitions were for stated in 1918 as in 1945 despite the

appalling cost can even if the outcome of the first clash proved how the tragic impermanence because germany is time under hitler got to the fourth all over again a generation later. i will not tonight detailed events of the summer of 1914, but i will offer a quick prayer. the archduke franz ferdinand, wrote to the austria--ton variant thereof was shot dead by a young hostage -- austrian-serb terrorists. no special sorrow for funds for an animated slight, but what they saw in the average, an ideal pretext for settling accounts with serbia, a politically troublesome little neighbor whose leaders in cited their own minorities to results. some serbian army officers and provided the weapons and households for the emperors of

the assassination, although personally and think it is unlikely that the belgrade government was involved. one aspect of 1914 seems to our generation incomprehensible. most european nations regarded war not as the supreme war, but as a usable instrument of policy. in the interpretation on how the conflict came about is possible, but the only one that seems to be untenable is that it was accidental. every government believed that it acted rationally in pursuit of its national interest. austria decided in the first days of july to invade and then break up serbia. everyone knew that russia regarded this as under their protection. vienna it dispatched an envoy to -- on this sixth of july kaiser wilhelm and his chancellor gave

what the historians call the blank check, an unqualified military support for crushing serbia. this was incredibly reckless. some modern historians have produced elaborate arguments to deflect blame from germany for what followed. but it seems to me impossible to escape this undisputed fact. the kaiser's government endorsed austria's decision to unleash a balkan war, and this created everything the allies did. some serious historians, including several german one suggest that the kaiser's regime intended from the beginning of the crisis to precipitate a general european conflict. i do not buy that. i think the germans wanted their austrian al qaeda fresh serbia without anybody else getting involved. they were amazingly willing to accept the risk that a general

european countries and with all of. ruled not quite as an absolute monarchies like the czar of russia, but an autocracy in which a partially an inch timber left to posture while his generals planned for the premise that war had served pressure well with three great victories in the previous half century. they also recognized that democracy now threatened their control of their own country. there was a socialist majority in the german parliament which was vehemently opposed to militarism and promised to send to end the kaisers and dysfunctional personal rule. more than a few conservative politicians and soldiers believe that a triumph of law could hold the events of the socialist side. they also made a mistake typical of their rage. they underestimated the

dominance their country was achieving through its industrial powers without firing a shot on any battlefield. germany was powering ahead of britain, france, russia buy every command indicator. but the kaiser and his generals measured strength by counting soldiers. they were fixated by russia's growing military might. there calculations showed as early as 1916 the russians would achieve a decisive advantage. it was this prospect that caused germany's army chief of staff to growl at a secret strategy meeting in december 1912 shared by the kaiser, war, and the sooner the better. in 1914 the germans were confident that they could achieve victory over russia and its ally, france. they discounted britain, third party in the so-called palmtops, because the army was tiny and as

the kaiser cleverly remarked, the red knots have no wheels. the austrians duly declared war on serbia on the 28 to july and started bombarding belgrade. the russians mobilized three days later. apologies for germany point out that the czar's army's last move before the kaiser's did, the russian government saw no choice . the vast distances of they're countrymen that it must take longer for their forces to concentrate. they were terrified the germans would literally steal the march on. there was an argument which some historians to my respect advance and which we should acknowledge that the russians ought to have left the austrians to crush serbia rather than lie in the conflict. but i am personally unpersuaded. a bizarre triumphed over took berlin on the 301st of july.

after the kaiser signed juries mobilization order with his unfailing instinct for the rochester he ordered champagne to be served to sweet. a bavarian general of the war ministry soon after news team of russian mobilization noted, gleaming face is commendable shaking hands and corduroys congratulate one another. russia had acted in accordance with the avowed hopes of germany's military leaders. the kaiser's generals now many experts fear that france might be inclined to follow suit. wilhelm despise the french as a feminine grace, not maine -- manley like the anglo-saxons. and this influences lack of apprehension about fighting. the french knew that the german war plan required a swift smashing defeat of their own army, before turning on russia.

sure enough berlin send a message to paris saying that unless france surrendered its frontier fortresses to germany as a guarantee its neutrality would not be accepted. instead and inevitably the french mobilized. as for britain, even at this very late hour, most of its government and people opposed involvement in europe's four. they have no sympathy for either serbia or russia. some, instead, have a real fellow feeling towards germany and its culture. in july the first duke of wellington's great niece told in a fashion that echoed widespread sentiment that it is not the germans, but the french that i am frightened of. but then suddenly everything changed. germany blundered.

it's war plan demanded an assault on france through belgium of his neutrality britain was a guarantor. berlin formally notified london of its intention to invade. moto was so the shore that britain would enter the war and a weighted he decided that marching through belgium would change nothing. he could not have been more wrong. that decision cost the british government to send an ultimatum to germany committing the country to fight unless the invaded iraq has, of course, they did not. on the fourth of august britain became the last major european power to register all. it must be wrong to attribute exclusive responsibility for what happened in 1914 to any one nation. in considering what happened i am going back again and again to a simple truth, scarcely any

recent historian thinks the british, french, or even the russians wanted a european company -- conflict. the germans on the other hand, though they did not want the big war that they got, certainly will a balkan one which led to everything else in which they could prevented at any moment during july by telling the austrians to stop. and that is why they seem to it the most blameworthy. what followed in the ensuing hours was so appalling that some people suggest that germany's triumph would have been a lesser evil. but the kaiser rights records was promised even by contemporary standards. and in normative will be on the scope of any british colonial

misdeed and responsible for 100,000 deaths. so some german socialists denounce the slaughter. the kaiser decorated the senior officers to carry it out. there army committed systematic massacres of all 6,400 civilians about which later. a few historians argue that britain could have stayed neutral in 1914 and prospered mightily by doing so. but the dominating instincts of germany's leader would scarcely have been moderated. it would almost certainly have been the consequence of british neutrality. kaiser's regime did not go to war with a grand plan for world domination. but its leaders quickly identified massive rewards as their price for granting an armistice to the allied. on the ninth of september, 1914, when berlin saw victory limning,

germany's chancellor drafted a shopping list. france was to surrender its entire armada deposits, the frontier region of belfort, a coastal strip which was to be resettled by german veterans, the western slopes of the rose mountains, a strategic fortress that would be demolished, and huge cash preparations page. elsewhere luxembourg would be annexed outright. belgium and holland transformed into battle states, russia's borders vastly shrunken. a vast colonial empire would be created in central africa together with a german economic union extending from scandinavia to turkey. while other german leaders propose different demands, some of them even more draconian, all took it for granted that they should not stop fighting until their nation had been assured its enemy over europe.

it is only important continental rivals, it seems to me sensible to imagine that its rulers would, afterwards, who offered a generous accommodation to a mutual great britain all acquiesce in a global status quo dominated by british financial interests. machiavelli observed that the wars began but do not end. it any responsible allied government between 1914 and 1814 and granted such a piece is germany sought command such as it did impose on the russians after its secured victory over them in 1917. it remains very hard to see how allied states could be extracted once the struggle began until there was a decision on the battlefield. the pellets feel that the merits of the allied course became meaningless and the struggle has been allowed drastically to this

port modern perceptions. many veterans in their lifetimes deplored the notions that they spoke for their generation. one revisionist was an old british soldier named in the knowledge. he wrote in 1978 that he utterly rejected the notion that the war was one of vast useless if you dial tragedy worthy to remember only as a pitiable mistake. instead, i and my like entered the war expecting an heroic venture and believing in the rightness of our cause. we ended, as to the nature of the adventure, but still believing that our cause was right and we had not fought in vain. almost every scene, competent recoil from the miseries of the battlefield but this did not mean that they thought their countries should acquiesce in the triumph of their enemies.

george orwell wrote with his accustomed in sight 30 years later that the only way to end the war quickly is to lose it. it is a myth that europeans welcome to the outbreak in 1914. most were appalled. but some romantics and nationalists did enthuse among the men austrian house wife who wrote lyrically in her diary about have budget grandeur of the time elsewhere, however, there was a terrible this may. not only on the eastern side of the edmonton. an indiana newspaper wrote with a disdain widely shared across the american continent, whenever appreciate so keenly is now the foresight exercised by our forefathers in immigrating from europe. [laughter]

>> in one community sure police ordeals' carry the water to the church square at 430 on the afternoon on the first of august. immediately the local bell ringers some of the population. the british teacher describes the effect. it seemed that suddenly the old tocsin had returned to haunt us. no one spoke for a long while. some more out of breath among others down with shock, many still carrying pitchforks and their hands. the women asked, what can it mean, what is going to happen to us? wives, children, husbands, all were overcome by english and emotion. the wives come to the arms of their husbands with children seeing and others weeping and started to cry as well. most of the men resorted to a kafir to discuss the practical issue of how the artist was to be gutted. then the the young and even the not so young boarded the trains and went to join the army's.

winston churchill wrote after it was all over cannot know part of the great work in pairs and interest with its opening, the measured, sunland, drawing together a gigantic forces, the uncertainty of their movements and positions, the number of unknown and unknowable facts made the first collision a drama never surpassed, nor was there any of their time in the war and the general battle was waged on so greater scale, the slaughter was so swift with the stakes so high. moreover, and the beginning our faculty is a wonder, or, and excitement, not authorized and didn't mind the years. all this was said, the view of his fellow participants regarded lows as the events with such eager appetite. many british people were at first uncertain whether they had

entered the war on the right side, but opinions hardened when reports emerged about the conduct of the german invaders a belgian. yes, some of the stories were fictions, crude propaganda, but the most modern scholarly research shows that beyond several other towns in many villages, the germans shot in cold blood hostages, some 6,400 civilians of all ages and both sexes. one among many german, an officer named count kessler wrote on the 22nd of august, the inhabitants show protect our pioneers killing 20 of them. as a punishment approximately 200 citizens were court-martialed and shot. the story of the attack was offensive, with the execution was cold fact.

unnecessary to persist in detailing such episodes. the latest research catalogs 129 major in trustees during the first weeks of the war. a grand total of 6,427 civilians known to have been deliberately killed by the german army during its 1914 operations. while it is mistaken to compare the kaiser's regime to that of the nazis in a generation later, its conduct in 1914 scarcely suggests that its victory would have been a triumph of european civilization. as for the way the war was fought once it begun, almost every modern scholar agrees that it is an allusion to imagine it was never an easy part toward winning in and had commanders of napoleonic years led the army. in any struggle between great 20th-century industrial nations an enormous amount of dying in killing have to happen before

one side or the other prevails. what distinguished the second or more from the first was not that the allies had better or more humane commanders in a letter conflict but that between 1941 and 45 the russians accepted almost all the sacrifice necessary to beat the nazis, 27 million dead and responsible for 92 percent of the german army's total war loss. although heaven knows it did not seem so to those around the time , the western allies paid only a small fraction of the blood price of winning world war ii. by contrast to 191418 the british and french people's bidding much heavier forfeit, double assets of 1939 and 45 for us, the trouble for france. in the early weeks of the first war battles were fought utterly unlike those that can later and, indeed, more like the clashes of

napoleon's era than the 20th century. every nation launched almost immediate offenses except the british is little exhibition reports were still in transit when the armies of france first clashed with those of germany. the most costly single day of the entire 1914 conflict was the 22nd of august. those early battles were not remotely like that. the late summer of 1914, french is -- the french army advanced the attack across burgeoning countryside led by bands, flags flying officers wearing white gloves and waiting sores riding horses.

in one clash on the morning of the 22nd of august in thick fog french columns marched north through the village of it all just inside belgium. cavalry trotting ahead approached the farm atop a steep hill and met heavy enemy fire. a day of chaos and what followed the germans started to events, ordered by their officers to identify themselves in the mark by singing national songs. suddenly, dramatically, the mists lifted. the french infantry exposed in full view of german gunners. a slaughter followed. the infantry tried to renew there hands uphill in short rushes. french field service regulations is in that in 20 seconds attackers could run 50 yards,

therefore an enemy could relive his rifles. a survivor observed bitterly, the people who wrote those regulations had simply forgotten the existence of such things as machine guns. we could distinctly hear two of the coffee grinder said work. every time our man got up to enhance the line got thinner. finally, our captain gave the order, fix bayonets in charge. it was midday by now. our main in full kid started running heavily at the grassy slope, drums beating, beatles son in the charge. we were all shot down. i was sick. and later until i was picked up, that evening a survivor stunned by his experiences stood motionless muttering in and began cannot mona. further north and advanced up

the ardennes. white man power against germany. he said about the french black soldiers, in future battles these parameters for whose life council. now war had come this suffered a death rate shockingly higher than that of their white comrades. there were so often selected for suicidal tasks.

the units advanced in column through the village into a force known. the french had not recommended. they simply marched into the midst of women led by the shutter of their feet. german troops among the trees waited patiently until the whole division was committee and in unleased and tormented. trapped on a narrow track, forces command, cards, chaos until the lucky ones contrived to surrender. a division in an hour and a half loss 228 officers and 10,272 other ranks including 3,800. immemorial was elected by the fight.

grieving parent never forgive himself because he responded to his sons prewar saying of wild goats by insisting that he should join to source and not. in such a fashion in a dozen battles along the frontiers of france, 27,000 young frenchman without gaining a yard of ground one general read c'mon of all, results hardly satisfactory. the next day the british in toward their own action just inside belgium. they fought gallantly enough, but heavily outnumbered they had no choice but to retreat that night. three days later they staged another rearguard action which resembled the battle after the napoleonic wars. no one entrenches spirited

germans advanced across cornfields. against british infantry and artillery deployed in full view. the slaughter was nothing like as severe as the french had faced a number of british losses or a savvy as they suffered at later on the sixth of june 1944 the british and french found themselves retreating under a blazing sun and the occasional thunderstorms in the case -- face of apparently invincible german masses. it seems overwhelmingly likely that germany was on the brink of absolute power. it was not easy for the allied armies to altogether a retreat that turn to become a route.

on the evening of the 21st of august a british officer rode in and a shock to find that to the italians and british infantry lying exhausted simply waiting to be taken prisoner by that germans. incredibly they were given that towns a written undertaking a surrender their cavalry officer hastily retrieve this damning piece of paper and somehow heard -- herded the interim in back on to their feet shuttling along the road to rejoin the army. responded by enlisting as a private in a french foreign legion with which he lost a leg. after the working towards the

fifth part and elkington and awarded him a dsl in recognition to his gallantry and searing rehabilitation. the colonel about the rest of his life as a recluse and refused ever to wear his battles humbler soldiers suffered even heart -- harsher fates. both the british and french resorted to drastic sanctions against those on whose side it was all too much. one such was private thomas high gate of the loyalists can't. on the afternoon of the sixth of september, the day the french launched their massive counteroffensive on the mark which drove back the germans from the gates of paris, and english gamekeeper on the rothchild estate south of paris surprise tidied. the soldier made a personal decision that the glories of the moment or not for him and was wearing stolen civilian clothes.

shot by firing squad on the eighth of september. a ceremony watched by two companies whose comrades falling in order from the corps commander. that officer said he wanted the executions and the maximum deterrent effect. specified that high gate should be killed as publicly as possible, so he was. today such punishments i thought to have been barbaric. regions receive posthumous pardons from the british government. to me this is a touch of market to tomorrow concede to pretend that we can retrospectively impose on our forefathers the more humane values of the 21st century. it is a good question test you would have done. the indian army in danger of collapse, many runaway and deserve our sympathy, but they also put at risk host of their mates to must do double duty

enough to make double sacrifice to compensate for those who flinch. i will not be so cruel as to say that, gate and his can deserve their fates, but i will say that if i had been the commander in that distant era and might have thought of not making the same decision on the eighth of september 1914. it soldiers had believed there was an acceptable way to get out of that ghastly clash of arms who would not have taken it? i've written a good deal about the predicament of women in the early months of the war their role was grotesquely constricted . some female patriots decided that if insufficient yemen or volunteering for military service women could do there bit by shaming in into the amen was playing golf with a friend and just congratulate himself on a fine shot when two girls came out with the new by club house and one said, sharply, that was a good shot, wasn't it.

i hope you will be making as good a shot against the germans the fog preventing both of them with white feathers. the players and identified themselves as officers in the london rifle brigade. amelie told me to monday and females are somewhat pressed and made inadequate excuses, but many women across europe found a profound sense of frustration that their own contribution to the war effort was initially confined to knitting for the troops. first of their neighbors was sometimes cynically received. cataloguing a consignment which reached his austrian unit in serbia in november. warm underwear, neatly embroidered gloves, wristlets with the hard steps to and read convinced if it baby elephants, kneepads for stocks. grudgingly grateful but said he would have preferred cigarettes. that jim teal british magazine

stirred to help women undress and expected social problems shown above the war. in its state the difficulty, on the tenth of december it raised the dilemma facing a can't-owning woman who houses a dog for an officer has gone to the front. and the doctor is killing her cats, what should she do? the lady said authoritatively that she had a responsibility to insure the dow was properly quarter but might reasonably sneak -- seek another home for it. i have ended my narrative of 1914 with the story of the first battle in october and november. the western corner of belgian the french and british avalon against huge and apparently endless attacks, the cost of leaving most of their men, britain's professional army to propose forever in local signatories to the cemeteries. the allied victory was frustrating the germans last attempt to achieve a war-winning

breaker and the west in 1914. but it was purchased at such cost in suffering and sacrifice that nobody felt like celebrating. the first true french battle of the war fought a bid -- amid mud and blood and sometimes waist-high water. those who took part found it impossible to imagine that such a struggle could continue for many more weeks, far less. today sometimes we are tempted to look upon those words, rest in peace, current on so many gravestones as a mere cliche. to those who experience to eat and all the ghastly battles that followed, those words have are real and profound meaning. a brigadier guard officer wrote about a friend and colleague killed. when i think of poor bernard's other wariness, i looked in the trash in the early morning and

we still could take his place. he was so done. i think we are now at peace away from all of this noise in misery a merit must be terrible for his wife. it cannot be bad for him. i must -- it must comfort to know that he can rest of last. well, words of that sort had a profound meaning. but me finish where i started by emphasizing my own belief that while the first world war was an unspeakable catastrophe for your and the sioux had divided, it is mistaken to consider it from an allied perspective to have been time. in the summer of 1918 the allies now including the united states achieved a great victory in the western front which led to the armistice germany was obliged to accept a november. no sane person could suggest that next year should become an

occasion for celebration of a conflict or, indeed, that victory. but i should like to hope that our respective societies can break free from the weary, stair aisle, futility cliches and a knowledge that if allied victory in the first world war led to the most imperfect peace, as do most complex, the best argument for welcoming the outcome of the first world war is to consider the alternative consequences of a german victory. 1914, germany has ruled by the kaiser and his generals. represented a maligned force. all deaths and all wars are cause for lamentation. the only credible alternative to the huge sacrifice made by the allies was that a german military dictatorship prevailed his arbitration of europe would have been vastly more draconian than in many is the sign that

for some night in june, 1919. thank you all very much, indeed. [applause] >> i'm very happy to do some questions. don't worry. it i'm terribly death. >> it is in exorable, inevitable , i substantiate, austria, hungary. don't worry about it. could you elaborate on that? what was the relationship? >> alumnae. >> what did they say? >> no possibility. that is why the austrians on

august the fifth, july the fifth, sent representatives from vienna to berlin to ensure ahead german support before they attacked serbia as they were terrified of the russians coming in against them on the run. there was one moment on the 28 in july when the kaiser and its chancellor suddenly had a crisis of nerve about what they were getting into and i'm suggesting that vienna should think about stopping. but on that same day the head of the german army was running things sent to another table, his own. my that stays the answer. >> the air power.

aircraft played a critical role. it did occasionally happen. he really important. it would open in opporunity for the french. on the other hand, when the german army was approaching they believed the pilots and asserted

quizzing. they refuse the important. there were able to get away with more. aircraft were transformational. >> the germans used belgium as a gateway the russians said very early that they envisioned a centralization. >> mostly the french communists. i have simply forgotten whether or not the intended to incorporate the belgian congo. i would think it highly likely,

but it was most -- mostly the french communists they have their eyes on. >> have recently commenced reading. of if -- >> the first thing we said about 1914, the evidence is so confusing and contradictory that you can use it to advance a range of theories. and one thing i would always say myself about this, i have a take on this which is different. but i am not going to stand here and say that i think he is completely wrong because it is possible the only way i do think he stretches too far, he argued in his extremely well-written book last year that serbia was effectively a rogue state and the austrians had a reasonable

right to this rate, which i find impossible to accept. he also argued that the russians were composite in the assassination plot. there is not a shred of evidence for that. >> in your book or in print. >> i don't really believe in the first draft of my book. i expect most have been read by the age of 90i still regard this hour. when he read the first draft of my book he said, you're not writing a book reviews of everyone else's book. he persuaded me to cut out all direct references. in the end all one can do is offer once on take. this sort of thing makes it very difficult for historians and makes a wide range of interpretations possible. for instance, we know 1945 after the allied victory, where were

the allies in berlin? the american israel to ship off to washington most of the german archives. by contrast to 1918, the germans are still running things in berlin. and as soon as it became an issue we know that the germans had a terrific bonfire of documents which might conceivably have influenced, but the problem for historians as we know there was a bonfire, but we don't know exactly what was burned. and so you can -- you are always winning probabilities, and a need to give you one more example about this. chris clarke thought that the yugoslav government out that the broker -- belgrade government was complicity in the plot to kill frons ferdinand. absolutely no evidence one way of the other. one conversation in the 1920's. as a matter of common sense i said to myself, says the army officer who was behind the plot

had tried to and seriously considered assassinating the serbian prime minister a few months earlier and not persuaded that the civilian government was on sufficiently good terms still collaborate in a plot. and by the same token the suggestion that the russians would consider again as a matter of common sense, could the russians have wanted a war in 1914? the russians were in the midst of a huge rearmament program, building railways like crazy. if they waited two more years from 1916 that position would have been incorporated strongly. so i say to myself as a matter of common sense, is it likely that the russians secretly wanted of war, but none of this is susceptible. i have great respect for this historian, even though i disagree with a good many of his points in the book, and all i can say is in the case of all of you, you take your choice. toward the back.

>> you say it was trench warfare. was it true? the chinese people played no role in the out in the trenches? >> well, from the awesome everyone literally disappeared into the air if in october, november, 1914 and stayed invisible from october and november onwards. it was almost impossible for a man to raise that it literally without getting shot. and would change the nature of warfare, before october all these huge battles in which the french lost a million casualties, everyone, it was just like the 19th century or you could see everything it was going on whereas from then on suddenly everyone burrows into the arrogance of the you look on

the battlefield and it appears to be empty. no one appears except during these murderous attacks. from then onward, and the other thing, almost all serious fighting from november onward took place in the northern france and belgium sector because further south the ground was not very favorable for a tax. and in a place like that those mountains, they had little attacks. but not until 1916 did you get bigger action further south than the germans made this terrific bush. >> any more questions? >> i think we can manage to buy three more anyway. yes. >> go through belgium. >> i personally argued in my book that it was a fantasist a lot of germans went on arguing after the war that if only yet

executed the plan properly which involved a huge sweep around, then it could have won. but the big problem there were primitive motor cars, but these armies have to march on their feet and under whose of their horses. and taken 400 miles across ground. these men, it was a fantastic, beyond the mean. of course lost control of the army's so that by september it was taken 20 hours to find out where some of these forces at got to. and i think the german you right up into the 1930's and after was that it was only a loss of nerve that caused the concept, as i call it in the book. the plan was never detailed. but i think this idea that it was the failure of execution, exercise disastrous influence

because he convinced the kaiser and a lot of other people that it was possible for germany to wage a victorious war. and if they had not had that division. at the very back. >> early on. the germans looked forward to the war because the socialists were gaining power. the same argument, england, france, russia, domestication is rising. >> i am not -- in this case i am gone into this in considerable detail. but certainly in the case of the british there were overwhelmingly preoccupied in 1914 with their own domestic crises and the striking, about the king and the crisis, they were not talking about the european crisis.

and one problem, i don't actually think that the british, wherever they had done, i don't think it could influence what happened on the constant to cut kampf -- comment on that stage. not paying proper attention because it was totally preoccupied. not only had the irish crisis on its hand, but also it had huge industrial labor problems with widespread strikes and many people really thought england was on the verge of revolution. again, michael howard, my hero, always says, we must always remember, there was a time when even snell in the pastor still in the future. and the fact that -- although we know now that there was not a civil war over ireland, there seemed to the british people of that time, a real prospect that it was going to happen. >> more explicitly comment.

they surrendered. >> well, outside the scope of my book. stand up in the back. germans advanced after the war. but germany could have won. it's actually nonsense. although by that stage no one was in the mood to celebrate. the allies pushed right across france. part of the trouble is, he said that he found in germany no great sense of guilt but a huge sense of defeat because the country had been flattened, mostly by bombing. that was not true in 1918. this was part of the trouble. germany was almost on start,

untouched by the war. now i'm not here for a moment seeking to make an argument that they should have read in germany in 1918, but it did make a big difference in the german attitude. it was hard to believe that they had suffered total defeat. 1945, a kid yourself how you will, you knew that they had lost. i think one more. yes. over there. >> apprehension certainly that the rice. aziz said, in part by that same movement. it had something to do with europe. socialism, the revolutionary

forces. >> the only country in which one can say fairly confidently because the evidence is there that a good many german army officers and some conservative politicians put deeply on record that they thought a triumph of brocket hold back, push back the socialist side. germany had the largest socialist party in europe in 1914. it is more difficult to quantify. i don't think for a moment. never heard anyone suggest that as foolish as they may have been, they thought that a war was a good means of sorting out the last. on the other hand, what is amazing is that several senior politicians in britain did say publicly, and ' in the book, that at least the european war was going to take everyone's mind of the prospect of civil war in ireland which in

hindsight looks fantastic, but they did say. in russia, of course, by contrast, the reason that the czar was so reluctant to get into the work and may yet seen they had the limited revolution in 1905. he was terrified that it would be the end of the romanovs. on the other end, the austrians were very strongly motivated a belief that a small war in the balkans, they did not want the big bull -- for. there really thought this could solve the problems which we can see was a disastrous misconception. have to say, those of you who don't know too much about 1914 will get the message. i heard a german historian say, i think we all agree that the july crisis of 1914 was the most complex series of events in

human history. i have learned nothing in the last three years to suggest that he was wrong. anyway, thank you all so much for coming. [applause] >> booktv this on facebook. facb like us to interact with booktv guests and viewers.ed watching videos and get up-to-date information on events. facebook.com/booktv. >> here's a look at some of the best selling nonfiction books according to "the wall street journal." this list reflects sales as of november 17.

>> these are some the current best selling nonfiction books according to "the wall street journal." >> you are watching booktv. next, elizabeth varon recalls confederate general robert e. lee's surrender to the ulysses s. grant led union forces at mclean house in appomattox, virginia, on april 9, 1865. this is about 45 minutes.

>> thank you so much for the t very, very kind introduction. it's a pleasure to be here. robert e. lee surrendered to he .s. grant is for most american5 a familiar template to the two ment met in the house of wilmer mclean here in the modest central virginia hamlet of appomattox courthouse. ceal lee wore a uniform and embodied about gentility the south planter elite. grant dressed casually in a mudd spattered uniform represents hardscrabble farmers and wage earners he hadan molded into so figh formidable a fighting machine after october let exchanging pleasantries about their servicr in the mexican war, the two a mn agreed to the agreement. grants term set for the concord soldiers of the army of northern virginia. the promise that he would never against thep arms united states. magnanimity in ts

relates to the preservation of the labor united the north and south that prepared the way for america's emergence as a world power. this is an edifying story, a comforting one die-cast healing it transcends politics. today i'll tell you an altogether different mathematic story and suggested what happened here on april 9th 1865 is even more significant and fascinating than we've realized. the surrender was inherently political moment i would set the terms of an unfolding debate about the meetings that the war. leeann grant, consummate leaders both do this in each man move to stake out a position. for the come of surrender was the negotiation of which he secured honorable terms for his blameless man in the peace is contingent on the north's good behavior. the union victory in the sizes one overrated. entrance fee the surrender was sent negotiation. he could be immersed while precisely because he went badly

utterly powerless and discredit to his cause. grants terms were designed to affect confederates submission and atonement. for a grant from the union victory was spread over rob and peace is contingent on the south's good behavior. competing granted they did not crack the surrender terms in isolation it for the appomattox drama unfolded, countrymen and women would crowd the scene and invest with aspirations and dreams and the students included the dream of freedom itself. in the eyes of african-american soldiers and former slaves, more than the union had been vindicated that april day. the surrender was for them. a freedom day, the moment the promise of emancipation was finally fulfilled. i'll propose three distinct understandings is a moment of rest duration. this is the confederate interpretation of vindication liberation took shape within the contending armies on april 9,

1865. i'll suggested the debates over the terms reveal not only the depth of the bitterness between the earth and the vanquished, but deep divisions within each society north and south. so we'll begin with the confederate interpretation. on april 81865 to retrieve bad to grant in response to green suggestion that the confederate cause is hopeless in that time had come to capitulate. lee wrote, to be frank i do not think the emergency has arisen for the surrendered his army but as the restoration of peace should be the sole object of a desire to know whether proposals would lead to the end. i cannot meet you with a view to the surrender of northern virginia. as far as the restoration of peace, i should be pleased to meet you. using the word restoration price, lee began to elaborate position of an honorable peace. what did he mean by restoration? is a favorite theme of the northern peace democrats who deplored the lincoln administration's conduct of the

work, war, particularly i think the man patient and sought to return the union to the way it was the third 1864 campaign slogan. we had hoped in vain the confederate battlefield victories with all the chorus of northern dissent and bring the north to the negotiating table. please on understanding the distinct from that of the northern democrat and it was rooted in his family culture and that of his native virginia. like many other virginians of his generation, elite bloodlines , leave the state for days of the earlier public. neither states on the stick it for granted to be my leader in felt a proprietary pride in the union. for lee, an honorable peace would restore for the south of prosperity influence of his words. he associated with the case of an imagined past before the nation had drifted away from the principles of the virginia founders. from april 1865 on, restoration would be these political keyword and we see a crop up again and again and again and his postwar

correspondent. for example, six months after the surrender, he wrote to matthew fontaine maury, as long as virtue is dominant, so long as the happiness of the people secure. and ever merciful guys give us from destruction and restores to the bright hopes and prospects of the past. this is a fundamentally backward looking view of the peace. these hopes were restoration or premise not only a nostalgic, but the case this time he was lameness. he elaborated the case in april 10 in his farewell address under the sky by charles marshall. it began after four years of arduous service marked by unsurpassed courage and fortitude the army of northern virginia has been compelled to go to overwhelming recent resources, unquote. confederate church amid steadfast in the continued in contrast satisfaction even in this bitter hour from the consciousness of duty faithfully performed. please address took on an iconic status. it had profound emotional

resonance to his starting unexhausted church. the yankee army seemed endless and income are seen. billy's farewell address had layers of meaning and deep tangled roots. for white southerners, the reference to overwhelming numbers and resource this is a sort of code in the context of proslavery ideology of the creed members conjured up a northern army of mercenaries, seducer coerced into service and having no real taken the fight. resources conjured up images of northern factories and cities in which it exploited underclass is turned material support at the behest of rapacious capitalists. succession is sensing the burgeoning love the population of the north doesn't type of northern society, and social instability and obsession at the bottom line. the addresses reference to the courage and fortitude of the confederate troops as part of parcel of the same in dayton and of the north. defenders of the southern way of life had made a staple of the claim that southern men accustomed to mastery over

always her readers are nursed at the northern. lee was well aware of this ideological freight. in a planet union troops had not been equal to the confederate once the essential attributes of and had, his farewell address made a political statement. by denying legitimacy of the north military vic drake, confederates could tonight and with the right to impose its political will on the defeated south. here at appomattox, we moved on a second front to cast the surrender terms in the best possible light, hoping their paroles could confer a measure of immunity from reprisals at the hands of the federal, lee requested of grant at their april 10 made in on horseback that each individual confederate be issued a printed certificate signed by a union officer is proof that the soldier came under the settlement of april 9. grant readily assented to this request in keeping with the language of the surrender terms match that of the soldier observed the force for he

resided, he would not be disturbed. he then imagines the certificates would remind confederates of the obligations attendant upon their status as paroled prisoners of war. but the confederates emphasize the will not be disturbed cause in their eyes from the paroles represented the promise that honorable men would not be treated dishonorably. in the confederate interpretation from the surrender terms impose conditions on the north. april 20191865 interview with the "new york herald," they want arbitrary urban dig ever read full apologies were adopted by the republican administration from the southerners would the terms reached that would renew the fight. 10 months later testifying before congressional committee, investigating ways of anti-black violence, they defended the policies of andy johnson from which i'd write ex-confederates back to power and again cautioned the north must be restrained and conservative in its approach to reunion or that was the best way for northerners to retain the good opinion of

the south. the main point here is this. lee has a reputation in the modern day for having counseled resignation and deceit. but for confederates of the posts were. camellia's 90s humblest admission. instead he was the symbol of an out pride and measured defiance. confederate civilians imagine the very surrender seem as an in the to korea. a revealing the fanciful report on the conference at the mclean house circulated through confederate newspapers immediately to 65 in which lee offers gripped his sword, but greed refuses to take it. according to the newspaper account cummock returned to his generally, keep that sort. you have not been wiped, but overpowered and i cannot receive it as a token of surrender from so brave a man, a quote. of course, grant never said such things but it assigns the

overwrite interpretation. confederates on the holmes wrote of the surrender seem that union officers cheered poorly as they left the mclean house and the rank-and-file yankee dared not utter a single insulting word to the defeated rebels. why were the yankees the victors? aggressively submissive, they fear the line even ashamed. to your door, confederates not only cannot get him to the overwhelming recent resources interpretation of their defeat, but the sentiments of the address, they invoke the appomattox terms and particularly the will not be disturbed cause is issued against social change and a weapon of them in battle over black civil rights. republican efforts to get the re-people measure of equality and opportunity and protection were met by confederate protest is such a radical agenda was a betrayal of the appomattox term. the prospect of black citizenship is one virginia newspaper put it, the less disturbed side.

in short, confederates believed that lee had drawn the line in the sand at appomattox. north carolina poet put it most distinctly. urgent southerners to model good behavior she wrote in the summer of 1866 that lee had quote not stoop to scrimmaged crowd had one breath to surrender to create. confederates would observe the parole terms, but she insisted an honorable enemy should not desire. it is idle to attempt to force the confederates juice day they were wrong. from the start, this view, this view of things as are some of out of are some of the object of faith in her circle in the vast majority of union soldiers and civilians. it is precisely the admission of wrongdoing in a change of heart that grants offered his defeated those. please rhetoric of restoration help no charm to the new

general. grant expressing his support for lincoln in 1864 election has explicitly rejected the equation at peace with restoration of a turning back the clock. he associated such language with defeatism that the democrats in a specter is great but it is a restoration to the south of slaves 30 free. grant also rejected the notion he had been anything negotiated with lee at appomattox. he had all the cars on april 9, 1865. green felt demeaning to to be unmistakable. hero, never claim to the protein of these prisoners any political rights whatsoever. i thought that was the matter with congress over which i have no control. the general chief commanding army i had to read to stipulate to surrender in terms which the confederate bias. these terms rested on military calculations. great post on april 9, 1865 that should be surrender. other rebel armies would surrender and grandpa to be the thus avoid bushwhacking a

continuation of the war. in the interpretation, grant's terms did not set the men free pic technically paroled bubbles were prisoners of war whose freedom is entirely contingent on their good behavior. the surrender was her creative vindication on many levels. restoration is least keyword of vindication. he was keenly aware of the fact that over the course of the word many northerners in the union army and government press had attributed to the formidable the superhuman qualities as graham put it in his memoirs. written while long the rebel chief was mortal and the surrender vindicated. that knowledge. moreover, grant had long stood by the charge leveled by the antiwar copperhead preston north victory was a merciless butchery. greenfeld undisguised contempt for the stay-at-home traders and antiwar copperhead. now if defeat in france showed lenience that mantle of butcher would fall from credentialed or so last. more than anything the surrender

criticizes the triumph of a just cause coming in because of the union. do you use triumph vindicated to rule by majority. the founders believed in a perpetual union. the capacity of citizen soldiers represent a democracy to the conscripts and dukes of an autocratic society. the downfall of the confederacy on bird in the south slavery, and institution imports while civilized people not brought up under it as graham put it. now the way was open for the unions eat those of moral and material progress and the white southerners to the distant brought from serb serbians slaveholding class how great saw it. grievously the surrender terms what he said the political conversion of the defeated confederate to a creed of democratic self-government of freedom. great did not believe lee and his men to be blameless. he describes the session is a sin in a crime, but he believed for everything there must be achieved atonement and his mercy

again was designed to affect that atonement. grant made no concession to the confederates are copperhead fitness terms. his generosity was the generosity of a conqueror whose the jury was total. grimsby of the surrenders in triumph of right over wrong are just as resident and enduring among northerners as lee's interpretation did among southerners. among the northerners who embrace grants policy of magnanimity were abolitionists of radical republicans, part of the argument of my book as americans across a spectrum embraced magnanimity, but investors very different kind of meanings. he was charged at the time they confederates and copperhead sabbaticals, abolitionist of radical republicans were intent on vengeance against the south. the historical record suggests otherwise. in the eyes of abolitionist such as the influential gold editor, magnanimity with the means to achieve a purpose namely the ascent of the south to emancipation.

reporters saw magnanimity as an emblem of their moral authority. superb disc really put the civilization based on three labors of a higher and more humane type are not based on slavery. really continued, i want as many rebels is possible to live to see the south rejuvenated and transferred by the influence of free labor. but fitter fate for the likes of leap into bear witness to the unfolding social revolution. this is how greeley saw things here at ms since coming northerners who embrace grants term set to the south, we don't want to inflict punishment. we want you to change in confederates responded to demands for change with a form of punishment. this contest over the surrenders meany did not simply pick this up again the north or even the confederacy against the union. instead, it pitted those who have a thorough transformation of the south against those who rejected such transformation. here we have the theme of divisions within each side. the north-south conservatives, peace democrats copperheads were

loathed for their political rival of the republican party of lincoln to treat the surrenders of vindication and mandate. these democrats rallied behind the confederate interpretation of appomattox. in their valor, endurance and skill to copperhead neoprobe insisted southerners were equal to the north to the confederacy was subdued by overwhelming numbers. here's lee's interpretation lock stock and barrel. the south to is divided. by southern unionists opposed confederacy during the war rally behind grant's interpretation and reveled in the fact that the noble grant and his army had broadly sushil. surrender was a vindication for white southerners. americans held markie maher asserted more fervently that the surrender margin of error than african-americans. vivendi victory vindicated the cause of black freedom and racial justice. at appomattox, both liberators had liberated. the last clash of granted me

across the virginia countryside from petersburg to appomattox, my stomach tried on april 9 to break free of a federal trap only to find last escape route blocked by black soldiers and the six regiments of the united states colored troops with one another in the wings. when they heard of lee's capitulation come in black troops knew no bounds. they danced and sang and embraced each other with exuberant joy. the black regiments at appomattox numbering 2000 men in all for a microcosm of black life in america. they included xbase train at kentucky's camp dawson and free blacks at philadelphia's camp william penn. included men who became race leaders in the postwar era searches are not destroying destroyed george washington williams of the baptist editor william demint does the journalistic mentor to none other than ip laws. regardless of their background, the presence of the battlefield

with a felt the culmination of a long struggle. if you know, federal or returned with black volunteers, claiming african american men did not possess attributes of patriotism and courage and kept it the worst difficult moment. when you stt regiments got the chance to fight, they proved their mettle with dozens of engagements. the u. s. e. t. a bad appomattox seemed considerable action. dh survived a bloody initiation into combat in florida february february 1860 for joining the granting warfare of the overland campaign in virginia and then the trenches through the siege of petersburg entering the city in triumph when it fell in april 2nd. african-american soldiers were keenly aware that even after getting all this proof of their courage, their march to a quality could be turned excellent powerful confederate army surrender field. the confederate government viewed soldiers as so many rebellious ways. black soldiers were aware that many white northerners spewed there must does a socialist government, testing capacity of

blacks for citizenship in some of those white northerners hoped and expected the experiment within and fail. not surprisingly given the context, black soldiers quickly seized on the u.s. critical role as a vindication. as william macarthur put it at a may 1865 letter, we the color soldiers are fairly one are loyalty and bravery. thomas worchester correspondent embedded with the army for james reveled in the fact the regiments had participated in the victories came paying they gave lease versus s. trophies to the union army as he put it. many of these white officers and comrades share the conviction that the role in the last battle had indecisive. the cauvery recounted the scene for his mother and sisters in a letter. the morning of the night came to the cauvery was being pushed back rapidly towards the station. the boys were fine, scores of them. over the hill a dark column was

spied coming down the road to quicktime. what a relief from the office spent. the colored race of those men so long as they brought relief to espey saw courage and determination in the polls like faces. moreover, african-american troops understood themselves to be an army of liberation whose defeat of flavors that nailed the coffin the coffin of slavery itself. abundant evidence exists that slaves sought appomattox is a freedom day. it was the very moment of emancipation, the moment the fact to the lincoln's proclamation had long since been passed. virginia saves for the first year the tidings of the surrender of thought on this against a defense. none other than booker t. washington is classic autobiography from slavery remember someone that were closed from the day of freedom came to southwestern virginia. the union officers pleaded reading of the emancipation proclamation at the april surrender had brought the long-awaited moment of

deliverance. interviews connect in the 20th century with african-americans who had been slaves in virginia echoes such published reminiscences. danny berry remembers slaves in tamblyn, virginia burst into spontaneous song when they learned the head gabe with the wi-fi fret that moment she knew they were free. as news of the surrender travel through the south, slaves far away from the events at appomattox six is grants final tribe as the end of their enslavement. for example, james h. johnson of south carolina lamented after president lincoln's freedom proclamation in 1863, the status quo kept unread if it had. there's a limit generally surrendered in his interview that we learned we were free. for some former slaves to date of the surrender structure their very sense of time in history allies of washington told her interviewer conducted by the federal writers object in the new deal agency in the 1930s.

unless the washington told her interviewer from the first thing i remember was living with my mother about six miles from crossing american about the year 1866. i know it was 1866 week as it is the year surrender of the surrender was 1865. at appomattox persistent memory of many say is it was in turn presence of the commemorative calendar of the free people. surrender day festivities began in southern virginia as early as they can 66. blacks and the north carolina border commemorated april 9 because they saw it if they had never been beaten emancipation proclamation would have been to no avail. african-american soldiers pivotal role as agents of liberation would long remain a point of pride within black communities. george washington williams himself a veteran of the appomattox came came noted in his landmark history published in 1883 at appomattox in the last arab l