please come back and see us for more events and check out the calendar. when the time comes, we cannot wait to welcome you back to the building. until then, take c. >> good evening everyone. william thrilled to welcome you to tonight's virtual

program. to the distinguished speakers series which is part of our program. with those trustees for joining us this evening. and the visionary chairman emeritus. and richard reese and trustees brian kane, but i would also like to thank members of the chairman's counsel for joining us this evening we are grateful to each and every one of you for your encouragement and support during this challenging time. we are pleased to welcome

margaret mcmillan professor of history at the university of toronto and emeritus professor of international history at the university of oxford doctor mcmillan previously before going on at provost at university college and saint anthony college at the university of oxford and the author that was published this past fall in including paris 1919 nixon and now. joining us as moderator this evening professor of jurisprudence at columbia law school. a leading constitutional theorist who has an extensive history of government service serving in all three branches of government joining six

administrations republican and democratic including most recently the intelligence program for critical infrastructure for strategic planning at the national security council. the presentation will last for an hour and your questions could be submitted on your zoom screen. will ask as many questions as time allows. >> you say war is the most

organized of human activities. as a constitutional lawyer like me it is said that governments are the most organized that relationship between more and the emergence of state one of the great strengths of this wonderful and gripping book the need to make war is the driver for organization and we should expand on that. >> a pleasure to be here have very happy memories of the historical society i think we may argue because war and government are so closely intertwined but what i mean is that when you think of what is needed to make war the mobilization but the resources the control of those people and the discipline of those

people. to take tremendous organization and as you pointed out this has drove ahead the organization of state that it became necessary for state to acquire greater power than the more powerful they became. it's difficult to say which came first the level of the high organization of states because they are intertwined. >> you also say government organization persisted in peacetime then need to monetize sources create those structures that these do not disappear with the end of war

has there been a mission creep for the state and we shared rollback those powers that are gained in wartime quick. >> in society without considerable authority to the government to give up freedoms during war but the covid pandemic that people use the language of orbit there is something similar. with the freedom to come and go as we wish we understand there is a greater good at state. and it's the same with large-scale wars for the government to do things they would not approve of in peacetime to make people not to move freely around to use censorship. often some of these are rollback but i'm not saying there is anything malignant but once government has achieved a level of control

it's for peaceful purposes the amount of money they take in society that was inconceivable it became something they could do and then of course mission creep isn't bad word with those resources getting out of society in peacetime so often governments go back so with that authority and the powers to persist after the war is over. >> you say war is one organized group fighting another using violence over the other organize group. this includes gaining warfare or perhaps crime syndicates.

this suggests that there has to be a state to have war but with that legal relationship between two or more states to be intolerable of the idea to have a war and not have the state. in like michael howard maintained at one point. >> i am very sympathetic with that point of view but if you try to get the essence we all have different definitions but i'm trying to distinguish between random violence or a canadian hockey game. this is an organized violence. what i'm trying to get at that organize groups who make war have some sort of thing that keeps them together or a goal and there is a blurred line

between large-scale gains to make money as a crime that may have more political preferences. we saw the same in northern ireland with a hard man on both sides slipped over into criminal activities that had a larger goal in mind. so the notion that you try to do something with whatever force you have not just to have more illicit goods. >> did you acknowledge there is some historical factors demography or geography or technology in those epidemics that are not altered or transformed in decision-making? but you write so powerfully

about the historic and cultural consequences of war if they defeated the greeks supposed charles had been defeated if the ottomans had successfully said the spanish conquest had failed. and these pivot that have change. with those deep moving currents on the surface but there are times you can see the outcome of four does make a difference. we do have to be careful that you just raise them.

america would have been different if there were different outcomes to the war. north america could have been different if the british on the independence rather than losing it. including canada or mexico. so we have to recognize the outcome can determine for generations religion, political organization so to say it's on the surface and doesn't change things very much i more in the side you can see with certain wars if they ended differently the war would be different. >> it is incredible intensity. what is more bring out the

best is it simply a matter of risk? >> there is a debate if we are prone to violence. we could equally argue we are prone to altruism and we see both. you see this in the memoir of which i have not done but they have not felt saying i never felt such comradeship is a felt in the war. i knew they would die for me and usually don't get that feeling. may be firefighters have that sense. it's one of the things we puzzle about. also those signs of human nature. but because it is a complicated but we are

attracted to war. and down to the century asian men or women have said could i do it? they want to measure themselves up against it and in certain cultures that produce to the iliad or test men and why do people do it? we keep thinking about it but that intensity of experience. and they get at that but suddenly to stand out in the sun is very bright you feel life as you are about to lose it. >> robert e. lee said war is terrible but then we fall in love with it. this is a rare book that addresses gender in the

history of warfare. are they in the warriors of cultures? bigger or stronger or more endurance is this evolution? but then i have other questions who do you think is the source? >> the debate over evolution is a long one. it's not mere physical strength. there is a spectrum those i can be as strong as men. and women who are weaker than most men. a lot of it has to do with culture.

if you grew up in a world you are brought up to thank you must not show pain or fear and be prepared to follow orders and i have necessary. it's always been men pretty much at the receiving end of the admonition and the expectations where women expect to be the nurturers to stay home. but we knew - - we do know women fight they behave differently and react differently but they do fight with as much courage as men. so that wonderful book about soviet women in the second world war but they didn't just stay behind the lines they were grillers and slippers and fighter pilots with manned artillery brigade so it is possible to argue women

haven't fathers much because of the culture of society of which they have come. i suspect that is changing. and they are in combat roles not just doing things like logistics are necessary things behind the scenes. >> technology will facilitate this transition. it hasn't been recorded as motivators of war. or objects of tactics serbian rape of bosnian women. i certainly had not realized there is more evidence can you say more about that quick. >> one of the fascinating things is that archaeologist

in evolutionary biologist cannot tell much more about ancient skeletons and actually get at ancient dna which was impossible 20 years ago. tools have been found around one - - tombs were found around the black see that looks like they were killed in a violent struggle. with their armor with the leather or other natural substances and they are women. and identified as women and have been given their burials. and in the water grieves is not of possible to identify the skeletons so it does look as if women had had a role in combat. and an expectation isn't to fight. >> keeping this away from my six-year-old daughter.

she already has amazonian tendencies. [laughter] as we got better at killing we got less tolerant. there is little question that nuclear posture of the cold war but i would like you to discuss this is more a thing of the past for those northern tier countries quick. >> you don't think it is. i don't want to predict because historians are hopeless at predicting the future but it seems to me most of us didn't experience it and i grabbed one of the last days of the second world war in peaceful country canada and i never saw a war in few canadians did unless they went overseas to fight working from countries. 's we got used to the idea

were happens elsewhere but not to us. before the first world war europeans thought we would never do that again. that something that others do. 's you never know until you feel threatened or something happens. at a know how many people were isolationist in the united states before 1940 but a majority. but americans who said they would never fight were also lighting up to volunteer after pearl harbor. >> if it's true and less tolerance but in those extortion by violence quick. >> yes that is a very good question that is a possibility.

the enemies of countries like the united states and isis make statements that americans cannot take the pain of losing soldiers so they will give it up. 's have to make it painful for them and that is a lesson guerrilla groups can fight there much weaker than the united states. and we are very reluctant now and doing a comparison the other day how many british show soldiers died in afghanistan it's around 1400. 20000 people died on the first day of the battle. i don't think we accept that anymore and it's a very good thing. >> on average world war ii 16000 people die every day. >> it would be unacceptable

today for us. >> unimaginable. >> but those generations have grown up now those of my students and yours. the draft ended in the seventies. as a giant step toward the different sorts of order if this is inevitable with the experience of services in a democracy. >> what we don't want to see is a military curse so certainly in canada there has not been a public outcry but not doing enough from those veterans coming back from afghanistan because so few of

us knew any. those that have military experience most have not had direct military experience and if you haven't for the firsthand you cream or casual about going to war. those political leaders were very cautious about going to war you may think oh great. it may be bad for society. >> the annual dinner in washington to give a talk and at the beginning of the dinner the band plays the various anthem of the service and they stand up and it's very rare to

see someone stand up. those are composed the very badly treated common soldiers and also for those that elevated of the ottoman empire. why should be wary of that class? >> it's a good question like to say i don't know that the danger of having a military curse they can see themselves at odds with the rest of society that the rest of society is soft that's the case in germany where the military had the elevated

status but felt they were above politics and deserving of the germination it didn't feel any need with political leadership wanted and often from what it was they are planning and this can be dangerous democratic societies locale control of the military is and it is part of society not to be seen as separate. >> i used to give the opening lecture to colonels and brigadier is and ask them is war the defeat of the enemy? and that is victory in and football that is the achievement of the war aim. do you agree with this?

and if you do is the reason we fail to achieve victory in vietnam or afghanistan because our aims were unrealistic or the tactics and methods? >> it could be both you try to win the war with methods that don't suit a particular type of terrain or struggle. the nations go to war thinking once a defeat the enemy forces, that's it they don't really think about what happens next are how to achieve a lasting peace. saint augustine said it should be peace i think he's right but the danger isn't focusing on military victory there is a book called the allure of battle winning the decisive battle that it doesn't actually settle things and having a plan for what you do when the enemy is ready to

talk and too often groups go into wars without thinking what it is they hope to achieve and what they want also the more costly it becomes the more it expands. and to make up for those. >> it is to say in warfare it is silent. do you agree with this size sense a certain skepticism about the laws of war. >> we keep trying and i think we ought to keep trying but it seems to me an extra everything we control something to become uncontrollable and it's about going all out to win but it is a credit to keep limit the effects of war to say you must

not use certain kinds of weapons we attempt through the ages to try to protect the innocent and women and children and those who are not having any harm but that temptation is to respect the law out the window. >> you mentioned francis lieber during the civil war for the code of world of war. but also seeing the first appearance of total war in the modern era so do you see a relationship between the effort as they attempted with

the creation that they initiated? >> the 19th century with the attempt to make laws in a number of areas to regulate society. that may be driven in part that society was becoming too complex and that distraction was becoming too great. to happen in other times and places that the distinction between those who are fighting or supporting those lines got more blurred general sherman said we must feel what it means to go on fighting so women and children making it impossible for them to survive. so on the one side this attempt that we see in other areas of society the age of

great lawmaking with the industrial society but we also see the blurring of the line because it often last longer we are just blurring the lines. >> discussed for the audience which i think is interested in your answer away from the teaching of diplomatic and military history. >> i am concerned about it. and the own country canada and the history department and the singular most popular undergraduate course is called strategy and statecraft but the department is a bit leery

because they are concerned in history has been moving as it should to take in new subjects of groups that have not been written into history and this is example - - is important but because it has such a profound effect on the lives of people in different societies we need to be aware of it. unfortunately the study of war is people talking about tanks and regiment that's not what war is about. . . . .

>> meant that the that produced history and imperial state. you would agree with this because you give a riveting description of the battle and you quote, you quote to read for our audience he writes, from this place and from this day forth begins new era in the history of the world and you can all say you were present at its birth. would you just describe what he was writing about? >> well the battle was actually one of those historical events which doesn't deserve i think all of the attention and symbolism loaded on to it. it was -- a clash of arms between the

french revolutionary troops in 1792 and invading forces from the regimes who, of course, wanted to strangle french revolution as long as they possibly could and forces come into germany i think in austrian and if you can correct me would turn back or at least didn't come any further as a result of the resistance of the french revolutionary soldiers and offices horrified because french revolutionary soldiers didn't know how to may have and sang songs and order was tarnal it was hard to withstand because they stont and fire in ranks and i think what it meant was a new spirit had taken hold and new moteivating source and not for all people but it was a powerful force in the 19th century and indeed in some parts of the world today. it is like an ideology it is an

ideology like a religion or it is like wanting to build a yiewg open ya on earth you will fight and die and kill others -- for the nation. and this abstract concept but i don't think history came to an end because as we know the way we organize ourselves changes way we fight changes we lev in a different world from that world of the beginning of the 19th century. large part, you write interestingly about the relationship of darwinism on the one hand and imperialism and racism on the other. how did war play into this? >> well how do we think ourselves and how we think about others affectings ways in which we may behave and what social at

was nonsense anyway. impossible to distinguish my meaningful way the argument was like species in nature. so french were like bulldogs british were like poodles and they were distinct speises and it was and then the whole idea of adaptation and survival survival of the fittest this dangerous concept that only those that adapted and were prepared to adapt would survive. and this became in social darwinism immoral if you wrpght prepared to fight for yourself you didn't deserve to survive and stronger more vigorous races should take over and some not all but in in sum, not all, in some, there were some racists defined

in this way, which were inferior and deserve to be swept aside by the more vigorous races, they didn't deserve to survive, didn't have the moral right to survive and that helped fuel the imperialism of the nineteenth century. the europeans went out in the world as they hadn't done so much in the nineteenth century with a sense of self-confidence that they were a superior race and had every right to do it. the more important it was to have an empire. the king of belgium was board with belgian, he acquired the belgian congo but it was a way of showing. >> if today, cultures in these countries move towards the evolution, multicultural

identities, greater individual autonomy, if this is our future two questions about war arise. who will be willing to fight for such a state when there is no cohesive national identity? i was driving tennis camp. if war broke out, if war broke out, would you go to england? i did before the pandemic. i might send you and your brother there but i will stay here and i talked about alistair horne and people i've known who were sent to america as babies, he said why would you come back? i said this is my country. it seemed like a natural reply. i wonder if his contemporaries

would have such a sentiment. would they risked their lives in the fortunes of war? >> i would make a distinction between patriotism and nationalism. nationalism is an reflecting and sometimes racist sense of your self as bound by mystical ties and superior to others but patriotism is simply saying my country is not such a bad place in a decent place and i don't want to see it taken over by someone like hitler and the nazis and i will fight for it and the ingredients of that needn't depend on shared ethnicity or shared cultural values. there has to be some sharing. we will see what happens in canada because we moved beyond the offshoot of britain and france with a mixture of the indigenous. we've moved into a more

multicultural society. it is an ingredient in what is to be canadian. the public health system, what it is to be canadian. it may be groups of people develop other reasons beyond nationalism. >> i will press you on this but your answer makes me ask myself whether people will be willing to fight for a country whose history they have been taught to despise. let me go on to something else. >> we could talk a long time about that. >> steven pinker advanced a thesis that we are becoming less violent as an species. i'm skeptical about this myself. as i say i live with small children so violence is a constant in my life. if he is right, what are the

implications for war? might we turn to drones and artificial intelligence as a way of hiding violence or will we become past? >> it is hard to predict. i think the distinctions, pinker talks about how societies in the developed part of the world have become less violent and willing to tolerate things like public education and unusual to see people fighting in the streets. what is less likely to go to war. the individual is going to commit, they spend a lot of

time around ordinary people. training, inculcation of values make a huge difference in the willingness of people to fight. >> your discussion of how organized violence begins when hunter gatherers were replaced by cultural groups. expand on that for a moment. >> it is highly speculative, never get definitive evidence but it seems hunter gatherers were -- a fair degree of violence, people did kill each other, this view the people lived in a garden of eden, not realistic at all but once people settled down a number of things happen.

they -- not everyone had to take part as they do in hunter gatherer society, they support an effort for the military but once people settled down it is more difficult to pick up and go away. if you are no matter, there is trouble over the horizon, couldn't pick up and go away, you have the earlier settlements that were remnants and the more organized and well-to-do particular groups, the more they were capable of attacking others. going back to your earlier point about the coexistence, code development organization. it goes back a long way.

>> i wonder about the future. to ask their own questions. who from the ancient past, the prospect of deploying robots and drones in the battlefield do you think we will build robots that have conscience driven algorithms will allow them to do the right thing despite risk of their distraction or do you think robots will act more ruthlessly and decisively than human beings. >> it depends how we program

them, there is considerable debate about weapon systems that could include the next generation of robots should have ethical standards built in. the danger as we know is artificial intelligence develops, they program themselves and we know problems with programming that can go wrong. we've seen enough of that, don't do any harm for women and children so i'm worried about the high-tech end.

>> maximum self-restraint, a 45 minute deadlines so we can go to the audience. i am suspicious of modern technology because i'm so inept at it but i've mastered at least this part. how has compulsory military service to the us and abroad. and public opinion. >> one of the side effects of national service is it can make people more patriotic. when the german army started training large numbers of men in german society, putting a gun in their hands and turn it against that, what seems to have happened is quite

left-wing with members of trade unions became quite different as a result. military service was nationbuilding activity and also what seems to happen is a good thing. that people are not the least bit like you. for different classes and different types of people. there are military memoirs for offices, never really talked to a working-class person before. they read poetry and have ideas. this be will determined that others they didn't take seriously have their own wants, desires, personalities, it can be quite a good thing. >> a questioner asked from the

dark side, have you found the link between compulsory military service and frequency engages in armed conflict. >> depends on the nation. a direct link. a number of countries have compulsory military service, in europe since 1945. the germans continued to have for a time compulsory military service, doesn't lead itself to war. it leads to greater participation of military service for the country. >> one person asked the general consensus in the united states that veterans should be cared for and supported, is this a new idea? how does the experience of veterans change throughout history?

>> it used to be they were discarded. they had no pensions. no one was worried about them. tommy atkins, they need us when they have a battle and at the end they don't give $0.02 for it but gradually, citizens of the country, governments do something, you've never been to london, it was established to look after indigent and ordinary soldiers in paris which is established, by the nineteenth century a number of countries, you do something for those who suffered for you. >> what links do you see between war and class?

who buys a or, >> it depends on the nature of society. very hierarchical societies, in some cases depends on military strength they don't want anyone else fighting. the knights in armor were using foot soldiers are reluctant to have archers on the ground because they feared their own dominance and their position that gave them tremendous power and authority, it depends on society. you will get society in which a few people fight but in democratic societies those who fight will often be ordinary people because they are fighting for their own society. those who fight in the first world war were by and large

fighting for abstract concepts like the emperor or the king. what they were fighting for was their homes and wives and children. ashley: there is an image where he describes the original lithuanians confronting teutonic night on horseback, 7 or 8 feet high. a huge middle care of this. he compares it to see in a tank. benjamin: it would have been terrifying. once they learned how to deal with it as you stand firm you can do well. ashley: how would you characterize the us elections? should we call it an act of war? cyberespionage or something else entirely? benjamin: it is in a new area and an interesting question. a very narrow definition of

war, there's always these gray areas and wars moving into cyber war and cyberspace. it doesn't involve direct combat or direct clash of forces but can often do as much damage and destruction and loss of life. the ways in which states or some state actors used cyberattacks to cause destruction can be seen in many cases as an act of war. for hostile forces like power grids and the damage from that or make it impossible to have water purification. i would regard it as increasingly important. ashley: another question is with the exception of genocide,

armed conflict throughout history typically designated portions of the population, what are the origins of the standard of the core and how did it evolve? >> part of it may have been embedded in the value of society where women and children were revered as the future of society meant the killing of your own being killed, a dreadful thing to do but it was also those who function should be protected, priests for example, in many cultures priest to been exempt from being attacked or inferior exempt from being attacked and there was always a utilitarian notion, you didn't kill people who might be useful to you so in the middle ages you tended not to kill those who would produce the food you needed

even if they belonged to someone else or on someone else's land. ashley: how has the advent of social media determined how conflicts are solved and fighters are recruited, in your opinion does it give too much credit to the arab spring or not enough? >> we are coming to terms with social media and people recruit themselves. it's not a new phenomenon. the assassins who killed the archduke of sarajevo repeated themselves by reading soviet nationalist tracks, and other successful assassins and not as instantaneous or widespread as they are today. we stayed a real problem with people who will recruit themselves or find conspiracy.

which regard those as enemies who are not enemies at all and i think this is the problem. the other way social media is affecting war is increasingly for a lot of countries wars are fought under tremendous amount of publicity and part of fighting wars making sure your story gets out and the other story doesn't get out. one of the things that caused such trouble for the united states in vietnam was the coverage of the war which reached people at home and made many come to the conclusion that it was not going to win. ashley: your readership has expanded beyond this wonderful book. this question, could there have been another outcome to the treaty of verse i if it had been written differently? there is an amazing book about negotiations on the treaty of

verse i. >> we should be open, i looked at what they were dealing with and how much they had, major states in paris, dealing with a germany defeated on the battlefield and it is not conclusive whatever the german high command said, germany -- it was not an effective surrender. what could the allies have done to make things better, they could have been more generous to germany but that was difficult indeed. if you are living in france, and it contains something like

the industrial plant, minds and railways destroyed deliberately as germans are leaving in summer of 1918, are you going to say let's be generous, he didn't think he could, he said i have to face the middle class and he was thinking of the next election, they might have been wise to be gentle with germany but at the end of the second world war germany was treated much worse. the soviets took huge reparations out of germany but we don't here today how unfairly germany was treated so part of what went wrong to give a short answer after 1919 is failure of politics in a number of countries and international system. it might have been if not for the great depression but that is where things turned very bad

indeed. >> we are almost to the end of our time. in the coming decades what issues do you see igniting conflict and in what parts of the world will you be watching? >> you may disagree but i think we may see state to state conflict or potential estate state conflict, india pakistan, they have fought three times. they both have nuclear weapons was in the a and china fought once, they had skirmishes. recently on the frontier to the himalayas and the united states and china. i'm not saying it is going to happen but these are possibilities people are beginning to contemplate. they may be wrong. i hope they are wrong but what we will see is a lot more conflict in failed states where governments for various reasons, states that never built strong infrastructure or

political structure which were destabilized by outside forces, we will see more somalis and humans and that worries me. ashley: to begin where we began, there is an opinion in america that strong states drive themselves towards war. you give the state more powerful you take power away from the individual. my feelings it may not always be true. if you want to prevent war don't count on a week state. week states -- i say this as a prejudice, a prelude to this next to the last question. increasing defense budgets increase the likelihood of war. >> depends what you are spending it on.

the defense budget, budgets take on inertia and they don't sit down and say do we need all this. very little danger. an arms race decided to do that or attempt to do something silly. ashley: this has been a wonderful evening. on a personal level, wonderful to see you. i hope we are reunited somewhere. >> apologize for my cough but thank you.

ashley: i will say good evening to all of our friends in new york. and thanks to the tremendous offer. >> your unfiltered view of government, including comcast. >> this is just the community center. >> 1000 community centers great wi-fi enabled groups so students can get tools they need to be ready for anything. comcast supports c-span as a public service along with other television providers giving you a seed to democracy. >> good evening. i am birx of the washington