c-span shop .org is c-span's online store, the collective c-span books, browse to see what is new purchase will support our nonprofit operations they still have time to order the congressional directory and contact information for members of congress and the biden administration. kristi spends shop .org. the u.s. senate is not in session today to allow senators to attend a funeral of former senator mike in wyoming and the senators back in session at 11:00 a.m. eastern on saturday senators will continue to work on the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill that funds roads, bridges, public transit, railways, water projects, airports, broadband internet, an electric vehicle charging stations. when this and is back in session, at 11:00 a.m. eastern on saturday you can seek life coverage on "c-span2" now and

book tv, historian margaret mcmillan author of the book "war" how conflict shaped us. margaret macmillan. it was posted by the new york society. >> good evening everyone prayed of like to start with this event and i'm see you and i am thrilled to welcome you to tonight's virtual program at, "war" how it shows us and it's presented at. nineteen and the speaker series which is the part of our public program. i would like to introduce our speakers not want to recognize and thank the historical trustees for joining us this evening. first and foremostst the chair, and chairman of new york roger, and the chair of the committee,

richard and. [inaudible]. and the team leads and the great involvement. i would like to thank members of our counsel for joining us this evening and we t are so very grateful to each and every one of you. for your encouragement and support especially in this challenging time. in ther programs, we are welcoming margaret macmillan professor of history at the university of toronto and narrative professor ofve international history at the university of oxford. doctor margaret macmillan previously at the university before going on to serve at trinity college at the university of toronto and at saint anthony's college. at the university of oxford. she is the author of "war" and how it's conflict shaped us which is published this past fall in previous books include

1919, the war that ended peace, and out dangerous games. and turning up this moderating, professor at columbia law school. professor is a leading constitutional purist who has an extensive history of government service pretty serves in all three branches ofho government during six administrations. both republican and democratic including most s recently, the intelligence programs and critical infrastructure and senior director for strategic planning at the national security council. and this will last an hour and 15 minutes in the questions and answers and the questions can be submitted on your zoom screen and the q&a function.

and also in the chat function so please do remember to use the q&a in our speakers will get to as many questions as time allows. and now it is my great pleasure to turn our virtual's stage over to tonight speaker. thank you. >> thank you louise and welcome. you say that wars most organized. constitutional warrior like me, i would've said the government is the most organized of human activities. my next is because the relationship of war and the emergence of the state, is one of the great strengths of this wonderfulhe grouping. you add need to make more has been the driver for organizations predict i wish you would expand upon that a bit. malcolm: it is a pleasure to be here and i just wish it weren't

virtual. i have very happy memories of the society. and i think we may have to argue about which is the most organized piece and think more government are so closely intertwined what, i mean, by it is that when you think of what is needed to make war, the mobilization of not just the people but the control of those voices and of the people and those who want to find in the direction it is often very large numbers of people, just seem to be to take tremendous organization it and as you pointed out in your book, this has driven ahead is certainly brought ahead the organization that it became necessary for the state to acquire greater power and partly in order to fight the wars. and so i have always thought that it was very difficult to say which came first, more the high-level organized day because

i think thathi the two really ae intertwined one tends to drive hethe other. philip: that's excellently putting us to say the government organizations persisted andga peace and depending to monetize the resources and create structures for which that these do not disappear when you end a war. you suggesting that there's been kind of some mission for the state and that we should roll back of the powers of government that were gained essentially the work time. margaret: what we do i think in society critically the democratic society play a role of authority to a government. to give up freedoms during war. perhaps the covid-19 pandemic this closely to war when they use the language of orbit something similar, limitations on freedoms to come and go as we wish because me understand is a greater good at stake. the crisis we have to get

through and i think it's the same with wars that society will recognize needed for the government to do things which they would not approve of the peace time to control the economy into direct labor and to make people do certain jobs and not allow the community to move freely around and i think often at the end wars, some of these rollback i think what happens i'm not saying there's anything malignant tennis i think it is just naturally wants government has achieved a level of control over society, then weel begin to think about using it for peaceful purposes. in the amount of money the government began to take out of society which they would've thought inconceivable before the first world war. by the end it had become something they realize they could do and then of course is not a bad word. the things that we could spend the result is getting out of society and on and peace time seem to be very desirable party did something often governments will go back to the prewar situation. for the tennessee's for the

powers taken by the government to persist after the war was over because many other often good presences do. philip: is that the war is one organized group fighting one other organized group using yne violence. to get power over the other organized group. and sometimes it might include gang warfare. and perhaps some of the organized crime. in this suggest that we need a state for the war and many of us a that war is the legal relationship between two or more states. an the idea that you can have a war and i have a state predict her dearly printed michael howard maintained that have been point. see tip very synthetic to badness implies very much in a point of view but you try to get at the essence of war, we all have different definition but i

was try to distinguish it from random violence like something you might get a brawl at a hockey game ordi affable game, that this to me is not organized lots of violence involved in what i also try to get out and i think that we english there is to set this organized group who make war have some sort of saying the keeps them together, the goal and i would say there's a board large mind i would often use it often make them many of the crimes might have multiple or more political purposes than just making money out of crime. the same thing in northern ireland where it decides, hard men on both sides, they were fighting on both side's, they went forward into criminal activities. but they had a larger goal in mind and what i'm trying to get out is thisn notion is organized for the sole purpose and it trying to do something with whatever force you happiness not just so that you can sell more

illicit goods or take other people goods. philip: margaret you acknowledge that some historical factors and geographies and apologies and epidemics that are not altered seor at least not transcribed on political decisions. but in this book, you write so powerfully and willingly about the historic and cultural consequences of war. defeated the greeks or they had been defeated. [inaudible]. in the argument of successfully with fiona or as you say, the spanish conquest of the americas have failed. could you expand further. on how it was an altered course of history read these pivots

that have changed the place we are at now. margaret: that is a very good question as you know, is something that the historians argue about, his history, the deep moving because while under the surface or what some people would say is on the surface but i think there are times when you can see that were actually for the outcome does makean a difference. i know we have to be careful to say the white house and you just raise them. if the americas would've been different if there had been different outcomes to the war. most americans motivated in front oferr. the british would'e one rather than losing it might've been much bigger british north america which included canada and perhaps included mexico so i think that we have to recognize the outcome of particular wars can determine often formi generations sometims even longer than that, religion, political organizations, who dominates. i think to say that war is really on the surface, it

doesn't change things very much. like i think that i'm on the side of saying as you can see, with certain words that they had ended differently, the world would be different. philip: and also in this book, the mystery of war, it's incredible intensity. perhaps part of this is the idea to which if you die at any moment, that it matters. what is war bring out the best read in the worst of mankind. it is simply a matter of risk. margaret: i think there's a debate about whether we are as a result of the evolution of from violence read but i think you could equally argue the more through altruism you think that you see both in wars and i think you get this in the memoir which thi haven't done but they have r felt not everybody feels us but you do get people to say that

i've never felt that matches i was in the war and i was with people that i would die for and they would die for me. do you usually don't get the sort of feeling in life predispose firefighters, first responders and the like have that sense. i think we puzzled about this neural vote brings out the office on human nature but i think because it's so complicated i'm not saying this is admirable but i think were attracted to our. we find in there something about it that we wonder about and i think after this interest to younger men in fact some young times young women would say couldn't do it and they wanted measure themselves up against it. and in certain cultures, it certainly has helped to produce these, the supreme test. and why do people do it. it came to me think about it but as you mentioned, and intensity in that experience and i think that tim o'brien, who i did

admire enormously gets at that. and suddenly as you say, a relief. in the sun is very bright. in the field life just as you are about to lose it. philip: it was robert e. lee who said it was good the doors are terrible as we fell in love with it. just a rare book that addresses the gender and history of warfare. 99.99 percent of warriors in history for men in the warriors of cultures, all of the world and all different times because they're bigger and stronger and have more endurance right is this a matter of evolution within have some other questions about that. just ask you this first, you thank you so the source of this. margaret: i do know the debate of revelation is a very long one and not sure everyone got it

from i'm not sure that we have physical strength necessarily matches that much. there is a spectrum. darrell women who can be as strong as men. and either ends of the spectrum, there probably men who are are much stronger than most will ever be. and some who are weaker than most are. i think a lot of it has to do with culture but if you grow up in a world in which you were brought up to think that you had to be brave and you must show pain or fear and if necessary die. if you are brought up in the culture in most cultures, overtime not always but if always been men who have been in the receiving end of that sort of ammunitions. and the expectations whereas women have been expected to be the nurturers to stay home but i think that we know that when women do fight, they may behave with each other differently. they do fight with much courage

or as badly as men do. and there's a wonderful book about soviet women in the second world war where they went off to work they didn't just sitting on the lines of the support is, there were guerrillas disciples and fighter pilots and our teller brigade. so it is possible to argue that women simply hasn't been as much because of the culture of the societies in which they have, but i expect that is changing certainly in the united states. i have noticed that there's a lot of women there when a good lecture and they are in combat roles, they're not just doing things like logistics or staying behind the necessary things behind the scenes. philip: what technology will facilitate those transitions. and women have always been of rwar, sappy women or of tactics

and rates of bosnian women. but have to ask about the others. i realized that there's a good deal more of evidence with the existence. can you say a bit about that. margaret: i learned this when i was doing the book is that archaeologists and evolutionary biologist cannot tell much more about ancient skeletons and they can actually manage to get an ancient dna which we didn't think it was possible even 20 years ago. they been around the black sea which contained skeletons which show looks like they had been killed in some sort of violent struggle often buried with armor. and the mental bits would survive a little bit but the oleather in the natural substances would disappear and they are women it.

edified with women have been given a number warriors graves has also been found and it's a possible to identify the skeletons in the way was not possible before preschool really does look that women have had a role in combat. down through the ages as you point out, very interesting rule the quotation has not been that women would fight. sue and i'm going to try to keep this away for my six -year-old daughter, she already has amazonian tendencies. [laughter] and you, the most tolerant and i think there's little question that the nuclear posture the cold war kept with the great powers. it would just like you to discuss this is it for the past of the northern good drinks. margaret: i don't think it is. i don't predict because historians are usually hopeless at predicting the future but it seems to me we have tended

because most of us we've never experienced and i grew up in the last days of the second world war. so i grew up in the aftermath and the second world war the peaceful country and i never saw a work. very few dead and thus they went overseas they came from countries that experienced wars. something we've gotten used to the idea and very large part ofr the world that war is something that even t happens it happens elsewhere but it won't happen to us.ot but as you know, before the tfirst world war a lot of europeans didn't think that there is something we would never do again it. something that others do. and i think you never know until you feel threatened or something happens. i do know how many people write in relation us in the united states the fourth 1940 but possibly the majority. and pearl harbor changed all of that. americans who said they would never fight a war went off to

war. philip: and in the russian to violence today. you thank you so true and less tolerant for body bags and casualties of war. does this mean that we in the states are more vulnerable to extortion fight violence. it. margaret: that's a possibility yes, i think it's a very good question. if not really thought about it that. the enemies of countries like the o united states, they know d calculate and isis is often made statements to the fact that the kids cannot contain the thought of losing soldiers to give it up pretty and i think that is a lesson that guerrilla groups right there much weaker than the united states but the one whether they have his public opinion in the united states in the world in turning data gives the united states itself did not think that it is true and were very reluctant now to see beyond

it or societies that often fight. i was in comparison the other day about how many british soldiers have died in afghanistan and i think you probably notice in the room 1400. in 20000 people died on the first day of the fallible. and it was accepted i don't think we accepted anymore. i think this actually very good thing pretty. philip: average world war ii the civilian military deaths 16000 people die every day. margaret: that wouldld be unacceptable today. philip: i would imagine. how important margaret is the generations right now i'm generations my students in yours, have not served in the armed forces. draft ended in the 70s. i think it was a giant step towards a different sort of constitutional order. and wonder what are the conditions is inevitable as i believe it is of falling off the

experiences of service with democracy. y.margaret: it concerns me is yr concern is all because we don't want to see his military where people are expected to fight if we don't feel it printed i think certainly in canada and i think has now but i think first time we weren't doing enough to deal with that coming back from afghanistan and helping society not think that is because few of us knew any and the other thing that worries me about so few people having military experiences those who lead us, most of them have not had direct military experience i think you may be more casual about it and strikes me that those leaders can do. after the second world war actually were very cautious because they knew what it was like if you never been to work, you may think a break, we can do this. but i do think that it may be on

societies. philip: in washington, i used to go to relative by the politicians and talk and at the beginning of the dinner. amanda plays various anthems of the services in the veterans stand up during this play and i have watched it and it's very rare now to see them stand. and you point out that the armies of the 18th century were composed and fully regarded comment soldiers and aristocrats created as you just mentioned, that removed the cast also prepared for those elevated. [inaudible]. or the empire. why should we be wary of an

isolated military class. margaret: is a good question. i think the danger of having military classes that they can begin to see themselves as somehow part of the direct society and the not understood. and i think it was very much the case in germany before the social for the military had an elevated status in germany but also felt they were special and felt they were above politics and they were truly the guardians of the new germany nation and infilling need to do with the political leadership wanted and didn't iner fact. and didn't offer what they were planning and think this could be dangerous predicting the democratic societies, think we understand just how important to be in control of the military is i think we should want the military but as part of our society not something that is ss separate and sees itself as separate. philip: i used to give the

opening lecture to a couple of hundred regulators. i would ask them, is the way you treat the word defeat the enemy and t they would agree was thati would say. no, that is victory in football. or maybe in chess. but the war, his achievement of thee war. and you agree with this and if you do, is the reason we fail to achieve victory in vietnam and afghanistan, because it ends more unrealistic because the methods work inadequate. margaret: i think you can often be both. if you're trying to win a war with methods that simply don't suit the particular struggle or train but so often and more you see throughout history, people will go to war in groups of people and nations good war and they want to defeat the enemy forces, that is said and they don't really think about what

happens next. and i'll think about how to achieve a lasting peace. and i think it should be in a think the dangerous and focusing on military victories, very good book by papillary talks about this fixation throughout much of history with the decisive but also it doesn't actually settle things. it is having a plan for what you do when the enemy is ready. and what you hope to achieve and i think that too often, nations groups of people going towards without really thinking through what it is they hope to achieve what they want. of course would you also get as it becomes expands. any want to make the sacrifices and the losses. philip: yes. and the audience will know. [inaudible]. owner say that in warfare, or assignment. do you agree with this. sense of certain skepticism in

this book about the lost war. margaret: something we keep trying and i think we ought to keep trying but it seems to me there's this extraordinary think they were trying to control something that is always in danger of becoming uncontrollable. it is about violencee and about going out to win. i think it is a credit actually into keep on trying to limit the effects of words keep on trying to say that we must not use the weapons work you must not in the attempts down through the ages in a number of cultures to try to protect the innocent and try to protect the women and children and those who are not causing any harm. i think that's absolutely right but the temptation always is when war starts, the control of the respect for the block is out the window. it. philip: you mentioned one who was a colombian law process and her professor he directed to military and the civil war.

in the basis for the code of worlds at war. it's much honor but the american civil war also saw the first appearance total war in the modern era. in the strategy replacing the finals in the states. do you see relationship between the effort to impose loss in war. and the total war that was initiated. margaret: in the 19th century, you would know better than me, century when is an attempt to make more than a number of areas and an attempt to regulate society and that may be driven in part by his says the society is becoming too complex and in the case of war, distractions were getting too great. i also happen i think in the 19th century and certainly is happened in other times and

other places, is a distinction between those are actually supporting. sherman general sherman said that we must make this feel what it means to go on fighting and that means children and burning the factories and burning the farms and making it impossible for them to survive. i think that we see, on one side, this attempt to legislate to make war which we see in other areas of society. this is an age of great lawmaking particularly in industrial societies but we also seee the blurring of the line because the societies are getting more complicated. philip: would you discuss to this audience, which i think will be keenly interested in your answer. to a lesser degree in the united states the united kingdom come away from the teaching of diplomatic and military history

and the universities. margaret: all i am concerned about it. i don't know quite why it's happening, it's also happened in my own country canada. and history departments there is teaching the international relations even though the students wanted. the university of toronto rhyme attached, strategy and it's overwhelmingly subscribed. in an apartment i think he is a bit leery of it because they're not quite sure, you think are concerned about it in history is moving as it should in the direction of taking a new subject and looking at the hysteresis groups that have not been written into history for example. i think this is important because international relations and because war has such found effect on the lives of people in different societies, i think that we need to be aware of that predict and unfortunately i think the study of war has come to be seen as a voice of voice, people talking about tanks and

regiments and that's not what i think that war is about. he was studying military history he was studying more of society. and because i think that those leaders in the next generation need to know something about war and international relations. at least involving those. philip: i'm going to return to the theme of the relationship between war in the state. in the battle that history. by which he meant that that directly produced history. and with the triumph of the nationalistic imperial state. and again, would you agree with this because you've given a riveting and you quote.

[inaudible]. and i want to read this for our audience. he writes, from this place, and from this day forth begins a new era in history of the world and you can alsore say the present. and would you just described what he was writing about predict. margaret: will the battle was actually one of those historical events which doesn't deserve i think all of the attention and symbolism loaded onto it. it was a clash between the french revolutionary troops in 1792 and invading it there is james who wanted to strangle the french revolution us as soon as they possibly could and before they came into germany, depression and you can correct me was or they would turn back released couldn't come any further as a result of the distance of the french revolutionary soldiers. and the officers of more

traditional forces and french revolutionary soldiers didn't know how to behave the t rest across the field and they sang revolutionary songs but they were very hard to withstand because it didn't stop and fire mh rank. i think this was in his spirit had taken hold of. new motivating force among the soldiers this is nationalism, not for all peoples but certainly very powerful force in the 19th century. and indeed in some parts of the world today pretty dislike ideology, a religion or wanting to build a utopia on earth. you will fight and die until entered kill others for the nation it on this abstract concept but i don't think history came to an end because as we know, the way the organized ourselves changes in the way we fight changes in technology changes that we live today in a a very different wor1 from that world in the beginning of the 19th country. philip: and for the most part because i think human wars.

and you bright and very interestingly, the relationship between spencer and on the one hand and imperialism and racism on the other. had war play into this. margaret: will how we think about ourselves and others, i think affects the way in which we behave. as a social was in retrospect, misapplication of ideas about evolution. an adaptation to the human society when human society something called the french racer british races which we know is nonsense anyway. and possible to distinguish in any meaningful way. the argument was not like with nature so the french were like bulldogs in the british like or the other way around. and they were distinct. it was adaptation and survival,

this very dangerous concept that only those were prepared for that would survive this became a memorial imperative that if you would entered word protected, he didn't deserve to survive and youvi should be swept away and stronger and more vigorous to take over. it's about all the certainlyn in some, they became racist and that there were some so defined in this way. they were inferior they didn't deserved it or they were didn't deserve to survive. they don't have the moral right to survive. not dead to fuel the imperialism of the 19th century. the europeans win out around the world as they haven't done so much in the 18th century with a tremendous sense of self-confidence and that they were superior race and that they had every right to do it. and of course in a funny way, they became less significant, the more important it was to become hard to have an empire.

in the city of belgium, and so he acquired the whole of what became the belgian congo but it was a way to showing that you can or you counted. philip: it today, the cultures in the northern countries moving towards evolution. her multicultural identities. individual autonomy, that this is our future, to questions about war easily arise. who will be willing to fight for such a state when there's no cohesive national identity. i was driving by the camp and he said if a war broke out, when you go to england because i spend a lot of my time release it did before the pandemic

pretty nice that will know, i would want to stay here i told them the people you know i've known you listen too is babies and he said what would come back. dennison will is my country. too much is a natural hot but i wonder what his contemporaries would have such a similar button if they don't, their lives in going into work. margaret: will fly thinking i would make a distinction between patriotism and nationalism. nationalism is often reflecting and sometimes racist and to be pelvis somehow boundie by these mystical ties and superiors to others but patriotism is i think that i can't recall but my country is not such a bad place. it's a decent place and i would like to defend it and i don't

want to see taken over by somebody like hitler. and as easily as i will fight for it. i think the ingredients depend on those cultural values that has to be some sharing in adults no want to see what happens in canada because we have moved away beyond the offshoot of britain and france and moved into much more multicultural society is something that canadians a product. become an ingredient is what it means to be an canadian and also as a public health system so it mayel be that groups of people develop the reasons including non- nationalism. philip: will present on this, would people be willing to fight for a country whose history and let me go on something else.

margaret: we could talk a long time about that. philip: when they said, were becoming less violent as l a species. i'm skeptical about this myself. but i will say i lived in small children so violence is not my life. if he'she right, but we turn to drones and intelligence as a way of hiding violence or will be actually pacifists. margaret: is very hard to predict i think the distinction that you made between they talk about how societies in particular have developed part of the world is become less willing to tolerate things like public institution or spectacles and were less willing to

tolerate violence even when i was young it s was not unusual o see people fighting in the streets.dn in ways that you wouldn't perhaps now. whether that means you're less likely to go to work, i think with the individual feels like pretty much willing to commit is not warmaking. i think one of the things military does is working on how to turn ordinary people into civilians into those who fight. leather summa training preparation. i training are valued and make a huge difference in the willingness for people to fight. philip: things aboutss the smoke in your discussion about how organized i was begins in the human community from hunter gatherers wereag replaced by agriculture. can you expand on that for a moment. margaret: highly speculative

prayed and it happens so far back that we probably don't ever get definitive answer. it seems to me that we know this among hunter gatherers. people did kill each other. it's not realistic atot all. once people settled it down i think a number of things happen to come i think one as they were able to be agriculture is not everybody had to work on the land and not everybody had to take part in gathering and preparing and killing the food they were going to need. thanks became cosmic class differentiation pretty and military but also when people settle down, is more difficult to pick up and go away as you could have done if you are nomadic and sibley say, there's trouble let's get out. you had to begin to build walls as of the earliest people built

walls. and they had particular groups became the turn to capable of detecting others so i i think te more organized go back to what you were earlier point about the coexistence, what is the word of art, the codevelopment of organizations and hiding, i think it goes back very long ways. philip: that is fascinating. i want to know about the future. i begin with this question. always anxious to ask questions. going to her ancient past to the near future, the prospect of building robots and drones in a battlefield.

do you think we will build robots that have conscience and algorithms rather than to do the right thing despite the risk of their destruction. or do you think will build robots that will act more ruthlessly entered ruthlessly and decisively as human beings. think it depends very much on how we program them. edit what evidence we build in. and there's a considerable debate at the moment about whether autonomous weapon systems which of course can include the next generation of robots should have ethical status built in or not. i think b there's a lot of resistance having any sort of various built-in because it would make them less affected the danger as we know, is that especially with artificial development developments that these macon to program themselves. and then they get out of our control we also know that the

programming could go wrong. and we have seen enough of that so you know, you program a robot and you say don't do any harm to women and children and so the robot will go off and kill everybody else. it is not i a good example but i am worried about the way war is going particularly in that area. philip: will this is fascinating. it's an exercise of maximum and makes mehe adhere to 45 minute deadline so that we can go to the audience read i'm suspicious of modern technology because i am so inept at it myself. but i think that elise for this part. her questions. how is the military service in the u.s. and abroad affected nationalism in public opinion.

margaret: one of the side effects national service as it can make people more patriotic. when theyai first started traing large numbers of men often from the working poor classes in general society there very concerned that putting a gun in her hand in effect was seems to have happened is that even quite left-wingwo to, the workers members of the trade unions for example who did their service became quite different as a result. and often news nationbuilding activity. and also seems to happen and i think it is a good thing, if you do military service, you can be and often are stronger together withat people least like you. you actually think that is good for a country where people from different parts of the country and different classes and different types of people who have to getw on with each other. there are number of military remorse essay often, they said i

nevery really talked to a workig class citizen before they read poetry and have ideas. in this sort of this infected nursing they didn't take seriously, they did have their own wants and desires in personality so i think you'd actually be quite a good thing. philip: based on the variations have you found a link between military service and frequency of which a nation engages in conflict. margaret: i think it depends very much on the nation so i don't think there's a direct link. a number of countries in europe had military service after the second world war but there's been no in europe since 1945 the germans continue to have at least military service. but i don't think that it leads itself to war and it often i

think leadser to a greater appreciation of those who do the military service of the country. philip: one person asked, the general consensus at least ine the united states, the veterans should be care for and supported. is this a new idea and how is the experience of veterans changed throughout history. margaret: it used to be many armies that they were simply discarded. they had no pensions, they had no one great about them. and tommy atkins, they need us when they have a battle and then at ther end it, don't give us to sense for it printed think that gradually is the idea begins to spread of the people in a country were not to subject it to theee rule of the citizens of the country, governors began to do something. pension and hospital care was established to look after the old and often sick soldiers.

and in fact, in paris, establish so by the 19th century think in a number of countries particularly the countries that could afford it, lessons that you must do something for those who have fought you and suffered for you. philip: another person asked what do you see between more in class for example, who fights for us. who values or other considerations from your research. margaret: again s i think it depends often on the nature of the society. and so in an irr kill society are thosed actually depend on te military strength to maintain the power of the don't want anybody else fighting there in the middle ages the night in armor very reluctant to use the foot soldiers are togr have arcs on the ground because they see it for their own dominance and

with their hard work them tremendous power and tremendous authority i think again as i said, depends on the society. you will get societies in which only a few people fight. but in democratic societies, the survival often be ordinary people because they are fighting for their own society. thus went off to fight in the war, in march were not fighting for abstract concepts like bizarre or their emperor or ivking, what they were fighting for with their own. their wives and their children. philip: when he subscribes, when their confronting on horseback. [inaudible]. in a sudden 8 feet high, huge characters. he compares dissing a tank. margaret: if yes, that would've been absolutely terrifying. but what they had to deal with,

you can do rather well. philip: how would you characterize your selections and should we be calling this an act of war. or something else entirely. margaret: for such an interesting question. you can't begin to have this rather narrative of war but there's always these great areas and i think the war is moving into this new area of cyber war and cyber space. it does not involve direct combat of the direct clash of forces but he can often involve as much damage as much destruction and loss of life is more direct conflict. so i think the ways in which space or some state actors use cyber attacks and cause massive destruction can can be seen as an act of war in reno that it is possiblest at least for hostile

forces to do things like turn off the power grid. the damage from bat or destroying the dams or tap water purification plants can be absolutely enormous so i would be regarded as an adjunct to work. that's an increasingly important part of war. philip: the question is an exception of genocide, conflicts throughout history, typically designated portions of the population. where they were origins of this and how did it evolve over time. margaret: i don't think we know for sure but it could've been embedded in the values of society. where women and children were revered as the future of the society meant killing of others -year-old was a very dreadful thing to do but i think those

and function should be protected. in many cultures, those have been exempt from the attack to workhe in theory from being attacked and also i think i utilitarian come you didn't kill people who might be useful to use on the middle ages, you're intended not to kill those who are forming because you knew they were going i to produce the food that you needed even if it was on somebody else's land. philip: another question is how has the advent of social media determined how conflicts are solved and fought and held fighters in your opinion, is a get too much credit. it or not enough. margaret: but we know coming to the terms with the power of social media and we know the people will treat themselves they now have the need to do it.

it's not a new phenomenon the assassins and killed basically recruited themselves by reading nationalist tracks and the words of any artists and modeled themselves on the other assassins but much more difficult ine those days and therefore the information and is there more widespread today so i think we do as a real problem with people who will recruit themselves. oand conspiracy theories with regard those his enemies who are not enemies at all. in the do think is a problem and the other thing that i think that social media is affecting morris increasingly, a lot of countries fought under tremendous fought flight and fot the city. and now to make sure your story gets out and the other side of the story does not get out. i think that one of the things that causes trouble or did for the united states and vietnam, was the coverage of the war. average people at home. many of them came to the conclusion that it was a war

they would not win. philip: i think that your leadership has expanded far beyond this book. and you get that for this question. there been the outcome to the treaty could have been written madifferently. there's been an amazing book written about the negotiations of the treaty. margaret:>> well, i think what i wrote the book and maybe i'll change my mind now. i looked at what they were actually dealing with and i thought how much did they actually have, a major statement in paris. there dealing with fastest and they were dealing with a defeat on the battlefield and i thank you so notor conclusive whatever the german high demands. certainly many believed in the 1920s and 30s, germany was defeated in the first world war.

it was an effective surrender if you read the surrender. so it could've the allies doneav to make things better. what they could've done is to germany but that was politically very difficult indeed. if you are living in france and you know the whole countries devastated which contain something like industrial times in the villages have minds and railways and all often destroyed deliberately as the germans were leaving in the summer of 1918. ... ... >> the soviets took huge amount

out of germany butf we don't yer today, how fairly unchanged unfairly germany was treated, part of what went wrong to give a short answer after 1919 is to say there's politics in a number of countries and a failure of the international system i think it made a been all right if it had been the great depression. but i think that's one thing to turn badad indeed. >> were almost to the end of our time, moving on to a different question in coming decades what issues do i you see igniting conflicts what parts of the world really watching? >> i think we still may see conflicts over the state, they both have weapons, india and china and recently the common

frontier in the himalayas and of course united states and china and i'm not saying these are going to happen but these are possibilities that people are beginning to contemplate and they may be wrong and i certainly hope they're wrong but what were also going to see is a lot more conflict aslnm rcn on failed states what government for very reasons and they built an infrastructure in a political structure which would destabilize and i think really see more of those in more yemen's and that worries me. >> to return what we begin with there is a large opinion in america that strong stage dried themselves towards when you give the state more power and take the power away from individuals will call right here you're not

and we can state of the most horrible states. i say this is a prejudiced to maybe our next-to-last question, do you think increasing defense budgets increase the likelihood of war. >> not necessarily, depends what you're spending it on i think the interesting commentary of the budget recently is a new york times today about how they take on in the military keeps funding and they don't really sit down and say do we need all of this about coping, there's always a danger when you have an arms race that's falling behind

and attempted to do something silly.en >> this is been a wonderful evening, i'm so grateful to you and on a personal level, it's wonderful to see you and i hope you're all reunited somewhere and sometime soon. >> thank you, i apologize for my cough, thank you i wish i were in new york. >> we wish you were too. >> take you for the lovely questions. >> say hello to all of our friends in new york, thanks to all of you, thank you for coming in the wonderful questions and again, thanks to our tremendous author. >> tonight on book tv on c-span2, a look of some issues best selling books starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern carol on her book chronicling the secret service from the kennedy

assassination to the insurrection of the capital on january 6, then an interview with alex author of breaking the news which argues that the mainstream media reports fake news. later michael lewis on his book the premonition which tells the story of the early days of the coronavirus pandemic and the scientist to work to convince the u.s. government to take the virus seriously. >> weakens on c-span2, every saturday you'll find events and people on american history tv on sunday, book tv brings you the latest of nonfiction books and authors grade is television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore, weakens on c-span2.

>> the u.s. senate is not in session today to allow senators to attend the funeral of former senator of mike enzi in wyoming the senate is back in session at 11 eastern on saturday they will continue to do work on the 1.2 trillion dollars bipartisan infrastructure deal and funds roads, bridges, public transit, railways, water projects, broadband internet and electric vehicle charging stations. when the senate is back in session at 11:00 a.m. eastern saturday you can see live coverage on c-span2. next military historian and author patrick o'donnell on his book the indispensable's, and chronicles of the marblehead regimen of the continental army of the american revolution which he says played a crucial role in both battle and as protectors of george washington. >> good evening i am the executive director of the