Okay, and we are in the right place. Yes. So I suggest you give it a couple of minutes for people to join. Okay, let's just wait then one minute. It's probably easier to respond. We're still trying to configure things here. Thank you for joining us. We have this thing called the album, which is a type of device that's wrong. And the idea is that we capture the voice so can move into the perspective of the person. So we'll wait for one minute and then I'll get all the news and we want to call them. Just say if there's any problem with the sound come from the room just someone, you know, from the panelist just please let us know. Okay, so should I get started. Okay, well, hello everyone and welcome to the first workshop of the project. I'm just going to say hello to those who are known as yours and now one of the four computers project. I'm teaching modern European history as in the rest of London and I'm just in research fellow at the center of the studies here at case here. Thank you for joining us today in person and those of your time and having environment so not always great, but these two days will try to make our best to make the most of it and reach the benefit of the online environment and encourage the participation of those who are partners and also those in the audience. So I'm going to introduce the idea behind the project and explain briefly the format, and then say, I want to thank you to various colleagues who made this happen. Before handing over to one of us team and Joe Mayor to continue and start a conversation. The opinions and bison videos are moments of commemoration and reflection that say much about the past, as about the present. And for those like me interested among other things and what the great history and politics 2021 and 2022 over land my anniversary events that have shaped more than we can. And one like that, not only. Thank you. Thank you. One witness that I sent in a solution, you don't need a length and complicated process that succeeded in delivering the first independent states in the fringes of post Napoleonic Europe. This year Maxis and Henry of the destruction of the Greek Orthodox communities in Asia minor, following the defeat of the economy. Both occasions are opportune moments to rethink reasons placed in the background of an ever expanding the national system, but they're also more than that. And this takes me to the idea for this workshop. The failure of the Greek expansionist project mandatory became the success of the next national transformation of the ultimate. In 1922 events increase in Turkey therefore has a binary dynamic, a lament for the destruction of the lost home and Greece victory day celebrations in Turkey. The Greek 30s 1922 is a story of trauma and triumph war and violence. It's a story of displacement and population transfers that heralded the consolidation of the national state and got the booted the pursuit of national homogeneity to the mainstream in the national politics. The nether side of self determination to remember every fight. And it's also a story of what making and more breaking in the shadow of empire. And it's now various research process applications have said life on key aspects of the political, cultural and international history of the group that is currently in their 20s. Some of the most widely discussed themes concern the recovery of refugee experience and memory, as well as the analysis of the legal cultural and bio political logic under being the making and I'm making my knowledge of relations in both sides of the country. What seems to have been missing in this effort to systematically place the critical story in the wider country is rather an effort to systematically place the critical story in a wider context of the view of transitions and transformations across Europe, East and West, and the mirror in the least. And from this purpose point, nationalism and empire can be seen as far from I think most political organization. By, by purposefully shedding light 1922, a moment of transition in between the national conferences, among other things, Paris 1919, San Remo 1920, Belgrade 1920, Genoa 1922, Los Angeles 1933. This project, you know, once you kind of pause and makes us we think certain key dynamics, if we were to travel back in time exactly 100 years ago and actually did this experiment. Yes, what will be read in the pages of the master guide. You know, I don't know if you have stated it, but we read in the master guide and right 100 years ago, 28 April. It would encounter actually photograph of the Russian delegation, a general caption, and that's the two caption, what the Russians look like. Now I wonder how did the Russian look then the Russians look then for the British leadership of the Guardian, and how they look now, but that's probably a matter for another workshop, but I just want to throw it in because it's quite interesting. Put our minds back in 1922. In the spring of 1922, it was not Paris, but the Italian port of Genoa, as Carol Pink reminded us and others that became this from Carol Pink's words, a work capital invaded Genoa by statesmen, journalists, businessmen and spies, anticipating a major break. That was general 1922. A few months later, Rome will become decided another bleaker. Now, Lloyd George, since we're reading Lloyd George's assessment of Genoa seem to capture the moment. That's a quote from George as I suppose it's casual. That's anything about 1919. So Lloyd George grows from the volume down to the black sea. There is hardly a line, which is not contested. Each of those lines involved in setting the possibility of a day of conflict in Europe. So that's how Lloyd George seen and understood Europe in a wider context in the spring. Now our project, the Global 1922 project ventures to place the story alongside the wider network of connected developments in places like Ireland, Italy, Spain, Hungary, Russia, and Syria, and on other sites. Our aspiration is to put our mind pretty sure as people don't know that is to push back against the temptations of methodological nationality. And they facilitate the medications of various studies and offer a connective and comparative account of key themes, necessarily imperial nationalist and internationalist imaginaries of a disrupted world in flux. And these themes are globally kind, locally nature sometimes revolve around a contested policy of humanitarian, the shifting nature of warfare and risk making, the language of liberty, self determination, Westernization. They include stories of economic integration, tales of forced migration to pick from some of the many things that will occupy these two days. And our exploration, like any exploration of this kind, is far from complex, but I believe it's a good enough starting point to kick off a productive conversation on the global dynamics of the early 1920s. And that was a bit about how to explain, you know, why I decided for this project and invited you here. And I just wanted to end with a few words about the format of our proceedings. Something is an animal. Each speaker panelist has around 15 minutes to flesh out their key argument. And each panel has a commentator who will also chair the session and moderate the discussion. And the setup of our platform allows for direct interventions from the federal presenters and strongly encourage the rest of you attending the workshop online in the webinar format to send us your questions from the Q&A function. And I should also stress that these are works in progress. So they're purposely incomplete because what we want to do is start a discussion. I'm going to go over to the director of the Center for Electrical Studies. I just wish to extend a note of thanks to those who work hard to make this happen and to our sponsors. So the event is hosted by the Center for Electrical Studies and the Sir Michael Howard Center for Electrical Studies. We are happy to have the Center for Modern History at Binding University and the Center for more studies of the industry called Stambe as international partners. We're also grateful to the Modern Geographic Association, the Events Foundation, and last but not least the Plaster President Society for their support. And finally, last but not least truly, special thanks to Ailey Vigno, Peter Swanno, who's on here, and Oli Michael Dyer for their generous assistance in making this event happen, so that it would be possible for us to have this conversation. So, you don't need to, you can just, yeah. Sorry. My name is Honda Bernstein, and I'm the Courage Chair in the Center for Hellenic Studies. It's a pleasure to be part of this collaboration. It's really wonderful for the Center for Hellenic Studies to engage in a collaboration with more studies on our very own campus and the School of Security Studies and to find that collaboration in this particular topic. So I'm really grateful to be able to do this on campus with some of you, and with more of you online. And of course, there will be a continuation to this effort with our Greek and other partners. The Center for Hellenic Studies that last year focused so much on the bicentennial of the Greek Revolution to dial forward by a hundred year to another much darker topic of anniversary, commemoration rather, in the centenary of 1922 is a very healthy exercise, when again we push it to the global dimensions of that topic. I'm especially grateful to George Jarekopoulos for doing the heavy lifting on this, on the globalization on this topic, and for putting me in charge of a panel on Ireland and Spain, pushing my boundaries far outside the usual norm as well. George gave us around already the most eloquent introduction, little to add, but I also want to add that we will be focusing, as much as we focus on military, the political, the diplomatic dimensions that 1922 and its anniversary pose really important questions in terms of humanitarian and cultural economic dimensions, vulnerabilities, and how real these topics and their ripple effects, and presumed not neutralities and redefinitions of neutralities, how real and current those sound today. So that will be a dimension that will ring true in very many of our topics as well. As much as we think of 1922 as a moment, or even a movement, and for the Greeks again we would have shift that in September of 1922, it's important that we rethink it, and think of this era as not as a moment of 10 years long. There's a very much along the way to this phenomenon that we will be studying, and of which we still saw the percussions today. 1912 is equally important for the part of the world that we have been involved in, and I'm particularly keen on having Michael Levin Smith present here with a specialist on the topic. So yes, a lot to do here to extend geographical boundaries with us to really stretch chronological frameworks, and then with a thank you to all our partners, and all our participants are handed over to my colleague Joe Milo. I think the outlook will do its thing. Well I'm Professor Joe Milo, Professor of International History and Technical Studies, and Director of the Sir Michael Howard Center for the Study of the War, and we're very grateful to, again partners with all the institutions mentioned, and I reiterate our thanks to George for all the heavy lifting on making the project happen. Ellie is in the background here. We have wonderful staff in the Department of War Studies who contribute to the Sir Michael Howard Center. Frankly, nothing would happen without that. And again, I just want to underscore that we are really delighted to have across faculty, across department, cooperation on the Center for the Next Studies. I will just now dive into the first panel and introduce our two distinguished speakers. And just a reminder, if you have any questions for the audience, you can insert your questions into the question and answer function on Zoom, and just type them in, and we'll get to them in due course. Let me introduce two speakers, Professor Laura Robinson. I'm changing your name here as I go along. You may use Jay Summer. I'm going to introduce Professor Penn State University and author of many books that I'm just going to highlight colonialism and Christianity in Mandate Palestine, University of Texas 2011, Modern Separation, Transfer Partition, and the Making of the Modern Middle East, and the politics of mass violence in the Middle East, which is the most recent book, Oxford 2020. And I understand you're just beginning a new project on something fascinating called the Projects on Roosevelt's FDR's M project, which is something I had heard of this, and I guess wartime plans to build a legitimate empty space that's undesirable for future populations. Let me now turn to Professor Jay Winter, a Meredith University who, well, I think it says here you've published 25 books, I will be the one. So instead of what I'm going to do is highlight what is going to be your most recent book for your next book of great events, the data great work ended, which focuses on those and you're going to be speaking on that theme today. So each getting about 15 minutes and the turn to the door first. Thank you so much for that great introduction, and I'm so happy to be here. It's a pleasure to say hello to the organizers for putting together such a workshop and conversation, and I'm really honored to be here. So I'm going to talk today about a couple of different sort of big topics having to do with several of the treaties, but that never even mentioned here. And I've called my time refugees in the point of our production of territorial integrity. And it has a couple of different components and I want to emphasize the preliminary and original nature of what I'm about to say.  So there are kind of two pieces to what I want to talk about today. The first is this concept of territorial integrity, which comes up many times in the context of all of these treaties are virtually all of them, and is also of course part of Wilson's concept for this order. And is a foundational concept in the kind of political settlements. So, there are some peculiarities though with this notion of territorial integrity that kind of in the first instance seems like a natural output of the sorts of conversations going on from their side forward. And that is that, even though territorial integrity, which Wilson said was so important to me about, I'll quote him very briefly, the political independence and territorial integrity of Greek and small state states alike was so central that it had to be protected by some sort of organization. This is simultaneously, it seems to me a basic principle of peace treaties, and also not something that we see enforced very. On the one hand, we have this political commitment this dispersive commitment to the idea of the establishment of borders, and of territoriality, particularly for the emerging new states of Eastern Europe and Middle East. And on the other hand, we have an equal commitment to zones, economic zones of free trade, which are sometimes embedded in the very same documents that we see this commitment to territorial integrity being outlined. So, one of the things that happens in this kind of post war order is that we have the necessity to demonstrate territorial integrity as a political principle of this post war era, while also not disrupting these much more regionally to an imperial essentially economic relationships trade zones and political alliances. So, this is something that we can see as an historian of the Middle East I'll bring in the mandatory system of fairly immediately. So, one thing we can see very clearly in the documents for the mandatory, the mandatory texts that come up in from 1920 onwards, because these are documents that simultaneously in the same space, highlight borders highlight the need for territorial integrity and also include substantial provisions for the enforcement, mainly against the will of local actors of imperial zones of free trade. So, these are documents where we can already see the tensions coming up between these two principles of this post war post war order. So, I want to think a little bit about this concept of territorial integrity, what it means in the absence of these kinds of economic frames the ways that it pushes up against these economic frames, what it's for then, and who is responsible for enforcing and just right. And one of the things that it seems to me that we can see in this period is that as territorial integrity and new orders and new states emerges a principle. People who are most directly charged with demonstrating it are refugees on the one hand and quote unquote minorities on the other. Right. And I want to explore this particularly with regards to the Middle East and suggest two things. And one is that those populations are charged with the enforcement of so called territorial integrity precisely because they can act as enforcers of these two national entities without disrupting the economic relationships that are simultaneously emerging right that they have no they're not directly involved enough in the economies and local economies of these places to act as disruptors to the economic relationships that have been constructed. And then second, I want to point out that, while in the main refugee historians have thought about this period is one of migration and mobility that in point of fact, particularly with the X Ottoman territories, that when we look at refugees they are mostly immobilized right that this is this is a period of the settlement enforced settlement of refugees, and to some degree that column that that's true for the one of minorities as well. So, you'll see that this is this is something that goes in a number of different directions, but I want to kind of explore the relationship between the emergence of this concept of national territorial integrity, the economic practicalities on the ground and the ways in which refugee and minority policy and literally settlement policy and forced settlement policy is designed to bridge the gap between the discursive effort towards territorial integrity and the practical effort on the other hand of economic free trade that will benefit the empires. So, I want to take up a huge amount more time that I want to just suggest some of the examples that we have here. I'm going to focus my comments here on refugees and minorities in the Middle East in their book we call the Middle East in the media after that of the war. So, as you know, as I said we think about refugees as kind of being marked by the, my ability right the definition of refugee is someone who has been displaced has been moved right, and it is true of course that people are displaced that people are moved around even after they've been displaced we have examples of communities that are placed multiple times in the course of the years following before, but refugee policy as it emerged in the aftermath, particularly in the aftermath of Lausanne, as, as George has already suggested, had to do with settling people, right in the name. So we see this in the Greek Turkish the so called population exchange, which is a euphemistic way of putting it, but nevertheless the language that we have. But this also happens in the mandatory states right, so to give just one example. French mandatory Syria in the aftermath of the war had something like probably a hundred thousand army and refugees who were survivors of the genocide. And as had been moved into camps, kind of from 1916 17 forward in and around Aleppo and Latakia, in particular some in Damascus, some in Beirut. And so, one of the things that happened to them was that there was concerted efforts in French mandatory Syria, not to allow them to be right, and this is something that is explicit in French policy and I believe itself in mandatory So, and it takes a couple of different forms. One is the enforcement of settlement in particular delineated Armenian neighborhoods in places like Aleppo. That was simultaneously financed by the French mandatory government that will be by refugees themselves, who often had to pay back loans that they were given in order to construct their their housing. And then we also so we have this kind of construction of these delineated neighborhoods that are intended to keep people in place to maintain the community as an Armenian community that could be identified as a full meal collaborator. And to ensure that onward migration did not take place. Right. And so we have quotes from people like the commissioner for Syria. This is who says things like, you know, we cannot allow these as soon as these people get a little bit of money together they will want to move on. We cannot allow this to happen. Right. So, refugees are being used here to delineate borders to demonstrate the new state of Syria under French colonial authority. They're also used as military, right, which is an important point that comes up. And at the same time, they are particularly placed in border zones like in the Gisera, where they will not interfere with what is actually a very loosely enforced border situation. Right. And so they are demonstrating French control, but they are not interfering with what is until the 1930s, the zone of retreat. Something similar happens in Iraq, where a Syrian refugee communities were moved into Iraq and made citizens with as part of an effort to delineate British and Iraqi territorial control, which was being planned by Turkey at the same moment. So here again, many of these refugees actually want to move on to emigrate France to the United States to the Iraq, all of which are spaces that have already considerable Armenian and Syrian refugees. And this is, this is considered to be antithetical to the demonstration of these new states territory integrity and the imposition of colonial rule in practice. So, I think that there are a couple of that there are some things that we can explore here. I'll finish just by saying there are some things we can explore, not just in terms of how refugees construct a national system that is marked by defensible identifiable borders, right, which is something that is part of Wilson's family in home your vision for the first quarter, right. But also that they must do so through immobilization, right, not through migration but immobilization that they need to be made to stay, and that they do so in that the reason that refugees are so valuable to this effort is because they can demonstrate borders without interfering with the economic structures that are emerging at the same time. And I'll close by saying that I think we have perhaps underestimated as historians the ways in which this effort includes the Soviet spirit, the emerging Soviet spirit, right, where the idea of territorial integrity and refugees use in producing and demonstrating territorial integrity is something that also comes up. And that the Janssen offices efforts to place permanently to immobilize Armenian refugees in the in the new Soviet Armenia is a substantial important and underexplored aspect of both the imposition of territorial integrity, such as it is in across the world during this period, and the emergence of a refugee policy that is intent on placing people somewhere and then making sure they don't leave them. So I will close there. It's kind of collection of ideas. Well, thank you very much. Thank you very much for the invitation and the chance to live the experience of historical discussion. My title of my paper could have been Putin's world. Unfortunately, I think there is a linkage linkage. I'm just going to the first world war is around the question as the experience and character of war changes so does the experience and character piece. The point I want to make is that the brutality and criminality of the regime is in line with a series of changes that can be dated back to the first world war before different parts of the world. And that phenomenon I call the civilization of war. There is an interesting collection of papers by Andrew Barrows and one Thomas overwhelmingly tilted towards the 1945 and after period. What I want to do is to push back to the first world war. And what I want to also to capture is the shift from wars directed against enemy armies by centralized commander towards with or without command centers that primarily target civilians. I would argue that in fundamental ways, the disorder of the first world war the chaos of the first world war was exacerbated aggravated deepened by the even greater chaos of the post 1918 period 1918 to 1922. Protecting people who do not take part in fighting was the explicit purpose of the Geneva conventions. Red Cross and the Corpus of International Humanitarian Law, which was substantial already in 1914 that protection I believe broke down during the first world war. Witness German atrocities in Belgium and northern France in 1914, the Armenian genocide in the following year, as well as the naval blockade of the central powers that aimed at starving civilians into pressuring the government into surrender. Witness to the egregious treatment of colonial civilians and wartime both before and during the first world war. Still, in 1914 18 the primary focus of war was on mass armies, whose fate determined the outcome of the war boundary between civilian military targets have been eroded by 1918. I want to argue that in the five violent years and follow that distinction was a race. The violence against civilians in Europe and beyond became the norm, and how to distinguish between arm bands under a recognizable authority and criminal bands was anybody's guess. Anyone trying to survey what's happening in Ukraine today sees on both sides, what I would call a spectrum of military action by a spectrum of groups loosely ranged under under some military leadership. In addition, the treatment of prisoners of war from Finland to Turkey became murderous in a way almost unknown during the war. More fans died as prisoners of war in caps than in combat. This is a precedent, I believe, which occurred in particular, I just want to cite one in Francesco Franco's regime, which continued killing the Republicans on a mass scale, after the so called end of the Spanish Civil War 1939. Preston's argument that the Spanish Holocaust is about the post war killings of prisoners and indeed the civilians who weren't in the decentering of war created conditions necessitating the requisition of supplies. In the field, this meant it's preparation, robbing killing, maiming, raping, beating peasants and villages, destroying their homes, seizing their animals, theft on a grand scale, but it also entail the use of hunger as a way of asserting the authority of an insurgent group and that's happening in Ukraine as we speak. Finding stability was almost impossible under conditions of economic chaos, chaos and epidemic disease. Farmers pushed off their land during the Balkan Wars in 1912-13, they have returned, but when fighting started again during the war, 1917, they fled, leaving an archipelago of stagnant pools of water, spawning the worst malaria epidemic in European history. We were privileged to discuss at Salonica a few years ago under the championship of Sir Michael at the Balkans War. Color, dysentery, even play, bubonic play returned parts of war-torn Europe to an almost medieval, I would say, early modern status of chaos. Part two, we must add, by the lingering ravages of the worst influenza pandemic in history to date, I won't compare COVID, I'll be back to you. Now the question is, why did this dissenter, series of dissented wars come to an end? This is part of Laura's point. The first reason is the restoration of economic stability, which was the purpose of the USSR. Everyone thinks it was primarily political, but it wasn't perfectly right for them. The economic convention isn't that it was, especially those impoverished British and French by the war. The inflationary spiral of 1918-23 had a recovery almost impossible in the European continent, and it took a multinational effort with the League in believe, I would say, to stabilize both the German and other currencies. Secondly, the Western powers finally recognized and also the regime. We should see that with Lenin's death in 1924, it seemed to be the case that it was that the revolutionary danger had subsided. Thirdly, what I would call the most important and unrecognized elements of the history of this decade of 1922 is that 1922 was a year of sheer exhaustion. The blast of the end, we can't go any further, which diminished the capacity of warring groups to carry on the struggle even if they wanted to. By 1924, Europe had become once again a continent of legitimate nation states, Laura's point, but the stability of those states was compromised by the ravages of interstate wars as well as by conflicts among a wide array of warring groups that were regularly targeting non-communist. And here I'm not even going into the Russian Civil War, what I would call the savagery of class war in the attempt to overthrow the Bolshevik regime and stabilize it there. What happened in Anatolia between 1919 and 22 was over a war between armies and a war against innocent villagers. And then a huge arc of violence extending from Helsinki to Baku, the civilization of war left enduring traces on the last peace treaty signed out of Lausanne in 1923, which began in 22. Now the last upsurge of violence, the Greek-Turkish War of 1922, came to an end at that conference. To defeat the Greek forces in Anatolia, everyone agreed peace had to happen. The termination of hostilities was the purpose of the treaty of Lausanne. The ambiguity is which hostilities. And ultimately it was the 1914 hostilities which trumped the 1919 war. Again, I think three economic reasons for that. Today I just want to tell you one element in the story that stopped. This is the story of the adoption of section six of the treaty, the convention respecting the exchange of Greek-Turkish populations of protocol, signed on the 31st of January 1923. This convention, in my view, is the signature of the civilianization of war. The full treaty of Lausanne set is one of the conditions of peace, the unmixing of populations. Again, it would be interesting to explore the way in which the term unmixing actually has different inflections of different languages. What it is in Norwegian I really would like to know. Different kinds of fish, different kinds of Norwegian access. Lausanne used it. He was the man who took it under his wing as the league's high commissioner on refugees in his written and oral presentations to the peace conference on the 1st of December 1922. Today, we use a sanitary metaphor for the forced expulsion of peoples. The term is ethnic cleansing, which I think is a Russian term that was invented in the 60s, but if anyone knows better, I'm very happy to change that view. As if the removal of people of a particular origin, ethnicity, or race from a mixed community rends it pure, healthier, less susceptible to friction and conflict, ethnic cleansing. Dirt is anthropologists married of, let's put it, is matter out of place. Unmixing or ethnic cleansing is the removal of people out of place. What made the new language of expulsion particularly striking was that in Lausanne, nationality or what we now term ethnicity, maybe using other words too, was defined that solely by religion, not by language customs of personal choice. And Christians, not Muslims, Turks meant Muslims, not Christians. For the time of the Treaty of Rosanna with certain exceptions, we orthodox Christians living in Anatolia, as they had done for centuries were out of place in the new Turkey. The last painful spasm of exchange of population in the 1st century. Now what this unmixing, what made this unmixing particularly brutal was that it was not voluntary as possible. That was its author's belief and I think there were many authors to the population. Everyone ducks, but they all have, I think, mud on their redder. The compulsory characters, it was done quickly enough sufficiently quickly to save lives. By the way, I think it'd be interesting to hear what Laura thinks about this, because it's the only time I know of where you don't bring food to refugees, you bring refugees to food. You provide them with a rural alignment where they can be safe and stable and not move around. It seems a very strange shift from 19th century humanitarian law that I hope David de Vergonia can lead us into this area later on. Now, yes, we all know in 1913 reasonable area exchange populations. This was a recognition of the time-honored tendency of civilians to flee conflict zones voluntarily. Millions did so over in many parts of Europe between 1914 and 18, but after the war, civilians were trapped in areas in which fighting occurred and during which non-covidence were targeted overwhelmingly non-covidence were targeted. In 1923 and for the first time to end this kind of war, population exchange became compulsory. The civilianization of warm men, that civilian ethnic cleansing became an integral and even essential part of peace of us. My last one, simply this, civilians were hostages exchanged in the interest of peace. And I think they are in crime today. In that steel factory there are civilians in front of the soldiers who will be exchanged, will be used by both sides cruely, brutally. And my claim is that the first instance in history where the end of war was not the moment of the exchange of prisoners of war as classic, but the end of war is an exchange of civilians. When I use the term the civilianization of war, it's to mark that extraordinary treatment of civilian populations as the integral element that made the treaty agreement possible. It's on the 30th of January, Mustafa Ismet knew very well he was going home. His brilliant strategy, and of course it goes on, is to stall. To stall until the allies got fed up because none of them wanted to go to war. None of them was prepared to go to war. None of them could afford to go to war. So he knew that on the 4th of February he'd be out the door and sell the curves on it. So 30th of January is the assurance, remind you by signing that agreement, is the assurance that there would be a peace treaty. Not now, but later and probably better for all concerned until various people disappear curves on more jokes among them. My final point is simply this 1922 it seems to me is extraordinary moments in the transformation of the institutions of war and peace in Europe, which remain with us to this day. And that it's absolutely impossible to understand what Putin is doing in Ukraine without seeing him as the successor goes out. Thank you very much. Two wonderful papers I think I've just observed by Congress to draw on some themes, and perhaps that's some questions along the way, and then we'll turn it over to questions in the room. And again, just to reiterate, if you're online, please use the question and answer function. And then we'll turn it over to questions and pose them to our panelists. And sorry and online panelists as well, of course, sorry. So, so what strikes me that nice these two papers and George mentioned that in his introduction is precisely what Eric White's called population politics in both papers. You're indicating a shift to where, you know, populations of people are always important politics but where actually the focus of international politics becomes the management or movement or even gratification of people. And what's interesting about both papers is that the weight of normative change seems to be actually post the, you know, what we consider the first world war, or 18 rather than in the war itself and maybe I don't know that I'm reading your paper correctly I'm reading yours. Then there's a war changes in that immediate, what we call post war period and therefore the piece, the new piece in 23 reflects that. And of course, the question here is about legitimacy so if 19th century dynastic imperial politics simply above frontiers and dynastic legitimacy we're moving into a new era where legitimacy stems from the idea of national population usually understood as a single entity to find one way or another. And what's really interesting about Laura's papers that it makes this kind of concrete in the sense of practices of everything from passports to border surveillance to all managing refugees and so on. What's, I think, again, it's in the background of those papers, what James thought called kind of making the territory people of economic exchange legible right so seem like a state. That's a classic book, and you seem to state intervening areas, violently, but also, of course, being encoded in international law that centrality of populations. And of course, we have this call, we, you know, both papers pick up on two big themes, one of which is this tension between the idea of the nation state has been the sort of emerging non international politics and world order, versus the messy this is just the way realities of populations and people are distributed and the conflicts in general. And also attention between empires and nation states having are being defined within certain territories, but there are attempts to reconstruct a global economy that's fundamentally one transnational marketplace and there is a financial change and I wonder if I should lower you might bring that out of this work because I just immediately post for a period where your examples are drawn are really drawn to protectionism tariff, high tariffs. Industrial protectionism, but I wonder if what you're really talking about a certain period. Yeah, okay so you may be. commenting. I did wonder about the civilization of the board and having said, I should say at the original conference, and I think they can blur the book so I'm not against that. I wonder what you're really talking about is told, rather than. So, and the narrative shift, if you like, actually is in the 1914 18 period, and the key, the key idea is seeing populations as a military resource. The mass mobilizations the total mobilizations in total war, and what we're really seeing is a continuity, absolutely high commands break down and you have paramilitary violence, decentralized violence spontaneous violence, but I mean, what's the incentive what's the driver, let's actually reform and appreciate populations so, but you'll come back on that question. I suppose one of the sort of depressing things and J. I just went to talk to me about what's happening in Ukraine now, is there some, is there a certainty, is there a, an inability to a world shifting to the nation state being the ultimate organizing principle is the violence that we saw the 20th century continues today, just inherent in that and there's no saving. I guess is what I'm asking. And I'll leave it there. So. Thank you so much was there really, really useful and interesting comments. I think you're right. First of all, about the kind of economic zones. So, one of the things that happens, but I think it's kind of under emphasized and the large around the way to this period is that in the requirements of mandatory authority is included strictures about maintaining zones of free trade, right, which actually is the context how borders are are enacted on the ground with places like Syria. Palestine is a little bit of an exception in this regard, because if that's this other, you know, structure about the creation of the Jewish National Home, which is also the trend of the mandatory documents. But so for example, just to give you one brief example about this in the Turkish Syrian mortar lands, which is a space for considerable numbers of both Armenians and Syrians for refugees were settled in the 1920s. And again in the 1930s. There, this is essentially an open border through most of the 1920s until the crash of 1929 when Turkey made the decision to enact a new terror regime as a kind of protectionist strategy France as the, as the as the supervisor of the mandatory state was not allowed to enact terror regime. So their interest in creating maintaining and enforcing that order is significantly less in this period than the Turkish interest right and so we have a kind of conflict I think you know this that the creation of in the 1920s which is very different right now this time we get to the 30s. You know there is this idea that this is going to be a reformulation of older imperial free trade films right only this time, it will have the mechanisms of the nation states to sing it. And I think that we need to think a little bit about how that worked or how people thought it might work right how nationalism, how the nation state, how territoriality could help to what trips this this what is essentially an older imperial economic order, rather than the reverse and I think there were a lot of ideas about how this to work, and that the experiment territories are kind of a space for this is being worked out in practice, and in a lot of aspects. And then only inevitability of the nation state model I think is associated with it, I mean, I, I think it's hard to be optimistic at this point about the possibility of a world built in nation states that is not inherently violent I think we have very little historical evidence that the contrary is a real possibility. But I do think, you know, there's, there's nothing inevitable about the rise of that system but it's relatively short lived in short term. And, and one of the things that's interesting about focusing on these people's who fall outside the nation state system is that you can see how carefully it's constructed and all of the ways in which it's actually difficult to enforce right. And so, so perhaps it's worth kind of thinking about the kinds of alternatives that were presenting themselves on the ground and great local ways during this period as well as the kind of architecture that's emerging at the sites at least this training and the emergence that are actually a lot. So. I think the only thing that's worse than the violence nation states is the violence of chaos in the absence of the next step. And the collapse of empire created a field of forces purely obsolete. Again, no the story we're going to hear about our 20s. He was drawing attention to the fact that these atrocities took place in 1921. I don't believe they were ordered this Michael might know better, but soldiers took advantage of being in positions of violence. It's not necessarily the states that created the violence. 1500 programs against Jews in Ukraine in 1919 alone. And was there a state probably not the first of those programs was Polish. I think the chaos of the years back to make it to 23 is something that may be necessary for your interpretation, Laura. This goes into Robert give out and John Lawrence attempt to say 1918 is a false sunset of war. I share that I think war did not end in 1918, but people that hope to create a territorial solutions. I still go back to this point that 1922 is a year of exhaustion of enormous suffering on the part of people, many different parts of Europe that simply could not be sustained and in particular in Russia. So after four or five years of civil war, the recognition of the most of the regime is part of the story. The final point, it actually links with what we're saying. Total war to me is almost a cliche these days or not. If I contributed to making it so I apologize. But at the same time, something happens to the manipulation of violence in states that have not made their authority legitimate yet. You know what happens in 1418 are legitimate states like Germany, most of them great behavior badly. What else isn't. But when you have states in the making, creating their, their violence, including the Turkish Republic. So one area that I want to point out that I think my existence and I think I would be useful for you to are. I don't think we've reflected enough on this centrality here of the Armenian, the end of the Armenian Republic, not the Armenian Caucasian, the Anatolian. Here's an example of people exchanging justice for peace. Sacrificing the Armenians was necessary for there to be a peace treaty in which the boundaries of Greece and Turkey could be fixed. That was that was that was the deal. And the, what shall I call it the myth or the illusion was that there really was already on Armenia, the way it goes in the years that the Palestinians don't exist. They have their state already. It's the same argument that the Armenians loss of territorial integrity was a price it was a price. In the proceedings when I have those readers he doesn't realize that everyone knows and no one says the truth about this fundamental point that to stabilize the economic release. And it wasn't a trade. And I think that there is an area where we can talk about economic interests and the part of weakened imperial powers blowing the idea of self determination out of the water. The final point though I think that we need to do is to really specify what is there in 1922, your story is longer than that. If you really say, look at these 12 months, I take it that was part of the purpose of globalizing this. I think we have some elements to talk about exhausted as a fundamental global phenomenon.  How can people go on. Imagine what's going on and you pray for another 10 years. It's simply beggars beggars belief that it's that notion. It's excruciatingly difficult moments, less of the exhaustion, but I think maybe a thing to probe in the remainder of this. Great. Thank you. But I see the number of question and chat rising and I think they're under the room or online questions to just start within the room and then we'll go online so anyone. Please. I think the Balkan was very close to it. Because that led to the situation and totally which was very close to it. And I started to know that people all had to be corrected. Corrected by expanding the population. Whether there was an alternative to that, which could have been reached before 1922. I don't know. It's conceivable. You know, an exchange of populations before the exchange of populations. Very difficult to bring about particularly once the Turkish nationalists established a certain force in eastern Turkey. And more and more clear, but going to be checked. Any solution solution. If I could explode the chair for a moment to go on for another issue. Something which didn't crop up much in your presentations was the question of law. The laws of war. Which ought to have been very important in this period. But I'm not sure that they were. Even out of the sand. And there were lawyers around. We think that on the Greek side. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. Sa. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. I guess. Olitos as well. Yes. Yeah, co. Distinguish professor.ца . Ejenigen wrote it very interesting. Short room about his experience. And I wonder. were a war of the eight conventions and so on. Then you have a war in which there were large-scale violations probably on all sides. And then you have the post-war period where even words, there were large-scale violations all over the place as you look at the culture. And what were the lawyers doing at this time? Were they producing interesting analyses or recommendations or were they doing nothing? And what about the League of Nations? And the League of Nations should have meant a new start in considering the justification for practices on the battlefield and so on. Whether or not I simply don't know, so I throw that question to some of you that was better than mine. One sort of point about it. I think the sequel of Luzon is the outrageous behavior of Mussolini and Khufu because what he does is to dare the League to act the way everyone who created the League said they should have acted in 1914 when a small state or a state is outrageously attacked by another. And they didn't. Appeasement might be was invented in Khufu. It was way, way before. In that moment the issue of the League of Nations being the carrier of the law of nations, much less the important prisoners of war. I think Mussolini deliberately did it and when the League was challenged, politists could do nothing about it. Alternately, the imperial issues saying we want peace, not justice. Let Mussolini have what he wants, recognition, more publicity than he would true. But the humiliation of the League was only second to the humiliation. This was a terrible moment. The other point is a lot of the work that you talked about quite frankly with Mr. Michael was in the Tsarist legal profession, not the Bolshevik. The great international lawyers of the period before 1914 were brushed aside by the Bolshevik regime. Not completely, not completely, but mostly the strength of the humanitarian law before the First World War is Russian itself. Unfortunately, the Bolshevik regime has many casualties. That's really interesting. That's definitely an under-recognized moment. But also, I think, with regard to the League of Nations, the League accepted essentially any kind of military combatant part of the mandate states of which it was to be a super concern. And so, and this is made explicit many, many times, right from 1929 to 22, final version of the Hafer Palestine Assign. The League accepted, for instance, the use of air power in Iraq against civilians on the ground as a legitimate use of mandatory authority. Very similarly, they supported French atrocities in Syria during the uprisings from 1925 to 27. This happened repeatedly in Palestine. So, I mean, these are not moments that go unchallenged at the level of international discussion and international legal discourse, but they are repeatedly, there's a consistent pattern of the League accepting the use of colonial brutality as a legitimate use of force. And I think that that really fundamentally undermines any claim that we might have to establishing a kind of regime, a legal regime concerning the conduct of war in, you know, for anywhere going forward. So, I think that's also kind of an important venue of the activity to consider. It's kind of as if you're saying that great power, the so-called great powers could do what they wanted, because they could bring the League along with it. I certainly with regard to the mandatory system, that's absolutely the case. Yes. I think what we're going to do is just shift between online audience and in-room and virtual panelists. So, George, what are you interested in? So, how about I read a question and read some questions that would go to Lena, who's kind of a bit upset, right? And then I would go back to you. So, I'm just going to read two questions from Ari Luton, submitted them in the chat. So, he says, my questions, I hope everyone can hear, are somewhat technical regarding nomenclature of terminology and how they're connected to periodization. So, his first question is to Lord. So, Ari asks, given the legal codification of the term refugee, especially in the U.S. and its immigration laws, imagine later, only the way of the Second World War, what was the terminology phrase used at the time, thanks to describe displaced populations. Will it be fair to Ari, says, that you suggest that many development historians of displacement and transfer identity as taking place after 1945 originates in apprenticeships about the biological question of refugees? And to Professor Jay, Ari Luton asks, says, he believes that the phrase ethnic cleansing came into white U.S. in the 1990s, in the context of the words from Yugoslavia. It is a liberal, literal translation of the circle Croatian expression. I'm not going to pronounce that. Ari, I'm sorry. It's because, see, what's something called ethnic cleansing. Here, wouldn't be fair to Ari that the date on the points ending that conflict in the 90s did not fall back on the same logic of lojan. So, that's Ari's question. May I, quick on that point, Antonio Pereira in the chat also has to add, so that's connected. He says, on ethnic cleansing, the term became a bit of white currency as translation of the circle Croatian expression. Yet I know that the similar one, Antonio, says it existed in Romanian already in the 1940s. That I may pronounce, but if I carry on, and was used to describe policies of Antonescu regime, aimed to exclude and expel non-Romanians, mostly Jews. My professor, Vita, expand on the Russian expression he mentioned and provide us with more details on the conflict. So it's both our thing. I think so. Sorry. Yeah, everyone else is interested in the Russian origins of ethnic cleansing. That's not something I know about. The refugee question, so, Ari, it's supposed to be S-W. And the refugee question is an interesting one because people think, as you point out correctly, that the origin of the legal definition of refugee comes into being in 1951 with the U.S. Convention on Refugees. Actually, there's a long legal history required to that. And one of the things, this is being hammered out during this period. So actually, the term refugee is used, I believe, many, many times from, you know, really right from very far onward. It's one of those terms like minority that comes to be a feature of the kind of post-war international diplomatic discourse. The office on refugees, the high commissioner on refugees, this is a word that is current. It is defined in the mid-1920s with regard to a very few specific national groups, right? So you can only be a refugee if you are Russian in the first instance, Armenian in the second instance, and then in 1928 it was expanded to include a serial healthiest. So it's something, and it's kind of explicitly, there's a regime around us that explicitly says, just because you have been displaced over a national border does not make you a refugee, which is essentially the opposite of what the definition of lands on in the post-war period. So it's tied in, I think there's a material history to this, right? It's tied into groups that the so-called Greek powers have client relationships with to some degree, right? And that definition lasts for quite a long time. And just it's notable, for instance, that even in this period that Kurdish populations were displaced in the same conflicts, in the same moments, do not qualify as refugees in this international ratio that's emerging. Very briefly, the United Systems discussion talks about the ambiguity of the expulsion of populations after 45 Volga Germans, the Crimean Tatars, the Sudeten Germans as success stories. The point is we take the term to be an insult. The ironies of the Russian language are, so to say, many and truthful, but they point to the possibilities that such expulsions might have stabilized the society. I don't like that word. The President, who I think knows the four histories, but the final point is that the concept of refugee then goes back to Kishinyev, goes back to before the 1905 revolution. Kishinyev, by the way, was a smaller massacre than any of those that happened after 1919 in Ukraine and smaller than what's happening today in Ukraine. But its echo effect was because of the public publicity in the United States, but it had a lot to do with the construction of the concept of refugees and the responsibility of the Western powers. And actually, that's what relates to your earlier point as well about the Balkan War, because the first state to have a state-level refugee regime, which is in fact what they call the River Ottomans, and that happens as early as 1859 when they began to set up these commissions to resettle refugees from the developments in Anatolia from here. So it does have, you know, it has a longer legal history.  So, Lena, you can unmute yourself then. Hello and thank you for a very interesting panel. I would like to ask Professor Robson if we can expand our vision a little bit more globally would you link and I mean if and would you link your point on territorial integrity and the immobilization of refugees with the wider context of severe restrictions of migration in the USA in many other states or with the the putting of Indians in the USA in reserves and with other kinds of restrictions on movement. Thank you. Yeah, I think that's a very good point and that this is a part of a broader scheme to restrict migration and I want to I agree completely, I think it does have to do with these kinds of broader restrictions. But also one of the things that we don't take enough from this stuff I think is that some of these restrictions are intended to keep people in as well as keep people out right and so the the restriction of migration in the US you know has to do with exclusion. But there are many ways in which you know the questions around labor migration in particular are quite fraught during this period and so I think it's partly about the kind of closing down of states but it's also about the ensuring that people will be present to construct these new national entities and realities that people are going to be able to see emerge. So I think I think it's an excellent and one that really does make this into a kind of global moment where migration is nobody's able I think to handle the 20s without seeing the fact that it ended the first great wave of globalization. That's the end of it and you know the re-assertion of globalization as labor mobility being essential to this is long after the second world war maybe the point of stability of the nation's state is that it's not globalized. It has the capacity to live independently. So I continue reading some of the questions. Yeah I was just saying the point just I think it's bounced back of course. Okay so I also read it. So first it's Laura Robson and I'm referring to the advice and purpose you mentioned but that's part of your argument that the refugees are actually they have to stabilize territorial integrity because it reminds me that actually if you look at the central standard case that you also find that there are certain problems in the community so it's not necessarily pertaining to territorial integrity but to the institution of those institutions that are used to define six energy and most importantly animal rights in the Austro-Hungarian age because it suddenly becomes not a legalese but a transnational institution. Many people are stranded in countries that they couldn't obtain citizenship because their animal rights is in another country and therefore they are aliens in the sense that they are not necessarily bothered by the state. This is the second other I think that in the central standard again it's quite important that the state is still disposed so for example passports are very often issued at local level so that makes it easier for people to maneuver to gain agency to move forward and this is really and it also pertains to a certain logic internal tension between the logic of the state apparatus that they still operate with that kind of programming logic and not necessarily an airing with the logic of the nation state so they treat co-attendees as aliens they make obstacles in their game of gaining citizenship even though they seem to be legally. Interesting and I think that kind of good it could be a good point of comparison and the other one it's more of an impression than we think in the politics some first modernist impression that listening to the local and also reading the paper that came to my mind was the importance of the kind of ephemeral understanding of boundaries and I think the context very well with the other that could have contributed to this civilisation but came to my mind as the example of the Hungarian internment system that was established during the war to control dangerous groups of population was the ethnic minority at one point it was merged with the treatment of the British and also the same camps that were originally internment camps and vice versa the prisoners of war were at the same time also used as labor they could get integrated to a certain extent into civilian society and at one point since 1918 onwards these internment camps were used to control post-politicalities and westerns and for the after 1990s in Africa the tens of thousands were in turn who were suspicious of being tortured and also the returning here with Soviet Union war went through push through these internment camps in a sense in a way of examining the loyalty potential loyalty so but that also tells me how external and internal boundaries of the state were really uncertain um yeah that's a very interesting comparison I think I'm especially struck with what you're saying about locally produced and distributed passports which points to and I think one of the really interesting the things that one of the things that interest me about this idea is that I think when we when we look from the top down when we read the treaties you know and you think about the the border the territorial missions but yes set the borders but then there is there's a step underneath that right where people have to think about how to do that in practice right what that will actually look like in practice and that in practice it's it's it's very much more localized than we might imagine right to the extent that it happens at all and I think there are there are big spaces where it actually doesn't happen right where we don't have you know I mean in French mandatory Syria they don't even have maps of the border area to the late 1930s right and so so they don't people don't know where where this line is right even though it's been drawn on that um so I think just just to say that I appreciate the point it's it's a very interesting point of comparison and it reminds us of the kind of complications of the practicalities of enforcement and I think maybe raises the question of how desirable that enforcement actually is right is this in some ways the system that it's more useful in theory in the abstract that can exist in the abstract and be enforced kind of at certain moments but not necessarily one that needs to permeate down to every day or to be in life in these across all of these spaces thank you I think the important very important sort of your comment is to show me the multi-faceted nature of refugee threats and the biggest one we have is carriers of disease. Nansen wanted to liberate prisoners of war who hadn't made it home to us we were hungry or on our journey we also wanted to stop that's one reason to settle people to stop them from transmitting all the diseases that they got in their caps in in Constantinople all the way over to the estate degrees to stop the spread of epidemic and the idea that refugees are carriers sometimes of bad ideas of diseases is one reason to immortalize them to keep them there and my guess is that we're going to see people deal with this problem in Poland and Bulgaria with respect to Ukraine and the population fortunately now we also see that they recognize that there are psychological difficulties. Well as it was yesterday one of the Prime Minister spokesman said you know you know he thought that there's you know three million Ukrainians moving west and by the way they all had COVID all right so it's not it's your point absolutely sorry for one more question yeah should be that's do you think you want to give it to them this this is okay okay what is that you know don't you're who are sadly there's a given issue so he can't get himself to fix that but he submitted a question on land and I have a couple more so I'll try it's a long question so maybe we take two of them so Davide asks says two fabulous papers by twelve star historians and the subtle and open reference to Ukraine is appropriate and time and very correct if I have you so to concur now Davide says I'm wondering if the way to connect the two papers could be the following so Davide could reconsider interpret immobility and the delusion of territorial integrity that went with it as the antithesis of chaos and the horror by QE a baroque artistic expression that's one question and isn't chaos the ultimate fear of policy makers who seek for trepidation and argument peace so this is that this point should I bring in another yeah let's bring it together and I'm going through the chat Rodney Bitten has a bit of a question so really now could it be that 1914-1918 style war because artists rather than civilization of war has been the exception to the long third north yes the lozane only formalized the process that had begun was like after the first world war in 1912 and if you go back to the Greek Revolution in the 80s you find almost all of the factors presented by professor Wiener ethnic cleansing non-state actors violence against civilians so that's professor Wiener's point so maybe we can take this doing that I was struck by an article we just edited on this period of the economic chaos and the preparation of the Greek military operation in Anatolia because this cost us because this because this is brilliant complete you want to use the word chaos I think it shows lack of preparation lack of logical movement towards what is necessary or for the military operation to be sustained and they should have known by late 1919 yes because the finance minister was warned and this paper seemed to me to show blindness on the part of both the Venezuelan party and the king's party as to the absolute essential nature of economic planning for military operation kind of that resulted in nemesis that resulted in the most possible outcome for the Greek people the other side with that I think is is very important is that the League really did with the staff of view that the Allies fought to protect territory integrity of Belgium but the invasion really mattered and I think it really did matter it wasn't a light cover it mattered what was there for the purpose of stopping the next Wilhelm II or a small country now that's why we got away with it in some ways the peace and stability we're talking about mattered more than saying that we're there for the purpose of stopping the chaos that comes out of bullies like Putin inventing and then I think that's the difference yeah it's interesting I mean there are some ironies but use of these kinds of frames right or I think there is this post-war chaos that is extremely violent and then there the imposition of you know and I guess I'm speaking together about the kind of ex-autonomant territories that those are also extremely violent populations right and from the level of civilians on the ground you know when we look at for instance Palestine in the late 1930s is it better is it different I'm not sure so you know and this relates to the earlier question about whether the violence of the nation state is you know inevitable and I think that this chaos the only way in which we see you know there at least for certain spaces for these newly colonized spaces you know this chaos is not gone in 1923 right and that this violence continues to be a major major feature of the entirety of the interwar years and that it's hard to see it's hard to see this as a kind of you know it's hard to I quite hard to say you know that this goes my paper goes beyond this and that you know it's beyond 1922 it's beyond 1923 it's it's all the way through the 1920s and the 1930s and then there's there's another conflagration so I'm not sure when to identify the end point to that chaos but we need to think about this a moment before. Yeah this is a very good point those of them are studying international war right here a lot of obsession but I think 1924 is a good answer and the Olympic games are part of it there's a symbolic language of what constitutes peace peace has to be the start but I do think that's a try to a 24 bar there is our times of the end of war and the beginning of peace. There's a very quick point that's the final submission I have an apology for this someone from someone GG not me I usually decide. It wasn't the American war. It wasn't the American Civil War the progenitor of the modern concept of the force of war so Sharon was master of the sea that's that was a question of common you are so you're the guest so go ahead. The initial of civil war as vicious and brutal is after all a classical theme in every sense of the term but when I when I resist I do not share it with other viewers of the number of German historians the full 1945 it was the Civil War it's in my view war degenerated like a mutant virus it turned into a number of multiple killers under the control of no one and in fact we use the word war as a unity whereas it really is such an unstable category I think we use the word peace when it isn't there either but when we didn't reflect literally stop and what did the contemporaries think the word meant I think the word war is not the north versus the south the word war is nobody is safe and your neighbor is not necessarily on one of her seven just to comment on that I mean I would be remiss in the worst case department just to you know we define war you know you for precisely the purposes we want so claus witsian war is about waging war between uh the nation states for particular purposes the colloquium but you know it's interesting about the 20s in particular you know right up to uh the pre-war war 1927 non-capital war it's actually the uh the reform reform but but the different attempts to define war is a different way so soviet lawyers wanted to outlaw interstate the war that allowed revolutionary war the imperial powers wanted to allow a new country or actually a called colonial violence is war I mean in colonial spaces but that's not war in international law and then so on so just following on the comment from gg but lord did you want me to say okay I think I think I'm going to wrap up because I'm told by my assistant uh uh chair who's monitoring the internet for me and thank you for that right uh so we're I think we're going to now switch over to directing the next panel so sure please go on that take the take over thank you thank you after this first panel after this first panel and we make a quite a geographical switch and bringing uh the u.s through gongsonianism or wilsonism I see both and a focus of on wilsonism in western europe our two papers take us to the far ends of western europe italy and spain our two speakers or maxi miliano fuentes with poder and also sorry the name escapes me now yes so it's it's ireland in spain sorry sorry doro gannon from um sorry um I hope I pronounced that well I'm really not that pretty hilarious I apologize for that so maxi miliano will speak on the on the topic of the bilsonian moment from the bilsonian moment to the bilsonian disappointment in neutral countries transnational races of the first world war in spain and he's critically focusing on a period from 1917 to 1923 he's associate professor at the university of here on spain and deeply involved in a project called democracy and its enemies and again that critical period starting in 1917-18 running all the way through 1931 and involving spain italy portugal and as far out as argentina he is also interested in the global character of world war one versus the status of neutral countries and his current work builds on what we will be hearing today the impact of wilsonianism in the crisis of liberalism in spain again in that critical period he has studied transnational neutralities in spain argentine and argentina and also worked on cultural and political exchanges coming again out of spain italy and argentina and our second speaker dara gannon again I apologize if I don't pronounce that correctly we'll be speaking on writing revolutionary ireland into the global 1922 he's a research fellow with affiliations with the prince university belfast but also university college dublin and new york university under review is his work on worlds of revolution ireland's global moment with the focus on irish nationalism previously in great again in that critical period from 1919 through 1922 so although let maximiano start then we will follow the same productive system of representatives taking about 15 minutes each and in the meantime please keep your questions calm thank you well good afternoon uh does it work properly can you hear me yes yes yes yes thank you very much so good afternoon and and thank you georgias and you all for for the organization of this uh workshop and i would like to share my screen if i may with a very brief presentation because i am i'm virtually so it's it's it's a way probably that will work better okay does it it's working yes okay so so uh so um well um the the presentation is uh the consideration that uh the experience of uh neutral countries have has been uh an executive for a long time and at the same time uh uh a national point of view i mean the the works produced by uh scholars and and uh research done uh research is done on uh on neutral countries particularly in spain have have been dominated by uh narrow point of view and national i would say point of view so um the the so the departing point is is this idea this transnational term the link between international or turn of the historiography of the first world war and neutralities so that's why i highlighted some quotes you are you are you can read here um by john whore and and other uh eminent scholars considering first of all the limits the the paradox between the national the nation state and national efforts they were central uh in the first world war but uh the difficulties to understand this uh conflict within national frameworks after that the second point is uh the necessity of distinguishing between validity and obliterance that has been that was highlighted by uh uh company on on people say um uh some years ago and finally the consider the consideration of neutrality as a as a relevant point to understand that the experience of one state and its people uh must be considered within uh i mean within the international environment that the ratio the relationship between states these elements are uh the ones that um determine uh the circumstances are and legitimacy of neutrality this is the departing point as i said before uh because i am my my probably the main element in this introduction is um that uh we have to consider neutral states and of course Spain within these neutral states as part of the global which in that the the war did not close as we all know the close did not close the processes open uh within the global vision but and it uh it didn't uh closed the processes within neutral countries too so uh the last years of the conflict the the period i'm considering between 1979 1923 uh has to be considered must be considered as a part of these global phenomena that's why uh this presentation of my paper analyzes the influence of the american president with the wilson ideas his proposals in spain in spain during the first war war and after that so uh based on the analysis of the impact on liberal socialist and republican groups but also within the proto-independentist or autonomous catalan movement and finally also within uh the global uh sorry within the the colonial conflict in morocco i uh will argue that the passage from the fascination or the wilsonian moment the so-called eternal moment to this will send disappointment was a relevant element to understand the post war period and the and the beginning of the dictatorship of primordial revenge degree so uh are you probably know the uh spain uh was neutral during the whole war however the debate over neutrality led to a heat controversy between pro-life and pro-german sectors uh by the spring of 19 sorry by by the spring of 1917 the war uh became a great revolutionary force along europe and also in spain pensions erupted during the summer of 1917 and in a in a tribal crisis you can see some images uh that link debates on war but also uh a crisis that involved military sectors political a political sector so-called deputies assembly that took place in in barcelona and also as a social mobilization um that in many senses has had points in common with what was happening in greece or in portugal and also of course uh in the countries that were a part of the of the battle those that that were what were part of the of the war i mean um after that or during this social uh uh of heavell in uh 1917 this social and political mobilization took place as i said as i said before uh between pro-life and pro-german sectors that um as the argentine ambassador in in Madrid another neutral country of course argentina i mean uh uh characterized or or uh um perceived as political flags of extreme right and extreme left respectively this this is a document he wrote in march 1918 between uh 1917 economic situation continued for worsen another point in common with other neutral and and belligerent countries um and um these uh became even worse uh during the last month of the war hunger and unemployment contributed to radicalization of the population that's why 1918 was the year that the gist of most working mobilizations throughout the whole war period within this uh uh framework the last the war were marked by the rise of the new project represented by lennon wilson uh it was present in two aspects on the one hand uh in an intense uh debate that took place between pro-alive sectors concerning with wilson and lennon's proposal on self-determination this was a debate i insist that took place within the pro-alive sector the liberal republicanist socialist and a reformist in in a in a in a uh wider sense on the other hand you know it took place in also in an in a process of radicalization in the labor movement that gave rise to dissident groups in social parts that finally would would uh create the communist parties also the presentation of wilson's 14 points and tenor in 1918 1918 sorry wilson anism emerged also in spain and it it took place in in two ways first one a reformist a more liberal more democratic horizon in which the pro-alive sector the pro-alive sectors were they found in wilson in the figure of wilson the ideas of wilson uh the possibility of breaking down uh relation with with uh relationships with germany i mean spain uh with germany and this change could be also perceived or could be also projected as a in the sense of a democratization within uh the the monarchy in spain secondly in all these groups from the left wing to conservative sectors such as the regionalist league the league regionalista in katalonia or even in the vast country so in wilson ideas an opportunity to reach a new federalist european and spanish scenario most of scholars have underlined the second line the the the the the relevance of wilson ideas within the uh particularly in katalonia but also in in the vast country however the reformist horizon the the idea of the idea of wilson as a leader of of a new democratic european spain uh has not been uh underlined i think uh and it's probably the main point of this presentation this fascination of wilson uh within uh liberal reformism also of course socialist emerged clearly during the last part of the war both of course in katalonia but also in other regions uh wilson as you can see in the quote of miguel dunamuno here uh was perceived as a liberator of the war also socialist intellectuals and politicians such as marcelino domingo or or uh louisa rakistan thought that he represented a wonderful flowering of idealism in this in this sense wilsonianism was built within a liberal socialist and also of course republican uh uh reformism as a horizon for democratization wilsonianism was also uh met uh with a great force also in katalonia um the katalan problem was directly related to the victory of the allies and the principles of of self-determination it's a quote for from uh a journal in Buenos Aires it's a very interesting quote because it links also two neutral countries that they are perceiving not only the idea of democratization but also the principles of self-determination in this uh aspect uh it's uh katalonia probably is one of the uh uh most relevant regions in spain uh because um wilsonism we could say exploded in katalonia during the last uh months of the war and particularly uh in the during 19 uh 1919 um in this scenario the conservative willing party the the liga regionalista sorry okay uh developed together with other groups uh a process uh that we could separate in two phases the first one that took place within the first half of the of 1919 uh both the conservative sectors as well as their radicals on the left developed the most important autonomous campaign in the first part of the 20th century in parallel this campaign took place in parallel with Paris uh negotiations in brazil in the second phase after the the failure of these autonomies this pro-federalist we could say campaign and also um after the climax of the or during the climax of political radicalization in Barcelona in the spring of 1917 radical nationalist groups independent these groups headed by two groups one francophile one and young wilson in his wilsonian story represented by the com comitee nacional catalana national uh catalan committee uh no longer capital of mobilizing mobilizing limits themselves to presenting the dimension representatives of the victorious powers in paris however the ruling ruling and conservative liga regionalista in barcelona in katalonia the ruling party this instead itself from any possible link between wilsonism and separatism i mean i mean independentism and tried to close this autonomous process it to it it lead it to uh to the uh will what what what i call the wilsonian disappointment in katalonia faced with wilsonian failure the catalan and spanish left wing sectors began to look towards other scenarios such as the bolshevik revolution and island um despite the fact that some intellectuals continue to maintain their faith in wilson and the league of nation the project of the league of nations violence unleashed in katalan streets of course not only in katalan street or within uh i mean in spain as a whole uh but particularly in katalan streets in 1917 1920 this violence uh unleashed between ultra katalanists and ultra spanishists we could say and also between anarchist and param parametric forces supported by the toughest sectors of businessmen and it led to the radicalization of katalanism whose most radical expression was katalan state stat katalan a group founded in 1923 23 sorry uh it's very interesting that within this group the present it's very interesting to highlight uh the presence of daniel domingo was the leader of the national katalan committee the wilsonian group i uh referred before in this new group this new group sorry led by francés comacia who would be the one of the presidents of katalonia during the second republic and in this new group certified the transition from the wilsonian democratic model to the iris insurrectionary model in in radical katalanism sorry this the last disappointment it's what took place in morocco uh some uh years some months ago i should say with uh after during the after being uh after being part of the league of nations as a non-permanent member spain uh diplomatic activity package on the moroccan moroccan question with the objective of achieving a prominent international position however spain's focus in northern africa would fail in 1921 in the so-called disaster of anual uh which has been compared to italy adua uh italy's adua uh they the reefies uh in morocco sucked international recognition for the fact that independence obtained after uh the disaster of anual in 1921 however uh despite the globalization of their demands uh i mean they received support from africa to latin america the answer of schneiba focusing on its lack of competence to intervene in the conflict in this sense also we could say that uh it was the second wilsonian disappointment however i think the most relevant one is the the um is the first i uh underlined finally two or three conclusions first of all we could say in a short but that in a short time wilson and the league of nation became symbols of great failure in spain the failure was fundamental in two senses firstly in the process of revision criticism and in its more radical cases challenging of liberalism and democracy and secondly in another parallel process of searching for a new place on the international scene which led during the 20s to a reformulation of spanishism that would lead to the concept of concept of hispanidad and one of the key concepts of the dictatorship of frima de riviera and of course of francis regime in the 30s and 40s second the traces of the greek war in spain lasted at least until 1923 uh why because the coup d'etat of the day of milio primera riviera in spain in september 1923 was justified both as a remedy against the disaster of frimal 1921 and the radicalization of kevlin nationalism the two aspects i tried to underline finally the main idea is that despite its neutrality spanish evolution expressed a broad european global process process that has as main elements political radicalization violence and the emerge of the emergent emergence of renewed nationalist groups thank you so much thank you maxi miliano and then without further ado in the interest of that let's move on to dr garen garen thank you thank you so much um i think i'll do the obligatory mic jack to begin with can everyone hear me yes okay great um so it's a real pleasure to be with you albeit in this case um via zoom i would much prefer to be with you in person of course i'd like to thank the organising committee um georgias gonda joe lina and robert gravarth of course as well for again the kind invitation to speak with you this afternoon and it would be remiss of me not to thank the hrc the arts and you and these research council without whose support this research would not be possible and so in the interests of the wider audience and attendance today i'm going to give our deliver an abridged version of the pre-circulated paper um to read that and i'll also integrate some thoughts and observations in relation to the papers which are our our our our colleagues have pre-submitted and link those to my own research so a question where in the world was the irish revolution a century after the historical facts the geography of the irish revolution remains open to debate the dramatic series of political events known as the irish revolution east arising 1918 general election war of independence partition civil war have traditionally been understood as an island story the irish revolution by such a reading was denoted by successive nationalist political and military campaigns to secure ireland's independence beyond the british empire the establishment of the irish free state and northern ireland polities within the british empire ultimately would bring the revolutionary period to a constitutional conclusion so the narrative of the irish revolution by this geographical interpretation was the story of ireland north and south however this paper asks do the ideas underwriting the ireish revolution as the possessive case suggests belong to histories and historians of ireland alone scholars of the long 18th century have begun to reexamine the dynamics of the french Haitian and american revolutions collectively as the so-called global age of revolutions indeed jeremy adelman quite recently has pressed the question historians now ask whether these were episodes within a wider conjuncture of global crisis and propelled by it might we ask whether the same applied to the second age of revolution now this paper suggests that to explore an so-called age of revolution with conceptual clarity and reflexive methodological praxis requires reflection on what's called the two geographies of global history and by that i mean the world and the word de-territorializing the ire's revolution in turn asks transnational questions of its history conceptual framework and archival memory what balance of global and local scripts imbue historical actors with revolutionary agency how do political revolutions develop and indeed proliferate over time and space and in what historical contexts do revolutionaries and indeed their historians conceive of transnational transformations so i'd like to address just three key themes or concepts in the course of this paper the first is communities of writing writing before the revolution the leader of the shin fame party arthur griffith famously observed that ideas on ireland existed behind a british paper wall quote on the inside she told ireland what she wanted the irish to believe about the world and on the outside she told the world what she wanted to believe about ireland unquote the establishment of doll erin by members of the shin fame party in january 1919 constituted a revolutionary attempt to subvert british imperial rule in ireland transnational correspondence i would argue became a key conduit for breaking through the british paper wall the act of writing consolidated relations with contemporary revolutionary movements for example the experience of sad saglul pasha and the egyptian waft movement exemplified this very literary experience saglul had led a 30-man egyptian delegation to paris in the spring of 1919 in an attempt to gain recognition of the egyptian independence movement at the preside peace conference and the doll representative in paris shanti o kellywood remark later quote he and i became really close friends as i glue wrote the british delegation claiming full freedom or at least the right to self-determination for egypt and this led to a long correspondence in all this letter writing i was always consulted by saglul unquote the latter indeed would return in kind through letters of recommendation for irish nationalists to fellow egyptian revolutionaries across europe so collaboration in writing between irish and egyptian nationalists i argue formed the basis for the emergence of an enclosed revolutionary circle of political activists across the post-war world and british intelligence would record a record similarly in 1920 in february last gabriel danuncio sent a secret mission to paris which appears to have had considerable results they carried letters to the irish egyptian and bird allegations in paris asking them to send representatives to italy in order to form an international anti-english committee which create which would create trouble in every colony unquote now danuncio the celebrated poet playwright and soldier had seized the port city of fiume for italy in the aftermath of the peace conference but was opposed by the socialist italian government rejecting the authority of the italian state he reestablished fiume as a proto fascist city-state independent of league of nations legislative authority now interestingly danuncio would himself write to the secretary general of the league of nations eric drummond drummond advising him that the high command of fiume was now voluntarily associating itself with the declaration of the irish republic and i think these connections between fiume the waft movement in egypt speaks very powerfully to what maxima maxima liana was just talked about in terms of the wilsonian disappointment and british intelligence sources further reported that a meeting to prepare for a conference of oppressed peoples and nations in fiume had been organized by the irish nationalist shanti o kelly to be attended by well-known and trusty trustworthy national revolutionaries from india and egypt in addition to representatives from fiume writing two arthrographics back in dublin just weeks later shanti o kelly indeed closed a proposal from danuncio formalizing plans for the league so i would argue that it was the act of writing which most closely linked the very disparate ideological causes of the irish republic the free state of fiume and the egyptian waft campaign letters between shanti o kelly gabriel danuncio and sadzah glue not only advised one another of significant developments in their respective national campaigns their repeated exchange of personal correspondence further served as markers of mutual trust and respect reflecting on the valence of transnationalism as interpretive approach patricia clavin is proper he heuristic utility of what she termed the epistemic community quote the term suggests both the community of interest a commonality of character as well as a group of individual individuals sharing the same locality or organization it is taken here as something different from the ethnically defined transnational society unquote revolutionaries from ireland italy and egypt enclosed ideas agendas and post war experiences through the cultural mediation of the written letter a community of writing so i move on to the second point which seeks to address this idea of a greater war so while some revolutionaries took up pens for the irish republic many across the post war world continued to take up arms in support of left and right wing ideological goals respectively berlin most notably was at the intersection of an east west ideological conflict the soviet inspired spartanist uprising in berlin led by car leibnacht and rose luxembourg by example was violently suppressed by the fricor a right wing paramilitary force remained a visible presence in early weimar germany as robert gravarth and john horn have noted of these greater war impulses quote it was the radicalization of politics during and after the great war that converted these competing movements and doctrines into a pan european ideological conflict unquote the irish republic was born into this post war battle of ideas right wing activists in post war berlin were interested in the events of the irish revolution and in the possibility of engaging with the ira for example for their own revolutionary purposes the irish bulletin which was a propaganda sheet translated for german audiences by nancy weiss power and then phd student undertaking a doctorate that frietrich wilhelm's university was a literary point of entry for german war veterans at a dinner party in berlin weiss power was introduced to admiral terpitz who of course had served as secretary of the german imperial naval office during the war and was indeed keen to receive copies of the irish bulletin quote he was very interested in the irish question from the point of view of the lessons and organized resistance to an occupying force to be derived from a study of irish methods he was most anxious that we should get someone to come over and just give talks in these bodies i explained to him the difficulties such as that few of our active men knew german and that even one could not be spared unquote now collaboration on propaganda projects in post war berlin brought irish nationalists into close contact with other political activists during his visit to the german capital in february 1921 george gaven duffy met with talith pasha who had served as the grand vizier of the ottoman empire during the first world war pasha who was widely considered to be the architect of the armenian genocide had gone into hiding in berlin in 1918 and of course many of our colleagues are writing are referring to the armenian question over the course of the next few days now gaven duffy however seemed to have had little difficulty with pasha's humanitarian record he indeed would write to dublin that talath is very keen on working with the independent irish state and indeed chima chima caravayan palai and verandrenath chatabadaia are interested in working in cooperation referring to the indian anti-colonial activists one month after meeting gaven duffy at his berlin hideout pasha was assassinated by an armenian gunman gaven duffy would send condolences on behalf of the irish republic to his successor nazim bay nazi wise power who kept a safe distance from pasha would later note quote immediately after meeting gaven duffy talath became uneasy and was heard to say that he had been told one should never trust an irish man which is interesting um whether the visit was the cause of his whereabouts being betrayed or not within a very short time talath was shot outside his house unquote now gaven duffy's entanglement with the architects of the armenian genocide is indicative of what has been termed by cairne clowns patel and spen rickard among others the dark side of transnationalism exchanges between transnational activists were at times characterized by moments of friction moreover in terms of this idea of the dark side of transnationalism these episodes emphasize that internationalism in the post war period was not necessarily coterminous with the virtues or indeed the values of liberal democracy post war revolutionaries represented a range of ideological positions and ethical dispositions activists from across the post war political divide indeed identified with the irish revolution on paper now to address the final theme of today's paper which is transcribing revolution the after effects of the 1917 revolutions were experienced long after the first world war armistice the revolutionary events in moscow had spawned a series of violent revolutions and counter revolutions in eastern europe wherein nationalist and local militias from finland to ukraine variously fought with but then against the forces of bolshevism in the context of communism's injunction to world revolution connections between russia and ireland often occupy the so-called official mind and indeed minutes of policy makers in london british propagandists sought to conflate the ideological basis of the irish and russian revolutions with the view to discrediting the political legitimacy of the irish republic so shin fain was literally linked to bolshevism by british propagandists such that a hyphenated identity became the designation used to describe the irish republic in british political terminology and that was shin fain bolshevism the british regimes identity identification of the irish and russian revolutions as reciprocal political movements i would argue was indicative of the choreography of a so-called imperial script of course few of the irish revolutionary elite identified with the idea of self-determination in radical left-wing terms kevin ohiggins most infamously would observe quote we were the most conservative minded revolutionaries that ever pop through a successful revolution unquote nevertheless this did not preclude irish nationalists from attempting to reach a formal political accord with soviet russia in the spring of 1921 in recognition of real politic in the east with the consolidation of bolshevik power following the red army's defeat of the white army in central and southern ukraine president of dole erin eamon devalera delegated patrick mccartan to travel to russia with the view to securing recognition of the irish republic arriving in mosco in february 1921 mccartan's commentary on soviet russia belied the ideological identification of the irish and russian revolutions quote nobody in authority nobody in authority in russia pretends to think that such a thing as liberty exists there here is not only nationalism but imperialism the russian laughs at the estonian language as the british are accustomed to laugh at the irish language it is vulgar horrible i am not so sure that self-determination for arland would raise much enthusiasm in official circles unquote now mccartan's meeting with the soviet secretary of state for foreign affairs georgia chicharin suggested further differences quote he pointed out that we were not in military control and that they had withdrawn recognition from the ukraine when germany was in the military occupation of its territory unquote returning to arland without agreement mccartan's correspondence with bolshevik representatives nonetheless was published in a british white paper entitled intercourse between belch bolshevism and shin vain indeed mccartan would write to the head of the nkid for anglo- roman countries georgia feinstein the whole thing was published largely to prejudice or case and partly to have a fling at russia and the documents themselves however show that we are thinking and acting as a sovereign nation unquote shin vain bolshevism remained i would argue a powerful script by which british policymakers transliterated the irish revolution six months later on the 6th of December 1921 representatives of the irish republic signed sign the anglo- irish treaty with the british government bringing to a written political conclusion the violent conflict which had defined british- irish relations since 1916 indeed i think the timing of this is quite interesting the 6th of December 1921 in view of what j winter suggested earlier as 1922 is the year of exhaustion so the anglo- irish treaty really anticipates that only by a matter of weeks so in conclusion to follow the words rather than the ethnic worlds of post-war activists is to recover transnational revolutionary movements and moments which transcended the irish nation state the irish revolution by such a reading was not only an anglophone experience it was not only a western experience indeed it was not only an irish experience while the institutions of doll erin and their archival records provide an essential empirical framework for documenting the history of irish nationalism and its political leaders a focused on established funds and catalogs can limit innovative interpretive approaches as fred kuber has written of nationalism's epistemological biases it is vital for the historian entering the national archive to quote imagine how people in different times and contexts thought and acted and to recognize the assumptions within one's own conceptual apparatus unquote situating the study of the irish revolution within transnational histories conceptual frameworks and archival records allows scholars i would argue to chart multiple multidirectional worlds of revolution to explore the post-war period as a second age of revolution this paper submits with historical accuracy necessitates scholarly collaboration across geographical cultural and linguistic boundaries framing the irish revolution as the subject of transnational historical inquiry further will facilitate greater understanding of historiographical inequalities and difference between scholars of the global north and the global south spatial frameworks intellectual traditions empirical sources it isn't that very dialectic between irish and international scholars western and eastern sources and local and global histories that the post-war worlds of revolution might be most accurately mapped to speak fluently of national histories in the post-war world ultimately is to research reflect and write in their second language transnational history thank you well thank you both so much i i'm going to try to focus in the few points i will make on what sets this panel apart how it builds on the previous one and then i'll make sure that i'll keep my comments short so that we really benefit from a question session which i thought was incredibly productive the last time at all and also because our time frame has slipped a little bit and i want to put it back in order so what came out and what what what makes me think and and i immediately admit that i am a little bit out of my own league league league of nations familiar to me that is so so what what rises to the the surface is a sense of idealism and disappointment this is disenchantment my question is then especially for maxi miliano is that not intrinsic that this is enchantment will eventually follow this kind of overblown idealism venezuelos would certainly speak to that is is the the overreach then not in a way already cooking up the disenchantment when you're going with unrealistic expectations i also want to reflect on the various meanings of neutrality very current question today and how do we give different definitions of neutrality due to different sets of circumstances of war and force forces to also not only requalify peace but also neutrality what is neutrality and who is allowed to be more neutral than others or up to upon what is the limit of neutrality when is it no longer a neutrality which neutralities need to be dependent and which can just slip and also very much like daryx emphasis on writing a language hugely important in the greek-turkish context what you would do with refugee minorities who actually need to fit the homogenizing framework of greece but don't speak the language how do you work that out um uh various ways of working that out but the language and communication which figures so prominently in daryx people when you see ireland communicating with egypt really kind of expanding the global reach through an intellectual debate just as much as a literary standoff giving a whole new meaning to a republic of letters right there for a while so communication across through writing communication through intellectual debate communication has communication which a hundred years earlier would have been so much more difficult to establish the tools of communication and how every modernization of communication even today can can redefine conflict and approaches towards peace that's something that interests me in these papers as well and i i i never to play reflect on the role of smaller smallish countries belgium was already mentioned i'm partial to that um the uh what role do they play as what agency do they have in what is occasionally and clearly a transport of the bigger players using smallish nations and their neutrality as bombs i like that direct use the the sense of an island story that can that he literally broke apart that brings me to the word insularity how insularity becomes in playing on the word island how it becomes impossible in what is clearly a globalizing conflict so i want to put that out there again also with the concept of that age of revolutions that we we question and break open globally geographically but also in a temporal framework did we never exit the first age of revolutions was there always something simmering underneath that clearly broke out in this particular moment and will break out again in the second world war is there is it does it still make sense to talk of age what first age second age of revolution when we see so many lingering effects having their way of you know surfacing again and then before i end i already want to put out a question there by jenny lia liuti thank you jenny for writing in what is the relationship between conservative perceptions of colonialism in spain and visions of empire and with that being said we have about 22 minutes which is along the short side for brief reactions ever so brief reactions and then for the questions and comments so maxi miliano if you want to take it up perhaps just relating to a few points i mean but keeping it ever so brief yeah thank you thank you so much for the for this insightful vision questions on on on my paper just but very briefly um i will listen this is one of the main points of the problem on on the perception of wilson uh within uh the liberal and republican socialist uh spain and uh it's uh um it's idealism and this perception of wilson is part of the logarithm on what is spain it's linked europe i mean the debate on the europeanness of spain um uh which which is directly linked to the to the to the 1980 sorry 1898 crisis the loss of of the last colonies of spain in the war against the united states so it's part of a longer much longer debate this idealism and wilson represents this horizon of democratization because in in some way wilson is part of a uh it's perceived as a as a a leader of a liberal democratic world uh in which spain would enter into europe in some way this is the the the key the debate spain isn't it is not europe it's it's uh after 1819 and through the war and through uh the uh principles of wilson spain could break with uh its own past this is a main point of course it it is idealistic but it's a wide very widely uh um uh uh percent at the present on the politicians of course this state is part of uh also of the debate of what it what means to be neutral and to be neutral means to be non-european for uh for uh the liberal and uh and social and so stand a reformist uh um politician and and intellectuals in europe is in the war and spain is not in the war so neutral to be neutral means to be non-european so wilson is part of the the perception of wilson is part of this uh debate of this perception um and of course it is linked uh to the the the question about the conservative procession perception of wilson in spain and the visions of the buyers why because conservative sectors accepting the gathering one i mean uh the sector the right-wing sectors and also conservative sectors uh within the spanish uh in spanish politics are far from being pro wilson wilson because wilson uh i showed a picture of uh of um of uh charles representing wilson as uh uh uh destroying realism so the in in this spanish empire uh is um is uh maximiano i'm gonna put your hold here for a moment because there's more to be said but also because your sound keep going in and out and because our time is limited i'm gonna switch to derek and let him make a few points i'm afraid to say that i think the connection is a little weak on either end but derek if you want to position come back to perhaps one or two points at most before returning over to the questions sure thanks so much those comments and and um and critiques were really really interesting um gondon that give me a lot to think about um i mean i'm really interested in what you're talking about in terms of you know this you know the age of revolutions uh you know finding continuities and correspondences between the first and the second ages of revolutions and i think the collaborative enterprise which we are undertaking over the next few days will allow us to do that hopefully and just to go back to your idea about small nations and and their their agency or otherwise i was really struck by what jessica rinich just talked about the agents of internationalism uh i know jessica is speaking over the next few days and i think that's something which my work is trying to address or has found really in terms of the archival evidence is that well well sony in moment as eras minella has defined it has really kind of um you know defined many of the debates around this period the post war period the research that i've been doing and others as well has really kind of given greater agency to those anti-colonial activists such as saza glue and gabriel danuncio and i think really what you suggested the modernization of communication is so important there it's actually the modes of anti-colonial activism which i'm really interested in and the republic of letters is entirely apt indeed a chapter which i'm writing writing is entitled the republic of letters based on that so we're on the same page so i think it's really important that when we assess the post war period in terms of critical junctures that we recognize that actually anti-colonial activists recognize this global moment on their own terms and also in their own times and while wilson wilson was so important and i think that they were self-actualized by a variety of ideological motivations and movements and just to point out that um uh an article which was published only yesterday in the american historical review called rethinking nationalism has spoken to some of these issues and and has addressed this idea of methodological cosmopolitanism so i think this discussion is is is very timely thank you and i want to ask jessica i'd see she at this point has a comment being being mentioned and being here in person okay and i saw a question from david thank you very much so i said two good questions i want to pick on you if you're talking about language so it seems like both these uh papers we've got issues we've got questions like nationalist movements here the questions of language is really important so the kathlan case in the irish case and they also have them involved in these kind of fan national um uh communicative networks and sources for example so kind of uh spanish language debates about well sodiumism which is spread to argentina which is kind of like things like that so i wonder if um both of them speak to say something a little bit about the practice concepts and how that worked right so on a very basic level when i have irish nationalist talking right into their Egyptian nationalist to uh kind of your ottoman figures in Berlin what language is it speaking in and what do they have to be concerned about the relationship you know english language was for spanish language and then the second question is about religion seems to be something else that may be against these two cases to go ahead and i'm particularly in these two cases obviously Catholicism and the Catholic church and perhaps maybe wonder about the role of religion generally in this kind of moment of kind of global revolution we kind of hold at this point and so obviously the irish nationalist case that's very important and then the kind of the kathlan case we you have kind of anti-clericalism as an important part of kathlan nationalism and that the violence that's happening in the baseload at the time and then obviously also this kind of religious dimension of the uh the rebellion case as well and the kind of spanish kathlamic churches are evolving and more of a clericalism and this idea of kind of that if it wasn't the kind of extension of the kind of the kathlamic register and so i wonder if this is a big trunk and i was wondering before i'll let our speakers respond and also to dr yalin's question is there any other question that we can oh that we can put in and and then it's still still finished with the north family boundaries yes jim one of the achievements of eris manila is in saying what matters is not what wilson thought but what people made of his ideas it's moving away from wilson i'd like to bring wilson a little bit back because it seems to me that both of the cases you talked about address the the tragedy of wilsonianism and that the core idea is democracy but the deep colonial movement is rarely towards democracy and many of those leaders of anti-colonial movements draw the democracy for autonomy for the freedom of whichever constitutive group you want one of the great exponents of the wilsonian moment was was muslim kamal he's not used in the musam i think wilsonianism can be an anti-democratic ideology and it unfortunately has remained so in many countries after they achieve their freedom is there any evidence in both of these cases that those who are insurrectionaries who want a revolution put democracy at the core uh and autonomy this is where as the uh follower or am i right that the democratic moment is is one that is more rhetorical in real one point by by george and another by laura and then we turn it over to speak it's okay i'm throwing a couple sorry a couple of things that the speakers can pick up on what they want to come back and continue discussing these why is taking the view from from jay's point about the wilsonian moment and money and i was just wondering uh uh i just want to flag it out because that's the second thing you talk about when one thinks about the anti-democracy in this sense why can't you uh you in your work find this interpretive model and whether that works for your cases or whether the scientific fairly wanted to comment on that and also to build on jay's point about democracy some of them are certainly in the other's paper i'm worried it must be uh expanding on that it's it's the kind of roles not taken there there's a big there about capital and federation regionally so you know how do these regions play out in that more early you know in i think this moment in the center highlighted there with which when you know when we're thinking about the reconfiguration or rather the changing of of you know the changing of forms of states and the final point to the exit you know navigation through the different connections i'm wondering i can speak forever i want now you know the irish pressure of the users of the template to discuss national questions from the mid 19th century on from the late 19th century on uh immediately so and within the different levels so level of activists level of of you know commentators even politicians etc i was wondering at this moment that if you see any connection where you find any connection that means say that with this case or you know people involved in this kind of iris happens you know the the way you kind of oppose this if there's any uh you know connections you find there in the area so that it's holding we you pick up on um i'll pick up on a couple of of these comments as well um these are both really interesting papers and when i i'm always a little bit skeptical about frameworks that present kind of belief in wilsonianism followed up by dissolution that um partly because the wilsonian vision you know may may indeed have democracy in its own but it's also kind of fundamentally incomplete in some ways you know that i i think that one of the reasons it is and you know that one of the reasons that it has this kind of one life is because it's because of that it's possible to kind of take what you want from it so i i guess i'm wondering whether this is not so much an idealism or he's got a blog as kind of an opportunity that fails right in this kind of space and then um right now i was wondering you know i'm struck by the specific connections and i think that we often have this idea about this kind of transnational frame of anti-colonialism and anti-colonial nationalism especially in this period that goes across different geographical frameworks but you know they're not they're not like the same right i mean zocalo is quite a conservative figure for instance within egyptian nationalism and i'm wondering in in particular your your your kind of articulation about the relationship with um with with teleplacias is is an indicator that sometimes you have to you know there are different nationalisms that are actively opposed to one another right so why in this period why why turkish rather than armenian right or why calisthenian versus scientist how how do how do these people decide who they will throw in their life right i mean how how are they how are these are these really just like happenstance kind of relationships do they have to do with language do they actually have to do with political sympathies because i think that you know um i don't know someone likes how cool it is presenting or but that is not a there they're not a lot of political there's not a lot of political overlap between the lap party and i think that except just in you know just in the frame of anti-colonialism but not much else so i'm just wondering if you could trace out a little bit what specificities are how one relationship takes precedence over another and whether there are alternatives kind of you know nationalist solidarity is not taken a quick point to take from the chart so if we want to see it it's sorry i'm gonna just uh uh there's some pushback in the chart about then to the point the reference to them to you know be an anti-colonial activist i just want to flag that scenario i think there are let's start with that if you could pick up on a few points to comment on sure there's a lot to get through there and these are really excellent questions again i wish i was there in person um to bring up just to address jay winter's discussion of the tragedy with zonianism i think your um your term of language is entirely appropriate wilson himself said that arlan was a great metaphysical tragedy of the day um in 1919 and i think he saw arland not only but all but you know as an excellent example of the scope and limitations of you know his arguments for self-determination and and how his version of you know the new liberal international order was translated into different contexts um and it was changed by by anti-colonial activists according to their own demands so i think it is a very capacious term with zonianism and um so um and just to take up another uh a couple of issues the issue of language i think is really fascinating and actually the idea really is that they're usually communicating obviously through english is the primary language but also through french and french is kind of the lingua franca of the cosmopolitanism of the day and if you look it's quite interesting to look at both the irish and egyptian submissions to the um to the um to the versi piece conference the similarities in language in which they you they they adopt which i think is more than a coincidence based on the the kind of collaborative work which stands for glul and shanty o kelly undertook and and shanty o kelly in his later memoir he writes a memoir about that glul in the 1930s and he talks about how they both had a passion for french for example so this is a very cosmopolitan enterprise going back to this issue of of language and communication i should also point out that irish nationalists were very interested in using esperanto at this period of time as a means of communicating their internationalist ambitions in 1919 to 1921 and so that was something else to keep in mind and i haven't noticed any particular references to greece within the official record but within newspapers for sure and they were very interested in what was taking place in greece and so that was kind of a key referent in 1921 1922 um just to address the final point which i think is really fascinating about how you know there are inequalities and certainly differences between the ideological basis of the various revolutionary movements which i alluded to i think that's entirely appropriate that you bring that issue up because really what i think to try and highlight in my paper is actually that despite those ideological differences it was actually the modes of communication the literary um the quality in many ways of the literary um articulations of their respective positions which allowed for solidalities so there are you know obviously obviously the idea of cosmopolitan thought zones where people are find themselves if this is like berlin side by side and that's what generates collaboration but there's also a real element of go back to this idea of the republic of letters an element of peer review and so you find this in actually some of the letters michael collins for example who's kind of the archetypal irish gunman you think not very intellectual is reviewing for example scottish nationalists um ideas of separating and independent scottish state and he decides whether to support them or otherwise on the merits of the literary materials which they submit and he writes to his colleague in london saying this is not of the same quality as our egyptian counterparts so there's an element of international revolutionary peer review 100 years ago you're going to read too soon rejection uh great note to end and don maxi miliano your input before we close this fascinating session that has really generated already so much more the very promising start maxi miliano thank you so much and and it's a pti i have i'm having i'm still having some problems with internet connection just a couple of questions i think it's it's working right now so let's go just a couple of issues on on on the question of democratization and on its link which is linked with idealism of wilsonism i think that that probably the main point regarding democratization is that uh in in most of the neutral countries but of course in spain and also in argentine and some countries of latin america uh the procession of wilson uh during the 1980 18 and 1918 and 1918 sorry uh is um is not very clear i mean uh the the main point to understand how the political the the political development in these countries is that uh the several groups that are fighting for power or are part of the political developments within these countries uh they built their own perceptions of wilson and they do so uh regarding uh other perceptions in other parts of the world so this is idealistic of course but it's also dialed in linked with political and political development so this this is why i underlined this question of idealism and democratization of course they they talk in spain about i mean liberal reformist socialists talk about democratization because most of the times they are thinking about democratization against liberalism what they think what the real uh i'm quoting the real liberalism so what what they think about uh uh uh uh liberalism that is uh in crisis also of course in spain but also in portugal in italy and and within this framework they built their own image of wilson and they do so just nationally thank you excellent one closing point by joe just very quickly especially i don't have political cartoons in this presentation and i wonder just you know if you're looking for common language and sort of transnational communication how much uh uh the use of in political cartoons different symbols are appropriate you know you almost compare images of wilson across different uh uh uh publications and texts um and and George you know i just suggested you may even draw on some of these for the final publication excellent well we are back on time and we need our coffee or tea and so we're going to give our audience a 15 minute big stop coffee stop and we connect back with you in about 15 minutes thank you very much and thank you to all speakers and contributors this has been fascinating bye-bye hi dimitris i'm marco are you hi hi how are you since we don't have the others i i speak i speak i speak from a hotel in Rome so i hope everything will work i mean i'm not really in an office so something for dessert but we will in case you have a problem maybe you can down your video maybe yeah this might help you can hear me fine yeah okay yes very well so you David are in uh you are in uh in Geneva yeah in Geneva yeah yeah actually i'm at home i think it was the only day i could stay at home and not go at the institute so no it's worth yeah i mean far away from duties in the office and everything is transparent that there are the residences there are all the doors everything is transparent so basically it's open door policy everybody enters violates your space when you're trying to work yeah it's it's impossible even worse in the middle of a conference so yeah since we are far away there is no way we can start without them can you imagine we can start a private session private session we can start the panel yeah i mean we have we have the panelists we have the chair so everything is exactly i might might be wrong i think the gabel is there yeah yeah right you're right i've seen him yeah in the room did you know each other yes we have met several times in these i mean post-absorg conferences so right there's been quite a few in the in the last years two years exactly by the way we i think we haven't met each other and i think so no i read one i've got one of your books i think adding institutes okay of course i know your books very well but i mean especially the first one is is it's something i'm i'm trying to to you know to to confront with in this research it's something i will speak about in the in the paper it can be sorry hello from the room because we're just in problem now and i'm sorry for the delay i'll just ask them to take the seat and then we'll get going okay