Concluding Plenary Session

getting married next door but before we join their party and there’s another one downstairs so we have two wedding parties tonight that we can contribute to its a my pleasure to introduce our final final keynote speaker mauritian in colleague who has the probably not very enviable task to bring all those 150 strings together in some sort of conclusion it’s obvious that the professor colic won’t really present a summary of all the papers that were presented also because it’s physically still very difficult to achieve to be present at three panels at the same time I had asked rather is to put the topic of our conference world were born into a broader in the evening lowball perspective most of the papers that we have listened to present it very detailed fascinating interesting case studies and I think it’s a very appropriate at the end of such a conference to reflect on the global dimensions of the ultra bomb let me briefly introduce medicine in college she has been professor for southeast european history at the ludwig Maximilian’s university of munich since 2004 before that she worked among other positions at as a researcher at the shift envision shaft and politic I don’t even know where the deafening gleesh translation foundation for us for our institute for international politics of the english translation is completely different than the german name anyway it’s the major think tank of the german government with respect to foreign policy funded by the German Foreign Minister and I mentioned this because it shows that militiamen colleague is one of those historians southeastern Europe who is also trying to have an impact on political decision-making she she’s author of numerous publications I want to mention four of them first of all the three monographs the first one was published twenty years ago in 1994 it’s a social history of Serbia from eighteen fifteen to nineteen forty one and the subtitle is like the kind of the non evitable development it which is still a major work on the social history of Serbia there exists also a translation in Serbian a second monograph pertains to post near to covina it’s called voyant peace in Bosnia Herzegovina and it was published in 1995 obviously a discussion of devoted was just coming to an end at the time of publication of this book and the most recent monograph is a history of yugoslavia in the 20th century that is certainly one of the most important books in german on the history of the first and the second yugoslavia and obviously also on the years in which neither the first nor the second yugoslavia existed there’s also a translation in croatian or serbian also in serbian and then another another book that should be mentioned because it because it kind of indicates the research interests of malaysian in colleague is an edited volume that she edited together with it man united’s historian of the soviet union and this is a volume on the crisis of modernity it’s a book that discusses the 1970s as a period of accelerating crisis experience in the state socialist countries so the research interest of malaysian in cali a very broad they include the social history of sources to Europe mainly the area of the former Yugoslavia but also questions of nationalism ethnic politics minority politics and political history in Nevada sense so we are very glad that you agreed to take upon yourself this very difficult task and even what difficult because it was already very long day but we still have enough strength before we

well I don’t know and I organized to listen to your presentation and also to have a discussion of it afterwards thank you very much for very kind introduction ladies and gentlemen dear colleagues it’s a great pleasure and honor to conclude this impressive conference with some general remarks on our topic let me first congratulate the organizers in particular the Institute for history in Sarajevo professor converter which and his team for very impressive conference which highlighted the prehistory of the war including its ideological and political foundations which took us then to the delight crisis to diplomatic and military aspects of the war two major actors and last but not least two cultural social and economic phenomena after after three full days of intensive debate on these various and sometimes controversial topics my task is to take our discussion back to some general lines of reflections I will therefore make six points as an input to the final discussion in my first point concerned the historiography on the Great War Western historiography has for a long time neglected events in the Balkans although this conference demonstrates intensive research has been taken place on a broad variety of issues and in many countries taking up current historiographic trends and developing new innovative approaches but while the so-called forgotten fronts in the east namely in russia and neighboring countries why the Forgotten fronts in the east have meanwhile made it to the larger synthesis and encyclopedia on the Great War the southeastern part is still often missing for instance the recently published Cambridge history of the First World War contains chip on the Eastern Front but not on the southeast and battlefields and settings in other words although research on the Great War has been internationalized the often announced claim to right transnational history has not been fulfilled when it comes to integrating Vulcan perspectives one part of the problem is certainly mental mapping in the West which in result tends to reduce the Balkan aspect to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the July crisis but the other part of the problem I believe is that we still miss a comprehensive monograph or synthesis on the grade ward in southeastern Europe as a whole which would integrate different local perspective into a larger panorama this conference has undoubtedly made an important contribution to placing the large body of detailed research in micro history in the larger context of comparative and transnational studies yet more needs to be done not the least in order to make an impact on interpretations of the Great War in general including its Western Eastern and global dimensions my second point relates to the origins of the war no other historic event has ever aroused so many quest and debates and so it has continued for a century only recently the Balkans have attracted greater interest by historians outside the region by a renewed controversy over the origins of the war pointing to the violent dynamic of servant politics in the constellation of international diplomacy christopher clark undertook to revise the history of the origins of the war Clark’s attempt at restoring the occasion to war to the center stage and reflect on Servius role in the prehistory of the war and other Balkan states is certainly laudable but his narrative is full of balkanized stereotypes as maria toda raba has argued because he describes serbia as a kind of rogue state determined to go to war with austria-hungary in order to achieve an alleged greater Serbia it is interesting to note that Clark follows

closely the main argumentation put forward by austria-hungary already in the ultimatum of 1914 and later during the trial against the assassins of Sarajevo but as many before him as Allen crime crema stresses Clark failed to present any evidence for the claim that the government of Nicola passage was behind the conspiracy to assassinate Franz Ferdinand let alone for his claim that the main driving force behind Serbia’s politics was in fact Russia Clark’s argument that the European decision makers were ignorant of the consequences of the war that they prepared that they were in his words sleepwalkers blind to the reality of the horror they were about to bring into the world takes us back to the 1930s when Prime Minister Lloyd George asserted I quote the nation’s slithered over the brink into the boiling cauldron of war and unquote Lloyd George at the time wished in response to the famous Clause of the Versailles Treaty which only unilaterally declared Germany as the only culprit but also in view of the rise of Hitler to introduce a more balanced account of shared responsibility for the war this kind of reconciliatory narrative served its purpose also after ninety 45 until the equilibrium in the historiography of the Great War was disturbed by the german historian fritz fisher in the 1960s he accused the german government of having intended and prepared for this war provoking one of the most important historical controversies on the Great War history has developed further since flits fisheye in the 1960s introducing less germany centered explanations and transnational approaches yet much of his findings are still valid and in contrast to the public which made the sleep work as a best seller in the german-speaking world the professional historians in Germany for instance hands are availa and others harshly criticized the author for his near total neglecting of German policy and uncritically adopting the Habsburg perspective one might argue as Mark masala did on the first evening that the question of what guilt should not be placed too high on our future research agenda because they are more illuminating findings to be expected in other fields yet I believe also historians of the Balkans cannot and should not escape the debate about who is to be held responsible for millions of casualties the panel on Lada Bosma clearly demonstrated that it is possible to present up-to-date analysis on the invent only on the individual motivations collective radicalization processes and transnational relations of major actors other papers researching the very nature of the Habsburg occupation regime and its quality be it the agrarian question the failure of modernization the question of whether this constitute the colonic colonial regime and other issues considerable enriched interpretations of the July 9014 events and the prehistory and all these findings may bring us back to more complex analysis than the pure diplomatic history as presented by Christopher Clark yet the conference I think to get also shows research has turned to topics far removed from international diplomacy and the battlefields and this brings me to my third point the combatants and non-combatants many papers revealed elements of shared experience of the soldiers like the experience of distrust violence death and suffering but also experience of mutual aid and solidarity they also showed how civilians under occupation have experienced repression exploitation poverty hunger and disease when my well argue that these observations refer to a trans regional phenomenon and I believe shared experience may be used as a starting point for a future to be written

regional history of the great war from south eastern perspective a general analytical question in this respect could guide such a comparative approach and related to research on the Western Front and western lands the central questions it tender questions to my mind are what motivated people and whole societies to mobilize for war and endure it for so long what is the essence of the men often quoted culture of war was it a result of popular popular self mobilization from below or was it a product of a militarized state action another common factor in different regional settings was the overturning of the distinction between soldiers and civilians and situations of combats and occupation obviously there was a deep fear on the side of the foreign military that warfare might degenerate into guerrilla warfare terror and revolution this cause as was shown in several papers unspeakable violence against civilians by way of reprisal or preemption we had in several papers about repressive measures against suspected spies traders in civilian resistance fighters again a comparative look at repressive practices in other region would add value to our knowledge and if I’m not mistaken we still lack a systematic study of habsburg military violence against partisans and non-combatants in its various lens another suggestion for future research is to link these micro studies on repression and civilian suffering more closely to the question of political rule and legitimacy which was another topic in our conference linking the two things might shed new light on how later timothy of the Habsburg rule eroded during the war true nationalism had undermined the ties that bound the multi-ethnic stay together a long while before the war started but as Richard basil has argued in a totally different context acute food shortages also undermined the legitimacy of the state they caused strike and unrest including the danger of escalation into revolutionary upheaval thus am a major research question could be or should be how social factors underpin the national question and how they filled the call for self-determination my first point goes to memory and the media we have seen that the cultural turn has resonates in many papers presented the rediscovery of individual everyday experience and the question of a stray window once put it how men and women make sense of the world in which they live the role of the media and intellectuals as well as representations of war not the least commemorative practices figured high on our agenda we also learned how photographs tell a different story of the war to text sources many papers were in fact dedicated to historiography and memory the conference tells us how historiography and memory of the great war in this region is still divided the war has been apparently neglected in history and memory of some states despite the utter devastation it caused clearly it makes a difference that for some the war ended in defeat in consequence representations of the first world war in commemorative practices differ although the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia in particular seemed to be a primary example for this observation it should be noted that there is no point to make for any kind of balkan exceptionalism interest in what caused the war and how it was fought to die so much fiercer in britain than in any other of the four main belligerent powers although france russia germany and austria-hungary all suffered far higher casualties than Britain divided memories are definitely not a characteristic of the east or southeast but the general

European and probably worldwide phenomenon but there seems one common denominator of interpretations of the 20th century in the Western world here many would subscribe to the much quoted words by George Kennan that the Great War was I quote the great seminal catastrophe of this entry the event which more than any others lay at the heart of the failure and decline of this Western civilization but was the Great War degrade similar catastrophe for the Balkans to it brings me to my fifth point the question of discontinuities and the question of the Great War was at all an important see Zuhra if we look at Vulcan history many historians would agree that the Great War was a culmination of many longer term political and social economic processes that started in the 19th century in particular from the 1890s onwards the face which Christopher Bailey called the great acceleration think of imperialism and colonialism think of developing global trade and concentration of capital but also global communications to Telegraph networks and print media which interacted with the creation of new political movements all these developments created unprecedented unprecedented opportunities for political activists to publicize their cause when the first of all ended both empires and foreign word collapsed in the defeat and represented different teams were finally established many of these processes were interrupted but as polish historian writing me aburro j has argued the idea of interpreting this as a seminal catastrophe it reproduces Imperial or better to say colonial views on history it assumes that Western civilization equals with the political order with Germans Italians and Hungarians have the right to their own national state whereas the Irish the poles Czechs Levine’s Bosch Nexxt and quads do not Yugoslavia Czechoslovakia and Poland attained their independence only thanks to the defeat of the central powers and their allies for them the new political order implied liberal constitutions democratic rights at the beginning of the welfare state true the new political order had cut larger economic spaces into pieces at the detriment of economic productivity yet it created for the first time conditions for industrial development in conclusion the war to my mind was an important political Caesar ax but is it it is in infrared appropriate to subscribe to the idea of a seminal catastrophe another discontinuity relates to global economy not only the international political order also the international economy came to an end with the outbreak of war in 1914 it was in the two decades before the Great War that the first phase of modern globalization began to take for us a process of increasing interconnectedness between regions and individuals including economic political technological and cultural connections around the world also the Balkans were drawn into a worldwide division of labor from which they also benefited by an estimated one percent growth of GDP before 1914 it is commonly agreed that the First World War mark the end of the first global economy causing a serious contraction and trade in the interval period which also and this also seriously affected the Balkan states and their economies because after the war major economies resorted to competitive devaluation limits on immigration and protective systems only in the late 20th century the word started to regain the same level of interconnectedness as regards capital markets trade and so on as before 1940 as we got global politics the war brought about what Edith Mandela calls the Wilsonian moment a wider

international discourse of legitimacy all over the world which started somehow in the Balkans and Eastern Europe it created a movement away from empire and towards a self determining nation-state as the organizing principle of governance in Europe as well as in the non-european world not only created a new political order in the region on the basis of self-determination during and after the war actors from the region solid explicitly to operate on an international stage they organized broad information campaigns designed to influence world opinion they dispatched across national or imperial boundaries and aimed at an international audience think of the founders of Yugoslavia who operated on an international diplomatic scale their approach was truly international in their conception and purpose and it was transnational in their operation and audience but what about the continuities and this is my last point continuity’s from the First World War in the 20th century several papers argued and this brings me indeed to the longer term processes looking forward to in century the realities are in terms of regional politics but not the First World War but the Balkan wars and indeed it makes a lot of sense analyzing Balkan wars in their own right not just as a prehistory of the Great War and treat the three wars to work and was a world war in one larger context also the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and all the violence of came along need to be analyzed in a larger time frame and some have viewed during the conference one should inception eyes violence in the framework reaching from in fact 1912 to at least 19 22 a common conclusion of many studies is the idea that indeed the Balkan wars were a kind of laboratory for later radicalized ideas and practices in particular ethnic cleansing however ethnic cleansing is much older than the Balkan wars and it used to be a standard instrument in Western policy towards the region’s since the early 19th century more precisely since the greek war of independence when the idea as we know from da vida what Daniels book and the idea of human a humanitarian intervention and resettlement of pop of unwanted population took shape and was for the first time put in practice further it should be noted that the first modern international war in terms of warfare mass killing media propaganda was not the first world war but already the Crimean War of the 1850s in that there may be even longer conduct continuities to explore some historians stress continuity of total war from the first to the second world war and some even to the yugoslav wars of this integration in the 1990s although some participants of the first and the second war were indeed the same I would argue violence also needs to be analyzed and explained in its own historical context there’s a very strong danger of teleological narratives in more research certainly needed on whether and how the Balkan wars and the first war resulted in the brutalization of politics and society in the interwar period or how they affected the rise of authoritarian regimes and mass crimes during the Second World War was there really a continuous progression of political violence from one war to the other such an approach downplays the considerable discontinuities and transformation processes that influence events in the meantime furthermore it downplays the question of individual responsibility and guilt that is behind violence and mass atrocities to conclude the history of the war in Eastern and in particular in southeastern Europe remains a major

task of future research in many respects in particular comparative trans national and global perspectives should become the standard to which new research should aspire thank you to all of you having contributed to this endeavor thank you very much for your attention you should stay in front because we will have a discussion of Europe paper it was a very good conclusion I think and not only conclusion because it also pointed to research tasks heads to further conferences that we need to organize along these six points that were mentioned but we still have time for discussion bosnia starts to play not on not before midnight so until then we can go on do AC questions that’s not possible please we need to be little micro we could have funk you there the coconut richer thank you thank you very much it’s very interesting wonder if you could expand a little bit more yes right it’s Robert Upton University of Oxford I wonder if you’d expand a little bit more on the idea of the Crimean War as sort of pressing this sort of modernity in warfare in terms of propaganda and so on and why we haven’t you know there is no major says there are between that and the Great War in your view what what is it about the Crimean War that really seems to stick out in the Crimean War for the first time new weapons of mass destruction is a great word we’re introduced the Crimean War was one where the heavy civilian casualties and deliberate aggression on civilian population it was also the moment when the modern reporting on the war started we discussed it here as if it started in the first world war but this is actually not true modern reporting on on Worf has started there including photography’s and so on it’s soo that fifty years are beyond between the two events yet I believe if you speak about more modern we need to define what it is and reflect when it actually started one could also expand on international order because the Crimean War reversed the international order which was established at the Congress of Vienna put the new international setting which then lasted until world war first if there are no other questions I I have fun because do you make you mentioned this and this is one of the things that I am really very curious and wondering about Eric read some time why did this society not only how but all divided this was a society’s of the belligerent countries fight a war for so long none of the state for the totalitarian one in most of them they’re still here also during the world over some sort of political pluralism and it’s a under it might seem like a panel question but but via societies ready to continue a war and what are the mechanisms once the once the initial patriotic afaria has has gone one stood it has also became become clear that this would not be a short so it was a what what in US and what are the mechanisms well maybe we did that there are a few cases of mass destruction for example of course we know of some cases where sometimes they are also a little bit blown up in national and narratives that highlight these cases of desertion as an example of national heroism for example in to check case but generally until pretty much the very end there’s not they’re not very many mass desertions although we know from from this soldiers experience huh but what kind of traumatic and also pretty new in this

sense traumatic experience the trench warfare boss I have personally no answer i haven’t researched it my suggestion was to research it in the future to look into the the issue i have a very personal but not scientifically found it hypothesis i believe that once the war started individuals have not much choice then when you’re threatened by life actually what is the choice you need to continue the warrant hope you know that the to get out of it but I’m certainly not sure that this is that is the right answer I try to formulate my remark as a question I do have problems with your fifth point I don’t know how can you say that so called southeastern states after the first world war had anything to do with democracy let’s say after 20 I mean 1920 in Yugoslavia but all of them were also right area except Czechoslovakia which you have mentioned that’s why lots of people are not calling it a sausage third country but Hungary Yugoslavia Romania Bulgaria Poland were also right area it has nothing to do with democracy thank you they were Democratic in the sense that there was general suffrage there was a parliament there was democratic elected governments and multi-party systems but of course this is democracy not in our today’s standards but in standards of the time also the Western democracies at the time were deficient compared to previous situation in the Habsburg mamona monarchy with note on universal suffrage existed and no free press I think it was a step forward towards democracy although not the perfect one with many inbuilt dangerous and deficiencies which then all we know Carson pedidos Copenhagen and when I think you have a client really in in this starting in nineteen twelve instead of 1914 and taking in the Balkan wars but then I wonder what about the Libyan war which was 1911 yes how would you wouldn’t you include that as well I would that include if it might it depends on the question that you are looking into if you are looking into how the Ottoman Empire dissolved and what came after you certainly would start in 1911 I would take more the Balkan perspective and then 1911 did not play as far as I can see a larger role and the whole process of fighting ottoman empire successfully as that in in 1912 from their perspective but these countries got involved but if you look from an ottoman perspective certainly 19 now for the goods is your with would probably the better Caesar question is odd your observation which are also known as a few panels exactly the repressive mechanisms of states once the war broke out particular austro-hungary and I’m kind of interested in linking that to the question of the legitimacy of the state because it strikes me that there’s a paradox that on one side the state’s managed to survive in particular the multinational monarchies Habsburg monarchy four years of war before they dissolved and and certainly many citizens continue to see the future within the monarchy despite its repressive policies but at the same time they have this they have in a certain way this suspicion towards their own citizens so just kind of running how do you assess or how shall we assess or maybe it’s a point a common also to think about the legitimacy and the deficiencies of these states before the beginning of the war because if they had such a distrust in their own citizens this is also maybe a telling story about the self perception of these systems where maybe the citizens had more confidence in the state initially than

the state had in them at least in a majority I think these are two different roads of explanation because the question of trust and legitimacy is one which cannot be answered odor or explained researched only for the four years of the war but it relates to many events and a long longer time period back in the 19th century as I believe cannot cleaving has shown the Habsburg government was on a road towards ever more repression and illegitimate rule which then somehow radicalized or so one is more the long-term structural explanation but I think needs to be complemented by by a more short term short term analysis on what really happened in the war and in particular towards the end of the war situational factors and what you made the situation was the same look at Germany or Austria it pretty much the same situation that these or other East European countries that by the end of the war this revolutionary spirit emerged and the question is why and how I think the what has been said in many papers elaborated in many papers can help explain why this one thing we would you find interactive you talked about this question or detention or job between a continuity synthesis countries and what I find so particular for southeastern Europe that despite this high level of political discontinuity in terms of their borders via drone or even new states emerging there was no discontinuity on the level of the political elites and this is really I think something that we still need more research right there was no not much more in terms of revolutionary or water off the political systems on the level if you look just on the political systems then the what did not really market discontinuity or the old estates were completely although most of them they were put together in a completely new way but they were not to be heard responsible for the war people had to fight a war which was not theirs which was not started but by these politicians and governments they was somehow drawn in in that war so I believe the political elite did not lose so much legitimacy then the political elite in the Empire or in Germany which was responsible for the disaster and in serbia won the war so why you know this could be turned into a you as we heard also in some of the papers as an argument for supporting the old elites she’s hot that’s weak of it what one point crucifer clock made was a tea made known to the broader European a worldwide public the meaning of the turn in 1903 and this is a turn very well known to specialist for parkin or Saul’s life history and we have a lot of head over this decades a lot of studies about that turn however I think he is a really a challenge first of all to bring all this together what means 1903 in Serbian and Bosnian creation and so on history and then I think it should be connected to what you mentioned Christopher Bailey’s big acceleration in the 1890s that means that we should look for the so to say a social and economic background of the events of 1903 that means what were the preconditions in society that led to to the turn in 1903 because of course it was not only because of the murder of the of the Serbian King and was not only about the Hungarians did that and that because there’s something more but but something which can’t be catched in any story of concrete action but which can be probably better explained by change of structures as Bailey suggested on a global level or others like like Osama

this was more comment I believe not doing question general no shots from Belgrade could you add if there are I mean some more arguments about this they could actually support this view that the Great War was not the seminal catastrophe I mean because it’s usually interpreted in this way except this this image from the wasabi of Poland or Czechoslovakia thank you I’m not sure I understood the question the seminal catastrophe that it is from the why is it from a Balkan perspective not a Seminole catastrophe yes you mentioned yes you mentioned it because footwork for East European not just whether you got so-called Yugoslavs but also other East Europeans the war somehow was the precondition for creating for the first time the national States and for self-determination and for future development although with with many deficits and and problems therefore it even sounds a bit cynical to say that the Western civilized thing which brought self-determination to large part of Europe has to be considered at the catastrophe of Western civilization right this is the main point although cannon meant it slightly differently because he also thought that the catastrophe was in in that at the Great War 3 got many long-term negative trends which then had an imprint on 20th century history but yeah seen from from the southeastern perspective I would would not subscribe so the seminar catastrophe I don’t see any any other questions and I don’t want to artificially prolong the the discussion was very long a date has become clear that this would be another big conference at latest at in 2018 when we discuss about the consequences of World War one and we southeast european this kind of missed the chance to really influence and shape the debate about the outbreak of world war one this was done by others but we should shape the debate about the consequences of World War one because if it was a seminal event then for eastern and southeastern European history so let’s meet again four years in the hotel hollywood i want to thank militiamen colleague again for for a wonderful conclusion and also for the audience for your patience and also engagement in the discussion and i want to ask all the other organizers to join me at the table of the Politburo of this conference so that we can collectively say goodbye we have note no predetermined other of our very really concluding remarks and then very brief so I take the chance to start with a saying thank you to the local organizers who sneer can be other which and his team I think you’re related to create chopped to welcome as here to organizing conference and the conditions that were not always easy I mean nothing is easy important energy covina in general but i think you face some peculiar difficulties you mastered them all and for that we all you’re really a pickup law on behalf of the hungarian co-organizers let me also thank our bosnian friends for the hospitality it was a great experience to participate in the lengthy and not very easy preparations and connecting to this seminal problem whether it was the the

first was a seminar catastrophe we might leave this open but we might say that this was a seminal conference omf institute as a sovereign many stories ljubljana swimmer hasta reactive nighy cow solution achieve participe rally of a conference is valium toaster toaster or a delay yeah veeram de conferencia who’s bella of eclair yener Serena refer art I e nessuna Shirin and ago equality dobra Guevara masseuse way email mog awesome visit a visionary to Tunisian ago trechie no odd refer oughtta ali yanos to some Moga pro cheated nuh national strategy mislim da yes a swim got over the best nikak drama de conferencia thus a glass oil till a jelly me hace mas de zai estas unless the garden with mo na slishno conferences Rococo institute is zan seminary story OH waka vacuum nakum nakum okra genius Rococo jelly the Sioux danik followhim lepa it’s very hard to to add anything but certainly I would agree with my previous speakers that of course the greatest thanks and compliments are really reserved for photos new converter which in the institute for history and sorry I think it’s been difficult and a wonderful result I think two observations I would like to make the first one is the striking discrepancy between political controversy about this about the the centenary outside of this wonderful venue and the academic debates while they’re going on and there’s a big discrepancy which one discovers that when historians are talking about these topics they’re very different issues Micro history social histories questions of commemoration which have really nothing to do with with with nationalist narratives and I think this is I think the conference is proven over the last three days that one can have a serious debate about these topics despite the outside context sometimes and I think this is this has been a great success I think at the same time also the second observation is the the challenge of making these debates heard and relevant outside of hotel hollywood but outside of the Institute’s of history but also making sure that they’re heard in in the global history ography um both of the of the First World War and of European history as well I think there’s a lot of contributions to be made where I hope that the ideas will leave this room and will shape the debates and I think this is I think certainly our challenge beyond trying to organize the next event in four years time thank da prova chair we may mock directora Institute dr. Alexander costo few more him a cooperative Nick instituted a boca nestico Sophie gelam des regimes ikonos pazzo pazzo special Sardinia sekula Jima isto koisuru Ganesa torah the forums is two tacos otlichno Morgan is at zero conferencia organizati instituted a story Sarai Bowie director professor ah kuznia camber uvita he’s to taco gelam direction do protec lame auto compro tech leche Terry Donna’s more Julie borough interesante ET townie his wagon esv kollegah menime pune drea de novo moitie cloody suit Billina compren co-pay tomy be over oh sanam llevo east otaku eminent professor Rima vava Yoshino puno Vemma yo chestnuts mi organizado microwave upon the last but not least so on behalf of the creation institute of history and of course my director yes torkoal i would like to

thank all cork organizers and of course being organizer instead of history and professor comparable wonderful conference what well at the end I cannot do I need anything anything else but to say that I hope that will maybe make beautiful book of of proceedings and to what extent the conference was interesting I’m medievalist I really do not know much about First World War and at the beginning of the 20th century but I even I included in the in the conversation and debate so I believe that this shows that this truly was a great conference thank you well the lady left to me is not who’s near can be either which but the other cats will speak on behalf of the organizers husni has lost his voice but I found very good replacement by the other cats with the senior research and long-term member of the Institute for history inside yellow toliko sajala Trevor of a is Riccio ya tu tampoco shotty volokh radko chronologically cremes VA dan estacada professor doctor who sneah Canberra Richard is nuit de veau organizatsiya naval conferencia theory today chi nabila’s captain atomic aku to vomit organizer aati me to team Danis nakhon kali khatri Gordon a vadim de aceite ideapad puno Starla’s a hollow chi Chi energy through the hardy mo we mail institute as a história call August each other subs eran de conferencia services valley MO institute EEMA e sentry mastro giovanni is regensburg abuddin pastor Sophia’s cop Liliana zagreb ugh graça to swim Aleppo urania unas estas moseyed no Scarlett we do now possible notch in the whole emo European Network remembers and solidarity is wash away Dada Oh seremos ovidiu nozzle is raunchy Saguna Avogadro specter solution lead sm le patron a sponsor a partner prometeme y nas v institute asan prescott solid abscissa hallelujah McCoy so named alan alda me Tomas Morgan agility Patrignano pokrovia federal ministers over Savannah now keV Vlad a federation bosnia-herzegovina a sponsor is soo bahk cytosine approach itati course for soon from four chunks game mannschaft Deutsche Krishna’s pojechali scenario of a novice at him université to tahoe baihe telecom opportunity center sarajevo nepal savannah jane nash in dragon prieta demise America coisa de milanesa de bourree pas ma to institute a history we are so touchingly TMT la grotta post errata at cha sujin writable donia and william hunt napaa savannah is a safari mo pot pourri even an Cisco immoral my partner goethe-institut 00 Sarah they are the say the institute is organized ettore ness ave pre cious clear at miss McMullen emiru da da napravim oh ouch nice scoop nakayama to tonight Nov a snooze Donovan Iguchi Tina canova rather than a can of a pre las a las damas yet it’s a yagna generati I Brie Bella oth Rama nemesis Romelu teske by all the energy the city michigan oryzias gradovich mr. potchuck Eduardo set estoy hecho daño to manage to reship MCS camara to attack Oh dolly thus minus Chile truly know genomics to re estar upon overly daha volumes m-pro professor mama kumas over we Ave Maria in college choice una Pacheco / conferencia in a creo conferencia so impressive anima nekocon a problem Oh creer en su nashi pesni t swim voluntary sometimes annum

even Oprah Meadows Nansen in tamama ave Cuccinelli ova ova conference / sad rhino Debbie same preservation osmo Isla gotcha soy soy hija tema resume le dismiss a homo privada tell my kippah chaos a maximum patrulla de prati nasha is lagana hobby function eerily you just need to Nevada Teletubbies actually stitch at a huge case the Halima of I also blu hotel a Hollywood ye nasha mopus Anita menara no no Madame cierto kisarazu Mia Oh tecnico tell us the pros Molly material knock on Frenchy yo soy accredited see a perv a police raid abuse a student eat some of Ostia tides of history philosophical tetas arrival in a passive a notch in a koala the haleem seta codger kollegah mao instituto episome no coordinator oh CLE active nasty Tia come ova conferencia magistro emiru Doron oho ho yaad so immersed remo committed against compiled some seneca kajal of a pod control on post music vamanos to put am ghost image conferencia Tommy billowy Suzette to drag Odessa medio de UD maybe interest is a pseudo shin-soo shotty of Isla gotcha nova conference e the Holy medema not unknown in Kosova criminals estaba sola conferencia e nadim said denisa Nico gazebo Avila is a sobriety milano sliku ave oh no snow podkova bodily conference you missing the small opera Helena’s of conferencia a decimal decimal 2 t’aime OU quoi Emma said no dog no Silvana chilis moto country dannon a permit ave sedano a Bagatelle palace FEMA II definitely notice a valium Vemma koyu Cuccinelli de Vaca forenza aqueous mmmm jasna a chi class no varroa special Madame Ionesco tetanus manito cry nationalist image Alima of a doe alaska ave Oh goddamn barovik Vercher I presume no but a movie especially an atom no cutco Buddha puto auto some of you know jet needs a nema on jellybean threaten put in adams attachment point of avidity op 80 valley con brio on estoy pre-boot institute organized era conferencia sameach ojos an ism you spell pose net leases FEMA in a chasidic villamagna conferencia algae lindo welcome bro yo SE vidimo Anika do boo Dutchess koala you can stay here if you want but you can also join us for dinner downstairs