The Counterfactual Show: Reimagining History, with Stephen Kotkin | GoodFellows
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ค. 2024
- Historians differ over the need to explore “counterfactuals”-the study of scenarios that never happened-and what they can tell us about historical causation. Stephen Kotkin, the Hoover Institution’s Kleinheinz Senior Fellow and noted historian of Russia, joins Hoover senior fellows Niall Ferguson and John Cochrane to discuss alternative historical outcomes: Stalin not surviving a two-front invasion in World War II and Churchill dying well beforehand; the American Revolution failing; the Beatles never spearheading pop music’s British Invasion; a Trump victory in 2020 and its potential effect on the current state of affairs in Ukraine and the Middle East; plus a world in which COVID never happened (spoiler alert: it might have impacted John and Niall’s book sales).
ABOUT THE SERIES
GoodFellows, a Hoover Institution broadcast, features senior fellows John Cochrane, Niall Ferguson, and H.R. McMaster discussing the social, economic, and geostrategic ramifications of this changed world. They can’t banter over lunch these days, but they continue their spirited conversation online about what comes next, as we look forward to an end to the crisis.
For more on this series visit, www.hoover.org/goodfellows.
The opinions expressed on this channel are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Hoover Institution or Stanford University.
© 2024 by the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University.
We love it when you guys have historian Joe Pesci on.
Kotkin on Goodfellas?? It’s Christmas, boys and girls
Dr. Kotkin should be there more frequently 🎉 Highly entertaining 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Kotkin! The man! The myth! The LEGEND!
Love to see Kotkin back!
Always happy to listen to Steven Kotkin. Such an interesting person to listen to.
Kotkin needs his own TH-cam for all GeoPolitics he’d make a fucking mint.
Stephen Kotkin. What a treat.
A nice surprise to see Stephen Kotkin parachuted in to cover for the General. Also, a great many history fans enjoy counterfactuals. Thanks for this conversation!
YES!!! KOTKIN! KOTKIN! KOTKIN!
Kotkin has absolutely upped his sartorial game. Man's got some drip fr
I feel so much smarter every time I watch the GoodFellows -- thank you!
HOLY SHIT GOODFELLOWS IN PERSON WITHOUT AN AUDIENCE!!!!! CHRISTMAS IS NOW MAY 16TH🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
The armed forces conduct war games all the time, trying to explore possible conflicts and the way they can be resolved in our favor. Every proposal for new legislation is an argument that we can divert the course of social history into a better outcome. Part of military studies is reconsidering how past wars and battles could have been better resolved. During my five years at Strategic Air Command, I participated in exercises involving response to nuclear weapon accidents, and playing out recovery from nuclear attacks on the US. Answering these "What If" questions for possible future scenarios is essential to planning for government agencies.
WHEN IS STEPHEN KOTKIN GONNA BE ON GOODFELLOWS AGAIN WHEN GOODFELLOWS WHEN
(I'm only 1 minute and 27 seconds in)
I get so excited every time I find a new video with Steven Kotkin!!!
Been waiting for this - amazing trio and an unmatched guest
A great show. Still ploughing my way through Kotkins Stalin x 3.
Yes Kotkin ❤❤❤❤
Did I hear that right...4 classes on T. Swift and none on Vietnam? Nothing wrong with teaching elements of Swift from music or business but I am shocked that not one history or political science course on Vietnam. Tell it like a true Jersey boy, Kotkin "I deal in big historical questions." Love it!!
Goodfellows is behind the times. Let these guys expand on their ideas. What's with the hour time limit? It's not cable TV
Brilliant discussion.
God I could watch a 4 hour run of this show. 1.5 hours is never enough!!!!
I love these guys! Including McMaster. Keep up the great work.
Prof Kotkin is the best. If I could have any 3 historical dinner guests, Kotkin would be one, imagine him questioning the other two.
I could listen to this all day, every day. Start a separate show like this. I'll pay for it
The amount of contention and relief in this conversation is both palpable and remarkable. Dr. Kotkin is an absolute mediator when it comes to historical disagreements. God bless you all and thank you for sharing this with the general public. Thank you for bringing order to this disarray.
I watch most of your talks, but I have to say this one was the best! Professor Kotkin is always a delight to hear from. Thanks!
What a real pleasure these conversations are. Thank you.
Joe Pesci back in the wolf's layer. A pleasure, as always
Excellent conversation!
Why can't these be longer
Thank God Kotkin is keeping the unfortunate partisanship of this show in check.
Kotkin simply outclasses the other two. Easily.
Kotkin is great
Greetings from Brazil! 🇧🇷
Seems to be a frisson between Neil & Stephen Kotkin. Adds to the pleasure of the discussion.
Looking forward to this one.
Stephen Kotkin is a brilliant historian - the counterfactual when analyzed by reference to past events is an indicator of future - it's the concept of conflagrations.
Enriching Historical Facts of WWII events to the present, " Beetles vs Stones? " Thank you very much Niall Ferguson, Stephen Kotkin, John Cochrane and H.R McMaster.
Just want to say, with regards to the discussion about the contributions of the railroad to American Economic Growth, Robert Fogel in 1970 wrote a fascinating book on exactly this question. The correct counterfactual to railroad construction, he argues, is canal extensions and with that in mind, the marginal contribution of railroads to american economic growth was quite small
I've watched Stephen Kotkin over the last decade and always appreciate his thoughts.. also want to observe one important trend about Dr. Kotkin, he is better dressed as the years progress! I challenge anyone who disagrees and welcome projections in how we will see him in 5 years! Great show once again guys!
Great show! Keep them coming! The Counterfactual questions are great and entertaining to listen to. Stephen Kotkin is always a great addition as well.
Ferguson and Cochrane love to hear themselves talk about nothing. Not even Stephen Kotkin could save this episode. If they were talking about something that wasn’t sooo self-indulgent, maybe Kotkin would have made it watchable. Where’s H.R.? I can’t stomach the other two without him.
And I think this is the first time I’ve Ferguson in six months where he hasn’t mentioned Cold War TOOOOO! His GENIUS insight! Who else in the whole world would have come up with rhetoric idea of adding II to Cold War to describe the exact same experience between the exact same powers a Second time.
It’s GENIUS!!! Neal, you trademarked that right??
If Niall and Stephen linked up to make Virtual History II, that would be a dream come true
Fellow Kotkin, When is Stalin 3 going to be available? I hope to be able to read how his story ends before I do.
It always seems like the Goodfellows are having fun, even when arguing with one another. That's good stuff. We viewers are blessed if we enjoy it 1/2 as much as they do. I appreciate this level of scholarship being offered to all of us, for free. Thank you, sirs.
Great great great interaction among three brilliant people. Thank you so much. We need more of this amazingly complex arguments about methodology and epistemology in History❤❤
Bravo!
Wish they had John Goodman there to yell “Cochran you’re out of your element!”
Its important to always take account of the counterfactual - the first occasion it was introduced was the Court of King's Bench - en banc.
I really liked this show so much on the topic of counter factuals. Star Trek had an episode of going back in time to stop Hitler. It raised similar questions about single "butterfly" events impact on the future of chaotic systems. Yet to take on the show with several was very nambitious. I could not enjoy it all at one sitting and would stop between transitions to the next. I also appreciate the humour and lighter side of the show to make the history lessons so enjoyable. What I did learn is the accident of Churchill in America not covered by many historians as a possible counterfactual event as was done on this very compelling show. THANKS for taking us on the trip.
Kotkin is so witty. Great guest!!
What an excellent discussion. More of this please!
Kotkin adds spice to the fellas. Make him more permanent. Great episode!
Best Goodfellows episode yet!
Kotkin episode, instant watch.
profound discussion.
tyvm.
Yay! Collingwood - my guide to the study of history
Thank you! Always interesting when SK is on.
Well that was just over an hour well spent with fascinating discourse.
Kotkin taking Hoover to 1M subs is guaranteed at this point.
Crazy how this is free
My favourite podcast. Big fan from South Africa!
And excellent conversation!
Excellent deep dive. Wonderful!
This needs to be heard
''4 classes on Taylor Swift and none on the Vietnam war - they are just trying to balance the kid's education...'' - geez, Stephen Kotkin has to sign up as a writer (or presenter) on SNL!! Too funny!! What a great mind and what a great sense of humor.
I loved the playful nature of this episode as well as an interesting view of counterfactual history.
Excellent! Thank you!
Revux impact is a testament to its unique approach.
Love Neil Ferguson's reference to Axis and Allies and other strategy games @30:29 . Historians need to play these games to experience simulated counter factuals, even if they are highly oversimplified like he mentions.
I could feel my brain getting bigger as I watched this. 👍
The seating makes it look as if Mr. Ferguson is addressing a tennis match.
Excellent talk. Thank you
Excellent discussion.
So much fun! Please do another one of these
My favorite people
excellent panel -rich and in-depth I only wish the time didn’t constrain the crux parsing banter.. pseudo assassination suppositions… sadly coincide with the newest and Slavic case study
Great conversation, realy enjoyed that
A great episode!
The team should have made this episode in two parts to get through all nine counterfactuals instead of just four.
The civil rights double episode of Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson (which Dr. Condoleeza Rice featured in) is a good reference in this regard.
Great fun to watch! It a melding of freshman year, late night pseudo-intellectual debates and middle aged, actual-intellectual PhD‘s. 😉
thank you, this was brilliant!
Bill is awesome!
Very good discussion.
Put simply the counterfactual is what would have happened now, if we don’t act now - their guidance is our passage to equality 😊
Who is for this to be weekly with all five good fellows?
Naill’s pointed remark about “historians aren’t novelists” raises a relevant idea about historiography, the act of writing history. Histories are written as a narrative - with a beginning, middle, and an end - because that’s how humans best process information. There’s no other way history can be written for a consuming general audience. And as factual history is written with a clean, tightly organized narrative structure of cause and effect, it gives the ILLUSION of determinism. As a result, the exercise of the counterfactual is viewed in haste as a frivolous or inconsequential to the understanding of the past. Needless to inform our company, the word “history” is Greek in origin of inquiry. However, its Old English root derives from Latin: story.
When is Stalin Vol 3 coming?? Hurry up, please.😂
Always brilliant
This is a question I've often asked. What would have happened if the American revolution had failed? What would have happened to signers of the declaration of independence?
Just after I wrote the below @ 11:00 Cochrane addressed my confusion, which makes sense in that I am much closer to being an economist than a historian.
Five Days in London: May 1940 by John Lukacs is a fantastic short read that focuses on how critical Churchill was in dealing with the defeatest sentiment in his government. (I think you can get a copy for under $10). Had Halifax been Prime Minister the outcome would been very different.
What a treat, thanks ;-)
Regarding America's War for Independence I have a few observations that may not have been discussed:
0. The British Empire didn't simply give up, the war became prohibitively costly at a time of considerable financial strain.
1. America could have outright lost the war, say in 1880; that doesn't imply America would not have fought another war, and another, until they would have ultimately won. The War of 1812, in fact, was another test.
2. The strong ideals of independence and liberty were, and still are very much American and not necessarily shared in the same degree elsewhere.
3. Canadian colonies had not the same core values, they were predominantly populated by loyalists; before and after the Revolution.
4. Today, Canada would not need to fight a war, they could simply decide to be a Constitutional Republic. They don't (same for Australia, New Zeeland).
5. Even to this day, immigrant populations mainly self select between USA and other countries, like Canada, based on idea affiliations of what they comsider to be most important to their lives.
In my opinion, the United States would have ended in the same place, even if another route would have been necessary.
Fun episode!
They should counterfactual with Patton’s quote that we defeated the wrong enemy…👀
Concentrate on this part - as the non aggression pact agreed in 1939 between Hitlxr and Stalin is not in discussion. The breach of non aggression pact by Hitlxr is when Stalin was invaded and had to join WW2. Because his mis-read Hitlxr assurance he would not invade Russia. And create a war on two fronts.
John made a terrific point about correlation vs. causation. Crazyman abandoned the basic concept when the celestial cheat sheet was made available. Worth a discussion some day, maybe when John is in the Swamp. It’s looking as if I’m gonna have to be in the building in the thumbnail. 38:00. Prior to 1941, Zhukhov had been fighting the Imperial Japanese Army in Eastern Mongolia and Manchuria. Successfully. 1:00:00. Dr. Kotkin is leaving out someone he is supposed to know.
11:51 Cochrane’s description of a “trend” in historiography is unrecognizable to me. I have, just this year so far, tore through several scholarly histories, written between 1997 or so and 2017: _Where the Negroes are Masters: An African Port in the Era of the Slave Trade_ by Sparks, _The Crucible of Islam_ by Bowersock, _Taming Manhattan: Environmental Battles in the Antebellum City_ by McNeur, _Horses at Work: Harnessing Power in Industrial America_ by Greene, _Treason in the Northern Quarter: War, Terror, and the Rule of Law in the Dutch Revolt_ by Nierop, and _This Vast Southern Empire: Slaveholders at the Helm of American Foreign Policy_ by Karp. Only the last two could be seen as attempting to assess responsibility for atrocities. But even they both proceed precisely as Cochran prescribes: by seeking to reconstruct the understandings, expectations, interests, fears and enthusiasms of the participants.
I can only wonder what sort of historiography he has sampled.
Oh Churchill was studying those Crowley recordings for sure