Wilson's racism made him needlessly insult China and Japan, setting up an East Asian political environment that would come back to bite the U.S. in the lower backside.
Comparing the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 to the Treaty of Franfort of 1871 is one of the more popular memes of amateur historians. One often sees this "tit for tat"-logic on YT. There is however little to compare, beyond reparations and territory (Alsace-Lorraine). Let's have a look at what Prussia (or rather the newly formed Germany) did *not* do to France, a nation which had both declared war first, and invaded/attacked first in 1870. 1. It did NOT take away the entire French navy. 2. It did NOT take away all the French colonies. 3. It did NOT take away almost the entire French merchant marine. 4. It did NOT cut off parts of France, in order to give it to nations which never even fought (for example "cutting off" the Basque Lands, to hand over to Spain). 5. It did NOT create new artificial states to surround France, and to subsequently create new alliances with (For example "free" Corsica, and then subsequently created a German-Corsican alliance as an official "encirclement policy") 6. It did NOT cut off 15% of the French population, and simply "awarded" them to new, artificial, and independent states, leaving French citizen to travel across a foreign state in order to visit friends and relatives.. 7. It did NOT steal pre-war French economical concessions, or French markets, which enabled France (the aggressor) to pay her reparations without the need of excessive foreign debts. 8. It did NOT eclipse the entire French economic sphere of influence in the world, leaving her economy with only France proper to deliver goods to. 9. It did NOT force France to destroy coastal fortresses in the Mediterranean Sea (I kid thee not, Versailles had a clause concerning German coastal fortresses in the Baltic) In fact, France was (hint hint) even invited to the negotiations, and allowed to make counter arguments, resulting in concessions to the French side (for example, the status of the city of Belfort) in the Treaty of Frankfort in 1871. 1871, and 1919 just cannot be compared... "Apples and oranges"-style comparisons to deflect from what really happened.
The British made from a local conflict a World War to make money and increase their influence. Luckily they lost their empire, but Britain made a lot of damage to Germany. With the Brexit we should not forget this historical guilt of Britain and isolate it with exception of Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
It is chastening to think that T. Rooosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge turned out to be very prescient in their criticism of Wilson's approach to the armistice negotiations.
Teddy was grieving of Quentin's death ....i don't think he gave a crap about the international grievances......we did have American soldiers in Russia So much for peace treaty
Honestly the US had taken sides the moment they traded with Brittain, but did not force itself trough the blockade and trade with Germany. Unrestricted submarine warfare was horrific, but what could Germany have done. The US should have not traded, not intervened and let the conflict end in a traditional peace, which would have had a chance to restore balance as opposed to letting nationalism win this war and sow the seeds of the next war.
48:13 . I will take "No liberal democracys have gone to war" for $400, professor. United Kingdom declared war on Finland. The UK were on the side of the Soviet union (Stalin) The UK bombed Petsamo on July 31 1941 but did not declare war until December 6. Having said that. Still a great lecture! Absolutely one of the best on this topic. Thank you and please give many more!
Well, he can’t provide arguments for every single statement. I mean he is at least an intellectual who goes to great lengths to prove his arguments. But, although, yes, economic power is very difficult to measure the current economic debate about who is the most powerful is a debate over whether it is the US or China. Although, in size of income, the US is currently top, it doesn’t necessarily mean that income is the correct way to measure economic power. It’s surely far more complicated than that. For instance, China is the world’s largest trading economy and the world’s largest manufacturing economy and of course we have to ask whether a China needs to have as large an income as the US because what matters is what that income is able to buy, and then whether what is bought is more or less powerful. A further point is that the US has only been a powerful world economy for a few hundred years whereas China has been among the most powerful economies for at least two thousand years. I think Armstrong can be tolerated for saying China is the world’s most important economy because it is the rising world power and according to some is already more powerful than the US, and generally is expected to definitely be so within one or two decades. So I think it is the trajectory of China’s economy which makes it currently the most important economic power, because, for better or worse, investors are more likely to invest in regions where economies are both among the largest whilst growing the fastest. The US has neglected its relationship with the global South and allowed China to take the lead there and as the global South rises this will also make China more powerful and the US weaker. The US has made some serious strategic errors by which it has undermined its own power, for instance, it even sanctioned its allies in the European Union, never mind all the sanctioning it has done in Asia and Africa. This has turned many countries against the US and destroyed its historic strength of forming many alliances
Gary says incredible complexities of international relations, one might say 1930s were a mess, until Munich. That is until happy Neville Chamberlain. Then how does the US intend to continue saying appeasement? Say a right mess, not a right mug. Say Munich neither mess nor mug. Say 1919 created a lot of problems.
Wilson was a visionary. No other world leader was even thinking along the same lines regarding an international peacekeeping organization. Naturally, it would have helped in Wilson had been more compromising and less pious. But, would a Jimmy Carter have done any better? Would a Ronald Reagan have even tried? Winston Churchill was quoted as saying he was impressed by how much Wilson accomplished, not by how little he achieved. But, Churchill was known to say lots of things.
You know, being a visionary doesn't mean that your world view is accurate nor realistic. :/ Wilson believed that America was the shining city on the Hill. That its model would export to the entire world and that the nation would be the mediator of said world. That everyone would graciously listen to its pure morals. And that countries "not developped enough for Democracy" would just get in class and listen to his purest, whitest (I'm so going to Hell for this one! XD), God-sent worldview... _But that's not how world politics work._
@@Archon3960 Actually, that is what it means to be a visionary, i.e. someone with a clear vision of the future. Nietzsche, for example, was a visionary. Perhaps you are focused on people who have a myopic or astigmatic view of the future. As for Wilson's idealism, I think it becomes more evident every year. I'm sorry that you don't see it yet.
Formidable lecture! Deep, comprehensive, enlighting and amusing. As far as it seems, Wilson's stroke had to do more in shaping the world than entire armies.
The lecturer is very much like President Wilson, charismatic and energetic. Also like Wilson he doesn't explain why we were in the war to begin and why we should have ever been involved in the creation of the League of Nations. He gives reasons, he speculates but none explain losing 50,000 men and attempting to impose our will on European countries.
Excellent lecture about a crucial period that saw an attempted overthrow of the Westphalian system comprising nation states protecting (or projecting) national interests and engaging in coalition building to this end. I wonder if other analysts of the period - notably Kissinger, Macmillan, Ferguson- have contested certain key points presented here. I would appreciate links to credible alternate insights if other posters are aware of. Thanks.
Per Armstrong's Three problems with collective security: 1. What was the US vital national interest in Iraq and in 1890's Cuba? 2. What about the collective security provided by the alliances in the first few months of 1914? What about 1991? 3. Meh.
Wiki: "Article 231 was one of the most controversial points of the treaty. It specified: 'The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected *as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.' (end of)"* The pathetic intention behind the highlighted clause is an obvious attempt by those powers who did not avoid the war, at "washing own hands in innocence". The clause highlighed sorta sounds like "poor innocent little us had a war forced upon poor innocent us, which was totally and wholy unexpectedly", even though it was a war of choice (aka "preventive war") allround, for all the great powers. *There were no innocents amongst any of the major powers.* Although the article doesn't mention the word "guilt", the fact that it stated "imposed upon (us)" without acknowledging own responsibility, means that by exclusion they might have well have stated "it's all your fault". Today, the formulation usually found acceptable for the new post-2000 generation of historians re. "Who started it?" is "No one nation is entirely at fault for WW1" (with the added "although Germany bears more guilt than others" sometimes added). *If that is as close to the truth as one can get today, it was also true in 1914.* The way the "winners" tried to absolve themselves "per signature" in 1919 was truly cowardly. An exercise in "washing hands in innocence" at a time those in power knew what they had done (enter into preventive war, either by declaration, or deceit). They had sent millions to their deaths, and were not wiling to accept any responsibility themselves. Suggestion: Stay away from such leaders. Support of such "pass the buck"-turncoats and opportunists will do nobody any good. Lesson learnt? I fear not.
Yes definitely one of the better analysis of this period, enjoyed his talk immensely.
Excellent. I wish he would have went on another hour.
Crazy to see this history repeating itself as we sit here today, the house can't elect a speaker, and we just got through a major pandemic.
Interesting - that Speakership situation is going on right now.
25:16 need to take major issue though with the idea that history students aren’t aware of Theodore Roosevelt
This rips apart my junior year American history teacher's arguments.
Wilson's racism made him needlessly insult China and Japan, setting up an East Asian political environment that would come back to bite the U.S. in the lower backside.
Agreed as one of the Japanese representatives at the peace conference would become a Japanese prime minister in the run up to World War 2.
Funny how history repeats itself.
That was a fantastic lecture. Excellent
Interesting that the hard-liners were calling for "unconditional surrender" even back then.
Comparing the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 to the Treaty of Franfort of 1871 is one of the more popular memes of amateur historians. One often sees this "tit for tat"-logic on YT. There is however little to compare, beyond reparations and territory (Alsace-Lorraine).
Let's have a look at what Prussia (or rather the newly formed Germany) did *not* do to France, a nation which had both declared war first, and invaded/attacked first in 1870.
1. It did NOT take away the entire French navy.
2. It did NOT take away all the French colonies.
3. It did NOT take away almost the entire French merchant marine.
4. It did NOT cut off parts of France, in order to give it to nations which never even fought (for example "cutting off" the Basque Lands, to hand over to Spain).
5. It did NOT create new artificial states to surround France, and to subsequently create new alliances with (For example "free" Corsica, and then subsequently created a German-Corsican alliance as an official "encirclement policy")
6. It did NOT cut off 15% of the French population, and simply "awarded" them to new, artificial, and independent states, leaving French citizen to travel across a foreign state in order to visit friends and relatives..
7. It did NOT steal pre-war French economical concessions, or French markets, which enabled France (the aggressor) to pay her reparations without the need of excessive foreign debts.
8. It did NOT eclipse the entire French economic sphere of influence in the world, leaving her economy with only France proper to deliver goods to.
9. It did NOT force France to destroy coastal fortresses in the Mediterranean Sea (I kid thee not, Versailles had a clause concerning German coastal fortresses in the Baltic)
In fact, France was (hint hint) even invited to the negotiations, and allowed to make counter arguments, resulting in concessions to the French side (for example, the status of the city of Belfort) in the Treaty of Frankfort in 1871.
1871, and 1919 just cannot be compared...
"Apples and oranges"-style comparisons to deflect from what really happened.
Very interesting read. Thank you.
Or to brest litovsk for that matter. Bv wasn't in fact harsher than Versailles yet that's been the received wisdom until quite recently
After Pearl Harbor. representative Rankin abstained but did not vote against the measure for war
The British made from a local conflict a World War to make money and increase their influence. Luckily they lost their empire, but Britain made a lot of damage to Germany. With the Brexit we should not forget this historical guilt of Britain and isolate it with exception of Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
It is chastening to think that T. Rooosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge turned out to be very prescient in their criticism of Wilson's approach to the armistice negotiations.
Teddy was grieving of Quentin's death ....i don't think he gave a crap about the international grievances......we did have American soldiers in Russia
So much for peace treaty
Hearing TR actually say that an incomplete peace could mean another war in 20 years almost made my jaw drop
This was an eye-opener lecture and deep thought opportunity. Thank you very much !
A great lecturer. Collective security is the question of our age, and always be.
Honestly the US had taken sides the moment they traded with Brittain, but did not force itself trough the blockade and trade with Germany. Unrestricted submarine warfare was horrific, but what could Germany have done. The US should have not traded, not intervened and let the conflict end in a traditional peace, which would have had a chance to restore balance as opposed to letting nationalism win this war and sow the seeds of the next war.
WILLLLLLLSOOON! 😡
Wow this is one of the best lectures on the subject I have seen.
Very interesting lecture.
Keynes said Wilson was outclassed by Lloyd George's advanced instincts and senses at Versaile.
Yup and then shortly after, the Turkish crisis completely messed up Lloyd George’s whole life political career for good.
"China is the most important economic power on the planet"? No question? no debate? you have decided?
48:13 . I will take "No liberal democracys have gone to war" for $400, professor.
United Kingdom declared war on Finland. The UK were on the side of the Soviet union (Stalin)
The UK bombed Petsamo on July 31 1941 but did not declare war until December 6.
Having said that. Still a great lecture! Absolutely one of the best on this topic. Thank you and please give many more!
Great Britain 🇬🇧 declared war on Finland 🇫🇮 in WWII. The only time one democracy declared war on another.
Finally somebody working in the pandemic before our pandemic!
Imho Wilson was a humbug
Wilson's problem is he was too intellectual and lacked the social manners to relate to the average voters.
Yet he won the election twice
I mean, he won every political race he ran for...he must have related to enough of them.
Major props to him for discussing the influenza pandemic, but also so weird seeing the topic discussed well before the current 2020 pandemic
They are in Kansas so they find that angle to create empathy... 🤔 However, it is a good point you raise, congratulations to you and to the speaker. 🌹
Well, he can’t provide arguments for every single statement. I mean he is at least an intellectual who goes to great lengths to prove his arguments. But, although, yes, economic power is very difficult to measure the current economic debate about who is the most powerful is a debate over whether it is the US or China. Although, in size of income, the US is currently top, it doesn’t necessarily mean that income is the correct way to measure economic power. It’s surely far more complicated than that. For instance, China is the world’s largest trading economy and the world’s largest manufacturing economy and of course we have to ask whether a China needs to have as large an income as the US because what matters is what that income is able to buy, and then whether what is bought is more or less powerful.
A further point is that the US has only been a powerful world economy for a few hundred years whereas China has been among the most powerful economies for at least two thousand years.
I think Armstrong can be tolerated for saying China is the world’s most important economy because it is the rising world power and according to some is already more powerful than the US, and generally is expected to definitely be so within one or two decades. So I think it is the trajectory of China’s economy which makes it currently the most important economic power, because, for better or worse, investors are more likely to invest in regions where economies are both among the largest whilst growing the fastest. The US has neglected its relationship with the global South and allowed China to take the lead there and as the global South rises this will also make China more powerful and the US weaker. The US has made some serious strategic errors by which it has undermined its own power, for instance, it even sanctioned its allies in the European Union, never mind all the sanctioning it has done in Asia and Africa. This has turned many countries against the US and destroyed its historic strength of forming many alliances
@@christophervaughan2637 sir, this is a Wendy’s
@@DwRockett I had lost my comment: thanks for finding it for me!
Gary says incredible complexities of international relations, one might say 1930s were a mess, until Munich. That is until happy Neville Chamberlain. Then how does the US intend to continue saying appeasement? Say a right mess, not a right mug. Say Munich neither mess nor mug. Say 1919 created a lot of problems.
I can see the leftist and liberals were super active back then with the same motives we see today
Wilson was a visionary. No other world leader was even thinking along the same lines regarding an international peacekeeping organization.
Naturally, it would have helped in Wilson had been more compromising and less pious. But, would a Jimmy Carter have done any better? Would a Ronald Reagan have even tried?
Winston Churchill was quoted as saying he was impressed by how much Wilson accomplished, not by how little he achieved. But, Churchill was known to say lots of things.
You know, being a visionary doesn't mean that your world view is accurate nor realistic. :/
Wilson believed that America was the shining city on the Hill. That its model would export to the entire world and that the nation would be the mediator of said world. That everyone would graciously listen to its pure morals. And that countries "not developped enough for Democracy" would just get in class and listen to his purest, whitest (I'm so going to Hell for this one! XD), God-sent worldview...
_But that's not how world politics work._
@@Archon3960 Actually, that is what it means to be a visionary, i.e. someone with a clear vision of the future. Nietzsche, for example, was a visionary. Perhaps you are focused on people who have a myopic or astigmatic view of the future. As for Wilson's idealism, I think it becomes more evident every year. I'm sorry that you don't see it yet.
@@SSArcher11 Debatable. But thanks for recontextualizing the definition of "visionary". :)
Incredible racist
1:00 Hey, why does Wilson's tour to promote the treaty skip over new england (NYC included) and the vast majority of the south?
He thought the west was the swing vote. Most of his opponents were on the east coast, most of his supported in the south. The balance lay west.
Gary is great
One of the best lectures I have ever seen uploaded to TH-cam
Formidable lecture! Deep, comprehensive, enlighting and amusing. As far as it seems, Wilson's stroke had to do more in shaping the world than entire armies.
A racist Democrat senator....is it really that shocking? Guess what, add Wilson, FDR, and Truman to that list too. The lecture was fantastic.
The lecturer is very much like President Wilson, charismatic and energetic. Also like Wilson he doesn't explain why we were in the war to begin and why we should have ever been involved in the creation of the League of Nations. He gives reasons, he speculates but none explain losing 50,000 men and attempting to impose our will on European countries.
The lecture isn’t about the US entry into the war
@@DwRockett imho Wilson's attempt at peace is part and parallel with Wilson's entry into the war.
Wilson spent a great deal of time telling why we were in the war.
What an eye opener! Just goes to show that sometimes the fate of whole continents can be sealed by a single, seemingly unrelated decision...
Very good
This lecturer borders on preacher. I already have a religion, thanks. Guess I'll look to another source for historical facts.
Excellent lecture about a crucial period that saw an attempted overthrow of the Westphalian system comprising nation states protecting (or projecting) national interests and engaging in coalition building to this end. I wonder if other analysts of the period - notably Kissinger, Macmillan, Ferguson- have contested certain key points presented here. I would appreciate links to credible alternate insights if other posters are aware of. Thanks.
i have always wanted to visit your museum, maybe some day i shall. thank you.
Per Armstrong's Three problems with collective security:
1. What was the US vital national interest in Iraq and in 1890's Cuba?
2. What about the collective security provided by the alliances in the first few months of 1914? What about 1991?
3. Meh.
Wiki: "Article 231 was one of the most controversial points of the treaty. It specified: 'The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected *as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.' (end of)"*
The pathetic intention behind the highlighted clause is an obvious attempt by those powers who did not avoid the war, at "washing own hands in innocence".
The clause highlighed sorta sounds like "poor innocent little us had a war forced upon poor innocent us, which was totally and wholy unexpectedly", even though it was a war of choice (aka "preventive war") allround, for all the great powers.
*There were no innocents amongst any of the major powers.*
Although the article doesn't mention the word "guilt", the fact that it stated "imposed upon (us)" without acknowledging own responsibility, means that by exclusion they might have well have stated "it's all your fault".
Today, the formulation usually found acceptable for the new post-2000 generation of historians re. "Who started it?" is "No one nation is entirely at fault for WW1" (with the added "although Germany bears more guilt than others" sometimes added).
*If that is as close to the truth as one can get today, it was also true in 1914.*
The way the "winners" tried to absolve themselves "per signature" in 1919 was truly cowardly.
An exercise in "washing hands in innocence" at a time those in power knew what they had done (enter into preventive war, either by declaration, or deceit).
They had sent millions to their deaths, and were not wiling to accept any responsibility themselves.
Suggestion: Stay away from such leaders. Support of such "pass the buck"-turncoats and opportunists will do nobody any good.
Lesson learnt?
I fear not.