Michael Neiberg, Chair of War Studies in the Department of National Security and Strategy at the United States Army War College For more information about the National WWI Museum and Memorial visit theworldwar.org
We've all seen saturday morning cartoons. If you break the vase you either rush to paste it back together, or you sweep it under the rug. Edit: Just wanted to add that this was a fascinating and enlightening lecture. Thank you.
Exactly! That's what all the "good", anti (American) imperialist people in particular in Europe like to forget : 1. America's role is the direct result of been drawn into TWO European conflicts, and 2. what would be the alternative to american hegemony... and I personally must decisively say, thank you to all these alternatives
1. The USA was was not "drawn" into either WW1 or WW2. It enterred voluntarily, due to the strategic setup WashingtonDC had created *Before* hostilities started. 2. A multipolar world, with multiple powers, so that the one cannot enforce its will onto others.
@NormanFinkelstein9863 That's totally a lie . Communist China is a totally corrupt and criminal entity and its so called economic rise and dominance is literally a totally " tufo " fraudster concoction that is literally falling apart . But there again who expects honesty and balance from lefties and false progressives ?
Memorandum to everybody putting up a presentation on RU-vid: this video shows the baseline standard, "production values" in the television term, for a speech with pictures and quotations. Well done, good work, and thank you, Professor Neiberg and War College tekkies!
He mentioned that the world was governed by four empires in 1914 - but he didn't mention England. He said the Ottoman, German, Austria-Hungry and Russia. Wasn't the British empire the biggest in the world for a few hundred years until after WW1?
Who is the author referenced at 47:29 ? I was looking for the book as it sounded like an interesting topic but can't seem to find them online anywhere.
The comment by General Bliss about dumping the excess WW I weapons into the Atlantic was exactly what we did after WW II. One uncle, an Army sergeant, said uncounted jeeps, trucks, etc., which arrived in Europe too late were unceremoniously dropped into the ocean.
@@MM22966 Costs more to store or destroy them than just dumping them and sometimes can have the unintentional positive effect of creating artificial reefs for aquatic life.
It was Wilson, but yes he had a stroke just a couple months before Paris. The gentleman that Neiberg kept referring to speaking before him covered this in great detail.
The stroke happened after Versailles, what you're talking about is the Spanish flu. It was so severe Wilson had to go back to the US in the middle of the negotiations, Colonel Edward House replaced him during that time and when Wilson finally came back he had lost all his fighting spirit trying to push his 14 points as the best solution for everyone. Of course Britain but mostly France took advantage of this and imposed impossible reparations on Germany based on greed rather than justice. Some of those demands were indeed a major factor among the causes of WW2.
In 1914, Wilhelm II the Superimperialist set out to bring the British Empire to its knees and rule the world. Of course, everybody knows this was the focus of his entire existence...his sole purpose in life. Evidence? The famous "September Program" as his crowning achievement in finally getting on with "bringing the British Empire to its knees" which Wilhelm II the Superimperialist suitably commented on and concluded with a speech on the 3rd September ending thus: *“This time we shall know how to make full use of victory...”* The crowning achievement of his entire existence and rule of course, as everybody knows, was to finally "bring the British Empire to its knees". Everybody knows Wilhelm II obsessed and fussed about the powerful British Empire from the minute he woke up every morning, until the time he fell asleep every night. Only... *...the speech...* ...was not by Wilhelm II, and the date was not 1914. "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... *“We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1).* The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116) "By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. *At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally."* (Page 117) "Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized - and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003) In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers. After both World Wars, the crowds understandably cheered the end of the war... *Meanwhile as the crowds cheered, in the background, big daddy USA ate up the British Empire and turned it into the junior associate power.* Where are all the BBC documentaries informing the public about these postwar events?
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books". Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. *Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...* By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) *technically known* as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. It was a policy. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs) *Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".* There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia." So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900). *Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.* Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I." EPISODE I: From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one." There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was *"standing down and standing by"* to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend. 1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail... EPISODE V: "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had the global influence of the Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets. *No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.* Now, fill in the blanks. EPISODES II THRU IV... Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®) Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere. After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable *alpha bark* to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games. *All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries* Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
Is the laughing really over the tragedies or the absurdities of the avents leading to them? Such as Wilson asking a small committee to not only sunn up the entire world beyond the Americas but to declare what is worth defending about them because he thinks that's fully doable in as humans. Or the absurdity of some of these experts also not being experts in these areas at all .
