Thank you for mentioning that the "Lusitania" was full of weapons for Britain and not only a passengership. To this day most english speaking historians simply do not mention it and repeat the WW I propaganda of the bad Germans attacking a peaceful ship....
The Lusitania was a sucker bait, though, and the Germans rose to the baited hook. Let the liner pass, and the Brits get needed war materials. Sink the liner, and get damned in the world press as baby killers, and get the USA's back up. Choose and lose, and the unrestricted U-boat policy was chosen. The USA came close to entering the war on the side of the Triple Entente in 1915, and President Wilson's administration became pro-Allied and anti-Central Powers in outlook. In clear retrospect, the Lusitania should've been left alone.
It was still a stupid move. The idiot Germans even claimed there were Canadian soldiers in steerage. The sinking did more harm to their cause than the munitions would have.
American newspapers published several full page ads warning citizens not to board the Lusitania (you can easily find them online). And of course, 128 people with a deathwish decided to go for a ride through U-Boat waters.
Minor correction but at 2:00 minutes you say the balkan countries came from former Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman lands but by the Balkan wars AH had not yet lost any territory to the Balkan countries.
@@meganoob12 That is true for the First Balkan War, but not the second when the former Allies that had taken this land from the Ottoman Empire now were unhappy with how it was distributed and tried to "renegotiate" ... at gunpoint. Quite a bit of territory had changed hands and it was partially that "disappointing" end to the war that inspired Serbians to become more aggressive towards claiming "their" land from Austria, which lead to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand at Sarajevo.
American business was making huge amounts equipping the Entente without war. The US was woefully unprepared for war. The US lacked field artillery, machine guns,tanks and aircraft. The rifle we used most was a British design (Enfield model 1917). Rather than the Springfield model 1903, the standard US rifle. The reason the US had any ability to equip an Army was the fact we were equipping the Entente. I despise Wilson also. He needed to see the US ready for war in case it was drawn in. Neutrals can only remain so if they are strong enough to resist if threatened or attacked.
The USA joined WW1, the day it started! True, there were no American " boots on the ground " but US industry, especially the arms industry was supporting Britain and other allied nations (France, Russia etc.) from day one!
@@BlindingGlow I don't remember the German army in both wars driving Chevrolets, Fords, and Packards. You will need to demonstrate some convincing proofs! What Germany should have done in both world wars was to seek out and encourage American sales and exports, and make the "neutral stance" a political hot potato as had been prior to the War of 1812. Somehow that didn't happen.
The USA already had much trade with the UK & France already. Wartime trade didn't seem too different, and was in fact profitable. There wasn't much comparable in the way of trade with Imperial Germany, and the United States respected the British blockade of German ports. It was sort of a one-sided neutrality on the production side, but the USA had not declared war, and had not pledged direct military support and assistance to the Allies. The renewed submarine warfare campaign of 1917 severely annoyed the USA, and the Zimmerman Telegram really frosted the cake.
There were 2 groups involved in the Sarajevo assassination: 1. "The Black Hand" Serbian nationalists exclusively favoring Serbian interests, a rogue element of the Serbian military, who provided the weapons. 2. "Young Bosnia" Yugoslavist or pan-southern Slav unionists (Believing in a free and independent nation for all Southern Slavs, albeit under Serbian leadership), who conducted the assassination attempts.
not really a rogue element, but a conniving arm of Serbian military intelligence (a secret service equivalent)... If or in how far they acted without knowledge or authorization of the Serbian government is unclear and therefore contested
12:35 AFAIK, unrestricted submarine warfare was started again in the beginning of 1917, before the US declared war. --- IMHO, WW1 (both the actual outbreak, and this topic) is a prime example of the human tendency to assign agency and intention in hindsight, and the general good feeling of _knowing_ the _real_ deal and seeing through muddied waters.
it is both natural and necessary to investigate the past to try and understand what happened, simply believeing the narrative you where passed down is just as moronic as rejecting it merely to feel like you are smart and know things, so if you merely state that the author of this video is only doing this to feel smart wthout actually pointing to anything that shows why he would be wrong is basically admiting that you just as moronic as you are trying to say the author is.
Lies are as American as Coca Cola and Pepsi. But nothing can function based on lies, Science is true other wise it can't function,has to be replicated. Lies can never be proven!
Just found your channel. I was happily surprised how good the content is when looking at your subs. Keep it up, and the mighty algorithm shall reward your work.
The British spied on everyone including the Germans. They tapped the cable didn't cut it! These days the US Secret Police chief Bill gates spies on the whole planet including the USA!
In fairness with the world's largest navy being the Royal Navy just how were US businesses going to supply the central powers? The RN started a blockade early and kept it up. Neutral ships were inspected, and who was going to stop the RN?
The US joined the war on the winning side to have a say in the post war world order. Wilson's 14 points and the establishment of League of Nations was the American vision of post war world order.
I've heard the exact same thing! In April 1917, World War I was already in it's closing stages, and thus, the Allied victory was inevitable. Of course, the winning side tends to be the one who reshapes themselves and the losing side, so considering all the money and the political influence that being a somewhat major power in the Entente, the United States finally joined World War I in 1917. The US government of the time claimed that it was to avenge the sinking of the _RMS_ _Lusitania_ (which was almost two years sunk by then) and defend self-determination in German and Turkish colonies (which became British and French colonies after World War I, and only began becoming sovereign states after World War II). However, despite how many Americans still believe these narratives, the US ultimately joined the Allies of World War I to get a slice of the metaphorical cake, so to speak. That sure explains why it took almost _two_ years for the US to avenge the deaths of a hundred or so Americans on a ship that wasn't even _yours,_ or why it took _three_ years for the US to declare the German colonial empire bad!
Have you read the memoirs of Marine Major General Smedley Darlington Butler? He was a Medal of Honor winner and commander in some of the "little wars" of the Caribbean area. He felt that Al Capone was a piker compared to the government in grabbing power and wealth.
When interests align no conspiracy is necessary. The convergence of bussines interests investment in the British and French war effort, the work of British and French agents and agencies to turn US opinion against Germany, and the interventionist forgiven policy and big government domestic policy of the Wilson administration all worked together to bring the US into the war even if there was never a single mastermind or group of people intentionally orchestrating the whole thing.
In addition to being the worst president in US history, Wilson and his progressive colleagues were Europhiles and Atlanticists. Intellectual, cultural and economic ties between Europe and the progressive movement had been strengthening for decades, which eroded America's traditional apathy towards Europe, particularly on the East Coast. Wilson was an ideologue, he saw the war as an opportunity to solidify his transatlantic worldview into law, through the League of Nations. He didn't have to enter a land war in Europe. Wilson could have waged a naval war against German subs and still secured American interests...but he saw the war through his own millenarianism. There's a reason why "isolationism" (which is both a misnomer and a slur) held strong in the Midwest, a region largely removed from these Atlantic connections and largely populated by German-Americans.
Unfortunately isolationism never works, mind you neither does rampant interventionism. But the problem with isolationism is you are leaving a possible military/economic threat unchecked while they get more powerful. For a very early example of this look no further than the Roman Empire, many tribes and nation states stood by and even had treaty packs of non aggression with Rome, but inevitably when Rome defeated the immediate threats and became more and more powerful they started steamrolling the people who had pacts of non aggression with them including parts of Greece who could have taken the Romans out while they were still fighting other nation states in Italy. This pattern has happened countless times in history including US non interventionism in ww2 (got rolled on with our pants down by the Axis powers) and also famously in ww2 the Russians who signed a pact of non aggression with the nazis got jumped, and if the winter had not been so early that year could have been knocked out of the war before they even got started!. If everyone had got together and shut Hitler down when he invaded Poland millions would not have died in WW2. But as I say rampant interventionism is stupid also, as with all things careful consideration and balance is called for.
It was never about protecting Poland. If it was they would have also declared war on the USSR because they also attacked Poland. Britain and France used Poland as an excuse to justify war with Germany with their people. They encouraged Poland to not come to an agreement about a rail corridor of access to Danzig and East Prussia. A problem created via the new borders created after WW1. The British were more than happy to let the USSR take parts of Poland in order to have them as allies against Gernany. If you really study the sequences that led up to WW2 alot of the British arguments do not hold water.
WILTALK Well I wasn't really talking about the reasons behind the start of WW2 but I was talking about the fact that as soon as Hitler started he should have had the smack down laid on him, the British (chamberlain) Americans Russians and french should have never let him get away with what he was doing pre war!, isolationism/appeasement was never going to work with a man like Hitler and that's that. Also it was mostly the french who were iching for war with Germany Chamberlain bent over backwards to stop a possible war!, earning him to be mockingly nicknamed the great appeaser!.
after the Macedonian empire broke into successor states all Hellenic groups where too busy fighting each other, expect for Sicily which was contested with Carthage
I think the ideal scenario is isolationist countries who will all hop on any single country that tries to do a power grab. That at least shifts all the fighting out of swords n' guns war territory and into trade wars.
I suppose the native Peoples of the America's were quite happy to be isolated. European disease and horror nearly wiped them out. Trumpy Pumpy thinks Corona will wipe out stroppy US Workers! Wonder if 2M US prisoners will be in lockdown like the rest of us? Wonder where that word came from?
I didn't know about the American occupation of Veracruz until I heard that song about it from Warren Zevon. It starts like this: I heard Woodrow Wilson's guns I heard Maria crying Late last night I heard the news That Veracruz was dying Veracruz was dying
Woodrow Wilson, "brought up between the Bible and the dictionary" (John Dos Passos, 1927) was a historian of the Lost Cause myth and almost nothing else, and a believer in the infallibility of the Anglo-Saxon "race."
I don't like Wilson either, for me it has more to do with the Federal Reserve Banking system and the income tax of which I am not a fan. The IRS can audit every business but the Fed. In fact the IRS came about shortly after the Fed . All because of the 16th amendment. Prior to the 16th Amendment the Supreme court disallowed an income tax as "unapportioned and unconstitutional". So the Fed, 16th amendment, IRS and the income tax all come about in 1913 during Wilson's Reign. Politics, War and money all closely related. My question is, "Was the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve working together to dominant and control the world financially?" If not, it seems to me that from a purely amoral business stance, financing both sides of a war is a safe bet because the winner can cover the costs of the looser. If you choose one side and loose you are out your investment. What do you think Cypher??
Great video! Very informative. Your slavery myth-busting video popped up in my feed - I watched it, then watched this one, and subscribed to your channel. Although it is true that the events leading up to USA participation in WWI played a major part in the genealogy of modern conspiracy theories, I think that calling them the "genesis" is a bit of an overstatement. It should be noted that at that time the general mindset and framework for developing such theories was already in place. Some time ago I did a Polish translation of Richard Hofstadter's "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" and this essay comes to my mind as a classic account of the early history of American conspiracy theories. Although, from a theoretical standpoint, it rises some doubts, especially when we consider it as one of the models for today's rather cheap and demagogic method of discrediting political adversaries as simply mentally ill people. Currently I'm doing some reading in Irving Babbitt's thought, so I guess I should watch your video on Pragmatism next, since the New Humanists and the Pragmatists had a pretty heated, fascinating and sadly completely forgotten intellectual skirmish in the early 20th century.
For decades the rotary snowplow of the Milwaukee Railroad, which had a lines west from Chicago to Seattle, had a Campaign Poster from Woodrow Wilson in the foot well of the control compartment so Railroad workers could pay him back by stepping on him. It became a noted relic, and was cared for. Even as a boy in the 1950's I heard railroad men cursing Wilson, and in language that would have caused my mother to wash out my ears. I was confused as Wilson was a Democrat The passenger car at 6:05 of The Olympian was a luxury passenger train of the Milwaukee Railroad.
If the Germans were America's antagonists in earlier smaller conflicts it showed that there were sour relations between the two countries that didn't seem to exist with either the British or the French. I have read that German did have an invasion plan filed away that went back to 1900 where the Imperial German military would invade the USA through Long Island. To what extent this was taken seriously by the Germans is a good question, since many nations keep filed away invasion plans all the time, but never seriously follow through on them. Overall, the sabotage bombings, the Lusitania, and meddling of Germany in Mexico certainly complied the matter, making it clear whose side we were going to be on.
Thank goodness someone in the USA supported the Workers. An old KGB was asked if it was difficult to recruit US citizens as spies? He said, "No, they always took the money. Europe was different but USers never refused!
@@ashcarrier6606 You made that figure up! Capitalism more like 2 world wars starvation and endless wars in Asia and Africa. Thousands homeless unemployed and dying of Corona. Face reality man!
@@mikefay5698 That figure is from "The Black Book", which was published in France some years ago. The contributing writers estimated the deaths in China, the Soviet Union, southeast Asia, central and south America, etc. to be from 80 to 100 million. Then you add in other stuff, like the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, which was sparked in large part due to Soviet lies about troop deployments.
I’m interested in WWI because my grandpa was in it. He lied about his age to get into the army and chased Pancho Villa unset general Black Jack and then ended up in France.
Hi, my grandfather fought in ww1, British medal of Honor, French cross de guerre, us distinguished silver service medal, came home and had a peaceful life, died in his sleep at 80. He loved me.
I think it was all if the above that caused us to enter. The money we loaned and the money we made from munitions had to effect policy. But all the other problems did too.
Hey guys on an unrelated note have you ever noticed almost all modern day weapons were discovered by germans? Or the reason why there are modern weapons?
UK and France were low on credit, Germany appeared to have the upper hand in Europe, with American banks making huge loans to Britain and France : SIMPLE : If Germany won then UK and France would default [as they would no longer exist as sovereign states]. Germany didn’t owe much money to American banks, so it was simple, Wall St. told Wilson he had tip the balance so UK and France win so they can get their money back / collect on any collateral. US army did next to no action, just needed to be there in reserve, Germany didn’t lose, they gave up because they predicted the stalemate at the front would ultimately change and they would eventually lose because the US could supply indefinitely and the German/Ottoman supply train was ultimately finite.
Britain and France would have still been sovereign states. What makes you say otherwise? Germany had beaten France not many years before and they still were a sovereign state afterwards. You perspective is all part of the propaganda that the war was fought to make the world safe for democracy. What the Allies did to Germany would not have happened if to France and Britain if Germany won.
Are you stupid? Germany never wanted to annex france or britain. It only would have taken their colonies, maybe small bit of france and made ireland independent and maybe some other minor stuff.
I find it likely that France would have undergone another communist revolution if they had lost. Britain would be knocked down a peg but would still have existed in their same government.
+Cynical Historian When you do history it is not your job to tell the viewer who are the good guys and who are the bad. I don't care if you're talking about Woodrow Wilson or Adolf Hitler. Your job is to give the facts and let the viewers come to their own conclusions. If you do want to give your opinion it should be clear and a separate part of the narrative and not weaved within it. Also I'm not sure why you even mentioned the Philippines. What was going on there began long before Wilson came along. Also we stayed in Haiti for a lot more complicated reasons than Germany. Many of them racial and paternalistic, Wilson has come in for criticism for his somewhat imperialistic attitude but you have to understand (as you touched on) Europeans were beginning to make inroads into the Americas and right or not (I think it was wrong) the Monroe Doctrine had been US policy long before Wilson. As for my opinion on the reason why we entered the war I don't think it was any grand conspiracy but was due to a variety of factors. There was the Lusitania, the Zimmerman telegram, European encroachment into the Americas and the continuing submarine war that was effecting US commerce and the growing anti German feeling as a result. Except for the last one I don't think any of the rest of those reasons were enough by themselves to push the isolationist US into war. And the last one, submarine warfare, would have only convinced us to go to war if it had had an effect on our commerce much worse than what was happening at the time. But all of them together was enough to push not just the president but most importantly congress to declare war. But then like I say that last bit is just my opinion
I almost forgot one other little thing. A good argument can be made for the idea that the large and powerful federal government we know today got started under Lincoln not Wilson.
I respect and admire your work. However, I disagree with some of your positions on American forgien policy over the last 100 years. But, still a subscriber.
Writing these facts down before watching the vid America wanted no part of ww2 because they were scared they would lose to Nazi Germany. In addition theyy had suffered greatly during the depression and ww1 was not far from everyone's minds. However Pearl Harbour happened and America was forced to stand up for democracy.
I won't disagree with the mentioned factor, but remember: it should take more than one reason to start and/or be involved in a war (i.e. the American Revolution & the American Civil War).
You're also leaving out the fact that Germany was winning the war at the time? Why the heck would Germany risk winning a war by starting one with a country they could negotiate with now that Russia was out?
I do belive that the War in Europe wasnt that popular and Willson used to to get more power. And while the Zimmermann telegram was real as both German and British sorces says it was over hyped by the goverment and media. I mean it woulnt be the last time a small thing is over hyped as shit by the media.
So you ignored geopolitical realism in favor of building up to calamity? The United States can not accept one country holding the technical and financial institutions of central Europe and the human and resources capital of eastern Europe in one country. This theory has the advantage of explaining both World Wars and the Cold War. It also explains the War with Japan because the same can be said of one country holding the technical and financial institutions of Japan, the human capital of China, and the resources of south east Asia. In all cases the United States waited until hegemony was not just possible but probable and then joined the losing side.
1. Federal Reserve 2. Virulent racist, no help to black community 3. "Banana Republic" wars in Central America (protecting US business interests)....... there's more but my fingers are tired, somebody help here..
Hello: interesting video I just finished reading (Against our better judgment) by (Allison Weir) If this book is accurate then you need to do another video. As a veteran of 8 years service, I based by decision to serve my country on a false narrative . You know the USA only gets involved to service promote ( freedom , justice , democracy)
Dig into W. Wilson's ties to Jacob Schiff (the most influential man you've never heard of,) and you can go so far down this rabbit hole you'll lose the sun.
Russia: “Oh fuck! Guys! I’ve caught a bad case of Marxist communism! America, tag in!” America: “Oh shit! I hope that communism doesn’t come back to bite us one day...”
well, I do not know as to whether it was all a grand conspiracy or not, but what I do know, is that I have a new found contempt for Woodrow Wilson.....so there is that (especially since there is a possibility that his actions may have resulted in he precursor to today's conspiracy theory boom).
That it could've easily been avoid. The U.S could've stopped the outbreak of the War by letting the British and French know that if they went to War over Poland, they wouldn't get a can of beans from the United States much less loans, financial assistance and arms...ect. Had the Western Powers not gone to War against Germany in 1939, Hitler would've simply got a year's head start on invading the Soviet Union and the two powers would've destroyed each other in Eastern Europe and the Allies could've simply swooped in and picked up the pieces in the mid to late 1940s without having to fire a shot.
@@juicebox9465 That was the only portion of either World Wars we should have fought. I do think FDR baited Japan into attacking us but they were dumb enough to do it.
@@shanejones6955 Maybe so, but Hitler was always gunning for the Western European nations, and appeasement or even leaving things alone straight up didn't work. Moreover, who knows what might have happened if the allies hadn't declared war on Hitler in 1939? He got super lucky in our timeline and managed to quickly defeat France, so what if he got lucky against the Soviets in 1939 and then swung around West? Really, the Western European powers were definitely justified in declaring war on Germany, and I will defend US involvement in WW2 absolutely.
@@shanejones6955 Oil embargoes for aiding Nazi Germany is quite reasonable, I think. That's not 'baiting' Japan to launch invasions of SE Asia and an attack on the US Pacific Fleet.
A secondary consideration for the assassination of the Archduke. He was a reformer. There was an active movement in the Austrian-Hungarian government to come up with a political solution for the territories of the AH empire that were outside Austria and Hungary proper. The solution envisioned, was to expand the dual monarchy to a Tri-Monarchy. The idea was to seat a Slavic king and parliament to represent Slavic interests within the empire. When the Austrian Empire lost Hungary, the solution was the dual monarchy. The idea of a tri-monrachy seemed plausible enough that it terrified Serbian nationalists. If Slavic members of the AH empire felt represented, they might become a lot less restless. I'm not suggesting it would have worked. However the Archduke wasn't the first target of opportunity, he was targeted as a symbol.
That seems to be a major component to it. A slavic king might have stabilized the Balkans, AH reformers hoped it would and Serb nationalists feared it would. Would make some interesting Alt history.
3:20 Otto Von Bismarck called the Balkans the powder keg of Europe, and also he said "One day the great European War will come out of some damn foolishness in the Balkans", this however was a self fulfilling prophesy as he had agreed to Austro-Hungarian seizing of Bosnia-Herzogovia. This and other actions lead Russia to leave the "Drei Kaiser Bund" (Alliance of Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia) as they came to see the alliance more favoured to Germany and Austria-Hungary. The Russians later entered into an alliance with France, which held a grudge against Germany for the Franco-Prussian war.
No, Russia attempted to renew the treaty with the Germans and dumbass Willy DECLINED thinking it unnecessary, then isolated Russia obviously turned to the French...
The non-renewal of the Reinsurance Treaty (the successor to the Dreikaiserbund) was only the last straw as Russia had become increasingly more dissatisfied and isolated in regards to relationship with Germany and Austria-Hungary. The split was a while in creating.
True, but the Russians did intend to renew it in spite of it all, it was Willy's fumbling that doomed the whole thing. Aint monarchy great? "The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia." - Otto von Bismarck If only Bismarck had been alive to help him, oh, wait...
Wise and cunning Otto Von Bismark made a mistake in the Balkans, which would develop into something fatal. Kaiser Wilhelm II was really just an willing and unwitting puppet. I just think what Von Bismark said about the Balkans is probably one of history's greatest self fulfilling prophesies; like a smoker who says one of these days these cigarettes will kill me, and goes on to die of lung cancer.
Well, actually the famous Bismarck quote is misunderstood, what he ACTUALLY said was that the "whole orient wasnt worth the life of a German soldier" and that was in the context of the 1876 Russo-Ottoman war and the straits. Remember also that Willy FIRED Bismarck and then did whatever he fucking wanted, like letting the Russian alliance lapse. See McMeekin, "The Russian Origins of WW1" If Germany had kept the Russians as allies, there would have been no war... or a very short one.
I just finished watching The Great War Channel's episode on US joining WW1. Interesting to see two historian's different take on the subject. If you haven't seen their videos, I would highly recommend the bite sized breakdown of WW1 from before day one to when they finish the series in 1918. Keep up the great work, really enjoy your videos.
the history channel twists things pretty bad, ask yourself who pays for those videos ?? look up who owns 90 % of the media. its all the same club. they control much thru information tampering.
Crack me up.... it was just a matter of money... Britain and France ran a billion each up on their war tabs and if they had lost uncle sam couldn't collect.
Germany was under blockade with Wilson's consent, by allowing US banks to lend money to the belligerents Wilson was allowing them to finance the Entente exclusively, thereby creating the situation in which if the Entente lost they would drag the US banks and economy down with them. And that is exactly what Bryan warned Wilson about when he did it in 1915. The money situation didnt just happen, was deliberately created by Wilson.
I agree with you Wilson also he did made the federal reserve, and the income tax, thanks Wilson for the future problems we have today :( , by the way great video as always master historian. :) 👍
Wilson did not make the Fed, he helped put it into law. Before 1913 we were strongly against central banking. The Rothschild's started this in England in order to put the country into long standing debt. They also famously funded both sides of most wars. In America we did not want central banking and for several years we were at war with central banking, Andrew Jackson hated it, and anyone that was pro central banking. He even killed a Rothschild spy. In 1910, 6 of the most wealthiest people in the world met and wrote the Federal Reserve Act, One of these people being JP Morgan, and a member of the Rothschild, as well as Rockefeller family, one of the members was actually the secretary of treasurer of the U.S at the time. After sometime in 1913 they convinced Wilson to implement it to congress, It was signed into law on Christmas Eve night while most of the people who would have opposed it were at home for Christmas, not knowing about it. What the 6 men didnt know was that Wilson also gave the rich bankers and Elite total power over all of the money in the U.S. which was a good surprise for them. A year or two later, the IRS was created by Rothschild, later an amendment would be ratified to make the IRS legal to take our "working income" . Here is a passage from a history quotes site.. The traitorous Woodrow Wilson "Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote: “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” -Woodrow Wilson"
This is what happens when you elect a idealistic school teacher as President. He also got conned into closing his eyes to the injustice of the Treaty of Versailles as a trade off for his pet project the League of Nations. That sure worked out well. What a fool. He was either a fool or a closet Globalist.
I have read things, including a slim volume entitled "American Imperialism," but didn't have all of the information that you have presented, and certainly didn't connect all the dots. "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" can be true, but is often a fallacy. There are a number of reasons for seriously disliking Wilson, you have suggested some that I hadn't thought of. Keep up the good work.
