America and the World War, 1914-1917 - Michael Neiberg

American entry into the Great War resulted from lengthy debate and soul-searching about national identity and the nation’s role on the world stage. This talk will track American responses to the outbreak of the war in 1914, the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915, and the debates about military preparedness in 1916. American views shifted as global events increasingly threatened national security. By April 1917 most Americans, including most of those who had opposed the war in 1914, had come to see belligerence as America’s only remaining option. Rather than seeing American entry into the war as an exceptional event, we need to understand it as fundamental to American history and America’s relationship to the world in the century since.
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

[@randomperson32ftw]

I can listen to this guy talk about anything

[@punkrawker06]

The best part of this is that 4 years earlier, an audience member asked him basically “What was the the U.S. response to the outbreak of (and first years of) WWI?” And he said essentially “it’s complicated, and somebody should really look closely at what the American public thought.”
And here it is!

[@Paeoniarosa]

Always appreciate Dr. Neiberg's talks.

[@johnkelley5003]

This is an excellent lecture and summary of the American movement towards joining World War I. I learned a lot from listening. I think the most fascinating part is realizing how and why the popular opinion of the ordinary citizens was actually ahead of the official government position. This lecture also reinforces another good point that some revisionist historians have attempted to muddy in recent years, the guilt of Germany in not just contributing to the start of the conflict but also in promoting war aims that represented an existential threat to other nations including the United States. Many have in contrast viewed the Second World War as a very black-and-white, good-vs.-evil conflict and thus a justified war, but then correspondingly view its predecessor of 1914-1918 as an entirely grey and unredeeming battle that served no purpose. While I don't believe the lecturer's goal was in this event to argue in that subject arena, I believe the points he makes do contribute to such a discussion.

[@scottn7cy]

Interesting lecture by a talented historian. I really enjoyed it. note: The introductions go on way too long. Skip to 7:00 for the start of the lecture.

[@dennisfarris4729]

This dope read the headline as a musical, now can't shake the image..

[@DavidErdody]

Go Blue!

[@karlslicher8520]

"academic dispute"?

[@nimium1955]

58:49 regime change beta ??

[@Cotswolds1913]

The Zimmerman telegram is only applicable if the U.S. declared war on Germany, in which case they are absolutely right for seeking possible counters. The German Navy is outnumbered 2 to 1 to the Brits alone, and the U.S. Navy is no slouch in 1914 either, so its safe to say America was not growing less safe by staying out of the war, on the contrary it was on the cusp of replacing Britain as the world's financial leader precisely because it was staying out of the most expensive war in history (to date). An Allied defeat in France would also have absolutely nothing to do with the British Empire's territorial holdings, and no peace between them (unless the Royal Navy is defeated, and it wasn't going to be) would result in any British colonial losses. Consequently most of this video is a complete fantasy. What the speaker has done a good job of however, is documenting all the various war propaganda that was used to drum up support for an intervention in Europe that would pave the way for American progressivism to be adopted worldwide.

[@CJ87317]

It's not complete fantasy at all. The sabotage and espionage rings in the US already got the country's attention. Dickering around in Mexico as well as sinking our sea going vessels seemed to indicate there was nothing that Germany would not do.

[@GuildNavigator84]

I agree. This talk, while interesting, is ironic, since the presenter seems to believe the reasons for Americans entering the war in 1917, when to my ears they seem ridiculous.
The real reason we went to war is the same reason we've been interfering in Europe since 1917: no power can be permitted to control all of Europe and the Germans were trying to do so. Such a united Europe would be the only power that could conceivably challenge America's safety and control of the western hemisphere. This is the real "Wilsonian ideal".

[@jozette-pierce]

@@GuildNavigator84 I thought it had something to do with the Treaty of Balfour, and the Rothschilds' ability to lure the US into WW1, so they could get Israel from Britain.

[@theskycavedin9592]

LOL you people are seriously delusional. Germany was sinking American ships. Germany had saboteurs actually destroying buildings in America. Any reasonable country on the planet would react the same way to the Zimmerman telegram. Sorry, it was 100% justified. You're just a toady for authoritarian, militaristic dictatorships. You hate the West so much that you would deny it the right to defend itself against what is objectively unprovoked aggression. You're the kind of person who makes excuses for Putin, wouldn't be surprised if you support his Ukraine invasion. Leave the real history to the normal people and experts so sickos like you can go back into the black rotten hole you crawled out of.

[@Souledex]

It doesn't matter if it's real. It matters if people thought it was real.