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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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!
U.S. Was a "neutral" profiteer until the outcome seemed forgone then they threw in with the imminent victors. Interesting side note if it wasn't for Edison muscling Hiram Maxim out of the Electric industry he never would have moved to England and would never have turned his engineering chops towards machine Gun development.
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.
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.
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.
Mexican here: In Veracruz, especially in Tampico, the People are proud to have resisted all they could to the Americans who invaded the State while the Constitutionalist Army did nothing. In the same way in the Punitive Expedition, Mexico defeated Pershing's Forces in the Battle of Carrizal. On the other hand, the Zimmermman Telegram always seemed to me the most Stupid thing that Germany could have done, and I believe to what extent it was Desperate at that moment: Mexico, apart from being in Civil War, could hardly satisfy its Needs for Weapons and Ammunition thanks to the Factories Built in the Porfiriato, but we literally depended on the United States and Great Britain for the most part (In fact, Germany gave a lot of help to Pancho Villa, but almost all in the form of Money to buy Arms precisely from the Americans. ), As a Blocked country that could not even decently support the Easter Revolt in Ireland that I encourage was going to Encourage us to enter a war?
Thing is; we never know how exactly something like this would have gone but you can actually argue that Germany was trying to use Mexico as a distraction. If it heightened tensions enough to cause even small scale violence, knowing Wilson’s record, this could have escalated quickly and tied down US industry supporting the Entente. It may also have hoped that Mexico could actually put up a resistance that bled the US forces out via irregular warfare, using the vast territory for a style of warfare that where perhaps the best comparable to German tactics in Africa.
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??
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.
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!
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!
Hi, Cynical, Mexican viewer here. A lot of people don't remember this war (maybe because it isn't well taught in history lessons, but I'm kinda guessing), but some of us do and yes, we are resentful. A few years ago I traveled to Panama and learnt about the really bloody U.S. Intervention and realized it's always the same happening again and again, but today just in another latitude. SAD!
Glad to be Sub#9398. First video of yours and I am very impressed. So much solid, factual, referenced information to digest that It took me an hr to complete the video. I paused to fully understand the graphics and notations and so much information I wasn't aware of that interested me I often digressed to look deeper! Looks like I'll be bingeing on The Cynical Historian the rest of my Sunday. P.S. I really appreciate your clear methodology. History may be a "soft" science but done properly History contains all the values of the rational scientific model.
I have a question, how come there's no nuance or proper context/background on these courses taught in High School or even college? Is there a way to properly teach history to even college students?
+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.
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?
As an Australian who from a population of fewer than five million, 416,809 men enlisted, of which over 60,000 were killed and 156,000 wounded, gassed, or taken prisoner in WW1 all for King and country my guess would be some mix of all of the above.
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?
Read "War is a Racket". See that most of the wars and interventions are really about corporate profits at the expense of the citizens of the countries we invade. I did not say ALL of our wars - but most.
Some US-American presidents ( FDR ) are pretty good internationally. And others (W.W.) just suck. Thing is, all nations have better and worse governments but with great power… You get the point.
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 feel the need to point out which is not stated in this video as it is very clearly anti-war in general, the fact that if wilson hadn't become president but instead a more competent politician or simply a more intelligent human being, the USA almost certainly would have joined ww1 far earlier, simply out of fear of losing their at that point few potential allies in Europe instead of ending up as the only democratic major power. (This fear was overstated as Germany only even had a chance of winning ww1 due to Russian incompetence in domestic policy and family name meaning more for your chance of rising in rank in the military rather than actual competence, added to the fact that two of their best generals were lost relatively early in the war together with their best army at tannenburg in part due to the two men despising eachother, but that aside)
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 really wish ww1 never happened. It really was a key stone to a whole lot of world history. However at the same time I am glad it happened. It forced the old faction of society to fall and enabled much more vertical movement of the lower classes around the world. However it would also due to the foolish actions of the peace treaty lead us head first into a war that would leave most of Europe in complete ruin. As well as exporting said violence around the globe.
I think there is no country in this world where the disparity between how democratic it seems vs. how democratic it is, is as big as in the United States of America.
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.
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.
Excellent video. However, personally, I think the collapse of the Russian front and the concern of the USA that the freed up German troops could then win on the Western Front was very significant. The GB government had borrowed heavily, mainly from the USA and the national debt had gone up from £650M to £7,4Bn and the USA could not afford to lose that money with a German victory. What are your thoughts on this?
Are you saying that German trade and influence was competing with US trade and influence and the US basically conspired to eliminate the competition? Was this done for similar economic/power reasons to Russia for decades? Is this now being down for the same reasons to China risking yet another world war?
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)
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.
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.
My family on both sides goes back to the founding of the Republic and provided service in all major wars save the 'Great War'. The intervention of the United States into the "Great War" found no support from either side, and in fact a pronounced anti British slant against the ruling class imperialism of Britain can be detected. They did question Wilson's goals and when in college were in what were called then, Progressive movements. One grandfather became a farmer for that time, another was a secretary to a president of a railroad which as most did in that period, became nationalized. They spoke of a longing for a "return to normalcy". Alas, both of them were stricken by Spanish Influenza which cost each life long health problems and deaths in their late fifties. (Their ancestors were noted for long lives into the eighties and nineties.) Something happened in that period that changed and shook the American perspective. There was great American sentiment to ally with Germany against Britain, our largest immigrant group was of German descent (well, of the different nations, principalities, fiefdoms, city states that existed in the German speaking region of Europe before Germany was forged by Bismarck.) A great many people were imprisoned because of the ancestry or their supposed political sympathies. My feeling is my grandparents avoided problems because they were of Welsh descent and American lineage and they did not actively oppose Wilson after it became dangerous to do so. Of note, was their attendance every Armistice day at services at the local cemeteries. Wilson was not an admired person in the household I grew up in.
Conspiracy theories around governments and business leaders causing WWI were also common in Europe in the interwar period. There was this conviction that common people couldn't have wanted this, that wars were started by evil people in high places, and a huge pacifist movement swept Europe.
Though the Archduke's limo driver may be responsible for some of the blame of the success of the assassination. He turned into a dead end alley and had to back out to turn around, incidentally directly next to a certain Serbian nationalist of historic renown.
1/ The RMS Lusitania was sunk by the U boat Captain who did not know that it was carrying Arms ( was a secret) so it would have made no difference (according to him ). it was unrestricted submarine warfare. Also it did not cause the entry into the War.
@Mactrip100 No the German commander said he sank the ship and knew nothing of what it was carrying. The German government decided to stop unrestrained uboat warfare after the outcry and reinstated it later. So you may claim what you like, the USA did not enter the War because of its sinking. On 22 December 1916, Admiral von Holtzendorff composed a memorandum which became the pivotal document for Germany's resumption of unrestricted U-boat warfare in 1917.On 7 May 1915, the liner RMS Lusitania was torpedoed by U-20, Try as you might you can not make U.S. Entry into World War I, 1917. On April 2, 1917, fit 1915.
@Mactrip100 Copy from the U20 captian's diary or was he ieing? Schwieger stated that he caught sight of the Lusitania in the distance, while his submarine was surfaced; he quickly submerged his vessel, moved into an attack position, and at 3:10 p.m., ordered the launch of the torpedo from a distance of 700 meters. The diary chronicles the chaos and panic he observed while the ship’s crew and passengers tried to put the lifeboats in the water as the ship listed sharply starboard. The ship sank after eighteen minutes; only six of the forty-eight lifeboats had made it safely into the water.
Im not sure any good sentence has ever begun "And then there was Haiti." I mean, it must've happened at least once, but I can't be sure, and that feels like a problem.
As always, very informative. Just one small mistake. The US declared war on Germany months after the new wave of unrestricted submarine warfare had begun. By this time, many American ships had been sunk. The Germans fully expected that as a result of this, the US would eventually join the war. However, they had calculated that Britain would be knocked out of the war, sooner than the US could have any meaningful effect. Their calculation, was of course wrong.
Well their calculation wasn't entirely wrong. The Germans were able to launch their big Spring Offensives of 1918 before the US could play a substantial role. It is just that Spring Offensives started off strong and petered out and ultimately didn't end the war. The Germans failed on the battlefield, not in the calculation of when the US would become effective. It should also be noted that Germany was starving and couldn't have continued the war in any event. So the gamble to go all in in early 1918 was probably the most prudent thing to do.
more information in this 18 minutes than in the entire 6 hr pbs 'the great war' series.. certainly as far as the US reasons for entering the war are concerned. You'd think they could have squeezed some of this in there somwhere.
The US joined the tail end of WW1 in fear of Bolshevik Russia and fear Germany might win and they would'nt get their armament money back from Britain and France. Nice folks Capies!
That's a hilariously anachronistic comment. The October Revolution was still months away. Heck the February Revolution happened only a couple weeks prior to the US declaration of war
@@CynicalHistorian Your of course right but the February Revolution, kept Russia fighting badly. That was Kerensky's Bourgeois Revolution ending Feudalism. Lenin and Trotsky came to town and Chased Kerensky out of the Winter palace in a Limousine loaned by the US Embassy so the US were well aware of Kerensky's weakness. He had been guarded by "The Women's Battalion of Death" and some Cadets. A handfull of casualtys. They got into the Tsar's vast wine Cellar until Trotsky stopped them by smashing all the drink! The British, Canadians,all the Imperial lands sent troops the US too. The Japanese invaded from the far East, Whit's of course. Commisar for War appointed by Lenin beat them all. Up the Reds!! That was the October Workers Revolution, lasted 70 years the 1871 Workers Revolution in Paris and other Cities lastes 7 weeks. So Russia was the second Workers Revolution, China the second, USSA may join them soon to liberate all the Workers! Make a good anti propaganda tale for you! History is mainly lies that everyone agrees upon, Cynical Napoleon opined!
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.
My guess is that there were several reasons that the US became involved in WWI, and a mildly effective conspiracy or three may have played a minor role. Partly this is because I tend to assume that solid evidence of an effective conspiracy would have been uncovered by now (some documents would have been uncovered somewhere), but I do find it plausible that a few conversations may have occurred about how to best take advantage of events. The effects of those conversations may have been consequential, but probably only because of events beyond their control. And even if those conversations were contingently consequential there does not seem to be a reason to assume that things would have been vastly different if those conversations did not happen. Most conspiracies are primarily, and often only, important to the participants.
In my life, the idea that if there is a "greatest president", there also must be a "worst president" has always been true as I saw things. Though it seems easy to say, Obama, for instance was the worst president of my lifetime, but in terms of history over time Wilson emerges as the very worst president of the entirety of this nations history. I now understand why Obama thought so highly of Wilson. Wilson simply hated an America he couldn't rule.
How was Obama the worst? I am genuinely curious. G.W. Bush for instance, intervened in Iraq & created Afghanistan internationally but ALSO left Obama the 2007 financial crisis… Obama was involved in Lybia & Syria but internally, his record is hardly as bad as that of the previous administration, right?
The uncle of a friend of mine was in Haiti. Wrote a book about being the more or less king of that big island in the bay. Wirkus was his name. I'll contact her for the details. Well done, by the way. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faustin_E._Wirkus After the Mayaguez, I looked into the history of US interventions and I'm sure you know it goes back forever. Got my info from the library at the AF Academy. I was stunned at the list. Went way back in China, the Pacific in general, etc. Not counting Jackson filibustering Florida. Anyway, I'm a fan. Keep it up.
I think it’s a little bit of both America got rich 🤑 lending money to countries at war and figured if we get involved we get a bigger role at the table and get more money in “reparations” even tho Americans did little to affect the outcome of the war itself 🤦🏽♂️
So you saying that Great Britain been tea spooning us to convince us to join WWI or am I just saying it wrong, either way I am confuse why our school never teaches us this?
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.
The war racket is also known as geoeconomics, or war by other means. As Smedley Butler wrote, "In Central America, I was as Al Capone to Chicago." It's was always all about the money, and one big player during WWI was, hold for it..... Goldman Sachs. US entry in the war when the Allies looked like they were going down was to protect American Banking. If Germany had won the war, French, British and American banking would all have been trashed on the bottom line. In a real sense, WWI was a bailout of the American banking system, and not the first one by any means. A tradition we are keeping alive today for sure. As a kid I got to visit Smedley's home while it was still kept as it had been while he was alive. The central atrium with its gorgeous collection of huge Chinese banners hanging from the ceiling was quite impressive.
![[TWiTCH VOD] DiSCO ELYSiUM (9) - FiGHTiNG FOR OUR LiFE!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EMpFjz2MiC0/mqdefault.jpg)
Russia: “Guys, guys... I have a plan”
*teamkills and leaves the game*
This made me fucking cackle. Thank you
Minifridge ded
I think it should've been
"comrads, comrads… I have plan"
I might quote this in a research paper. . .
lol.
Understanding U.S history really makes our current foreign policies much clearer.
drmodestoesq yeah Iran is barely a democracy 😂
@@Walker-ow7vj USA ruined Iran
@@RemixedVoice Iran ruined Iran
@@RemixedVoice Iran ruined Irán, the U.S only wanted a way to profit from Iran and containing communism.
Think locally
F*ck globally
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.
@Mateo Hodge
Step 1: Germany declares unrestricted submarine warfare.
Step 2: Put loads of weapons on a ship.
Step 3: Naturally, Germany sinks the ship.
Step 4: Feign outrage over Germany attacking civilians.
Saying "Germany shouldn't attack the ship" is pretty ignorant.
My grandma was born on armistice day and she never believed that narrative.... And that was pre pre internet
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.
“Did the US enter WW1 because of a conspiracy? The actions of a bumbling president? Or gradual tensions with Germany?”.....
...yes.
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.
Erich Zorn in fact they gained some territory. The only nation to lose something were the Ottomans
@@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.
War is a Racket is one of the most fascinating books ever. I wonder what Smedley Butler would have thought of WW2 in hindsight.
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.
@@shanejones6955 What about Japan?
@@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.
so the Serbs didn't want my (Slavic) kinsmen to be represented?
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.
Nah. The black hand weren't exactly political science professors. The whole organisation was made of fairly crude individuals.
Surprise twist jgelt: it was BOTH a symbol AND the first target of opportunity.
@@ekimaulthar2044
Well, they didn't want your people represented by people other than themselves.
Waiting for the chill-dub-trap-tropic-Reggae remix of that anti war song
LOL, I actually tried to find some Electro-Swing remix of the last song (about murdering the Bugler), but didn't find any
The Cynical Historian that last song cracked me up. So weird
The Exploration hey its political junkie 🙄😏
Digital Mystikz- Anti-War Dub
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.
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.
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!
Germany too in both wars. Arsenal of Democracy!
@@mikefay5698 Untrue. Until you source your claim, it's worthless. Maybe WW1, but definitely not WW2.
@@BlindingGlow A lot of cars the germans used were american.
@@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
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.
Me as German:
*VERDAMMT SEIST DU WIIIIIIILLLLLSSSOOOOOONNNNNNN !!!!!!!!!*
Godverdomme kut Wilson!!!
(Lerne gerade Niederländisch)
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.
@@organicdudranch Not the history channel you dumb*ss nazi, "The Great War" channel.
@@BlindingGlow same
I despise Wilson.
he despises u more
I despise and hate Capitalism, creepy Joe or Trumpy Pumpy? Killer Clinton waiting in the shadows!
I despise Wilson too.
"Wilson, as despicable as he was..." I've been watching your other videos and I am beginning to have the impression you don't like Woodrow Wilson....
This channel single handedly turned me from "Woodroof who?" to "Wiiiiiilllssooooon!!!!"
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!
U.S. Was a "neutral" profiteer until the outcome seemed forgone then they threw in with the imminent victors. Interesting side note if it wasn't for Edison muscling Hiram Maxim out of the Electric industry he never would have moved to England and would never have turned his engineering chops towards machine Gun development.
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.
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.
As soon as he said he has a strong dislike for Woodrow Wilson I hit the 'thumbs up'.
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. :) 👍
Ho man, the Fed. Now that is divisive. But personally, I'm with you on it ;->
They had an income tax before the war
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.
If you think Wilson was an idealist you are an idiot.
Mexican here: In Veracruz, especially in Tampico, the People are proud to have resisted all they could to the Americans who invaded the State while the Constitutionalist Army did nothing. In the same way in the Punitive Expedition, Mexico defeated Pershing's Forces in the Battle of Carrizal.
On the other hand, the Zimmermman Telegram always seemed to me the most Stupid thing that Germany could have done, and I believe to what extent it was Desperate at that moment: Mexico, apart from being in Civil War, could hardly satisfy its Needs for Weapons and Ammunition thanks to the Factories Built in the Porfiriato, but we literally depended on the United States and Great Britain for the most part (In fact, Germany gave a lot of help to Pancho Villa, but almost all in the form of Money to buy Arms precisely from the Americans. ), As a Blocked country that could not even decently support the Easter Revolt in Ireland that I encourage was going to Encourage us to enter a war?
Thing is; we never know how exactly something like this would have gone but you can actually argue that Germany was trying to use Mexico as a distraction.
If it heightened tensions enough to cause even small scale violence, knowing Wilson’s record, this could have escalated quickly and tied down US industry supporting the Entente.
It may also have hoped that Mexico could actually put up a resistance that bled the US forces out via irregular warfare, using the vast territory for a style of warfare that where perhaps the best comparable to German tactics in Africa.
War is a racket is an under read book. Thank you for plugin it. I hope more people read it.
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??
I get the Zimmerman note and while the Loustitaina was tragic it was justified in the sense that British cruise lines had weapons on them
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.
The assassination of...who?!?!
Oh shit
the british also cut the transatlantic cable keeping us from hearing the german side of story.
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!
No spliced into the cable! Spy's don't cut!
The German side being - we want the French colonial possessions!
1 thing you need to remember is Wilson had a stroke and his wife ran the country for Wilson last 2 years
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.
jake jones becuase we didn’t want be a part of something so useless.
@jake jones that's congress for you
@@xeagaort were a part of u.n and we all know how useless they are
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!
Hi, Cynical, Mexican viewer here. A lot of people don't remember this war (maybe because it isn't well taught in history lessons, but I'm kinda guessing), but some of us do and yes, we are resentful. A few years ago I traveled to Panama and learnt about the really bloody U.S. Intervention and realized it's always the same happening again and again, but today just in another latitude. SAD!
Imagine a 1920 version of Alex Jones talking on the radio on how the U.S. planned WWI
XD
Your channel logo looks like you're anti 'Fire of Learning'
Lmao
Glad to be Sub#9398. First video of yours and I am very impressed. So much solid, factual, referenced information to digest that It took me an hr to complete the video. I paused to fully understand the graphics and notations and so much information I wasn't aware of that interested me I often digressed to look deeper!
Looks like I'll be bingeing on The Cynical Historian the rest of my Sunday.
P.S. I really appreciate your clear methodology. History may be a "soft" science but done properly History contains all the values of the rational scientific model.
I have a question, how come there's no nuance or proper context/background on these courses taught in High School or even college? Is there a way to properly teach history to even college students?
+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.
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?
As an Australian who from a population of fewer than five million, 416,809 men enlisted, of which over 60,000 were killed and 156,000 wounded, gassed, or taken prisoner in WW1 all for King and country my guess would be some mix of all of the above.
Wilson and his business mates should have been strung up.What they did haunts the world a hundred years later.
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?
If you were to say that WW1 started with The Bulkan wars of 1912- then WW2 started in 1933 when Japan invaded Manchuria.
*1931, I think.
@@______608 I stand corrected
Read "War is a Racket". See that most of the wars and interventions are really about corporate profits at the expense of the citizens of the countries we invade. I did not say ALL of our wars - but most.
It sounds like Germany was desperate and was throwing out hail marys
Some US-American presidents ( FDR ) are pretty good internationally.
And others (W.W.) just suck.
Thing is, all nations have better and worse governments but with great power…
You get the point.
The Lusitania was also carrying my great grandfather. Which is what sparked my passion for history.
Fun fact after the sinking of the Lusitania American Cartoonist Winsor Mccay created the Sinking of the Lusitania the first Propaganda Cartoon.
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 feel the need to point out which is not stated in this video as it is very clearly anti-war in general, the fact that if wilson hadn't become president but instead a more competent politician or simply a more intelligent human being, the USA almost certainly would have joined ww1 far earlier, simply out of fear of losing their at that point few potential allies in Europe instead of ending up as the only democratic major power. (This fear was overstated as Germany only even had a chance of winning ww1 due to Russian incompetence in domestic policy and family name meaning more for your chance of rising in rank in the military rather than actual competence, added to the fact that two of their best generals were lost relatively early in the war together with their best army at tannenburg in part due to the two men despising eachother, but that aside)
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 really wish ww1 never happened. It really was a key stone to a whole lot of world history. However at the same time I am glad it happened. It forced the old faction of society to fall and enabled much more vertical movement of the lower classes around the world. However it would also due to the foolish actions of the peace treaty lead us head first into a war that would leave most of Europe in complete ruin. As well as exporting said violence around the globe.
10:22 That caricature is from Spain in 1898
I think there is no country in this world where the disparity between how democratic it seems vs. how democratic it is, is as big as in the United States of America.
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.
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.
Anyone getting this 3 year old video in their recommendation now
9:55 Not resentfull, but my father is from Tampico. His grandpa told him stories of those gringos who tried to invade his beloved city.
Excellent video. However, personally, I think the collapse of the Russian front and the concern of the USA that the freed up German troops could then win on the Western Front was very significant. The GB government had borrowed heavily, mainly from the USA and the national debt had gone up from £650M to £7,4Bn and the USA could not afford to lose that money with a German victory. What are your thoughts on this?
Are you saying that German trade and influence was competing with US trade and influence and the US basically conspired to eliminate the competition? Was this done for similar economic/power reasons to Russia for decades? Is this now being down for the same reasons to China risking yet another world war?
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)
Wrong. The U.S. joined WW1 to study for the big test 20 years later. Duh.
Because war is profitable for some people. Nothing has changed since.
Amazing musical research!
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.
I wrote this before seeing you had. Sorry. I like Butler.
Do I get a bonus point if I say WILLLSSSSOOOOON is a pr*ck??
For stupid reasons
will you do one on the bonus army? and the VA to day?
If it's crime or history, if you ask 'cui bono' you often get a decent answer.
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.
My family on both sides goes back to the founding of the Republic and provided service in all major wars save the 'Great War'. The intervention of the United States into the "Great War" found no support from either side, and in fact a pronounced anti British slant against the ruling class imperialism of Britain can be detected. They did question Wilson's goals and when in college were in what were called then, Progressive movements. One grandfather became a farmer for that time, another was a secretary to a president of a railroad which as most did in that period, became nationalized. They spoke of a longing for a "return to normalcy". Alas, both of them were stricken by Spanish Influenza which cost each life long health problems and deaths in their late fifties. (Their ancestors were noted for long lives into the eighties and nineties.)
Something happened in that period that changed and shook the American perspective. There was great American sentiment to ally with Germany against Britain, our largest immigrant group was of German descent (well, of the different nations, principalities, fiefdoms, city states that existed in the German speaking region of Europe before Germany was forged by Bismarck.) A great many people were imprisoned because of the ancestry or their supposed political sympathies. My feeling is my grandparents avoided problems because they were of Welsh descent and American lineage and they did not actively oppose Wilson after it became dangerous to do so. Of note, was their attendance every Armistice day at services at the local cemeteries.
Wilson was not an admired person in the household I grew up in.
Conspiracy theories around governments and business leaders causing WWI were also common in Europe in the interwar period. There was this conviction that common people couldn't have wanted this, that wars were started by evil people in high places, and a huge pacifist movement swept Europe.
Gradual tensions seems more likely. A conspiracy that large never would have been able to stay hidden.
Though the Archduke's limo driver may be responsible for some of the blame of the success of the assassination. He turned into a dead end alley and had to back out to turn around, incidentally directly next to a certain Serbian nationalist of historic renown.
1/ The RMS Lusitania was sunk by the U boat Captain who did not know that it was carrying Arms ( was a secret) so it would have made no difference (according to him ). it was unrestricted submarine warfare. Also it did not cause the entry into the War.
@Mactrip100 No the German commander said he sank the ship and knew nothing of what it was carrying. The German government decided to stop unrestrained uboat warfare after the outcry and reinstated it later. So you may claim what you like, the USA did not enter the War because of its sinking. On 22 December 1916, Admiral von Holtzendorff composed a memorandum which became the pivotal document for Germany's resumption of unrestricted U-boat warfare in 1917.On 7 May 1915, the liner RMS Lusitania was torpedoed by U-20, Try as you might you can not make U.S. Entry into World War I, 1917. On April 2, 1917, fit 1915.
@Mactrip100 Copy from the U20 captian's diary or was he ieing? Schwieger stated that he caught sight of the Lusitania in the distance, while his submarine was surfaced; he quickly submerged his vessel, moved into an attack position, and at 3:10 p.m., ordered the launch of the torpedo from a distance of 700 meters.
The diary chronicles the chaos and panic he observed while the ship’s crew and passengers tried to put the lifeboats in the water as the ship listed sharply starboard. The ship sank after eighteen minutes; only six of the forty-eight lifeboats had made it safely into the water.
Im not sure any good sentence has ever begun "And then there was Haiti." I mean, it must've happened at least once, but I can't be sure, and that feels like a problem.
British viewers having PTSD flashbacks because of the song from 12:40
Wow I knew the guy was bad, but now I know exactly why he's so terrible.
As always, very informative. Just one small mistake. The US declared war on Germany months after the new wave of unrestricted submarine warfare had begun. By this time, many American ships had been sunk. The Germans fully expected that as a result of this, the US would eventually join the war. However, they had calculated that Britain would be knocked out of the war, sooner than the US could have any meaningful effect. Their calculation, was of course wrong.
Well their calculation wasn't entirely wrong. The Germans were able to launch their big Spring Offensives of 1918 before the US could play a substantial role. It is just that Spring Offensives started off strong and petered out and ultimately didn't end the war. The Germans failed on the battlefield, not in the calculation of when the US would become effective.
It should also be noted that Germany was starving and couldn't have continued the war in any event. So the gamble to go all in in early 1918 was probably the most prudent thing to do.
You don't like Wilson? You mean the guy who was all for self-determination. Until he found out it would apply to places aside from Poland.
more information in this 18 minutes than in the entire 6 hr pbs 'the great war' series.. certainly as far as the US reasons for entering the war are concerned. You'd think they could have squeezed some of this in there somwhere.
My showing of this today was interrupted by a recruiting ad.
Actually, unrestricted sub war was started about a month before the US entered the war.
I think the small skirmishes lead us to the entry and Wilson knew it would do so.
The US joined the tail end of WW1 in fear of Bolshevik Russia and fear Germany might win and they would'nt get their armament money back from Britain and France. Nice folks Capies!
That's a hilariously anachronistic comment. The October Revolution was still months away. Heck the February Revolution happened only a couple weeks prior to the US declaration of war
@@CynicalHistorian Your of course right but the February Revolution, kept Russia fighting badly. That was Kerensky's Bourgeois Revolution ending Feudalism. Lenin and Trotsky came to town and Chased
Kerensky out of the Winter palace in a Limousine loaned by the US Embassy so the US were well aware of Kerensky's weakness. He had been guarded by "The Women's Battalion of Death" and some Cadets. A handfull of casualtys. They got into the Tsar's vast wine Cellar until Trotsky
stopped them by smashing all the drink!
The British, Canadians,all the Imperial lands sent troops the US too. The Japanese invaded from the far East, Whit's of course.
Commisar for War appointed by Lenin beat them all. Up the Reds!! That was the October Workers Revolution, lasted 70 years
the 1871 Workers Revolution in Paris and other Cities lastes 7 weeks. So Russia was the second Workers Revolution, China the second, USSA may join them soon to liberate all the Workers!
Make a good anti propaganda tale for you! History is mainly lies that everyone agrees upon, Cynical Napoleon opined!
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.
My guess is that there were several reasons that the US became involved in WWI, and a mildly effective conspiracy or three may have played a minor role. Partly this is because I tend to assume that solid evidence of an effective conspiracy would have been uncovered by now (some documents would have been uncovered somewhere), but I do find it plausible that a few conversations may have occurred about how to best take advantage of events. The effects of those conversations may have been consequential, but probably only because of events beyond their control. And even if those conversations were contingently consequential there does not seem to be a reason to assume that things would have been vastly different if those conversations did not happen. Most conspiracies are primarily, and often only, important to the participants.
Your contribution is inconsequential. Never mind you'll make a good Lawyer or TV News Presenter!
Probably a little bit of everything.
In my life, the idea that if there is a "greatest president", there also must be a "worst president" has always been true as I saw things. Though it seems easy to say, Obama, for instance was the worst president of my lifetime, but in terms of history over time Wilson emerges as the very worst president of the entirety of this nations history. I now understand why Obama thought so highly of Wilson.
Wilson simply hated an America he couldn't rule.
Wilson and Obama were a lot alike. But Wilson was a racist. His family was from the south and he was a believer in" Lost Cause " history.
wilson and FDR are the worst presidents in my opinion. As much as i dislike obama, he doesn't even come close for me to how terrible those 2 were
How was Obama the worst? I am genuinely curious.
G.W. Bush for instance, intervened in Iraq & created Afghanistan internationally but ALSO left Obama the 2007 financial crisis…
Obama was involved in Lybia & Syria but internally, his record is hardly as bad as that of the previous administration, right?
The uncle of a friend of mine was in Haiti. Wrote a book about being the more or less king of that big island in the bay. Wirkus was his name. I'll contact her for the details. Well done, by the way.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faustin_E._Wirkus
After the Mayaguez, I looked into the history of US interventions and I'm sure you know it goes back forever. Got my info from the library at the AF Academy. I was stunned at the list. Went way back in China, the Pacific in general, etc. Not counting Jackson filibustering Florida. Anyway, I'm a fan. Keep it up.
I think it’s a little bit of both America got rich 🤑 lending money to countries at war and figured if we get involved we get a bigger role at the table and get more money in “reparations” even tho Americans did little to affect the outcome of the war itself 🤦🏽♂️
Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure the us didn’t get reparations from Germany
@@thatsaboat2882 no the USA wasn’t interested in reparations from Germany
So you saying that Great Britain been tea spooning us to convince us to join WWI or am I just saying it wrong, either way I am confuse why our school never teaches us this?
Damn Democrats! Then and now...
„Objective truth“. Greetings from 🇩🇪
You live in a flag?
@@jjnn2 You don’t?
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.
answer :- Money.
To find the Truth, do a search for Benjamin Freedman's speech and watch the whole video. He's Jewish, by the way.
But but but. Doris Kearns Goodwin says Wilson was one of the best presidents ever! She can't be wrong.
@@
(Note the sarcasm)
It's funny how much adoration she still gets after the profession pretty much wrote her off as a plagiarist
@@CynicalHistorian she's a plagiarist?
yep
Some conspiracies are real. That doesn't mean go full pizzagate. Just saying, boomers.
ObiWanbruhnoby This one isn’t
Which ones are real?
The war racket is also known as geoeconomics, or war by other means. As Smedley Butler wrote, "In Central America, I was as Al Capone to Chicago." It's was always all about the money, and one big player during WWI was, hold for it..... Goldman Sachs. US entry in the war when the Allies looked like they were going down was to protect American Banking. If Germany had won the war, French, British and American banking would all have been trashed on the bottom line. In a real sense, WWI was a bailout of the American banking system, and not the first one by any means. A tradition we are keeping alive today for sure.
As a kid I got to visit Smedley's home while it was still kept as it had been while he was alive. The central atrium with its gorgeous collection of huge Chinese banners hanging from the ceiling was quite impressive.