0
SPEAKER_00
The following is a conversation with Christopher Capozzola, a historian at MIT specializing in the history of politics and war in modern American history, especially about the role of World War I in defining the trajectory of the United States and our human civilization in the 20th and 21st centuries.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now, a quick few second mention of each sponsor.
0
SPEAKER_00
Check them out in the description.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s the best way to support this podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
We got Wealthfront for financial help, Insight Tracker for biological insight, Element for salty goodness, and Simply Safe.
0
SPEAKER_00
for home security.
0
SPEAKER_00
Choose wisely, my friends.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now onto the full ad reads.
0
SPEAKER_00
As always, no ads in the middle.
0
SPEAKER_00
I tried to make this interesting, but if you skip, please still check out the sponsors.
0
SPEAKER_00
I enjoy their stuff.
0
SPEAKER_00
Maybe you will too.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is brought to you by Wealthfront, savings and automated investing accounts to help you build wealth and save for the future.
0
SPEAKER_00
In general, I m somebody that tries to avoid concrete plans.
0
SPEAKER_00
I said kind of goals and follow my heart.
0
SPEAKER_00
But what I mean by that sometimes is that I m still investing into the future.
0
SPEAKER_00
I m just not doing it in an overly structured way such that I listen to what my gut tells me will create a better future for me.
0
SPEAKER_00
The thing I really learned on the financial side of things is that there s a lot of companies, a lot of banks, a lot of services that make investing really difficult.
0
SPEAKER_00
And the difficulty comes from the interface of the website.
0
SPEAKER_00
I can t tell you how many services I ve used in the past that don t get this right.
0
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, that s like the biggest thing I can say that s positive about Wealthfront.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s easy to invest and it s fun.
0
SPEAKER_00
You should go check it out at wealthfront.com slash Lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
You ll get a $50 bonus with a $500 deposit.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by Insight Tracker, a service they use to track biological data.
0
SPEAKER_00
They have a bunch of plans, most of which have blood tests.
0
SPEAKER_00
You got blood data, DNA data, fitness tracker data, all of that is shoved into a machine learning algorithm and the output is a suggestion, a prediction for the kind of lifestyle changes that are best for you.
0
SPEAKER_00
I m just a huge believer in the personalization aspect.
0
SPEAKER_00
My refrigerator should not be designed for the general consumer.
0
SPEAKER_00
It should be designed for me.
0
SPEAKER_00
You know, after the first few dates together, we really form an intimacy.
0
SPEAKER_00
And what intimacy really means is collecting a lot of data about each other.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s what a relationship is.
0
SPEAKER_00
Privacy, encrypted, consensual surveillance.
0
SPEAKER_00
I m trying to put a romantic spin on surveillance and it s not working.
0
SPEAKER_00
Now, that s not what InsideTracker s doing at all.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s just using your data in a secure way to make recommendations.
0
SPEAKER_00
And that, my friends, is a positive future I love.
0
SPEAKER_00
Get special savings for a limited time when you go to insidetracker.com slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This episode is also brought to you by Element, spelled L-M-N-T.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s an electrolyte drink mix that I drink many, many, many times a day.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s a source of happiness and joy.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s a source of health.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s a source of deliciousness in my life.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s almost like a dessert drink, and again,
0
SPEAKER_00
Low-carb is great.
0
SPEAKER_00
I love all kinds of flavors.
0
SPEAKER_00
Now, most of the time, my favorite go-to element, I think it s called watermelon salt.
0
SPEAKER_00
I should probably know this since I ve been drinking incredible amounts of it over the past year.
0
SPEAKER_00
Again, I love it.
0
SPEAKER_00
On a low-carb diet, when I m fasting, getting the electrolytes right is hugely important.
0
SPEAKER_00
Sodium, potassium, magnesium, and that s Element is my go-to for the basic level of electrolytes that I need for all the crazy physical and mental challenges I take on.
0
SPEAKER_00
Get a sample pack for free with any purchase.
0
SPEAKER_00
Try it at drinkelement.com slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by SimpliSafe, a home security company designed to be simple and effective.
0
SPEAKER_00
And in fact, it delivers on that design, because it is simple and effective.
0
SPEAKER_00
And I am currently protected by it.
0
SPEAKER_00
I m sitting in a place that has SimpliSafe installed, and it s keeping me safe.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s, I guess, the first layer of physical security around me.
0
SPEAKER_00
And I take my security extremely seriously at every level, including cyber security, everything, the whole thing.
0
SPEAKER_00
Now, one of the best ways to be secure is to make sure that the security system you set up, whatever that is, is super easy.
0
SPEAKER_00
And that s exactly what SimpliSafe does.
0
SPEAKER_00
I guess I just realized that the word simply.
0
SPEAKER_00
is inside the name SimpliSafe.
0
SPEAKER_00
It really is simple and it really does keep you safe.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s a really good company name.
0
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, I love it.
0
SPEAKER_00
I think you ll love it too.
0
SPEAKER_00
Go to simplisafe.com slash flex to customize your system and claim your free indoor security camera plus 20% off with interactive monitoring.
0
SPEAKER_00
This is the Lex Friedman Podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now, dear friends, here s Christopher Capozzola.
0
SPEAKER_00
Let s start with a big and difficult question.
0
SPEAKER_00
How did World War I start?
0
SPEAKER_01
On the one hand, World War I started because of a series of events in the summer of 1914 that brought sort of the major powers of Europe into conflict with one another.
0
SPEAKER_01
But I actually think it s more useful to say that World War I started at least a generation earlier.
0
SPEAKER_01
when rising powers, particularly Germany, started devoting more and more of their resources toward military affairs and naval affairs.
0
SPEAKER_01
This sets off an arms race in Europe.
0
SPEAKER_01
It sets off a rivalry over the colonial world and who will control the resources in Africa and Asia.
0
SPEAKER_01
And so by the time you get to the summer of 1914, in a lot of ways I say the war has already begun, and this is just the match that lights the flame.
0
SPEAKER_00
So the capacity for war was brewing within the leaders and within the populace.
0
SPEAKER_00
They started accepting, slowly through the culture propagated this idea
0
SPEAKER_00
that we can go to war, it s a good idea to go to war, it s a good idea to expand and dominate others, that kind of thing.
0
SPEAKER_00
Maybe not put in those clear terms, but just a sense that military action is the way that nations operate at the global scale.
0
SPEAKER_01
Yes, yes, and right.
0
SPEAKER_01
So yes, there s a sense that the military can be the solution to political conflict in Europe itself.
0
SPEAKER_01
And the end is that war and military conflict are already happening, right, that there s war, particularly in Africa, in North Africa, in the Middle East, you know, Balkans, conflict is already underway.
0
SPEAKER_01
And the European powers haven t faced off against each other, they ve usually faced off against
0
SPEAKER_01
an asymmetrical conflict against much less powerful states.
0
SPEAKER_01
But in some ways, that war is already underway.
0
SPEAKER_00
So do you think it was inevitable?
0
SPEAKER_00
Because World War I is brought up as a case study where it seems like a few accidental leaders and a few accidental events, or one accidental event led to the war.
0
SPEAKER_00
And if you change that one little thing, it could have avoided the war.
0
SPEAKER_00
Your sense is,
0
SPEAKER_00
The drums of war have been beating for quite a while, and it would have happened almost no matter what, or very likely to have happened.
0
SPEAKER_01
Yes, historians never like to say things are inevitable.
0
SPEAKER_01
And certainly, you know, there were people who could have chosen a different path, both in the short term and the long term.
0
SPEAKER_01
But fundamentally, there were irreconcilable conflicts in the system of empires in the world in 1914.
0
SPEAKER_01
I can t see, you know, it didn t have to be this war, but it probably had to be a war.
0
SPEAKER_00
So there was the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, there s France and Great Britain, U.S., could U.S.
0
SPEAKER_00
be called an empire at that moment yet?
0
SPEAKER_00
When do you graduate to empire status?
0
SPEAKER_01
Well, certainly after 1898 with the acquisition of the former territories of the Spanish Empire, you know, the United States has formal colonial possessions and it has sort of mindsets of rule and military acquisition that would define empire in a kind of more informal sense.
0
SPEAKER_00
So you would say you would put the blame or the responsibility of starting World War I into the hands of the German Empire and Kaiser Wilhelm II.
0
SPEAKER_01
know, that s a really tough call to make.
0
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, deciding that is going to keep historians in business for the next 200 years.
0
SPEAKER_01
I think there are people who would lay all of the blame on the Germans, right?
0
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, who would point toward
0
SPEAKER_01
a generation of arms buildup, alliances that Germany made and promises that they made to their allies in the Balkans, to the Austro-Hungarians.
0
SPEAKER_01
And so yes, there s an awful lot of responsibility there.
0
SPEAKER_01
There has been a trend lately to say, no, it s no one s fault.
0
SPEAKER_01
right?
0
SPEAKER_01
That, you know, that all of the various powers literally were sleepwalking into the war, right?
0
SPEAKER_01
They backed into it inadvertently.
0
SPEAKER_01
I think that lets everyone a little too much off the hook, right?
0
SPEAKER_01
And so I think in between is, you know, I would put the blame on the system of empires itself, on the system.
0
SPEAKER_01
But in that system, the actor that sort of carries the most responsibility is definitely Imperial Germany.
0
SPEAKER_00
So the leader of Austro-Hungarian Empire, Franz Josef I, his nephews, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, he was assassinated.
0
SPEAKER_00
And so that didn t have to lead to a war.
0
SPEAKER_00
And then the leader of the German Empire, Kaiser Wilhelm II,
0
SPEAKER_00
pressured, sort of, started talking trash, and boiling the water that ultimately resulted in the explosion, plus all the other players.
0
SPEAKER_00
So what, can you describe the dynamics of how that unrolled?
0
SPEAKER_00
What US, what s the role of US, what s the role of France, what s the role of Great Britain, Germany, and also Hungarian Empire?
0
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, over the course of about four weeks, right, following the assassination of the Archduke in Sarajevo, it sort of triggers a series of political conflicts and ultimately ultimatums sort of demanding sort of that one or other power sort of stand down in response to the demands of either Britain, France, or in turn, Germany or Russia.
0
SPEAKER_01
at the same time that those alliances kind of trigger automatic responses from the other side.
0
SPEAKER_01
And so it escalates.
0
SPEAKER_01
And once that escalation is combined with the call up of military troops, then none of those powers wants to be sort of the last one to kind of get ready for conflict.
0
SPEAKER_01
So even throughout it, they think they are getting ready in a defensive maneuver.
0
SPEAKER_01
And they think if there is conflict, well, it might be a skirmish.
0
SPEAKER_01
It might be sort of a standoff.
0
SPEAKER_01
It could be solved with diplomacy later because diplomacy is failing now.
0
SPEAKER_01
That turns out not to be the case.
0
SPEAKER_01
Diplomacy fails.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s not a skirmish.
0
SPEAKER_01
It becomes a massive war.
0
SPEAKER_01
And the Americans are watching all of this from the sidelines.
0
SPEAKER_01
They have very little influence over what happens that summer.
0
SPEAKER_00
How does it go from a skirmish between a few nations to a global war?
0
SPEAKER_00
Is there a place where there s a phase transition?
0
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I think the phase transition is over the course of the fall of 1914, when the Germans make an initial bold move into France.
0
SPEAKER_01
In many ways, they re fighting the last war, the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.
0
SPEAKER_01
And they really do want to have a quick lightning strike, in some ways, against France to bring the war to a speedy conclusion.
0
SPEAKER_01
France turns out to be able to fight back more effectively than the Germans expected, and then the battle lines sort of harden.
0
SPEAKER_01
And then behind that, the French and the Germans, as well as the British on the side of the French,
0
SPEAKER_01
start digging in, literally, and digging trenches, trenches that at first are three feet deep to avoid shelling from artillery, then become six feet, ten feet deep, two miles wide, that include telegraph wires, that include whole hospitals in the back.
0
SPEAKER_01
And then at that point, the front is locked in place, and the only way to break that is sort of basically dialing the war up to 11, right?
0
SPEAKER_01
So massive numbers of troops, massive efforts, none of which work, right?
0
SPEAKER_01
And so the war is stuck in this, but that s the phase transition right there.
0
SPEAKER_00
What were the machines of war in that case?
0
SPEAKER_00
You mentioned trenches.
0
SPEAKER_00
What were the guns used?
0
SPEAKER_00
What was the size of guns?
0
SPEAKER_00
What are we talking about?
0
SPEAKER_00
What did Germany start accumulating that led up to this war?
0
SPEAKER_01
One of the things that we see immediately is the industrial revolution of the previous 30 or 40 years brought to bear on warfare, right?
0
SPEAKER_01
And so you see sort of machine guns, you see artillery.
0
SPEAKER_01
These are the kind of the key weapons of war on both sides.
0
SPEAKER_01
The vast majority of battlefield casualties are from artillery shelling from one side to another, not rifle or even machine gun attacks.
0
SPEAKER_01
In some ways, the weapons of war are human beings.
0
SPEAKER_01
Tens of thousands of them hoard over the top in these waves to try to break through the enemy lines.
0
SPEAKER_01
And it would work for a little while.
0
SPEAKER_01
But holding the territory that had been gained often proved to be even more demanding than gaining it.
0
SPEAKER_01
And so often each side would retreat back into the trenches and wait for another day.
0
SPEAKER_00
And how did Russia, how did Britain, how did France get pulled into the war?
0
SPEAKER_00
I suppose the France one is the easy one.
0
SPEAKER_00
But what is the order of events here?
0
SPEAKER_00
How it becomes a global war?
0
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, so Britain, France and Russia are at this time and in there an alliance.
0
SPEAKER_01
And so the conflicts, you know, in the summer of 1914, that lead sort of to the declarations of war happens sort of one after another, right, at the end, August of in late August of 1914.
0
SPEAKER_01
And all three powers essentially come in at the same time because they have promised to do so through a series of alliances conducted secretly in the years before 1914 that committed them to defend one another.
0
SPEAKER_01
Germany, Austria, Hungary and the Ottoman Empire have their own sort of set of secret agreements that also commit them to defend one another.
0
SPEAKER_01
And what this does is it sort of brings them all into conflict at the exact same moment.
0
SPEAKER_01
They re also, for many of these countries, bringing not just their national armies, but also their empires into the conflict.
0
SPEAKER_01
So Britain and France, of course, have enormous global empires that begin mobilizing soldiers as well as raw materials.
0
SPEAKER_01
Germany has less of an overseas empire.
0
SPEAKER_01
Russia and the Ottoman Empire, of course, have their own sort of hinterland within the empire.
0
SPEAKER_01
And very soon, all of the warring powers are bringing the entire world into the conflict.
0
SPEAKER_00
Did they have a sense of how deadly the war is?
0
SPEAKER_00
I mean, this is another scale of death and destruction.
0
SPEAKER_01
at the beginning no but very quickly uh... the scale of the devastation of the sort of massive over the top uh...
1
SPEAKER_01
attacks on the trenches is apparent to the military officers, and it very quickly becomes apparent even at home.
1
SPEAKER_01
There is, of course, censorship of the battlefield, and specific details don t reach people.
1
SPEAKER_01
But for civilians in any of the warring powers, they know fairly soon how destructive the war is.
1
SPEAKER_01
And to me, that s always been a real puzzle.
1
SPEAKER_01
So that by the time the United States comes to decide whether to join the war in 1917, they know exactly what they re getting into.
1
SPEAKER_01
They re not backing into the war in the ways that the European powers did.
1
SPEAKER_01
They ve seen the devastation, they ve seen photographs, they ve seen injured soldiers, and they make that choice anyway.
1
SPEAKER_00
When you say they, do you mean the leaders or the people?
1
SPEAKER_00
Did the death and destruction reach the minds of the American people by that time?
1
SPEAKER_01
Yes, absolutely.
1
SPEAKER_01
We don t, in 1917, have the mass media that we have now, but there are images in newspapers, there are newsreels that play at the movie theaters.
1
SPEAKER_01
and of course some of it is sanitized, but that combined with press accounts, often really quite descriptive press accounts, gory accounts, reached anyone who cared to read them.
1
SPEAKER_01
Certainly plenty of people didn t follow the news, felt it was far away, but most Americans who cared about the news knew how devastating this war was.
1
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, there s something that happens that I recently visited Ukraine for a few weeks,
1
SPEAKER_00
There s something that happens with the human mind as you get away from the actual front where the bullets are flying, like literally one kilometer away.
1
SPEAKER_00
You start to not feel the war.
1
SPEAKER_00
You ll hear an explosion, you ll see an explosion, you start to like get assimilated to it or you start to get used to it.
1
SPEAKER_00
And then when you get as far away from like currently what is Kiev,
1
SPEAKER_00
You start to, you know the war s going on, everybody around you is fighting in that war, but it s still somehow distant.
1
SPEAKER_00
And I think with the United States, with the ocean between, even if you have the stories everywhere, it still is somehow distant, like the way a movie is.
1
SPEAKER_00
Maybe, yeah, like a movie or a video game, it s somewhere else.
1
SPEAKER_00
Even if your loved ones are going, or you are going to fight,
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, that is absolutely the case.
1
SPEAKER_01
And in some ways, that s true even for the home fronts in Europe, except for the areas where, in Belgium and France, where the war is right there in your backyard.
1
SPEAKER_01
For other people, yeah, there s a distance.
1
SPEAKER_01
And soldiers, of course, feel this very strongly.
1
SPEAKER_01
European soldiers, when they re able to go home on leave, often deeply resent what they see as the luxury that civilians are living in during the war.
1
SPEAKER_00
So how did US enter the war?
1
SPEAKER_00
Who was the president?
1
SPEAKER_00
What was the dynamics involved?
1
SPEAKER_00
And could it have stayed out?
1
SPEAKER_01
To answer your last question first, yes, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
That the United States could have stayed out of the First World War as a military power.
1
SPEAKER_01
The United States could not have ignored the war completely, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
It shaped everything.
1
SPEAKER_01
It shaped trade, it shaped goods and services, agriculture, whether there was a crop coming, whether there were immigrants coming across the Atlantic to work in American factories.
1
SPEAKER_01
The U.S.
1
SPEAKER_01
can t ignore the war, but the U.S.
1
SPEAKER_01
makes a choice in 1917 to enter the war by declaring war.
1
SPEAKER_01
on Germany and Austria.
1
SPEAKER_01
And in that sense, this is a war of choice, but it s kicked off by a series of events.
1
SPEAKER_01
So President Woodrow Wilson has been president through this entire period of time.
1
SPEAKER_01
He has just run in the 1916 presidential election on a campaign to keep the United States out of war.
1
SPEAKER_01
But then in early 1917, the Germans in some ways sort of twist the Americans arms, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
The Germans sort of high command comes to understand that, you know, that they re stuck, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
That they, you know, they re stuck in this trench warfare, they need a big breakthrough.
1
SPEAKER_01
Their one big chance is to kind of, is to sort of break the blockade, to push through that the British have imposed on them to break through against France.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so they do.
1
SPEAKER_01
And along with this, they start sinking ships on the Atlantic, including American ships.
1
SPEAKER_01
The Germans know full well this will draw the United States into war.
1
SPEAKER_01
But the Germans look at the United States at this moment, a relatively small army, a relatively small navy, a country that, at least on paper, is deeply divided about whether to join the war.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so they say,
1
SPEAKER_01
let s do it, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
They re not gonna get any American soldiers there in time, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
You know, it was a gamble, but I think probably their best chance.
1
SPEAKER_01
They took that gamble, they lost, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
In part because French resistance was strong, in part because Americans mobilized much faster and in much greater numbers than the Germans thought they would.
1
SPEAKER_00
So the American people were divided.
1
SPEAKER_01
The American people were absolutely divided about whether to enter this war.
1
SPEAKER_01
From 1914 to 1917, there is a searing debate across the political spectrum.
1
SPEAKER_01
It doesn t break down easily on party lines about whether it was in the US interest to do this, whether American troops should be sent abroad, whether Americans would end up just being cannon fodder for the European empires.
1
SPEAKER_01
as American ships are sunk, first in the Lusitania in 1915, then in much greater numbers in 1917, the tide starts to turn and Americans feel that our response is necessary.
1
SPEAKER_01
And the actual declaration of war in Congress is pretty lopsided, but it s not unanimous by any means.
1
SPEAKER_00
Lopsided towards entering the war.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, yeah.
1
SPEAKER_00
Well, that s really interesting.
1
SPEAKER_00
because there s echoes of that in later wars where Congress seems to, nobody wants to be the guy that says no to war for some reason.
1
SPEAKER_00
Once you sense that, in terms of, sorry, in terms of politicians, then you appear weak.
1
SPEAKER_00
But I wonder if that was always the case.
1
SPEAKER_00
So you make the case that World War I is largely responsible for defining what it means to be an American citizen.
1
SPEAKER_00
So in which way does it define the American citizen?
1
SPEAKER_01
When you think about citizenship, what it means is two things.
1
SPEAKER_01
First of all, what are your rights and obligations?
1
SPEAKER_01
What is the legal citizenship that you have as a citizen of the United States or any other state?
1
SPEAKER_01
And the second is a more amorphous definition of what does it mean to belong, to be part of America, to feel American, to love it or hate it or be willing to die for it.
1
SPEAKER_01
And both of those things really are crystal clear in terms of their importance during the war.
1
SPEAKER_01
So both of those things are on the table.
1
SPEAKER_01
Being a citizen who is a citizen who isn t matters.
1
SPEAKER_01
So people who had never carried passports or anything before suddenly have to.
1
SPEAKER_01
But also what it means to be an American.
1
SPEAKER_01
To feel like it, to be part of this project is also kind of being defined and enforced during World War I. So project, you know, is a funny way to put a global war, right?
1
SPEAKER_00
So can you tell the story, perhaps that s a good example of it, of the James Montgomery flag s 1916 poster,
1
SPEAKER_00
that reads, I want you.
1
SPEAKER_00
A lot of people know this poster, I think, in its original form, in its meme-ified form, I don t know, but we know this poster and we don t know where it came from, or most Americans, I think, me included, didn t know where it came from, and it actually comes from 1916.
1
SPEAKER_00
Does this poster represent the birth of something new in America, which is a,
1
SPEAKER_00
commodification or, I don t know, that propaganda machine that says what it means to be an American is somebody that fights for their country.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, so the image, it s, in fact, I think one of the most recognizable images, not only in the United States, but in the entire world, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
And you can bring it almost anywhere on Earth in 2022, and people will know what it refers to, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
And so this is an image that circulated first as a magazine cover, later as a recruitment poster, where the figure is Uncle Sam, sort of pointing at the viewer with his finger, sort of pointing and saying, I want you.
1
SPEAKER_01
And the I want you is a recruitment tool to join the US Army.
1
SPEAKER_01
And this image really kind of starts as a kind of, like I said, a magazine cover in 1916 by the artist James Montgomery Flagg.
1
SPEAKER_01
It initially appears under the heading, what are you doing for preparedness?
1
SPEAKER_01
Meaning to prepare in case war comes to the United States.
1
SPEAKER_01
At that point in 1916, we re still neutral.
1
SPEAKER_01
In 1917, it s turned into a U.S.
1
SPEAKER_01
Army recruiting poster, and then it reappears in World War II, reappears generations after.
1
SPEAKER_01
Like you said, it now gets remixed, memefied, it s all over the place.
1
SPEAKER_01
I think
1
SPEAKER_01
For me, it s a turning point, it s a sort of window into American culture at a crucial moment in our history, where the federal government is now embarking on a war overseas that s going to make enormous demands on its citizens.
1
SPEAKER_01
And at the same time, where sort of technologies of mass production and mass media, and what we would probably call propaganda, are being sort of mobilized for the first time in this new kind of way.
1
SPEAKER_00
Well, in some sense, is it fair to say that the empire is born, the expanding empire is born from the Noam Chomsky perspective kind of empire that seeks to have military influence elsewhere in the world.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yes, but I think as historians, we need to be at least as interested in what happens to the people who are getting pointed to by Uncle Sam, right, rather than just the one, you know, whether he s pointing at us.
1
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, so yes, he s asking us to do that, but how do we respond?
1
SPEAKER_00
And the people responded.
1
SPEAKER_00
So the people are ultimately the machines of history, the mechanisms of history.
1
SPEAKER_00
It s not the Uncle Sam.
1
SPEAKER_00
Sam can only do so much if the people aren t willing to step up.
1
SPEAKER_01
Absolutely.
1
SPEAKER_01
And the American people responded for sure, but they didn t build what Uncle Sam asked them to do in that poster.
1
SPEAKER_01
And I think that s kind of a crucial aspect.
1
SPEAKER_01
You know, there never would have been sort of global U.S.
1
SPEAKER_01
power without the response that begins in World War I. What was the Selective Service Act of 1917?
1
SPEAKER_01
So one of the very first things that Uncle Sam wants you to do is to register for selective service, for the draft.
1
SPEAKER_01
And the law is passed very soon after the US enters the war.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s sort of demanding that all men, first between 21 and 30, then between 18 and 45, register for the draft.
1
SPEAKER_01
And they ll be selected by a government agency, by a volunteer organization.
1
SPEAKER_00
So it s a requirement.
1
SPEAKER_01
It is a legal requirement to register.
1
SPEAKER_01
Of course, not everyone who registers is selected, but over the course of the war, 24 million men register, almost 4 million serve in some fashion.
1
SPEAKER_00
What was the response?
1
SPEAKER_00
What was the feeling amongst the American people to have to sign up to the Selective Service Act?
1
SPEAKER_00
have to register.
1
SPEAKER_01
This is a bigger turning point than we might think.
1
SPEAKER_01
In some ways, this is a tougher demand of the American public than entering the war.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s one thing to declare war on Germany.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s another thing to go down to your local post office and fill out the forms that allow your own government to send you there to fight.
1
SPEAKER_01
And this is especially important at a time when the federal government doesn t really have any other way to find you unless you actually go and register yourself, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
And so, you know, ordinary people are participating in the building of this war machine.
1
SPEAKER_01
but at least a half a million of them don t, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
And simply never fill out the forms, move from one town to another.
1
SPEAKER_01
But you said 20 million did?
1
SPEAKER_01
20 something?
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, about 24 million register, at least 500,000.
1
SPEAKER_00
Is it surprising to you that that many registered since the country was divided?
1
SPEAKER_01
It is, and that s what I sort of tried to dig in to figure out, how did you get 24 million people to register for the draft?
1
SPEAKER_01
And it s certainly not coming from the top down, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
There may be 100 sort of agents in what s now called the FBI.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s certainly not being enforced from Washington.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s being enforced through the eyes of everyday neighbors, through community surveillance, all kinds of ways.
1
SPEAKER_00
Oh, so there was like a pressure
1
SPEAKER_01
There s a lot of pressure.
1
SPEAKER_00
Interesting.
1
SPEAKER_00
So there s not a significant anti-war movement as you would see maybe later with Vietnam and things like this?
1
SPEAKER_01
There was a significant movement before 1917, but it becomes very hard to keep up an organized anti-war movement after that, particularly when the government starts shutting down protests.
1
SPEAKER_00
So, as the Selective Service Act of 1917 runs up against some of the freedoms, some of the rights that are defined in our founding documents, what was that clash like?
1
SPEAKER_00
What was sacrificed?
1
SPEAKER_00
What freedoms and rights were sacrificed in this process?
1
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I think on some level the fundamental right is liberty, that conscription sort of demands sacrifice on the behalf of some notionally for the protection of all.
1
SPEAKER_00
So even if you re against the war, you re forced
1
SPEAKER_00
to fight.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
1
SPEAKER_01
And there were small provisions for conscientious objectors, solely those who had religious objections to all war, not political objections to this war.
1
SPEAKER_01
And several thousand were able to take those provisions.
1
SPEAKER_01
But even then, they faced social sanction.
1
SPEAKER_01
They faced ridicule.
1
SPEAKER_01
Some of them faced intimidation.
1
SPEAKER_01
So those liberty interests, both individual freedom, religious freedom, those are some of the first things to go.
1
SPEAKER_00
So what about freedom of speech?
1
SPEAKER_00
Was there silencing of the press, of the voices, of the different people that would object?
1
SPEAKER_01
Yes, absolutely.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so very soon after the Selective Service Act is passed, then you get the Espionage Act, which of course is back in the news in 2022.
1
SPEAKER_00
What s the Espionage Act?
1
SPEAKER_01
The Espionage Act is a sort of omnibus bill.
1
SPEAKER_01
It contains about 10 or different provisions, very few of which have to do with espionage.
1
SPEAKER_01
But one key provision basically makes it illegal to say or do anything that would interfere with military recruitment.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that provision is used to shut down radical publications, to shut down German language publications, and this really has a chilling impact on speech during the war.
1
SPEAKER_00
Could you put into words what it means to be an American citizen that is in part sparked by World War I?
1
SPEAKER_00
What does that mean, somebody that s
1
SPEAKER_00
should be willing to sacrifice certain freedoms to fight for their country.
1
SPEAKER_00
Somebody that s willing to fight to spread freedom elsewhere in the world, spread the American ideals.
1
SPEAKER_00
Does that begin to tell the story of what it means to be an American?
1
SPEAKER_01
I think what we see is a change.
1
SPEAKER_01
So citizenship during World War I now includes the obligation to defend the country, to serve, and to, if asked, to die for it.
1
SPEAKER_01
And we certainly see that
2
SPEAKER_01
And I think we see the close linkage of military service and U.S.
2
SPEAKER_01
citizenship coming out of this time period.
2
SPEAKER_01
But, you know, when you start making lots of demands on people to fulfill obligations, in turn, they re going to start demanding rights.
2
SPEAKER_01
And we start to see, not necessarily during the war, but after, more demands for free speech protections, more demands for equality for marginalized groups.
2
SPEAKER_01
And so obligations and rights are sort of developing in a dynamic relationship.
2
SPEAKER_00
Oh, it s almost like an overreach of power sparked a sense like, oh crap, we can t trust centralized power to drag us into a war.
2
SPEAKER_00
We need to be able to.
2
SPEAKER_00
So there s the birth of that tension between the government and the people.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s a rebirth of it.
2
SPEAKER_01
Of course, that tension s always there, but in its modern form, I think it comes from this.
2
SPEAKER_00
Reintensification of it.
2
SPEAKER_00
So what about, you said that World War I gave birth to the surveillance state in the US.
2
SPEAKER_00
Can you explain?
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, so the Espionage Act, you know, sort of empowers federal organizations to watch other Americans.
2
SPEAKER_01
They are particularly interested in anyone who is obstructing the draft, anyone who is trying to kind of organize labor or strikes or radical movements, and anyone who might have sympathy for Germany, which basically means, you know, all German Americans come under surveillance.
2
SPEAKER_01
Initially, this is very small scale.
2
SPEAKER_01
But soon, every government agency gets involved, from the Treasury Department s Secret Service, to the Post Office, which is reading mail, to the Justice Department, which mobilizes 200,000 volunteers.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s a really significant enterprise.
2
SPEAKER_01
Much of it goes away after the war.
2
SPEAKER_01
But of all the things that go away, this core of the surveillance state is the thing that persists most fully.
2
SPEAKER_00
Is this also a place where government, the size of government starts to grow in these different organizations?
2
SPEAKER_00
Or maybe creates a momentum for growth of government?
2
SPEAKER_01
Oh, it s exponential growth.
2
SPEAKER_01
That over the course of the war, by almost any metric you use, the size of the federal budget, the number of federal employees, the number of soldiers in the standing army, all of those things skyrocket during the war.
2
SPEAKER_01
They go down after the war, but they never go down to what they were before.
2
SPEAKER_00
And probably gave a momentum for growth over time.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yes, absolutely.
2
SPEAKER_00
Did World War I give birth to the military-industrial complex in the United States?
2
SPEAKER_00
So, war profiteering, expanding of the war machine in order to financially benefit a lot of parties involved.
2
SPEAKER_00
So,
2
SPEAKER_01
I guess I would maybe break that into two parts.
2
SPEAKER_01
On the one hand, yes, there is war profiteering.
2
SPEAKER_01
There are investigations of it.
2
SPEAKER_01
In the years after the war, there s a widespread concern that the profit motive had played too much of a part in the war, and that s definitely the case.
2
SPEAKER_01
But I think when you try to think of this term military-industrial complex, it s best, you know, to think of it as, you know, at what point does the one side lock in the other, right?
2
SPEAKER_01
That military choices are shaped by industry, you know, objectives and vice versa.
2
SPEAKER_01
And I don t think that that was fully locked into place during World War I. I think that s really a Cold War phenomenon.
2
SPEAKER_01
when the United States is on this intense kind of footing for two generations in a row.
2
SPEAKER_00
So industrial is really important there, there is companies.
2
SPEAKER_00
So before then, weapons of war were created, were funded directly by the government.
2
SPEAKER_00
Like who was manufacturing the weapons of war?
2
SPEAKER_01
They were generally manufactured by private industry.
2
SPEAKER_01
There were, of course, arsenals, sort of 19th century iterations where the government would produce its own weapons, partly to make sure that they got what they wanted.
2
SPEAKER_01
But most of the weapons of war for all of the European powers, and the United States, are produced by private industry.
2
SPEAKER_00
So why do you say that the military-industrial complex didn t start then?
2
SPEAKER_00
What was the important thing that happened in the Cold War?
2
SPEAKER_01
I think one way to think about it is that the Cold War is a point at which it switches from being a dial to a ratchet, right?
2
SPEAKER_01
So during World War I, the relationship between the military and industry dials up fast and high and stays that way, and it dials back down.
2
SPEAKER_01
Whereas during the Cold War, sort of the relationship between the two often looks more like a ratchet.
2
SPEAKER_01
It goes up.
2
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, sometimes it s unstoppable.
2
SPEAKER_00
It goes up again.
2
SPEAKER_00
In the way that you start, I think the way the military-industrial complex is often discussed as a system that is unstoppable.
2
SPEAKER_00
Right.
2
SPEAKER_00
Like it expands.
2
SPEAKER_00
It almost, I mean, if you take a very cynical view,
2
SPEAKER_00
It creates war so that it can make money.
2
SPEAKER_00
It doesn t just find places where it can help through military conflict.
2
SPEAKER_00
It creates tensions that directly or indirectly lead to military conflict that it can then fuel and make money from.
2
SPEAKER_01
That is certainly one of the concerns of both people, you know, who are critical of the First World War and then also of Dwight Eisenhower, right, when he s president and sort of in his farewell address where he sort of introduces the term military-industrial complex.
2
SPEAKER_01
And some of it is about the profit motive, but some of it is a fear that Eisenhower had that no one had an interest in stopping this, right, and that no one had a voice in stopping it, and that the ordinary American
2
SPEAKER_01
could really do nothing to dial things down.
2
SPEAKER_00
Is it strange to you that we don t often hear
2
SPEAKER_00
that kind of speech today, with Eisenhower speaking about the military-industrial complex.
2
SPEAKER_00
So for example, we ll have people criticizing the spending on war efforts, but they re not discussing the machinery of the military-industrial complex, like the basic way that human nature works, that we get ourselves trapped in this thing.
2
SPEAKER_00
They re saying there s better things to spend money on,
2
SPEAKER_00
versus describing a very seemingly natural process of when you build weapons of war that s gonna lead to more war.
2
SPEAKER_00
Like it pulls you in somehow.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I would say,
2
SPEAKER_01
throughout the Cold War and even after the end of it, there has not been a sustained conversation in the United States about our defense establishment, right?
2
SPEAKER_01
What we really need and what serves our interest and to what extent sort of other things like
2
SPEAKER_01
market forces, profit motives, you know, belong in that conversation.
2
SPEAKER_01
What s interesting is that in the generation after the First World War, that conversation was on the table, right, through a series of investigations in the U.S., the Nye Committee in Britain, a Royal Commission, journalistic exposés.
2
SPEAKER_01
You know, this would have been just talked about constantly in the years between about 1930 and 1936.
2
SPEAKER_01
as people were starting to worry that storm clouds were gathering in Europe again.
2
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, but it always seems like those folks get pushed to the fringes.
2
SPEAKER_00
You re made an activist versus a thinking leader.
2
SPEAKER_01
Those discussions are often marginalized, framed as conspiracy theory, et cetera.
2
SPEAKER_01
And I think it s important to realize that
2
SPEAKER_01
know, in the generation after World War I, this was a serious civic conversation.
2
SPEAKER_01
It led to, you know, sort of investigations of defense, sort of finance.
2
SPEAKER_01
It led to experiments in Britain and France in public finance of war material.
2
SPEAKER_01
And I think those conversations need to be reconvened now in the 21st century.
2
SPEAKER_00
Is there any parallels between World War I and the war in Ukraine?
2
SPEAKER_00
The reason I bring it up is because you mentioned sort of there was a hunger for war
2
SPEAKER_00
a capacity for war that was already established, and the different parties were just boiling the tensions.
2
SPEAKER_00
So there s a case made that America had a role to play, NATO had a role to play in the current war in Ukraine.
2
SPEAKER_00
Is there some truth to that when you think about it in the context of World War I, or is it purely about the specific parties involved, which is Russia and Ukraine?
2
SPEAKER_01
I think it s very easy to draw parallels between World War I and the war in Ukraine, but I don t think they really work.
2
SPEAKER_01
That the First World War, in some ways, is generated by a fundamental conflict in the European system of empires, in the global system of empires.
2
SPEAKER_01
So in many ways, if there s a parallel, the war in Ukraine is the parallel to some of the conflicts in the Mediterranean and the Balkans in 1911 to 1913, that then later there was a much greater conflict.
2
SPEAKER_01
And so I think if there s any lessons to be learned for how not to let
2
SPEAKER_01
World War III look like World War I, it would be to make sure that systems aren t locked into place, that escalate wars out of people s expectations.
2
SPEAKER_00
That s I suppose what I was implying, that this is the early stages of World War III, that in the same way that
2
SPEAKER_00
several wolves are licking their chops or whatever the expression is.
2
SPEAKER_00
They re creating tension, they re creating military conflict with a kind of unstoppable imperative for a global war.
2
SPEAKER_00
That s, I mean, many kind of people that are looking at this are really worried about that.
2
SPEAKER_00
Now the,
2
SPEAKER_00
the stopping, the forcing function to stop this war is that there s several nuclear powers involved, which has, at least for now, worked to stop full-on global war.
2
SPEAKER_00
But I m not sure that s going to be the case.
2
SPEAKER_00
In fact, what is one of the surprising things to me in Ukraine is that still in the 21st century, we can go to something that involves nuclear powers
2
SPEAKER_00
not directly yet, but awfully close to directly, go to a hot war.
2
SPEAKER_00
And so do you worry about that, that there s a kind of descent into a World War I type of scenario?
2
SPEAKER_01
Yes, I mean, that keeps me up at night, and I think it should keep the citizens of both the United States and Russia up at night.
2
SPEAKER_01
And I think,
2
SPEAKER_01
Again, it gets back to what I was saying in the summer of 1914.
2
SPEAKER_01
Even then, things that looked like a march toward war
2
SPEAKER_01
could have been different, right?
2
SPEAKER_01
And so I think it s important for leaders to, of both countries and of all of the sort of related country, of Ukraine, of the various NATO powers, to really sort of imagine off-ramps and to imagine alternatives and to make them possible.
2
SPEAKER_01
whether it s through diplomacy, whether it s through other formats, I think that that s the only way to prevent sort of greater escalation.
2
SPEAKER_00
What s the difference between World War I and the Civil War, in terms of how they defined what it means to be an American, but also the American citizen s relationship with the war, what the leaders were doing?
2
SPEAKER_00
Is there interesting differences and similarities?
2
SPEAKER_00
besides the fact that everybody seems to have forgot about World War I in the United States, and everyone still remembers Civil War.
2
SPEAKER_01
I mean, it s true.
2
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, the American Civil War defines American identity in some ways, along with the Revolution and the Second World War, more so than any other conflict.
2
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, it s a fundamentally different war.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s one because it is a civil war, because of secession, because of the Confederacy.
2
SPEAKER_01
This is a conflict happening on the territory of the United States between Americans.
2
SPEAKER_01
And so the dynamics are really quite different.
2
SPEAKER_01
The leaders, particularly Lincoln, have a different relationship to the home front, to civilians, than, say, Wilson or Roosevelt have in World War I and II.
2
SPEAKER_00
Also the way you would tell the story of the Civil War, perhaps similar to the way we tell the story of World War II, there s like a reason to actually fight the war.
2
SPEAKER_00
The way we tell the story is we re fighting for this idea that all men are created equal.
2
SPEAKER_00
that the war is over slavery in part.
2
SPEAKER_00
Perhaps that s a drastic oversimplification of what the war was actually about in the moment, like how do you get pulled into an actual war versus a hot discussion.
2
SPEAKER_00
And the same with World War II, people kind of framed the narrative that it was against evil, Hitler being evil.
2
SPEAKER_00
I think the key part of that is probably the Holocaust, is how you can formulate Hitler as being evil.
2
SPEAKER_00
If there s no Holocaust, perhaps there s a case to be made that we wouldn t see World War II as such a quote-unquote good war, that there s an atrocity that had to happen to make it really, to be able to tell a clear narrative of why we get into this war.
2
SPEAKER_00
Perhaps such a narrative doesn t exist for World War I.
2
SPEAKER_00
And so that doesn t stay in the American mind.
2
SPEAKER_00
We try to sweep it under the rug, given the overall 16 million people died.
2
SPEAKER_00
So to you, the difference is in the fact that you re fighting for ideas and fighting on the homeland.
2
SPEAKER_00
But in terms of people s participation, fighting for your country, was there similarities there?
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I mean, I think, I mean, the Civil War in both the North and the South, troops are raised overwhelmingly through volunteer recruitment.
2
SPEAKER_01
There is a draft in both the North and the South, but, you know, it s not significant.
2
SPEAKER_01
Only 8% of
2
SPEAKER_01
of Confederate soldiers came in through conscription.
2
SPEAKER_01
And so, in fact, the mobilization for volunteers, often organized locally around individual communities or states, creates sort of multiple identities and levels of loyalty.
2
SPEAKER_01
where people both in the North and the South have loyalty both to their state regiments, to their community militias, and as well to the country.
2
SPEAKER_01
They are fighting over the country, over the United States, and the Union and the Confederacy have conflicting and ultimately irreconcilable visions of that.
2
SPEAKER_01
But, you know, that sort of nationalism that comes out of the Union after the victory in the war is a kind of crucial force shaping America ever since.
2
SPEAKER_01
So what was the neutrality period?
2
SPEAKER_01
Why did the U.S.
2
SPEAKER_00
stay out of the war for so long?
2
SPEAKER_00
What was going on in that
3
SPEAKER_00
interesting, like what made Woodrow Wilson change his mind?
3
SPEAKER_00
What was the interesting dynamic there?
3
SPEAKER_01
I always say that the United States entered the war in April of 1917, but Americans entered it right away, right?
3
SPEAKER_01
They entered it, you know, some of them actually went and volunteered and fought almost exclusively on the side of Britain and France.
3
SPEAKER_01
At least 50,000 joined the Canadian army or the British army and serve.
3
SPEAKER_01
Millions volunteer.
3
SPEAKER_01
They send humanitarian aid.
3
SPEAKER_01
I think in many ways, modern war creates modern humanitarianism, and we can see that in the neutrality period.
3
SPEAKER_01
And even if they wanted the United States to stay out of the war, a lot of Americans get involved in it by thinking about it, caring about it, arguing about it.
3
SPEAKER_01
And at the same time, they re worried that British propaganda is shaping their news system.
3
SPEAKER_01
They are worried that German espionage is undermining them.
3
SPEAKER_01
They re worried that both Britain and Germany are trying to interfere in American elections and American news cycles.
3
SPEAKER_01
And at the same time, a revolution is breaking out in Mexico.
3
SPEAKER_01
So there are concerns about what s happening in the Western Hemisphere as well as what s happening in Europe.
3
SPEAKER_00
So World War I was supposed to be the war to end all wars, and it didn t.
3
SPEAKER_00
How did World War I pave the way to World War II?
3
SPEAKER_00
Every nation probably has their own story in this trajectory towards World War II.
3
SPEAKER_00
How did Europe allow World War II to happen?
3
SPEAKER_00
How did the Soviet Union, Russia, allow World War II to happen?
3
SPEAKER_00
And how did America allow World War II to happen?
3
SPEAKER_00
in Japan?
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, you re right.
3
SPEAKER_01
The answer is different for each country, right?
3
SPEAKER_01
That in some ways in Germany, the culture of defeat and the experience of defeat at the end of World War I leads to a culture of resentment, recrimination, finger-pointing, blame that makes German politics very ugly.
3
SPEAKER_01
As one person puts it, brutalizes
3
SPEAKER_01
German politics.
3
SPEAKER_00
It places resentment at the core of the populace and its politics.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, and so in some ways that lays the groundwork for the kind of politics of resentment and hate that comes from the Nazis.
3
SPEAKER_01
For the United States, in some ways the failure to win the peace sets up the possibility for the next war.
3
SPEAKER_01
right, that the United States, through Wilson, is sort of crafting a new international order in order that this will be the war to end all wars.
3
SPEAKER_01
But because the United States failed to join the League of Nations, you see the United States really sort of on the hook for another generation.
3
SPEAKER_01
In Asia, the story is more complicated, right?
3
SPEAKER_01
And I think it s worth bearing that in mind, that World War II is a two-front war.
3
SPEAKER_01
It starts in Asia for its own reasons.
3
SPEAKER_01
World War I is transformative for Japan, right?
3
SPEAKER_01
It is a time of massive economic expansion and a lot of that sort of economic wealth is poured into sort of greater industrialization and militarization.
3
SPEAKER_01
And so when the military wing in Japanese politics takes over in the 1930s, they re in some ways flexing muscles that come out of the First World War.
3
SPEAKER_00
Can you talk about the end of World War I, the Treaty of Versailles?
3
SPEAKER_00
What s interesting about that dynamics there, of the parties involved, of how it could have been done differently to avoid the resentment?
3
SPEAKER_00
Is there, or again, is it inevitable?
3
SPEAKER_01
So the war ends, and very soon, even before the war is over, the United States in particular is trying to shape the peace.
3
SPEAKER_01
And the United States is the central actor at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919.
3
SPEAKER_01
Woodrow Wilson is there, he s presiding, and he knows that he calls the shots.
3
SPEAKER_00
So he was respected.
3
SPEAKER_01
He was respected, but resentfully in some ways by the European powers, Britain and France and Italy to a lesser extent, who felt that they had sacrificed more.
3
SPEAKER_01
They had two goals, right?
3
SPEAKER_01
They wanted to shape the imperial system in order to make sure that their kind of fundamental economic structures wouldn t change.
3
SPEAKER_01
And they also wanted to sort of weaken Germany as much as possible.
3
SPEAKER_01
right, so that Germany couldn t rise again.
3
SPEAKER_01
What this leads to is a peace treaty that, you know, maintains some of the fundamental conflicts of the imperial system and makes, bankrupts Germany, starves Germany and kind of feeds this politics of resentment that make it impossible for Germany to kind of participate in a European order.
3
SPEAKER_00
So people like historian Neil Ferguson, for example, make the case that if Britain stayed out of World War I, we would have avoided this whole mess, and we would potentially even avoid World War II.
3
SPEAKER_00
this kind of counterfactual history.
3
SPEAKER_00
Do you think it s possible to make the case for that?
3
SPEAKER_00
That there was a moment, especially in that case, staying out of the war for Britain, that the escalation to a global war could have been avoided, and one that ultimately ends in a deep global resentment.
3
SPEAKER_00
So where Germany is resentful not just of France or particular nations, but is resentful of the entire
3
SPEAKER_00
I don t know how you define it, the West or something like this, the entire global world.
3
SPEAKER_01
I wish it were that easy.
3
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, I think
3
SPEAKER_01
it s useful to think in counterfactuals, you know, what if?
3
SPEAKER_01
And if you believe, as historians do, in causation, then if that one thing causes another, then you also have to believe in counterfactuals, right?
3
SPEAKER_01
That if something hadn t happened, then maybe that wouldn t, you know, that would have worked differently.
3
SPEAKER_01
But I think all the things that led to World War I are,
3
SPEAKER_01
multi-causal and nuanced.
3
SPEAKER_01
And this is what historians do.
3
SPEAKER_01
We make things more complicated.
3
SPEAKER_01
And so, you know, there was no one thing that could have, you know, that could have turned the tide of history, you know.
3
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, oh, if only Hitler had gotten into art school, or if only Fidel Castro had gotten into the major leagues, you know.
3
SPEAKER_01
Those are interesting thought experiments, but few events in history, I think, are that contingent.
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, Hitler s an example of somebody who s a charismatic leader that seems to have a really disproportionate amount of influence on the tide of history.
3
SPEAKER_00
So, you know, if you look at Stalin, you could imagine that many other people could have stepped into that role.
3
SPEAKER_00
And the same goes for many of the other presidents through, or even Mao,
3
SPEAKER_00
It seems that there s a singular nature to Hitler, that you could play the counterfactual, that if there was no Hitler, you may have not had World War II.
3
SPEAKER_00
He, better than many leaders in history, was able to channel the resentment of the populace.
3
SPEAKER_00
into a very aggressive expansion of the military and I would say skillful deceit of the entire world in terms of his plans and was able to effectively start the war.
3
SPEAKER_00
So is it possible that
3
SPEAKER_00
I mean, could Hitler have been stopped?
3
SPEAKER_00
Could we have avoided if he just got into art school?
3
SPEAKER_00
Or again, do you feel like there s a current of events that was unstoppable?
3
SPEAKER_01
I mean, part of what you re talking about is, is Hitler the individual as a sort of charismatic leader who s able to mobilize the nation?
3
SPEAKER_01
And part of it is Hitlerism, right?
3
SPEAKER_01
His own sort of individual,
3
SPEAKER_01
ability to, for example, play off his subordinates against one another to set up a system of that nature that in some ways escalates violence, including the violence that leads to the Holocaust.
3
SPEAKER_01
And some of it is also Hitlerism as a leader cult, and we see this in many other things where
3
SPEAKER_01
where a political movement surrounds one particular individual who may or may not be replaceable.
3
SPEAKER_01
So yes, the World War II we got would have been completely different if a different sort of faction had risen to power in Germany.
3
SPEAKER_01
But Europe, you know, Depression-era Europe was so unstable, and democracies collapsed throughout Western Europe over the course of the 1930s, you know, whether they had charismatic totalitarian leaders or not.
3
SPEAKER_00
Have you actually read one book I just recently finished?
3
SPEAKER_00
I d love to get your opinion from a historian perspective.
3
SPEAKER_00
There s a book called Blitzed, Drugs in the Third Reich by Norman Oler.
3
SPEAKER_00
it makes a case that drugs played a very large, meth, essentially, played a very large role in World War II.
3
SPEAKER_00
There s a lot of criticism of this book, saying that it s, kind of to what you re saying, it takes this one little variable and makes it like, this explains everything.
3
SPEAKER_00
So everything about Hitler, everything about the blitzkrieg, everything about the military, the way, the strategy, the decisions could be explained through drugs, or at least implies that kind of thing.
3
SPEAKER_00
And the interesting thing about this book, because Hitler and Nazi Germany is one of the most sort of written about periods of human history, and this was not, drugs were almost entirely not written about in this context.
3
SPEAKER_00
So here along this semi-historian, because I don t think he s even a historian, a lot of his work is fiction.
3
SPEAKER_00
Hopefully I m saying that correctly.
3
SPEAKER_00
So he tells a really, that s one of the criticisms, he tells a very compelling story that drugs were at the center
3
SPEAKER_00
of this period and also of the man of Hitler.
3
SPEAKER_00
What are your sort of feelings and thoughts about, if you ve gotten a chance to read this book, but I m sure there s books like it, that tell an interesting perspective, singular perspective on a war.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I mean, I have read it, and I also had this sort of eye-opening experience that a lot of historians did, and they re like, why didn t we think about that?
3
SPEAKER_01
And I think whether he s, the author Oller is sort of not a trained academic historian, but the joy of history is like, you don t have to be one to write good history.
3
SPEAKER_01
And I don t think anyone sort of criticizes him for that.
3
SPEAKER_01
I like,
3
SPEAKER_01
the book as a window into the Third Reich.
3
SPEAKER_01
You know, of course, drugs don t explain all of it, but it helps us see, you know, it helps us see the people who supported Hitler, the ways in which, you know, it was that mind-altering and performance-altering drugs were used to kind of keep soldiers on the battlefield, the ways in which, you know, I think that,
3
SPEAKER_01
we don t fully understand the extent to which the Third Reich is held together with duct tape from a pretty early phase, by 1940 or 41 even.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s all smoke and mirrors.
3
SPEAKER_01
And
3
SPEAKER_01
I think that wartime propaganda, both Germans trying to say, you know, we re winning everything and America trying to mobilize and the other allies, you know, to mobilize against Germany, described a more formidable enemy than it really was by 1941 and 42.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, I mean, I could see both cases.
3
SPEAKER_00
One is that duct tape doesn t make the man.
3
SPEAKER_00
but also as an engineer, I m a huge fan of duct tape.
3
SPEAKER_00
Because it does seem to solve a lot of problems.
3
SPEAKER_00
And I do worry that this perspective that the book presents about drugs is somehow to the mind really compelling.
3
SPEAKER_00
because it s almost like the mind, or at least my mind, searches for an answer.
3
SPEAKER_00
How could this have happened?
3
SPEAKER_00
And it s nice to have a clean explanation.
3
SPEAKER_00
And drugs is one popular one when people talk about steroids in sports.
3
SPEAKER_00
The moment you introduce the topic of steroids, somehow the mind wants to explain all success in the context was because this person was on steroids, Lance Armstrong.
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, it s a very sticky idea.
3
SPEAKER_00
Certain ideas, certain explanations are very sticky.
3
SPEAKER_00
And I think that s really dangerous because then you lose the full context.
3
SPEAKER_00
And also in the case of drugs, it removes the responsibility from the person.
3
SPEAKER_00
both for the military genius and the evil.
3
SPEAKER_00
And I think, I mean, it s a very dangerous thing to do.
3
SPEAKER_00
Something about the mind, maybe it s just mind that s sticky to this.
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, drugs explain it.
3
SPEAKER_00
If the drugs didn t happen, then it would be very different.
3
SPEAKER_00
It worries me how compelling it is of an explanation, you know?
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, so that s why it s maybe better to think of it as a window into the third rank than an explanation of it.
3
SPEAKER_00
But it s also a nice exploration of Hitler, the man.
3
SPEAKER_00
For some reason, discussing his habits, especially later in the war, his practices with drugs, gives you a window into the person.
3
SPEAKER_00
It reminds you that this is a human being.
3
SPEAKER_00
Like a human being that gets emotional in the morning, gets thoughtful in the morning, hopeful, sad, depressed, angry, like a story of emotions of the human being.
3
SPEAKER_00
Somehow we construct, which is a pretty dangerous thing to do, we construct an evil monster out of Hitler, when in reality he s a human being like all of us.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think the lesson there is the Solzhenitsyn lesson, which is all of us, to some degree, are capable of evil.
3
SPEAKER_00
Or maybe if you want to make it less powerful a statement, many of our leaders are capable of evil.
3
SPEAKER_00
That this Hitler is not truly singular in history.
3
SPEAKER_00
That yeah, when the resentment of the populace matches the right charismatic leader, it s easy to make the kind of, not easy, but it s possible to frequently make the kind of,
3
SPEAKER_00
initiation of military conflict that happened in World War II.
3
SPEAKER_00
By the way, because you said not a trained historian, one of the
3
SPEAKER_00
One of the most compelling and, I don t know, entertaining and fascinating exploration of World War I comes from Dan Carlin.
3
SPEAKER_00
I don t know if you ve gotten a chance to listen to his sort of podcast form telling of the blueprint for Armageddon, which is the telling of World War I. What do you think about Dan Carlin, you yourself as a historian who has studied, who has written about World War I?
3
SPEAKER_00
Do you enjoy that kind of telling of history?
3
SPEAKER_01
Absolutely, and I think, again, you don t need a PhD in history to be a historian.
3
SPEAKER_00
Does every historian agree with that?
3
SPEAKER_00
He gets quite a bit of criticism from historians.
3
SPEAKER_01
I mean, we like to argue with each other and nitpick with each other, but the one thing I have no patience for is when we pull rank on each other.
3
SPEAKER_01
I think,
3
SPEAKER_01
We depend on, you know, if you re, you know, a historian in a university with degrees and research materials, you know, you depend on the work of people in some local community, like recording oral history, saving documents, and
3
SPEAKER_01
History is a social science, but it s also a storytelling art.
3
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, history books are the ones you find on the shelves in bookstores that people read for fun.
3
SPEAKER_01
And you can appreciate both the knowledge production as well as the storytelling.
3
SPEAKER_01
And when you get a good oral storyteller like Dan Carlin, there s a reason that thousands and hundreds of thousands of people tune in.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, but he definitely suffers from anxiety about getting things correct.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s very difficult.
4
SPEAKER_00
Well, our first job is to get the facts correct, and then to tell the story off of those.
4
SPEAKER_01
But the facts are so fuzzy.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, you have probably my favorite telling of World War II is William Shire s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, or at least not telling of Nazi Germany, and that,
4
SPEAKER_01
goes to primary sources a lot, which is like, I suppose that s the honest way to do it, but it s tough.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s really tough to write that way, to really go to primary sources always.
4
SPEAKER_01
And I think that one of the things that Dan tries to do, which is also really tough to do, perhaps easier in oral history, is try to make you feel what it was like to be there.
4
SPEAKER_01
which I think he does by trying to tell the story of individual soldiers.
4
SPEAKER_01
Do you find that telling, like individual citizens?
4
SPEAKER_01
Do you find that kind of telling of history compelling?
4
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, I mean, I think we need historical imagination.
4
SPEAKER_00
And I think
4
SPEAKER_00
historical imagination teaches something very valuable, which is humility, to realize that there are other people who ve lived on this planet, and they organize their lives differently, and they made it through just fine, too.
4
SPEAKER_00
And I think that that kind of humility,
4
SPEAKER_00
of meeting other people from the past can be actually a very useful skill for meeting people unlike you in the present.
4
SPEAKER_01
Unlike you, but also like you.
4
SPEAKER_01
I think both are humbling.
4
SPEAKER_01
One, realizing that they lived in a different space and time, but two, realizing that if you were placed in that space and time, you might have done all the same things, whether it s the brave, good thing, or the evil thing.
4
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, absolutely.
4
SPEAKER_00
And you get also a sense of possibility.
4
SPEAKER_00
You know, there s this famous line, right, that, you know, those who do not learn history are condemned to repeat it.
4
SPEAKER_00
But I think the other half is true as well, which is those who do not learn history don t get the chance to repeat it, right?
4
SPEAKER_00
You know, that we re not the first people on this planet to face, you know, any certain kinds of problems.
4
SPEAKER_00
You know, other people have lived through worlds like this one before.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s like when you fall in love as a teenager for the first time and then there s a breakup.
4
SPEAKER_01
You think it s the greatest tragedy that has ever happened in the world.
4
SPEAKER_01
You re the first person, even though like Romeo and Juliet and so on had this issue, you re the first person that truly feels the catastrophic heartbreak of that experience.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s good to be reminded that no,
4
SPEAKER_01
The human condition is what it is.
4
SPEAKER_01
We have lived through it at the individual and the societal scale.
4
SPEAKER_01
Let me ask you about nationalism, which I think is at the core of I Want You poster.
4
SPEAKER_01
Is nationalism destructive or empowering to a nation?
4
SPEAKER_01
And we can use different words like patriotism, which is in many ways synonymous to nationalism, but in recent history, perhaps because of the Nazis,
4
SPEAKER_01
has slowly parted ways, that somehow nationalism is when patriotism gone bad, or something like this.
4
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, they re different, right?
4
SPEAKER_00
Patriotism is in some ways best thought of as an emotion, right?
4
SPEAKER_00
And a feeling of love of country, right?
4
SPEAKER_00
Literally.
4
SPEAKER_00
And in some ways, that s a necessary condition to participate in nationalism.
4
SPEAKER_00
Whether
4
SPEAKER_00
To me, I think nationalism is crucial in a world organized around nation-states, and you have to sort of believe that you are engaged in a common project together, right?
4
SPEAKER_00
And so, you know, in the contemporary United States, you know, in some ways that question is actually on the table in ways that it hasn t been in the past.
4
SPEAKER_00
But you have to believe that you re engaged in a common project, that you have something in common with the person with whom you share this nation, and that you would sacrifice for them, whether it s by paying taxes for them or going to war to defend them.
4
SPEAKER_00
That s a vision of, you know, what we might call civic nationalism.
4
SPEAKER_00
That s the good version.
4
SPEAKER_00
The question is whether you could have that without having exclusionary nationalism, you know, hating the other, right, fearing the other, saying, yeah, you re part of this nation against all others.
4
SPEAKER_00
And
4
SPEAKER_00
I think there s a long tradition in America of a very inclusive nationalism that is open, inclusive, welcoming, and new people to the shared project.
4
SPEAKER_00
That s something to be defended.
4
SPEAKER_00
Exclusionary nationalisms based on ethnic hatreds and others that we see throughout the world, those are things to be afraid of.
4
SPEAKER_01
But there is a kind of narrative in the United States that
4
SPEAKER_01
a nationalism that includes the big umbrella of democratic nations, nations that strive for freedom.
4
SPEAKER_01
And everybody else is against freedom and against human nature, and it just so happens that it s half and half split across the world.
4
SPEAKER_01
So that s imperialism.
4
SPEAKER_01
That feels like it beats the drum of war.
4
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, and I mean, I don t wanna paint too rosy a picture, and certainly, you know, the United States as a nation has often found it easier to define ourselves against something than to clarify exactly what we re for.
4
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, yeah.
4
SPEAKER_01
The Cold War, China today.
4
SPEAKER_01
That s not only the United States, I suppose, that s human nature.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s we need a competitor.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s almost like maybe the success of human civilization requires figuring out how to construct competitors that don t result in global war.
4
SPEAKER_00
Yes, or figuring out how to turn enemies into rivals and competitors.
4
SPEAKER_00
There s a real difference.
4
SPEAKER_00
You know, you compete with competitors.
4
SPEAKER_00
You fight with enemies.
4
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, with competitors is a respect, maybe even a love underlying the competition.
4
SPEAKER_01
What lessons, what are the biggest lessons you take away from World War I?
4
SPEAKER_01
Maybe, we talked about several, but you look back at the 20th century,
4
SPEAKER_01
As a historian, what do you learn about human nature, about human civilization, about history, from looking at this war?
4
SPEAKER_00
I think the lesson I would want everyone to take from the story of the First World War is that
4
SPEAKER_00
human life is not cheap, that all of the warring powers thought that just by throwing more men and more material at the front, they would solve their political problems with military force.
4
SPEAKER_00
And at the end of the day, in 1918, one side did win that, but it didn t actually solve any of those political problems.
4
SPEAKER_01
And in the end, the regular people
4
SPEAKER_01
paid the price of their lives.
4
SPEAKER_00
They did.
4
SPEAKER_00
And people who had been told that their lives were cheap remembered that.
4
SPEAKER_00
And it sort of reshapes mass politics for the rest of the 20th century, both in Europe and around the world.
4
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, the cost of a death of a single soldier is not just, or a single civilian, is not just the cost of that single life, it s the resentment, the anger, the hate that reverberates throughout.
4
SPEAKER_01
One of the things I saw in Ukraine is the birth of, at scale, of generational hate, not towards administrations or leaders, but towards entire peoples.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, overnight that hate is created and it takes perhaps decades for that hate to dissipate.
4
SPEAKER_00
It takes decades and it takes collective effort to build institutions that divert that hate into other places.
4
SPEAKER_01
One of the biggest things I thought was not part of the calculus in when the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq is the creation of hate.
4
SPEAKER_01
When you drop a bomb, even if it hits military targets, even if it kills soldiers, which in that case it didn t, there s a very large amount of civilians,
4
SPEAKER_01
what does that do to the, how many years, minutes, hours, months, and years of hate do you create with a single bomb you drop?
4
SPEAKER_01
And I calculate that, like literally, in the Pentagon, have a chart, how many people will hate us, how many people does it take, do some science here, how many people does it take, when you have a million people that hate you, how many of them will become terrorists?
4
SPEAKER_01
how many of them will do something to the nation you love and care about, which is the United States, will do something that will be very costly.
4
SPEAKER_01
I feel like there was not a plot, a chart.
4
SPEAKER_01
It was more about short-term effects.
4
SPEAKER_00
Yes, again, it s the idea of using military force to solve political problems.
4
SPEAKER_00
And I think there s a squandering of goodwill that people have around the world towards the United States.
4
SPEAKER_00
That s a respect for its economy, for its consumer products, and so forth.
4
SPEAKER_00
And I think that s been lost, a lot of that.
4
SPEAKER_01
Do you think leaders can stop war?
4
SPEAKER_01
I have perhaps a romantic notion, perhaps because I do these podcasts in person and so on, that leaders that get in a room together and can talk, they can stop war.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, that s the power of a leader, especially one in an authoritarian regime, that they can, through camaraderie, alleviate some of the emotions associated with the ego.
4
SPEAKER_00
Yes, leaders can stop war if they get into the room when they understand from the masses in their countries that war is something that they want stopped.
4
SPEAKER_01
So the people ultimately have a really big say.
4
SPEAKER_00
They do.
4
SPEAKER_00
It was mass movements by people in the United States for the nuclear freeze, in Russia pushing for openness that brought, for example, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev to Reykjavik to debate.
4
SPEAKER_00
and eventually sort of put caps on nuclear weapons.
4
SPEAKER_00
Those two people made choices in the room that made that possible, but they were both being pushed and knew they were being pushed by their people.
4
SPEAKER_01
Boy, that s a tough one.
4
SPEAKER_01
It puts a lot of responsibility on the German people, for example, in both wars.
4
SPEAKER_01
We fans of history tend to conceive of history as a meeting of leaders.
4
SPEAKER_01
We think of Chamberlain, we think of Churchill and the importance of them in the Second World War.
4
SPEAKER_01
I think about Hitler and Stalin and think that if certain conversations happened, the war could have been avoided.
4
SPEAKER_01
You tell the story of how many times Hitler and Nazi Germany s military might was not sufficient.
4
SPEAKER_01
They could have been easily stopped.
4
SPEAKER_01
and the pacifists, the people who believed Hitler, were foolish enough to believe Hitler, didn t act properly, and if the leaders just woke up to that idea.
4
SPEAKER_01
In fact, Churchill s a kind of representation of that, but in your conception here, it s possible that Churchill was also a representation of the British people, even though seemingly unpopular.
4
SPEAKER_01
That force was,
4
SPEAKER_01
that gave birth to somebody like Churchill, who said we ll never surrender, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
She ll fight in the beaches.
4
SPEAKER_00
And I think World War II Britain is a good example of that.
4
SPEAKER_00
It is clearly a dynamic leader who has his pulse on what the people want and demand and are willing to do.
4
SPEAKER_00
And it s a dynamic art of leading that and shaping those wants at the same time as knowing that you re bound by them.
4
SPEAKER_01
Well then if we conceive of history in this way, let me ask you about our presidents.
4
SPEAKER_01
You are taking on the impossibly difficult task of teaching a course in a couple of years here, or in one year, called the History of American Presidential Elections.
4
SPEAKER_01
So if the people are in part responsible for leaders,
4
SPEAKER_01
how can we explain what is going on in America that we have the leaders that we do today?
4
SPEAKER_01
So if we think about the elections of the past several cycles, I guess let me ask, are we a divided nation?
4
SPEAKER_01
Are we more of a divided nation than we were in the past?
4
SPEAKER_01
What do you understand about the American citizen in the beginning of this century from the leaders we have elected?
4
SPEAKER_00
Yes, obviously we are a divided country in our rhetoric, in our day-to-day politics, but we are nowhere near as divided as we have been in other periods in our history, right?
4
SPEAKER_00
The most obvious, of course, being the American Civil War, right, 150 years ago.
4
SPEAKER_00
And the distinction is not just that we haven t come to blows, but that we are fundamentally one society, one economy, and sort of deeply integrated as a nation, both domestically and on the world stage in ways that look nothing like the United States in 1861.
4
SPEAKER_00
You know, will political rhetoric continue to be extreme?
4
SPEAKER_00
Of course.
4
SPEAKER_00
But we re not as divided as people think we are.
4
SPEAKER_01
Well, then if you actually look throughout human history, does it always get, so outside of the people, do the elections get as contentious as they ve recently been?
4
SPEAKER_01
So there s a kind of perception that s been very close and there s a lot of accusations, a lot of tensions, it s very heated, it s almost fueling the machine of division.
4
SPEAKER_01
Has that often been the case?
4
SPEAKER_00
It has.
4
SPEAKER_00
It has and it hasn t.
4
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I do think right now is different.
4
SPEAKER_00
And there it s worth distinguishing are there deep social or economic divisions, which I don t actually think that there are, versus partisanship in particular, sort of the rivalry between the two parties.
4
SPEAKER_00
And it s very clear that we are in an era of what political scientists call hyper-partisanship.
4
SPEAKER_00
and that the two parties have taken fundamentally different positions and moved further apart from one another.
4
SPEAKER_00
And that is what I think people talk about when they say our country is divided.
4
SPEAKER_00
So the country may not be divided even if our politics are highly partisan.
4
SPEAKER_00
That is a divergence from other time periods in our history.
4
SPEAKER_01
So I wonder if this kind of political partisanship
4
SPEAKER_01
is actually...
5
SPEAKER_01
an illusion of division.
5
SPEAKER_01
I sometimes feel like we mostly all agree on some basic fundamentals.
5
SPEAKER_01
And the things that people allegedly disagree on are really blown out of proportion.
5
SPEAKER_01
And there s like a media machine and the politicians really want you to pick a blue side and a red side.
5
SPEAKER_01
And because of that, somehow, I mean, families break up over Thanksgiving dinner about who they voted for.
5
SPEAKER_01
There s a really strong pressure to be the red or blue.
5
SPEAKER_01
And I wonder if that s a feature or a bug, whether this is just part of the mechanism of democracy that we want to, even if there s not a real thing to be divided over, we need to construct it such that you can always have a tension of ideas in order to make progress, to figure out how to progress as a nation.
5
SPEAKER_00
I think we re figuring that out in real time, right?
5
SPEAKER_00
On the one hand, it s easy to say that it s a feature of a political system that has two parties, right?
5
SPEAKER_00
And the United States is in some ways unique, right, in not being a parliamentary democracy.
5
SPEAKER_00
And so in some ways, you would think that would be the feature that is causing partisanship and to reach these heights.
5
SPEAKER_00
That said,
5
SPEAKER_00
We can even see in parliamentary systems all around the world that the same kinds of rhetorics of irreconcilable division, a kind of politics of emotion, are proliferating around the world.
5
SPEAKER_00
Some of that, as you say, I think is
5
SPEAKER_00
not as real as it appears on television, on social media, and other formats.
5
SPEAKER_00
So, you know, I don t know that other countries that are experiencing sort of political conflict, I m not sure that they re deeply divided either.
5
SPEAKER_01
So, I ve had the fortune of being intellectually active through
5
SPEAKER_01
the George Bush versus Al Gore election, then the Obama, and it s just every election since.
5
SPEAKER_01
And it seems like a large percentage of those elections, there s been a claim that the elections were rigged.
5
SPEAKER_01
that there is some conspiracy, corruption, malevolence on the other side.
5
SPEAKER_01
I distinctly remember when Donald Trump won in 2016, a lot of people I know said that election was rigged.
5
SPEAKER_01
And there s different explanations, including Russian,
5
SPEAKER_01
And then in 2020, I was just running in Austin along the river and somebody said like, oh, huge fan of the podcast.
5
SPEAKER_01
And they said like, what do you think of it?
5
SPEAKER_01
This is just not right what s happening in this country that the 2020 election was obviously rigged from their perspective in electing Joe Biden versus Donald Trump.
5
SPEAKER_01
Do you think there s a case to be made for and against each claim in the full context of history of our elections being rigged?
5
SPEAKER_00
I think the American election system is fundamentally sound and reliable.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I think that the evidence is clear for that, regardless of which election you re looking at.
5
SPEAKER_00
In some ways, whether you look at a presidential election or even a local county election for dog catcher or something.
5
SPEAKER_00
that the amount of time and resources and precision that go into voter registration, vote counting, certification processes are crucial to democratic institutions.
5
SPEAKER_00
I think when someone says rigged,
5
SPEAKER_00
regardless of which side of the political spectrum they re coming from, they re looking for an answer.
5
SPEAKER_00
They re looking for that one answer for what is in fact a complex system.
5
SPEAKER_00
So on the left, when they say rigged,
5
SPEAKER_00
they may be pointing to a wide range of ways in which they think that the system is tilted through gerrymandering, misrepresentation through the electoral college.
5
SPEAKER_00
On the right, when people say rigged, they may be concerned about voter security, about ways in which the mainstream media may control messages.
5
SPEAKER_00
In both cases, the feeling is my
5
SPEAKER_00
it s articulated as my vote didn t get counted right.
5
SPEAKER_00
But the deeper concern is my vote doesn t count.
5
SPEAKER_00
My voice isn t being heard.
5
SPEAKER_00
So no, I don t think the elections are rigged.
5
SPEAKER_01
So let me sort of push back, right?
5
SPEAKER_01
There s a comfort to the story that they re not rigged.
5
SPEAKER_01
And a lot of us like to live in comfort.
5
SPEAKER_01
So people who articulate conspiracy theories say, sure, it s nice to be comfortable, but here s the reality.
5
SPEAKER_01
And the thing they articulate is there s incentives in close elections, which we seem to have nonstop close elections.
5
SPEAKER_01
There s so many financial interests.
5
SPEAKER_01
There s so many powerful people.
5
SPEAKER_01
Surely, you can construct, not just with the media and all the ways you described, both on the left and the right, the elections could be rigged, but literally, actually, in a fully illegal way, manipulate the results of votes.
5
SPEAKER_01
Surely, there s incentive to do that.
5
SPEAKER_01
And I don t think that s a totally ridiculous argument, because it s like, all right, well, I mean, it actually lands to the question, which is a hard question for me to ask, because ultimately, as an optimist, of how many malevolent people out there, and how many malevolent people are required to rig an election?
5
SPEAKER_01
So how many, what is the phase transition for a system to become from like corruption light to corruption, to high level of corruption such that you could do things like rig elections, which is what happens quite a lot in many nations in the world even today.
5
SPEAKER_00
So yes, there is interference in elections, and there has been in American history.
5
SPEAKER_00
And we can go all the way back into the 18th century.
5
SPEAKER_00
You don t have to go back to Texas in the 1960s, LBJ, to find examples of
5
SPEAKER_00
direct interference in the outcome of elections.
5
SPEAKER_00
And there are incentives to do that.
5
SPEAKER_00
Those incentives will only feel more existential as hyper-partisanship makes people think that the outcome of the elections are a matter of black and white or life and death.
5
SPEAKER_00
and you will see people organizing every way they can to shape elections.
5
SPEAKER_00
We saw this in the 1850s when settlers, pro and anti-slavery, flooded into Kansas to try to determine the outcome of an election.
5
SPEAKER_00
and we see this in the Reconstruction period, right, when the Ku Klux Klan shows up to kind of, you know, to block the doors for Black voters in the South.
5
SPEAKER_00
You know, this history is not new, it s there.
5
SPEAKER_00
I think what
5
SPEAKER_00
the reason why I think that the system is sound is not, or the reason, when I say I believe that the election system is fundamentally sound, it s not, I m not trying to be reassuring or encourage complacency, right?
5
SPEAKER_00
I m saying like, you know, this is something that we need to do and to work on.
5
SPEAKER_01
So the current electoral mechanisms are sufficiently robust.
5
SPEAKER_01
Even if there is corruption, even if there is rigging, the force that corrects itself corrects and ensures that nobody gets out of line is much stronger than the other incentives.
5
SPEAKER_01
which are like the corrupting incentives.
5
SPEAKER_01
And that s the thing I talked about corrupt, you know, visiting Ukraine, talking about corruption, where a lot of people talk about corruption as being a symptom, not if the system allows
5
SPEAKER_01
creates the incentives for there to be corruption, humans will always go for corruption.
5
SPEAKER_01
That s just, you have to assume that.
5
SPEAKER_01
The power of the United States is that it constructed systems that prevent you from being corrupt at scale.
5
SPEAKER_01
At least, I mean, depends what you believe of most of us.
5
SPEAKER_01
If you believe in this country, you have to, you believe in the self-correcting mechanisms of corruption, that even if that desire is in the human heart, the system resists it, prevents it.
5
SPEAKER_01
That s your current belief.
5
SPEAKER_00
Yes, as of today.
5
SPEAKER_00
But I do think that that will require oversight by institutions, ideally ones that are insulated as much as possible from partisan politics, which is very difficult right now.
5
SPEAKER_00
And it will require the demands of the American people, that they want these elections to be
5
SPEAKER_00
to be fair and secure.
5
SPEAKER_00
And that means being willing to lose them, regardless of which party you re in favor of.
5
SPEAKER_01
So what do you think about the power of the media to create partisanship?
5
SPEAKER_01
I m really worried that there s a huge incentive, speaking of incentives, to divide the country.
5
SPEAKER_01
And the media and the politicians, I m not sure where it originates, but it feels like it s the media.
5
SPEAKER_01
maybe it s a very cynical perspective on journalism, but it seems like if we re angry and divided as evenly as possible, you re gonna maximize the number of clicks.
5
SPEAKER_01
So it s almost like the media wants to elect people that are gonna be the most divisive maximizing.
5
SPEAKER_01
And the worry I have is they are not beyond either feeding, or if you wanna be very cynical, manufacturing narratives
5
SPEAKER_01
that lead that division, like the narrative of an election being rigged.
5
SPEAKER_01
Because if you convinced half the populace that the election was completely rigged, that s a really good way to get a lot of clicks.
5
SPEAKER_01
And the very cynical view is, I don t know if the media machine will stop the destruction of our democracy in service of getting more clicks.
5
SPEAKER_01
It may destroy our entire democracy just to get more clicks, just because the fire as the thing burns down.
5
SPEAKER_01
will get clicks.
5
SPEAKER_01
Am I putting too much blame on the media here?
5
SPEAKER_01
The machine of it?
5
SPEAKER_00
You re diagnosing the incentive structure, you know, you re depicting that with 100% accuracy.
5
SPEAKER_00
But I think history teaches that you might be giving the media too much sort of causal power.
5
SPEAKER_00
that the American people are smarter than the media that they consume.
5
SPEAKER_00
And even today, we know that.
5
SPEAKER_00
People who consume, even people who consume just Fox or just MSNBC know what they re consuming.
5
SPEAKER_00
And so I don t think that media will be the solution.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I certainly don t think that returning to a media structure of the mid-20th century with, you know, three news channels that all tell us one story, that s no golden age that we re trying to get back to, for sure.
5
SPEAKER_01
Well, there is a novel thing in human history, which is Twitter and social media and so on.
5
SPEAKER_01
So we re trying to find our footing as a nation to figure out how to think about politics, how to maintain
5
SPEAKER_01
our basic freedoms, our sense of democracy, of our interaction with government and so on on this new media, medium of social media.
5
SPEAKER_01
Do you think Twitter, how do you think Twitter changed things?
5
SPEAKER_01
Do you think Twitter is good for democracy?
5
SPEAKER_01
Do you think it has changed what it means to be an American citizen?
5
SPEAKER_01
Or is it just the same old media mechanism?
5
SPEAKER_00
It has not changed what it means to be an American citizen.
5
SPEAKER_00
It may have changed the day-to-day sound of being and the experience of it.
5
SPEAKER_00
It got noisier, it got louder, and it got more de-centered.
5
SPEAKER_00
I think
5
SPEAKER_00
Twitter is paradoxical.
5
SPEAKER_00
On the one hand, it is a fundamentally democratic platform, and in some ways it democratizes institutions that had gatekeepers and authority figures for a very long time.
5
SPEAKER_00
But on the other hand, it s not a democratic institution at all.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s a for-profit corporation, and it operates under those principles.
5
SPEAKER_00
And so, that said, it s an institution of American and global life that the people of the United States have the authority to regulate or reshape as they see fit, both that and other major media players.
5
SPEAKER_01
So one of the most dramatic decisions that illustrate both sides of what you re saying is when Twitter decided to ban, I think permanently, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, off of Twitter.
5
SPEAKER_01
Can you make the case that that was a good idea and make the case that that was a bad idea?
5
SPEAKER_01
Can you see both perspectives on this?
5
SPEAKER_00
Yes, I think, I mean, the simple fact of the matter is, you know, Twitter is a platform.
5
SPEAKER_00
It has rules of service.
5
SPEAKER_00
Twitter concluded that President Trump had violated the terms of service and blocked them, right?
5
SPEAKER_00
And if you
5
SPEAKER_00
have roles, you have to enforce them.
5
SPEAKER_00
Did it have consequences?
5
SPEAKER_00
It had direct and predictable consequences of creating
5
SPEAKER_00
a sense among millions of Americans that Twitter had taken a side in politics, or confirming their belief that it had done so?
5
SPEAKER_00
Will it have unintended consequences?
5
SPEAKER_00
You know, this is where the historian can come in and say, yes, there s always unintended consequences.
5
SPEAKER_00
And we don t know, you know, sort of what it would mean for political figures to be excluded from various media platforms under these notions, right, that they had violated terms of service, et cetera.
5
SPEAKER_00
So, you know, so I guess we ll see.
5
SPEAKER_01
Well, to me, so I m generally against censorship,
5
SPEAKER_01
But to take Twitter s perspective, it s unclear to me, in terms of unintended consequences, whether censoring a human being from being part of your platform is going to decrease or increase the amount of hate in the world.
5
SPEAKER_01
So there s a strong case to be made that banning somebody like Donald Trump increases the amount of resentment
5
SPEAKER_01
among people and that s a very large number of people that support him or even love him or even see him as a great president, one of the greatest this country has had.
5
SPEAKER_01
And so if you completely suppress his voice, you re going to intensify the support that he has from just the regular support
6
SPEAKER_01
or another human being who ran for president to somebody that becomes an almost heroic figure for that set of people.
6
SPEAKER_01
Now, the flip side is removing a person from a platform like Donald Trump might lessen the megaphone of that particular person, might actually level the democratic notion that everybody has a voice.
6
SPEAKER_01
So basically, removing the loud extremes is helpful for giving the center, the calm, the thoughtful voices more power.
6
SPEAKER_01
And so, in that sense, that teaches a lesson that don t be crazy in any one direction.
6
SPEAKER_01
Don t go full, don t go Lenin, don t go Hitler.
6
SPEAKER_01
You have to stay in the middle.
6
SPEAKER_01
There s divisions in the middle, there s discussions in the middle, but stay in the middle.
6
SPEAKER_01
That s sort of the steel man in the case for censoring.
6
SPEAKER_01
But I, boy, is censorship a slippery slope.
6
SPEAKER_01
And also, boy, is Twitter becoming a thing that s more than just a company.
6
SPEAKER_01
It seems like it s a medium of communication that we use for information, for knowledge, for wisdom even.
6
SPEAKER_01
During the period of COVID,
6
SPEAKER_01
We used it to gain an understanding of what the hell s going on, what should we do, what s the state-of-the-art science.
6
SPEAKER_01
Science fundamentally transformed during the time of COVID because you have no time for the full review cycle that science usually goes through.
6
SPEAKER_01
And some of the best sources of information for me.
6
SPEAKER_01
from the conspiracy theory to the best doctors was Twitter.
6
SPEAKER_01
The data, the stats, all that kind of stuff.
6
SPEAKER_01
And that feels like more than a company.
6
SPEAKER_01
And then Twitter and YouTube and different places took a really strong stance on COVID.
6
SPEAKER_01
which is the laziest stance in my opinion, which is we re gonna listen to whatever CDC or the institutions have said.
6
SPEAKER_01
But the reality is, you re an institution of your own now.
6
SPEAKER_01
You re kind of the press.
6
SPEAKER_01
You re like, there s a, it s a really difficult position.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s a really, really difficult position to take.
6
SPEAKER_01
But I wish they have stepped up and take on the full responsibility and the pain of fighting for the freedom of speech.
6
SPEAKER_00
Yes, they need to do that.
6
SPEAKER_00
But, you know, I m struck by some of the things that you said, ways in which, you know, Twitter has the power to shape the conversation.
6
SPEAKER_00
And I don t think in a democratic society, democratic polities should cede that power to for-profit companies.
6
SPEAKER_01
Do you agree that it s possible that Twitter has that power currently?
6
SPEAKER_01
Do you sense that it has the power?
6
SPEAKER_01
Because my sense is Twitter has the power to start wars, like tweets have the power to start wars, to change the direction of elections.
6
SPEAKER_00
Maybe in the sense in the ways in which a wave has the power to wash away sand.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s still the medium.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s not in itself an actor.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s how actors use the platform, which requires us to scrutinize the structure of the platform and access to it.
6
SPEAKER_01
unfortunately it s not, maybe it s similar to the wave, it s not just a medium, it s a medium plus.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s a medium that enables virality, that benefits from virality of engagement.
6
SPEAKER_01
And that means singular voices
6
SPEAKER_01
can have a disproportionate impact.
6
SPEAKER_01
Like not even voices, singular ideas, dramatic ideas can have a disproportionate impact.
6
SPEAKER_01
And so that actually threatens, it s almost like, I don t know what the equivalent is in nature, but it s a wave that can grow exponentially because of the intensity of the, the initial intensity of the wave.
6
SPEAKER_01
I don t know how to describe this as a dynamical system, but it feels like
6
SPEAKER_01
It feels like there is a responsibility there not to accelerate voices just because they get a lot of engagement.
6
SPEAKER_01
You have to have a proportional representation of that voice.
6
SPEAKER_01
But you re saying that a strong democracy should be robust to that.
6
SPEAKER_00
a strong democracy can and should and will be.
6
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I think the other thing a historian will tell you about Twitter is that this too shall pass, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
But I do think the structures of the platform, of the algorithm, of this and other major players are eligible for scrutiny by democratic institutions.
6
SPEAKER_01
So, in preparing to teach the course, The History of American Presidential Elections, leading up to the 2024 elections,
6
SPEAKER_01
So one of the lessons of history is this too shall pass.
6
SPEAKER_01
So don t make everything about, this is going to either save or destroy our nation.
6
SPEAKER_01
That seems to be like the message of every single election as I m doing Trump hands.
6
SPEAKER_01
Do you think Donald Trump, what do you think about the 2024 election?
6
SPEAKER_01
Do you think Donald Trump runs?
6
SPEAKER_01
Do you think the tension,
6
SPEAKER_01
will grow, or was that a singular moment?
6
SPEAKER_01
Do you think it ll be like AOC versus Trump or whoever, whatever the most drama-maximizing thing, or will things stabilize?
6
SPEAKER_00
I think historians don t like to predict the future, but I can predict this one, that it will not be a calm and stabilized election.
6
SPEAKER_00
I think as of the time that we re talking, in 2022, there are too many open questions, particularly about whether Joe Biden will run for re-election.
6
SPEAKER_00
He says he will, but the jury, I think, is out on that.
6
SPEAKER_00
know, I can t predict whether Donald Trump will run for election or not.
6
SPEAKER_00
I think
6
SPEAKER_00
You know, we do know that President Trump doesn t like to start things he can t win.
6
SPEAKER_00
And if the polling data suggests that he s not a credible candidate, he might be reluctant to enter the race and might find more appealing the kind of sideline, kind of kingmaker role that he s been crafting since he left the White House.
6
SPEAKER_00
I think there are plenty of people who are dreaming that there s some sort of centrist candidate, whether it s a conservative Democrat or a liberal Republican who will save us from all of this, either within the party or in a third party run.
6
SPEAKER_00
I don t think that s likely.
6
SPEAKER_00
Why aren t we getting them?
6
SPEAKER_01
Why don t you think it s likely?
6
SPEAKER_01
What s the explanation?
6
SPEAKER_01
There seems to be a general hunger for a person like this.
6
SPEAKER_00
You would, but the system sorts it out, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
You know, that the primary systems and the party, you know, party candidate selection systems, you know, will favor sort of more, you know, more partisan views, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
More conservative Republicans, more liberal Democrats as the kind of center candidates.
6
SPEAKER_01
It seems like the system prefers mediocre executor, mediocre leaders, mediocre partisan leaders.
6
SPEAKER_01
if I take a cynical look, but maybe I m romanticizing the leaders of the past, and maybe I m just remembering the great leaders of the past.
6
SPEAKER_01
And, yeah.
6
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, I can assure you there s plenty of mediocre partisans in the 19th century.
6
SPEAKER_01
Okay, and the 20th.
6
SPEAKER_01
Well, let me ask you about platforming.
6
SPEAKER_01
Do you think, Donald, it s the Twitter question, but I was torn about whether to talk to Donald Trump on this podcast.
6
SPEAKER_01
As a historian, what would you advise?
6
SPEAKER_00
I think, I mean, you know, this is a difficult question, right, for historians who want, you know, sort of want to make sure that they know sort of what Americans are thinking and talking about, you know, four centuries later.
6
SPEAKER_00
So one of the things that, you know, at least my understanding is that
6
SPEAKER_00
When President Trump was banned from Twitter, his account was also deleted.
6
SPEAKER_00
And that is one of the most valuable sources that historians will use to understand the era.
6
SPEAKER_00
And parts of it were archived and reconstructed.
6
SPEAKER_00
But in that sense, I think that that is also a real loss to the historical record.
6
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I think that your podcast shows, you ll talk to anyone.
6
SPEAKER_00
So I m here, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
So I m not in the business of saying don t talk to me.
6
SPEAKER_01
That s one of the difficult things when I think about Hitler.
6
SPEAKER_01
I think Hitler, Stalin, I don t know if World War I quite has the same intensity of controversial leaders.
6
SPEAKER_01
But one of the sad things from a historian perspective is how few interviews Hitler has given or Stalin has given.
6
SPEAKER_01
And that s such a difficult thing because it s obvious that talking to Donald Trump,
6
SPEAKER_01
that talking to Xi Jinping, talking to Putin, is really valuable from a historical perspective to understand.
6
SPEAKER_01
But then you think about the momentary impact of such a conversation, and you think, well, depending on how the conversation goes, you could steer, or flame,
6
SPEAKER_01
what is it, feed the flame of war or conflict or abuses of power and things like this.
6
SPEAKER_01
And that s, I think, the tension between the journalist and the historian.
6
SPEAKER_01
Because when journalists interview dictators, for example, one of the things that strikes me is they re often very critical of the dictator.
6
SPEAKER_01
They re like,
6
SPEAKER_01
they re basically attacking them in front of their face, as opposed to trying to understand.
6
SPEAKER_01
Because what I perceive they re doing is they re signaling to the other journalists that they re on the right side of history kind of thing.
6
SPEAKER_01
But that s not very productive.
6
SPEAKER_01
And it s also why the dictators and leaders often don t do those interviews.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s not productive to understanding who the human being is.
6
SPEAKER_01
To understand, you have to empathize.
6
SPEAKER_01
Because few people, I think, few leaders do something
6
SPEAKER_01
from a place of malevolence.
6
SPEAKER_01
I think they really do think they re doing good.
6
SPEAKER_01
And not even for themselves, not even for selfish reasons.
6
SPEAKER_01
I think they re doing great for the, they re doing the right thing for their country or for whoever the group they re leading.
6
SPEAKER_01
And to understand that, you have to, and by the way, a large percent of the country often supports them.
6
SPEAKER_01
I bet if you legitimately poll people in North Korea,
6
SPEAKER_01
they will believe that their leader is doing the right thing for their country.
6
SPEAKER_01
And so to understand that, you have to empathize.
6
SPEAKER_01
So that s the tension of the journalist, I think, and the historian, because obviously the historian doesn t care.
6
SPEAKER_01
They care, obviously, deeply.
6
SPEAKER_01
But they know that history requires deep understanding of the human being in the full context.
6
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, it s a tough decision to make.
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, I think it s both for journalists and historians, the challenge is not to be too close to your subject, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
And not to be overly influenced and used by them, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
When you re talking to a living subject, which historians do too, it s a matter of making sure that you triangulate their story with the rest of the record.
6
SPEAKER_00
right?
6
SPEAKER_00
And that may paint a different picture of the person then and will prevent you as a journalist or a historian from kind of, you know, just telling someone else s story.
6
SPEAKER_00
And historians also have the benefit of going back, you know, 30, 40 years and finding all the other stories and figuring out, you know,
6
SPEAKER_00
playing two truths and a lie, which parts are accurate, which are not.
6
SPEAKER_00
And journalists do that work in a day-to-day basis, but historians, we get a little more time to think about what we re doing.
6
SPEAKER_01
Well, I personally also think it s deeply disrespectful to the populace, to people, to censor and ignore a person that s supported by a very large number of people.
6
SPEAKER_01
Like that you owe, I personally feel like you owe the citizens of this country a deep empathy and understanding of the leaders they support, even if you disagree with what they say.
6
SPEAKER_01
I mean, that s, to me, I m much more worried about the resentment of the censorship, that it s, to having a good conversation with Donald Trump is ultimately valuable.
6
SPEAKER_01
Because he, I think, especially in this case, I agree with you that Donald Trump is not a singular person.
6
SPEAKER_01
He is a, he represents a set of feelings that a large number of people have.
6
SPEAKER_01
And whatever those feelings are, you can try to figure out by talking to people, but also talking to the man.
6
SPEAKER_01
And then seeing the interplay there, what does this really represent?
6
SPEAKER_01
in this period in history, in this slice of the world.
6
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, ultimately understanding I think leads to compassion and love and unity, which is how this whole thing progresses.
6
SPEAKER_01
The tension between the different sides is useful to have a good conversation, but ultimately coming up with the right answer and progressing towards that answer is how you make progress.
6
SPEAKER_01
Do you think a pure democracy can work?
6
SPEAKER_01
So we have this representative democracy with these contentious elections and so on.
6
SPEAKER_01
When we start a civilization on Mars, which becomes more and more realistic technologically, we can have a more direct access to be able to vote on issues and vote for ideas, do you think it can work?
6
SPEAKER_00
I don t think we have to go to Mars to do it, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
I think,
6
SPEAKER_00
answer is not to flip a switch and turn on something called pure democracy when people are not ready for it, when their incentive structures are not sort of structured for it.
6
SPEAKER_00
But you can experiment with more democratic forms of governance one after another, whether it s
6
SPEAKER_00
you know, sort of experimenting with technology to find new ways of sort of getting greater rates of participation in democracy.
6
SPEAKER_00
I think that we see some experiments in sort of more complicated systems of voting that in fact might actually be more reflective of people s choices than simply picking one candidate, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
Sort of rank choice voting or
6
SPEAKER_00
runoffs, other kinds of things.
6
SPEAKER_00
You know, I think that we can think more creatively about something like participatory budgeting, right, in which, you know, we put all this money into the government and then, you know, we, you know, should, as a people, there are more democratic ways of sort of how we spend it.
6
SPEAKER_00
And I think the most urgent, in some level, is a more democratic form of foreign policymaking, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
That foreign policymaking, decision-making about the military, about foreign policy, is in many ways insulated from popular participation in modern American history.
6
SPEAKER_00
And I think technology is not the
6
SPEAKER_00
going to solve this.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s a combination of technology and human creativity, but I think we can start heading that direction.
6
SPEAKER_00
Whether we get there before we get to Mars, I don t know.
6
SPEAKER_01
What interesting lessons and thoughts, if you look at the fundamentals of the history of American elections, do you hope to reveal when you try to teach the class?
6
SPEAKER_01
And how will those fundamentals be met by
7
SPEAKER_00
by the students that received that wisdom.
7
SPEAKER_00
So what do you think about this dance?
7
SPEAKER_00
Especially it s such an interesting idea, and I hope you do go through with this kind of idea, is look at the history while the next one is happening.
7
SPEAKER_01
Yes, I think,
7
SPEAKER_01
know, it s worth remembering, right, that the students who are typical American student who s in college right now, right, has lived their entire life after the election of 2000 and Bush v. Gore, right?
7
SPEAKER_00
And after 9-11 probably.
7
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, absolutely.
7
SPEAKER_01
After all of these things.
7
SPEAKER_01
So on the one hand, they take partisanship and contentious elections for granted.
7
SPEAKER_01
They don t, I think, share some vision that things used to be different.
7
SPEAKER_01
They don t remember
7
SPEAKER_01
a world that had lots of moderate Democrats and liberal Republicans running around in it.
7
SPEAKER_01
So in some ways, it s a way of looking back into the past to find other ways of organizing our politics.
7
SPEAKER_01
It s also a way of reassuring students that we have been through contentious and even violent elections before in our history.
7
SPEAKER_01
And that people have defended the right to vote, right?
7
SPEAKER_01
People have risked their lives to vote.
7
SPEAKER_01
I think they will understand that as well.
7
SPEAKER_00
And maybe knowledge of history here can help deescalate the emotions you might feel about one candidate or another.
7
SPEAKER_00
And from a place of calmness, you can more easily arrive at wisdom.
7
SPEAKER_01
That s my hope, yeah.
7
SPEAKER_00
Just as a brief aside, you, brief aside, but nevertheless, you wrote the book Bound by War that describes a century of war in the Pacific.
7
SPEAKER_00
So looking at this slice of geography,
7
SPEAKER_00
and power, so most crucially through the partnership between the United States and the Philippines.
7
SPEAKER_00
Can you tell us some aspect of the story that is often perhaps not considered when you start to look more at the geopolitics of Europe and Soviet Union and the United States?
7
SPEAKER_00
How did the war in the Pacific define the 20th century?
7
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I came to this book, Bound by War, from a sense that our stories were too lopsided toward Europe.
7
SPEAKER_01
That American history, when viewed from the Pacific, specifically in the 20th century,
7
SPEAKER_01
helps us understand American power in some new ways.
7
SPEAKER_01
Not only American projection of power into Asia, but also the ways in which American power affected people in Asia, either in places like the Philippines, where the United States had a colony for almost 50 years, or Asian Americans, people who had migrated or their descendants in the United States.
7
SPEAKER_01
and those linkages between the United States and Asia, particularly the U.S.-Philippine connection, I think were something that needed to be traced across the 20th century, because it s a way, kind of a new way of seeing American power, you know, from a different angle.
7
SPEAKER_01
You see it in that way.
7
SPEAKER_00
What are some aspects that define America from when you take the perspective of the Pacific?
7
SPEAKER_00
What military conflict and the asymmetry of power there?
7
SPEAKER_01
Right, so I start in 1898 with the US invasion of the Philippines.
7
SPEAKER_01
It s a conquest and annexation.
7
SPEAKER_01
And I think in many ways this is a defining conflict of the 20th century that s often completely overlooked.
7
SPEAKER_01
were described, I think incorrectly, as merely a war with Spain, right?
7
SPEAKER_01
That the war in the Philippines is our first extended overseas conflict, our first conflict in what would come to be called the developing world or third world.
7
SPEAKER_01
It s a form of counterinsurgency.
7
SPEAKER_01
You know, this is the U.S.
7
SPEAKER_01
Army sort of learning lessons that are then repeated again in the Second World War, in Korea, Vietnam, and even after 9-11.
7
SPEAKER_00
Is the Philippines our friends or enemies in this history?
7
SPEAKER_01
Well, that s the interesting part, right, is that the book focuses in particular on Filipinos who fight with the Americans, who fought, you know, sort of in the U.S.
7
SPEAKER_01
Army and Navy over the course of the 20th century.
7
SPEAKER_01
And they are in a fundamentally ironic position, right?
7
SPEAKER_01
They are from the Philippines and they re fighting for the United States, which is the colonial power occupying their country.
7
SPEAKER_01
And I think that irony persists, right?
7
SPEAKER_01
So if you look at sort of polling data where they ask people all around the world, you know, do you think positively or negatively about the United States, that the highest responses are from the Philippines, right?
7
SPEAKER_01
Filipinos view the United States more favorably than people from any other country in the world.
7
SPEAKER_01
including America, right?
7
SPEAKER_01
They think more favorably of Americans than Americans do.
7
SPEAKER_01
And so, you know, sort of unpacking that irony is part of what I m trying to get at in the book.
7
SPEAKER_00
What was the people power revolution and what lessons can we learn from it?
7
SPEAKER_00
You kind of assign an important, a large value to it in terms of what we can learn for the American project.
7
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, so in 1986, the president of the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos, is overthrown by a popular revolution known as people power in the wake of a contested and probably almost certainly rigged election that sort of confirms his rule.
7
SPEAKER_01
When that is overturned through sort of mass movements in the Philippines, it s also sort of confirmed in many ways by the reluctance of the United States to intervene to prop up a Cold War ally.
7
SPEAKER_01
Ferdinand Marcos had supported American policy throughout his administration.
7
SPEAKER_01
The Reagan administration, Ronald Reagan s president at the time, basically chooses not to support him.
7
SPEAKER_01
that s a personally wrenching decision for Reagan himself.
7
SPEAKER_01
But he s being shaped in many ways by the emerging voices of neoconservative political foreign policy voices, in particular, Paul Wolfowitz and the State Department and others who see sort of movements for democracy and democratization that then kind of take fire in the late 20th century in Latin America, in South Korea, in Eastern Europe, and, you know,
7
SPEAKER_01
all around the world until it hits the wall in Tiananmen Square in June 1989.
7
SPEAKER_01
What s that wall?
7
SPEAKER_00
What do you mean by it hits the wall?
7
SPEAKER_01
So there are global movements for democratization, for opening up throughout the world, starting in the 1980s.
7
SPEAKER_01
And obviously they continue in Eastern Europe with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
7
SPEAKER_01
I say it hits the wall in China with the protests in Tiananmen Square.
7
SPEAKER_01
that are blocked and that are crushed and I think represent a real sort of turning point in the history of democratic institutions on a global scale in the late 20th century.
7
SPEAKER_00
So there s some places where the fight for freedom will work and some places not.
7
SPEAKER_00
And that s the kind of lesson from the 20th to take forward to the 21st century.
7
SPEAKER_01
No, I think the lesson is maybe one that we talked about earlier, that there s this dynamic dance between leaders, whether totalitarian leaders or leaders of democratic movements, and the people that they re leading.
7
SPEAKER_01
And sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn t.
7
SPEAKER_00
Let me ask a big ridiculous question, because we talked about sort of presidential elections.
7
SPEAKER_00
Now this is objectively, definitively, you have to answer one person, who s the greatest president in American history?
7
SPEAKER_00
Oh, that s easy.
7
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
7
SPEAKER_01
Abraham Lincoln.
7
SPEAKER_00
Is that easy?
7
SPEAKER_00
Not George Washington?
7
SPEAKER_01
You know, Washington had the statesman qualities.
7
SPEAKER_01
He understood his power as the first president.
7
SPEAKER_01
Also relinquished power.
7
SPEAKER_01
He was willing to relinquish power.
7
SPEAKER_01
But he
7
SPEAKER_01
But Lincoln has the combination of personal leadership, a fundamental moral character, and just the ability to fight the fight of politics, to play the game of it, to get where he s going, to play the short game and the long game, to work with his enemies, to block them when he had to.
7
SPEAKER_01
And he gets the United States through the Civil War, so you gotta give him some credit for that.
7
SPEAKER_00
And he s pretty good at making speeches.
7
SPEAKER_01
Obviously it helps that he s a remarkable speaker and able to convey those kinds of visions.
7
SPEAKER_01
But he is first and foremost a politician, and probably the best one we have.
7
SPEAKER_01
Both at getting elected and at ruling.
7
SPEAKER_01
some ways better at the doing than at the getting elected, right?
7
SPEAKER_01
The election of 1860, it s just a hot mess that could have worked out many different ways.
7
SPEAKER_01
And even the election of 1864, when we have a presidential election in the middle of a civil war, it was not a foregone conclusion that Lincoln would be re-elected.
7
SPEAKER_01
So, you know, both times he sort of, you know, he s not a master campaigner by any means, but he was a master politician as a governor.
7
SPEAKER_00
Do we have leaders like that today?
7
SPEAKER_00
Is it, so one perspective is like, leaders aren t, ain t what they used to be.
7
SPEAKER_00
And another perspective is, well, we always romanticize stuff that happens in the past.
7
SPEAKER_00
We forget the flaws and remember the great moments.
7
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, both of those things are true.
7
SPEAKER_01
On the one hand, we are not surrounded by people of Lincoln s caliber right now.
7
SPEAKER_01
That feels like the case.
7
SPEAKER_01
And I think we can say that with some certainty.
7
SPEAKER_01
But, you know, I always like to point to President Harry Truman, who left office with, you know, some truly abysmal presidential ratings, was dismissed throughout his presidency as a, you know,
7
SPEAKER_01
as unqualified, as not knowing what he was doing, et cetera.
7
SPEAKER_01
And then, you know, turns out with hindsight, we know that he was better at the job than anyone understood.
7
SPEAKER_01
Better at getting elected, right?
7
SPEAKER_01
You remember that sign, Dewey defeats Truman, right?
7
SPEAKER_01
He showed them, right?
7
SPEAKER_01
And better at holding power and better at sort of, you know, kind of building the kind of institutions that long after he was gone demonstrated that he won the long game.
7
SPEAKER_00
And some of that is the victors do write the story.
7
SPEAKER_00
And I ask myself very much, how will history remember Volodymyr Zelensky?
7
SPEAKER_00
It s not obvious.
7
SPEAKER_00
And how will history remember Putin?
7
SPEAKER_00
That too is not obvious.
7
SPEAKER_00
because it depends on how the role, the geopolitics, how the history of these nations unravel, unfold rather.
7
SPEAKER_00
So it s very interesting to think about.
7
SPEAKER_00
And the same is true for Donald Trump, Joe Biden.
7
SPEAKER_00
Obama, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and so on.
7
SPEAKER_00
I think it s probably an unanswerable question of which of the presidents will be remembered as a great president from this time.
7
SPEAKER_00
You can make all kinds of cases for all kinds of people, and they do, but it s unclear.
7
SPEAKER_00
It s fascinating to think about.
7
SPEAKER_00
When the robots finally take over, which of the humans they will appreciate the most?
7
SPEAKER_00
Let me ask for advice.
7
SPEAKER_00
Do you have advice for young folks as they, because you mentioned the folks you re teaching, they don t even, they don t know what it s like to have waited on the internet for the thing to load up.
7
SPEAKER_00
For every single web page, it s suffering.
7
SPEAKER_00
They don t know what it s like to not have the internet and have a dial phone that goes.
7
SPEAKER_00
and then the joy of getting angry at somebody and hanging up with a physical phone.
7
SPEAKER_00
They don t want any of that.
7
SPEAKER_00
So for those young folks that look at the contentious elections, that look at our contentious world, our divided world, what advice would you give them of how to have a career they can be proud of, let s say they re in college or in high school, and how to have a life they can be proud of?
7
SPEAKER_01
Oh man, that s a big question.
7
SPEAKER_01
I ve never given a graduation speech.
7
SPEAKER_01
This is like warm-up.
7
SPEAKER_00
Let s look for raw materials before you write it.
7
SPEAKER_01
If I did, I think I would advise students that history teaches that you should be more optimistic than your current surroundings suggest.
7
SPEAKER_01
And I think
7
SPEAKER_01
It would be very easy as a young person today to think, there s nothing I can do about this politics.
7
SPEAKER_01
There s nothing I can say to this person on the other side of the aisle.
7
SPEAKER_01
There s nothing I can do about, you know, the planet, et cetera, and just sort of give up.
7
SPEAKER_01
And I think history teaches that we don t know who the winners and losers are in the long run, but we know that the people who give up are always the losers.
7
SPEAKER_00
So don t give in to cynicism or apathy.
7
SPEAKER_00
Optimism paves the way.
7
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, because human beings are deeply resilient and creative, even under far more difficult circumstances than we face right now.
7
SPEAKER_00
Let me ask a question that you don t even need to, that you wouldn t even dare cover in your graduation commencement speech.
7
SPEAKER_00
What s the meaning of life?
7
SPEAKER_00
Why are we here?
7
SPEAKER_00
this whole project that history studies and analyzes as if there s a point to the whole thing.
7
SPEAKER_00
What is the point?
7
SPEAKER_00
All the wars, all the presidents, all the struggles to discover what it means to be human or reach for a higher ideal, why?
7
SPEAKER_00
Why do you think we re here?
7
SPEAKER_01
I think this is where
7
SPEAKER_01
there is often a handoff from the historian to the clergy, right?
7
SPEAKER_01
But in the end, there s less distance between the two than you think, right?
7
SPEAKER_01
That if you think about some of the kind of answers to that question, what is the meaning of life that are given from religious traditions,
7
SPEAKER_01
often they have a fundamentally historical core, right?
7
SPEAKER_01
It s about unifying the past and the present in some other non-earthly sort of dimension.
7
SPEAKER_01
And so I think there is that.
7
SPEAKER_01
I think even for people who don t have religious belief, there s a way in which history is about the shared human condition.
7
SPEAKER_01
I think historians aspire to telling all of that story.
7
SPEAKER_01
We drill down on the miseries of war and depressions and so forth, but the story is not complete without blueberries and butterflies and all the rest that go with it.
7
SPEAKER_00
So both the humbling and the inspiring aspect that you get by looking back at human history that we re in this together.
8
SPEAKER_00
Christopher, this is a huge honor.
8
SPEAKER_00
This is an amazing conversation.
8
SPEAKER_00
Thank you for taking us back to a war that not often discussed, but in many ways defined the 20th century and the century we are in today, which is the First World War.
8
SPEAKER_00
the war that was supposed to end all wars, but instead defined the future wars, and defines our struggle to try to avoid World War III.
8
SPEAKER_00
So it s a huge honor to talk with me today.
8
SPEAKER_00
This is amazing.
8
SPEAKER_00
Thank you so much.
8
SPEAKER_00
Thank you.
8
SPEAKER_00
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Christopher Capozzola.
8
SPEAKER_00
To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
8
SPEAKER_00
And now, let me leave you with some words from Woodrow Wilson in 1917 about World War I that haunted the rest of the 20th century.
8
SPEAKER_00
This is a war to end all wars.
8
SPEAKER_00
George Santana, a Spanish-American philosopher, responded to this quote in 1922 by saying, only the dead have seen the end of war.
8
SPEAKER_00
Thank you for listening.
8
SPEAKER_00
I hope to see you next time.