William Tyler
Back into Europe: War and Versailles

William Tyler - Back into Europe: War and Versailles

- Thanks very much indeed and welcome everybody to this next talk on American history. We took the story up, if you remember last week, to look at the situation in 1900. We took a sort of deep breath and looked to where America had come from, where it was, and where it might be going. Well, this week we’re looking at where it actually went for roughly speaking, the first two decades of the 20th century. From 1900 through to the end of the first World War, 1918, or roughly speaking therefore, two decades. As the new 20th century began, America, as we saw last week, was rising to power as a great power in the world. This was to be confirmed 17 years later when America entered the First World War and effectively ensured victory for the democratic allies, Britain and France, against the German Empire. And its intention of dominating Europe and indeed in its Weltpolitik in dominating as much of the world as it could. That layer ahead in 1900, as we said last week and the Americans were perhaps less aware of the coming storm caused by Germany, which had only been united in 1871, than Europeans were. That’s not surprising because for a hundred years, America kept out of European affairs, most notably the Napoleonic wars. It wasn’t really until 1914, the year that war began in that summer out of 1914, that America first took notice of events across the Atlantic. America was in theory, and we talked about in theory last week, still pursuing the Monroe Doctrine or to put it in clear terms, an isolationist policy, especially as regards to Europe. We don’t want anything to do with Europe. That’s the old world.

This is the new. And all, well, most if not all, most of our immigrant population, which is the white population of the United States, had come from Europe as we saw last week, escaping poverty and escaping persecution. And they were a loud voice in not wanting to get involved back in Europe. Moreover, America had somewhat fraught relations with Britain. Britain of course, is going to become the closest ally in Europe that America has America throughout the 20th century. But it had had difficulties in the 19th century, and that is perhaps not surprising because the 19th century had opened with the war of 1812 between Britain and the United States, following independence in the 18th century. This is Clements writing about its difficulties with Britain. “The USA had various disagreements with Britain, noticeably over the location of borders between Oregon territory and Canada. The perceived British support for the Confederacy during the Civil War, indeed, Britain was blamed for supplying the South with cruisers, which sank 100,000 tonnes of northern ship. Only in 1871 was this dispute finally solved with Britain agreeing to pay $15.5 million compensation. There was trouble along the Canadian border, which of course was part of the British Empire. There was a view in America that with the acquisition of Alaska, parts of Canada would not only… Well would actually ask to join America, well, it never happened. Now, I’m not going to go in to the American Canadian rivalry at the end of the 19th century because it isn’t relevant to my story today, and I don’t want to get involved with so many lockdown students being Canadian and even more American. That’s for you to sort out.

But all I’m saying is that its relationship with Britain was soured by that. And we in Britain would forget that because we think of America as the ally in both World Wars. And incidentally, of course in both Worlds Wars, America becomes an ally of Canada as well. And the the past is largely buried, if you like, by the events of the first half of the 20th century. So let’s begin by taking a look at the three presidents who are cover this period from 1900 to 1919. First says Teddy Roosevelt, Republican, who served from 1901 till 1909. He’s followed by fellow Republican but with a different political agenda, far more conservative agenda, William Taft, who served between 1909 and 1913. And then we come to the Democrat president, Woodrow Wilson, who served from 1918 to 1921. Well sort of served to 1921, we’ll come to that in due course. The American president who finally broke the Monroe doctrine and took America to war in Europe in 1917, although he had been opposed to it. I’ll say now, before I go into a little more depth, it seems to me and this is my opinion, nobody ever has to agree with me, that one of the things you have to remember about Wilson is that he was an academic, he was the president of Princeton. He was a genuine academic. I see him as this owlish academic. Now, he was also a politician, remember. He’d been governor of New Jersey before he became president, but I think he was always at heart the academic. In fact, after his stroke at the end of his life, he was still trying to write articles and was finding great difficulty in doing so. So we’ve got Teddy Roosevelt, we’ve got Taft, and we’ve got Woodrow Wilson.

Now Teddy Roosevelt became president because he was the vice president of President McKinley, whom you’ll remember from last week was assassinated by an anarchist. And he entered the White House, not the Oval Office. It was Taft who was the first president who entered the Oval Office because it hadn’t been built when Roosevelt became president, it was built in time for Taft to enter it in 1909. So those of you who like to do quizzes, if you are American and do quizzes, it’s one of those sort of odd facts that appearing quizzes, who was the first American, et cetera, et cetera. So Roosevelt is particularly interesting. He is still the youngest American president. He was a year younger than JFK was when he became president, he was 42. But he was 42 going on six because a friend, and who wants friends like, that remarked at him, "You must always remember with the president, that he’s about six years old.” Well, what annoyed people who are older is that he was enthusiastic. I’ve known what it’s to been like to be enthusiastic and critical. On one occasion, I was taken aside by the chief education officer in the county of Warwickshire where I was the inspector and head of service for adult education back in the, well, back in the old days, as they say, in the 1970s. And he said, “William”. I’d asked him a question whilst we stood next to each other in the gentleman’s yours about the budget. And he said… I shan’t swear, “You dot adult educators can’t even allow a man to dot in the toilet without trying to get an advantage financially out of the budget.” And it was enthusiasm that was the problem. He said, “You are just too enthusiastic, William.” Well, I’m always happy to be enthusiastic. And I think the Teddy Roosevelt was as well, but he was accused… It’s because he was young. Although today we wouldn’t think of somebody in their 40s particularly as young. Well, we certainly wouldn’t in Britain with the politicians were cast a veil over the current two great politicians in America, Biden and Trump and their age. Perhaps another, sadly for Roosevelt, he didn’t like being called Teddy, by the way.

But he was called Teddy because there’s the popular press at the time. He’s remembered by the general public more for the famous incident when he was out hunting, he refused to shoot a baby bear. And the story took off in the mass media of the day and an enterprising toy maker made a bear and named it Teddy Bear. And the world now knows of teddy bears. It’s a wonderful story and is largely true, but it’s rather sad, because he was much more than simply the man that gave his name to a toy. He was a person who genuinely believed in America’s destiny. You all remember the phrase we’ve been using. All the Americans will, and most of you now will remember, manifest destiny. And this is just one small quotation about that which I wanted to use to short circuit the story. And it goes like this, “His embrace of American”… Sorry. “His embrace of American expansionism followed hard on the realisation, the frontier era at home had ended.” Do you remember we talked about that last week? That the western frontier had been brought to a close by the railways stretching from East coast to West coast. This is the rough guide to the history of the USA. The Spanish American War brought him to prominence as Assistant Secretary of the Navy. He engineered the conquest of the Philippines before personally insisting and to lead the charge at San Juan that brought victory in Cuba.“ He was an extraordinary man. He believed in this manifest destiny. That’s what particularly unusual, but it meant that if manifest destiny was to continue. It was to continue outside of the United States itself. The east-west barrier broken. So where does it expand to?

Well, interestingly enough, he began a process which is to lead later in 1913 to a change in the actual… sorry to lead in 1904 to a change to the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine of isolationism has been broken as we saw last time and as I’m indicating this time, and Roosevelt’s belief in manifest destiny led him to add what is called the Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904. And this is from the office of the historian of the US government, federal government. By the 20th century, a more confident United States was willing to take on its role of regional policemen. Regional policeman. If you were doing a university course and I was setting you an essay, then perhaps the essay I would set would be how did America move into being a regional policeman and onto being a world policeman and what consequences were there for both the region and the world? That would be the sort of essay title. But he’s looking at the region, and by the region we mean both continents, both North America and South America. Let me finish. In the early 1900s, Teddy Roosevelt grew concerned that a crisis between Venezuela and its creditors could spark an invasion of that nation by European powers. That is what he wants to prevent. He doesn’t want a European power on, not absolutely on, but on as he saw it, America’s borders. So he created this Roosevelt Corollary in December of 1904. It stated the United States would intervene as a last resort, policemen, would intervene as a last resort to ensure that other nations in the western hemisphere, South America, Central America, fulfilled their obligations to international creditors and did not violate the rights of the United States or invite foreign aggression to the detriment of the entire body of the American nations.” In other words, this is a shot fired across the bows of European imperial powers, Spain, Britain, France don’t come here interfering.

And Britain, for example, had a great many economic ties with South America. Those of you who are British, remember Argentinian Fray Bentos beef, for example, from your childhood. We had big connections and America does not want Britain or any other in Venezuela, he was particularly concerned about the Spanish, could come in and intervene. He doesn’t want that. And so this Corollary is set. And in doing that, he breached very definitely the old isolationist policy. Now that’s important because it opens the door to it being pushed wider to say, “Abandon the isolation policy a la Europe” and thus paves the way for the intervention of America in the first World War on the continent of Europe. He’s a most interesting man in all of those things. There is a lovely quotation by HG Wells, the writer, on Roosevelt. HG Wells wrote, “Roosevelt pioneered receptivity to the point of genius.” To the point of genius. I think he was a very successful president of the United States. He was succeeded by his friend, another Republican, Taft. Taft had cut from a different cloth. Taft is a conservative in British terms with a small C. A conservative in all sorts of ways in which in the end, Roosevelt fell out with him. And although Taft stood for a second term in 1912, Roosevelt decided he would challenge him in the Republican primaries. He lost out to Taft in the Republican primaries and then stood for his party, a progressive party, which becomes known as the Bull Moose Party, because during the campaign he denounced, “I’m as strong as a bull moose.” And that was the phrase that was used. But of course, by splitting the Republican vote, it allowed the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, to take the presidency. And maybe it’s a good thing that Taft didn’t, because I’m not at all… Well says he from a very European British view, I’m not sure Taft would necessarily have taken America into war. Roosevelt would’ve done that. He said so before Wilson made the decision to take America to war. For those of us who are not American, it’s sometimes difficult to understand that the political parties in America, particularly in well in the past, could have similar sorts of outlooks. It was Roosevelt who was the keenest of the three, Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson, that took America to war. Wilson remembers the academic.

And so he’s thinking this through and it’s only when he’s forced to it does he admit that we should go, that America should join the war. I’ll come to that, as they say, in due course, Woodrow Wilson is principally remembered as the president, of course, who took America into that war and launched the, well, it depends how you view it. Launched the modern approach to keeping the peace across the world by introducing the idea of the League of Nations, which transformed itself after World War II into the United Nations. Although there had been attempts to do precisely something similar with a congress system agreed Vienna, in 1815 by the various powers in Europe, America are not present at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Now are we too close to judge the League of Nations and the United Nations? A former British foreign sector, Douglas Hurd, wrote a book about… He called it “The Search for Peace”, the Peace of the World, and talking of the United Nations. This book was written a few decades ago now, said in the book that the United Nations may have many failings, but it’s the best we’ve got. I’m becoming more and more, not least over the Middle East conflict, I’m becoming more and more concerned about the United Nations. Anyhow, leave that aside. He is remembered, Wilson, for taking America out of isolation into the European War and then through the war afterwards with the idea of the League of Nations. But when he came to power in 1913, war hadn’t started in Europe and he began on a reforming agenda in home affairs. He had been a reforming governor of New Jersey, so this was nothing different. He introduced federal taxation, federal income taxation, an income tax true had been introduced back in 1861 by by Lincoln.

But it had died after 10 years, much in the same way that British income tax had been introduced as a temporary measure during the Napoleonic Wars and we never got rid of it. The Americans got rid of it in the 1870s, but back it comes in 1913. And as I always say to short circuit in short talk, this is Alan Axelrod’s comment about what he was doing with income tax. “In 1913, the federal government authorised the collection of income taxes. Initially rates were set at 1% of taxable income above $3,000 for individuals and $4,000 for married couples.” Gosh, I wish we had that today. The highest rate was 7% imposed on those whose income was over $500,000. No distinction between 3,000 and 500,000. A lot of people are in the lower.. The bulk of people are in the lower section. Goes on to say “The century’s two World Wars would temporarily send income tax rates as high as 77% during First World War and 91% during the Second World War.” Now, that is one of the things that is important, not just in America, but in Britain too. Taxation, not just taxation, but the power of the federal government and not just the federal government or in Britain that the government of the day, but in both Britain and America. And we don’t need to look at other places because America and Britain, remember right back from the beginning of my series, share the basic constitutional position over democracy. And what happened because of the two World Wars, beginning in the first is that Lloyd George, prime Minister in Britain and Woodrow Wilson, President in the United States, begin to act in a different way. In America it’s called the beginning of the imperial presidency. Now, if you were to ask anybody in the street, in a vox pop in Britain or any country in Europe, any question other about politicians in the United States other than who is the President?

And I guess a lot of people get that wrong, but if you started asking them, who is the of state for X, Y, and Z, there would be a complete blank. We associate political power in America with the president. What American historians called the imperial presidency. Britain went the same way, as a result of World War I and of course Churchill in World War II. In fact, one historian is written that in Britain in World War II, we had a greater dictator in British terms than Europe could ever think and dream of. And the same is true in America. In Britain, we don’t use the term imperial presidency, obviously not. But we do use the term presidential prime minister. A turn of phrase that came about during the premiership of Tony Blair. So both countries, it’s always important to remember this, although both countries are on separate constitutional paths, sometimes you are woken up to the fact that actually we are still going along the same pathway. And that is absolutely true when it comes to the power exercised in America by the federal government and in particular by the president and in Britain, by the government, the cabinet, and in particular by the Prime Minister. This is very different than the American 19th century model or the British 19th century model. And the example of income tax is clear. We all know why Wilson was thinking and introduced income tax because he needed the money to be able to do the projects in the home side of things. It had a benefit during the First World War, ‘cause as I’ve just read, he could hike it up and bring the money in. So when he came to power in 1913, yes, he does introduce income tax. This is in the 16th amendment to the Constitution. He lowered protectionist tariffs, he reformed bank legislation.

He provided low credit interest to farmers. We shall come to the issue of American agriculture next week, there were problems with it at this period. He introduced labour reform. He introduced, for example, eight hour day for interstate railway workers. He intervened in the number of hours worked by seamen, and he set a new maximum number of hours for children at work. If you are saying and listening in Britain, you are saying, “But William, we’ve heard you talk about the pre-war liberal government, Asquith in Britain. This sounds very similar.” Yes, it is. It’s, again, both countries pursuing the same policy at roughly the same time, roughly the same policies. And Woodrow Wilson’s pre… I mean he only had a year. His pre-World War… Well, he only had a year before the war in Europe started. He has in fact, of course, four years before America goes into the war. But he has this reformist policies, you might say, to drag America into the 20th century, as Asquith had reformist policies prior to 1914 to drag Britain into this new century. So there was an awareness on both sides of the Atlantic that things were changing. Now you can have a big discussion about what caused that. Partly it’s caused by the economic power in America and partly by social concerns in Britain and social concerns in America and economic. But I think the basis is slightly different in both. But from 1914 onwards, foreign affairs began to figure more largely for Woodrow Wilson’s government. It began with problems on America’s southern border in Mexico. Now, there had been difficulties in Mexico from 1909, which would extend for 10 years. They were border clashes. But America was always fearful that Mexico could become a dangerous southern neighbour.

And indeed it was to do so during the First World War, which we will come to. And Alan Axelrod writes of this problem with Mexico in the following way. He says, in 1960, the year before America entered the war, Wilson intervened against revolutionary guerilla leader, Pancho Villa, after Villa raided the border town of Columbus in New Mexico, killing several American citizens. So he gets involved in Mexico, in parenthesis, the American general in Mexico is General Pershing, whom we shall come across in a moment. In 1915 and 1916, Wilson also sent American troops to rebellion-wracked Haiti, and Santo Domingo, where he established American protectorates. So he is following the… Well, it’s not so much the Roosevelt Corollary because there aren’t European nations involved, but he’s following the idea of America being a regional policeman. That’s what I’m saying. The outlook of Roosevelt and Wilson is much the same in this pre-first World War period. And they’re flexing America’s muscles to say, “Well, we are keeping an eye on what’s going on around us because we don’t want it to get out of control.” Either locally out of control with, well, with unsuitable in American terms, unsuitable leadership in those countries, or they are in terms of Haiti for example, because sugar comes from Haiti for America, in terms of it going pear shaped in terms of commerce. Always remember it’s Clinton, “It’s the economy, stupid.” That phrase is so, such an important, I would give if you were doing a postgraduate degree, that’s the second essay. How very accurate is Clinton’s description, “It’s the economy, stupid”? Apply it to American history from 1900 to 2000 and it comes up… Or any, it’s not just America, but it America is the prime example because it’s becoming, by this date, the world power, not a world power, but the world power.

Only after 1945, is it a world power with Russia. And today it’s a world power with what? Russia, China, and some people on in continental Europe would say the EU, but I don’t think America have much to be concerned about that. Americans themselves, the general public took these interventions by Wilson in their stride. A small war, a small force a long way away from most Americans in the northeast or indeed in the northwest. They’re not something to worry about too much. This is just America sorting it out. But when war had come in Europe in 1914 before the interventions, for example in Haiti and Santa Domingo, then the American public are saying, “That’s fine. Provided Wilson does not take us into a European war.” Because by now there are not only newspaper reports from American journalists, but there are also pictures in American newspapers and there’s also moving pictures coming from Europe of this war. And the reports are horrendous, of course, from the western front. And America’s public is right behind Wilson saying, “Look, what you do in Central America, what you do in the Caribbean, what you do in South America, we’re not bothered about that, that sensible American policy. But for goodness sake, don’t get us involved in the European War.” Germany, I think thought little about America getting involved. Wilson had declared a neutrality and had issued a statement warning that if neutral and passenger ships were attacked and that really meant attacked by the Germans, by the German U-boats, then that would lead to a crisis. Germany thought so little of that, that four months after Wilson’s warning, it sank the Lusitania in May, 1915, off the coast of Ireland with 128 Americans out of 1,200 people who lost their lives. With the sinking of the Lusitania, many pro-British Americans.

And of course there are many with British connections and indeed French connections, many Americans said, “We must now go to war.” And amongst those was Teddy Roosevelt who said, “We can’t allow Germany to sink the Lusitania and do nothing. We can’t lose 128 American lives and sit back and pretend it didn’t happen.” But Wilson refused. He sent a strong protest to Berlin. Well, you can imagine what Berlin did when the protest… They gave it to the Kaizer and I guess somebody just said, “Nothing to worry about, Your Majesty. It’s only the Americans.” The Americans demanded reparation for the loss of the Lusitania and an end to submarine warfare. For a time, Germany did have restrictions on… Placed restrictions on its own submarine warfare. In America, it’s a divided nation. There are those, you can describe it, I think as a pro British lobby, I don’t think that would be unfair, who wanted America to enter the war. But there’s also a strong feeling from others, from other Americans that they should follow isolationism. Wilson maintained that America was neutral. Now, I’m not going to go into the arguments now and since over the Lusitania, they are complex arguments, which today before an international court of justice, there would be a case for both the Germans and the Americans to argue over. But what cannot be argued over, there were over 4 million rounds of rifle cartridges and one-and-a-quarter thousand empty shell cases. And there were fuses as well, all on board the Lusitania as they had been on other ships going to Britain. Some of you heard me talk about neutrality when we talked about Switzerland. Neutrality is a difficult thing.

Wilson maintained neutrality or maintained that’s what he was doing. Now there is a interesting moment, which is not something I’ve ever seen in a British history book, but in America, it’s told what Wilson did when he sent a warning, in 1916, the year before American enters the war, to both Germany and Britain. In 1916, this is Reynolds history of America. “1916, just before Christmas, Wilson dispatched identical notes to the belligerent governments”, including France as well and Russia, “To the belligerent governments asking to state their peace terms clearly and fully, so he could try to discern any common ground.” This is the academic. Now would somebody argue this case? Would you argue that? And I’ll make a judgement between the two. That doesn’t go down well in London. Let me read on. four Wilson noted “The objects which the statesmen of the belligerent on both sides have in mind in this war are virtually the same as stated in general terms.” Reynolds ads, “This insinuation that the allies were on the same moral level as Germany aroused deep anger in London. Reportedly the King wept when he read the news.” Wilson is the academic, but this doesn’t require an academic. It requires a moral judgement . It requires difficult decisions to be made. He is sitting on the fence. Many Americans say it isn’t a sitting on the fence affair. Germany must be stopped. Britain and France must be supported in the cause of democracy and civilization. It occurs to me that this isn’t far different from the situation that Israel has faced and some of the misplaced criticism that Israel has also faced. How Woodrow Wilson would’ve responded to that.

I can’t answer that question, but it’s this problem of neutrality. Well, the neutrality really isn’t going to hold and it doesn’t hold because of events. All changed in 1917 when Germany restarted unlimited submarine warfare. But what finally persuaded Wilson to go to war was something additional, was German political interfering in Mexico in an attempt to open a front against America to prevent America in German eyes entering… 'Cause now it looked as though there was a demand in America to enter the war. If I read from Axelrod, it perhaps makes it clear. He writes this, “In February, 1917, Germany was stalled in the trenches of the western front and wanted to tight-knit stranglehold on British and French supply by sea, announced the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare so that supplies from America”… Remember, France was not conquered as it was in World War II, so it is receiving both food and war material, as is Britain. And it Axelrod goes on to say, “Announce the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare. Subsequently, on the 3rd of February, the US Navy who San…” Sorry, you are going to be very cross if I don’t pronounce this right and I don’t think I’m going to, “Busatonic was torpedoed and sunk without warning. In response, president Wilson severed diplomatic relations with Germany.” He still not declared war. “In the meantime, evidence of German espionage in the United States mounted. And on the 1st of March, the American public learned of the Zimmerman note or Zimmerman telegram.

It was a coded message sent on the 19th of January, 1917, from the German foreign sector, Alfred Zimmerman to his nation’s ambassador in Mexico outlining the terms of a proposed German-Mexican alliance against the United States. In return for an alliance against the United States, Germany would help Mexico get back what it had lost in the earlier American-Mexican war of the 1840s. Public sentiment left Woodrow Wilson Little choice and so Wilson is forced on the 2nd of April, 1917 to ask Congress for a declaration of war. The declaration was issued on the 6th of April.” The academic, as I see it, you don’t have to see it the same way, is now being forced by events and public opinion, public opinion based on those events, of course, to act and take America into war. This is a major departure for American foreign policy since independence in the 18th century. It’s going to send troops to Europe. This is David Reynolds again. “Eventually Wilson stopped wriggling and stood firm. On the 2nd of April, 1917, he asked a special session of Congress to approve a formal declaration of war against Germany in words that brought sighs of relief in London, He promised…” This is Wilson to Congress. “The utmost practical cooperation in council and action with the governments now at war with Germany and the extension to those government of the most liberal financial credits.” Well, JP Morgan had already been lending large sums of money, particularly into Britain for the war. In fact, the Americans had done rather well out of the war in Europe, supplying food, supplying war material, and supplying finance. At the time Britain was, this isn’t World War II, Britain is in a position to pay for most of this.

Let me read on, “But Wilson also made clear that the United States still had its own special agenda, on a higher moral plane from Britain and France.” He said, “We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion.” Well, in truth, neither did France or Britain seek conquest or dominion. “We seek no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall make.” Now that is a big break, particularly with France, and it’s going to be a big issue at Versailles when Clemenceau of France demand massive reparations. In fact, Clemenceau said he wanted to return Germany to the state of a mediaeval agricultural economy. Even Lloyd George baulked that. And Woodrow Wilson threatened to leave France and go home if they pursued that line. They didn’t, but they did ask for reparations. And the harsh terms imposed on Germany, most historians today believe was a major cause in the rise of Nazism in the 1930s. “We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make.” And in a phrase says Reynolds, that echoed around the globe and through the 20th century. “The world must be made safe for democracy.” Third essay title then to postgraduate students, Wilson’s message to Congress, the world must be safe for democracy. How much heartache has that caused? Not just to the world, but to America, but during the course of the 20th century. It’s a very brilliant speech. But then that’s what you’d expect from academic Wilson. But it raises all sorts of questions. It places America, or he seeks to place America, in a morally superior position to that of London and Paris. We can forget about Russia because Russia suffers the two revolutions of 1917.

And so czarist Russia has gone, by the end of 1917, the October revolution of bringing the Bolsheviks to power. But in France and in London, this is a clear message which was not understood at the time. It was not understood that America is now the leading player. It was not even understood by Clemenceau and Lloyd George at Versailles. They thought they were dealing with Wilson as an equal. And I don’t think they were, I don’t think they understood where Wilson was coming from. And yet had they looked at that speech to Congress, they would’ve seen what he was saying. That he’s the leader. In modern parliament, we would say he was casting himself as the leader of the free world. Of course, he annoyed both the French and the British at Versailles, because one of the things he wanted was to get rid of colonial rule, ignoring America’s colonial rule in places like the Philippines, et cetera. He wanted to get rid of British and French colonial rule. And the British and French dug their heels in. They would not do that. They did not want the nations that they governed in their empires to have a voice in whether they wish to be free or not, which is what Wilson wanted. So there are differences here that are important differences. I talked about parallels before. This is a major difference between America’s view of the world and America’s view of itself. Then France and Britain’s view of the world and France and Britain’s view of America. The most staggering, practical illustration of that, is when General Pershing, who was put in charge of the American expeditionary force to Europe arrived, France and Britain had already agreed that they would serve under one commander in chief.

In other words, there wouldn’t be a French command separate from a British commander and vice versa, in which case nobody quite knew what was going on. They would have one. And they chose the French Marshall Foch to be the commander in chief, because Lloyd George said he would have anybody other than the British commander in chief, Haig, whom he hated like poison. So Foch was the commander in chief and Pershing, the British and French expected to serve under Foch. Pershing refused. And throughout the American engagement in the first World War, the Americans operated under separate command. Quite different from World War II, but in World War II, of course, in the invasion of continental Europe in '44, it’s the Americans who control it. It’s Eisenhower. That is another indication of the rise of American power between 1917 and 1944. But in 1917, the fact that Pershing refused to accept Foch as the commander in chief is an indication that America was saying, “Well, we will help, but on our terms, don’t push us. We’re not here to be pushed around by Lloyd George, Clemenceau or any of your generals. We are fighting here for a higher…” Well, Wilson said, “A higher moral cause.” It very interesting in terms of the light of subsequent events in the 20th century. By the time the Americans reached Europe in October, 1917, sorry, in June, 1917, when Pershing arrived, he arrived on the 14th of June, 1917. The beginning of the collapse of Russia had already occurred with the February revolution. It was going to be absolutely throw every democratic belief that Russia will become democratic is crushed in the Bolshevik Revolution in October, and it’s in October when the Americans first see action on the western front.

It wasn’t until the spring of 1918 that America finally enters… In the spring of 1918, that America’s contribution to the war becomes significant. Of the 2 million American troops who fought in the war, 112-and-half-thousand were killed, and just over quarter of a million were wounded. The American losses in terms of the numbers of troops was the equivalent of the losses of Britain and France. Proportionately. Of course, they were lower because it’s at a later stage of the war, et cetera, and fewer soldiers in action. But the Americans took heavy losses and the promise that the boys would be brought back home if they fell in action, didn’t happen. Too many fell. It was in July of 1918 and the beginning of August, 1918, that the second battle of the Marne, M-A-R-N-E was fought. And in that battle, the Americans deployed eight divisions of some eight-and-a-half thousand men. Sorry, 85,000 men, get it right in a moment. It broke the deadlock did the second battle of the Marne, Ludendorff, the German commander made one last attempt to break through. Now, if the Americans had not been there, the question arises, would he have broken through? You can’t answer questions like that. If you ask me, I think so. The Americans took losses of some 12,000 men, the British 16-and-a-half thousand, and the French a staggering 95,000. But it was the fact that the Americans were there and were sending more and more troops over the Atlantic to fight, with all the weapons and so on, that it looked, despite the fact that Russia had been taken out of the war in early 1918 by Lenin, it looked as though with the arrival of the Americans, this war now could not be lost by the allies. I think that’s absolutely true.

And The Second Battle of the Marne in July to August, 1918, is the critical point. The last German throw of the dice has been fought at great loss as ever in the first World War, horrendous loss of life. But of course it was in the November of 1918 that the armistice was struck. It was an armistice, which was not a peace. Marshall Foch said in 1919 at the end of the Versailles treaties. “This is not a peace but a truce that will last 20 years.” 1919 plus 20 equals 1939. And that’s another story for another talk if you like, of, as I said before, how the peace led to war. They met the allies at Versailles to discuss the terms of the peace. Russia wasn’t present. It had withdrawn from the war. Italy was present because it was one of the allies. But the Italian president went off in a huff when the others wouldn’t listen to what he was claiming. The three important parties to the piece are the Americans, the British, and the French. But having said that, it is the Americans that dominate. Now they dominate, but not entirely, because as I said, Wilson was against squeezing Germany until the pips squeaked. And he didn’t entirely get that. And his piece would’ve been different. He arrived in France with 14 points. The famous Wilson 14 points. Opened open diplomacy without secret treatise, economic free trade on the seas during war, as well as peace. Equal trade conditions, decreased armaments among all nations. The one that got right up the noses of Lloyd George and Clemenceau, adjust colonial claims. No. So they said, “Evacuation of the central powers from Russia.” Well, that didn’t happen either. The Americans are still involved in the internal wars in Russia, the Civil War, as are the British, French, Japanese and Czech and goodness knows who. Belgium to be evacuated and restored. Return of Alsace-Lorraine to France.

Readjust Italian borders. All of that happened. Austria, Hungary to provide an opportunity for self-determination. And the French and British did not stop that, because the empire, the Habsburg empire had collapsed. And out of it comes all those other countries that emerged with the collapse of the Austria-Hungarian empire, not least Austria and Hungary itself. Redraw the borders of the Balkan region, creating Romania, Serbia, Montenegro. They did that. And it’s been a thorn in the side of Europe ever since. Creation of a Turkish state with guaranteed free trade to the Dardanelles. Creation of an independent Polish state and then the piece de resistance, Article 14, creation of the League of Nations. It’s reported that when these 14 points were sent to Clemenceau, he read them his, his comment was what you might describe as acerbic. Acerbic because he said, “Who is this man who comes with 14 points? The Lord God Almighty only gave us 10 commandments.” Now, you can find that quotation in various forms. I’m sometimes a bit dubious about that quotation, but it’s said that he actually said that. Well, the outcome was that we got a League of Nations. Many Americans were unhappy about this. Why? Because they expected to withdraw to isolationism again, to the Monroe Doctrine. We’ve done our bit to save democracy and civilization. Now go away and let us live our own lives peacefully on this side of the Atlantic. Wilson duly returned home and began a speaking tour across the country to sell the League of Nations. But on the 2nd of October, 1919, he suffered a stroke. His health was effectively covered up by his wife and his doctors. And it’s always interesting, has America ever had a female president? Answer, no.

Answer, yes, because Mrs. Wilson acted pretty well as the president whilst her husband had this stroke. He did recover to a certain extent. And when he left office in 1921, he lingered until February, 1924. And he died at only 67 years of age. In recent terms, his memory has been soured by charges of racism, because he believes segregation was the first step towards integration. That segregation was important to be a slow process towards incorporating Black Americans fully. He is also accused of, as I mentioned before, expanding the role of the President. And he remains, if you like, a controversial figure today. And I’m not sure how he will be viewed in 100 years time. He didn’t fail with the League of Nations, because although America in the end refused to join, it was established. And now we have the United Nations for good or ill. And as Heard said, it’s the best that we could have. Harding came in as President and talked about a return to normalcy, whatever normalcy might mean. What it did mean was we’re out of Europe and we’ll look at normalcy next week, but America may be out of Europe, but it’s now the great power. And it can’t. As in 1945, because of the Cold War, it could not withdraw troops from Europe. In 1919 it could pretend that it was out of Europe. But in December, 1941, it’s bombed into that war by the Japanese. America is a great power in the world, in Asia, hence Japan’s attack, as well as in Europe. So it’s an interesting period, which we’ll look at next time. But I want to emphasise as I end how America is now the great power. In 1940, when it looked very grim in Britain and Britain might fall, Churchill said, “We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France.

We shall fight on the seas and oceans. We shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields and in the streets. We shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender. And even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it was subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas” Largely this means Canada, where arrangements have been made for the fleet and politicians and the royal family to go to. “The empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet would carry on the struggle” Until, and this is the key, this is the moment of all moments when the British Prime Minister recognises that power no longer lies with the British Empire “Until in God’s good time, the new world” That is America. “The new world with all its power and might steps forward to the rescue and the liberation of the old.” And that is what Churchill desperately believed in. And eventually we shall reach World War II and we’ll talk about the relationship between FDR and Churchill. But I’m going to stop there. I’ve got Overexcited tonight and it’s five past six. I apologise, five past six British times. So I apologise for going over. Now I bet there are a lot of people with lots of points they want to raise. Let me see if I can draw some up. Hang on.

Q&A and Comments:

Thank you all to people who send nice messages here. I have to tell you, it’s really encouraging.

Oh, yes, Gene says, “I believe Teddy Roosevelt is remembered for more than the bears. It is well regarded and revered hero as a politician and leader.” Yes, that’s true. Gene, I guess you are American. I think in Britain we would think of the bear and I didn’t mean to belittle his achievements. Sorry, no, your point is well made. I’m not going to argue against that.

Q: Shelly. “How much of Wilson’s late policy about coming into World War I, the League of Nations was his idea? How much was his wife’s, who was de facto president, when he had his stroke?”

A: No, his wife takes power after he’s had the stroke. The story goes that if you went to the White House and say you were a politician, “I would like to see the president” and ask him whatever it might be what his policy is towards wine in California or whatever it might be. Mrs. Wilson said, “Well, the president’s very busy at the moment, and I’ll go and see if I can find an answer.” She would go out of the room, not discuss it with him, who was too ill at the beginning, after his stroke, come back about five minutes later and said, “I’ve spoken to the President.” And then she would give the answer. So the first American woman president is not actually… Won’t be quite true. And that’s another essay title.

And Michael, “United Nations is a big part of the problem, not the solution.” That is, I hope what I was indicating. “The role of UNRA has been to instil hate indefinitely into the future, not to resolve the refugee issue, the record of other UN agencies, soiled by antisemitism.” That is true. And the problem is… The problem is in our very divided world and our increasingly divided world now is how any such body can operate on a world stage. And yet we need it. We need things like the World Health Organisation, for example. We need world responses to climate change. I have no answer, Michael, because I agree with what you say and I don’t know how we get round that, but I would be with Douglas Hurd, we need reform of the United Nations rather than it’s collapse. Its collapse would not be good for the world.

Dorothy, “One can see this happening day by day, educating Palestinian children to hatred of Jews. I have an early copy of the curriculum, .” Yeah, well all of that is true. All of that is true. And I cannot argue against it. But we have to have somewhere to discuss these things.

Q: Robert, “Do you agree that domestic Wilson was a racial reactionary and in 1819 with A Mitchell Palmer’s Attorney General, he ignored civil liberties with a massive nationwide crackdown on descent.”

A: Yes, that is true. He upset the American Civil Service where there was segregation between black and white. Internationally, Wilson could have had the League of Nations approved by the Senate. He had included Senator Lodge, another Republican leader, as part of the delegation to the Versailles Conference. That is very true because it was Cabot Lodge who was the outspoken opponent of the League of Nations back in America, whilst Wilson was at Versailles. You are absolutely right. And Robert, I think you are. Now, the problem with race today and how we approach it is you’ve got to approach it in terms of what was happening at the time. You’ve got to look at it in context. Now, it is true that in the British Army, black and white soldiers fought together and there were black officers in charge of white troops in the British Army, and the Americans did not have that. I’m not saying that makes Britain better or worse. It’s different because our history prior to that had been different. He did believe in segregation, but segregation became, in the views of many in the southern states, a situation that they wanted to continue, as it were, indefinitely. That was not the nuanced view of Wilson. I’m not going further than that because those of you who are American will have your own views, your own historians that you support or dislike. I can only say judge things within their context and judge things in the nuances of the situation.

Shelly, “Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, the first example of the imperial presidency.” Well, you could say that. I don’t think many American historians would say that. Habeas corpus, as in Britain, was from time to time was suspended because of wars. I’m not sure that that’s an indication of Lincoln’s imperialism. On the other hand, there’s no reason why you can’t argue that.

Irene. Hello Irene. “Re the UN, we should remember it’s not a world government. It’s the sum of its parts resulting in the fact of being run by those groups with the most power, e.g. the permanent members of the security council with their veto, as well as the numerous Arab nations, the specialised agencies are the most effective organs of the UN. Sadly, they e.g. UNRA, are not working fairly at the moment, but sanity will return. In fact, like God, if the UN didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it.” Irene, I know for those of you who don’t know me very well, I know Irene very well, and we’re the same sort of age. I’m sure she’s far younger than me, but we’re the same sort of age. We read law at the same time at university, and we seldom disagree when it’s a legal matter. If it’s political, we’re always in disagreement. Irene, I don’t disagree with a word of what you said. I think that is said very clearly and that’s exactly what I believe.

Dennis “Interesting, it was war like Teddy Roosevelt who received the Nobel Peace Prize.” Yes, well, as you rightly said, Roosevelt received the peace prize for ending the Russo-Japanese War in 1904, 1905. But I think Nobel Priest Prize are, well that is another question about how they’re distributed, but yes, he did. It was a Portsmouth in the States that he got the war to end. That it that is a fascinating piece of history, the Russia- Japanese war.

For your information, William. Oh, that, sorry. If I’d just seen your name, if I started reading, I knew what you put up.

Q: Oh, Yuri, what a good question. “Does being an academic necessarily imply moral equivocation?”

A: I don’t know that it does apply equivocation. It implies looking at both sides and coming to a decision. “Am not sure”, says Yuri.

“Certainly his penchant for big abstractions, international or the League of Nations et cetera, might relate to his academic as might his racism and other failings in judgement reflect the academic self delusions we have seen all too clearly in recent weeks.” Yeah, well, hang on. I agree that your question is a very good question and it’s the sort of question that we could give undergraduates to answer. I’ve answered it in what I think. Now, your last point about the delusions we’ve seen all too clearly in recent weeks. Well, hang on a moment, because that’s today, you must judge Wilson in the terms of his day, not in the terms of our day. And that is what’s so difficult. I’m not suggesting you are doing that, but I’m saying to everyone, try and judge people in terms of their time, not our time.

“There seems to be rather little difference between the activities of the Barbary Pirates Second War in 1815 and the actions of Germany just about a century later. Was there no understanding in Wilson’s time, the parallel regarding America’s need to defend against a transatlantic sea power?” No, there wasn’t. Basically there wasn’t. America was more concerned about Asia and protecting its trade routes there.

Alan, “In answer to John’s question, Jefferson did create the permanent standing US Navy US needs as a standing military.” Yes, absolutely true.

Q: “Since the US didn’t enter the League of Nations, wouldn’t you say US didn’t really support Wilson’s moral position?”

A: No, I think it didn’t support Wilson’s continued involvement with the wider world, America Isolationism raised its head with Cabot Lodge and he was pretty clear that’s why he wanted nothing to do with The League of Nation. Roosevelt was also a great conservationist. Yes, that’s also true.

“Maynard Keen wrote to Woodrow Wilson” says Nigel, and it disappears, Nigel, I can’t read. And that it… Oh yeah, “He had no plan, no scheme, no constructive ideas. Whatever the clothing with the flesh of the commandments, which he had funded from the White House, he could have preached a sermon on any of them or have addressed a stately prayer to the Almighty for their fulfilment. But he could not frame their concrete to the actual state of Europe.” Well, yeah, there’s some truth in that.

Q: Monty, “Does America behave like an imperial power?”

A: Answer, yes. Now, that is not saying, well, put it another way, does America behave like the defender of liberty and freedom across the world? Yes. Others would say, but it’s defining independence and freedom differently. Imperial is a difficult word to use in the 21st century because it has a lot of negative connotations, both in Britain and in America. So I would have to rephrase that, but it certainly behaves or has behaved as though it’s… It’s behaved in the terms of manifest destiny, Roosevelt Corollary, that it has a moral obligation to defend democracy and so on. Now you can have, even in America itself, or in Britain, you can oppose… Think about the campaigns against the war in Vietnam, in Britain as well as in the States.

Oh, Francine says, “She likes the "Complete Idiot’s Guide to United States History”.“ Well, that’s true. You see, it’s by a very good American historian, Alan Axelrod. Everything that he writes is worth reading. He writes succinctly and accurately and always interestingly.

And Carol says, "The League of Nations started with a paper by Jan Smuts, I think I referred to this before you did. Smuts was also against the severe punishment imposed on Germany as he believed it will come back to another war. He stood alone with this and was ignored.” Yes, absolutely true. And as I said, most historians today think that the peace, which was not a piece in Foch’s words, but only a truce, led to Nazism.

Q: Lorna, “Realistically, how possible it would be for a civilian population rise to Churchill urging to defend wherever and whatever cost. Were there trained troops in the UK?”

A: Yes. And of course there was conscription and so there’s an army, and whether Britain would have fought field by field and street by street and on the hills, I cannot tell you, but from people who were alive in 1940 that I have spoken to, all of them I think would’ve followed whatever… No, most of them would’ve followed what Churchill said. If the Germans had captured Churchill, which they intended to do. Had Churchill been assassinated, then the story would’ve been very different. But it was Churchill that would’ve rallied the nation, of that I am certain, and I do not for one moment think that if Germany had invaded Britain, that Churchill would’ve gone with the royal family to Canada, I believe, absolutely, that whatever was said, Churchill would have stayed. But if you look at the British Channel Islands, Jersey and Guernsey and so on, that were occupied by the Germans, then there is not a good story. Now, there were very few of them and there was lots of German troops, and that was not the same as Britain. There was almost nowhere to hide on those islands, but they handed Jews over to the German authorities. It’s not a good story is the Channel Islands and maybe Britain would’ve been the same as France. I don’t think so. I think there would’ve been more resistance here, but then maybe that’s rose coloured thinking.

“Another theory of Wilson’s disability is that he had herpes encephalitis during the great flu. This led to the triumvirate to Colonel House, the GP and his wife. He showed no stroke sequelae”, if I pronounce that right. I guess you are a doctor. That is very interesting and that I have not read about or thought. How interesting. I say something about flu next week. I agree with Francine.

“Please keep giving basic reading suggestions for those of us who perhaps were not totally present when history teachers…” Oh, well, okay. I’ll look at my book list I’ve given. There are a number of other ones. I don’t think I’ve put George Herrings, “The American Century and Beyond” up. I may have done. I’ll try and do that. “Versailles created the mandate of the free state of Danzig. It totally failed to protect their Jews when the Nazis took power there.” Well Versailles, by it, I think you mean the League of Nations. Well, the League of Nations failed totally to intervene. If anyone was going to intervene, it had to be the French and the British, and we all know that story of not intervening until the final episodes, as it were.

Q: “I may have missed it, but did you mention snubbing of the Japanese at Versailles?”

A: No, I didn’t.

Q: “Did it have anything to do with Japan’s tech on Pearl Harbour?”

A: No, it’s not the same as the snubbing of Germany. Japan’s story is different because there’s a massive change in the nature of government in Japan. No, that’s a different story. British acquiescence. British acquiescence in what, I’m not sure. English may be not the Scots. No, you can’t distinguish Scots in English at this period. They would all have called themselves British. In fact, the liberal Prime Minister before Asquith, Campbell-Bannerman, at the beginning of the 20th century was a Scot, but his headed note paper gave his Scottish address, and at the end, instead of saying Scotland, it said North Britain. No, the division between England and Scotland is a much more recent post-World War II thing. It’s much more recent than that.

Right, I think I’ve come to the end of those questions. They were very good questions tonight, and I hope the answers were, if not entirely satisfactory to you, at least those you can get your teeth into. Thanks for listening. I’ll be here next Monday and take the story into the 1920s. I’ll see you all then, I hope.