#US History Woodrow Wilson World War I

[liberty1776]

Another Christmas and there is still no peace on earth. And the proximate cause of that vexing reality is the $1.3 trillion Warfare State planted on the banks of the Potomac—along with its web of war-making capabilities, bases, alliances and vassals stretching to the four corners of the planet. So positioned, it stands in stark mockery of John Qunicy Adam’s sage advice to his new nation 200-years ago: Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters … Continue reading →

[mornington-the-crescent]

The Poll

So, for those who don’t know, I put up a poll of, “Who was the worst American President?” The list was FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, Herbert Hoover, and Richard Nixon. It got up to about 13k notes before I deleted it, because I was tired of the notes clogging up my feed. And the results were... telling.

About 75-80% of all the notes were, “Where is Reagan/Andrew Jackson?!?” Many of the rest, though, can be seen below:

What this tells me is that more than ten thousand people didn’t have an education; they had an indoctrination.

You want to hear it? All right, buckle up, because it’s time for a stroll down memory lane.

Why was FDR a bad president?

It is almost hard to know where to begin with this. Let’s start with one of the most basic ones: The belief that FDR got us out of the Depression.

Point of fact, No the fuck he did not.

Making American Depressed

If you ask almost any historian or economist, they will tell you flat-out that not only did the New Deal not end the Great Depression, but that it made it significantly longer and worse than it would have been otherwise. Hoover bears some of the blame for this, but the pseudo-socialist dogshit that was the New Deal bears the brunt of the blame for this one.

The stock market crashed in late October, 1929. Two months later, unemployment peaked at 9%. Over the next several months, unemployment started to fall, down to 5-6% by the spring of the next year. Half a year after the crash, unemployment had not hit double digits. Hoover’s intervention, though, did cause unemployment to reach double digits. Roosevelt was elected in 1932 and took office in 1933, and unemployment did not fall out of double digits for the remainder of the 1930′s. The thing that actually pulled the US out of the Depression was the second World War; turns out that removing roughly 12 million people from the labor force to go and fight does wonders for unemployment numbers. FDR even said that Doctor New Deal was replaced by Doctor Win-The-War.

This was hardly the first economic downturn in American history. For the first 150 years of this country, there were downturns all the time. And what the government did was nothing, and the economy recovered on its own. But Roosevelt represents the first massive large-scale intervention in the economy. And government intervention in the economy slows economic recovery; when you have no idea what the government is going to do tomorrow in regards to the economy, it’s hard to make smart financial decisions, so you just don’t bother. After all, why do anything if tomorrow, the rules of the game are going to change?

Separation of Powers Who?

FDR issued more executive orders than any other President of the 20th century. He may, in fact, have issued more than all the other Presidents of the 20th century combined. Rather than letting Congress, the legislative branch of government, you know, legislate, he preferred to try to do everything himself.

The President is supposed to be the weakest branch of the government, but Roosevelt did everything he could to try to establish its supremacy over the other branches. When Congress didn’t give him his way, he used executive orders. When the Supreme Court challenged some of his acts as unconstitutional, his response was to threaten to have them replaced, or to simply pack the court with judges more sympathetic to his aims. This is a man who was openly contemptuous of the concept of the rule of law.

Here’s a fun entry from the notes:

Hey, you want to talk about fascists? Actual, honest-to-goodness Fascists, not just the modern definition (i.e. anyone a nanometer to the right of Noam Chomsky)? Let’s talk about the originals. Let’s talk about the inventor of Fascism, Benito motherfucking Mussolini. And how FDR openly admired him, and was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished”, calling Fascism the “cleanest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery [he had] ever seen”, and that it made him “envious”. And Mussolini, for his part, said of Roosevelt that, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices … Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.”

When the guy who fucking invented Fascism is saying that he thinks that you are also doing Fascism, then maybe you’re not a good person.

Concentration- I Mean, Internment Camps

And just like his buddies on the other side of the Atlantic, right when World War 2 kicked off, Roosevelt thought it would be a good idea to take “undesirables” and throw them into prison camps. Roughly 20 thousand Italian- and German-Americans, American citizens, were thrown into camps, simply for the crime of having ancestors from countries we were at war with. And then, of course, there’s the 120 thousand Japanese-Americans who were likewise rounded up and put into prison camps, two thirds of whom were natural-born American citizens.

Almost 150 thousand American citizens, thrown into literal concentration camps, without the bother and expense of due process, stripped of their constitutional rights simply on the basis of race.

As for the concentration camps set up in Europe by the Nazis, however? Despite being told of their existence by people who had escaped, as well as journalists and lawyers from Germany, once American planes gained the ability to attack those camps, to shut them down? FDR refused to grant them permission to do so.

Commander in Thief

Executive Order 6102 outlawed the private ownership of gold, allowing the government to confiscate all of it. Once that was accomplished, the Gold Reserve Act allowed him to change the value of gold, debasing America’s currency (which was on a gold standard at the time), which permitted him to steal literally billions of dollars from American citizens, without any compensation.

World War, Too

There is evidence to suggest that Roosevelt knew about the imminent attack on America by Japan in December of 1941. He discussed with several high-ranking people in the War Department, and in his own cabinet, how to get Japan to fire the first shot in the war, so that he could get America involved. It would make sense: His oil embargo was designed to provoke a Japanese response, so as to draw America into the war. And once America was in the war, ordered the Philippines to be abandoned, outright lying that there was an army waiting to retake it once it had been conquered by Japan.

And as the war dragged on, he got quite cozy with Uncle Joe, Stalin himself. He helped to repatriate two million people to Russia, who very much did not want to go back, many of them ending up either in the gulags, or simply killed outright. And his constant concessions to Stalin helped the Soviet Union hold on to eastern Europe, setting the stage for the Cold War. Even when he was informed of Soviet spies within the American government, and provided evidence of their disloyalty and subversion, he simply let them keep at it.

Racism, Racism, and more Racism

Remember how you cheered when lynching was made a federal crime a few months ago, and asked why it hadn’t been done before now? Well, the main reason was good ol’ FDR himself. A bill was proposed in the Congress which would have made lynching a federal crime, and Roosevelt refused to pass it.

Or what about during the Olympic games in Berlin, when black athletes from America took home multiple gold medals? Roosevelt invited the white athletes to the White House, but not a single black one. Jesse Owens, who won four gold medals, said, “Hitler didn’t snub me --- it was [Roosevelt] who snubbed me. The president didn’t even send me a telegram.”

And then there was his nomination of a KKK member to the Supreme Court; Hugo Black, who had zero judicial experience, was nominated simply because he supported the New Deal.

He also was of the opinion that America was, and ought to remain, a white and Protestant country, and that too many Jews was inherently a bad thing, because of how distasteful he found them. He boasted that there was no Jewish blood in his veins, as a mark of pride. He even went so far as to turn away ships of Jewish refugees, fleeing Nazi tyranny in Europe.

In conclusion

FDR was a massive piece of shit. He massively overstepped his constitutionally-appointed bounds at every available opportunity, massively expanding the power of the Presidency at the expense of all other parts of government, and at the expense of individual liberty. He was openly racist and anti-Semitic. His economic policies brought ruin upon the American economy. He openly praised fascism right up until the moment that it was no longer politically expedient to do so, and switched to deferring to authoritarian communism instead. Almost everything that you hate about the modern United States can be traced directly back to this one man.

The fact that he is remembered as not just a good President, but one of the best Presidents, shows how utterly broken American education is.

[tanadrin]

A challenge: which unimportant US presidential election would you go back in time to change the outcome of? You can't name any of the top 20 genuinely history-defining elections; it has to be a relatively forgotten one.

It's sort of a contradiction, right? Like by definition elections that have outcomes interesting enough to change are excluded. Some elections which might feel like trivia to most people, like the 1876 one that ended Reconstruction, would probably still be rated as pretty highly consequential by historians. Elections like the 2000 election, which didn't seem like it would be extremely consequential at the time, are now widely agreed to be hugely consequential. And it's hard to know how very recent elections, which are important to us, might go down in history.

I am also assuming I only get to pick between the actual major-party nominees--that I don't get to fiddle with the nomination process at all, and very minor candidates don't have a shot. So depending on how you define the "top 20 most consequential elections" I might pick (besides 2000 and 1876)

1912, because Woodrow Wilson was a phenomenally racist son of a bitch (but this might be too close to World War I to not be "history-defining"), and a third-party win by Roosevelt would be fun.

1920, because Warren G. Harding was just a really bad president

1900 or 1896, because William Jennings Bryan winning would be a fun alternate history scenario

1824, because Andrew Jackson was also a huge asshole

1988, because I like Dukakis better, and to reduce the political weight of the Bush family name

1984, because I dislike Reagan, and it would be a huge upset (fun!)

1980, because again fuck Reagan, and I like Jimmy Carter (even though objectively he was not a terribly effective president)

1968, because Richard Nixon was kind of a disaster for how we think about the American presidency

1952, because Adlai Stevenson seems fun, and somewhat less of a paranoid anti-communist that most Republicans (including Eisenhower) at the time.

[georgefairbrother]

When the Versailles Peace Conference convened in early 1919, US President Woodrow Wilson presented an idealistic 14-point plan for 'a new world order' described by Oxford Professor of Modern History, Sir Michael Howard, as furthering democracy and 'national self-determination', and so that 'out of the ashes of the old order of imperial powers there should emerge new self governing nations'.

These ambitions were immediately at odds with European leaders wholly intent on securing their own countries, expanding empires, and enacting revenge on 'a German state that no longer existed'.

French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau was dismissive of Wilson's plan, while British Prime Minister David Lloyd George wasn't a fan either. He wrote;

"…Whilst we were dealing everyday with ghastly realities on land and sea, he was soaring in clouds of serene rhetoric. This was President Wilson’s first contact with Europe, for ages the favourite hunting ground of beasts of prey and poisonous reptiles creeping and springing on their victims…."

Lloyd George also described Europe on the eve of the conference as 'a seething cauldron of hate'.

It didn't take long for senior British diplomat and adviser, Harold Nicholson, to see which way the wind was blowing;

"...Clemenceau, Lloyd George, and President Wilson pulled up armchairs and crouched low over the map…It is appalling that these ignorant and irresponsible men should be cutting Asia Minor to bits as if they were dividing a cake…There was the final revision of the frontiers of Austria; Hungary is partitioned, indolently and irresponsibly partitioned, then the Yugoslav frontier, then tea and macaroons…"

Great War specialist and author, Professor Jay Winter;

"...The way in which Versailles was conducted was disastrous, in that it didn’t provide anything that could be called worth the sacrifice of even a fraction of those who had died in the First World War. So the idea of why, what for, has no answer…It becomes…a continuation of the nightmare of the war rather than the breaking of a new dawn…"

But perhaps the most ominously significant reaction was from a 30 year old corporal in the German army;

"…When the old gentleman began to tell us we were throwing ourselves on the mercy of the victors, I could stand it no longer. Everything went black before my eyes, I tottered and groped my way back to the dormitory, threw myself on my bunk and dug my burning head into my blanket and pillow. And so it had all been in vain. All the sacrifices and privations…The hunger and thirst of months which were often endless. In vain, the two million who died…Would not the graves of those who with faith in the Fatherland had marched forth never to return, would they not open and send the silent mud and blood covered heroes back as spirits of vengeance to the homeland which had cheated them with such mockery…Hatred grew in me for those responsible for this deed, in the days that followed my own fate became known to me. I decided to go into politics…"

Source: The Great War and the Shaping of the 20th Century - BBC-Imperial War Museum, 1996

[loneberry]

Notes on Palestine

The geopolitical situation right now is extremely unstable. In such moments it always feels like incentive structures are such that all parties are pushed toward war and escalation. I saw how this all unfolded with 9/11; it left an indelible mark on my psyche–to observe the world careening, the hysteria, the march toward endless war. The Iran hawks in the US are out calling for war with Iran (US intelligence and even the IDF have said Iran did not help *plan* the Hamas attacks, though the idea that Iran was behind the attacks is being presented as fact). 

Days before the Hamas attacks, I was in an article + podcast rabbit hole focused on Iranian nuclear politics, Saudi-Israeli relations, and the current situation in the “Middle East” (I prefer the term “South West Asia and North Africa”/SWANA but will use “Middle East” for readability). I had also been reading that the US’s attempts to broker a US-Saudi-Israeli deal would piss off the Palestinians. It filled me with immense grief—nobody, not even Muslim Arabs, seem to care about Palestinians anymore. The international community has failed. Now it seems that the world has consented to a protracted genocide of Palestinians. It used to be the case that Arab countries would not considered normalizing relations with Israel without Israel making concessions to the Palestinians. The sad reality is that since the Arab Spring, the resolution of the Palestinian issue has become a low priority for many countries in the Middle East, many of whom have their own feud with Iran and see pivoting toward Israel as a path toward greater security. Of course I’m talking about the Abraham Accords, the so-called “peace deal” brokered by the Trump administration that enabled the normalization of relations between Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain, yet excluded any input from Palestinians. That event had brought me so much grief. It really felt like any hope for the Palestinian cause was dying. There seems to be little political will from any side to put pressure on Israel.

In moments of crisis like these I try to be sober and pedagogical, but such a task feels nearly impossible when it comes to the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict”. People say the conflict is “complicated” and rooted in hundreds of years of religious hatred. It is really not that complicated and only requires basic knowledge of 20th century history. Prior to WWI, the territory of Palestine (and much of the Arab world) was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire for over 400 years. The Allied Powers (Britain, France, Russia, and others) were at war with the Central Powers (Germany, Austro-Hungary, the Ottomans, etc). The Brits saw Palestine as a crown jewel and coveted Jerusalem in particular. They recruited Arab assistance in the war by whipping up hundreds of years of resentment against the Ottomans and promising the Arabs that they would break up the Ottoman Empire and help the Arabs create their own nations (see theMcMahon-Hussein correspondence). Yet the Brits were also keen on recruiting Jewish support on the side of the Allied Powers. In 1917 the British government made a declaration (the Balfour Declaration) that announced British support for the creation of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. At the end of WWI (which, as you likely know, ended in Allied success), the European empires on the winning side sought to expand their empires while Woodrow Wilson believed more in self-determination. The compromise was the “mandate” system, where the Europeans on the winning side took administrative control of territories lost by the Central Powers—France and Britain carved up the Middle East. Enter the British mandate for Palestine. The Arabs had been betrayed by the Allied Europeans (no surprise there). One form of colonial rule was swapped for another. 

Prior to the end of WWI, the Zionist movement was gaining momentum, partly as an answer to the perennial problem of European anti-Semitism and partly because of the 19th/early-20th century discourse around nationalism. The idea of creating a Jewish state in Palestine began in the 19th century, but it was really in the 1890s that modern political Zionism began with the figure of Theodor Herzl. European Jews began to immigrate to Palestine to form settlements. Yet when the mandate was established, the Jewish population was still relatively small—around 9%. While the territory was under British rule, the Brits facilitated a dramatic increase in European Jewish immigration to Palestine. Between 1922 and 1935, the portion of the population that was Jewish grew to 27%. It’s hardly surprising that violence broke out between Arabs and Jews, as well as Arabs and the Brits (see the Arab Revolt of 1936-39). 

The Brits promised a territory to an oppressed people (the Jews) that was never theirs to give away in the first place. The Arabs were quickly being displaced from their home. All of this would come to a head in WWII, when Europe’s vile anti-Semitism was on full display with the Holocaust. How would Europe atone for the atrocities committed against the Jews? There was much momentum around creating a physical state for the Jews in Palestine. This was also a convenient solution for deeply anti-Semitic Europe, as they preferred that the Jews leave rather than be integrated into their societies. In 1947 the UN voted to partition Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, with Jerusalem coming under international administration. 13 voted against the partition (basically all the countries in the Middle East, plus India and several others). 55% of the land would be set aside for the Jews. War broke out soon after the UN resolution. The (WWII) battle-hardened Zionist paramilitaries (backed by European countries) undertook a campaign of ethnic cleansing and captured additional territory. Between 1947-49, 750,000 Palestinians became refugees—around 40% of the entire Palestinian population. 78% of historic Palestine was taken by Zionist forces. This is the event of settler violence and ethnic cleansing that Palestinians refer to as the Nakba (or catastrophe). 

There is so much obfuscation about the roots of the Israel-Palestine conflict. What ultimately happened: Europe decided it wanted to create a nation for Jews. It picked the territory of Palestine for this project (other territories were also considered) because the Brits controlled the territory and because of its religious significance. There were already people who lived on the land that was to be used to create a Jewish state. Now Palestinians are stateless and live under a brutal military occupation (the West Bank) and even more punishing blockade (Gaza)—or as refugees. Palestinians were ultimately made to suffer for the sins of European anti-Semitism. 

*

There is a lot more I can say here, about the history of the Cold War and how it relates to the US’s alliance with Israel, about internecine conflicts in Palestinian politics (the split between Hamas and the PLO/Palestinian Authority), about the current geopolitical situation, about contemporary domestic politics in Israel (which currently has the most right-wing govt in Israel’s history) and the Hamas attacks themselves. I see friends gleefully posting about the murder of Israeli civilians. I just can’t get on board with that. Neither can I get on board with Israel bombing hospitals and shelters in Gaza, or calling Palestinians “animals.” All life is sacred, all life is grievable. (People are right to point out that most of the world does not grieve the loss of Palestinian life.)

Events do have a context. Gaza is one of the most unlivable places on the planet. Around 67% of Gaza's population are refugees displaced during the Nakba. It has been under a brutal blockade for 16 years. It’s the 3rd most densely populated place on the planet—over 2.1 million people are crammed into a space half the size of London. The residents have been deprived of electricity, clean drinking water, medical supplies, and food. Nearly half of residents are unemployed and civilians have died by thousands under Israeli bombings (6,407 Palestinians have been killed since 2008). It is referred to as an “open air prison” because the residents are literally hemmed in by a high-tech fence. Given these dire conditions, an eruption of violence did seem almost inevitable. 

What I fear: a ground invasion of Gaza. A broader conflagration involving Lebanon and Iran, and potentially the rest of the world. The US going to war with Iran. If the world genuinely wishes to see the end of the “cycle of violence,” Palestinians must be free. Any attempt to bring about “regional security” while ignoring the Palestinian situation is destined to fail.

[lestbian]

All our lives we have been taught that those of us who do the work of the world are not the agents of historical change. Instead, we are told that the only way we can have any impact on the direction of the economy, or society as a whole, is to vote once every four years for one of two parties that are funded by and beholden to big business. Since the 1930's, the Republican and Democratic Party have played hard cop, soft cop when it comes to domestic economic policy. The Democratic Party has taken credit for legislative reforms like the New Deal. But do Democrats really deserve that credit? This is an important question, especially since some in the lesbian, gay, bi, and trans communities look to the Democratic Party as a vehicle of progressive reform. So how the New Deal was won, for example, has meaning for our movement. Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, took office three years after the cataclysmic 1929 capitalist economic crash. His administration presided during a powerful mass upsurge of the working class that threatened to erupt into a general working-class rebellion. The Roosevelt administration was in charge of trying to quell this pre-revolutionary surge. His job was to save capitalism. And the New Deal was meant to do just that. And so the New Deal was a great legislative victory wrested through struggle. Workers won it. Democrat Lyndon Johnson was similarly forced to make concessions... His administration created new social programs like the "War on Poverty" in order to buy social peace at home, while waging war in Vietnam. These policies, plus the strong war economy, helped isolate young middle-class activists and keep rebellion from sweeping the entire working class. The Democratic Party cannot lead us forward to trans liberation. They've led us into war and economic austerity: Woodrow Wilson led the United States into World War I; Franklin Roosevelt led the country into World War II. Truman started the Korean War. John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson began and widened the Vietnam War. ... The process of transferring wealth from working people to the wealthy continued after Reagan. The rate actually accelerated during the first four years of the Clinton Democratic administration. Whether a Democrat or a Republican presides, both parties administer the same system on behalf of big business. As the trans struggle unfolds, it will become critical to develop an independent movement that can free itself from the grip of "lesser-of-two-evils" politics of waiting to get another Democrat in office. The truth is, you and I are the stuff that great leaders are made of... The ranks of rebellions and revolutions that have shaped human history have been made up of people like you and me. That history lesson has been purposely kept from us. ... The people who make a difference in history are those who fight for freedom--not because they're guaranteed to succeed--but because it's the right thing to do. And that's the kind of fighters that history demands today. Not those who worship the accomplished fact. Not those who can only believe in what is visible today. But instead, people of conscience who dedicate their lives to what needs to be won, and what can be won. I am confident that you and I will find each other, shoulder-to-shoulder, in that historic struggle.

Leslie Feinberg, Trans Liberation: Beyond Pink or Blue, pages 139-144

[aressida]

My entry: "The battle with the Australian Constitution, and the history of the Versailles Treaty." - Aressida. 25.6.24.

I know They work for the firm, not the monarch. They will not answer to the King.

What I recently discovered is that following World War One, Australia was given independence by the Treaty of Versailles. It was kept secret from the public at the time by the Australian politicians.

A few individuals have accumulated a substantial amount of documents and proof regarding the theft of Australian sovereignty.

From that point on, all laws, rules, and taxes are void.

We do not own any securities that the government sold to us after they altered the constitution without an authorized referendum, so we have no claim to ownership in the corporation.

What I have learn about this, here is an overview of the Versailles Treaty:

1) World War I ended on June 28, 1919 (correct?) with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. And, the Armistice was decided upon on November 11, 1918, around five in the morning.

2) In January 1919, 32 countries met in Paris to discuss how to make peace. The main decisions were made by three leaders: David Lloyd George from Britain, Georges Clemenceau from France, and, Woodrow Wilson from the USA.

3) Because their nations experienced the war in different ways, the three leaders differed on how to deal with Germany. A lot of things have to be compromised.

4) Rather than seeking to punish Germany or attributing all responsibility for the war to the country, Woodrow Wilson proposed the creation of the League of Nations to promote and preserve peace.

Georges Clemenceau’s intention was to deliver a brutal punishment to Germany, in order to make them pay for all the suffering endured by France. His priorities lie in seeking both protection and revenge.

David Lloyd George wanted to preserve Britain's navy's supremacy and to punish Germany, but not excessively. 

When the treaty was ready, Germany was forced to sign it without any chance to negotiate or object.

5) All things considered, Germany and the men who drafted the Treaty of Versailles were not fond of it.

6) Hitler later openly and covertly changed its provisions, which led to the start of World War II in Germany.

Why do we Australians still not know about this? All of that is about to change.

The crucial point they miss is that the restoration of the constitution and the establishment of judicial tribunals is a core argument. And, rather than investing in and deceiving us Australians with a fraudulent Constitution, we shall restore the original one. They are done for good.

[agentfascinateur]

What Marwan Bishara thinks an honest Herzog would say to Congress today:

I am honoured to speak to you today at the 75th anniversary of my country’s independence. It is an honour that neither I nor my country deserves.

Throughout our history, your steadfast and generous support has made Israel what it is today. President Woodrow Wilson supported the 1917 Balfour Declaration at the behest of the British Empire, committing to our future Jewish state – a commitment made by those who did not own the land to those who did not live on the land, against the will of those who did live on it.

And it was President Harry Truman who first supported the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan to carve that land into a Jewish and Palestinian state, and the first to recognise Israel only 11 minutes after its establishment in 1948. Since then, we have been telling each other how our nations were founded by persecuted migrant communities on the basis of European Enlightenment; how they created strong, vibrant modern states, civilising the savage, and how we have dominated global and Middle East affairs.

We tell each other a tale of how they founded two righteous, God-fearing models to emulate, like “shining beacon of hope” and “light unto the nations”; of sharing common liberal, democratic principles, and of our persistent pursuit of peace.

But if we are honest with ourselves, we should admit that we have also copied the worst of imperial Europe. We share a dark past of settler colonialism, war, ethnic cleansing of Indigenous inhabitants and a persistent history of racism and discrimination including slavery in the Americas, and apartheid in Palestine.

Our success was made possible through the blood and tears of countless victims. We’ve treated our nemeses as warmongers, our critics as enemies, and our enemies as modern-day Hitlers, but no other states have waged as many wars, or embarked on as many military interventions in the past eight decades as we have.

These similarities between our two nations continue to cast a long shadow over our bonds and behaviour.

Since our birth, Israel has had no better ally than the United States. Period. Even though, we have not always been gracious or reciprocated – while generally following in your footsteps, befriending your friends and denouncing your foes.

Whenever the world ganged up on our “Jewish state”, America came to the rescue. When Soviet bloc nations joined Muslim and other developing nations to condemn us for our bellicosity, it was the US that defended us and placated our foes with vigour and zeal. And when Europe joined the international outrage, the US was the only major power ready and able to stand by Israel and block international censures by vetoing consequential UN Security Council resolutions condemning Israel.

Indeed, with the exception of that one “mistake” under Jimmy Carter, when Washington voted against Israeli settlement expansion, the US has routinely vetoed efforts to condemn Israel at the United Nations Security Council, blocking more than 40 such resolutions.

And this week, when a US Congresswoman – one of your own – called Israel racist, you, dear members of Congress, quickly shut her down by proclaiming in a resolution that Israel is not racist. Though I might have put it differently, she was essentially right, you are wrong.

Thanks to you, we have become more confident and assertive. With your military and economic aid that reached some $200bn, we have built a formidable military machine, that allowed us to double down on the repression of the Palestinians, and humiliation of the stubborn Arabs, who refuse to accept our pretence that our culture is superior to theirs, and that our settlement of their land is ours by right of a brief sojourn here a few thousand years ago.

When my late beloved father Chaim spoke to you as president of Israel in 1987, he boasted of our peace accords with Sadat of Egypt. And I am inclined to walk in his shoes and do the same; to boast of our Abraham accords with several Arab autocrats.

But unlike him, I can no longer keep silent as our military and civilian occupation mutates into an apartheid system in the Middle East. I do not say that lightly; I say it with a heavy heart. I do not say it out of pity for the millions of Palestinians, most of whom stubbornly linger under occupation and in refugee camps, I say it out of pity for my people and what’s become of us as decades-long occupiers and dispossessors. Our chutzpah is self-defeating. Our hasbara is wearing thin.

I never was a particularly brave or charismatic parliamentarian and head of the opposition. But that stops now, knowing I will never again have a better platform to address your people and mine. We may have become rich and powerful but we’ve never been so divided, so fanatical; so morally bankrupt.

Friends speak truth to each other. Good friends speak the bitter truth. It befalls upon you, once again, to save us from ourselves. To free us and the Palestinians from an entrenching system of apartheid that is bound to lock us in hatred and violence for decades to come. There is little I can do, as a ceremonial president, other than to speak out.

So, I urge you to condemn racism and apartheid today, as you condemned apartheid in South Africa, albeit belatedly in the past. And I urge you to push us to come to terms with the Palestinians, who soon will become the majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Do not believe a word Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says about the Palestinians; he has made a career out of trafficking in fear.

Like my two predecessors, I also believe we have a peace partner in President Mahmoud Abbas; perhaps the last peace partner. We must stop undermining him, as we will never be as lucky with a strong yet accommodating leader.

My father boasted of our liberal democracy and respect for human rights, albeit for Jews only, considering that in our Jewish state, the right to the land, the right to settle (return), and the right to self-determination is for the Jewish collective.

But even this communitarianism has eroded with time, culminating in a government of hyper-nationalists and religious fanatics that is demonstrably bent on destroying our Jewish democracy and squashing our liberal values.

Hundreds of thousands of my fellow Jewish countrymen and women have taken to the streets every week to protest against new illiberal legislation that is bound to chip away at our institutions and freedoms, and destroy any hope of future peace and democracy in the Jewish state.

This destruction will happen if you, members of this august symbol of constitutional democracy, continue to outbid yourselves in appeasing us as we stumble towards religious autocracy. Your intentions to invite our lying, cheating prime minister to speak here for a record fourth time will only make things worse.

President Biden is right to be concerned and to warn our government of going down this road. So should you. It is a dangerous road that is bound to destroy the fabric of our society.

I urge you to be brave and principled, for a change. It is liberating, as I have discovered.

[thepastisalreadywritten]

On 28 June 1919, on the outskirts of Paris, European dignitaries crowded into the Palace of Versailles to sign one of history’s most hated treaties.

Known as the Treaty of Versailles, it formally ended World War I—and at the same time laid the foundation for the Second World War.

Though it was preceded by a peace conference that lasted over a year, the treaty was disliked by every nation that signed it.

Over 65 million people had fought in World War I, and more than 8.5 million military members and at least 6.6 million civilians died.

The war decimated farmland, towns, and battlefields around Europe. And according to many, Germany was to blame.

Though contemporary historians are still split on who should be held responsible for World War I, the treaty blamed and punished Germany.

From idealism to punishment

During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson had proposed the Fourteen Points, a blueprint for world peace that included establishing an association of nations to ensure European security and prevent nations’ abilities to enter into secretive mutual protection treaties.

Much of that idealistic plan was scuttled during negotiations when the other Allied nations shifted their priorities toward reparations.

The treaty itself was predicated on Germany’s guilt for the war.

The document stripped Germany of 13 percent of its territory and one tenth of its population.

The Rhineland was occupied and demilitarized, and German colonies were taken over by the new League of Nations.

The German army was diminished to 100,000 men and the country was forbidden to draft soldiers. Its weapons were largely confiscated and its navy stripped of large vessels.

Germany was forced to put Wilhelm II, its emperor, on trial for war crimes.

And the treaty required Germany to pay 269 billion gold marks—the equivalent of $37 billion.

European leaders signed the treaty in the Palace of Versailles’ Hall of Mirrors—the very place where the German Empire had been created, and Wilhelm II’s father made emperor, in 1871.

It was a slap in the face to Germany, whose residents saw the famous “war guilt clause" as a humiliation.

(The United States did not ratify the treaty due to political division between Democrats and Republicans.)

The treaty’s aftermath

Though there was a real desire for peace in the wake of the disastrous war, the treaty did not achieve its intended effects.

Furious at what they saw as a harsh “diktat” (a dictated peace), right-wing German politicians used the treaty as a nationalist rallying point.

The staggering reparations payments reduced the country’s industrial output, and other forces thrust Germany into hyperinflation in the 1920s, which played into the economic instability of the Great Depression.

European leaders were dissatisfied with the redrawn map of Europe and the concessions they each had made in the name of an uneasy peace, with some disappointed that Germany hadn’t been treated even more harshly.

In 2010, ninety years after the Treaty of Versailles went into force, Germany finally paid off the last installment of its war debt.

By then, another world war was behind it.

Today, the Treaty of Versailles lingers as a study in how, when it comes to war, unintended consequences can negate even the best intentions.

[spacetimewithstuartgary]

The Glade of the Armistice

Signs of history abound beneath the oak, beech, black cherry, and other hardwoods that blanket the Forest of Compiègne (Forêt de Compiègne) in northern France. Aerial lidar surveys have mapped hidden remnants of villas, kilns, mines, roads, and hundreds of other features of archaeological interest that date to Roman and Medieval times. More recently, the forest played a prominent role in World War I.

In November 1918, after the war had raged for four years, an increasingly exhausted and diminished German army was on the verge of collapse after being pushed back during the Meuse-Argonne offensive. At the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918, German representatives crossed into Allied-held territory, traveled to the Forest of Compiègne, and signed an armistice with Allied military commanders that proved to be a crucial step in ending the war.

The meetings took place deep in the forest near the village of Rethondes in the personal railway car of Ferdinand Foch, the marshal of France and commander of Allied forces. That area, the Glade of the Armistice (Clairière de l’Armistice), is now the site of a French war memorial and museum in a clearing on the left bank of the Aisne. In the satellite image above, the clearing is visible near the confluence of the Aisne and Oise rivers near Compi��gne. The image was acquired by the OLI (Operational Land Imager) on Landsat 8 on September 19, 2024.

American forces played a key role in several World War I battles in this region in 1918. The American Battle Monuments Commission maintains cemeteries and memorials honoring U.S. troops that fought at Belleau Wood, Bellicourt, Cantigny, Chatau-Thierry, Montsec, and Sommepy.

In 1919, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson declared November 11 as Armistice Day to honor World War I veterans. In 1938, an act of the U.S. Congress made Armistice Day a legal holiday. In 1954, after the conclusion of World War II and the Korean War, Congress amended the act and renamed the holiday Veterans Day to honor all military veterans of the United States Armed Forces.

NASA Earth Observatory image by Wanmei Liang, using Landsat data from the U.S. Geological Survey. Story by Adam Voiland.

[brookstonalmanac]

Events 10.28 (befre 1920)

97 – Roman emperor Nerva is forced by the Praetorian Guard to adopt general Marcus Ulpius Trajanus as his heir and successor. 306 – Maxentius is proclaimed Roman emperor. 312 – Constantine I defeats Maxentius, becoming the sole Roman emperor in the West. 969 – The Byzantine Empire recovers Antioch from Arab rule. 1344 – The lower town of Smyrna is captured by Latin Christians in response to Aydınid piracy during the Smyrniote crusades. 1420 – Beijing is officially designated the capital of the Ming dynasty when the Forbidden City is completed. 1449 – Christian I is crowned king of Denmark. 1453 – Ladislaus the Posthumous is crowned king of Bohemia in Prague. 1492 – Christopher Columbus lands in Cuba on his first voyage to the New World, surmising that it is Japan. 1516 – Second Ottoman–Mamluk War: Mamluks fail to stop the Ottoman advance towards Egypt at the Battle of Yaunis Khan. 1520 – Ferdinand Magellan reaches the Pacific Ocean. 1531 – Abyssinian–Adal war: The Adal Sultanate seizes southern Ethiopia. 1538 – The Universidad Santo Tomás de Aquino is founded in what is now the Dominican Republic. 1628 – French Wars of Religion: The Siege of La Rochelle ends with the surrender of the Huguenots after fourteen months. 1636 – The Massachusetts Bay Colony votes to establish a theological college, which would later become Harvard University. 1640 – The Treaty of Ripon is signed, ending the hostilities of the Second Bishops’ War. 1664 – The Duke of York and Albany's Maritime Regiment of Foot, later to be known as the Royal Marines, is established. 1707 – The 1707 Hōei earthquake causes more than 5,000 deaths in Japan. 1726 – The novel Gulliver's Travels written by Jonathan Swift is published. 1776 – American Revolutionary War: British troops attack and capture Chatterton Hill from the Continental Army. 1834 – The Pinjarra massacre occurs in the Swan River Colony. An estimated 30 Noongar people are killed by British colonists. 1835 – The United Tribes of New Zealand are established with the signature of the Declaration of Independence. 1864 – American Civil War: A Union attack on the Confederate capital of Richmond is repulsed. 1886 – US president Grover Cleveland dedicates the Statue of Liberty. 1891 – The Mino–Owari earthquake, the largest inland earthquake in Japan's history, occurs. 1893 – Pyotr Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6 in B Minor, Pathétique receives its première performance only nine days before the composer's death. 1918 – World War I: A new Polish government in western Galicia is established, triggering the Polish–Ukrainian War. 1918 – World War I: Czech politicians peacefully take over the city of Prague, thus establishing the First Czechoslovak Republic. 1919 – The U.S. Congress passes the Volstead Act over President Woodrow Wilson's veto, paving the way for Prohibition to begin the following January.

[williamknotts]

Beyond the Uniform: Celebrating Service and Sacrifice on Veterans Day

Honoring Our Heroes: The Meaning and Evolution of Veterans Day

Veterans Day, observed annually on November 11th in the United States, stands as a testament to the sacrifices and dedication of those who have served in the country's armed forces. As a day set aside to honor military veterans, it serves not just as a reminder of bravery and commitment, but also as an opportunity to reflect on the significance of service, community, and national unity.

A Brief History of Veterans Day

The origins of Veterans Day date back to the end of World War I. Although the war officially concluded with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919, the fighting had already ceased seven months earlier when an armistice between the Allied nations and Germany went into effect. This historic event occurred on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, giving November 11th, 1918, its symbolic status as the day the “war to end all wars” came to a close.

In 1919, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed November 11th as "Armistice Day," a day to remember and honor the sacrifices made during World War I. The focus was on peace and the hope that the devastating effects of war would not be repeated. However, the significance of Armistice Day evolved over time, especially as the United States engaged in further conflicts such as World War II and the Korean War.

In 1954, following a campaign led by World War II veteran Raymond Weeks and other advocates, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a bill to rename Armistice Day as "Veterans Day" to include all veterans, not just those who served in World War I. Since then, Veterans Day has become a day to honor veterans of all branches of the military and of all wars, regardless of when or where they served.

The Meaning and Observance of Veterans Day Today

Today, Veterans Day serves multiple purposes: it honors the living veterans for their service, recognizes their contributions to national security, and raises awareness of the issues many veterans face upon returning to civilian life. Unlike Memorial Day, which is dedicated to honoring military personnel who died in service, Veterans Day celebrates those still among us, allowing Americans to express their gratitude directly.

Various ceremonies and events are held across the country, including parades, wreath-laying ceremonies, and moments of silence. The National Veterans Day Ceremony is held each year at Arlington National Cemetery, where the President or a high-ranking representative lays a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. This symbolic gesture reflects the nation's respect and appreciation for those whose identities and sacrifices remain unknown to the public.

Local communities, schools, and veteran organizations also organize events to bring people together in the spirit of camaraderie and remembrance. These gatherings foster intergenerational connections, allowing younger generations to hear firsthand accounts from veterans and gain a deeper understanding of what service entails.

Challenges and Support for Modern Veterans

As we honor veterans, it is also essential to recognize the challenges many face in the present day. Transitioning back to civilian life can be difficult, with veterans encountering obstacles such as finding employment, accessing healthcare, and addressing mental health concerns. Conditions like PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) and traumatic brain injuries are prevalent among veterans and require ongoing support and care.

To address these issues, various government programs and nonprofit organizations have been established to provide necessary resources. Organizations like the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and numerous veteran service organizations work tirelessly to assist veterans with housing, employment, and mental health services. Community initiatives and support networks play a critical role in helping veterans reintegrate into society and find the opportunities they deserve.

Reflecting on the Importance of Veterans Day

Veterans Day is more than just a federal holiday; it’s a day for the entire nation to come together in appreciation of those who have pledged their lives to protect and serve. It is a reminder that behind every freedom enjoyed in the United States, there are individuals who have stood, and continue to stand, ready to defend it.

As the landscape of the military and the nature of warfare evolve, the significance of Veterans Day remains constant. It is a day for honoring courage, acknowledging sacrifice, and expressing gratitude to all who have served, whether during conflict or peace. By celebrating Veterans Day, Americans reaffirm their commitment to supporting veterans, ensuring that these brave men and women receive the respect and care they have earned.

[levge12]

My name is Lev Ge, and I am proud to say that I am a descendant of those who dedicated their lives to Korea’s fight for independence. My ancestors, like many other Koreans of that time, bravely resisted Japanese colonial rule, striving to liberate their country from foreign occupation and restore national identity. Their sacrifices and resilience inspire me today, reminding me of the importance of freedom, justice, and preserving cultural heritage. This struggle, filled with tragic and heroic moments, shaped not only the course of Korea’s history but also my personal sense of duty to future generations.

The Korean independence movement was one of the most significant and dramatic events of the 20th century, emerging as a response to Japan’s colonization of the Korean Peninsula from 1910 to 1945. This movement encompassed a broad range of political, military, diplomatic, and cultural efforts aimed at freeing Korea from Japanese control. At its core were deep national sentiments, a desire for self-governance, and the preservation of cultural identity.

Historical Context At the end of the 19th century, the Korean Peninsula became the focus of external interests from major world powers. Russia, Japan, and China competed for influence in the region. However, after the First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895), Japan began to increase its dominance over Korea. The situation worsened following the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905), in which Japan emerged victorious, solidifying its control over the peninsula. By 1910, Korea was officially annexed by Japan.

Japanese Occupation of Korea (1910–1945) In 1910, Japan formally declared Korea its colony. This period of colonization was marked by brutal exploitation of the Korean people and the suppression of their culture and national identity. The Japanese authorities pursued a policy of assimilation, banning the use of the Korean language in schools and official institutions, destroying Korean historical monuments, and altering the education system to turn Koreans into loyal subjects of Japan.

Koreans faced not only cultural and educational repression but also economic oppression. The country’s land and natural resources were heavily exploited by the Japanese, while Korean workers were subjected to harsh conditions in factories and on farms that served the Japanese economy. This period was also marked by the forced involvement of Korean women in the system of "comfort women," where they were subjected to sexual exploitation in the Japanese army.

Early Independence Movements The initial response to Japanese colonization came from several secret organizations that began to form both in Korea and abroad, particularly in Manchuria and the United States, where large Korean diasporas existed. One of the most significant early movements was the Independence Club (독립협회), founded in 1896. It aimed to reform the Korean political system, educate the population, and protect national interests from foreign interference.

However, the most well-known and large-scale event in the early independence movement was the March 1st Movement in 1919 (Sam-il Undong). This was one of the largest uprisings against Japanese rule, involving over a million Koreans across the country. Inspired by the success of anti-colonial movements in other parts of the world, as well as the principles of self-determination outlined in Woodrow Wilson’s "Fourteen Points" after World War I, Korean activists organized a massive nonviolent demonstration.

The March 1st Movement of 1919 March 1, 1919, marked a pivotal moment in Korea’s fight for independence. On this day, in Pagoda Park in Seoul, a group of Korean leaders declared independence. This movement sparked nationwide demonstrations. More than two million people participated in over 1,500 protests.

Though the movement was largely peaceful, Japanese authorities responded with brutal repression. Thousands of protesters were killed, wounded, or arrested. Despite the defeat, the March 1st Movement became a symbol of the struggle for freedom and a catalyst for continued efforts to achieve independence.

Underground Organizations and Armed Resistance After the suppression of peaceful protests in 1919, many Korean activists concluded that more radical methods, including armed resistance, were necessary. Guerrilla units began to form in Manchuria and other parts of China, carrying out attacks on Japanese forces and infrastructure. These groups were supported by both Korean organizations and Chinese anti-Japanese forces.

One of the key organizations was the Provisional Government of Korea, established in Shanghai in 1919. It played an important role in coordinating anti-Japanese activities and diplomatic efforts. Led by figures like Syngman Rhee and Kim Gu, the Provisional Government enjoyed support from Korean emigrants, particularly in the United States and Russia. Although its influence within Korea was limited, it became a symbol of the legitimate government of the Korean people in exile.

Korean Guerrillas and Anti-Japanese Resistance Armed resistance continued throughout the Japanese occupation. One of the most famous leaders of the Korean guerrillas was Kim Il Sung, who later became the leader of North Korea. His forces operated in northern Korea and Manchuria, launching attacks on Japanese troops. Resistance efforts included not only guerrilla attacks but also espionage, sabotage of infrastructure, and propaganda campaigns.

The guerrilla movement received support from the Soviet Union and China, which were also fighting Japanese aggression in the region. During World War II, Korean guerrillas played an important role in anti-Japanese operations in the Far East.

International Support The Korean independence movement actively sought international support. The Provisional Government of Korea worked to draw the world’s attention to the suffering of the Korean people and gain the backing of major powers. In the 1920s and 1930s, Korean activists engaged in diplomatic efforts at the League of Nations and in Western countries, trying to raise awareness about human rights violations in Korea and calling for recognition of Korea’s right to self-determination.

The United States, home to a large Korean diaspora, became a key country where an active campaign in support of Korea’s independence was conducted. Korean emigrants organized demonstrations, raised funds, and spread information about the Japanese occupation. Syngman Rhee, who later became the first president of South Korea, played an especially important role in these efforts.

Korea’s Liberation The Korean independence movement culminated at the end of World War II. In 1945, after Japan’s defeat, Korea was liberated from Japanese occupation. However, the joy of liberation was overshadowed by the division of the country into two occupation zones—Soviet in the north and American in the south. This division marked the beginning of the Cold War on the Korean Peninsula and led to the creation of two states: the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and the Republic of Korea (South Korea).

Conclusion The Korean independence movement was a multifaceted and complex process, spanning decades of struggle, sacrifice, and effort by the Korean people. It included both peaceful demonstrations and armed resistance, as well as diplomatic efforts on the international stage. Though Korea ultimately achieved liberation from Japanese rule, the cost was immense, and the consequences of that period are still felt today in the continued division of the country.

[thedojoofintellect]

Western History

Ancient Greece was divided into city-states. Two notable city-states were Athens and Sparta. Athens was a society of intellectuals and philosophers while Sparta was a warrior culture.

Notable Greeks of ancient times include the military leader Themistocles, the mathematician Euclid, the scientist Archimedes, the legendary storyteller Aesop, the philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, and King Leonidas, who commanded his army of three hundred Spartans to fight ten thousand of King Xerxes' Persian warriors.

The religion of ancient Greece was polytheistic.

Several key deities were named Zeus, Hera, Hades, Poseidon, Dionysus, Ares, Athena, Hestia, Hephaestus, Apollo, and Hermes. Zeus was king of the gods and lord of the sky. Hera was Zeus' wife. Hades was the lord of the underworld.

Poseidon was the god of the sea. Dionysus was the god of wine and ritual madness. Ares was the god of war. Athena was the goddess of wisdom. Hestia was the goddess of the hearth. Hephaestus was the god of fire. Apollo was the god of light.

Hermes was the messenger deity. The Roman counterparts of the aforementioned deities are Jupiter, Juno, Pluto, Neptune, Bacchus, Mars, Minerva, Vesta, Vulcan, Apollo, and Mercury, respectively.

Hannibal, a military leader from Carthage (in Northern Africa) led his army, who were mounted on war elephants, across the strait of Gibraltar to the Iberian peninsula and then to Italy, where he attacked the Romans. This marked the beginning of the Punic Wars. During the Third Punic War, the Romans enslaved fifty-five thousand Carthaginians.

Rome was first a kingdom, then a republic, and then an empire. Romulus was the first king of Rome. During the Roman Republic, society was classified as the patricians and the plebeians (the commoners and the elites).

Julius Caesar is known as the destroyer of the Roman Republic. He was assassinated on March 15, 44 BC (the Ides of March) by Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger, who was accompanied by a mob.

Caesar Augustus, also known as Octavian, was Julius Caesar's grand nephew.

Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, also known as Caligula, was an emperor of Rome and a member of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. He was a decent ruler during the first six months of his reign, but after a near death experience, he started forcing his people to commit suicide. Caligula believed he was a living god.

Nero, also known as Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, killed his mother, Agrippina the Younger. He also killed his pregnant wife by kicking her to death. Nero also burned Rome to the ground and blamed it on the Christians, who were a new religious cult at the time. When the Praetorian Guard was after him, Nero committed suicide by slitting his throat.

Galileo Galilei was an Italian astronomer and mathematician. He refined the invention of the telescope. He was put under house arrest by the Catholic Church for teaching the heliocentric theory (which asserts that the sun is at the center of our solar system). The church believed in the geocentric theory which postulated that the earth was at the center of the solar system. Galileo is considered to be the father of modern science. He died in the early 1640s.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in 1914 by Gavrilo Princip who was a member of the Serbian terrorist organization the Black Hand.

At the onset of World War I, Germany backed Austria and Russia backed Serbia.

Adolf Hitler, born April 20, 1889, was a decorated veteran of the First World War. Kaiser Wilhelm II was the leader of Germany during WWI.

After WWI, in 1919 (the war ended in 1918), the Versailles peace conference took place. US President Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George of Great Britain, Clemenceau of France, and Orlando of Italy were in attendance. The decisions made at this conference humiliated the Germans and may have led to the subsequent rise of Nazism.

Germany was ordered to pay billions of dollars in reparations and their military was limited to one hundred thousand. Also, part of their land (the Rhineland) was given away.

The axis powers of World War II were Italy, Germany, and Japan (Rome, Berlin, and Tokyo). They were the enemies of the allies, which included England, France, the United States, and many other countries. Benito Mussolini was the leader of Italy, Adolf Hitler was the leader of Germany, and Emperor Hirohito was the leader of Japan, whose prime minister was Hideki Tojo. Joseph Stalin, also known as Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, was the leader of Russia.

Germany's most significant WWII atrocity was the Holocaust, which claimed the lives of twelve million people, including five or six million Jews. Other groups targeted include homosexuals, Polish people, and the physically and mentally disabled.

During the Second World War, the Japanese buried Chinese soldiers alive, cannibalized, and performed vivisection (dissection without anesthetics or analgesics).

Benito Mussolini was hung upside down on a meat hook and a mob tore him to pieces. He was known as an evil Robin Hood. He took from the rich and gave to the poor.

Adolf Hitler committed suicide in fuhrerbunker on April 30, 1945. His wife, Eva Braun, committed suicide with him.

The allied victory in Europe is celebrated on V-E day and the allied victory in Japan is celebrated on V-J day. General Douglas MacArthur was the supreme commander of the allied forces in the pacific while General Dwight D. Eisenhower was the supreme commander of the allied forces in Europe.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed around two hundred thousand people and resulted in deformities and diseases such as leukemia. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima, a uranium fission bomb, was called Little Boy and the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, a plutonium fission bomb was called Fat Man.

[mariacallous]

Former U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent “invitation” to Russian President Vladimir Putin to have his way militarily against NATO allies falling short of their burden-sharing goals was not only mean-spirited—it was downright dangerous. Not only for them but for us as well.

It is entirely possible that Putin could interpret Trump’s comments literally and, should Trump win reelection this fall, attempt an attack on an American ally next year. Perhaps he would test Norway’s northern border with a probing attack. Or he could fire missiles at Belgium or the Netherlands, two more countries that fall well short of the NATO minimum standard of spending 2 percent of GDP on their militaries—and thus qualifying for Trump’s wrath. Or in an echo of an earlier confrontation almost a decade ago, but this time with roles reversed, maybe he would authorize a shootdown of a Turkish aircraft patrolling near Russian airspace. Or maybe Putin would attack a neighboring Baltic state even though Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania all do meet the 2 percent threshold, concluding that Trump’s contempt for NATO is so profound that he wouldn’t respond there either.

If any of these kinds of things were to happen, Trump would then face enormous pressure to defend the aggrieved ally. And he himself might conclude that Putin was no longer quite the friend he previously believed. If at that point the United States did respond directly to the attack, as the NATO Treaty’s Article V effectively requires under the alliance’s mutual-defense pledge, the United States with its allies could be at war against Russia. Just as Harry Truman might have thought the odds of war against North Korea were very low on June 24, 1950, but changed his mind immediately and dramatically after the North’s invasion of South Korea the next day (along with almost all the rest of the country), Trump could undergo an analogous change of heart once he stared naked Russian aggression in the face. He would have to worry that it might not stop where it started, when seeing opportunity due to an impetuous and irresolute American president.

In fact, Trump and others who feel like him might consider revisiting a short history of deterrence failure in American foreign policy. NATO has prevented attacks on U.S. allies for 75 years now. Before we had it, and in places of the world where we haven’t had such formal alliances backed up by ironclad American security guarantees, war has often resulted. And often, we have subsequently been dragged in, one way or another.

World War I occurred when the United States had a tiny military and no European allies. Germany thought it had an opportunity to defeat France (and the neighboring low countries) in the west, then swing its forces quickly to the east to fight with Austria-Hungary against Russia. Four years later, after America had remilitarized and entered the fray—and after 20 million total deaths on both sides—peace was finally restored. America changed its own position on the war once it eventually felt threatened itself.

And that peace would not last for long. The United States still had no alliances in Europe and only very miserly standing military forces throughout the 1920s and 1930s. That was not how Woodrow Wilson wanted it. He had plans for a strong security architecture to keep stability in Europe and the Far East. Alas, World War II resulted after the defeat of the League of Nations in the U.S. Senate in the 1920s again left an underprepared United States untethered to Eurasian security.

Finally, after 60 million died in World War II, we had learned the hard way not to leave Europe and Asia to their own devices, since it appeared we would inevitably be drawn into any major war that developed in the industrial heartlands of Western Europe or the Western Pacific region. So NATO and, soon, the U.S.-Japan alliances were created.

Alas, that didn’t quite do the trick because of what we left out of those early-Cold War alliance systems. The Korean War occurred after U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson, in a major speech, explicitly excluded the Korean Peninsula from the security perimeter that America would help defend against communism. Kim Il Sung then got the permission from Beijing and Moscow that had previously been denied him to launch the North Korean attack on South Korea which eventually led to American and Chinese intervention as well.

Fast forward to the next decade. Vietnam was not a member of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization during its Cold War existence. There was no binding commitment of U.S. military power to South Vietnam’s defense—yet again, once a major war broke out there, we felt we had little choice but to intervene. That may have been a mistake. But it is the kind of thing that happens in American history; even if we try to avoid a war, when the stakes get high enough, we often change our collective minds.

Two more examples: The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 happened after U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie had earlier told Saddam Hussein that the United States had no position on inter-Arab border disputes. Osama bin Laden attacked us out of Afghanistan after going on the record with his view that the United States was a paper tiger militarily that wouldn’t trouble itself seriously with such a faraway place.

Then there is perhaps the most relevant case of all: Ukraine. Under President George W. Bush back in 2008, the United States joined the rest of NATO in promising Ukraine membership in the alliance … someday. Then Presidents Barack Obama, Trump, and Biden failed to make that happen. We left Ukraine in a strategic no man’s land. Put differently, we painted a bullseye on its back, since Russia saw it had an opportunity to attack—and perhaps prevent Ukraine from ever joining NATO—before membership could take effect. Whether one blames the original decision to offer membership or the failure to complete the process, it’s pretty clear that the net effect contributed to a failure of deterrence. Withdrawing Article V pledges from a current member of the alliance could produce a similar type of strategic limbo, with similar risks of deterrence failure—and war.

Trump is not just being unseemly and rhetorically belligerent. History shows he is playing with fire.

[neutralgray]

A Synthesized History: An Amateur Comparison of the Perspectives between the "Patriot's," the "People's," & The "True" History of the United States - Part 12

Full Essay Guide link: XX

(Patriot - Chapter 14 | People - Chapter 14 | True - Chapter 22)

The United States & The Great War in Europe

The United States continued to grow in bold new ways as they ushered in the 20th century. The Ford Motor Company was responsible for designing the first motorized automobiles. The Wright Brothers created a successful plane model that could sustain temporary flight and would then continue to improve on the model in the coming years with their Wright Flyer II and III models. Women's suffrage was becoming a more common talking point across the nation. Banking reforms led to the Federal Reserve Act, which helped establish 12 new federal banks across the country. The United States was an economic powerhouse but despite their growing economic influence, they lacked the military power to match. In 1916, two years into the "Great War" across the ocean, the United States had only the 17th largest military. This would soon change.

The infamous assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, is often understood as the "start" of the war we now call "World War I." The assassination outraged Austria-Hungary and led to a series of events in which political alliances created a schism between world powers that were now in conflict. The United States initially abstained. The U.S. was no stranger to conflict with European powers but generally these conflicts came about when there was potential significant gain for the United States. A war of this sudden magnitude did not seem particularly beneficial nor were the American people thrilled about the prospect of another war after the political storm that followed the Cuban and Caribbean imperialist conflicts.

The Great War was almost immediately one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history. After the first three months of the war, almost all of the original standing British Army had been wiped out, with droves of fresher, younger faces taking their place. New tools of war such as flamethrowers and poison gases created new ways of destroying and demoralizing the enemy. Outdated infantry practices led to the slaughter of thousands of young men who were faced with new instruments of death such as machine guns, barbed wire, and trench warfare.

The United States claimed to be neutral when it came to European affairs, but the reality of that position is dubious. Wilson had imposed a ban in 1914 on loans to warring countries, however this ban was later lifted and powerful affluent individuals such as J. P. Morgan could loan out money directly to the powers they supported. The United States received a boom of profits from selling to both Allied and Central powers, but bankers and profiteers such as J. P. Morgan generally favored the Allies because the American economy was closely tied to trade with England. England also blacklisted American companies legally trading with Central powers, incentivizing companies to cease trade with those countries.

In 1916, Woodrow Wilson won the presidency with the slogan "He Kept us out of War." Despite that slogan, he would not keep his country out of the war for much longer. The previous year, German u-boats torpedoed and sank the passenger line RMS Lusitania, killing approximately 1200 people, 128 of which were American citizens. This began a shift in public opinion, with many thinking this attack needed retaliation. The sinking of Lusitania would also be heavily used in American propaganda meant to encourage military enlistment. In April 1917, Germany declared that they would sink ANY ships suspected of bringing military supplies or aid to their enemies, indicating they had no intention of ceasing their attacks on non-combatant ships. This outward position of hostility was an inherent challenge to the United States and its interest in continued trade with the Allies. Detailed manifests of the Lusitania did reveal, however, that the German suspicions were not wrong. The ship had been carrying military supplies, meaning the allied powers were potentially using civilian lives as shields to move their supply line.

Anti-war meetings held by socialists and other groups of interest bloomed across the country, especially in the mid-west. Despite some wave of opposition like this, though, the American machine sped up in the direction of war. George Creel, a veteran newspaperman, became a propagandist for United States, setting up the Committee on Public Information and sponsoring over 75000 speakers. The Department of Justice sponsored a group of private citizens known as the American Protective League, who made it their mission to identify, expose, and counteract suspected German sympathizers. The War Industries Board (WIB) helped government and private companies work together to profit off joint interest in the war effort. Anti-war writings, socialist papers, and general leftist literature were also suppressed by the American Post.

Several acts were passed into law directly related to the United States formally entering the war on the side of the Allies. The Immigration Restriction Act was passed in 1917, limiting foreign influence by requiring all immigrants to pass basic reading tests. The Espionage, Sabotage, and Sedition of Acts of 1917-18 extended what was considered espionage or sabotage, including criminalizing anti-military speech and criticisms of the Constitution. This blatant contradiction to the supposed free speech afforded in the Bill of Rights displays how malleable the law can be during times of great strife. Lastly, the Selective Service Act of 1917 enforced the draft, i.e. a mandatory registration of all males of certain ages to be potentially pulled for military service. Very few American citizens (only around 75000 or so) willingly signed up for service when the United States entered the European war. Now voluntary service didn't matter. The draft gave the United States plenty of bodies to throw at the war effort and the new laws governing free speech ensured any voice of dissent could simply be jailed for un-American behavior.

The United States forces helped bolster Allied war efforts after a long and exhausting campaign. The U.S. had entered late, avoiding the mass casualties other countries suffered, but they were not without loss. During the war, the United States lost approximately 112,432 people compared to 1.8 million Germans, 1.7 million Russians, 1.4 million French, 1.3 million Austrians, and 947 thousand British. The signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 would end the Great War, with much of the blame going to Germany due to that nation being the most prominent force of the Central alliance.

The war had dramatically reshaped European powers. Austria-Hungary was soon dismantled, with its territory going to other nations. Russia faced a civil war during the conflict which led to the rise of communism as the central power of Russia. Germany was left battered; peace treaties required the country to pay for many damages and required a severe reduction of their standing military.

Under president Woodrow Wilson, the idea of a "league of nations" was born. Wilson believed this league of nations could help guide world powers and outlined 14 significant points that he believed would lead to sustained peace in Europe. For the sake of ease, I've used an outside source (Worldwar.org/learn/peace/fourteen-points) to summarize Wilson's points:

Open diplomacy without secret treaties

Economic free trade on the seas during war and peace

Equal trade conditions

Decrease armaments among all nations

Adjust colonial claims

Evacuation of all Central Powers from Russia and allow it to define its own independence

Belgium to be evacuated and restored

Return of Alsace-Lorraine region and all French territories

Readjust Italian borders

Austria-Hungary to be provided an opportunity for self-determination

Redraw the borders of the Balkan region creating Romania, Serbia and Montenegro

Creation of a Turkish state with guaranteed free trade in the Dardanelles

Creation of an independent Polish state

Creation of the League of Nations

These 14 points were cause for much debate between the world powers as they argued for or against the most fundamental principles required for the maintaining of peace and (potentially) the maintaining of the current power structure.

Despite Wilson's heavy hand in the initial conception of a "League of Nations," the United States itself did not join the League. The U.S., despite its intervention, continued to practice isolationism.

This period of time may not have impacted the population of the United States the same way it had many European populations, but the influence of war-time events was certainly significant in the direction of the United States both as a country and as a culture. The United States tried to help the non-communist forces during Russia's civil war but failed to stop communism from taking root. This Russian movement is often referred to as the Bolshevik Revolution. The revolution coupled with an event in April, 1919 where over 20 packaged bombs were sent out by suspected communist groups led to a "Red Scare," i.e. a social panic over the potential influence of communist ideas, leading to unjustified witch hunts for suspected communist sympathizers. Communism and socialism became associated with anti-war sentiment, foreign influence, and intellectual trickery.

IWW meeting halls were often targeted during the war and the Red Scare only amplified the pressure and opposition felt by anti-capitalist leaders. The state displayed its willingness to lay down the law, use the law, and then ignore peoples' demands to silence voices of radical opposition. In no better case was this displayed than the case of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, two Italian anarchist immigrants who were arrested and charged with a break-in and murder that they almost certainly did not commit. Despite constant proclamations of innocence and public pressure from interested groups, the two men were found guilty on little evidence, condemned to die, and were forced to endure 7 years in prison before they were executed by way of electrocution.

Besides the "Great War," other social movements in the United States at this time included the Prohibition movement and the call for women's suffrage. The Prohibition movement was influenced by many active groups such as the Scientific Temperance Instruction Movement, the Anti-Saloon League, and the Women's Christian Temperance Union. This movement had been mounting for decades and finally led to the 18th amendment, proposed in 1917 and ratified in 1919. The 18th amendment declared the production, transport, and sale of alcohol were criminal offenses.

The women's suffrage movement had also been mounting for decades and led to the 19th amendment. The amendment was introduced in 1919 and ratified by the states in 1920. This amendment prohibited any discrimination based on sex when voting, giving women the right to vote in the United States. This new legal right was, of course, largely afforded to white women and did not affect the many minority populations in the United States. Still, it was at least a progressive direction that extended the influence the people had on their government. "We the people" did not yet include everyone in its poetic blanket, but its meaning had come a long way from simply white affluent landowners.

Final Thoughts:

I've tried to maintain neutrality on my opinion of these books and the words therein. I have arguably not done a great job at this and fully admit my own general left-wing biases. That said, I've been open about these biases from the start of this essay project. It's becoming increasingly more difficult as we get closer to the present, however, to not simply laugh or outright loathe some of Schweikart and Allen's focused points.

In this chapter Schweikart makes a strange point on how propaganda is not meant to be influential in the sense often thought of. Instead, Schweikart proposes that the point of propaganda is to prepare the public for the necessity of a "grim task" and this is only natural because war is inherently understood as an "abnormal" event. These words effectively condemn the unfortunate violence of war while outlining the potential justification of it. I am of the personal view that there certainly are agendas and political powers worth dismantling with violence if that power is not kind to its people, however Schweikart seems to be proposing a state of plausible deniability here (at least in my view). Essentially, war is bad but if we're doing it there must be a good reason and propaganda exists to make the people accept this. It is a very strange stance. As I said, I do believe in the use of violence as a potential tool for dismantling evil powers but I wouldn't say I'm "pro-violence" and I'd certainly never say I'm "pro-propaganda," but the points made in A Patriot's History read as pro-propaganda to me.

Another frustrating point is that it often feels like the whole point of A Patriot's History is simply to "set the record straight" in the wake of books like Zinn's A People's History. Zinn often combats a general historical narrative but Zinn focuses on using personal sources such as newspapers and records of the periods discussed as he continues to explore the labor and rights movements of each decade. Schweikart sets up points then discusses his own speculative opinions against an outward general "them" such as "liberal historians." One example of this is when Schweikart and Allen go on a brief tangent about the issues Prohibition gives these "liberal historians." Schweikart states that Progressives often did not attempt to pursue policies based on morals and values but the Prohibition movement, which often had a lot of Progressive support, is seen as a clear counter to that. This proposes Progressivism and social Darwinism as a sort of points system with black and white values rather than as the complicated, messy, and potentially hypocritical movements they were. It's natural in human history for social movements to often be logically contrary to the moral maxims of their supposed base because humans are often contrary and these ideas are not founded by a homogeneous group of people. These ideas come together through the passions of many people with many different experiences. Schweikart seems to see some kind of "gotcha" moment for Progressives but fails to see that even if Prohibition may have been an atypical cause, most progressive ideas are rooted in a sense of "morals and values," these values are just often less religiously coded and apply more to the state than they do individuals.

Schweikart also makes a random dig at the Planned Parenthood organization when discussing suffrage, largely rambling about Planned Parenthood following many of the ideas of radical feminist Margaret Sanger but noting that the organization supports abortion, something Sanger supposedly opposed. However, Sanger also supported eugenics, which modern Planned Parenthood has unquestionably condemned in their mission. I personally have no strong feelings on Planned Parenthood but from what little I do know, I think their objectives are generally good ones. I have no obvious personal stake or passion for them, however. I say all this to establish that I'm not trying to go after Schweikart for potentially attacking "leftist" groups. I merely want to outline how sorely out of place this mentioning of Planned Parenthood felt. It's not dwelt on for very long but I suspect that's by clever design. The subject is mentioned briefly, almost only in passing, but by bringing the subject up at all when it simply has zero relevance, it feels particularly revealing for how Schweikart wants his words to be read and how his audience should feel when reflecting on history that leads to the modern stage.

To close, World War 1 was an influence on American politics but its shadow fell much darker and longer on the European countries affected. As socialist voices were choked out by patriotic war mongers, women enjoyed the right to vote for the first time in American history. The moral value of "freedom" is an important cornerstone in understanding the messy reality of American politics and how a country can blatantly fear intellectual voices on political theory while celebrating the extended rights for its people to influence government with the ballot box. Freedom is an abstract and complex idea in the minds of Americans. It is the promise of a land where one can work their way up to success by their own hand. It is the idea that a company is free of unfair government restrictions to their profiteering. It is the hope of a better future for many wary immigrants hoping to find their fortune in the great "melting pot." It is the support of imperial regimes to extend the requisitions demanded by a great "empire of liberty." It is all of these contradictions at once, and it is why this empire is worth studying and understanding.