back to index

Christopher Capozzola: World War I, Ideology, Propaganda, and Politics | Lex Fridman Podcast #320


small model | large model

link |
00:00:00.000
The lesson I would want everyone to take from the story of the First World War is that
link |
00:00:10.640
human life is not cheap. That all of the warring powers thought that just by throwing
link |
00:00:19.200
more men and more material at the front, they would solve their political problems with military
link |
00:00:25.840
force. And at the end of the day in 1918, one side did win that, but it didn't actually solve
link |
00:00:33.520
any of those political problems. You said that World War I gave birth to the surveillance state
link |
00:00:37.920
in the US. Can you explain? The following is a conversation with Christopher Capozzola,
link |
00:00:46.000
a historian at MIT specializing in the history of politics and war in modern American history,
link |
00:00:52.960
especially about the role of World War I in defining the trajectory of the United States
link |
00:00:57.840
and our human civilization in the 20th and 21st centuries. This is the Lux Friedman podcast. To
link |
00:01:04.800
support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends,
link |
00:01:09.280
here's Christopher Capozzola. Let's start with a big and difficult question. How did World War I
link |
00:01:15.520
start? On the one hand, World War I started because of a series of events in the summer of 1914,
link |
00:01:22.720
and that brought the major powers of Europe into conflict with one another. But I actually think
link |
00:01:28.640
it's more useful to say that World War I started at least a generation earlier when rising powers,
link |
00:01:37.200
particularly Germany, started devoting more and more of their resources toward military affairs
link |
00:01:43.200
and naval affairs. This sets off an arms race in Europe. It sets off a rivalry over the colonial
link |
00:01:50.160
world and who will control the resources in Africa and Asia. And so by the time you get to the summer
link |
00:01:56.320
of 1914, and in a lot of ways I say the war has already begun, and this is just the match that
link |
00:02:02.000
lights the flame. So the capacity for war was brewing within like the leaders and within the
link |
00:02:08.240
populace. They started accepting sort of slowly through the culture propagated this idea that
link |
00:02:15.920
we can go to war, it's a good idea to go to war, it's a good idea to expand and dominate others,
link |
00:02:24.160
that kind of thing. Maybe not put in those clear terms, but just the sense that military action is
link |
00:02:30.160
the way that nations operate at the global scale. Yes, yes and, right. So yes, there's a sense that
link |
00:02:37.760
the military can be the solution to political conflict in Europe itself. And the and is that
link |
00:02:44.240
war and military conflict are already happening, right? That there's war particularly in Africa,
link |
00:02:50.720
in North Africa, in the Middle East, in the Balkans. Conflict is already underway and the
link |
00:02:57.600
European powers haven't faced off against each other. They've usually faced off against
link |
00:03:01.920
an asymmetrical conflict against much less powerful states. But in some ways that war is
link |
00:03:08.160
already underway. So do you think it was inevitable? Because World War One is brought up as a case
link |
00:03:15.440
study where it seems like a few accidental leaders and a few accidental events or one accidental
link |
00:03:23.600
event led to the war. And if you change that one little thing, it could have avoided the war. Your
link |
00:03:28.720
sense is that the drums of war have been beating for quite a while and it would have happened
link |
00:03:35.120
almost no matter what or very likely to have happened. Yes, historians never like to say things
link |
00:03:40.400
are inevitable. And certainly, you know, there were people who could have chosen a different path
link |
00:03:45.680
both in the short term and the long term. But fundamentally, there were irreconcilable conflicts
link |
00:03:52.960
in the system of empires in the world in 1914. I can't see, you know, it didn't have to be this war
link |
00:04:00.000
but it probably had to be a war. So there was the German Empire, the Austro Hungarian Empire,
link |
00:04:06.640
there's France and Great Britain, US. Could USP call that empire at that moment yet?
link |
00:04:14.320
When do you graduate to empire status? Well, certainly after 1898 with the acquisition of
link |
00:04:20.960
the former territories of the Spanish Empire, you know, the United States has formal colonial
link |
00:04:24.960
possessions and it has sort of mindsets of rule and military acquisition that would define empire
link |
00:04:32.720
in a kind of more informal sense. So you would say you would put the blame or the responsibility
link |
00:04:40.320
of starting World War I into the hands of the German Empire and Kaiser Wilhelm II?
link |
00:04:45.840
You know, that's a really tough call to make. And, you know, deciding that is going to keep
link |
00:04:52.800
historians in business for the next 200 years. I think there are people who would lay all of the
link |
00:05:01.440
blame on the Germans, right? And, you know, who would point toward a generation of arms build up,
link |
00:05:08.400
you know, alliances that Germany made and promises that they made to their allies in the Balkans,
link |
00:05:14.960
to the Austro Hungarians. And so yes, there's an awful lot of responsibility there.
link |
00:05:20.560
There has been a trend lately to say, no, it's no one's fault, right? That, you know,
link |
00:05:27.360
that all of the various powers literally were sleepwalking into the war, right? They backed into
link |
00:05:32.480
it inadvertently. I think that lets everyone a little too much off the hook, right? And so I
link |
00:05:37.440
think in between is, you know, I would put the blame on the system of empires itself, on the
link |
00:05:44.080
system. But in that system, the actor that sort of carries the most responsibility is definitely
link |
00:05:50.560
Imperial Germany. So the leader of the Austro Hungarian Empire, Franz Joseph I, his nephews,
link |
00:05:58.800
Archduke Franz Ferdinand, he was assassinated. And so that didn't have to lead to a war. And then
link |
00:06:09.840
the leader of the German Empire, Kaiser Wilhelm II, pressured, sort of started talking trash
link |
00:06:23.920
and boiling the water that ultimately resulted in the explosion, plus all the other players.
link |
00:06:30.720
So what can you describe the dynamics of how that unrolled? Well, US, what's the role of US? What's
link |
00:06:36.320
the role of France? What's the role of Great Britain, Germany, and Austro Hungarian Empire?
link |
00:06:41.600
Yeah, over the course of about four weeks, right, following the assassination of the Archduke
link |
00:06:48.800
in Sarajevo, it sort of triggers a series of political conflicts and ultimately ultimatums,
link |
00:06:56.640
sort of demanding sort of that one or other power sort of stand down in response to the demands of
link |
00:07:04.160
either Britain, France, or in turn, Germany or Russia, at the same time that those alliances
link |
00:07:11.520
kind of trigger automatic responses from the other side. And so it escalates. And once that
link |
00:07:18.080
escalation is combined with the call up of military troops, then none of those powers wants
link |
00:07:24.240
to be sort of the last one to kind of get ready for conflict. So even throughout it, they think
link |
00:07:30.720
they are getting ready in a defensive maneuver. And if they think if there is conflict, well,
link |
00:07:38.160
it might be a skirmish, it might be, you know, sort of a standoff. It could be solved with
link |
00:07:43.840
diplomacy later, because diplomacy is failing now. That turns out not to be the case. Diplomacy fails,
link |
00:07:51.120
it's not a skirmish, it becomes a massive war. And the Americans are watching all of this from
link |
00:07:55.600
the sidelines. They have very little influence over what happens that summer.
link |
00:07:59.760
How does it go from a skirmish between a few nations to a global war? Is there a place where
link |
00:08:06.960
there's a phase transition? Yeah, I think the phase transition is in over the course of the fall of
link |
00:08:12.480
1914. When the Germans make an initial sort of bold move into France, in many ways, they're
link |
00:08:20.000
fighting the last war, the Franco Prussian War of 1870. And they really do sort of, you know, kind
link |
00:08:28.240
of want to have a quick sort of lightning strike in some ways against France to kind of bring the war
link |
00:08:35.440
to a speedy conclusion. France turns out to be able to fight back more effectively than the Germans
link |
00:08:42.320
expected. And then the battle lines sort of harden. And then behind that, the French and the Germans,
link |
00:08:52.800
as well as the British on the side of the French, start digging in, literally, and digging trenches.
link |
00:09:00.720
Trenches that at first are three feet deep to avoid shelling from artillery, then become six
link |
00:09:08.000
feet, 10 feet deep, two miles wide, that include telegraph wires, that include whole hospitals in
link |
00:09:14.480
the back. And then at that point, the front is locked in place. And the only way to break that
link |
00:09:21.680
is sort of basically dialing the war up to 11, right? Sort of massive numbers of troops, massive
link |
00:09:27.920
efforts, none of which work, right? And so the war is stuck in this. But that's the phase transition
link |
00:09:34.640
right there. What were the machines of war in that case? You mentioned trenches. What were the guns
link |
00:09:42.000
used? What was the size of guns? What are we talking about? What did Germany start accumulating
link |
00:09:50.080
that led up to this war? One of the things that we see immediately is the industrial revolution
link |
00:09:57.440
of the previous 30 or 40 years brought to bear on warfare, right? And so you see sort of machine
link |
00:10:05.200
guns. You see artillery. These are the key weapons of war on both sides, right? The vast majority of
link |
00:10:13.920
battlefield casualties are from artillery shelling from one side to another, not sort of rifle or
link |
00:10:21.520
even sort of machine gun kind of attacks. In some ways, the weapons of war are human beings, right?
link |
00:10:29.680
Tens of thousands of them horde over the top in these sort of waves to kind of try to break through
link |
00:10:36.400
the enemy lines. And it would work for a little while. But holding the territory that had been
link |
00:10:42.560
gained often proved to be even more demanding than gaining it. And so often, each side would retreat
link |
00:10:50.000
back into the trenches and wait for another day. And how did Russia, how did Britain,
link |
00:10:58.400
how did France get pulled into the war? I suppose the France one is the easy one. But what is the
link |
00:11:05.120
order of events here? How it becomes a global war? Yeah. So Britain, France, and Russia are at this
link |
00:11:12.000
time and they're an alliance. And so the conflicts in the summer of 1914 that lead sort of to the
link |
00:11:20.560
declarations of war happened sort of one after another in late August of 1914. And all three
link |
00:11:28.480
powers essentially come in at the same time because they have promised to do so through a series of
link |
00:11:34.400
alliances conducted secretly in the years before 1914 that committed them to defend one another.
link |
00:11:42.320
Germany, Austria, Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire have their own sort of set of secret agreements
link |
00:11:48.240
that also commit them to defend one another. And what this does is it sort of brings them all into
link |
00:11:54.960
conflict at the exact same moment. They're also, for many of these countries, bringing not just
link |
00:12:00.480
their national armies, but also their empires into the conflict. So Britain and France, of course,
link |
00:12:06.640
have enormous sort of global empires. They begin mobilizing soldiers as well as raw materials.
link |
00:12:13.360
Germany has less of an overseas empire. Russia and the Ottoman Empire, of course, have their own sort
link |
00:12:19.200
of hinterland within the empire. And very soon, all of the warring powers are bringing the entire
link |
00:12:26.240
world into the conflict. Did they have a sense of how deadly the war is? I mean, this is another
link |
00:12:33.440
scale of death and destruction. At the beginning, no, but very quickly, the scale of the devastation
link |
00:12:41.600
of these sort of massive over the top attacks on the trenches is apparent to the military officers
link |
00:12:47.920
and it very quickly becomes apparent even at home. You know, there is, of course, censorship of the
link |
00:12:53.680
battlefield and specific details don't reach people. But for civilians and in any of the
link |
00:13:00.320
warring powers, they know fairly soon how destructive the war is. And to me, that's
link |
00:13:06.400
always been a real sort of puzzle, right? That by the time the United States comes to decide whether
link |
00:13:13.360
to join the war in 1917, they know exactly what they're getting into, right? They're not backing
link |
00:13:19.120
into the war in the ways that the European powers did. You know, they've seen the devastation,
link |
00:13:24.880
they've seen photographs, they've seen injured soldiers, and they make that choice anyway.
link |
00:13:30.720
When you say they, do you mean the leaders of the people? Did
link |
00:13:37.520
the death and destruction reach the minds of the American people by that time?
link |
00:13:42.480
AOB Yes, absolutely. We don't in 1917 have the mass media that we have now, but there are images
link |
00:13:51.280
in newspapers, there are newsreels that play at the movie theaters, and of course, some of it is
link |
00:13:57.200
sanitized. But that combined with press accounts, often really quite descriptive press accounts,
link |
00:14:04.960
gory accounts, reached anyone who cared to read them. Certainly, plenty of people didn't follow
link |
00:14:11.120
the news, felt it was far away. But most Americans who cared about the news knew how devastating this
link |
00:14:16.960
war was. LR Yeah, there's something that happens that I recently visited Ukraine for a few weeks.
link |
00:14:24.480
There's something that happens with the human mind as you get away from the actual front where
link |
00:14:32.160
the bullets are flying, like literally one kilometer away. You start to not feel the war.
link |
00:14:38.640
AOB You'll hear an explosion, you'll see an explosion, you start to get assimilated to it,
link |
00:14:44.000
or you start to get used to it. And then when you get as far away from currently what is Kiev,
link |
00:14:51.520
you know the war's going on, everybody around you is fighting in that war, but it's still somehow
link |
00:14:57.520
distant. And I think with the United States, with the ocean between, even if you have the stories
link |
00:15:04.240
everywhere, it still is somehow distant, like the way a movie is. Like a movie or a video game,
link |
00:15:12.400
it's somewhere else, even if your loved ones are going, or you are going to fight.
link |
00:15:17.680
LR Yeah, that is absolutely the case. And in some ways, that's true even for the home fronts in
link |
00:15:22.880
Europe, except for the areas where, in Belgium and France, where the war is right there in your
link |
00:15:29.280
backyard. For other people, yeah, there's a distance. And soldiers, of course, feel this
link |
00:15:35.200
very strongly. European soldiers, when they're able to go home on leave, often deeply resent
link |
00:15:44.400
what they see as the luxury that civilians are living in during the war.
link |
00:15:48.400
LR So how did US enter the war? Who was the president? What was the dynamics involved? And could it have stayed out?
link |
00:15:59.120
LR To answer your last question first, yes. That the United States could have stayed out of the
link |
00:16:06.000
First World War as a military power. The United States could not have ignored the war completely.
link |
00:16:14.480
It shaped everything. It shaped trade. It shaped goods and services, agriculture, whether
link |
00:16:22.640
there was a crop coming, whether there were immigrants coming across the Atlantic to work
link |
00:16:27.040
in American factories. So the US can't ignore the war. But the US makes a choice in 1917 to enter
link |
00:16:34.240
the war by declaring war on Germany and Austria. And in that sense, this is a war of choice,
link |
00:16:44.000
but it's kicked off by a series of events. So President Woodrow Wilson has been president
link |
00:16:50.880
through this entire period of time. He has just run in the 1916 presidential election on a campaign
link |
00:16:58.640
to keep the United States out of war. But then in early 1917, the Germans in some ways
link |
00:17:06.000
sort of twist the Americans arms. The Germans sort of high command comes to understand that
link |
00:17:12.080
they're stuck. They're stuck in this trench warfare. They need a big breakthrough. Their one
link |
00:17:19.440
big chance is to sort of break the blockade to push through that the British have imposed on them,
link |
00:17:26.720
to break through against France. And so they do. And along with this, they start sinking ships on
link |
00:17:35.360
the Atlantic, including American ships. The Germans know full well this will draw the United States
link |
00:17:40.880
into war. But the Germans look at the United States at this moment, a relatively small army,
link |
00:17:47.360
a relatively small Navy, a country that at least on paper is deeply divided about whether to join
link |
00:17:53.360
the war. And so they say, let's do it. They're not going to get any American soldiers there in time.
link |
00:18:01.760
It was a gamble, but I think probably their best chance. They took that gamble. They lost.
link |
00:18:10.160
Right. In part, because French resistance was strong in part because Americans mobilized much
link |
00:18:15.840
faster and in much greater numbers than the Germans thought they would. So the American
link |
00:18:19.680
people were divided. The American people were absolutely divided about whether to enter this
link |
00:18:24.000
war. Right. From 1914 to 1917, there is a searing debate across the political spectrum. It doesn't
link |
00:18:31.360
break down easily on party lines about whether it was in the US interest to do this, whether American
link |
00:18:37.520
troops should be sent abroad, whether Americans would end up just being cannon fodder for the
link |
00:18:45.280
European empires. Eventually, as American ships are sunk, first in the Lusitania in 1915, then in
link |
00:18:54.240
much greater numbers in 1917, the tide starts to turn and Americans feel that our response is
link |
00:19:01.040
necessary. And the actual declaration of war in Congress is pretty lopsided, but it's not unanimous
link |
00:19:07.280
by any means. Lopsided towards entering the war. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's really interesting
link |
00:19:15.840
because there's echoes of that in later wars where Congress seems to... Nobody wants to be the guy
link |
00:19:24.240
that says no to war for some reason. Once you sense that in terms of, sorry, in terms of
link |
00:19:31.280
politicians, because then you appear weak, but I wonder if that was always the case. So you make
link |
00:19:37.920
the case that World War I is largely responsible for defining what it means to be an American
link |
00:19:45.280
citizen. So in which way does it define the American citizen? When you think about citizenship,
link |
00:19:53.520
what it means is two things. First of all, what are your rights and obligations? What
link |
00:19:58.000
is the legal citizenship that you have as a citizen of the United States or any other state?
link |
00:20:05.360
And the second is a more amorphous definition of what does it mean to belong, to be part of America,
link |
00:20:11.280
to feel American, to love it or hate it or be willing to die for it. And both of those things
link |
00:20:18.800
really are crystal clear in terms of their importance during the war. So both of those
link |
00:20:25.040
things are on the table. Being a citizen who is a citizen who isn't matters. So people who had
link |
00:20:32.240
never carried passports or anything before suddenly have to. But also what it means to
link |
00:20:38.800
be an American, to feel like it, to be part of this project is also being defined and enforced
link |
00:20:45.760
during World War I. So project is a funny way to put a global war. So can you tell the story,
link |
00:20:53.760
perhaps that's a good example of it, of the James Montgomery Flagg's 1916 poster that reads,
link |
00:21:02.480
I want you. A lot of people know this poster. I think in its original form, its memeified form,
link |
00:21:09.440
I don't know. But we know this poster and we don't know where it came from. Or most Americans,
link |
00:21:14.560
I think, me included, didn't know where it came from. And it actually comes from 1916.
link |
00:21:19.920
Does this poster represent the birth of something new in America, which is a
link |
00:21:29.520
commodification or, I don't know, that propaganda machine that says what it
link |
00:21:35.200
means to be an American is somebody that fights for their country?
link |
00:21:40.240
Yeah. So the image, it's in fact, I think one of the most recognizable images, not only in the
link |
00:21:46.080
United States, but in the entire world. And you can bring it almost anywhere on Earth in 2022,
link |
00:21:53.600
and people will know what it refers to. And so this is an image that circulated first as a magazine
link |
00:22:00.240
cover, later as a recruitment poster, where the figure is Uncle Sam, sort of pointing at the
link |
00:22:06.160
viewer with his finger, sort of pointing and saying, I want you. And the I want you is a
link |
00:22:11.920
recruitment tool to join the US Army. And this image really kind of starts as a kind of, like I
link |
00:22:20.320
said, a magazine cover in 1916 by the artist James Montgomery Flagg. It initially appears under the
link |
00:22:27.040
heading, What are you doing for preparedness? Meaning to prepare in case war comes to the
link |
00:22:32.560
United States. And at that point in 1916, we're still neutral. In 1917, it's turned into a US
link |
00:22:40.800
Army recruiting poster. And then it reappears in World War Two, reappears generations after,
link |
00:22:47.920
like you said, it's now gets remixed, memefied, it's all over the place. I think for me, it's a
link |
00:22:57.280
turning point, it's a sort of window into American culture at a crucial moment in our history,
link |
00:23:03.280
where the federal government is now embarking on a war overseas that's going to make enormous
link |
00:23:07.920
demands on its citizens. And at the same time, where sort of technologies of mass production
link |
00:23:15.120
and mass media, and what we would probably call propaganda, are being sort of mobilized for the
link |
00:23:22.000
for the first time in this new kind of way. Well, in some sense, is it fair to say that
link |
00:23:28.240
the Empire is born? The expanding Empire is born from the Noam Chomsky perspective kind of empire
link |
00:23:36.160
that seeks to have military influence elsewhere in the world?
link |
00:23:41.120
Yes, but I think as historians, we need to be at least as interested in what happens to the people
link |
00:23:47.200
who are getting pointed to by Uncle Sam, right, rather than just the one, you know, whether he's
link |
00:23:52.640
pointing at us. And, you know, so, so yes, he's asking us to do that. But how do we respond?
link |
00:23:58.480
And the people responded. So the people are ultimately the the machines of history, the
link |
00:24:05.920
mechanisms of history. It's not Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam can only do so much if the people aren't
link |
00:24:10.800
willing to step up. Absolutely. They and, you know, the American people responded for sure,
link |
00:24:14.960
but they didn't build what Uncle Sam asked them to do in that poster, right? And I think that's,
link |
00:24:21.280
you know, kind of a crucial aspect that, you know, there never would have been sort of global
link |
00:24:26.880
U.S. power without the response that begins in World War One.
link |
00:24:30.640
What was the Selective Service Act of 1917?
link |
00:24:34.240
So one of the very first things that Uncle Sam wants you to do, right, is to register for
link |
00:24:38.640
selective service for the draft, right? And the law is passed very soon after the U.S. enters the
link |
00:24:44.240
war. It's sort of, you know, demanding that all men first between 21 and 30, then between 18 and
link |
00:24:51.760
45, register for the draft, and they'll be selected by a government agency, by a volunteer
link |
00:24:58.560
organization. It's a requirement to sign up. It is a legal requirement to register. Of course,
link |
00:25:03.920
not everyone who registers is selected, but over the course of the war, 24 million men register,
link |
00:25:10.480
almost 4 million serve in some fashion.
link |
00:25:13.280
What was the response? What was the feeling amongst the American people to have to sign up
link |
00:25:18.000
to the Selective Service Act? Have to register.
link |
00:25:22.080
Yeah. This is a bigger turning point than we might think, right? In some ways, this is a tougher
link |
00:25:28.720
demand of the American public than entering the war. It's one thing to declare war on Germany,
link |
00:25:33.760
right? It's another thing to go down to your local post office and fill out the forms that allow
link |
00:25:39.840
your own government to send you there to fight. And this is especially important at a time when
link |
00:25:45.680
the federal government doesn't really have any other way to find you unless you actually go
link |
00:25:52.000
and register yourself, right? And so, you know, ordinary people are participating in the building
link |
00:25:58.160
of this war machine, but at least a half a million of them don't, right? And simply never fill out
link |
00:26:04.560
the forms, move from one town to another.
link |
00:26:07.280
But you said 20 million did? 20 something?
link |
00:26:09.840
Yeah. About 24 million register, at least 500,000.
link |
00:26:13.520
Is it surprising to you that that many registered? Since the country was divided?
link |
00:26:18.240
It is. And that's what I, you know, sort of tried to dig in to figure out how did you get 24 million
link |
00:26:23.840
people to register for the draft? And it's certainly not coming from the top down, right? You
link |
00:26:29.760
know, there may be a hundred sort of agents in what's now called the FBI. You know, it's certainly
link |
00:26:35.920
not being enforced from Washington. It's being enforced in, you know, through the eyes of everyday
link |
00:26:41.360
neighbors, you know, through community surveillance, all kinds of ways.
link |
00:26:45.680
Oh, so there was like a pressure.
link |
00:26:48.080
There's a lot of pressure.
link |
00:26:49.760
Interesting. So there was not a significant like antiwar movement as you would see maybe
link |
00:26:57.440
later with Vietnam and things like this?
link |
00:26:59.920
There was a significant movement before 1917, but it becomes very hard to keep up an organized
link |
00:27:07.280
antiwar movement after that, particularly when the government starts shutting down protests.
link |
00:27:11.760
So as the Selective Service Act of 1917 runs up against some of the freedoms, some of the rights
link |
00:27:20.800
that are defined in our founding documents, what was that clash like? What was sacrificed? What
link |
00:27:30.160
freedoms and rights were sacrificed in this process?
link |
00:27:33.520
I mean, I think on some level, the fundamental right is liberty, right? That conscription sort
link |
00:27:40.480
of demands, you know, sacrifice on the behalf of some notionally for the protection of all.
link |
00:27:48.880
So even if you're against the war, you're forced to fight.
link |
00:27:52.160
Yes. You know, and there were small provisions for conscientious objectors, solely those who
link |
00:27:59.280
had religious objections to all war, right? Not political objections to this war. And so,
link |
00:28:05.520
you know, several thousand were able to take those provisions. But even then, they faced
link |
00:28:11.360
social sanction, they faced ridicule, some of them faced intimidation. So those liberty
link |
00:28:17.520
interests, both individual freedom, religious freedom, you know, those are some of the first
link |
00:28:21.840
things to go.
link |
00:28:24.320
Right. So what about freedom of speech? What's the silencing of the press, of the voices
link |
00:28:32.480
of the different people that were object?
link |
00:28:34.960
Yes, absolutely. Right. And so very soon after the Selective Service Act is passed, then
link |
00:28:39.280
you get the Espionage Act, which of course is back in the news in 2022.
link |
00:28:43.920
What's the Espionage Act?
link |
00:28:45.200
The Espionage Act is a sort of omnibus bill. It contains about 10 or different provisions,
link |
00:28:49.440
very few of which have to do with espionage. But one key provision basically makes it illegal
link |
00:28:55.920
to say or do anything that would interfere with military recruitment, right? And that
link |
00:29:02.080
provision is used to shut down radical publications, to shut down German language publications.
link |
00:29:08.800
And, you know, this really has a chilling impact on speech during the war.
link |
00:29:14.240
Could you put into words what it means to be an American citizen that is in part sparked
link |
00:29:20.320
by World War I? What does that mean? Somebody that should be willing to sacrifice certain
link |
00:29:30.320
freedoms to fight for their country? Somebody that's willing to fight to spread freedom
link |
00:29:39.040
elsewhere in the world, spread the American ideals? Does that begin to tell the story
link |
00:29:46.320
what it means to be an American?
link |
00:29:49.440
I think what we see is a change, right? So citizenship during World War I now includes
link |
00:29:56.400
the obligation to defend the country, right, to serve, and to, if asked, to die for it,
link |
00:30:03.600
right? And we certainly see that. And I think we see the close linkage of military service
link |
00:30:11.200
and US citizenship coming out of this time period. But, you know, when you start making
link |
00:30:16.960
lots of demands on people to fulfill obligations, in turn, they're going to start demanding rights.
link |
00:30:22.880
And we start to see, not necessarily during the war but after, more demands for free speech
link |
00:30:28.400
protections, more demands for equality, for marginalized groups. And so, you know, obligations
link |
00:30:34.800
and rights are sort of developing in a dynamic relationship.
link |
00:30:38.240
Oh, it's almost like an overreach of power sparked a sense like, oh crap, we can't trust
link |
00:30:45.920
centralized power to abuse, like to drag us into a war. We need to be able to. So there's
link |
00:30:52.320
the birth of that tension between the government and the people.
link |
00:30:55.280
It's a rebirth of it. You know, of course, that tension is always there. But in its modern form,
link |
00:31:01.280
I think it comes from this reintensification of it. So what about, you said that World War I gave
link |
00:31:06.800
birth to the surveillance state in the US. Can you explain?
link |
00:31:10.960
Yeah, so the Espionage Act, you know, sort of empowers federal organizations to watch other
link |
00:31:18.080
Americans. They are particularly interested in anyone who is obstructing the draft, anyone who
link |
00:31:24.880
is trying to kind of organize labor or strikes or radical movements, and anyone who might have
link |
00:31:32.080
sympathy for Germany, which basically means, you know, all German Americans come under surveillance.
link |
00:31:38.080
Initially, you know, this is very small scale. But soon, every government agency gets involved
link |
00:31:45.120
from the Treasury Department Secret Service to the Post Office, which is sort of breeding mail,
link |
00:31:50.720
to the Justice Department, which mobilizes 200,000 volunteers. You know, it's a really
link |
00:31:56.640
significant enterprise. Much of it goes away after the war. But of all the things that go away,
link |
00:32:02.400
this core of the surveillance state is the thing that persists most fully.
link |
00:32:08.640
Is this also a place where government, the size of government starts to grow
link |
00:32:14.800
in these different organizations, or maybe creates a momentum for growth of government?
link |
00:32:19.600
Oh, it's exponential growth, right? That, you know, that over the course of the war,
link |
00:32:26.240
by almost any metric you use, right, the size of the federal budget, the number of federal
link |
00:32:30.880
employees, the number of soldiers in the standing army, all of those things skyrocket during the
link |
00:32:35.360
war. They go down after the war, but they never go down to what they were before.
link |
00:32:41.040
And probably gave a momentum for growth.
link |
00:32:44.640
Yes, absolutely.
link |
00:32:45.600
Did World War I give birth to the military industrial complex in the United States? So,
link |
00:32:54.240
war profiteering, expanding of the war machine in order to
link |
00:33:00.160
financially benefit a lot of parties involved?
link |
00:33:04.240
So, I guess I would maybe break that into two parts, right? That, on the one hand, yes,
link |
00:33:11.680
there is war profiteering. There are investigations of it. In the years after the war,
link |
00:33:18.800
there's a widespread concern that the profit motive had played too much of a part in the war,
link |
00:33:26.480
and that's definitely the case. But I think when you try to think of this term military industrial
link |
00:33:32.080
complex, it's best to think of it as, at what point does the one side lock in the other,
link |
00:33:39.280
right? That military choices are shaped by industry objectives and vice versa. And I don't
link |
00:33:47.120
think that that was fully locked into place during World War I. I think that's really a
link |
00:33:51.440
Cold War phenomenon, when the United States is on this intense kind of footing for two
link |
00:33:57.360
generations in a row.
link |
00:33:58.560
So, industrial is really important there, there is companies. So, before then,
link |
00:34:03.680
weapons of war were created, were funded directly by the government. Who was manufacturing the
link |
00:34:10.560
weapons of war?
link |
00:34:12.320
They were generally manufactured by private industry. There were, of course, arsenals,
link |
00:34:18.720
sort of 19th century iterations where the government would produce its own weapons,
link |
00:34:23.040
partly to make sure that they got what they wanted. But most of the weapons of war for all
link |
00:34:29.280
of the European powers, and the United States, are produced by private industry.
link |
00:34:33.840
So, why do you say that the military industrial complex didn't start then? What was the
link |
00:34:39.040
important thing that happened in the Cold War?
link |
00:34:41.920
I think one way to think about it is that the Cold War is a point at which it switches
link |
00:34:48.320
from being a dial to a ratchet, right? So, during World War I, the relationship between
link |
00:34:54.160
the military and industry dials up fast and high, and stays that way, and it dials back
link |
00:35:01.840
down. Whereas during the Cold War, sort of the relationship between the two often looks
link |
00:35:07.680
more like a ratchet.
link |
00:35:08.560
Yeah, it becomes unstoppable.
link |
00:35:10.320
It goes up again.
link |
00:35:12.240
In the way that you start, I think, the way the military industrial complex is often
link |
00:35:17.600
discussed as a system that is unstoppable, like it expands. If you take a very cynical
link |
00:35:29.280
view, it creates war so that it can make money. It doesn't just find places where it can help
link |
00:35:39.840
through military conflict. It creates tensions that directly or indirectly lead to military
link |
00:35:49.440
conflict that it can then fuel and make money from.
link |
00:35:53.600
That is certainly one of the concerns of both people who are critical of the First
link |
00:36:01.360
World War, and then also of Dwight Eisenhower, right, when he's president and sort of in
link |
00:36:05.920
his farewell address, where he sort of introduces the term military industrial complex. And
link |
00:36:11.360
some of it is about the profit motive, but some of it is a fear that Eisenhower had that
link |
00:36:16.960
no one had an interest in stopping this, right, and that no one had a voice in stopping it,
link |
00:36:22.560
and that the ordinary American could really do nothing to dial things down.
link |
00:36:31.120
Is it strange to you that we don't often hear that kind of speech today, with Eisenhower
link |
00:36:39.920
speaking about the military industrial complex? For example, we'll have people criticizing
link |
00:36:45.680
the spending on war efforts, but they're not discussing the machinery of the military industrial
link |
00:36:55.040
complex, like the basic way that human nature works, that we get ourselves trapped in this
link |
00:37:02.480
thing. They're saying, like, there's better things to spend money on, versus describing
link |
00:37:07.760
a very seemingly natural process of when you build weapons of war that's going to lead
link |
00:37:15.040
to more war. Like, it pulls you in somehow.
link |
00:37:19.520
RW. Yeah, I would say throughout the Cold War, and even after the end of it, there has
link |
00:37:27.120
not been a sustained conversation in the United States about our defense establishment, right,
link |
00:37:35.600
what we really need, and what serves our interest, and to what extent sort of other things like
link |
00:37:46.960
blanket forces, profit motives, belong in that conversation. What's interesting is that
link |
00:37:53.600
in the generation after the First World War, that conversation was on the table, right,
link |
00:37:59.040
through a series of investigations in the US, the Nye Committee in Britain, the Royal
link |
00:38:03.920
Commission, journalistic exposés. This would have been just talked about constantly in
link |
00:38:10.240
the years between about 1930 and 1936, as people were starting to worry that storm clouds
link |
00:38:16.440
were gathering in Europe again.
link |
00:38:18.240
LR. Yeah, but it always seems like those folks get pushed to the fringes. You're made an
link |
00:38:26.360
activist versus a thinking leader.
link |
00:38:32.480
RW. Those discussions are often marginalized, framed as conspiracy theory, etc. I think
link |
00:38:40.680
it's important to realize that in the generation after World War I, this was a serious civic
link |
00:38:47.640
conversation. It led to investigations of defense finance. It led to experiments in
link |
00:38:55.520
Britain and France in public finance of war material. I think those conversations need
link |
00:39:01.200
to be reconvened now in the 21st century.
link |
00:39:04.880
LR. Is there any parallels between World War I and the war in Ukraine? The reason I bring
link |
00:39:12.060
it up is because you mentioned there was a hunger for war, a capacity for war that was
link |
00:39:23.720
already established, and the different parties were just boiling the tensions. So there's
link |
00:39:31.000
a case made that America had a role to play, NATO had a role to play in the current war
link |
00:39:36.800
in Ukraine. Is there some truth to that when you think about it in the context of World
link |
00:39:44.240
War I? Or is it purely about the specific parties involved, which is Russia and Ukraine?
link |
00:39:51.680
RW. I think it's very easy to draw parallels between World War I and the war in Ukraine,
link |
00:40:02.240
but I don't think they really work. The First World War in some ways is generated by a fundamental
link |
00:40:14.760
conflict in the European system of empires, in the global system of empires. In many ways,
link |
00:40:22.320
if there's a parallel, the war in Ukraine is the parallel to some of the conflicts in
link |
00:40:29.800
the Mediterranean and the Balkans in 1911 to 1913, that then later there was a much
link |
00:40:40.540
greater conflict. So I think if there's any lessons to be learned for how not to let World
link |
00:40:48.440
War III look like World War I, it would be to make sure that systems aren't locked into
link |
00:40:55.000
place that escalate wars out of people's expectations.
link |
00:40:58.880
LR. That's I suppose what I was implying, that this is the early stages of World War III. That in the same way that several wolves are licking their chops or whatever the expression is, they're creating tension, they're
link |
00:41:17.200
creating military conflict with a kind of unstoppable imperative for a global war. Many people that
link |
00:41:29.280
are looking at this are really worried about that. Now the forcing function to stop this
link |
00:41:36.920
war is that there's several nuclear powers involved, which has at least for now worked
link |
00:41:42.880
to stop full on global war. But I'm not sure that's going to be the case. In fact, what
link |
00:41:49.080
is one of the surprising things to me in Ukraine is that still in the 21st century, we can
link |
00:41:58.680
go to something that involves nuclear powers, not directly yet, but awfully close to directly,
link |
00:42:05.960
go to a hot war. And so do you worry about that, that there's a kind of descent into
link |
00:42:14.440
a World War I type of scenario?
link |
00:42:16.720
RW. Yes, I mean, that keeps me up at night, and I think it should keep the citizens of
link |
00:42:22.640
both the United States and Russia up at night. And I think, again, it gets back to what I
link |
00:42:31.640
was saying, that in the summer of 1914, even then, things that looked like a march toward
link |
00:42:40.720
war could have been different. And so I think it's important for leaders of both countries
link |
00:42:49.260
and of all of the related countries, of Ukraine, of the various NATO powers, to really imagine
link |
00:42:56.760
off ramps and to imagine alternatives and to make them possible. Whether it's through
link |
00:43:04.800
diplomacy, whether it's through other formats, I think that that's the only way to prevent
link |
00:43:13.440
sort of greater escalation.
link |
00:43:14.840
LR. What's the difference between World War I and the Civil War? In terms of how they
link |
00:43:19.120
defined what it means to be an American, but also the American citizen's relationship with
link |
00:43:25.960
the war, what the leaders were doing, is there interesting differences and similarities?
link |
00:43:34.880
Besides the fact that everybody seems to have forgot about World War I in the United States
link |
00:43:38.400
and everyone still remembers Civil War.
link |
00:43:40.520
RW. I mean, it's true. And the American Civil War defines American identity in some ways,
link |
00:43:50.720
along with the Revolution and the Second World War, more so than any other conflict. And
link |
00:43:57.160
it's a fundamentally different war. It's won because it is a civil war, because of secession,
link |
00:44:06.120
because of the Confederacy. This is a conflict happening on the territory of the United States
link |
00:44:12.800
between Americans. And so the dynamics are really quite different. So the leaders particularly
link |
00:44:20.480
Lincoln have a different relationship to the home front, to civilians, than they say Wilson
link |
00:44:27.760
or Roosevelt have in World War I and II.
link |
00:44:30.040
LR. Also the way you would tell the story of the Civil War, perhaps similar to the way
link |
00:44:34.720
we tell the story of World War II, there's like a reason to actually fight the war. The
link |
00:44:40.200
way we tell the story is we're fighting for this idea that all men are created equal,
link |
00:44:45.000
that the war is over slavery in part. Perhaps that's a drastic oversimplification of what
link |
00:44:54.520
the war was actually about in the moment, like how do you get pulled into an actual
link |
00:44:58.940
war versus a hot discussion. And the same with World War II, people kind of framed the
link |
00:45:07.840
narrative that it was against evil, Hitler being evil. I think the key part of that is
link |
00:45:15.820
probably the Holocaust, is how you can formulate Hitler's being evil. If there's no Holocaust,
link |
00:45:22.840
perhaps there's a case to be made that we wouldn't see World War II as such a quote
link |
00:45:28.400
unquote good war, that there's an atrocity that had to happen to make it really, to be
link |
00:45:35.680
able to tell a clear narrative of why we get into this war. Perhaps such a narrative doesn't
link |
00:45:40.260
exist for World War I, and so that doesn't stay in the American mind. We try to sweep
link |
00:45:46.060
it under the rug, given though overall 16 million people died. So to you the difference
link |
00:45:54.720
is in the fact that you're fighting for ideas and fighting on the homeland. But in terms
link |
00:46:02.240
of people's participation, you know, fighting for your country, was there similarities there?
link |
00:46:10.480
Yeah. I mean, I think, I mean the Civil War in both the North and the South, troops are
link |
00:46:17.840
raised overwhelmingly through volunteer recruitment. There is a draft in both the North and the
link |
00:46:24.040
South, but it's not significant. Only 8% of Confederate soldiers came in through conscription.
link |
00:46:35.160
And so in fact, the mobilization for volunteers often organized locally around individual
link |
00:46:44.060
communities or states, creates sort of multiple identities and levels of loyalty, where people
link |
00:46:50.800
both in the North and the South have loyalty both to their state regiments, to their sort
link |
00:46:55.840
of community militias and as well to the country. They are fighting over the country, right?
link |
00:47:01.500
Over the United States. And so the Union and the Confederacy have conflicting and ultimately
link |
00:47:07.280
irreconcilable visions of that. But that sort of nationalism that comes out of the Union
link |
00:47:15.680
after the victory in the war is a kind of crucial force shaping America ever since.
link |
00:47:21.660
So what was the neutrality period? Why did US stay out of the war for so long? What was
link |
00:47:26.320
going on in that interesting, like, what made Woodrow Wilson change his mind? What was the
link |
00:47:36.120
interesting dynamic there?
link |
00:47:38.520
I always say that the United States entered the war in April of 1917, but Americans entered
link |
00:47:45.520
it right away, right? They entered it. Some of them actually went and volunteered and
link |
00:47:50.860
fought almost exclusively on the side of Britain and France. At least 50,000 joined the Canadian
link |
00:47:59.380
army or the British army and served. Millions volunteer. They sent humanitarian aid. I think
link |
00:48:06.160
in many ways, modern war creates modern humanitarianism, and we can see that in the neutrality period.
link |
00:48:13.920
And even if they wanted the United States to stay out of the war, a lot of Americans
link |
00:48:18.920
get involved in it by thinking about it, caring about it, arguing about it. And at the same
link |
00:48:25.640
time, they're worried that British propaganda is shaping their news system. They are worried
link |
00:48:32.840
that German espionage is undermining them. They're worried that both Britain and Germany
link |
00:48:37.640
are trying to interfere in American elections and American news cycles. And at the same
link |
00:48:43.600
time, a revolution is breaking out in Mexico. So there are sort of concerns about what's
link |
00:48:49.760
happening in the Western Hemisphere as well as what's happening in Europe.
link |
00:48:54.200
So World War I was supposed to be the war to end all wars, and it didn't. How did World
link |
00:49:02.520
War I pave the way to World War II? Every nation probably has their own story in this
link |
00:49:09.960
trajectory towards World War II. How did Europe allow World War II to happen? How did the
link |
00:49:16.520
Soviet Union, Russia allow World War II to happen, and how did America allow World War
link |
00:49:22.480
II to happen? And Japan?
link |
00:49:24.520
Yeah, you're right. The answer is different for each country, right? That in some ways
link |
00:49:29.320
in Germany, the culture of defeat and the experience of defeat at the end of World War
link |
00:49:35.680
I leads to a culture of resentment, recrimination, finger pointing blame that makes German politics
link |
00:49:45.280
very ugly. As one person puts it, brutalizes German politics.
link |
00:49:50.920
It places resentment at the core of the populace and its politics.
link |
00:49:56.440
Yeah. And so in some ways, that lays the groundwork for the kind of politics of resentment and
link |
00:50:02.280
hate that comes from the Nazis. For the United States, in some ways, the failure to win the
link |
00:50:09.120
peace sets up the possibility for the next war, that the United States, through Wilson,
link |
00:50:18.840
is sort of crafting a new international order in order that this will be the war to end
link |
00:50:23.800
all wars. But because the United States failed to join the League of Nations, you see the
link |
00:50:30.200
United States really sort of on the hook for another generation.
link |
00:50:34.360
In Asia, the story is more complicated, right? And I think it's worth bearing that in mind
link |
00:50:38.320
that World War II is a two front war. It starts in Asia for its own reasons. World War I is
link |
00:50:45.420
transformative for Japan, right? It is a time of massive economic expansion. A lot of that
link |
00:50:51.960
sort of economic wealth is poured into sort of greater industrialization and militarization.
link |
00:50:58.900
And so when the military wing in Japanese politics takes over in the 1930s, they're
link |
00:51:04.640
in some ways flexing muscles that come out of the First World War.
link |
00:51:09.760
Can you talk about the end of World War I, the Treaty of Versailles? What's interesting
link |
00:51:15.880
about that dynamics there, of the parties involved, of how it could have been done differently
link |
00:51:24.640
to avoid the resentment? Or again, is it inevitable?
link |
00:51:30.380
So the war ends and very soon, even before the war is over, the United States in particular
link |
00:51:38.120
is trying to shape the peace, right? And the United States is the central actor at the
link |
00:51:43.440
Paris Peace Conference in 1919. Woodrow Wilson is there, he's presiding, and he knows that
link |
00:51:49.680
he calls the shots.
link |
00:51:51.000
So he was respected.
link |
00:51:52.960
He was respected, but resentfully in some ways by the European powers, Britain and France
link |
00:51:59.920
and Italy to a lesser extent, who felt that they had sacrificed more. They had two goals,
link |
00:52:06.720
right? They wanted to shape the imperial system in order to make sure that their kind of fundamental
link |
00:52:13.160
economic structures wouldn't change. And they also wanted to sort of weaken Germany as much
link |
00:52:19.100
as possible, right? So that Germany couldn't rise again.
link |
00:52:23.100
What this leads to is a peace treaty that maintains some of the fundamental conflicts
link |
00:52:30.000
of the imperial system and makes, bankrupts Germany, starves Germany, and kind of feeds
link |
00:52:37.020
this politics of resentment that make it impossible for Germany to kind of participate in a European
link |
00:52:44.560
order.
link |
00:52:46.480
So people like historian Neil Ferguson, for example, make the case that if Britain stayed
link |
00:52:53.560
out of World War I, we would have avoided this whole mess and we would potentially even
link |
00:52:58.920
avoid World War II, this kind of counterfactual history. Do you think it's possible to make
link |
00:53:06.560
the case for that? That there was a moment, especially in that case, staying out of the
link |
00:53:12.520
war for Britain, that the escalation to a global war could have been avoided and one
link |
00:53:17.520
that ultimately ends in a deep global resentment. So where Germany is resentful not just of
link |
00:53:24.480
France or particular nations, but is resentful of the entire, I don't know how you define
link |
00:53:30.400
it, the West or something like this, the entire global world.
link |
00:53:36.520
I wish it were that easy. And I think it's useful to think in counterfactuals. What if?
link |
00:53:49.200
And if you believe, as historians do, in causation, if that one thing causes another, then you
link |
00:53:57.260
also have to believe in counterfactuals, right? That if something hadn't happened, then maybe
link |
00:54:01.720
that would have worked differently. But I think all the things that led to World War
link |
00:54:09.720
I are multi causal and nuanced. And this is what historians do. We make things more complicated.
link |
00:54:16.640
And so there was no one thing that could have turned the tide of history. Oh, if only Hitler
link |
00:54:27.240
had gotten into art school or if only Fidel Castro had gotten into the major leagues.
link |
00:54:34.080
Those are interesting thought experiments, but few events in history I think are that
link |
00:54:38.000
contingent.
link |
00:54:39.000
Well, Hitler is an example of somebody who is a charismatic leader that seems to have
link |
00:54:45.600
a really disproportionate amount of influence on the tide of history. So if you look at
link |
00:54:55.760
Stalin, you could imagine that many other people could have stepped into that role.
link |
00:55:03.200
And the same goes for many of the other presidents through, or even Mao. It seems that there's
link |
00:55:09.760
a singular nature to Hitler, that you could play the counterfactual, that if there was
link |
00:55:15.440
no Hitler, you may have not had World War II. He better than many leaders in history
link |
00:55:22.680
was able to channel the resentment of the populace into a very aggressive expansion
link |
00:55:28.560
of the military and I would say skillful deceit of the entire world in terms of his plans
link |
00:55:36.600
and was able to effectively start the war. So is it possible that, I mean, could Hitler
link |
00:55:44.720
have been stopped? Could we have avoided if he just got into art school? Or again, do
link |
00:55:52.000
you feel like there's a current of events that was unstoppable?
link |
00:55:55.680
I mean, part of what you're talking about is Hitler the individual as a sort of charismatic
link |
00:56:01.120
leader who's able to mobilize the nation. And part of it is Hitlerism, his own sort
link |
00:56:08.240
of individual ability to play, for example, play off his subordinates against one another
link |
00:56:14.920
to set up a system of that nature that in some ways escalates violence, including the
link |
00:56:21.640
violence that leads to the Holocaust. And some of it is also Hitlerism as a leader cult.
link |
00:56:28.640
And we see this in many other sort of things where a political movement surrounds one particular
link |
00:56:35.040
individual who may or may not be replaceable. So yes, the World War II we got would have
link |
00:56:42.840
been completely different if a different sort of faction had risen to power in Germany.
link |
00:56:51.360
But Europe, you know, Depression era Europe was so unstable and democracies collapsed
link |
00:56:56.720
throughout Western Europe over the course of the 1930s, you know, whether they had charismatic
link |
00:57:01.520
totalitarian leaders or not.
link |
00:57:04.560
Have you actually read one book I just recently finished? I'd love to get your opinion from
link |
00:57:11.640
a historian perspective. There's a book called Blitzed Drugs in the Third Reich by Norman
link |
00:57:16.840
Mohler. It makes a case that drugs played a very large role, meth essentially, played
link |
00:57:25.360
a very large role in World War II. There's a lot of criticism of this book, saying that
link |
00:57:32.760
it's kind of to what you're saying, it takes this one little variable and makes it like
link |
00:57:38.600
this explains everything. So everything about Hitler, everything about the blitzkrieg, everything
link |
00:57:44.840
about the military, the way the strategy, the decisions could be explained through drugs,
link |
00:57:50.720
or at least implies that kind of thing. And the interesting thing about this book because
link |
00:57:56.120
Hitler and Nazi Germany is one of the most sort of written about periods of human history.
link |
00:58:02.000
And this was not drugs were almost entirely not written about in this context. So here
link |
00:58:07.760
come along this semi historian because I don't think he's even a historian. He's a lot of
link |
00:58:13.880
his work is fiction. Hopefully I'm saying that correctly. So he tells a really that's
link |
00:58:19.600
one of the criticisms he tells a very compelling story that drugs were at the center of this
link |
00:58:27.120
period and also of the man of Hitler. What are your sort of feelings and thoughts about
link |
00:58:35.680
if you've gotten a chance to read this book, but I'm sure there's books like it that tell
link |
00:58:39.960
an interesting perspective singular perspective on a war. Yeah, I mean, I have read it and
link |
00:58:45.600
I also had this sort of eye opening experience that a lot of historians did and they're like,
link |
00:58:51.200
why didn't, why didn't we think about this? And I think whether he's, the author Oller
link |
00:58:58.720
is sort of not a trained academic historian, but the joy of history is like, you don't
link |
00:59:03.440
have to be one to write good history. And I don't think anyone sort of criticizes him
link |
00:59:08.480
for, for that. Um, I like the book as a, as a window into the third Reich. You know, of
link |
00:59:15.720
course drugs don't explain all of it, but it helps us see, um, you know, uh, it see
link |
00:59:22.560
helps us see the people who supported Hitler, um, uh, the ways in which, um, you know, uh,
link |
00:59:29.320
it was that mind altering and performance altering drugs were used to kind of keep soldiers
link |
00:59:34.920
on the battlefield. Um, the ways in which, um, you know, I think that we take, we don't
link |
00:59:41.680
fully understand the extent to which the third Reich is held together with like duct tape,
link |
00:59:46.680
um, from, um, you know, from a pretty early phase by like 1940 or 41 even, you know, it's
link |
00:59:53.500
all smoke and mirrors. And I think that wartime propaganda, both Germans trying to say, you
link |
00:59:59.920
know, we're winning everything and America trying to mobilize, uh, and the other allies,
link |
01:00:05.040
you know, to mobilize against Germany, uh, described a more formidable enemy than it
link |
01:00:10.240
really was by 1941 and 42.
link |
01:00:12.440
Yeah. I mean, I could see both cases. Uh, one is that duct tape doesn't make the man,
link |
01:00:19.400
but also as an engineer, I'm a huge fan of duct tape because it does seem to solve a
link |
01:00:24.680
lot of problems. And, uh, I do worry that this perspective that the book presents about
link |
01:00:32.200
drugs is somehow to the mind really compelling because it's almost like the mind, or at least
link |
01:00:39.520
my mind searches for an answer. How could this have happened? And it's nice to have
link |
01:00:44.760
a clean explanation and drugs is one popular one. When people talk about steroids and sports,
link |
01:00:50.680
the moment you introduced the topic of steroids, somehow the mind wants to explain all success
link |
01:00:56.400
in the context was because this person was on steroids, Lance Armstrong. Well, it's,
link |
01:01:04.320
it like, it's a very sticky idea. Certain ideas, certain explanations are very sticky.
link |
01:01:09.360
And I think that's really dangerous because then you lose the full context. And also in
link |
01:01:13.520
the case of drugs, it removes the responsibility from the person, both for the military genius
link |
01:01:20.480
and the evil. And I think you, I mean, it's a very dangerous thing to do because something
link |
01:01:27.160
about the mind, maybe it's just mind that's sticky to this. Well, drugs explain it. If
link |
01:01:31.440
the drugs didn't happen, uh, then it would be very different. Yeah. It worries me how
link |
01:01:37.480
compelling it is of an explanation, you know? Yeah. So that's why it's maybe better to think
link |
01:01:42.600
of it as a window into the third, right? Is that an explanation of it? But it's also a
link |
01:01:47.320
nice exploration of Hitler, the man. For some reason, discussing his habits, especially
link |
01:01:52.320
later in the war, um, his practices with drugs gives you a window into the person. It reminds
link |
01:02:00.000
you that there's a human, this is a human being, like a human being that gets emotional
link |
01:02:06.800
in the morning, gets thoughtful in the morning, hopeful, sad, depressed, angry, like a story
link |
01:02:14.560
of emotions of the human being. Somehow we construct, um, which is a pretty dangerous
link |
01:02:20.940
thing to do, construct an evil monster out of Hitler when in reality he's a human being
link |
01:02:26.040
like all of us. I think the lesson there is the soldier needs to lesson, which is all
link |
01:02:30.320
of us to some degree are capable of evil. Um, or maybe if you want to make it less powerful
link |
01:02:38.440
a statement, many of our leaders are capable of evil. That this Hitler is not truly singular
link |
01:02:45.440
in history. That, uh, yeah, when the resentment of the populace matches the right charismatic
link |
01:02:51.960
leader, it's, it's easy to make the kind of, not easy, but it's possible to frequently
link |
01:02:57.280
make the kind of, uh, initiation of military conflict that happened in World War, World
link |
01:03:04.480
War II. By the way, because you said not a trained historian, one of the, one of the
link |
01:03:12.360
most compelling and I don't know, entertaining and fascinating exploration of World War I
link |
01:03:17.960
comes from Dan Carlin. I don't know if you've gotten a chance to listen to his sort of podcast
link |
01:03:24.180
form telling of the blueprint for Armageddon, which is the telling of World War I. What
link |
01:03:29.600
do you think about Dan Carlin, you yourself as a historian who has studied, who has written
link |
01:03:34.600
about World War I? Do you, do you enjoy that kind of telling of history? Absolutely. And
link |
01:03:40.960
I think, um, again, you know, uh, you don't need a PhD in history to, to be a historian.
link |
01:03:46.160
Um, does every historian agree with that? Uh, he gets quite a bit of criticism from
link |
01:03:50.240
historians. Uh, you know, I mean, we, you know, we like to argue with each other and
link |
01:03:54.800
nitpick with each other, but, um, but the one thing I have no patience for is when we
link |
01:03:58.880
like pull rank on each other. Um, you know, I think, um, we depend on, uh, you know, if
link |
01:04:05.040
you're, you know, a historian in a university with degrees and research materials, you know,
link |
01:04:09.880
you depend on the work of people in some local community, like recording oral histories,
link |
01:04:15.120
saving documents. And history is a, it's a social science, but it's also a storytelling
link |
01:04:21.120
art. Um, and you know, uh, history books are the ones you find on the shelves and bookstores
link |
01:04:26.940
that people read for, for fun. And, and then, and you can appreciate both the, the knowledge
link |
01:04:32.400
production, um, as well as the storytelling. Um, and when you get a good oral storyteller
link |
01:04:37.720
like Dan Carlin, um, there's a reason that thousands and hundreds of thousands of people
link |
01:04:42.840
tune in. Yeah. But he definitely suffers from anxiety about getting things correct. And
link |
01:04:48.400
it's very, it's very difficult. Well, our first job is to get the facts, uh, the facts
link |
01:04:52.800
correct and then, and then to tell the story off of those. But the, the facts are so fuzzy.
link |
01:04:58.160
So it's a, I mean, you have the, probably my favorite telling of World War II is William
link |
01:05:05.440
Shire's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. And, uh, or at least not telling of Nazi Germany.
link |
01:05:12.320
And that goes to primary sources a lot, which is like, I suppose that's the honest way to
link |
01:05:20.960
do it. But it's tough. It's really tough to write that way, to really go to primary sources
link |
01:05:26.880
always. And I think the, one of the things that Dan tries to do, which is also really
link |
01:05:34.520
tough to do, perhaps easier in, in oral history is, uh, try to make you feel what it was like
link |
01:05:41.480
to be there. Which, uh, I think he does by trying to tell the story of like individual
link |
01:05:48.280
soldiers and, um, do you find that telling like individual citizens? Do you find that
link |
01:05:55.960
kind of telling of history compelling?
link |
01:05:58.080
Yeah. I mean, I think we need, uh, historical imagination. Um, and I think historical imagination
link |
01:06:07.800
teaches something very valuable, which is humility, um, to realize that there are other
link |
01:06:15.520
people, um, who've lived on this planet and they organized their lives differently and,
link |
01:06:20.560
you know, they made it through just fine too. Um, and, um, you know, I think that, that,
link |
01:06:27.760
that kind of, of, of meeting other people from the past can be actually a very useful
link |
01:06:34.400
skill for meeting people unlike you in the present.
link |
01:06:38.560
Unlike you, but also like you. I think both are, uh, both are humbling. One realizing
link |
01:06:43.600
that they did live in a different space and time, but two realizing that if you, if you
link |
01:06:49.280
were placed in that space and time, you might have done all the same things, whether it's
link |
01:06:54.320
the brave, good thing or the evil thing.
link |
01:06:57.320
Yeah, absolutely. Um, and you get a, also a sense of, um, uh, of possibility. You know,
link |
01:07:04.040
there's this famous line, right? That, um, you know, those who do not learn history are
link |
01:07:07.920
condemned to repeat it. Um, but I think the other half is true, uh, as well, which is
link |
01:07:12.920
those who do not learn history don't get the chance to repeat it, right? Um, you know,
link |
01:07:17.280
that we're not the first people on this planet to face, you know, any certain kinds of problems.
link |
01:07:21.640
Um, you know, other people have, have lived through worlds like this one before.
link |
01:07:26.320
It's like when you fall in love as a teenager for the first time, there's, and then there's
link |
01:07:29.980
a breakup. You think it, it's the greatest tragedy, tragedy that has ever happened in
link |
01:07:36.240
the world. You're the first person. Even though, like, Romeo and Juliet and so on had, had
link |
01:07:43.440
this issue, you're the first person that truly feels the catastrophic heartbreak of that
link |
01:07:49.400
experience. It's good to be reminded that no, the human condition is what it is. We
link |
01:07:55.920
have lived through it at the individual and the societal scale.
link |
01:07:59.480
Let me ask you about nationalism, which I think is at the core of I want you poster.
link |
01:08:07.400
Is nationalism destructive or empowering to a nation? And we can use different words like
link |
01:08:13.320
patriotism, which is in many ways synonymous to nationalism, but in recent history, perhaps
link |
01:08:19.960
because of the Nazis has, has, um, slowly parted ways that somehow nationalism is when
link |
01:08:26.440
patriotism, patriotism gone bad or something like this.
link |
01:08:30.240
Yeah, they're, they're different, right? Um, patriotism, um, you know, patriotism is in
link |
01:08:36.320
some ways best thought of as an emotion, right? Uh, and a feeling of, of love of country,
link |
01:08:41.560
right? Um, you know, uh, literally, um, uh, and in some ways that's a necessary condition
link |
01:08:47.800
to participate in nationalism. Um, you know, whether to me, I think nationalism is crucial,
link |
01:08:56.840
um, in a world organized around nation states. Um, and you have to sort of believe that you
link |
01:09:04.400
are engaged in a common project together, right? Um, and so, you know, in the contemporary
link |
01:09:09.480
United States, um, you know, uh, in some ways that that question is actually on the table
link |
01:09:15.280
in ways that it hasn't been in the past, but you know, you have to believe that you're
link |
01:09:19.260
engaged in a common project, that you have something in common with the person with whom
link |
01:09:24.240
you share this nation. Um, and, um, and that you would sacrifice for them, whether it's
link |
01:09:29.640
by paying taxes for them or, um, you know, we're going to war to defend them. Um, that's
link |
01:09:34.880
a vision of, you know, what we might call civic nationalism. Um, uh, that's, that's
link |
01:09:39.920
the good version. The question is whether you could have that, um, without having, um,
link |
01:09:46.400
exclusionary nationalism, you know, hating the other, right? Fearing the other saying,
link |
01:09:51.680
uh, yeah, you're part of this nation, uh, against all others. Um, and I think there's
link |
01:09:58.240
a long tradition in America of a very inclusive, uh, nationalism, um, that is open, uh, inclusive,
link |
01:10:06.600
um, and, you know, new people to this shared project. Um, that's something to be defended.
link |
01:10:14.240
Exclusionary nationalism is based on, you know, um, uh, uh, ethnic hatreds and others
link |
01:10:19.880
that we see throughout the world. Um, those are things to be afraid of.
link |
01:10:24.120
But there is a kind of narrative in the United States that a nationalism that includes the
link |
01:10:29.840
big umbrella of democratic nations, nations that strive for freedom and everybody else
link |
01:10:36.240
is against, is against freedom and against human nature. And it just so happens that
link |
01:10:41.680
it's half and half split across the world. So that's imperialism that feels like it beats
link |
01:10:48.800
the drum of war.
link |
01:10:51.160
Yeah. And I, I mean, I don't want to paint too rosy a picture and certainly, you know,
link |
01:10:55.840
the United States, um, as a nation has often found it easier to define ourselves against
link |
01:11:01.360
something than to clarify exactly what we're for.
link |
01:11:06.400
Yeah. Yeah. The Cold War, China today. That's not only United States. I suppose that's,
link |
01:11:16.680
that's human nature. It's, we need a competitor. It's almost like maybe the success of human
link |
01:11:23.200
civilization requires figuring out how to construct competitors that don't result in
link |
01:11:31.280
global war.
link |
01:11:32.840
Yes. Or figuring out how to turn enemies into rivals and competitors. There's a real difference.
link |
01:11:41.400
You know, you can, you, you know, you compete with competitors. You, you fight with enemies.
link |
01:11:47.000
Yeah. With competitors is a respect, maybe even a love underlying the competition.
link |
01:11:55.960
What lessons, what are the biggest lessons you take away from World War I? Maybe we talked
link |
01:12:02.120
about several, but you know, you look back at the 20th century. What, as a historian,
link |
01:12:10.480
what do you learn about human nature, about human civilization, about history from looking
link |
01:12:17.160
at this war?
link |
01:12:19.480
I think the, the lesson I would want everyone to take from the story of the First World
link |
01:12:29.840
War is that human life is not cheap. That all of the warring powers thought that just
link |
01:12:41.320
by throwing more men and more material at the front, they would solve their political
link |
01:12:48.000
problems with military force. And at the end of the day in 1918, one side did win that,
link |
01:12:56.620
but it didn't actually solve any of those political problems.
link |
01:12:59.560
And in the end, the regular people paid the price with their lives.
link |
01:13:06.120
They did. And people who, people who had been told that their lives were cheap remembered
link |
01:13:12.680
that, right? And it sort of, you know, reshapes mass politics for the rest of the 20th century,
link |
01:13:19.440
both in Europe and around the world.
link |
01:13:21.400
Yeah. The, yeah, the cost of a death of a single soldier is not just, or a single civilian
link |
01:13:29.000
is not just the cost of that single life. It's the resentment, that the anger, the hate
link |
01:13:35.520
that reverberates throughout. One of the things I saw in Ukraine is the birth of, at scale
link |
01:13:42.480
of generational hate, not towards administrations or leaders, but towards entire peoples. And
link |
01:13:50.320
that hate, I mean, overnight that hate is created and it takes perhaps decades for that
link |
01:13:56.520
hate to dissipate.
link |
01:13:58.660
It takes decades and it takes, it takes collective effort to build institutions that divert that
link |
01:14:04.960
hate into other places.
link |
01:14:10.080
One of the biggest things I thought was not part of the calculus in when the United States
link |
01:14:16.460
invaded Afghanistan and Iraq is the creation of hate. When you drop a bomb, even if it
link |
01:14:27.520
hits military targets, even if it kills soldiers, which in that case it didn't, there's a very
link |
01:14:34.960
large amount of civilians. What does that do to the, yeah, like, how many years, minutes,
link |
01:14:45.040
hours, months, and years of hate do you create with a single bomb you drop? And I calculate
link |
01:14:50.320
that like literally in the Pentagon have a chart, how many people will hate us? How many
link |
01:14:57.200
people does it take, do some science here, how many people does it take, when you have
link |
01:15:01.480
a million people that hate you, how many of them will become terrorists? How many of them
link |
01:15:09.240
will do something to the nation you love and care about, which is the United States, will
link |
01:15:15.120
do something that will be very costly? I feel like there was not a plot in a chart. It was
link |
01:15:21.760
more about short term effects.
link |
01:15:24.200
Yes, it's again, it's the idea of using military force to solve political problems. And I think
link |
01:15:31.480
there's a squandering of goodwill that people have around the world toward the United States.
link |
01:15:37.200
That's a respect for its economy, for its consumer products, and so forth. And I think
link |
01:15:43.040
that's been lost, a lot of that.
link |
01:15:46.240
Do you think leaders can stop war? I have perhaps a romantic notion, perhaps because
link |
01:15:51.440
I do these podcasts in person and so on, that leaders that get in a room together and can
link |
01:15:55.760
talk, they can stop war. I mean, that's the power of a leader, especially one in an authoritarian
link |
01:16:04.160
regime that they can, through camaraderie, alleviate some of the emotions associated
link |
01:16:14.460
with ego.
link |
01:16:16.120
Yes, leaders can stop war if they get into the room when they understand from the masses
link |
01:16:25.800
in their countries that war is something that they want stopped.
link |
01:16:31.920
So the people ultimately have a really big say.
link |
01:16:34.600
They do, that it was mass movements by people in the United States for the nuclear freeze,
link |
01:16:42.220
even Russia pushing for openness that brought, for example, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev
link |
01:16:48.760
to Reykjavik to sort of debate and eventually sort of put caps on nuclear weapons. Those
link |
01:16:56.800
two people made choices in the room that made that possible, but they were both being pushed
link |
01:17:04.760
and knew they were being pushed by their people.
link |
01:17:07.800
Boy, that's a tough one. It puts a lot of responsibility on the German people, for example.
link |
01:17:15.240
In both wars, we fans of history tend to conceive of history as a meeting of leaders. We think
link |
01:17:23.120
of Chamberlain, we think of Churchill and the importance of them in the Second World
link |
01:17:27.240
War. We think about Hitler and Stalin and think that if certain conversations happen,
link |
01:17:32.880
the war could have been avoided. You tell the story of how many times Hitler and Nazi
link |
01:17:39.120
Germany's military might was not sufficient, they could have been easily stopped. And the
link |
01:17:46.280
pacifists, the people who believed Hitler or foolish enough to believe Hitler didn't
link |
01:17:53.720
act properly. And if the leaders just woke up to that idea, in fact, Churchill is a kind
link |
01:18:01.680
of representation of that. But in your conception here, it's possible that Churchill was also
link |
01:18:06.180
a representation of the British people, even though seemingly unpopular. That gave birth
link |
01:18:16.240
to somebody like Churchill, who said, we'll never surrender, right? She'll fight in the
link |
01:18:21.360
beaches.
link |
01:18:22.360
Yeah. And I think World War II Britain is a good example of that. It is clearly a dynamic
link |
01:18:30.140
leader who has his pulse on what the people want and demand and are willing to do. And
link |
01:18:38.120
you know, it's a dynamic art of leading that and shaping those wants at the same time as
link |
01:18:44.400
knowing that you're bound by them.
link |
01:18:47.080
Well then if we conceive of history in this way, let me ask you about our presidents.
link |
01:18:53.300
You are taking on the impossibly difficult task of teaching a course in a couple of years
link |
01:19:00.680
here or in one year called the history of American presidential elections. So if the
link |
01:19:08.080
people are in part responsible for leaders, how can we explain what is going on in America
link |
01:19:17.040
that we have the leaders that we do today? So if we think about the elections of the
link |
01:19:22.920
past several cycles, I guess let me ask, are we a divided nation? Are we more of a divided
link |
01:19:31.280
nation than we were in the past? What do you understand about the American citizen at the
link |
01:19:36.480
beginning of this century from the leaders we have elected?
link |
01:19:41.760
Yes, obviously we are a divided country in our rhetoric, in our day to day politics.
link |
01:19:54.740
But we are nowhere near as divided as we have been in other periods in our history, right?
link |
01:20:01.800
The most obvious, of course, being in the American Civil War, 150 years ago. And the
link |
01:20:09.080
distinction is not just that we haven't come to blows, but that we are fundamentally one
link |
01:20:16.880
society, one economy, and sort of deeply integrated as a nation, both domestically and on the
link |
01:20:26.680
world stage in ways that look nothing like the United States in 1861. Will political
link |
01:20:36.880
rhetoric continue to be extreme? Of course. But we're not as divided as people think we
link |
01:20:44.240
are.
link |
01:20:47.440
Well, then if you actually look throughout human history, does it always get, so outside
link |
01:20:55.240
of the people, do the elections get as contentious as they've recently been? So there's a kind
link |
01:21:02.320
of perception has been very close and there's a lot of accusations, a lot of tensions. It's
link |
01:21:08.060
very heated. It's almost fueling the machine of division. Has that often been the case?
link |
01:21:14.340
It has. It hasn't, it hasn't. I mean, I do think right now is different. And there it's
link |
01:21:20.440
worth distinguishing, are there deep social or economic divisions, which I don't actually
link |
01:21:26.560
think that there are, versus partisanship in particular, sort of the rivalry between
link |
01:21:31.600
the two parties. And it's very clear that we are in an era of what political scientists
link |
01:21:37.480
call hyper partisanship, right? And that the two parties have taken sort of fundamentally
link |
01:21:43.640
different positions and moved further apart from one another. And that is what I think
link |
01:21:52.800
people talk about when they say our country is divided. So the country may not be divided
link |
01:21:57.720
even if our politics are highly partisan. That is a divergence from other time periods
link |
01:22:04.160
in our history.
link |
01:22:05.160
So I wonder if this kind of political partisanship is actually an illusion of division. I sometimes
link |
01:22:15.280
feel like we mostly all agree on some basic fundamentals and the things that people allegedly
link |
01:22:25.880
disagree on are really blown out of proportion. And there's like a media machine and the politicians
link |
01:22:31.520
really want you to pick a blue side and a red side. And because of that, somehow I mean,
link |
01:22:38.400
families break up over Thanksgiving dinner about who they voted for. There's a really
link |
01:22:42.980
strong pressure to be the red or blue. And I wonder if that's a feature or a bug. Whether
link |
01:22:50.880
this is just part of the mechanism of democracy that we want to, even if there's not a real
link |
01:22:55.800
thing to be divided over, we need to construct it such that you can always have attention
link |
01:23:01.560
of ideas in order to make progress, to figure out how to progress as a nation.
link |
01:23:08.520
I think we're figuring that out in real time. On the one hand, it's easy to say that it's
link |
01:23:13.400
a feature of a political system that has two parties. And the United States is in some
link |
01:23:21.640
ways unique in not being a parliamentary democracy. And so in some ways, you would think that
link |
01:23:28.960
would be the feature that is causing partisanship and to reach these heights. That said, we
link |
01:23:37.240
can even see in parliamentary systems all around the world that the same kinds of rhetorics
link |
01:23:44.960
of irreconcilable division, a kind of politics of emotion are proliferating around the world.
link |
01:23:53.280
Some of that, as you say, I think is not as real as it appears on television, on social
link |
01:24:01.980
media and other formats. I don't know that other countries that are experiencing political
link |
01:24:08.880
conflict, I'm not sure that they're deeply divided either.
link |
01:24:12.960
So I've had the fortune of being intellectually active through the George Bush versus Al Gore
link |
01:24:23.240
election, then the Obama and it's just every election since. And it seems like a large
link |
01:24:29.920
percentage of those elections, there's been a claim that the elections were rigged, that
link |
01:24:36.400
there is some conspiracy, corruption, malevolence on the other side. I distinctly remember when
link |
01:24:44.920
Donald Trump won in 2016, a lot of people I know said that election was rigged and there's
link |
01:24:52.040
different explanations, including Russian influence. And then in 2020, I was just running
link |
01:24:59.940
in Austin along the river and somebody said like, oh, huge fan of the podcast. And they
link |
01:25:07.680
said like, what do you think of it? This is just not right. What's happening in this country
link |
01:25:11.520
that the 2020 election was obviously rigged from their perspective in electing Joe Biden
link |
01:25:21.520
versus Donald Trump. Do you think there's a case to be made for and against each claim
link |
01:25:28.320
in the full context of history of our elections being rigged?
link |
01:25:34.760
I think the American election system is fundamentally sound and reliable. And I think that the evidence
link |
01:25:49.760
is clear for that regardless of which election you're looking at. In some ways, whether you
link |
01:25:57.280
look at a presidential election or even a local county election for dog catcher or something,
link |
01:26:04.420
that the amount of time and resources and precision that go into voter registration,
link |
01:26:14.160
vote counting, certification processes are crucial to democratic institutions.
link |
01:26:22.880
I think when someone says rigged, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they're
link |
01:26:29.900
coming from, they're looking for an answer. They're looking for that one answer for what
link |
01:26:39.980
is in fact a complex system. So on the left, when they say rigged, they may be pointing
link |
01:26:48.480
to a wide range of ways in which they think that the system is tilted through gerrymandering,
link |
01:27:01.200
misrepresentation through the electoral college. On the right, when people say rigged, they
link |
01:27:06.920
may be concerned about voter security, about ways in which the mainstream media may control
link |
01:27:17.720
messages. And in both cases, the feeling is it's articulated as my vote didn't get counted
link |
01:27:29.360
right. But the deeper concern is my vote doesn't count. My voice isn't being heard. So no, I
link |
01:27:41.520
don't think the elections are rigged.
link |
01:27:43.400
So let me sort of push back, right? There's a comfort to the story that they're not rigged.
link |
01:27:50.240
And a lot of us like to live in comfort. So people who articulate conspiracy theories
link |
01:27:55.760
say, sure, it's nice to be comfortable, but here's the reality. And the thing they articulate
link |
01:28:01.400
is there's incentives in close elections, which we seem to have nonstop close elections.
link |
01:28:07.000
There's so many financial interests. There's so many powerful people. Surely you can construct
link |
01:28:13.280
not just with the media and all the ways you describe both on the left and the right, the
link |
01:28:18.520
elections could be rigged, but literally actually in a fully illegal way manipulate the results
link |
01:28:28.080
of votes. Surely there's incentive to do that. And I don't think that's a totally ridiculous
link |
01:28:37.880
argument because it's like, all right, well, I mean, it actually lands to the question,
link |
01:28:46.560
which is a hard question for me to ask as an optimist of how many malevolent people
link |
01:28:52.960
out there and how many malevolent people are required to rig an election. So how many,
link |
01:29:00.040
what is the face transition for a system to become from like a corruption light to high
link |
01:29:08.480
level of corruption such that you could do things like rig elections, which is what happens
link |
01:29:15.640
quite a lot in many nations in the world even today.
link |
01:29:20.160
So yes, there is interference in elections and there has been in American history. And
link |
01:29:24.760
we can go all the way back into the 18th century. You don't have to go back to Texas in the
link |
01:29:31.640
1960s, LBJ to find examples of direct interference in the outcome of elections. And there are
link |
01:29:39.880
incentives to do that. Those incentives will only feel more existential as hyper partisanship
link |
01:29:48.880
makes people think that the outcome of the elections are a matter of black and white
link |
01:29:56.360
or life and death. And you will see people organizing every way they can to shape elections.
link |
01:30:07.800
We saw this in the 1850s when settlers, pro and anti slavery, flooded into Kansas to try
link |
01:30:15.200
to determine the outcome of an election. We see this in the reconstruction period, right?
link |
01:30:22.340
When the Ku Klux Klan shows up to block the doors for black voters in the South. This
link |
01:30:30.920
history is not new, it's there. I think the reason why I think that the system is sound
link |
01:30:39.920
is not... When I say I believe that the election system is fundamentally sound, I'm not trying
link |
01:30:49.040
to be reassuring or encourage complacency, right? I'm saying this is something that we
link |
01:30:55.400
need to do and to work on.
link |
01:30:58.280
So the current electoral mechanisms are sufficiently robust. Even if there is corruption, even
link |
01:31:05.960
if there is rigging, the force that self corrects and ensures that nobody gets out of line is
link |
01:31:13.400
much stronger than the other incentives, which are the corrupting incentives. And that's
link |
01:31:18.800
the thing I talked about visiting Ukraine, talking about corruption, where a lot of people
link |
01:31:25.840
talk about corruption as being a symptom. If the system allows, creates these incentives
link |
01:31:34.800
for there to be corruption, humans will always go for corruption. That's just, you have to
link |
01:31:38.960
assume that. The power of the United States is that it constructs systems that prevent
link |
01:31:44.120
you from being corrupt at scale. At least, I mean, it depends what you believe of most
link |
01:31:47.880
of us. If you believe in this country, you have to... You believe in the self correcting
link |
01:31:53.800
mechanisms of corruption, that even if that desire is in the human heart, the system resists
link |
01:32:01.680
it, prevents it. That's your current belief.
link |
01:32:07.200
Yes, as of today. But I do think that that will require oversight by institutions, ideally
link |
01:32:20.080
ones that are insulated as much as possible from partisan politics, which is very difficult
link |
01:32:24.160
right now. And it will require the demands of the American people that they want these
link |
01:32:32.200
elections to be fair and secure. And that means being willing to lose them, regardless
link |
01:32:41.620
of which party you're in favor of.
link |
01:32:43.680
So what do you think about the power of the media to create partisanship? I'm really worried
link |
01:32:49.040
that there's a huge incentive, speaking of incentives, to divide the country. The media
link |
01:32:55.560
and the politicians, I'm not sure where it originates, but it feels like it's the media.
link |
01:33:00.400
Maybe it's a very cynical perspective on journalism, but it seems like if we're angry and divided
link |
01:33:06.000
as evenly as possible, you're going to maximize the number of clicks. So it's almost like
link |
01:33:11.000
the media wants to elect people that are going to be the most divisive, maximizing. And the
link |
01:33:19.080
worry I have is they are not beyond either feeding or, if you want to be very cynical,
link |
01:33:27.760
manufacturing narratives that lead that division, like the narrative of an election being rigged.
link |
01:33:34.240
Because if you convinced half the populace that the election was completely rigged, that's
link |
01:33:39.600
a really good way to get a lot of clicks. And the very cynical view is I don't know
link |
01:33:47.040
if the media machine will stop the destruction of our democracy in service of getting more
link |
01:33:57.240
clicks. It may destroy our entire democracy just to get more clicks, just because the
link |
01:34:04.600
fire as the thing burns down will get clicks. Am I putting too much blame on the media here?
link |
01:34:13.360
The machine of it?
link |
01:34:14.440
You're diagnosing the incentive structure, you're depicting that with 100% accuracy.
link |
01:34:22.260
But I think history teaches that you might be giving the media too much sort of causal
link |
01:34:28.760
power, that the American people are smarter than the media that they consume. Even today,
link |
01:34:39.160
we know that. Even people who consume just Fox or just MSNBC know what they're consuming.
link |
01:34:50.480
So I don't think that media will be the solution. And I certainly don't think that returning
link |
01:34:57.800
to a media structure of the mid 20th century with three news channels that all tell us
link |
01:35:04.800
one story, that's no golden age that we're trying to get back to, for sure.
link |
01:35:11.480
Well, there is a novel thing in human history, which is Twitter and social media and so on.
link |
01:35:18.560
So we're trying to find our footing as a nation to figure out how to think about politics,
link |
01:35:23.840
how to maintain our basic freedoms, our sense of democracy, of our interaction with government
link |
01:35:34.520
and so on, on this new medium of social media. Do you think Twitter, how do you think Twitter
link |
01:35:42.720
changed things? Do you think Twitter is good for democracy? Do you think it has changed
link |
01:35:49.400
what it means to be an American citizen? Or is it just the same old media mechanism?
link |
01:35:56.120
It has not changed what it means to be an American citizen. It may have changed the
link |
01:36:05.080
day to day sound of being and the experience of it. It got noisier, it got louder and it
link |
01:36:14.000
got more decentered. I think Twitter, it's paradoxical. On the one hand, it is a fundamentally
link |
01:36:23.280
democratic platform. And in some ways, it democratizes institutions that had gatekeepers
link |
01:36:33.260
and authority figures for a very long time. But on the other hand, it's not a democratic
link |
01:36:37.880
institution at all. It's a for profit corporation. And it operates under those principles. And
link |
01:36:45.240
so that said, it's an institution of American and global life that the people of the United
link |
01:36:54.000
States have the authority to regulate or reshape as they see fit, both that and other major
link |
01:37:02.200
media players.
link |
01:37:03.200
So one of the most dramatic decisions that illustrate both sides of what you're saying
link |
01:37:08.280
is when Twitter decided to ban, I think permanently, the President of the United States, Donald
link |
01:37:14.320
Trump off of Twitter. Can you make the case that that was a good idea and make the case
link |
01:37:21.480
that that was a bad idea? Can you see both perspectives on this?
link |
01:37:25.360
Yes, I think, I mean, the simple fact of the matter is, you know, Twitter is a platform,
link |
01:37:31.880
it has rules of service. Twitter concluded that President Trump had violated the terms
link |
01:37:38.120
of service and blocked him, right? And if you have rules, you have to enforce them.
link |
01:37:44.800
Did it have, you know, did it have consequences? It had direct and predictable consequences,
link |
01:37:54.160
you know, that of creating a sense among millions of Americans that Twitter had taken a side
link |
01:38:04.440
in politics or confirming their belief that it had done so. Will it have unintended consequences?
link |
01:38:12.160
You know, this is where the historian can come in and say, yes, there's always unintended
link |
01:38:17.000
consequences. And we don't know, you know, sort of what it would mean for political figures
link |
01:38:24.240
to be excluded from various media platforms under sort of under these notions, right,
link |
01:38:34.680
that they had violated terms of service, etc. So, you know, so I guess we'll see, I guess.
link |
01:38:41.320
Well, to me, so I'm generally against censorship. But to take Twitter's perspective, it's unclear
link |
01:38:48.480
to me, in terms of unintended consequences, whether censoring a human being from being
link |
01:38:56.760
part of your platform is going to decrease or increase the amount of hate in the world.
link |
01:39:05.320
So there's a strong case to be made that banning somebody like Donald Trump increases the amount
link |
01:39:11.160
of resentment among people, and that's a very large number of people that support him, or
link |
01:39:18.640
even love him, or even see him as a great president, one of the greatest this country
link |
01:39:23.120
has had. And so if you completely suppress his voice, you're going to intensify the support
link |
01:39:30.740
that he has, from just the regular support for another human being who ran for president,
link |
01:39:36.920
to somebody that becomes an almost heroic figure for that set of people. Now, the flipside
link |
01:39:43.800
is removing a person from a platform like Donald Trump might lessen the megaphone of
link |
01:39:52.000
that particular person, might actually level the democratic notion that everybody has a
link |
01:39:59.920
voice. So basically, removing the loud extremes is helpful for giving the center, the calm,
link |
01:40:08.600
the thoughtful voices more power. And so in that sense, that teaches a lesson that don't
link |
01:40:14.120
be crazy in any one direction. Don't go full, don't go Lenin, don't go Hitler, don't, don't,
link |
01:40:23.080
like you have to stay in the middle. There's divisions in the middle, there's discussions
link |
01:40:27.560
in the middle, but stay in the middle. That's sort of the steel man the case for, for censoring.
link |
01:40:34.440
But I, boy, is censorship a slippery slope. And also boys Twitter becoming a thing that's
link |
01:40:44.280
more than just a company. It seems like it's a medium of communication that we use for,
link |
01:40:51.800
for information, for, for knowledge, for wisdom even, you know, during the period of COVID,
link |
01:40:59.400
we use that to gain an understanding of what the hell's going on. What should we do? What's
link |
01:41:03.760
the state of the art science? Science fundamentally transformed during the time of COVID because
link |
01:41:08.600
you have no time for the full review cycle that science usually goes through. And some
link |
01:41:13.080
of the best sources of information for me, from the conspiracy theory to the best doctors
link |
01:41:19.800
was Twitter. The data, the stats, all that kind of stuff. And that feels like, like more
link |
01:41:25.200
than a com more than a company. And then Twitter and YouTube and different places took a really
link |
01:41:30.120
strong stance on COVID, which is the lazy stance in my opinion, which is we're going
link |
01:41:36.320
to listen to whatever CDC or the institutions have said. But the reality is you're an institution
link |
01:41:43.800
of your own now. You're kind of the press. You're like, there's a, there's a, it's, it's
link |
01:41:51.880
a really difficult position. It's a really, really difficult position to take. But I wish
link |
01:41:57.320
they've stepped up and take on the full responsibility and the pain of fighting for the freedom of
link |
01:42:02.840
speech. Yes, they need, they need to do that. But you know, I'm struck by some of the things
link |
01:42:14.320
that you said, ways in which, you know, Twitter has the power to shape the conversation. And
link |
01:42:22.760
I don't think in a democratic society, democratic policies should cede that power to, to for
link |
01:42:30.960
profit companies. Do you agree that it's possible that Twitter has that power currently? Do
link |
01:42:38.080
you sense that it has the power? Is that my sense is Twitter has the power to start wars,
link |
01:42:43.000
like tweets have the power to start wars to, to, yeah, to, to change the direction of elections?
link |
01:42:50.360
Maybe in the sense in the ways in which, you know, a wave has the power to wash away sand,
link |
01:42:56.000
right? You know, it's, it's the, it's still the medium, right? It's not, it's not in itself
link |
01:43:02.120
an actor. It's how actors use the platform, which requires us to scrutinize the structure
link |
01:43:07.680
of the platform and access to it. Unfortunately, it's not, maybe it's similar to the wave.
link |
01:43:11.800
It's not just a medium. It's a, it's a medium plus, it's a medium that enables virality
link |
01:43:20.800
that benefits from virality of engagement. And that means singular voices can, can have
link |
01:43:29.920
a disproportionate impact, like not even voices, singular ideas, dramatic ideas can have a
link |
01:43:36.640
disproportionate impact. And so that actually threatens, it's almost like I don't know what
link |
01:43:42.680
the equivalent is in nature, but it's a, it's a wave that can grow exponentially because
link |
01:43:48.180
of the intensity of the, the initial intensity of the wave. I don't know how to describe
link |
01:43:54.840
this as a dynamical system, but it feels like, it feels like there, there is a responsibility
link |
01:44:01.360
there not to accelerate, not to accelerate voices just because they get a lot of engagement.
link |
01:44:05.880
You have to have a proportional representation of that voice. But you're saying that a strong
link |
01:44:13.080
democracy should be robust to that. A strong democracy can and should, and will be. I mean,
link |
01:44:20.000
I think the other thing a historian will tell you about Twitter is that this too shall pass,
link |
01:44:24.840
right? Yeah. But, but I do think, you know, the structures of, of the, of the platform
link |
01:44:30.700
of the algorithm of, of this and other major players are, are eligible for scrutiny by,
link |
01:44:39.400
by democratic institutions. So in preparing to teach the course, the history of American
link |
01:44:45.800
presidential elections leading up to the 2024 elections. So one of the lessons of history
link |
01:44:52.400
is this too shall pass. So don't make everything about, this is, this is going to either save
link |
01:44:57.840
or destroy our nation. That seems to be like the message of every single election. As I'm
link |
01:45:03.280
doing Trump hands. Do you think Donald Trump, what do you think about the 2024 election?
link |
01:45:08.720
Do you think Donald Trump runs? Do you think the, the tension will grow? Or was that a
link |
01:45:18.240
singular moment? Do you think you'll be like AOC versus Trump or whoever, whatever the
link |
01:45:25.040
most maximum drama maximizing thing? Or will things stabilize?
link |
01:45:30.960
I think I can, I can, you know, historians don't like to predict the future, but I can
link |
01:45:34.760
predict this one that it will not be a calm and, and, and stabilized election. I think
link |
01:45:40.560
as of, you know, the time that we're talking in 2022, we don't, there are too many you
link |
01:45:45.320
know, sort of open questions, particularly about whether Joe Biden will run for reelection.
link |
01:45:50.160
He says he will, but you know, but the jury I think is out on that. You know, I, I can't
link |
01:45:58.000
predict whether Donald Trump will run for, for election or not. I think you know, we
link |
01:46:05.320
do know that, that, that president Trump doesn't like to, to start things he can't win. And
link |
01:46:13.680
if the polling data suggests that he's not a credible candidate, he might be reluctant
link |
01:46:19.180
to enter the race and might might find more appealing, the kind of sideline kind of King
link |
01:46:26.700
maker role that he's been crafting since he left the White House. You know, I think there
link |
01:46:32.740
are plenty of people who are you know, dreaming that there's some sort of centrist candidate
link |
01:46:38.520
you know, you know whether it's a conservative Democrat or a liberal Republican who will
link |
01:46:45.080
you know, save us from, from, from all of this either within the party or in a third
link |
01:46:50.860
party run. I don't think that's likely.
link |
01:46:53.300
Why aren't we getting them? Why don't you think it's likely? What's the explanation?
link |
01:46:56.840
This seems to be a general hunger for a person like this.
link |
01:46:59.500
You would, but the system sorts it out, right? You know, that the, the, that the primary systems
link |
01:47:03.960
and the party you know, party candidate selection systems you know, will favor sort of more,
link |
01:47:09.920
you know, more partisan views, right? More conservative Republicans, more liberal Democrats
link |
01:47:15.400
as the kind of center candidates.
link |
01:47:18.080
It seems like the system prefers mediocre executor, mediocre leaders, mediocre partisan
link |
01:47:26.800
leaders. If I had to take a cynical look, but maybe I'm romanticizing the leaders of
link |
01:47:31.600
the past and maybe I'm just remembering the great leaders of the past. And yeah, I can
link |
01:47:37.160
assure you there's plenty of mediocre partisans in the 19th century.
link |
01:47:41.760
In the 20th. Well, let me ask you about platforming. Do you think Donald, it's the Twitter question,
link |
01:47:52.960
but I was torn about whether to talk to Donald Trump on this podcast. As a historian, what
link |
01:47:58.680
would you advise?
link |
01:48:01.400
I think, I mean, you know, this is a, this is a difficult question, right? For, for historians
link |
01:48:08.420
who want, you know, sort of want to make sure that they know sort of what Americans are
link |
01:48:15.320
thinking and talking about, you know, for centuries later. So one of the things that,
link |
01:48:21.160
you know, at least my understanding is that when President Trump was banned from Twitter,
link |
01:48:27.320
his account was also deleted. And that is one of the most valuable sources that historians
link |
01:48:33.920
will use to understand that the era and parts of it were sort of, you know, archived and
link |
01:48:40.600
reconstructed. But, you know, but in that sense, I think that that is also a real loss
link |
01:48:45.560
to the historical record. I mean, I think that your podcast shows you'll, you'll talk
link |
01:48:51.800
to, you'll talk to anyone. I'm here, right? So, you know, I'm not in the business of saying,
link |
01:48:59.240
you know, don't, don't, don't talk, don't talk.
link |
01:49:01.560
That's one of the difficult things when I think about Hitler. I think Hitler, Stalin,
link |
01:49:06.320
I don't know if World War I quite has the same intensity of controversial leaders. But
link |
01:49:16.200
one of the sad things from a historian perspective is how few interviews Hitler has given or
link |
01:49:21.200
Stalin has given. And that's such a difficult thing because it's obvious that talking to
link |
01:49:28.120
Donald Trump, that talking to Xi Jinping, talking to Putin is really valuable from a
link |
01:49:35.880
historical perspective to understand. But then you think about the momentary impact
link |
01:49:42.080
of such a conversation and you think, well, depending on how the conversation goes, you
link |
01:49:46.720
could steer or a flame. What is it? Feed the flame of war or conflict or, um, abuses of
link |
01:49:59.080
power and things like this. And that's, I think the tension between the journalist and
link |
01:50:04.280
the historian, because when a journalist interview dictators, for example, one of the things
link |
01:50:11.440
that strikes me is they're often very critical of the dictator. They're, they're, they're
link |
01:50:20.080
like, um, they're basically attacking them in front of their face as opposed to trying
link |
01:50:26.000
to understand. Because what I perceive they're doing is they're signaling to the other journalists
link |
01:50:32.400
that they're on the right side of history kind of thing. Um, but that's not very productive.
link |
01:50:37.360
That's also why the dictators and leaders often don't do those interviews. It's not
link |
01:50:42.040
productive to understanding who the human being is. To understand, you have to empathize.
link |
01:50:47.720
Because few people, I think few leaders do something from a place of malevolence. I think
link |
01:50:54.560
they really do think they're doing good. And not even for themselves, not even for selfish
link |
01:50:59.960
reasons. I think they're doing great for the, they're doing the right thing for their country
link |
01:51:06.600
or for whoever the group they're leading. And to understand that you have to, and, and
link |
01:51:10.960
by the way, a large percent of the country often supports them. I bet if you poll legitimately
link |
01:51:17.880
poll people in North Korea, they will believe that their leader is doing the right thing
link |
01:51:23.040
for their country. Um, and so to understand that you have to empathize. So that's the
link |
01:51:29.680
tension of the journalist, I think, and the historian, cause obviously the historian doesn't,
link |
01:51:34.360
doesn't care. They really want to, they care obviously deeply, but they, they know that
link |
01:51:39.280
history requires deep understanding of the human being in the full context. Uh, yeah,
link |
01:51:45.760
it's a tough decision to make.
link |
01:51:47.120
Yeah. Well, I think it's, uh, both for journalists and historians, um, the challenge is not to
link |
01:51:52.960
be too close to your subject, right? Um, and you know, not to be, um, overly influenced
link |
01:51:59.880
and used by them, right? You know, when you're talking to a living subject, which historians
link |
01:52:05.000
do, you know, um, to, um, you know, it's, it's a matter of making sure that you triangulate
link |
01:52:11.600
their story with, with the rest of the record, right? Um, uh, and that may paint a different
link |
01:52:17.920
picture of, of the person then, um, and will prevent you as a journalist or a historian
link |
01:52:23.880
from kind of, you know, just telling someone else's story. And so, and historians also
link |
01:52:30.000
have the benefit of going back, you know, 30, 40 years and finding all the other stories
link |
01:52:34.800
and figuring out, you know, uh, playing two truths and a lie, you know, which parts are,
link |
01:52:40.940
you know, which parts are accurate, which are, which are not. And journalists do that
link |
01:52:44.300
work in a day to day basis, but historians, um, you know, we get a little more time to
link |
01:52:48.760
think about what we're doing.
link |
01:52:50.240
Well, I, I personally also think it's deeply disrespectful to the populace, to people,
link |
01:52:57.760
to um, censor and ignore a person that's supported by a very large number of people. Like that
link |
01:53:06.060
you owe, I personally feel like you owe the citizens of this country a deep, uh, empathy
link |
01:53:16.360
and understanding of the leaders they support, even if you disagree with what they say. I
link |
01:53:22.080
mean, that's the, the, to me, I'm much more worried about the resentment of the censorship,
link |
01:53:28.400
um, that it's to having a good conversation with Donald Trump is, is ultimately valuable.
link |
01:53:34.880
Uh, because he, I think, uh, especially in this case, I agree with you that Donald Trump
link |
01:53:41.280
is not a singular person. He is a, he represents a set of feelings that a large number of people
link |
01:53:47.600
have and whatever those feelings are, you can try to figure out by talking to people,
link |
01:53:52.560
but also talking to the, the, the, the man and then seeing the interplay there, what
link |
01:53:57.640
does this really represent in this period in history, in this slice of the world? Um,
link |
01:54:04.240
yeah, ultimately understanding, I think leads to, uh, compassion and love and unity, which
link |
01:54:11.000
is how this whole thing progresses. The tension between the different sides is useful to,
link |
01:54:16.320
um, have a good conversation, but ultimately coming up with the right answer and progressing
link |
01:54:21.520
towards that answer is, is how you make progress. Do you think a pure democracy can work? So
link |
01:54:28.800
we have this representative of democracy with these contentious elections and so on. When
link |
01:54:34.840
we start a civilization on Mars, which becomes more and more realistic technologically, we
link |
01:54:41.280
can have a more direct access to be able to vote on issues and vote for ideas. Do you
link |
01:54:47.200
think it can work? I don't think we have to go to Mars, uh, to do it. Right. Um, uh, I
link |
01:54:53.200
think, um, the answer is not, you know, to flip a switch and turn on something called
link |
01:55:00.160
pure democracy. Um, uh, when people are not ready for it, when their, uh, incentive structures
link |
01:55:06.640
are not sort of structured for it, but you can, um, you know, experiment with more democratic
link |
01:55:12.880
forms of governance one after another, right? Whether it's, um, you know, sort of experimenting
link |
01:55:18.600
with, um, technology to find new ways of sort of, of getting, uh, greater rates of participation
link |
01:55:25.440
in democracy. Um, I think that we see some experiments in, um, sort of more complicated
link |
01:55:32.600
systems of voting, um, that in fact might actually be more reflective of people's choices
link |
01:55:38.980
than simply picking one candidate, right? Sort of ranked choice voting or, uh, runoffs,
link |
01:55:43.720
other kinds of things. Um, you know, I think that we can think more, uh, creatively about
link |
01:55:49.460
something like participatory budgeting, right? In which, um, you know, uh, we put all this
link |
01:55:53.620
money into the government. Um, and then, um, you know, we, we, um, you know, should, as
link |
01:55:58.480
a, as a people, there are more democratic ways of, of sort of, of how we spend it. Um,
link |
01:56:03.360
and I think the most urgent in some level is a more, uh, democratic form of foreign
link |
01:56:06.800
policymaking, right? That foreign policymaking, decision making, um, uh, about the military,
link |
01:56:12.240
about foreign policy, um, is, is very ways insulated from, from popular participation,
link |
01:56:18.400
um, in, in modern American history. Um, and I think, you know, there, uh, technology is
link |
01:56:24.280
not the, the going to solve this. Um, you know, it's a combination of technology and,
link |
01:56:29.640
and human creativity, but I think, um, you know, I think we can start heading that direction.
link |
01:56:35.400
Whether we get there before we get to Mars, I don't, I don't know.
link |
01:56:38.680
What interesting lessons and thoughts, if you look at the fundamentals of the history
link |
01:56:43.400
of American elections, do you hope to reveal when you try to teach the class? And, um,
link |
01:56:52.440
how would those fundamentals be met by the, by the students that received that wisdom?
link |
01:57:00.400
So what do you think about this dance? It's such an interesting idea. And I hope you do
link |
01:57:05.280
go through with this kind of idea is look at the history while the next one is happening.
link |
01:57:11.520
Yes. I think, you know, it's worth remembering, right? That the students who are typical American
link |
01:57:20.440
student who's in college right now, right? Has lived their entire life after, uh, the
link |
01:57:27.320
election of 2000 and Bush V Gore, right? Um, and after nine 11 probably. And yeah, absolutely.
link |
01:57:34.080
Yes. After all of, after all of these things. Right. And, and, um, so on the one hand they
link |
01:57:41.560
take partisanship and contentious elections for granted. Um, they don't, I think share,
link |
01:57:49.040
um, you know, sort of some vision that things were, you know, things used to be different,
link |
01:57:55.280
right? They don't remember a world that had like lots of moderate Democrats and liberal
link |
01:58:00.600
Republicans and, um, you know, sort of running around in it. Um, but, um, you know, so in
link |
01:58:07.200
some ways it's a way of, of looking back into the past to find other ways of, of, of organizing
link |
01:58:12.880
our politics. Uh, it's also a way of, of reassuring students that we have been through contentious
link |
01:58:20.400
and even, um, sort of violent elections before in our history. Um, and you know, that people
link |
01:58:26.640
have defended the right to vote, right? People have risked their lives to vote. Um, uh, you
link |
01:58:31.960
know, I think they will, they will understand that, that as well.
link |
01:58:36.760
And maybe knowledge of history here can help deescalate the emotions you might feel about
link |
01:58:44.040
one candidate or another. And I, from a place of calmness, you can more easily arrive at
link |
01:58:51.280
wisdom.
link |
01:58:52.280
Uh, that, that's my hope. Um, yeah.
link |
01:58:57.200
Just as a brief aside, you, brief aside, but nevertheless, uh, you wrote the book Bound
link |
01:59:02.960
by War that describes a century of war in the Pacific. So looking at this slice of geography
link |
01:59:13.240
and power, uh, so most crucially through the partnership between the United States and
link |
01:59:18.320
the Philippines, can you tell us some aspect of the story that is often perhaps not considered
link |
01:59:24.800
when you start to look more at the geopolitics of Europe and Soviet Union and the United
link |
01:59:31.520
States? What, how did the, the war in, in the Pacific define the 20th century?
link |
01:59:37.920
Yeah, I came to this book Bound by War, um, from a sense that, um, that our stories were
link |
01:59:44.320
too lopsided, um, toward, toward Europe, right? That American history, when viewed from the
link |
01:59:50.480
Pacific, um, specifically in the 20th century, um, helps us understand American power, um,
link |
01:59:57.960
in some new ways, right? Uh, not only American, uh, projection of power into Asia, right?
link |
02:00:04.440
But also the ways in which American power affected, uh, people in Asia, right? Um, either
link |
02:00:10.760
as, uh, you know, in places like the Philippines where the United States, uh, had a colony
link |
02:00:15.640
for almost 50 years or Asian Americans, people who had migrated over their descendants in
link |
02:00:20.800
the United States. And those linkages, uh, between the United States and Asia, uh, particularly,
link |
02:00:26.000
uh, the U S Philippine connection, I think were something that needed to be traced across
link |
02:00:30.800
the 20th century. Cause it's a way kind of a new way of seeing American power, you know,
link |
02:00:35.680
from, from a different angle, uh, you see it in, in that way.
link |
02:00:39.480
There's some aspect that define America from, from when you take the perspective of the
link |
02:00:44.440
Pacific, what, what military conflict and, and the asymmetry of power there, right?
link |
02:00:50.800
So I start in, uh, in 1898, um, you know, with the U S invasion of the Philippines,
link |
02:00:56.760
um, uh, it's a conquest and annexation. Uh, and I think in many ways, this is a defining
link |
02:01:02.720
conflict of the 20th century. That's often completely overlooked or described, uh, I
link |
02:01:07.920
think incorrectly as merely a war with Spain, right? That the war in the Philippines, um,
link |
02:01:12.840
is our, uh, our first extended overseas conflict, our first conflict, um, in what would come
link |
02:01:18.720
to be called the developing world or third world. Uh, it's a form of, of counter insurgency.
link |
02:01:23.600
Um, you know, this is the U S army sort of learning lessons that are then repeated again
link |
02:01:29.080
in the second world war in Korea, Vietnam, and, and even after 9 11.
link |
02:01:33.600
Is the Philippines our friends or enemies in this history?
link |
02:01:36.320
Well, that's the interesting part, right? Is that, uh, the book focuses in particular
link |
02:01:40.580
on Filipinos, uh, who fight with the Americans who fought, you know, sort of in the U S army
link |
02:01:45.840
and Navy, um, over the course of the 20th century. And they are in a fundamentally ironic
link |
02:01:50.560
position, right? They are, they are from the Philippines and they're fighting for the United
link |
02:01:54.640
States, um, which is the colonial power, uh, occupying their country. Um, and I think that,
link |
02:02:00.940
that irony persists, right? Um, so if you look at sort of polling data where they ask
link |
02:02:06.120
people all around the world, you know, you know, do you think positively or negatively
link |
02:02:09.960
about the United States? Um, that the highest, uh, responses are from the Philippines, right?
link |
02:02:16.880
Filipinos view the United States more favorably than people from any other country in the
link |
02:02:21.000
world, including America, right? That, that they're more think more favorably of Americans
link |
02:02:26.320
than Americans do. Um, and so, you know, sort of unpacking that irony is, is part of what
link |
02:02:30.680
I'm trying to get at in the book.
link |
02:02:32.520
What was the people power revolution and what lessons can we learn from it? You kind of
link |
02:02:37.160
assign an important, um, a large value to it in terms of what we can learn for the,
link |
02:02:45.520
uh, the American project.
link |
02:02:47.400
Yeah. So in 1986, um, the, the president of the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos is overthrown
link |
02:02:53.480
by a popular revolution known as people power, um, uh, in the wake of a contested and probably,
link |
02:02:59.800
uh, almost certainly rigged election, um, that, that sort of, uh, you know, kind of
link |
02:03:05.120
confirms his, his, his rule. Um, when that is over, overturned through sort of mass movements
link |
02:03:11.640
in the Philippines, it's also, uh, sort of confirmed in many ways by the, the reluctance
link |
02:03:17.960
of the United States to intervene, to prop up a cold war ally. Ferdinand Marcos had supported
link |
02:03:23.680
American policy throughout, um, his administration. Um, the Reagan administration, Ronald Reagan's
link |
02:03:28.440
president at the time, basically chooses not to support him. That's a personally wrenching
link |
02:03:33.520
decision for, for Reagan himself. Um, but it, it he's being shaped in many ways by the
link |
02:03:39.840
emerging voices of neoconservative political, uh, foreign policy voices. Um, in particular,
link |
02:03:46.080
uh, Paul Wolfowitz and the state department and others who see sort of movements for democracy
link |
02:03:51.560
and democratization that then kind of, uh, take fire in the late 20th century in Latin
link |
02:03:57.000
America, um, in South Korea, in Eastern Europe, um, and, you know, all around the world until
link |
02:04:03.440
it hits the wall in, in Tiananmen Square in June, 1989.
link |
02:04:07.640
Well, what's that wall? Uh, what's, what's the wall, what's the, what, what do you mean
link |
02:04:13.000
by it hits the wall? So there are, you know, the, there are global
link |
02:04:16.600
movements for pot for democratization, um, for, for, uh, opening up, um, you know, throughout
link |
02:04:22.400
the world, um, starting in the 1980s. Um, and, you know, obviously they continue, um,
link |
02:04:27.320
in Eastern Europe with the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. Um, you know, I say it hits
link |
02:04:31.680
the wall in, in, in China, um, in, with the protests in Tiananmen Square and that are,
link |
02:04:38.440
that are blocked, um, and that are crushed. And I think represent, uh, a real sort of
link |
02:04:43.840
turning point, um, in the history of, of democratic institutions, uh, on a global scale in the
link |
02:04:49.040
late 20th century.
link |
02:04:50.760
So there's some places where the fight for freedom will work and some places not. And
link |
02:04:57.120
that's the kind of lesson from the 20th to take forward to the 21st century.
link |
02:05:04.840
Uh, no, I think the lesson is, is maybe one that, that, you know, we talked about earlier
link |
02:05:09.960
that there's this dynamic dance between, um, between leaders, whether, uh, totalitarian
link |
02:05:15.520
leaders or leaders of democratic movements and the people that they're leading. Um, and
link |
02:05:21.000
some, you know, sometimes it works and sometimes, sometimes it doesn't.
link |
02:05:24.200
Let me ask a big, ridiculous question because we talked about, uh, sort of presidential
link |
02:05:29.160
elections. Um, now this is objectively, definitively, you have to answer one person. Who is the
link |
02:05:34.240
greatest president in American history?
link |
02:05:36.200
Oh, that's easy.
link |
02:05:38.000
Yeah.
link |
02:05:39.000
Abraham Lincoln.
link |
02:05:41.360
Is that easy? Not George Washington?
link |
02:05:43.320
Um, you know, Washington had his, uh, had the statesman qualities. He understood his
link |
02:05:49.520
power as, as, uh, as the first president.
link |
02:05:53.400
Also relinquished power.
link |
02:05:54.760
He was willing to relinquish power. Um, he, you know, uh, but, but Lincoln has the combination
link |
02:06:02.560
of personal leadership, um, a fundamental moral character and, um, and just the ability
link |
02:06:10.840
to kind of, uh, to fight the, the fight of politics, to play the game of it, um, to get
link |
02:06:15.960
where he's going, to play the short game and the long game, um, to kind of, you know, make
link |
02:06:21.160
to, uh, you know, to work with his enemies, to, to block them when he had to. Um, and
link |
02:06:27.440
you know, I mean, he, uh, gets the United States through the civil war. So you gotta
link |
02:06:31.360
give him some credit for that.
link |
02:06:32.680
And he's pretty good at making speeches.
link |
02:06:34.160
Uh, it, you know, obviously it helps that he's, uh, uh, a remarkable speaker, um, and
link |
02:06:39.680
able to convey those kinds of visions. Um, but, um, you know, but he, but he is first
link |
02:06:45.080
and foremost a politician, um, and probably the best one we have.
link |
02:06:49.120
Both at getting elected and at ruling.
link |
02:06:52.640
In some ways better, better at the doing than at the getting elected, right? Um, you know,
link |
02:06:57.200
that he, uh, you know, the election of 1860 is a, it's just a hot mess. Um, you know,
link |
02:07:03.320
that that could have worked out, um, many different ways. And even the election of 1864,
link |
02:07:08.200
um, you know, when we have a presidential election in the middle of a civil war, um,
link |
02:07:13.600
it was not a foregone conclusion that Lincoln would be reelected. Um, so, you know, both
link |
02:07:17.520
times he's sort of, um, you know, he's not a, a master campaigner, um, by, by any means,
link |
02:07:24.360
but he, he was a master politician as a, as a governor.
link |
02:07:29.240
Do we have leaders like that today? Is, is that, so one perspective is like, well, leaders
link |
02:07:35.560
aren't, ain't what they used to be. And then another perspective is, well, we always romanticize
link |
02:07:40.880
stuff that happens in the past. We forget the flaws and remember the great moments.
link |
02:07:46.120
Yeah. Uh, both of those things are true, right? Um, on the one hand, um, you know, we, we
link |
02:07:52.480
don't, uh, we are not surrounded by people of, of Lincoln's caliber, um, right now.
link |
02:07:58.240
That feels like the case.
link |
02:07:59.560
Um, and I think that, I think we can say that with some certainty, but, um, you know, I,
link |
02:08:05.960
I always like to point to president Harry Truman who left office with, you know, some
link |
02:08:12.920
truly abysmal, uh, uh, presidential ratings, um, was dismissed as a, throughout his presidency
link |
02:08:19.360
as a, you know, as a, as unqualified as not knowing what he was doing, et cetera. And
link |
02:08:25.400
it's then, you know, turns out, um, uh, with hindsight, we know that he was better at the
link |
02:08:30.480
job than anyone understood better at getting elected, right? You remember that sign, do
link |
02:08:34.980
he defeats Truman, right? He showed them, right? Uh, and better, better at holding power
link |
02:08:39.400
and better at sort of, um, you know, kind of building the kind of institutions that
link |
02:08:44.480
long after he was gone, um, demonstrated that he, he, he won the long game.
link |
02:08:51.200
And some of that is the victors do write the story. And, um, I asked myself very much,
link |
02:08:59.080
how will history remember Volodymyr Zelensky? It's not obvious. And how will history remember
link |
02:09:05.640
Putin? That too is not obvious. Um, because it depends on how the role, the geopolitics,
link |
02:09:17.400
the, how the nations, how the history of these nations unravel, unfold rather. So it's very
link |
02:09:24.560
interesting to think about. And the same is true for Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Obama, uh,
link |
02:09:32.560
George Bush, uh, Bill Clinton, and so on. I think it's a probably unanswerable question
link |
02:09:41.440
of which of the presidents will be remembered as a great president from this time. You can
link |
02:09:46.480
make all kinds of cases for all kinds of people and they do, but it's unclear. It's fascinating
link |
02:09:51.800
to think about when the robots finally take over, uh, what, which of the humans they will
link |
02:09:56.880
appreciate the most. Uh, let me ask for advice. Do you have, um, advice for, for young folks
link |
02:10:05.700
as they, uh, uh, cause you mentioned the, the, the folks you're teaching, they don't
link |
02:10:10.280
even, they don't know what it's like to have waited on the internet for the, for the thing
link |
02:10:15.740
to load up for every single webpage is suffering. They don't know what it's like to not have
link |
02:10:21.200
the internet and have a dial phone that goes, and then the joy of getting angry at somebody
link |
02:10:28.060
and hanging up with a physical phone. They don't, they don't know any of that. Uh, so
link |
02:10:32.420
for those young folks that look at the contention election, contentious elections, they look
link |
02:10:36.660
at our contentious world, our divided world. What advice would you give them of how to
link |
02:10:42.520
have a career they can be proud of? Let's say they're in college or in high school and
link |
02:10:46.720
how to have a life they can be proud of.
link |
02:10:49.440
Oh man, that's a big question. Um, yeah, I've never given a graduation speech. Uh,
link |
02:10:57.080
this is like warm up. Let's look for like raw materials before you write it. Uh, if
link |
02:11:01.480
I did, um, I think, um, I think I would advise students, um, that history teaches that you
link |
02:11:11.080
should be more optimistic than, um, than your current surroundings suggest. Right. And I
link |
02:11:17.720
think it would be very easy as a young person today to think, um, there's, there's nothing
link |
02:11:23.380
I can do about this politics. There's nothing I can say to this person on the other side
link |
02:11:28.320
of the aisle. There's nothing I can do about, you know, the planet, um, uh, et cetera, and
link |
02:11:34.560
just sort of give up. Um, and I think history, uh, teaches that, um, you know, uh, you know,
link |
02:11:42.760
we don't know who the winners and losers are in the long run, but, um, but we know that
link |
02:11:47.240
the people who give up are always the losers. Right. Um, so don't give into cynicism or
link |
02:11:52.480
apathy. Yeah. Optimism paves the way. Yeah. Because human beings are deeply, uh, resilient
link |
02:11:59.860
and creative, even under, um, far more difficult circumstances than, um, you know, than we
link |
02:12:06.480
face right now. Well, let me ask a question that you don't even need to, that you wouldn't
link |
02:12:10.440
even dare cover in your graduation, um, uh, commencement speech. Uh, what's the meaning
link |
02:12:16.440
of life? Why are we here? This whole project that history studies and analyzes as if, as
link |
02:12:23.720
if there's a point to the whole thing. What is the point? All the wars, all the presidents,
link |
02:12:32.240
all the struggles to discover what it means to be human of, uh, or reach for a higher
link |
02:12:37.800
ideal. Why? Why do you think we're here? Hmm. I think this is where there is often a handoff
link |
02:12:48.400
from the historian, um, to the clergy, um, you know, who, but in the end, um, uh, it's
link |
02:12:58.920
less of there's less distance between the two than you think. Right. That, um, you know,
link |
02:13:05.040
if you think about some of the kind of, uh, answers to that question, what is the meaning
link |
02:13:09.400
of life that are given from religious traditions? Um, often they have a fundamentally historical
link |
02:13:17.120
core, right? It's about, you know, unifying the past and the present, um, in some other,
link |
02:13:24.240
you know, non earthly, um, sort of dimension. Uh, and you know, so I think there is that,
link |
02:13:31.400
I think even for people who, who don't have a religious belief and there's a way in which
link |
02:13:37.400
history, um, is about the shared, the shared human condition. Um, and I think historians
link |
02:13:44.840
aspire to telling all of that story, right? Um, you know, we, we drill down on the, on
link |
02:13:51.800
the miseries of, of war and depressions and, and so forth. But, um, but you know, the story
link |
02:13:57.520
is not complete without, you know, blueberries and butterflies and, and, and, and all the
link |
02:14:03.720
rest that, that go with it. So both the humbling and the inspiring aspect that you get by looking
link |
02:14:14.280
back at human history that, uh, we're in this together. Christopher, this is a huge honor.
link |
02:14:22.080
This is an amazing conversation. Thank you for taking us back to a war that, uh, not
link |
02:14:26.720
often discussed, but in many ways defined the 20, the 20th century and the century we
link |
02:14:32.200
are in today, which is the first world war, the war that was supposed to end all wars,
link |
02:14:37.920
but instead defined the future wars and defines our struggle to, to try to avoid the world
link |
02:14:43.360
war three. So it's a huge honor you talk with me today. This is amazing. Thank you so much.
link |
02:14:49.080
Thank you. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Christopher Capozzola. To support this
link |
02:14:54.360
podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you
link |
02:14:58.800
some words from Woodrow Wilson in 1917 about world war one that haunted the rest of the
link |
02:15:05.760
20th century. This is a war to end all wars. George Santana, a Spanish American philosopher
link |
02:15:14.600
responded to this quote in 1922 by saying, only the dead have seen the end of war. Thank
link |
02:15:24.440
you for listening. I hope to see you next time.