Fantastic presentation, thank you. It can be so difficult to find this sort of geopolitical overview & insight on the web, as opposed to content that focuses more on military tactics, battle narratives, tanks etc... Not that there's anything wrong with the latter, it 's just not as interesting to me personally. Prof. Manela speaks masterfully to exactly those issues that I am most interested in.
Ahem… The political freedom of a defeated crushed and starved people who never accepted English rule (speaking for the Catholic majority here) and were systematically excluded from education and governance.
@@xenolaliamany bitter Americans would label the United States as an unjust imperial colony too. Doesn’t mean it’s official. Especially not in an academic space.
At the turn of the century (1900) the Ottoman Empire was "the sick man of Europe". By the 1930s, the new "sick men" were London and Paris, desperately trying to hold on to empires, long after the days of "empires" were over. It was a bed they made for themselves at Versailles, and in 1939 they had to sleep in it. In 1919 there were 2 who were not invited, and in 1939 there were 2 (note, *two,* not one) who challenged "the system" set up at Versailles... Stalin gave Hitler a "blank cheque" to invade Poland. Hitler gave Stalin a "blank cheque" to invade Poland. And there was another world war.
WWI and the evolution of Eurasian Imperialism It is certainly true that the Central Powers European hereditary monarchies ended and that the successor states failed to retain control of empires as a result of WWI. The somewhat diminished Russian Empire also saw its hereditary monarchy replaced by a sort of republic. After WWII very nearly all of the former Czarist empire was regained, either as part of the USSR proper or as satellite/client states of the USSR. The Ottoman Empire was also much diminished, surrendering its claim to what is now Syria, Iraq and the lands southward. In the remnant of the Ottoman Empire, reconfigured as Turkey, a European state style ethnic imperialism was severely imposed: non-Turkic groups were either Turkified, expelled or substantially disenfranchised and their languages suppressed. Even geography was reconfigured, with Anatolia being legislatively redefined so as to comprise the entire Asian portion of the rump Turkish Empire. Though the United Kingdom lost its Indian Empire following WWII, the partition of that British version of Indian Empire was not its end: Successor republics with capitals at Islamabad, Delhi, Dacca and Naypyidaw still exercise multi-ethnic imperia. IndoChina, as confected by the French in the 19th century, has been substantially reassembled by the Vietnamese. The territories of Champa and Kampuchea Krom are now integral parts of Vietnam, the Chams and the Khmer Krom having been swamped by immigration, assimilated or reduced to minority status. Laos and Cambodia are Vietnamese client-states, but Vietnamese control is subtle and minimally exercised. The former Dutch Empire of the Netherlands East Indies was transferred to Javanese control as a going concern. Jakarta's imperium is not effectively contested. Manchuria and coastal parts of China proper were lost to China after the collapse of the Manchu Empire. Manchuria and other sometime Chinese imperial appurtenances were brought back to Chinese control only after WWII. The integrative imperialist processes of Hanicization/Sinicization are ongoing.
We can understand the treaty as compromise between three powers and no compromise with the defeated powers, at least in real terms. Irresponsible of all three, I think, to corridor a German port rather than build a new port and corridor it at the periphery of Germany, no division of Germany. Unity questions in Germany generated the dictatorship and the war. That is the lesson, and describing anything else is more of the same mistake. Clearly Wilson wanted to make the treaty a treaty for the world, and clearly it should have been first and foremost a treaty for the defeated powers, not for the world. Americans naturally tend to shy away from the mistake, and that helps the isolationist question that generates the theory that Chamberlain visited the countries he thought agreed with imperialism, the appeasement myth. He did not visit the US because of the isolationism. FDR appreciated his efforts, telegramming Good Man. And that is where the Good Man rests, at Munich, not at Paris, indeed 1938 beats 1919 by 19 points - five more than Wilson dreamed of, team coach George Canning, and the MI5 cheer-leaders, certainly knew how to straighten it all out.
Fantastic presentation, thank you. It can be so difficult to find this sort of geopolitical overview & insight on the web, as opposed to content that focuses more on military tactics, battle narratives, tanks etc... Not that there's anything wrong with the latter, it 's just not as interesting to me personally. Prof. Manela speaks masterfully to exactly those issues that I am most interested in.
Ireland was not a colony, they were part of the United Kingdom itself, and enjoyed every political freedom that people in England or Scotland had
Many Irish, then as now, had a rather different view of the situation.
@@xenolalia I concur.
Catholics were discriminated against.
Potato blithe was a natural occurrence. The famine was caused by Brits.
Ahem… The political freedom of a defeated crushed and starved people who never accepted English rule (speaking for the Catholic majority here) and were systematically excluded from education and governance.
@@xenolaliamany bitter Americans would label the United States as an unjust imperial colony too. Doesn’t mean it’s official. Especially not in an academic space.
It is not a a cangaroo but a wallaby [07:40] Probably a regimental pet?
At the turn of the century (1900) the Ottoman Empire was "the sick man of Europe".
By the 1930s, the new "sick men" were London and Paris, desperately trying to hold on to empires, long after the days of "empires" were over.
It was a bed they made for themselves at Versailles, and in 1939 they had to sleep in it.
In 1919 there were 2 who were not invited, and in 1939 there were 2 (note, *two,* not one) who challenged "the system" set up at Versailles...
Stalin gave Hitler a "blank cheque" to invade Poland.
Hitler gave Stalin a "blank cheque" to invade Poland.
And there was another world war.
He was an american Chicago mayor William McKinley they named McKinley park after him
Before becoming the US President, William McKinley was never a mayor but he was the Governor of Ohio.
WWI and the evolution of Eurasian Imperialism
It is certainly true that the Central Powers European hereditary monarchies ended and that the successor states failed to retain control of empires as a result of WWI. The somewhat diminished Russian Empire also saw its hereditary monarchy replaced by a sort of republic. After WWII very nearly all of the former Czarist empire was regained, either as part of the USSR proper or as satellite/client states of the USSR.
The Ottoman Empire was also much diminished, surrendering its claim to what is now Syria, Iraq and the lands southward. In the remnant of the Ottoman Empire, reconfigured as Turkey, a European state style ethnic imperialism was severely imposed: non-Turkic groups were either Turkified, expelled or substantially disenfranchised and their languages suppressed. Even geography was reconfigured, with Anatolia being legislatively redefined so as to comprise the entire Asian portion of the rump Turkish Empire.
Though the United Kingdom lost its Indian Empire following WWII, the partition of that British version of Indian Empire was not its end: Successor republics with capitals at Islamabad, Delhi, Dacca and Naypyidaw still exercise multi-ethnic imperia.
IndoChina, as confected by the French in the 19th century, has been substantially reassembled by the Vietnamese. The territories of Champa and Kampuchea Krom are now integral parts of Vietnam, the Chams and the Khmer Krom having been swamped by immigration, assimilated or reduced to minority status. Laos and Cambodia are Vietnamese client-states, but Vietnamese control is subtle and minimally exercised.
The former Dutch Empire of the Netherlands East Indies was transferred to Javanese control as a going concern. Jakarta's imperium is not effectively contested.
Manchuria and coastal parts of China proper were lost to China after the collapse of the Manchu Empire. Manchuria and other sometime Chinese imperial appurtenances were brought back to Chinese control only after WWII. The integrative imperialist processes of Hanicization/Sinicization are ongoing.
Nice
It created a monster it's called repealing second admendment
We can understand the treaty as compromise between three powers and no compromise with the defeated powers, at least in real terms. Irresponsible of all three, I think, to corridor a German port rather than build a new port and corridor it at the periphery of Germany, no division of Germany. Unity questions in Germany generated the dictatorship and the war. That is the lesson, and describing anything else is more of the same mistake. Clearly Wilson wanted to make the treaty a treaty for the world, and clearly it should have been first and foremost a treaty for the defeated powers, not for the world. Americans naturally tend to shy away from the mistake, and that helps the isolationist question that generates the theory that Chamberlain visited the countries he thought agreed with imperialism, the appeasement myth. He did not visit the US because of the isolationism. FDR appreciated his efforts, telegramming Good Man. And that is where the Good Man rests, at Munich, not at Paris, indeed 1938 beats 1919 by 19 points - five more than Wilson dreamed of, team coach George Canning, and the MI5 cheer-leaders, certainly knew how to straighten it all out.
Corridor you write. Poles lived there, in their majority. A port was set up-Gdynia.
Which became today's internationals
An american president colonist and international