Podcasts about Paris Peace Conference

When the mandate system was created at the Paris Peace Conference, it became a powerful tool for the British and French to carve up the Middle East and Africa following the defeat and collapse of the German and Ottoman Empires. France took control of Syria and created the state of Lebanon and the British gained Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq. This podcast explores the sour relations between the British and French, Britain's desperate need to self governance to emerge in Iraq to limit the costs of their empire and the machinations that led to Prince Feisal, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca to become King of Iraq.For more history writing check out www.explaininghistory.orgHelp the podcast to continue bringing you history each weekIf you enjoy the Explaining History podcast and its many years of content and would like to help the show continue, please consider supporting it in the following ways:If you want to go ad-free, you can take out a membership hereOrYou can support the podcast via Patreon hereOr you can just say some nice things about it here Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/explaininghistory. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Send me a Text Message!APRIL 2025After months of waiting, it finally happened — my Portuguese visa was approved! In this episode, I share the emotional highs and lows of April: flying back to the U.S. to finalize paperwork, returning to Portugal with visa in hand, and soaking up a few last memorable moments in Albania before leaving. From a powerful mural of Mother Teresa to a surprising statue of Woodrow Wilson, I reflect on the beauty of unexpected travel discoveries — and what it feels like to finally call Portugal home.Website  I  Instagram  I  Twitter  I  LinkedIn  I  YouTubeEmail: actorbobtapper@gmail.comIn this episode:The moment my Portuguese visa was officially approvedWhy I had to fly back to the U.S. (again) to finish the processReturning to Portugal — and what this new chapter means to meA powerful mural of Mother Teresa in the heart of TiranaThe surprising story behind Woodrow Wilson's statue in AlbaniaLaunching www.filmmakingportugal.com and what's ahead for my creative journeyAirBnbBook your stay!Mother Teresa and AlbaniaA quiet moment in Tirana: a mural of Mother Teresa stopped me in my tracks. Painted with grace and strength, her presence felt like peace in the middle of the city. No guidebook could've prepared me for that feeling. Just one of those travel moments that lingers.President Woodrow WilsonOne of the most unexpected sights in Tirana is a statue of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson — top hat and all — standing proudly in the center of the city. It turns out that after World War I, Wilson played a key role in defending Albania's independence at the Paris Peace Conference. The country never forgot. It's one of those fascinating travel moments that reminds you just how interconnected our histories really are. Support the show

Send us a textProfessor Margaret MacMillan illuminates how decisions made at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 continue to shape today's geopolitical landscape, particularly in understanding current European conflicts including Russia's invasion of Ukraine.• The Treaty of Versailles and related settlements redefined Europe through borders that still cause tensions today• World War I was the war that made World War II possible, with unfinished business from 1919 leading to future conflicts• Self-determination principles created challenges when applied to ethnically mixed regions of Central and Eastern Europe• Personalities of leaders at Paris 1919 profoundly influenced outcomes, with Wilson, Clemenceau and Lloyd George negotiating for six months• Germany's refusal to accept defeat and responsibility contributed more to future conflict than actual treaty terms• Russia was excluded from Paris negotiations, reflecting a position of outsider status that continues today• Yugoslavia's creation and eventual violent breakup stemmed directly from decisions made in 1919• Current European security questions echo issues faced after both world wars about preventing future conflicts• The 80-year European peace since WWII remains historically unusual given the continent's conflict-filled past• Great powers today remain cautious about direct confrontation due to the potentially catastrophic consequencesCheck out more at bookclues.com and on YouTube at Crossword Author Interviews – don't forget to like and subscribe!

Send us a textLike and subscribe to Crossword on YouTube at Crossword Author Interviews. You can also find us at bookclues.com and follow Michele McAloon on X, BlueSky and TrueSocial, all @MicheleMcAloon1.Professor Margaret MacMillan joins us to explore how the 1919 Paris Peace Conference shaped our modern world and why understanding this pivotal moment is essential for making sense of today's European conflicts.• World War I as the war that made World War II possible and ended the relatively peaceful 19th century• The challenge of self-determination in ethnically mixed regions where borders created inevitable tensions• How personalities of leaders like Wilson, Lloyd George, and Clemenceau influenced critical decisions at Paris• The lasting impact of borders drawn in 1919 on conflicts in Yugoslavia, Ukraine, and beyond• Russia's historical position on the edge of Europe, torn between European identity and Eurasian exceptionalism• The dangerous precedent set by violating the principle that borders shouldn't be changed by force• How historical grievances from 1919 continue to fuel nationalist rhetoric in Hungary and elsewhere• Europe's current moment of reflection about defense and identity after decades of relative peace

Romania was, in territorial terms, one of the unlikely beneficiaries of the Paris Peace Conference. It acquired land from the disintegrated Austro Hungarian and Russian Empires and from new states like Hungary itself. the core Romanian lands, the Regat, found it challenging to absorb new territories, even when they were majority ethnically Romanian, and the strong desire for a more federalist state was resisted by those elites and power structures who had chiefly benefitted from a strong, centralised Romanian state to begin with.Help the podcast to continue bringing you history each weekIf you enjoy the Explaining History podcast and its many years of content and would like to help the show continue, please consider supporting it in the following ways:If you want to go ad-free, you can take out a membership hereOrYou can support the podcast via Patreon hereOr you can just say some nice things about it here Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/explaininghistory. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

【本期简介】巴黎和会（英文：Paris Peace Conference），是第一次世界大战结束后战胜国为解决国际上的各项问题而召开的国际会议。和会于1919年1月18日—1919年6月28日在巴黎举行，中间几度休会。和会的出席代表来自27个国家、4个自治领及印度，苏维埃俄国政府未被邀请出席会议。和会自始至终在大国的操纵下进行，全体会议只召开了七次，仅为形式上举行表决通过和约。会议主要讨论了关于建立国际联盟和委任统治制问题、德国的疆界和赔偿问题、阜姆问题、山东问题和俄罗斯问题。帝国主义列强还秘密拟定了对苏俄的武装干涉和经济封锁计划。【主播】恶霸波、张小娘【公众号】柳南故事【进群方式】13521785295【商务合作】18618145983

In today's episode, we are extremely honored to be joined by David Hare, who is an award-winning playwright, screenwriter, and filmmaker. In his first ever exclusive Young Indy interview, he reminisces about some of his most memorable behind-the-scenes stories from directing Paris, 1919. During this casual and compelling conversation, he discusses the incredible actors he had the chance to work with, why production design and cinematography were incredibly important to recreate the Paris Peace Conference, and why he (respectfully) declined to work on Star Wars with George Lucas.

This week in 1919, the Paris Peace Conference began. Five months later, on 28 June 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was signed. The treaty is often hailed as one of history's most influential—and controversial—agreements. Marking the end of the First World War, it aimed to bring peace but is frequently criticised for sowing the seeds of an even deadlier conflict: the Second World War.In this episode, I'm joined by historian Michael S. Neiberg, a leading expert in 20th-century military history and author of The Treaty of Versailles: A Concise History. Together, we unpack the drama of the Paris Peace Conference and its far-reaching consequences. Who were the key players behind the treaty, and what were their agendas? How was Germany treated during negotiations, and what terms were imposed on them? Has the treaty always been this controversial, or has time changed its legacy? Most importantly, did the Treaty of Versailles truly pave the way for the Second World War?Join us for a fascinating dive into one of history's most consequential treaties!Here you can find Michael's website.The Ministry of History offers more than just podcast episodes! Check out our blog for engaging historical insights, access transcripts of episodes, subscribe to our newsletter for updates and early access to posts, and explore our digital content. Planning a trip to Berlin? You can even book a history tour with Artie himself! To find all this, simply head to our website. You can also follow us on Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.Artwork by Leila Mead. Check out her website and follow her on Instagram. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This Day in Legal History: Woodrow Wilson Arrives in FranceOn December 13, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson arrived in France to negotiate the terms of peace to conclude World War I, becoming the first sitting U.S. president to travel to Europe. Wilson's presence marked a historic moment in international diplomacy, as he sought to champion his vision for a postwar world order based on his Fourteen Points. These principles emphasized self-determination, free trade, disarmament, and the establishment of a League of Nations to prevent future conflicts.Wilson joined the Allied leaders at the Paris Peace Conference, where complex negotiations would ultimately shape the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty included harsh reparations against Germany, redrew national borders across Europe, and officially created the League of Nations. While the League was Wilson's most cherished goal, the treaty and its terms faced intense scrutiny back in the United States.Despite Wilson's efforts to garner support, the U.S. Senate, led by Republicans skeptical of the treaty's implications, rejected it in 1920. Key concerns included the League's potential to entangle the U.S. in foreign conflicts without congressional approval. This decision prevented the United States from joining the League of Nations, a significant blow to Wilson's vision and to the League's influence as a global peacekeeping body. The treaty's rejection highlighted the tension between internationalism and isolationism in American foreign policy.Wilson's involvement in the treaty process nevertheless underscored the growing role of the United States in global affairs and set a precedent for presidential diplomacy on the world stage.Aaron Siri, a lawyer aligned with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has petitioned the FDA to revoke approval of the polio vaccine, challenging one of the most significant public health achievements in history. Siri, who has a long track record of opposing vaccines, argues that the polio vaccine, like others, lacks sufficient testing and transparency. His actions, including a request to pause distribution of 13 additional vaccines, align with the agenda of the Informed Consent Action Network, a nonprofit advocating for "medical freedom" and closely tied to Kennedy. Critics warn that such efforts undermine decades of progress in eradicating vaccine-preventable diseases.In the battle between children and polio, RFK Jr. has thrown his hat into the ring on the side of polio. Public health experts are alarmed by the potential consequences of withdrawing the polio vaccine, which has protected millions from paralysis and death. Recent polio cases in unvaccinated populations highlight the persistent threat of the virus, described by one expert as “an airplane ride away.”Siri's approach extends beyond polio, targeting the FDA's vaccine approval processes and inundating agencies with document requests that some view as an attempt to hinder their operations. Kennedy's consideration for health secretary in the incoming Trump administration raises fears that vaccine policy may shift dramatically. Critics argue that dismantling vaccine programs risks a resurgence of diseases that left children dead or in leg braces, a grim echo of past public health crises. Despite claims of merely seeking transparency and choice, Kennedy and Siri's actions are seen as a direct threat to public health infrastructure.RFK Jr.'s Lawyer Has Asked the FDA to Revoke Polio Vaccine Approval - The New York TimesWashington defense lawyers are preparing to represent Justice Department officials, prosecutors, and FBI agents who fear being targeted for investigations under Donald Trump's upcoming presidency. Lawyers report a surge in inquiries from current and former DOJ employees concerned about congressional scrutiny, criminal probes, or internal watchdog investigations as Trump vows to dismantle the so-called “deep state” and pursue individuals he perceives as politically disloyal. Though much remains uncertain, attorneys are advising federal workers on how to prepare for potential retaliation tied to politically sensitive cases. Some fear investigations from the DOJ's inspector general, which could harm careers without requiring courtroom evidence. High-profile threats, such as prosecuting Special Counsel Jack Smith, are seen as less likely due to the difficulty of meeting legal standards for criminal cases.Financial concerns loom large, as many DOJ employees cannot afford expensive legal defense. Discussions among attorneys have included providing pro bono or reduced-fee services to meet the anticipated demand. The nomination of Kash Patel as FBI director, who has openly advocated for firing and prosecuting certain federal employees, has intensified these preparations. Lawyers emphasize that these concerns are not paranoia, given public statements from Trump allies outlining plans to target DOJ personnel.Lawyers Prep to Defend DOJ Workforce From Trump-Directed ProbesA federal judge has ruled that Yintao “Roger” Yu, a former ByteDance executive suing the company for wrongful termination, engaged in serious misconduct during his lawsuit. Judge Susan Illston found that Yu fabricated a key witness, lied under oath during his deposition, and abused the judicial process. As a result, the court sanctioned Yu and ordered his claims to be resolved through arbitration rather than continuing in court.Yu, previously head of U.S. engineering for ByteDance, alleged he was fired for exposing the company's intellectual property theft and the Chinese Communist Party's influence on TikTok. He claimed TikTok suppressed pro-democracy content at the CCP's request. However, ByteDance presented evidence that Yu lied about signing arbitration agreements and fabricated a declaration from an alleged witness. The witness, a ByteDance HR employee, testified she never made the statements attributed to her.The judge stated Yu's actions caused delays, wasted court resources, and constituted egregious litigation misconduct. She denied Yu's attempt to withdraw his lawsuit after ByteDance exposed his alleged perjury, ruling that such behavior would further undermine the judicial process. The judgment forces Yu to resolve the case through private arbitration, as required by the disputed agreements he initially denied signing.ByteDance Whistleblower Abused Judicial Process, Faked EvidenceThe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has reopened an investigation into Elon Musk's brain-chip startup, Neuralink, according to a letter shared by Musk on the social platform X (formerly Twitter). The letter, written by Musk's attorney Alex Spiro, was addressed to outgoing SEC Chair Gary Gensler and disclosed that Musk was given a 48-hour deadline to settle by paying an undisclosed monetary amount or face charges. However, the settlement demand is tied to the SEC's probe into Musk's $44 billion takeover of Twitter, not Neuralink.Musk and the SEC have a contentious history, including a 2018 lawsuit over Musk's statements about taking Tesla private, which was settled with a $20 million fine and other conditions. Neuralink has also been under scrutiny after lawmakers urged the SEC to investigate whether Musk misled investors about the safety of its brain implant technology. It remains uncertain how much traction the SEC will gain against Musk, especially given his growing political influence. Musk, who supported Donald Trump's recent presidential campaign with substantial financial contributions, is poised to play a significant role in shaping the regulatory landscape. Trump has appointed Musk to a task force for overhauling the U.S. government. Musk and his attorney have vowed to resist SEC pressure, stating they will not be "intimidated."SEC 'reopens' probe into Neuralink, Musk's lawyer says | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In the aftermath of the First World War, the delegates of the victorious powers at the Paris Peace Conference attempted to shape a post war world order. Woodrow Wilson, pioneer of the mandate system that saw former German and Ottoman imperial possessions administered through the new League of Nations, found that the British and French were hungry for new colonial acquisitions and saw the Mandate system as a perfect tool for their ambitions.Help the podcast to continue bringing you history each weekIf you enjoy the Explaining History podcast and its many years of content and would like to help the show continue, please consider supporting it in the following ways:If you want to go ad-free, you can take out a membership hereOrYou can support the podcast via Patreon hereOr you can just say some nice things about it here Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/explaininghistory. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

With the First World War at an end, it's time to look back at the immense costs it has imposed on Bulgaria and the world. In this environment, Bulgaria is trying to stabilize itself and lobby the Paris Peace Conference for better terms, but success is far from guaranteed. Supporters like you make this podcast happen! Check out www.patreon.com/bulgarianhistorypodcast to see the great perks you can get for supporting us. You can find images for this episode at: www.bghistorypodcast.com/post/217-dust-settles

David talks to historian Margaret MacMillan, author of the prize-winning Peacemakers, about whether the 1919 Paris Peace Conference deserves its reputation as a missed opportunity and the harbinger of another war. Could the peace have been fairer to the Germans? Could the League of Nations have been given real teeth? Could the Bolsheviks have been involved? Or did the peacemakers make the best of a bad job?To hear the second part of David's conversation with Chris Clark about the fateful origins of the First World War, sign up now to PPF+ and get ad-free listening and all our other bonuses too: £5 per month or £50 a year for 24 bonus episodes: https://www.ppfideas.com/join-ppf-plusSign up here for our free fortnightly newsletter: the new edition is out tomorrow to go with our latest counterfactual episodes: https://www.ppfideas.com/newslettersNext time: What If… The Berlin Wall Hadn't Fallen? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

"The Treaty includes no provisions for the economic rehabilitation of Europe, nothing to make the defeated Central Empires into good neighbours, nothing to stabilise the new States of Europe." This damning critique of one of history's best-known peace treaties by a little-known UK Treasury official keeps shaping popular understandings of the accord's legacy. John Maynard Keynes published The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919) during the Paris Peace Conference, painting its chief outcome, the Treaty of Versailles, as not just flawed, but a harbinger of yet more conflict. The Carthaginian peace terms imposed on Germany, Keynes argued, augured revenge. But is this the full story? Were the treaty's consequences as dire as Keynes suggested, or has the economist's indictment, seemingly prophetic in retrospective terms, overshadowed key dynamics that played out during negotiations, but are now forgotten? To delve into this complex history, we are joined by two distinguished guests: historian Margaret MacMillan, the author of Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War (2001), and veteran French diplomat and former guest on the podcast Gérard Araud, who is very familiar with the intricacies of such international negotiations and the author of Nous Étions Seuls (2023), a history of French diplomacy between both world wars. The episode explores the treaty's immediate and longer-term consequences, how it aimed to reshape Europe, and why it remains one of the most misunderstood agreements in modern history. Did the treaty plant the seeds of World War II, or has its popular critique left out some important context? As always, please rate and review Uncommon Decency on whatever platform you use, and send us your comments or questions either on Twitter at @UnDecencyPod or by email at undecencypod@gmail.com. Consider supporting the show through Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/undecencypod) to get access to the full episode, where we dive deeper into the intricate details of Versailles and its repercussions. Bibliography: The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919), by John Maynard Keynes. Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War (2001), by Margaret MacMillan. Nous étions seuls: une histoire diplomatique de la France 1919-1939 (2023), by Gérard Araud.

What impact did the philosophical writings of Thomas Jefferson have on Vietnamese independence leader Hồ Chí Minh? How would Jefferson, a slave-owner and Francophile, have counseled Hồ in dealing with French colonizers? And would they have bonded over a love of pastries? After this episode, History Improv'ed will be taking a hiatus but we'll be back with more great topics and improvised anachronisms. So stay subscribed and stay tuned!   Links To Further Yer Book-Learnin'   Hồ Chí Minh, born Nguyễn Sinh Cung (1890–1969), was a Vietnamese communist revolutionary, nationalist, and politician. His leadership was challenged at times, but all his rivals eventually cried Uncle.   The third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) was a statesman, diplomat, lawyer, architect, philosopher, Founding Father, and a wee bit of a hypocrite. You know, that whole all men are created equal but having over 600 slaves himself thing. Even expert podcast guests aren't quite sure how to handle those teaching moments.   Sarah "Sally" Hemings (1773–1835) was enslaved by Thomas Jefferson, whom she met in France at 14 as the servant of his daughter. Sally only agreed to return to Virginia and resume her life in slavery if she would get special privileges and all their children would be freed when they came of age. In that society, Hemings actually would've been seen as a sly negotiator.   Võ Nguyên Giáp (1911-2013) served as Hồ's military counterpart during Vietnam's struggles and continued to be active in its policies and politics well into the 21st century. He literally wrote the book on guerilla warfare in his country. Enduring a long life full of personal loss, he had an axe to grind with the French.   The Vietnam conflict can be traced directly back to the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I. Hồ's letter to the powers that be at the Paris Peace Conference was ignored. Even Jefferson's words probably couldn't have reached those tone-deaf ears.   Not to be deterred, Hồ typed another letter some 27 years later to US President Harry Truman arguing for independence. Once again he was ignored. Keeping the caps lock on apparently didn't make a difference.   Bánh mì started as the baguette introduced to the region by France during their colonization, and was then modified slightly to accommodate fixings that would transform it into the bánh mì sandwich that we know and love today. Adding jalapeños was definitely not a French idea.

Before moving on from the times when Lloyd George held power, we take a look in this episode at one of the major moments of his time as an international statesman: the Paris Peace Conference and, above all, the specific agreement that emerged from it concerning Germany, the Treaty of Versailles. The episode draws heavily on the views of Maynard Keynes on the Treaty and its likely effects, in particular on its failure to react to the massive gap between the expectations of money from Germany by the victors and the real ability of Germany to pay. At the end, we look at the fact that as well as leaving a deep resentment in Germany of the victorious powers, it also left two nations that were actually with them, Japan and Italy, bitter with the outcome of the Paris conference. Germany, Italy and Japan. Compare that list with the membership of the Axis that the Allies would have to fight in World War 2 twenty years after the end of World War 1. An event which Keynes foresaw. Illustration: Covert og John Maynard Keynes's book, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, of 1919. Music: Bach Partita #2c by J Bu licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License

After the Paris Peace Conference that concluded World War I, French Marshall Ferdinand Foch bitterly observed, “This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years.” Foch’s view contradicted the popular opinion that the horrifying conflict would be the “war to end all wars.” Twenty years and two months later, World War II erupted. Foch was right. Long ago, Micaiah, the lone true prophet of God in the region at the time, prophesied dire military results for Israel (2 Chronicles 18:7). In contrast, four hundred of King Ahab’s false prophets foretold victory. “Look, the other prophets without exception are predicting success for the king,” a court official told Micaiah. “Let your word agree with theirs, and speak favorably” (v. 12). Micaiah responded, “I can tell him only what my God says” (v. 13). He prophesied how Israel would be “scattered on the hills like sheep without a shepherd” (v. 16). Micaiah was right. The Arameans killed Ahab and his army fled (vv. 33-34; 1 Kings 22:35–36). Like Micaiah, we who follow Jesus share a message that contradicts popular opinion. The One who is “the way and the truth and the life” told us, “No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Many don’t like that message because it seems harshly narrow. Too exclusive, people say. Yet Jesus brings a comforting message that’s inclusive. He welcomes everyone who turns to Him.

Last time we spoke about the New Culture Movement. China had seen humiliation after humiliation and her population was fed up. The leaking of secret dealings by foreign powers, Japan and members of the Chinese government alongside a weak stance at the Paris Peace Conference broke the camels back. The New Culture Movement that was brewing under these circumstances saw the Chinese public begin to question their traditions, confucianism and this feeling of always looking into the past, rather than the future. Things simply could not keep going on the way that they were. Numerous intellectuals began demanding major reforms to really modernize China. From vernacular writing systems, to the emancipation of women and egalitarian rights, the Chinese people were angry and they were soon going to demonstrate their anger towards their government. It would all start with youthful students who would change China forever.    #93 The May Fourth Movement of 1919   Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. The Xinhai Revolution of 1911 had given rise to the spirit of Chinese nationalism, demanding resistance to foreign encroachment and the elimination of domestic autocracy. While the Manchu's were overthrown, Yuan Shikai was quick to seize the movement hostage. He silenced opposition when the Beiyang Republic was formed. Then WW1 came crashing in like a wrecking ball upon China. The Empire of Japan defeated the Germans and now occupied the Shandong Peninsula. Yuan Shikai protested this of course, but from the publics point of view not too strongly. Taking full advantage of the international situation the Japanese then imposed the twenty-one demands upon China. This was leaked to the world, enraging the Chinese populace. Though Yuan Shikai did negotiate them down into the Thirteen Demands, it was yet again another humiliation and a sign of how weak the Chinese government was. When this occurred Chinese intellectuals, students and workers were beginning to form groups and argue about what should be done. There was a sense of national survival at stake.  In response to the Twenty-One Demands situation a boycott of Japanese goods was organized in Shanghai, and this rapidly began to spread to other cities. Yuan Shikai ordered the boycotts to seize as they spread to Yangtze port cities. Regardless the people of China still had high hopes by joining the Entente during the war, this would see China reverse her misfortunes and regain things like the Shandong Peninsula. When WW1 ended on November 11 of 1918, there was such widespread hope the national disgrace would come to an end. Chinese intellectual leaders, and leading businessmen believed the defeat of Germany had finally brought an end to the disgusting practice of secret diplomacy, foreign encroachment on their nation, militarism and the dictatorship that was pretending to be a republic. It was assumed the Shandong Peninsula lease that originally was given to the Germans, currently held by the Japanese illegally, would simply be handed back over to China. China had done a lot for the Entente war effort, she had provided hundreds of thousands of laborers at critical moments of the war, many believed, and I would say rightfully so, China earned certain demands. Well those hopes were torn to shreds at the Paris Peace Conference. News of the conference reached China, particularly that of Japan being awarded the Shandong Peninsula. The Chinese public found out about the secret Sino-Japanese Treaty deal that Duan Qirui had signed and that of Britain's secret double promising deal to Japan to award her the Shandong Peninsula. There were also the secret Nishihara loans that had first been signed by Yuan Shikai and were then inherited by Duan Qirui. Because of all of this on April 30th, 1919 China lost her entire case at the conference, Japan was awarded the Shandong Peninsula and on top of that, there was zero mention of when the lease would return to China. All of these developments had been followed closely by Chinese intellectuals, political leaders and businessmen who were genuinely concerned about their nation's survival. When the Chinese public found out, the first instinct was to demand those responsible for the terrible outcomes be brought to justice. Because of all the secret dealing and other exchanges between leading Beiyang officials in Beijing and Japan, they were the first culprits cited for the failure of China to regain her lost territories and there was a large suspicion there were Chinese individuals basically selling out their country to Japan. It had now become the general feeling of the people, foreign powers had hurt China, but also traitors within her government. Intellectual leaders and students who had been exposed to foreign ideologies were extremely disappointed.  By the turn of the century, countless Chinese students had gone abroad studying in Japan, the United States and Europe. They encountered new ideas, and they reflected upon them, before proposing how such ideas could be used to solve China's problems. In the last episode I spoke a lot about the intellectuals who brought these ideas to China. Hu Shih studied in the United States, Chen Duxiu studied in Japan, both men would become leaders of what will become known as the May Fourth Movement and other events later on. Both men would go very different paths, but at this point in time they both understood the dangers facing their nation and wanted to save it. It was within this time period the New Culture Movement sprang up. The leaders of the movement believed China's traditional confucian based culture was holding her back from actually modernizing into a modern state. Many of them advocated for western ideas to modernize China. Chen Duxiu returned from Japan in 1915 where he had established the New Youth magazine, basically creating the vehicle for intellectuals to bring new ideas to the Chinese public. He was soon joined by Li Dazhao who also returned from Japan in 1916.  When these intellectuals returned to China, they found her in a highly repressive state. Under Yuan Shikai, there were severe laws governing the press and these laws would survive him until the early 1920s. Yuan Shikai's dictatorship charade of a republic became even worse when he proclaimed himself Emperor. 83 days of that disaster simply proved to the people of China, the same old tyrants that they had apparently overthrown in 1911 were still large and in charge. Laws restricted speech, association and the press, forcing publishers like the New Youth to constantly reiterate they were not creating political criticisms, just simply talking to the youth of the nation. Both Hu Shih and Chen Duxiu knew the most egregious problems facing China was her inability to toss the yoke of 2000 years of Confucianism. Both men believed it was necessary to destroy some of the old traditions to awaken their countrymen, particularly the Chinese youth so they could build a new modern state. Chen Duxiu was perhaps more inclined to want to destroy the confucian ideological bases that held up the monarchy. In 1917 his New Youth began to carry out a program calling for dramatic reforms. At first the New Youth evaluated the pro's and con's of vernacular writing over classical; of western science vs chinese traditional beliefs; the virtues of confucianism and so forth. The New Culture leaders began calling for a rejection of the old traditional values and adoptions of western ideals, something they colloquially called “Sai xiansheng /Mr. Science” and “De Xiansheng / Mr. Democracy” who would replace “Mr. Confucius”. Doing such things they argued would strengthen the new Chinese state. Lu Xun wrote famous essays like the Diary of a Madman and the True Story of Ah Q criticizing classical Chinese writing and confucianism. Lu Xun would soon be regarded as one of modern China's first great writers. The effectiveness of his stories drew from a sort of anger towards Confucianism. For example with the Diary of a Madman, the narrator slowly goes insane, convinced the Chinese people around him are all cannibals. Here is a sort of translated exurb ‘It has only just dawned on me, that all these years I have been living in a place where for four thousand years human flesh has been eaten. They eat human beings, so they may eat me. I look up the history of cannibalism in a book of Chinese history, but all he finds in the book are the two phrases Confucian virtue and morality and eat people. Finally convinced that I may have eaten several pieces of my sister's flesh unwittingly….Perhaps there are still children who haven't eaten men? Save the Children”. Within Chinese history, cannibalism has been a powerful image of when a society has lost all of its values and morality and for Lu Xun he was basically assaulting the entire basis of the Beiyang government and their society using this metaphor. Others like Li Dazhao by 1918 began expressing support of the October Revolution in Russia and in september of 1918, a young Mao Zedong became his assistant at the Peking University Library where they organized the Marxist Research Society.  The Twenty-One Demands had ushered anti-japanese campaigns and the New Cultural movement. Western ideas of science, democracy, criticisms of traditional chinese customs, literature, history, philosophy, religion, social and political issues were all argued over. Political and social ideas like liberalism, pragmatism, utilitarianism, anarchism, socialism, communism all the “isms” were being measured against China's traditional culture like one of them held the answer to solve her problems. The youthful students were caught up in all of this, and they decided to hold mass demonstrations on May 7th of 1919, the fourth anniversary of Japan's ultimatum for the Twenty-One Demands. Events however forced these students to initiate their plans 3 days earlier on the morning of May 4th. Student leaders met at Peking college of Law and Political Science. They came from 13 colleges and universities, including the University of Peking, the heart of them all. During their meetings they came up with 5 resolutions to press upon their government: Number 1) To oppose the granting of Shandong to the Japanese under former German concessions. Number 2) To draw and increase awareness of China's precarious position to the masses in China. Number 3) To recommend a large-scale gathering in Beijing. Number 4) To promote the creation of a Beijing student union. And Number 5) To hold a demonstration that afternoon in protest to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Of the five resolutions, two had special importance: to awaken the Chinese people to the facts of foreign oppression and domestic treachery, and to create a permanent organization of Peking students. At 1:30pm on the 4th, over 3000 students gathered at Tiananmen square. They represented 13 colleges and universities in Beijing. The Beiyang Government tried to prevent their mass meeting by dispatching the Ministry of Education to Peking University at 11am, but he was unsuccessful at stopping the students. By 2pm, the students began to march while distributing leaflets along their way. They carried large placards with slogans written in French, English and Chinese. Slogans read “struggle for the sovereignty externally, get rid of the national traitors at home” “do away with the twenty-one demands” “don't sign the treaty of versailles”. They also demanded the Japanese collaborationists Cao Rulin, Lu Zongyu and Zhang Zongxiang be brought to justice. They made their way to Beijing foreign Legation quarter, but they were blocked at the gates and refused entry. They waited over 2 hours, demanding entry into the quarter until they were told it was never going to happen. The students then headed north towards the residence of Cao Rulin, the Minister of Finance at the time. They considered him the worst of the treacherous bunch. They rushed into his residence hunting him down and the police intervened. Students were beaten up and 32 were arrested. After the arrests, martial law was enacted around the area surrounding the Legation Quarter.  Immediately after everything had gone down, the students began to organize the intellectual leaders to support their cause. They tried to win over the public through more demonstrations, mass meetings,  public lectures and so forth. The established contacts amongst the masses of less educated, illiterate peoples to try and secure support from the business sector to boycott Japanese products. Their ideals began to spread throughout all of China. Chow Tse-tung a harvard graduate had this to say about the feeling of the time. country. "The Movement's aims, soon won sympathy from the new merchants, industrialists, and urban workers, and the Peking Government was forced to compromise in its foreign and domestic policies. This victory of the new coalition facilitated the expansion of the cultural and intellectual reforms it advocated”. Within two months of the incident, a series of student demonstrations and strikes managed to form an alliance between students, businessmen, industrialists and workers. Though on the surface it looked like a purely student movement, the May Fourth Movement was the logical result of the efforts of the intellectual leaders of the New Culture Movement. It was the professors, teachers and writers who had inspired the youthful students to form the mass movement. They were supported wholeheartedly by the intellectual leaders and this formed a de facto alliance between reformists and revolutionaries. The New Culture Movement swelled from this alliance, drawing in people who would have been indifferent to it. Everyone began questioning the old traditional culture, it was like an ideological virus.  Political organizations, such as the Communist Party of China developed during this time. Among the masses caught up in the movement was a young Mao Zedong who became an active member of the New People's Study Society. At the time he was the editor of the Student Union Publication of Hunan province which promoted students cause and was critical of the Beiyang government. The weekly publication was quickly suppressed by the military governor of Hunan. This only further intensified Mao Zedong's anti government activities and drove him further and further towards Marxism. Later in 1939, as the CCP senior leader Mao Zedong would claim the May Fourth Movement was a stage leading toward the fulfillment of the Chinese Communist Revolution “The May Fourth Movement twenty years ago marked a new stage in China's bourgeois-democratic revolution against imperialism and feudalism. The cultural reform movement which grew out of the May Fourth Movement was only one of the manifestations of this revolution. With the growth and development of new social forces in that period, a powerful camp made its appearance in the bourgeois-democratic revolution, a camp consisting of the working class, the student masses and the new national bourgeoisie. Around the time of the May Fourth Movement, hundreds of thousands of students courageously took their place in the van. In these respects the May Fourth Movement went a step beyond the Revolution of 1911”.Other prominent CCP figures would be born from the movement. In fall of 1919 at Wuchang, Lin Biao became an organizer for the Social Welfare Society and the Social Benefit Book Store. In September of 1919 a young Zhou Enlai returned from studying in France and joined the Awakening Society in Tientsin. Yet while I just emphasized the communist leaders that emerged, the May Fourth Movement was dominated primarily by western ideas. Liberalism, anarchism, utopian socialism and marxism gradually saw a wedge drive between them forming two competing factions. Mr. Chow Tse-Tung said of this ''The Movement, gradually became involved in politics, and the united front of new intellectuals collapsed. The liberals (reformists) lost their zeal or turned away from political activity, whereas the left wing (the revolutionary intellectuals) of the Movement took the expedient political step of allying itself with the nationalists to overthrow the warlord Peking regime . " Prior to the May Fourth Movement, marxism was not really picking up much speed amongst the intellectuals in China. Li Dazhao just a few months prior to the May fourth movement was the only real Bolshevik in China. Excluding his students, Li Dazhao's views of the Bolshevik revolution that had recently occurred in Russia was not really taken seriously as a tool to reconstruct China, let alone the world. In January of 1919, Li Dazhao called upon the people of Asia “to rise against the European imperialist robbers, only by overthrowing the capitalist classes of the whole world”. With this he argued the oppressed peoples would do away with the injustice of the international order that allowed the great powers to continue humiliating China. In February of 1919, while everyone was anticipating the outcome of the Paris Peace Conference, Li Dazhao called it “the european division of the spoils conference”. Many intellectuals in China still pinned their hopes on Versailles, when the outcome came many were driven to radicalism. Many were driven to socialism and there are many reasons why it was so attractive. Many of the intellectuals saw within socialism many of the same ideals of western democracy. However many of them rejected the existing political and social order of the west…and why wouldn't they, the west was exploiting their nation and others. In many ways they viewed socialism as a sort of marriage between their nationalistic ideals and anti-imperialism. China had suffered greatly due to imperialism from the west and Japan. When they heard about the Bolshevik revolution against their tyrannical Tsarist government it was seen very much as a anti-imperialist movement. In so many ways, the May Fourth Movement of 1919 was akin to a Chinese Renaissance, certainly with its focus upon science and democracy.  Following the May Fourth Movement came the creation of the CCP in 1921, but also the revitalization of the Kuomintang. Now this is also right smack dab in the middle of the Warlord Era. I am choosing to keep these things separated because the podcasts would just go all over the place, but beginning roughly in 1919 major Warlords would commence in this episode Game of Thrones scenario. Wars, propaganda, diplomacy, alliances, its a crazy history with numerous big figures and it will rage all the way until the Japanese invasion of 1931. We will be stuck in this period for…well I have no idea haha. On my personal channel I tried to tackle the warlord Era, it ended up being 7 episodes long, with one long format to encompass it around an hour and 47 minutes long. Even with that, I barely scratched the Warlord Era, I only tackled the most well known battles and figures, I missed countless ones, thus I am hoping in this podcast series to do a much more full job. I will admit its difficult to get good sources as a non Mandarin speaker, but during my experience researching for my youtube channel I luckily came across a lot. Not to toot my own horn, but other than literally CCTV run channels, I think I am the only person on Youtube who even tried to cover the warlord period effectively. I will give credit to a fellow Quebecois Jesse Alexander from the Great War Channel, they did do a large summarization of the Warlord Era. Anyways getting off track, I now want to finish this episode up just explaining the greater influence the May Fourth Movement would have. The emergence of the CCP on the political stage as a form of anti-imperialism was foreshadowed by Li Dazhao. Li Dazhao had been one of the main advocates emphasizing anti-imperialism and political action. His students were pressed to go out and influence the common people of China, from the urban cities to the rural villages. After the May Fourth Movement, Li Dazhao became a major leader and many flocked to him. Li Dazhao's library at the Peking University where Mao Zedong was working as an assistant became the regular meeting place for student leaders. There they came under his influence. The Marxist Research Society organized by Li Dazhao sent its members across China to spread their ideals. I am no fan at all of communism, but like it or not, this is a hell of a grassroots movement that obviously would become successful in the end. Its important to learn how such mechanism came to be, how they operated and so forth. Li Dazhao did not have the firmest understanding of Marxism when he began championing it to China, but he ignited the flame that would turn China ultimately in the Peoples Republic of China. He offered Marxism as a sort of revolutionary ideology that would save China. He did this in a very anti-imperialistic environment, thus it was highly palatable. Chen Duxiu was also drawn to Marxism, a lot so because of the Shandong Problem. He was disgusted with what he saw as treachery on the part of the imperialistic nations and leaders within the Beiyang government. Now Chen Duxiu took up a stance of not getting political involved, that was until the May Fourth Movement. After this he quite literally jumped into the heck of it.  Chen Duxiu was so politically active, he was arrested on June 11th of 1919 after being caught distributing leaflets across Beijing. He spent 83 days in prison, once he got out he resigned from his position as a professor at Peking University and moved to Shanghai which was becoming a Marxist hub. Numerous Chinese intellectuals became radicalized and this gradually broke the unity of the movement apart. Hu Shih for example had studied in the United States and was deeply influenced by John Dewey and thus came to represent the reformist intellectual side. Hu Shih would go on to write countless articles arguing against the adoption of “isms” and doctrines and instead to suggest it be better to study the practical social problems. Doctrines that advocated fundamental solutions to social problems, were not entirely irrelevant, but probably hindrances to their solutions according to Hu Shih. Li Dazhao once wrote a letter to Hu Shih arguing that specific social problems could not be solved without the participation of the masses, thus there was a need to instill a consciousness of society's problems as a whole, so they could relate this to their own individual problems. Li Dazhao asserted “intellectuals need to go out and work in the practical movement, which to him meant the propagation of socialist theory and its advocacy as a tool to eliminate the non-laboring bureaucratic robbers." Li Dazhao furthered this by arguing to his followers like Mao Zedong the necessity for those studying revolutionary ideals to really study the conditions of the world, so they could adapt the theory to said conditions.  So there was kind of a battle between Hu Shih and Li Dazhao. Hu Shih advocated for solving China's problems gradually through social reforms, while Li Dazhao wanted revolution. Now again Hu Shih was deeply influenced at the time by John Dewey, and as American Sinologist Maurice Meisner said about the debates between Hu Shih and Li Dazhao  “"Hu Shih had formulated his ideas in terms of the American philosophical and sociological tradition . . . The philosophy and sociology of John Dewey did not need to be concerned with the structure of society as a whole because in the American social context it could be optimistically assumed that the whole world would take care of itself. Dewey's program was essentially conservative, assuming that reform would take place within the framework of existing institutions; but it was a product of a society that could afford conservatism, a society that could solve particular social problems because there already existed a viable social structure and a general consensus on the direction of social progress . . .As applied to China, Dewey's program was neither conservative nor radical but largely irrelevant. After the Revolution of 1911 China was confronted with a crisis of social, cultural and political disintegration of massive proportions. The extreme poverty and widespread illite:racy of the masses of the Chinese people and the lack of even the rudiments of responsible political authority negated the possibility of the general social consensus that Dewey's program presupposed. Because of the overwhelming social crisis within and the threat of foreign aggression from without, the very existence of the Chinese nation was in doubt at the time . . . To advocate the study of particular social problems and to call for social reform (piecemeal) was to assume that there existed or would soon arise a viable social and political structure within which problems could be and reforms implemented. This assumption was unwarranted either by the existing situation or by any realistic hopes for the immediate future. In view of the total crisis of Chinese society, Dewey's program was doomed to failure."  The debate between the two revealed a crucial issue, the necessity of changing words into action. You can criticize Marxism on multiple grounds and rightfully so, but I don't think anyone would disagree its not effective action wise. By its very nature Marxism enforces real action to take place. By the mid 1920's Li Dazhao and Chen Duxiu easily looked like they would assume leadership positions in the CCP, and of course in the background was Li Dazhao's assistant Mao Zedong. Mao Zedong was greatly influenced by the May Fourth Movement and he saw it as a great dividing line between the earlier stage of a bourgeois-democratic revolution in China and for him a later stage, the awakening of the working class in alliance with progressive bourgeoisie. As said by Mao Zedong in his essay on New Democracy:   " China's cultural or ideological front, the period preceding the May fourth Movement and the period following it form two distinct historical periods. Before the Movement, the struggle on China's cultural front was a struggle between the new culture of the bourgeoisie and the old culture of the feudal class ... the ideology of the new learning played the revolutionary role of fighting the Chinese feudal ideology and was in the service of the bourgeois democratic revolution of the old period ... But since the May fourth Movement, things have gone differently. Since then a brand new cultural force of fresh strength has appeared in China, namely, the ideas of Communist culture guided by the Chinese Communists: · the Communist world outlook and the Communist theory of social revolution. The May fourth Movement occurred in 1919, and in 1921 the Chinese Communist Party was founded and China's labor movement actually began . . . Before the May fourth Movement, the new culture of China was a culture of the old-democratic character and a part of the capitalist cultural revolution of the world bourgeoisie. Since the May fourth Movement, it has become a culture of new-democratic character and a part of the socialist cultural revolution of the world proletariat . . . What is called new democratic culture is the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal culture of the broad masses of the people . ·· . New democratic culture is, in a word, the and anti-feudal culture of the broad masses of the people under the leadership of the world proletariat”. Overall the May Fourth Movement had a profound effect on the development of modern China. It convinced many Chinese intellectuals, correctly or incorrectly, the only adequate response to imperialism was revolutionary action seen in form of Communism. Yet something stood in the way of turning China into a communist nation. Warlords. Then after the Warlords were defeated, Chiang Kai-Shek emerged as the leader of the fractured nation, forced to lead the fight for China's survival against the Empire of Japan. Yet the CCP put its head down, they worked, worked very hard and waited for the right moment. When it came, they struck, and they won.  I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. The May fourth movement was a watershed moment for modern Chinese history. In many ways it was the great moment where two dividing forces emerged that would be embodied later in Chiang Kai-Shek's nationalists and Mao Zedong's CCP. The fight for the future of China had begun, though it remains in the background as the age of the Warlords has come. 

Jak w przeszłości zmieniały się granice Włoch? Posłuchajcie! #historia #podcasthistoryczny

Last time we spoke about the Twenty-One Demands and the rise of the Walrus Emperor, Yuan Shikai. Japan certainly had their work cut out for them during WW1. Seizing upon every possible opportunity Japan occupied Shandong province after the siege of Tsingtao and forced China to accept the unbelievable twenty-one demands. Yuan Shikai tried to stall and negotiate, eventually reaching thirteen demands, but yet again China was served a terrible humiliation that even became a national day henceforth. Then Yuan Shikai completely, organically, not fault of his own because the Hongxian emperor over a new dynasty. The new monarchy of China lasted a solid 83 days, before Yuan Shikai was forced to abdicate lest every single province declare their independence. All of this was occurring during the vacuum of WW1, which was still raging on. Yuan Shikai was back to being president, over a fractured nation.   #91 China & the Treaty of Versailles   Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. Yuan Shikai's short-lived monarchy did not end China's national crisis. When he abdicated, you would assume this would have eased tensions a bit, but then the people of China found out Yuan Shikai was going to stay on as president. The people were livid. As you can imagine, the calls for his abdication were followed up by calls for him to step down as president. In early April of 1916 Cai E, speaking on behalf of Yunnan, Guizhou and Guangxi put forward 6 demands to solve the crisis. 1) Yuan Shikai had to step down and go into exile 2) his stooges, 13 principal monarchist supports were to be executed 3) Yuan Shikai's vast property was to be confiscated 4) Yuan Shikai's descendants were to be stripped of citizenship. Apparently Yuan Shikai ignored these demands off the bat, prompting Cai E to add 5) Yuan Shikai would be charged with treason and punished by law passed by Congress. In April and May of 1916, more provinces declared independence, Guangdong, Zhejiang, Shaanxi, Sichuan and Hunan. Their provincial leaders, many of whom were Yuan Shikai loyalists like Chen Yi of Sichuan or Tang Xiangming of Hunan labeled him an illegal leader, condemned him as a villain and severed their ties to him. Talk about choosing your friends wisely eh? Thus by May of 1916 most of southern china was independent, waiting for Yuan Shikai to step down, and most likely it would be Li Yuanhong who would take the presidency. Dr Sun Yat-Sen did not play a significant role in this anti-Yuan Shikai movement. He did make grand speeches, in April of 1916 for example he said “only after the principal culprit Yuan is exterminated could the constitution be restored and the republic be revived. If Yuan continues to rule, the country cannot be preserved. All Chinese  must annihilate the evil thoroughly and never be tolerant towards Yuan, for only after the national thief is wiped out could the republic attain peace.” A barrage of telegrams, letters and personal envoys showed up to Yuan Shikai's offices asking him to step down.  Yuan Shikai's initial reaction was simply to try and suppress his challengers. On April 1st he proposed conditions to Cai E for solving the “crisis”, these were, repealing provincial independence, returning administrative order, disbanding new military units and halting conflicts. Meanwhile Yuan sent secret telegrams to his military commanders at the frontlines ordering the annihilation of the rebels. These men working under him basically had to go with it, his fortune was theirs as they say. But as we have seen, the battles were not going well for him. While he had the best army in China, he could not stand alone against everyone else. Thus he began talking to his closest officials about leaving politics. He also began talking about who would pick up after him. His successor would need to be capable of controlling his northern army, to coordinate his network of military leaders and address the current nations financial issues. Yuan Shikai also began screaming and lashing out at those who were once close to him and betrayed him. Such men Chen Yi in Sichuan, Tang Xiangming in Hunan, but above all, Feng Guozhang made him most bitter. As Yuan Shikai thought over his retirement plans, his enemies did not let up at all. Liang Qichao set up the “Junwuyuan”, Military Affairs Council in Zhaoqing, Guangdong on May 8th, 1916. This was a rival government to the Beiyang republic, who began issuing proclamations and coordinated with rebel provincial leaders. The council supported Li Yuanhong as president and according to Liang Qichao's speeches to the public “the existing national crisis was single-handedly created by Yuan. If Yuan remains in office, the country will confront upheavals and tumult continuously. Once Yuan departs from politics, all military conflicts will immediately vanish.” Yet again China was seeing a north and south governmental divide.  According to Yuan Shikai's daughter, Yuan Jingxue, his health deteriorated in early 1916 and he suffered from major depression. Now Yuan Shikai was certainly not a physically healthy guy, again the Walrus quips hold validity. He often got ill, he rarely left the presidential palace, and kept himself very isolated. I would imagine this was to thwart assassination attempts. Apparently all the men in his family lineage tended to die before 50. Regardless, his overeating probably was the main culprit. Despite all of this, he stubbornly would not step down, even while sick in bed he continued to read official documents at the bedside. By June he was quite bedridden and few came to see him, just his closest friends and colleagues Xu Shichang and Duan Qirui. Yuan Shikai was a strong believer in Chinese medicine and tried to fight off his family who emplored him to seek western medicine until he allowed the French doctor J.A Bussiere to treat him. Dr. Bussiere diagnosed him with uremia and tried to treat him, but it was not working. Anticipated death was at the door, Yuan Shikai called upon Xu Shichang, Duan Qirui and Wang Shizhen to his bedside where he handed over his last will. He told them he bitterly regretted the monarchy move and blamed everyone for misleading him, what a mensch. Now he trusted these 3 men to care for his family and as for his successor, he told them it clearly needed to be Li Yuanhong. He asked them to swear to him that they would submit to Li Yuanhong for the good of the nation. Then he breathed his last breath and was dead by June 6th of 1916. At the age of 56 Yuan Shikai, a colossal figure of modern Chinese history was gone.  Now this was perhaps one of the most pivotal moments in modern Chinese history, for you see Yuan Shikai had ushered in something. Yuan Shikai from the beginning of his rule, did so with the might of his Beiyang Army. He built up this army, he modeled it a lot upon the imperial Japanese army. He had procured, some would simply say embezzled and stolen funds to make this army the best in China. His intentions can be seen as merely to solidify his power, but in the long term it was also to build a modern unified army for China. Like everyone else before him, he was tackling the issue of modernization. His process was a lot like a mafia however. He installed men loyal to him in various positions, by this point I've named countless of them. Many of these men were basically military-governors. They were trained to lead armies and they all had ambitions politically. There were of course those outside the Beiyang Clique as it came to be called, such as Dr Sun Yat-Sen's Kuomintang and the provinces that all declared independence like Sichuan, Guangdong, Hunan, Guangxi, Yunnan, later on the CCP will be a player as well. He had set up this elaborate system, that we will call Warlord control, I literally just made that up. Yuan Shikai's warlords were the baddest of the bunch and with him as the father of Warlords he at least had a firm grasp over China. However when Yuan Shikai decided to play monarch, he royally, pun intended screwed up his own system. This caused what has occurred throughout China's history, a North-South divide. New Warlords were emerging in the south, but even Yuan Shikai's Warlords were slowly breaking off from him. When Yuan Shikai died, while on the surface it looked like China would unify….it most certainly was not.  Its honestly a very complex and confusing situation, known as China's Warlord Era. On the face of it, China had the “Beiyang Government”, who at all times had a president, cabinets etc etc, but it was all a charade. In reality, the Warlords would fight another for dominance over the military forces in China, as that was what really controlled China. The Beiyang Clique would divide into other cliques, and all over China numerous Cliques and associated Warlords would come and go. But, I just wanted to tease you a bit, for coherency sake I'd like to finish China's experience of WW1. After Yuan Shikai's death, Li Yuanhong assumed the presidency on June 7th. Li Yuanhong ordered a state funeral costing half a million dollars, taken from Yuan Shikai's associates such as Xu SHichang and Duan Qirui. In his presidential order Li Yuanhong praised Yuan Shikai for his vital role in the Xinhai revolution and for his industrious spirit, not saying a thing about the monarchy phase. The government flew the Beiyang flag at half mast. With that the anti-Yuan war was over. Liang Qichao dismantled his rival government and the anti-yuan provinces repealed their independence proclamations. All provinces recognized Li Yuanhong as president, a very good start. Now the historical narrative had it, that Li Yuanhong's rise to the presidency was actually at gunpoint. After Yuan Shikai's death, there was a sealed box with the names Xu Shichang, Li Yuanhong and Duan Qirui found in it. None of the men wanted to stick their neck out to seize the presidency. Its said Duan Qirui forced Li Yuanhong to take the job, but Li Yuanhong was very nervous about it. Why was he? The Beiyang military leaders were all northerners, Li of course was a southerner who also had been the enemy. Duan Qirui consulted his senior military colleagues who all hated the idea of Li Yuanhong being president. But Duan Qirui fought to get the unpopular man as president, because he thought he would make for an excellent puppet. Duan Qirui meanwhile maintained his current position, which was premier. For you Americans who might not be familiar with Parliamentary type systems this is how the Beiyang Government quasi worked. The National Assembly aka parliament elects a president and vice president for 5 year terms and a premier who chooses and leads a cabinet. Typically in these types of systems, the Presidency is more of a ceremonial role. Li Yuanhong's vice president was Feng Guozhang, Yuan Shikai was rolling in his grave. Meanwhile with the provisional constitution restore, political parties were allowed back and 3 factions emerged: Dr Sun Yat-Sen's Kuomintang; Liang Qichao's Constitution Research Clique and Tang Hualong's Constitution Discussions Clique. The first order of business for the new government was the creation of a national army. You might be thinking, err what about WW1? Well with southern China armed and dangerous still, there was a looming fear of further rebellions. There was also the enormous fear, some Beiyang general would renegade and overthrow the government. Meanwhile there was of course WW1. Last episode we talked about China sending laborers to work for France, Britain, Russia and later America. 1916 for the most part saw China providing the labor services, while trying to fix their own nation. Then on February 17th of 1917, the French cargo ship SS Athos was sunk by German U-boat U-65. The ship was carrying 900 Chinese workers on their way to France and 543 of them were killed. Premier Duan Qirui and Liang Qichao both wanted to join the war on the Entente side, seeing it as a tool to help China. President Li Yuanhong and Dr. Sun Yat-Sen both opposed the idea. Duan Qirui strong armed the issue, having China break diplomatic ties with Germany. Duan Qirui also was up to something else. In January of 1917, Prime Minister Terauchi of Japan sent a secret envoy who happened to be a private business man named Nishihara Kamezo. Nishihara was given the task of finding out who really controlled the current Beiyang Army, or better said, who controlled the strongest inner clique within it. That man was Duan Qirui. Nishihara had the financial backing of the current minister of finance, Shoda Kazue who also was the former president of the Joseon Bank in Korea. Together they were offering a private loan, done so through private banks to quote “help develop China”. This was absolutely not the case. They negotiated a series of 8 loans totaling 145 million yen to Duan Qirui, to assist him in maintaining his cliques military. You see like everyone else, Duan Qirui feared other northern warlord types would become stronger than his group, can't let that happen now. To receive these loans, Japan was asking for confirmation of its claims over the former German empires concessions, ie : Kiautschou Bay in Shandong; control over the Shandong railways and some additional rights within Manchuria. All of this was to be kept hush hush, but it would not remain so. I can't get into it too much here, it will be covered in another episode, but a Duan Qirui's deal was leaked and it looked to the public that Duan Qirui was trying to take over China using Japanese aid. Li Yuanhong had Duan Qirui removed from his position as Duan Qirui and the majority of the Beiyang Generals ran over to Tianjin forming a sort of base of operations. Then in a rather insane twist, General Zhang Xun offered to mediate the situation between the Government and Duan and by mediate, I mean he showed up to the capital with his army literally besieging it. Yes, boy that escalated quickly, can't get into the insane story here, again it will be told in a future episode, but Zhang Xun with German funds and arms occupied Beijing and tried to dissolve parliament in an attempt to install Puyi as emperor over the rebirthed Qing dynasty.  Needless to say, Li Yuanhong freaked the hell out, reappointed Duan Qirui as premier and begged him to come save Beijing. Duan Qirui defeated the rebels and forced Li Yuanhong to resign as president so Feng Guozhang could take up the role. Duan Qirui then refused to restore parliament which will literally blow the door open to the Warlord wars, but for out story we return to the issue of WW1. Having already broken diplomatic ties to Germany, there was still the issue of whether or not to declare war. An intense debate was ignited involving nearly all the influential figures in China. It constituted an unprecedented movement for China. China had neer before taken an active role in a global event, one being played out very far from her borders. By participating in the war, some hoped to regain sovereign rights to Shandong. Liang Qichao criticized German militarism and said he believed Germany could not win. He also argued in order to improve China's standing, they had to align her with the victors of the war. On the other side, Dr Sun Yat-Sen argued entering the war would alienate China from Germany. Unlike Britain, France and Russia, Germany had not inflicted as much harm to China in the past. He believed Britain and Russia were far more imperialistic and thus bigger threats. He also argued it would be a material gain at the loss of spirit, thus he wanted to see China remain neutral. Duan Qirui was frustrated as Li Yuanhong added his voice to the matter saying he also did not want to enter the war. While this argument was going on, the KMT began establishing a military government in southern China and elected Dr Sun Yat-Sen to be their generalissimo.  Regardless, Duan Qirui took matters into his own hands and declared war on the Central Powers on August 14th. German and Austro-Hungarian concessions in Tientsin and Hankow were quickly seized. Duan Qirui hoped by entering the war, China might gain some international prestige and eliminate some unequal treaties. He alongside many others hoped to get rid of the indemnity payments, like the Boxer Protocol and to regain control over the Shandong Peninsula. Notably China continued to send laborers to help the war effort, but never sent troops. China's actual participation in the Great War remained very minimal. It was constrained to confiscating some German ships along their coast and continuing to support the allies with labor. China tried multiple times to offer naval and military assistance, or even a token combat unit to the western front, but it never came to be. Honestly a lost opportunity. If you check out my episode on southeast asia during ww1 or my Asia during WW1 documentary, you will see nations like Thailand did send forces and profited pretty heavily from the experience.  Germany surrendered on November 11th of 1918, and hopes were so high in China they declared a 3 day national holding. China had achieved her primary goal, being granted a seat at the Paris Peace Conference. She had been given two seats as she had not provided combat troops like other nations who had more seats. For example Japan was given 5 seats since they did provide combat troops. Now because of Dr Sun Yat-Sen's southern government, there basically was two sets of envoys sent to Paris. The Beiyang or Northern government members and Sun Yat-Sen's southern government members. Heading the Beiyang was Lu Zhengxiang who was accompanied by Wellington Koo, Cao Rulin, Hu Weide, Alfred Sze and some other advisors. On behalf of the southern government was Wu Chaoshu and although not an official delegate so was C.T Wang. Overall Lu Zhengxiang was the leader of China's delegation, but Wellington Koo, sort of a master negotiator came to become the main man.  China's demands at the conference were territorial, economic and political. In regards to territory, the “delegation proposed the internationalization of the Manchurian railways and rivers” and for foreign treaty ports and communities to remain short-term in order for China to transition them back into her ownership for a long term strategy. In regards to politics, China wanted “the elimination of all legation guards, removal of all foreign troops stationed in China, and the abolition of extraterritorial rights”. In regards to economics, China sought to regain full sovereignty over her tariffs and railways. All together these demands would be a dramatic improvement of her international standings. It would place her on a much more equal footing with the great powers. Now for those of you less familiar with WW1, this came directly at the time of one of America's worth presidents in my opinion, President Woodrow Wilson's 14 points. Again I will do the boring professor like thing by listing the points, but dont worry its in a summarized form: 1. Open diplomacy without secret treaties 2. Economic free trade on the seas during war and peace 3. Equal trade conditions 4. Decrease armaments among all nations 5. Adjust colonial claims 6. Evacuation of all Central Powers from Russia and allow it to define its own independence 7. Belgium to be evacuated and restored 8. Return of Alsace-Lorraine region and all French territories 9. Readjust Italian borders 10. Austria-Hungary to be provided an opportunity for self-determination 11. Redraw the borders of the Balkan region creating Roumania, Serbia and Montenegro 12. Creation of a Turkish state with guaranteed free trade in the Dardanelles 13. Creation of an independent Polish state 14. Creation of the League of Nations   Given the points, such as the right of self-determination of peoples, the Chinese delegates felt pretty good about their stance. However, what would prove to be the crux between China and her goals were a series of secret agreements and treaties between the Great Powers, China and Japan. Remember Duan Qirui's little loans? Well when China declared war on the Central Powers, this put her in alliance with Japan, as now they were both part of the Entente. Another large event had unfolded in 1917, the October revolution, seeing Russia fall to communism. The Entente declared the communist government a threat. Vice chief of the Imperial Japanese army general staff, Tanaka Giichi sought to form a military pact with China, including a military alliance against the new common enemy. In late January of 1917 Tanaka sent a message to the Japanese military attache in Beijing to form a Sino-Japanese agreement, but to try and get the Chinese to suggest the idea first.  The Chinese obviously would be suspicious of forming any type of agreement with Japan given the Shandong situation and Japan's encroachment into Manchuria. Japanese foreign minister Motono Ichiro offered a military cooperation similar to what the Entente were doing in France, stating if they could operate their military forces in France, why not in Manchuria. The Japanese also hinted as the possibility of just sending troops into Manchuria even if China didn't agree to it. On March 3rd, 1918 the Germans and Soviets signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, leaving some 100,000 German POW's scattered about Siberia and this scared China quite a bit. Thus on March 8th, the Japanese government began forming plans for a Sino-Japanese agreement and informed the Chinese ambassador in Tokyo, Zhang Zongxiang about it. A team led by Major General Saito Suejiro went to Beijing to negotiate the terms of the agreement. On March 25th, Zhang Zongxiang and Minister Motono both agreed enemy forces were spreading rampantly along the Russia border, threatening the far east. Thus they agreed to a joint defense agreement. This got leaked to the public in early April and opposition in China spread dramatically. Japan pretty much made its intents with the Sino-Japanese alliance known. The alliance would allow for free movement of Japanese troops with Chinese territory, that some resources would be commandeered for the military, a bit of domestic politics would probably be interfered with also and they pretty much were going to plant pro-Japanese forces across China. On May 3rd, Tanaka Giichi visited Zhang Zongxiang and demanded an apology from the Chinese side for doubting Japans intentions and failing to ratify things. He stated if China did not agree to the alliance, the Nishihara loans would be withheld. Duan Qirui could not stomach that so negotiations recommenced on May 16th and the agreement was signed.  The Sino-Japanese agreement consisted of 12 major articles: The second article establishes the parties of the agreement were equals,;  the third article specified that the Chinese authorities must "try their best" to cooperate with the Japanese military in the relevant regions and prevent them from "experiencing any obstacles" in their operations. The fourth article specified that Japanese troops would be "entirely withdrawn" from Chinese territory at the termination of the war. The seventh article specified the placement of liaison officers in each party's military to facilitate communication between the two parties and specified that both parties must provide whatever resources are required to facilitate their joint defense. As usual, Japan demanded the negotiations be made secret, but it was leaked immediately.  Now back to Paris, China had thus agreed to grant Japan several things and it contradicted what she sought at the peace talks. For one thing, she sought to reclaim the Shandong Peninsula. Back in 1915 Yuan Shikai's government had signed the thirteen-demands, but Wellington Koo argued that it had been an unequal treaty imposed upon China in a moment of weakness.  Wellington Koo, gave an impassioned speech about the importance of Shandong province to China, describing it as "the cradle of Chinese civilization, a Holy Land for the Chinese. It was the birth land of Confucius and Mencius. If Japan was allowed to continue its lease of the Shandong territory, then it would provide the government of Tokyo with a strategic "gateway" to all of north China”. As for the second Sino-Japanese treaty in which China agreed to allow Japan's occupation of Shandong amongst other things, well the Chinese delegation had no idea about this agreement. Yes the delegation team found out about this agreement at Paris, go figure. So yeah it was a pretty big surprise when the Japanese delegation literally read out the treaties signed with Duan Qirui et al, very embarrassing for the Chinese delegation. Then to make matters even worse the Entente powers, specifically Britain and France also acknowledged they had signed secret agreements with Japan giving her the rights to Shandong since she had entered the war to help them. You could hear the sad violin music beginning to play. The Chinese delegation in absolute desperation looked towards the United States for help, hoping Woodrow Wilson's right to self-determination would bend to their favor. Woodrow said Shandong should be given to Japan, probably hoping to add Japan's favor in forming the League of Nations. The global powers then pretty much ignored the Chinese delegation. Hence forth the Chinese felt Woodrow Wilson had betrayed China, though as much as I hate to say it, it really wasn't his fault. He was simply balancing a number of secret agreements made and there were many promising Japan Shandong.  Thus in article 156 of the Treaty of Versailles the official transfer of the Shandong peninsula was given to the Empire of Japan rather than being returned to China. China denounced this transfer stating Shandong was the birthplace of Confucious, the greatest Chinese philosopher and it would be on par to Christians conceding jerusalem. China demanded Shandong Peninsula be returned to China, an abolition of all the privileges afforded to foreign powers in China such as extraterritoriality and to cancel the thirteen demands with the Japanese government. The Western powers refused all of China's demands and dismissed them. As a result Wellington Koo refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles in protest. Thus China was yet again humiliated. Worse, the ongoing news of what was going on at Versailles had caused probably one of the greatest movements in modern Chinese history to be unleashed back home. I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. China was absolutely devastated by the treaty of versailles. Their fractured nation had been the victim of double dealings and now the Shandong problem would plague them for some years. However back home, an incredible movement was quicking up fueled by the anger of students and workers. 

Associated Links: Support unbanked/underbanked regions of the world by joining the "at home in my head" Kiva team at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.kiva.org/team/at_home_in_my_head⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Blog Link: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://harrisees.wordpress.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Podcast: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/XIhI8RpZ4yb⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Youtube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoS6H2R1Or4MtabrkofdOMw⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Mastodon: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://universeodon.com/@athomeinmyhead⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Paypal: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://paypal.me/athomeinmyhead⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Relevant Citations for this EpisodeArticle: Palestine and Britain: forgotten legacy of World War I that devastated the Middle East: https://theconversation.com/palestine-and-britain-forgotten-legacy-of-world-war-i-that-devastated-the-middle-east-106408 The Hebrew Standard, March 4, 1919 Edition PDF: https://www.nli.org.il/en/newspapers/hebstd/1919/03/14/01/article/43/?e=-------en-20--1--img-txIN%7ctxTI--------------1 Text of Petition at dissidentvoice.org: https://dissidentvoice.org/2023/12/statement-to-the-paris-peace-conference-wwi-re-zionism/#easy-footnote-bottom-1-146237 Book: Zionism and the Future of Palestine, The Fallacies and Dangers of Political Zionism: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Zionism_and_the_Future_of_Palestine/-3kLAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22As+a+future+form+of+government+for+Palestine+will+undoubtedly+be+considered+by+the+approaching+Peace+Conference%22&pg=PA151&printsec=frontcover Book: All in a Lifetime, an autobiography of Henry Morgenthau, Sr.: https://archive.org/details/cu31924030912756 Pew Research on American Jews and Zionism: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/u-s-jews-connections-with-and-attitudes-toward-israel/ Times of Israel, article on the Morgenthau family: https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-the-jewish-kennedys-helped-save-200000-jews-in-wwii-and-delayed-iranian-nukes/ The Denver Jewish News, March 19, 1919 Edition, at Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/item/sn91052360/1919-03-19/ed-1/ Download of the research paper “Stateless Citizenship and the Palestinian-Arabs in Israel”, By Shourideh C. Molavi: https://refuge.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/refuge/article/download/32075/29321/ Helpful Resources for understanding the ongoing issues in Gaza Owen Jones: https://www.youtube.com/@OwenJonesTalks Democracy Now: https://www.youtube.com/@DemocracyNow The Thinking Muslim: https://www.youtube.com/@TheThinkingMuslim Haaretz: https://www.youtube.com/@haaretzcom Times of Israel: https://www.youtube.com/@TimesofIsrael Al Jazeera: https://www.youtube.com/@aljazeeraenglish ICJ South African Petition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2vQ7suQWGg ICJ Israeli Response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzpXRmLIECw ICJ Opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjd54s9gVDk&t=5417s TubiTV - offers free documentary content. Visit the site and search for “Palestine” and “Gaza”: https://tubitv.com/home [Recommended: Gaza, Gaza - Health Under Seige, Soraida - A Woman of Palestine, Five Broken Cameras, Arna's Children] Free on Youtube - Award Winning Israeli Director, Shimon Dotan, “The Settlers”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prqtXMSdeUw Music Credits: “Wishful Thinking” – Dan Lebowitz:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOg3zLw7St5V4N7O8HSoQRA⁠ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tracie-harris/support

This Day in Legal History: Paris Peace ConferenceOn this day, January 18, in 1919, a significant chapter in international legal and political history began with the opening of the Paris Peace Conference at Versailles, France. This conference, convened in the aftermath of World War I, was a monumental gathering of the victorious Allied Powers, setting the stage for negotiations that would profoundly reshape the geopolitical landscape of Europe and lay the groundwork for modern international law.Over six months of intense deliberations followed, marking one of the longest and most complex diplomatic events in history. The primary objective was to establish a lasting peace and prevent the recurrence of such a devastating conflict. The leaders of the 'Big Four' – Woodrow Wilson of the United States, David Lloyd George of the United Kingdom, Georges Clemenceau of France, and Vittorio Emanuele Orlando of Italy – played pivotal roles in shaping the Treaty of Versailles.The Treaty of Versailles, signed on June 28, 1919, dramatically redrew the borders of Europe. It imposed severe reparations and territorial losses on Germany, an aspect later criticized for possibly sowing the seeds of World War II. The treaty also resulted in the disbandment of empires, the creation of new nations, and significant territorial adjustments.A landmark outcome of the conference was the establishment of the League of Nations, an intergovernmental organization aimed at ensuring world peace and cooperation. Although the League ultimately failed to prevent another world war, it represented a groundbreaking step towards the development of international organizations and international law.The Paris Peace Conference and the Treaty of Versailles had far-reaching legal implications. They introduced principles of self-determination, held nations accountable for aggression, and set precedents for international diplomacy and conflict resolution. While the conference's decisions were controversial and its impacts debated for decades, its role in shaping the 20th-century legal and political order remains undeniable.On this day, as we reflect on the 105th anniversary of the Paris Peace Conference, we recognize the complex legacy of these efforts to create a lasting peace and their profound impact on international law and global relations.Meta Platforms Inc., the parent company of Facebook, is likely to face additional claims in a lawsuit concerning its Facebook "pixel" tracking tool. This tool is alleged to have violated the health-care privacy of millions by tracking and sharing protected health information without consent. The plaintiffs, anonymous Facebook users from various U.S. states, argue that Meta encouraged health-care providers to install the pixel on their websites, thereby violating federal and state laws. The tool reportedly matches collected information with Facebook user IDs for targeted advertising.Judge William H. Orrick of the US District Court for the Northern District of California found the plaintiffs' invasion of privacy claims under the California Constitution and common law to be plausible, considering the privileged relationship between patients and health-care providers. He also acknowledged potential injuries related to common law trespass to chattels and violation of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act.In a previous ruling, Orrick had dismissed several claims in the plaintiffs' original complaint but rejected Meta's motion to dismiss five other claims. These included breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violations of specific privacy acts.During a hearing on Meta's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, Meta's attorney argued that the content of the plaintiffs' website searches did not reveal sensitive health information sufficient for an invasion of privacy claim. This was based on a Ninth Circuit ruling in a similar case. However, the plaintiffs' attorney countered, citing the Federal Trade Commission's broader definition of health information, which includes data that can infer a consumer's health status.Furthermore, Meta's attorney argued that the intrusion by the Facebook pixel was not significant enough to support the plaintiffs' trespass claims, stating that the alleged harms were minimal. Conversely, the plaintiffs' attorney maintained that under California law, any measurable harm to a computer system can be grounds for a compensable trespass injury, as demonstrated in previous legal cases.The lawsuit, representing a proposed class, includes several law firms on both sides. The case, In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation, continues in the Northern District of California, with ongoing debates over the scope and nature of the alleged privacy violations and damages.Meta Likely to Face Additional Claims in Pixel Health-Care SuitThe Maine State Superior Court has delayed a decision regarding former U.S. President Donald Trump's eligibility for the state's Republican primary ballot, pending a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on a similar case in Colorado. The court's directive, issued by Judge Michaela Murphy, orders Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows to reassess her decision to disqualify Trump within 30 days following the Supreme Court's verdict.Bellows, a Democrat, had determined in December that Trump was ineligible to hold office under a U.S. Constitution provision barring individuals who have engaged in "insurrection or rebellion" from holding office. This decision was based on the allegation that Trump incited an insurrection in an attempt to retain power following his defeat in the 2020 election, highlighted by the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.Trump's spokesperson criticized the disqualification as a "bad-faith sham," while Trump himself appealed the ruling, arguing that Bellows was biased and that he was denied a fair opportunity to defend himself. He has consistently denied engaging in insurrection.The upcoming Supreme Court ruling, with oral arguments scheduled for February 8, is expected to be politically significant. It could potentially clarify the role of state officials and courts in handling ballot challenges under the U.S. Constitution and might resolve the issue nationwide.Maine and Colorado are currently the only states to have disqualified Trump under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Courts and election officials in several other states have rejected similar challenges to Trump's candidacy. Proponents of Trump's disqualification argue that enforcing the constitutional provision supports democratic values, while Trump and his supporters view these efforts as undemocratic election interference. Maine's primary is set for March 5, adding urgency to the Supreme Court's impending decision.Maine court puts Trump ballot decision on hold until after Supreme Court acts | ReutersThe U.S. Justice Department is set to release a report on the delayed police response to the 2022 Uvalde, Texas school shooting, which resulted in the deaths of 19 children and two teachers. Initiated at the request of Uvalde's mayor just days after the tragedy at Robb Elementary School, this report is part of the department's "Critical Incident Review." The police response faced severe criticism for the officers' prolonged wait in a hallway while the gunman was active in a classroom, despite receiving desperate 911 calls from students.In July 2022, a report by Texas lawmakers described an "atmosphere of chaos" at the scene and criticized law enforcement for not prioritizing the lives of victims. The Justice Department's review, led by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services with support from external experts in emergency management and school safety, aims to provide an independent analysis and draw lessons for future mass shooting responses.Attorney General Merrick Garland and other top Justice Department officials visited Uvalde on Wednesday, touring a mural memorializing the victims ahead of the report's release. This report is expected to shed light on the law enforcement actions during the shooting and offer insights for handling similar incidents in the future.US Justice Dept to release report on Uvalde school shooting response | ReutersApple Inc. announced that it will remove the blood oxygen monitoring feature from two of its flagship Apple Watch models in the U.S., the Series 9 and Ultra 2, as a result of an ongoing legal battle over patent infringement with medical technology company Masimo. This decision comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against Apple selling these models. The issue stemmed from a December decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which ordered a halt to the imports of the devices following a complaint by Masimo.Masimo accused Apple of stealing its pulse oximetry technology and poaching its employees to use in Apple Watches. The ITC initially imposed an import ban on the affected Apple Watch models, but the Federal Circuit briefly lifted this ban while considering Apple's request for a long-term pause. Apple resumed sales of the smartwatches shortly after the temporary lift of the ban.Apple has expressed strong disagreement with the ITC's decision and is seeking to reverse it. Meanwhile, existing Apple Watches and devices sold outside the United States are not affected by the order. The Series 9 and Ultra 2 models sold in the U.S. from Thursday will still display an app icon for the blood oxygen features, but upon accessing, users will be informed that the feature is unavailable.The legal dispute is expected to take months to resolve, during which time Apple has requested the ban be kept on hold. The company argues that maintaining the ban would harm not only Apple but also its suppliers and the public. Apple's wearables, home, and accessory segment, which includes the Apple Watch, is a significant part of its revenue, making the outcome of this legal battle crucial for the company.Apple to sell some watches without blood oxygen feature after US court ruling | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Tina Peresunko is a founder of the Leontovych Institute and author of the book “100 Years of Ukraine`s Cultural Diplomacy – Shchedryk's World's triumph”. Topics include: • "Shchedryk is much more than a Christmas song. It's a politically significant song for Ukrainians." • "The appearance of Shchedryk in Ukraine in 1916 is linked to the historical context of the collapse of the Russian Empire during World War I." • "This song became a tool for cultural diplomacy, promoting international recognition of Ukrainian statehood during the Paris Peace Conference in 1922." • "The song faced challenges during the Soviet era, as it was suppressed and misrepresented as a Russian folk song, leading to the murder of the composer, Mykola Leontovych." • "The history of Shchedryk is an example of Ukrainian soft power, showcasing the country's cultural diplomacy and historical significance."

Hello Interactors,Part 2 talks about the failures of borders, some recent alarming and revealing data about America's ‘shared identity', and some potential paths toward embracing the shaky state of states.Let's get into it…NEWLY PROMISED LANDSPart 1 left us at the Paris Peace Conference and Western-style cartographic geo-political mandates. Amidst these mandates was an admission by one leader that these arrangements would need subsequent alterations. Take this quote, for example:“There are many complicated questions connected with the present settlements which perhaps can not be successfully worked out to an ultimate issue by the decisions we shall arrive at here. I can easily conceive that many of these settlements will need subsequent reconsideration, that many of the decisions we make shall need subsequent alteration in some degree; for, if I may judge by my own study of some of these questions, they are not susceptible of confident judgments at present.”These are the words of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson in January of 1919 at the Paris Peace Conference. Sadly, ‘subsequent alterations' over the last century have proven a tougher challenge than Wilson may have fully appreciated. Whether his intentions were noble or not, rigidly draw borders on maps are obviously failing to truly encapsulate and represent the diverse and multifaceted spectrum of human communities — especially in a world where the negative effects of climate change know no such borders. Could it be that identities and experiences resist being neatly delineated by Cartesian maps inherently based on political philosophies steeped in Cartesian dualities? Is it conceivable that nations and nation-states should not be confined to a singular, homogeneous identity? Perhaps they are incapable of such definition. It may be these concepts have reached their limits. A suggestion that can compound feelings of uncertainty about what lies ahead in tumultuous times. This discomfort drives many to search for past eras that seemed more safe and certain — a time when there appeared to be a common shared national identity. The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) seeks such shared identities among those living in the United States in their annual ‘American Values Survey.' It's one of the more respected surveys offering a pulse on American views of religion, culture, and politics. They recently released their 2023 results which can serve as one pulse on national identity. They project, based on their statistically valid sample, that“Three in ten Americans (31%) agree that ‘God intended America to be a new promised land where European Christians could create a society that could be an example to the rest of the world. Just less than half of Republicans (49%) agree with this, compared with 26% of independents and only 18% of Democrats.”PRRI data also reveals,“Those who most trust conservative media (66%) and Fox News (54%) among television news sources are much more likely than those who choose no television source (29%) or mainstream media sources (24%) to agree that God intended America to be a new promised land.” “Two-thirds of Republicans (66%) believe things have changed for the worse since the 1950s, compared with half of independents (50%) and only 30% of Democrats.”The 1950s are often remembered as a time of economic prosperity, cultural growth, and the rise of the middle class in America. This era is seen as the embodiment of the 'American Dream,' with a booming post-World War II economy, expanding consumer culture, and significant advancements in technology and suburban living. The period is characterized by strong family values, community cohesion, and distinct gender roles, often contrasted with the rapid social changes and complexities of modern life. Television, automobiles, and household appliances symbolize this era's progress and American ingenuity, reflecting a sense of unity and optimism about the United States' role in the world.However, this romanticized view of the 1950s overlooks many critical social and political issues of the time, including racial segregation, gender inequality, and the fear and paranoia of McCarthyism. The decade, while remembered for its strong leadership and perceived lack of political division, also faced significant challenges. The popular nostalgia for this era often represents a simplified and selective interpretation, failing to fully recognize the complexities and struggles that defined the 1950s, and inadvertently promoting a cartoonish, oversimplified version of history.This difference in opinion is increasingly leading more Americans to embrace violence as a means of establishing a ‘shared identity.'“Americans who believe that the country has changed for the worse since the 1950s are more than twice as likely as those who say that it has changed for the better to agree that true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country (30% vs. 14%).”MAPPING THE AMORPHOUSThe idea “that God intended America to be a new promised land” is what many believe is the ‘shared identity' representing the nation-state of America. It's derivative of visions across centuries of European expansionism and colonialism prior to dominance of the United States of America as a nation and economic juggernaut.Just as feudalism marked the beginning of a new social order and the political-economic apparatus of the nation-state, I wonder if our modern-day lords of geopolitical economic power are similarly controlling the toiling vassals and serfs — especially in regions with particularly low-wage labor. The modern-day dynamics between the economically dominant Western and Northern Hemispheres offer metaphors to feudalism. Much like the concentration of wealth among feudal lords, powerful nations hold a significant portion of global wealth and resources, leading to pronounced economic disparities with less developed areas. This situation mirrors the decentralized power structure of feudal times, where today's global landscape is fragmented, with Western and Northern countries wielding substantial influence, creating varying levels of power and development worldwide.The strong economic and political alliances within these hemispheres, akin to feudal loyalties to local lords, often exacerbate global divisions leading to patterns of regional allegiances and wider communal divides.Furthermore, the influence exerted by these dominant regions over global policies, economic trends, and cultural norms is reminiscent of the control feudal lords had over their territories. They shape international trade, governance, and cultural exchanges in ways that echo the hierarchical and power-centric nature of feudal societies. This power and dominance, under the guise of a ‘shared identity' is then used as leverage in exchange for military and monetary protection for survival.Survival was very much on the minds of those living through the 15th-17th centuries. Generation after generation witnessed catastrophic meteorological events brought on by the Little Ice Age. This had devastating impacts on people around the world and played a significant role in shaping the social, political, and economic structures that followed. Might we be on the verge of a new world order?Survival is also on the minds of those suffering the travesties of wars nation-state border disputes create. Including those living the through the lead up to and aftermath of World War I and World War II. I wonder how those feelings of uncertainty compare to feelings of uncertainty today. Scholar, podcaster, and fellow Substack writer Christopher Hobson recently reflected on quotes from intellectuals struggling to make sense of the aftermath of World War I and II. Here's a quote from the 1922 Austrian writer, Robert Musil, in his book ‘Helpless Europe: A Digressive Journey' that could just as easily be written today.“And so we arrive at the present day. The life that surrounds us is devoid of ordering concepts.”Cartesian maps of nation-states are politically charged, legally binding ordering concepts, but their certainty is imagined. When Woodrow Wilson cautioned the agreements at the Paris Peace Conference are "not susceptible of confident judgments" he was suggesting the matters in question were too intricate, uncertain, or evolving to allow for definitive, confident decisions. Wilson is indicating that, due to the complexity and fluidity of the issues, any judgments or decisions made during the conference might be provisional and subject to change.Let's consider some alternatives traditional mapping of nation-states.* Could psychogeographic maps, reflecting the emotional landscapes of diverse groups, provide a more nuanced understanding of human geography? * Perhaps powerful nations and states should be leading exercises in participatory mapping offering communities themselves more accurate and meaningful representations of their own spaces and identities. * Maybe counter-mapping or decolonial mapping practices that challenge the established narratives and power structures inherent in traditional cartography could offer new perspectives to those so sure of a ‘shared identity'? * Critical Geographic Information Science can reveal underlying patterns of inequality and socio-political dynamics commonly overlooked, shifting conceptions of what could be? * And in a world increasingly influenced by feminist perspectives, how might feminist cartography reshape our understanding of spaces and places, especially in relation to gender dynamics?These questions, rooted in the alternatives to Cartesian cartography, invite us to consider new paradigms in mapping and understanding of human geography. They are emerging as new tools just as anthropography was emerging at the time of the Paris Peace Agreements.We are clearly in need of a new shared understanding that could offer new directions in our politics, economics, and global societies, but we should heed the advice of Woodrow Wilson and be cautious of our confidence.Christopher Hobson encourages mindfulness and carefulness as we attempt to make sense of what comes next. He suggests we “…resist the lure of comfortable frames and easy explanations, and instead to fully reckon with ‘the brittleness of the world' and what potentialities might be present in these conditions.”Perhaps it's best to embrace the shaky state of states and the ambiguity of the unknown as we try to make sense of the state of our world. As Hobson offers,“The post-Cold War era has passed, (hyper)globalization has peaked, the unipolar moment has finished, neoliberalism has perhaps entered its zombie phase.”We live in…“A time defined by what it is no longer, what is ‘not quite here, but yet at hand'.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

Hello Interactors,There's a lot of talk of states these days. Palestine and Israel, one state or two? Ukraine and Russia. One state or two? The United States. E pluribus unum. Out of many, one…right? What about that one D.C. federal district, or those five territories, and a bunch of ‘minor' islands? And don't forget the many tribal nations within the nation-state of the United States which can often spread across many state borders!  I started writing about all this and it got long, so I'm broke it two. Ex uno plures, from one, many. I suppose there's a lesson in all this. No matter how fixed a given state of affairs may appear, we have to be prepared for bifurcations and reconfigurations.Let's dig in!THE RISE OF STATESI easily confuse states with nations. Nations are loosely defined as a group of people with a shared identity. A nation-state is a political structure represented by a territorial boundary claiming to contain a common identity. I used the words ‘loosely' and ‘claim' because so many territorially bounded areas or nations contain a multitude of identities. The United States, a notoriously diverse country, is a great example.Nations and nation-states seem to have chicken-and-egg origin story. I believe those who claim the nation-state rose out of folks like those early European colonizers. Fueled by the thought of amassing wealth, land, and power once only believed to be wrangled by feudal lords and monarchs, influential and enterprising European intellectually ‘entlightened' elites pooled their resources and got to work.The idea of a nation-state, and their bordered geographic territories, began to take shape through 14th-17th century Europe. The late Middle Ages and the rising Renaissance witnessed a gradual decline of feudalism and the rise of centralized monarchies who were incented to consolidate power within defined territorial boundaries. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years' War in Europe, is often cited as a key moment in the history of nations as it established the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity fundamental to the nation-state concept.The 18th and 19th centuries saw the rise of nationalism, a significant driving force behind the nation-state concept. Nationalism emphasized a shared identity based on language, culture, and ethnicity, often aligned with a specific geographic territory. The French Revolution (1789–1799) and the subsequent Napoleonic Wars accelerated the spread of these ideas across Europe.Language invention and reconstitution burgeoned across Europe. One example is from 1820 Finland. Born out of an interest in Finnish tradition and culture a groundswell of nationalism by Finnish writers, teachers, pastors, and attorneys took hold. They stitched together their collective past stories and dialects and published dictionaries and grammar guides that differentiated them from the Swedes. This forged a more confident and self-determined government and national identity defined by their borders and their language.In 1819 the first publication of Ukrainian grammar was printed. Russian grammar was defined just 17 years prior. By 1830 more Ukrainian writers were published in their native language. This is the date that established the language as a bonding element of Ukrainian nationalism. In 1846 the first Ukrainian nationalist organization was founded. And not by a politician with a sovereign agenda, but by a historian.The 19th century also saw the unification of various nation-states. Notable examples include the unification of Italy in the 1860s and Germany in the 1870s. These unifications were driven by shared cultural, linguistic, and ethnic identities, as well as by political and economic interests.It took Germany just 40 years to rise as a dominant and powerful nation-state in Europe. This led to tensions around Europe, especially with France and Britain. But it was a Serbian nationalist group and their assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary in 1914 that triggered war. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia and Europe erupted into World War I.  The United States entered the war in 1917, in part fearing a potential alliance between neighboring Mexico and Germany. This was also the same year they began preparing for peace agreements and the redistricting of territories of nation-states.In 1918 U.S. President Woodrow Wilson boarded a ship for Paris bringing with him a team of cartographers to create materials for the Paris Peace Conference. This included chief cartographer Mark Sylvester William Jefferson who had invented a form of thematic mapping based on ethnography, demography, and population distribution called anthropography.Comfortable with nearly thirteen languages, he and a team of ethnographers, linguists, and anthropologists set up offices in a Paris hotel. They drew convincing maps used by Wilson and his allies to sell other world leaders on the formation of nation-states that would best serve their interests. U.S. interest in one of those nation-states invented in Paris remains today — Ukraine.DIVIDE AND CONQUER, ALLIED BY RANCOROut of this conference emerged the first worldwide intergovernmental organization, the League of Nations. With it came a set of treaties that shifted power principally to the United States, Great Britain, and France while mandating political power to newly drawn, U.S. directed, and ethnically and linguistically determined nation-state maps.Just four years after the formation of the League of Nations, in 1923, the League of Nations turned their attention to the Middle East declaring Palestine a state. A British mandate, it was based on a cartographic line originally drawn in 1906 by the British and the French between Palestine and Egypt. This was the first internationally recognized boundary in the Middle East.Having already colonized Egypt as part of their growing empire, England then wanted control of the Suez Canal. So they invented another border that awarded them the Sinai Peninsula. Then, in 1916, the English and French met in secret to create a dividing line between Egypt and Turkey. They decided Egypt would go to England and Turkey would go to France. Four years later they determined Lebanon and Syria would go to France, and Palestine and Mesopotamia to England.It took the end of the second World War in 1947 for the League of Nations, now rebranded the United Nations, to recommend a plan to divide Palestine into two “independent Jewish and Arab states.”The Jewish organization that had long been helping resettle the area begrudgingly accepted the proposal, but most of the Arab contingent did not. In 1948 the British mandate expired, hundreds of Palestinians were expelled, 78% of the land was handed to Israel, and before the year was up the region had their first Arab-Israeli war. And here, again, like in Ukraine, today we have borders and states defined by the West roiled in controversy and war.History reveals how European and American colonialism spread the concept of the nation-state globally. And economics were a central theme. Local and regional agrarian and mercantile economies of the 17th century led to regional specialization, with certain areas developing specific industries based on their geographic advantages. This specialization then influenced economic structures within nation-states and their interactions with other states. Those with common religion, language, or cultures conspired against the ‘others'.Natural resource acquisition, deprivation, and distribution brought needs for trade routes and resource accessibility at a time when the world was being both mapped and explored by Europeans. Geographic features that facilitated or hindered trade, such as rivers, seas, mountains, and plains, all impact the development and power of nation-states. For example, access to trade routes along the Dnieper River has played a critical role in trade and distribution from Greece to Kiev dating all the way back to the first millennium BC.The Suez Canal was built it in the late 1800s by the French and remains an important international trade route to this day. The industrial revolution and subsequent urbanization and modernization that followed all hinge on economic geography. And its nation-state status that awards a nation's entry into competing and cooperating or demoralizing and destroying.I'd like to think cartographers like Jefferson, and social scientists like him, were well-intentioned and hopeful they could use human identities forged from language, culture, ethnicity, race, creed, or tribes to empower and protect vulnerable peoples politically and socially. Perhaps they believed these cartographic mandates, sensitive to human geography, could lead to peaceful and eternal coexistence.But it seems fictitious fixed borders drawn on a map fail to convey, capture, and contain the amorphous and pluralistic panoply of peoples. Maybe identities can't be drawn by a Cartesian map using political philosophies rooted in Cartesian dualities. Maybe nations and nation-states shouldn't be defined by one common shared identity. Maybe they can't. Maybe these concepts have run their course and we don't yet know what comes next. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

In an extended version of the programme that was broadcast, Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the influential book John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1919 after he resigned in protest from his role at the Paris Peace Conference. There the victors of World War One were deciding the fate of the defeated, especially Germany and Austria-Hungary, and Keynes wanted the world to know his view that the economic consequences would be disastrous for all. Soon Germany used his book to support their claim that the Treaty was grossly unfair, a sentiment that fed into British appeasement in the 1930s and has since prompted debate over whether Keynes had only warned of disaster or somehow contributed to it. With Margaret MacMillan Emeritus Professor of International History at the University of Oxford Michael Cox Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Founding Director of LSE IDEAS And Patricia Clavin Professor of Modern History at the University of Oxford Producer: Simon Tillotson Reading list: Manfred F. Boemeke, Gerald D. Feldman and Elisabeth Glaser (eds.), The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years (Cambridge University Press, 1998) Zachary D. Carter, The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy and the Life of John Maynard Keynes (Random House, 2020) Peter Clarke, Keynes: The Twentieth Century's Most Influential Economist (Bloomsbury, 2009) Patricia Clavin et al (eds.), Keynes's Economic Consequences of the Peace after 100 Years: Polemics and Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2023) Patricia Clavin, ‘Britain and the Making of Global Order after 1919: The Ben Pimlott Memorial Lecture' (Twentieth Century British History, Vol. 31:3, 2020) Richard Davenport-Hines, Universal Man; The Seven Lives of John Maynard Keynes (William Collins, 2015) R. F. Harrod, John Maynard Keynes (first published 1951; Pelican, 1972) Jens Holscher and Matthias Klaes (eds), Keynes's Economic Consequences of the Peace: A Reappraisal (Pickering & Chatto, 2014) John Maynard Keynes (with an introduction by Michael Cox), The Economic Consequences of the Peace (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019) Margaret MacMillan, Peacemakers: Six Months that Changed the World (John Murray Publishers, 2001) Etienne Mantoux, The Carthaginian Peace or the Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes (Oxford University Press, 1946) D. E. Moggridge, Maynard Keynes: An Economist's Biography (Routledge, 1992) Alan Sharp, Versailles 1919: A Centennial Perspective (Haus Publishing Ltd, 2018) Robert Skidelsky, John Maynard Keynes, 1883-1946 (Pan Macmillan, 2004) Jürgen Tampke, A Perfidious Distortion of History: The Versailles Peace Treaty and the Success of the Nazis (Scribe UK, 2017) Adam Tooze, The Deluge: The Great War, America and the Remaking of the Global Order, 1916-1931 (Penguin Books, 2015)

In an extended version of the programme that was broadcast, Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the influential book John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1919 after he resigned in protest from his role at the Paris Peace Conference. There the victors of World War One were deciding the fate of the defeated, especially Germany and Austria-Hungary, and Keynes wanted the world to know his view that the economic consequences would be disastrous for all. Soon Germany used his book to support their claim that the Treaty was grossly unfair, a sentiment that fed into British appeasement in the 1930s and has since prompted debate over whether Keynes had only warned of disaster or somehow contributed to it. With Margaret MacMillan Emeritus Professor of International History at the University of Oxford Michael Cox Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Founding Director of LSE IDEAS And Patricia Clavin Professor of Modern History at the University of Oxford Producer: Simon Tillotson Reading list: Manfred F. Boemeke, Gerald D. Feldman and Elisabeth Glaser (eds.), The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years (Cambridge University Press, 1998) Zachary D. Carter, The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy and the Life of John Maynard Keynes (Random House, 2020) Peter Clarke, Keynes: The Twentieth Century's Most Influential Economist (Bloomsbury, 2009) Patricia Clavin et al (eds.), Keynes's Economic Consequences of the Peace after 100 Years: Polemics and Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2023) Patricia Clavin, ‘Britain and the Making of Global Order after 1919: The Ben Pimlott Memorial Lecture' (Twentieth Century British History, Vol. 31:3, 2020) Richard Davenport-Hines, Universal Man; The Seven Lives of John Maynard Keynes (William Collins, 2015) R. F. Harrod, John Maynard Keynes (first published 1951; Pelican, 1972) Jens Holscher and Matthias Klaes (eds), Keynes's Economic Consequences of the Peace: A Reappraisal (Pickering & Chatto, 2014) John Maynard Keynes (with an introduction by Michael Cox), The Economic Consequences of the Peace (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019) Margaret MacMillan, Peacemakers: Six Months that Changed the World (John Murray Publishers, 2001) Etienne Mantoux, The Carthaginian Peace or the Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes (Oxford University Press, 1946) D. E. Moggridge, Maynard Keynes: An Economist's Biography (Routledge, 1992) Alan Sharp, Versailles 1919: A Centennial Perspective (Haus Publishing Ltd, 2018) Robert Skidelsky, John Maynard Keynes, 1883-1946 (Pan Macmillan, 2004) Jürgen Tampke, A Perfidious Distortion of History: The Versailles Peace Treaty and the Success of the Nazis (Scribe UK, 2017) Adam Tooze, The Deluge: The Great War, America and the Remaking of the Global Order, 1916-1931 (Penguin Books, 2015)

Join historian us on a journey into the intricate world of international politics during the aftermath of World War I in the latest episode of the Explaining History Podcast. In this episode, titled "Anglo-American Liberalism and the Mandate System 1918-1919," we delve into the clash between imperial ambitions, paternalism, and the ideals of Wilsonian internationalism.We will unravel the complex dynamics that unfolded at the Paris Peace Conference, where the victors of the war convened to shape the post-war world order. Focusing on the pivotal issue of mandates, we explore how Britain and France's imperial aspirations had to contend with the emerging influence of American and British liberalism.Throughout the episode, we navigate the ideological fault lines that emerged during the negotiations, as the imperial powers sought to maintain their dominance while grappling with the principles of self-determination and the promotion of democracy advocated by President Woodrow Wilson.We delve into the historical context that shaped the mandates system, a compromise between imperial control and the call for national sovereignty. This episode sheds light on the motivations and tensions that guided the decision-making process, highlighting the delicate balance between promoting stability and safeguarding the interests of indigenous populations.With meticulous research and expert analysis, we explore the impact of the mandates system on various regions, including the Middle East and Africa. We examine how this system created a unique blend of imperial rule and international oversight, setting the stage for future struggles and complexities in these territories.This episode examines the legacy of Anglo-American liberalism and its enduring influence on global politics. We discuss the tensions between self-interest, paternalism, and the ideals of a liberal international order, shedding light on the lasting implications of this pivotal moment in history.By the end of this captivating episode, listeners will gain a deep understanding of the intricate web of competing ideologies and interests that shaped the mandates system and its aftermath. We unveil the complexities of Anglo-American liberalism, imperial ambitions, and the ideals of Wilsonian internationalism during this transformative period.Tune in to the Explaining History Podcast and join us as we explore the fascinating clash of ideologies, the creation of the mandates system, and the lasting impact of these historical developments on our modern world. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/explaininghistory. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The complicated relationship that existed between the United States and its Soviet advisory, Joseph Stalin, was one that changed with almost every shift in the global climate of the 1930s and 1940s. From defending the eastern front from Adolf Hitler's advances in World War II to the negotiating table of the Paris Peace Conference, few leaders from history have had a more divisive legacy in our nation's past than Stalin, himself. The dictator that most historians accredit with killing more than 20 million people is the same leader whose forces altered the course of war with his unwavering defense of the Russian city of Stalingrad. By 1947, however, with the ushering in of the Cold War, it was undeniable that Joseph Stalin was the primary communist opponent that the United States government had to concern itself with. Therefore, upon his death in 1953, U.S. foreign policy makers waited with baited breath on who his successor would be and what this would mean for the American people. Go to ⁠⁠⁠The Missing Chapter Podcast website⁠⁠⁠ for more information, previous episodes, and professional development opportunities. ⁠⁠⁠Click here⁠⁠⁠ to send us a voice message of your name, where you're from, what your favorite MC story is and be featured on an upcoming episode! Don't forget to click subscribe! --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/themissingchapter/support

Quizmasters Lee and Marc meet for a trivia quiz with topics including Medical Terms, Art, Anatomy, Geography, History, Martial Arts, Music and more! Round One MEDICAL TERMS - Rubeola and morbilli are technical terms for which childhood illness? ART - In 1964, Andy Warhol produced a detail-perfect replica of a box containing what brand of scouring soap pad? U.S. SUPREME COURT - Who is the longest serving Justice currently on the Supreme Court? ANATOMY - What long bone is located next to the tibia in the human body? U.S. GEOGRAPHY - Lake Havasu is a man-made reservoir that is on the border of what two western states? GOLF RULES - In golf, what common practice is barred from competitive play that allows a golfer to take a second shot without penalty? Round Two EXOTIC FRUITS - What is the largest tree fruit in the world, is the national fruit of Bangladesh and is believed to be good for one's immune system and eyesight? NFL - What player holds the record for the most NFL MVPs with 5 (winning in 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009 and 2013)? WORLD HISTORY - Which intergovernmental organization was formed by the Paris Peace Conference in 1920, who's principal mission was to maintain world peace? MARTIAL ARTS - What Japanese form of martial arts name means "gentle way"? POP MUSIC - Aside from their native language of Korean, BTS has released a second discography (of four full-length albums and 10 singles) in what language? BUSINESS - What automobile manufacturer started as a maker of automatic looms in 1924? Rate My Question GEOGRAPHY - Which island (with a population of just over 100,000 people) lends its name to a type of clothing, a type of livestock, a candy bar and a US state? Final Questions U.S. GOVERNMENT - According to the 22nd Amendment of the United States Constitution, the service of a President is capped at how many years maximum? ATARI GAMES - Not having secured the rights to the Jaws name from Universal Studios, Atari added what word in tiny print to the name of their unlicensed game before its 1975 debut (which sold approximately 2,000 units)? Upcoming LIVE Know Nonsense Trivia Challenges May 10th, 2023 - Point Ybel Brewing Co. - 7:30 pm EST May 11th, 2023 - Ollie's Pub Records and Beer - 7:30 pm EST May 27th, 2023 - Theme Trivia - Ollie's Pub - 6:00 pm EST June 3rd, 2023 - Trashy TV Trivia - Point Ybel Brewing Co. - 6:00 pm EST You can find out more information about that and all of our live events online at KnowNonsenseTrivia.com All of the Know Nonsense events are free to play and you can win prizes after every round. Thank you Thanks to our supporters on Patreon. Thank you, Quizdaddies – Gil, Tim, Tommy, Adam, Brandon, Blake, Spencer, Rick G Thank you, Team Captains – Kristin & Fletcher, Aaron, Matthew, David Holbrook, Lydia, Skyler, Hayden Thank you, Proverbial Lightkeepers – Elyse, Kaitlynn, Frank, Trent, Nina, Justin, Katie, Ryan, Robb, Captain Nick, Grant, Ian, Tim Gomez, Rachael, Moo, Rikki, Nabeel, Jon Lewis, Adam, Lisa, Spencer, Hank, Justin P., Cooper, Sarah, Karly, Lucas, Mike K., Cole, Adam, Caitlyn H, Sam, Spencer, Stephen, Cameron, Clay, JB, Joshua, James, Paul Thank you, Rumplesnailtskins – Mike J., Mike C., Efren, Steven, Kenya, Dallas, Issa, Paige, Allison, Kevin & Sara, Alex, Loren, MJ, HBomb, Aaron, Laurel, FoxenV, Sarah, Edsicalz, Megan, brandon, Chris, Alec, Sai, Tim, Andrea, Ian, Aunt Kiki, Clay, Littlestoflambs, Seth, Bill, Marc P., Holgast, Nora, Joe, Emily, Andrew H. If you'd like to support the podcast and gain access to bonus content, please visit http://theknowno.com and click "Support."

Fire and Rain: Nixon, Kissinger, and the Wars in Southeast Asia (Oxford UP, 2023) is a compelling, meticulous narrative of the way national security decisions formed at the highest levels of government affect the lives of individuals at home and abroad. By drawing these connections, Carolyn Woods Eisenberg brings to life policy decisions about Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, conveying their significance to a new generation of readers. She breaks fresh ground in contextualizing Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger's decisions within a wider institutional and societal framework. While recognizing the distinctive personalities and ideas of these two men, this study more broadly conveys the competing roles and impact of the professional military, the Congress, and a mobilized peace movement. Drawing upon a vast collection of declassified documents, Eisenberg presents an important re-interpretation of the Nixon Administration's relations with the Soviet Union and China vis a vis the war in Southeast Asia. She argues that in their desperate effort to overcome, or at least overshadow, their failure in Vietnam, Nixon and Kissinger made major concessions to both nations in the field of arms control, their response to the India-Pakistan war, and the diplomacy surrounding Taiwan--much of this secret. Despite policymakers' claims that the Vietnam War was a "national security" necessity that would demonstrate American strength to the communist superpowers and "credibility" to friendly governments, the historical record suggests a different reality. A half-century after the Paris Peace Conference marking the withdrawal of US troops and advisors from Vietnam and foreign troops from Laos and Cambodia, Fire and Rain is a dramatic account of geopolitical decision making, civil society, and the human toll of the war on the people of Southeast Asia. AJ Woodhams hosts the "War Books" podcast. You can subscribe on Apple here and on Spotify here. War Books is on YouTube, Facebook and Instagram. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Fire and Rain: Nixon, Kissinger, and the Wars in Southeast Asia (Oxford UP, 2023) is a compelling, meticulous narrative of the way national security decisions formed at the highest levels of government affect the lives of individuals at home and abroad. By drawing these connections, Carolyn Woods Eisenberg brings to life policy decisions about Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, conveying their significance to a new generation of readers. She breaks fresh ground in contextualizing Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger's decisions within a wider institutional and societal framework. While recognizing the distinctive personalities and ideas of these two men, this study more broadly conveys the competing roles and impact of the professional military, the Congress, and a mobilized peace movement. Drawing upon a vast collection of declassified documents, Eisenberg presents an important re-interpretation of the Nixon Administration's relations with the Soviet Union and China vis a vis the war in Southeast Asia. She argues that in their desperate effort to overcome, or at least overshadow, their failure in Vietnam, Nixon and Kissinger made major concessions to both nations in the field of arms control, their response to the India-Pakistan war, and the diplomacy surrounding Taiwan--much of this secret. Despite policymakers' claims that the Vietnam War was a "national security" necessity that would demonstrate American strength to the communist superpowers and "credibility" to friendly governments, the historical record suggests a different reality. A half-century after the Paris Peace Conference marking the withdrawal of US troops and advisors from Vietnam and foreign troops from Laos and Cambodia, Fire and Rain is a dramatic account of geopolitical decision making, civil society, and the human toll of the war on the people of Southeast Asia. AJ Woodhams hosts the "War Books" podcast. You can subscribe on Apple here and on Spotify here. War Books is on YouTube, Facebook and Instagram. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Fire and Rain: Nixon, Kissinger, and the Wars in Southeast Asia (Oxford UP, 2023) is a compelling, meticulous narrative of the way national security decisions formed at the highest levels of government affect the lives of individuals at home and abroad. By drawing these connections, Carolyn Woods Eisenberg brings to life policy decisions about Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, conveying their significance to a new generation of readers. She breaks fresh ground in contextualizing Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger's decisions within a wider institutional and societal framework. While recognizing the distinctive personalities and ideas of these two men, this study more broadly conveys the competing roles and impact of the professional military, the Congress, and a mobilized peace movement. Drawing upon a vast collection of declassified documents, Eisenberg presents an important re-interpretation of the Nixon Administration's relations with the Soviet Union and China vis a vis the war in Southeast Asia. She argues that in their desperate effort to overcome, or at least overshadow, their failure in Vietnam, Nixon and Kissinger made major concessions to both nations in the field of arms control, their response to the India-Pakistan war, and the diplomacy surrounding Taiwan--much of this secret. Despite policymakers' claims that the Vietnam War was a "national security" necessity that would demonstrate American strength to the communist superpowers and "credibility" to friendly governments, the historical record suggests a different reality. A half-century after the Paris Peace Conference marking the withdrawal of US troops and advisors from Vietnam and foreign troops from Laos and Cambodia, Fire and Rain is a dramatic account of geopolitical decision making, civil society, and the human toll of the war on the people of Southeast Asia. AJ Woodhams hosts the "War Books" podcast. You can subscribe on Apple here and on Spotify here. War Books is on YouTube, Facebook and Instagram. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history

Fire and Rain: Nixon, Kissinger, and the Wars in Southeast Asia (Oxford UP, 2023) is a compelling, meticulous narrative of the way national security decisions formed at the highest levels of government affect the lives of individuals at home and abroad. By drawing these connections, Carolyn Woods Eisenberg brings to life policy decisions about Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, conveying their significance to a new generation of readers. She breaks fresh ground in contextualizing Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger's decisions within a wider institutional and societal framework. While recognizing the distinctive personalities and ideas of these two men, this study more broadly conveys the competing roles and impact of the professional military, the Congress, and a mobilized peace movement. Drawing upon a vast collection of declassified documents, Eisenberg presents an important re-interpretation of the Nixon Administration's relations with the Soviet Union and China vis a vis the war in Southeast Asia. She argues that in their desperate effort to overcome, or at least overshadow, their failure in Vietnam, Nixon and Kissinger made major concessions to both nations in the field of arms control, their response to the India-Pakistan war, and the diplomacy surrounding Taiwan--much of this secret. Despite policymakers' claims that the Vietnam War was a "national security" necessity that would demonstrate American strength to the communist superpowers and "credibility" to friendly governments, the historical record suggests a different reality. A half-century after the Paris Peace Conference marking the withdrawal of US troops and advisors from Vietnam and foreign troops from Laos and Cambodia, Fire and Rain is a dramatic account of geopolitical decision making, civil society, and the human toll of the war on the people of Southeast Asia. AJ Woodhams hosts the "War Books" podcast. You can subscribe on Apple here and on Spotify here. War Books is on YouTube, Facebook and Instagram. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Fire and Rain: Nixon, Kissinger, and the Wars in Southeast Asia (Oxford UP, 2023) is a compelling, meticulous narrative of the way national security decisions formed at the highest levels of government affect the lives of individuals at home and abroad. By drawing these connections, Carolyn Woods Eisenberg brings to life policy decisions about Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, conveying their significance to a new generation of readers. She breaks fresh ground in contextualizing Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger's decisions within a wider institutional and societal framework. While recognizing the distinctive personalities and ideas of these two men, this study more broadly conveys the competing roles and impact of the professional military, the Congress, and a mobilized peace movement. Drawing upon a vast collection of declassified documents, Eisenberg presents an important re-interpretation of the Nixon Administration's relations with the Soviet Union and China vis a vis the war in Southeast Asia. She argues that in their desperate effort to overcome, or at least overshadow, their failure in Vietnam, Nixon and Kissinger made major concessions to both nations in the field of arms control, their response to the India-Pakistan war, and the diplomacy surrounding Taiwan--much of this secret. Despite policymakers' claims that the Vietnam War was a "national security" necessity that would demonstrate American strength to the communist superpowers and "credibility" to friendly governments, the historical record suggests a different reality. A half-century after the Paris Peace Conference marking the withdrawal of US troops and advisors from Vietnam and foreign troops from Laos and Cambodia, Fire and Rain is a dramatic account of geopolitical decision making, civil society, and the human toll of the war on the people of Southeast Asia. AJ Woodhams hosts the "War Books" podcast. You can subscribe on Apple here and on Spotify here. War Books is on YouTube, Facebook and Instagram. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

Fire and Rain: Nixon, Kissinger, and the Wars in Southeast Asia (Oxford UP, 2023) is a compelling, meticulous narrative of the way national security decisions formed at the highest levels of government affect the lives of individuals at home and abroad. By drawing these connections, Carolyn Woods Eisenberg brings to life policy decisions about Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, conveying their significance to a new generation of readers. She breaks fresh ground in contextualizing Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger's decisions within a wider institutional and societal framework. While recognizing the distinctive personalities and ideas of these two men, this study more broadly conveys the competing roles and impact of the professional military, the Congress, and a mobilized peace movement. Drawing upon a vast collection of declassified documents, Eisenberg presents an important re-interpretation of the Nixon Administration's relations with the Soviet Union and China vis a vis the war in Southeast Asia. She argues that in their desperate effort to overcome, or at least overshadow, their failure in Vietnam, Nixon and Kissinger made major concessions to both nations in the field of arms control, their response to the India-Pakistan war, and the diplomacy surrounding Taiwan--much of this secret. Despite policymakers' claims that the Vietnam War was a "national security" necessity that would demonstrate American strength to the communist superpowers and "credibility" to friendly governments, the historical record suggests a different reality. A half-century after the Paris Peace Conference marking the withdrawal of US troops and advisors from Vietnam and foreign troops from Laos and Cambodia, Fire and Rain is a dramatic account of geopolitical decision making, civil society, and the human toll of the war on the people of Southeast Asia. AJ Woodhams hosts the "War Books" podcast. You can subscribe on Apple here and on Spotify here. War Books is on YouTube, Facebook and Instagram. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Fire and Rain: Nixon, Kissinger, and the Wars in Southeast Asia (Oxford UP, 2023) is a compelling, meticulous narrative of the way national security decisions formed at the highest levels of government affect the lives of individuals at home and abroad. By drawing these connections, Carolyn Woods Eisenberg brings to life policy decisions about Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, conveying their significance to a new generation of readers. She breaks fresh ground in contextualizing Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger's decisions within a wider institutional and societal framework. While recognizing the distinctive personalities and ideas of these two men, this study more broadly conveys the competing roles and impact of the professional military, the Congress, and a mobilized peace movement. Drawing upon a vast collection of declassified documents, Eisenberg presents an important re-interpretation of the Nixon Administration's relations with the Soviet Union and China vis a vis the war in Southeast Asia. She argues that in their desperate effort to overcome, or at least overshadow, their failure in Vietnam, Nixon and Kissinger made major concessions to both nations in the field of arms control, their response to the India-Pakistan war, and the diplomacy surrounding Taiwan--much of this secret. Despite policymakers' claims that the Vietnam War was a "national security" necessity that would demonstrate American strength to the communist superpowers and "credibility" to friendly governments, the historical record suggests a different reality. A half-century after the Paris Peace Conference marking the withdrawal of US troops and advisors from Vietnam and foreign troops from Laos and Cambodia, Fire and Rain is a dramatic account of geopolitical decision making, civil society, and the human toll of the war on the people of Southeast Asia. AJ Woodhams hosts the "War Books" podcast. You can subscribe on Apple here and on Spotify here. War Books is on YouTube, Facebook and Instagram. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Fire and Rain: Nixon, Kissinger, and the Wars in Southeast Asia (Oxford UP, 2023) is a compelling, meticulous narrative of the way national security decisions formed at the highest levels of government affect the lives of individuals at home and abroad. By drawing these connections, Carolyn Woods Eisenberg brings to life policy decisions about Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, conveying their significance to a new generation of readers. She breaks fresh ground in contextualizing Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger's decisions within a wider institutional and societal framework. While recognizing the distinctive personalities and ideas of these two men, this study more broadly conveys the competing roles and impact of the professional military, the Congress, and a mobilized peace movement. Drawing upon a vast collection of declassified documents, Eisenberg presents an important re-interpretation of the Nixon Administration's relations with the Soviet Union and China vis a vis the war in Southeast Asia. She argues that in their desperate effort to overcome, or at least overshadow, their failure in Vietnam, Nixon and Kissinger made major concessions to both nations in the field of arms control, their response to the India-Pakistan war, and the diplomacy surrounding Taiwan--much of this secret. Despite policymakers' claims that the Vietnam War was a "national security" necessity that would demonstrate American strength to the communist superpowers and "credibility" to friendly governments, the historical record suggests a different reality. A half-century after the Paris Peace Conference marking the withdrawal of US troops and advisors from Vietnam and foreign troops from Laos and Cambodia, Fire and Rain is a dramatic account of geopolitical decision making, civil society, and the human toll of the war on the people of Southeast Asia. AJ Woodhams hosts the "War Books" podcast. You can subscribe on Apple here and on Spotify here. War Books is on YouTube, Facebook and Instagram. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Polecam wersję filmową (zawiera mapy): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMckuIbvtAQ&feature=youtu.beI wojna światowa jest jednym z najważniejszych konfliktów w dziejach świata. Zmieniła ona całkowicie sytuację polityczną w Europie. Po jej zakończeniu na mapę powróciły niektóre państwa. Niektóre z nich powstały. Jak wyglądała sytuacja Włoch po I wojnie światowej? Czy mit kalekiego zwycięstwa to rzeczywistość? Posłuchajcie, żeby się dowiedzieć!

In January 1918, American President Woodrow Wilson laid out his vision for a durable peace settlement that would end the Great War. Abandoning traditional diplomatic practices that called on losing powers to make territorial concessions to the victors, Wilson's vision suggested a new Europe built on mutual respect and democratic principles. In doing so, his idealism gave the Entente war efforts renewed purpose, and laid the foundations for the postwar era. But how effective would Wilson's ideas be? This episode examines the reception of Wilson's ideas and the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, noting some of the ways his ideals salvaged 19th century European society.  We'll also discuss some of the conference's failures, including the treaties it produced.

Part 3 of 3. Andrew Phillps, curator of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library in Staunton, VA returns to the World War I Podcast to discuss Wilson and the aftermath of World War I as well as Wilson's legacy as a wartime president. This is the last interview in a series of discussions that examined Woodrow Wilson's presidency and World War I.Learn more about the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library: https://www.woodrowwilson.org/  Follow us: Twitter: @MacArthur1880 Amanda Williams on Twitter: @AEWilliamsClark Facebook/Instagram: @MacArthurMemorial www.macarthurmemorial.org

Bringing the focus back to European affairs, there was a lot of unfinished business left after the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. And that business seemed intractable, leading the British Prime Minister David Lloyd George to call a new conference to solve all the continent's woes. Its failure would signal the end of overblown meetings on the Paris model, as well as set the stage for the Ruhr crisis of the mid-20s.    Bibliography for this episode:    Fink, Carole The Genoa Conference: European Diplomacy, 1921-1922 Syracuse University Press 1993   Questions? Comments? Email me at peaceintheirtime@gmail.com

Bernard Mannes Baruch (August 19, 1870 – June 20, 1965) was an American financier and statesman.After amassing a fortune on the New York Stock Exchange, he impressed President Woodrow Wilson by managing the nation's economic mobilization in World War I as chairman of the War Industries Board. He advised Wilson during the Paris Peace Conference. He made another fortune in the postwar bull market, but foresaw the Wall Street crash and sold out well in advance.In World War II, he became a close advisor to President Roosevelt on the role of industry in war supply, and he was credited with greatly shortening the production time for tanks and aircraft. Later he helped to develop rehabilitation programs for injured servicemen. In 1946, he was the United States representative to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (UNAEC), though his Baruch Plan for international control of atomic energy was rejected by the Soviet Union.

Edward Mandell House (July 26, 1858 – March 28, 1938) was an American diplomat, and an adviser to President Woodrow Wilson. He was known as Colonel House, although his rank was honorary and he had performed no military service. He was a highly influential back-stage politician in Texas before becoming a key supporter of the presidential bid of Wilson in 1912 by managing his campaign, beginning in July 1911. Having a self-effacing manner, he did not hold office but was an "executive agent", Wilson's chief adviser on European politics and diplomacy during World War I (1914–1918). He became a government official as one of the five American commissioners to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. In 1919, Wilson broke with House and many other top advisers, believing they had deceived him at Paris.

Hidden in the archives of the Library of Congress were two memoirs of an American reporter, Herbert Corey who covered the World War I from its start in 1914 up through the Paris Peace Conference in 1919-1920. He was the American reporter who covered the war the longest, from a full three-years before participation by the United States. The memoirs were discovered by two authors, historians and journalists, John M. Hamilton, and Peter Finn. They decided to edit the memoirs, annotate them with notes and footnotes and put the memoirs in perspective for a 21st Century audience. Herbert Corey's Great War: A memoir of WWI by the American Who Saw if All was released in June 2022 by the LSU Press. It contains first-hand accounts of Corey's adventures covering both sides of the war from the German frontlines to the trenches of the allies. He covered the angst and travails of the foot-soldiers and the war lives of non-combatants. He viewed the war from nine European countries as he traveled for the Associated Newspaper chain. Corey's memoir reflects the many obstacles that reporters faced in covering WWI, especially censorship from the Allies. He also was a keen observer of misinformation campaigns by the British and others to urge the Americans to get involved in the war. John M. Hamilton is the Breazeale Professor of Journalism in the Manship School of Communication at LSU. He also is a Global Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., and an award-winning author.

The New Atlantic Order: The Transformation of International Politics, 1860-1933 (Cambridge UP, 2022) elucidates a momentous transformation process that changed the world: the struggle to create, for the first time, a modern Atlantic order in the long twentieth century (1860-2020). Placing it in a broader historical and global context, Patrick O. Cohrs reinterprets the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 as the original attempt to supersede the Eurocentric 'world order' of the age of imperialism and found a more legitimate peace system - a system that could not yet be global but had to be essentially transatlantic. Yet he also sheds new light on why, despite remarkable learning-processes, it proved impossible to forge a durable Atlantic peace after a First World War that became the long twentieth century's cathartic catastrophe. In a broader perspective this ground-breaking study shows what a decisive impact this epochal struggle has had not only for modern conceptions of peace, collective security and an integrative, rule-based international order but also for formative ideas of self-determination, liberal-democratic government and the West. Charles Coutinho, PH. D., Associate Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written for Chatham House's International Affairs, the Institute of Historical Research's Reviews in History and the University of Rouen's online periodical Cercles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The New Atlantic Order: The Transformation of International Politics, 1860-1933 (Cambridge UP, 2022) elucidates a momentous transformation process that changed the world: the struggle to create, for the first time, a modern Atlantic order in the long twentieth century (1860-2020). Placing it in a broader historical and global context, Patrick O. Cohrs reinterprets the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 as the original attempt to supersede the Eurocentric 'world order' of the age of imperialism and found a more legitimate peace system - a system that could not yet be global but had to be essentially transatlantic. Yet he also sheds new light on why, despite remarkable learning-processes, it proved impossible to forge a durable Atlantic peace after a First World War that became the long twentieth century's cathartic catastrophe. In a broader perspective this ground-breaking study shows what a decisive impact this epochal struggle has had not only for modern conceptions of peace, collective security and an integrative, rule-based international order but also for formative ideas of self-determination, liberal-democratic government and the West. Charles Coutinho, PH. D., Associate Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written for Chatham House's International Affairs, the Institute of Historical Research's Reviews in History and the University of Rouen's online periodical Cercles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

The New Atlantic Order: The Transformation of International Politics, 1860-1933 (Cambridge UP, 2022) elucidates a momentous transformation process that changed the world: the struggle to create, for the first time, a modern Atlantic order in the long twentieth century (1860-2020). Placing it in a broader historical and global context, Patrick O. Cohrs reinterprets the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 as the original attempt to supersede the Eurocentric 'world order' of the age of imperialism and found a more legitimate peace system - a system that could not yet be global but had to be essentially transatlantic. Yet he also sheds new light on why, despite remarkable learning-processes, it proved impossible to forge a durable Atlantic peace after a First World War that became the long twentieth century's cathartic catastrophe. In a broader perspective this ground-breaking study shows what a decisive impact this epochal struggle has had not only for modern conceptions of peace, collective security and an integrative, rule-based international order but also for formative ideas of self-determination, liberal-democratic government and the West. Charles Coutinho, PH. D., Associate Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written for Chatham House's International Affairs, the Institute of Historical Research's Reviews in History and the University of Rouen's online periodical Cercles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history

The New Atlantic Order: The Transformation of International Politics, 1860-1933 (Cambridge UP, 2022) elucidates a momentous transformation process that changed the world: the struggle to create, for the first time, a modern Atlantic order in the long twentieth century (1860-2020). Placing it in a broader historical and global context, Patrick O. Cohrs reinterprets the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 as the original attempt to supersede the Eurocentric 'world order' of the age of imperialism and found a more legitimate peace system - a system that could not yet be global but had to be essentially transatlantic. Yet he also sheds new light on why, despite remarkable learning-processes, it proved impossible to forge a durable Atlantic peace after a First World War that became the long twentieth century's cathartic catastrophe. In a broader perspective this ground-breaking study shows what a decisive impact this epochal struggle has had not only for modern conceptions of peace, collective security and an integrative, rule-based international order but also for formative ideas of self-determination, liberal-democratic government and the West. Charles Coutinho, PH. D., Associate Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written for Chatham House's International Affairs, the Institute of Historical Research's Reviews in History and the University of Rouen's online periodical Cercles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

The New Atlantic Order: The Transformation of International Politics, 1860-1933 (Cambridge UP, 2022) elucidates a momentous transformation process that changed the world: the struggle to create, for the first time, a modern Atlantic order in the long twentieth century (1860-2020). Placing it in a broader historical and global context, Patrick O. Cohrs reinterprets the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 as the original attempt to supersede the Eurocentric 'world order' of the age of imperialism and found a more legitimate peace system - a system that could not yet be global but had to be essentially transatlantic. Yet he also sheds new light on why, despite remarkable learning-processes, it proved impossible to forge a durable Atlantic peace after a First World War that became the long twentieth century's cathartic catastrophe. In a broader perspective this ground-breaking study shows what a decisive impact this epochal struggle has had not only for modern conceptions of peace, collective security and an integrative, rule-based international order but also for formative ideas of self-determination, liberal-democratic government and the West. Charles Coutinho, PH. D., Associate Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written for Chatham House's International Affairs, the Institute of Historical Research's Reviews in History and the University of Rouen's online periodical Cercles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

JM Keynes and his theory, Keynesianism, is central to the financial history of twentieth century. However, he is also central to its cultural history. Keynes was not only an economist, but a man equally concerned with aesthetics and ethics; as interested in the ballet as he was with the stock market crash. Anne McElvoy talks to Robert Hudson about the musical drama has written about the political trading behind the Treaty of Versailles from Keynes's perspective. How does looking again at Keynes life and work offer us a different view of the man and his times? Zachary D. Carter is a Writer in Residence with the Omidyar Network's Reimagining Capitalism initiative and the author of The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy and the Life of John Maynard Keynes. Robert Hudson is the co-author of Hall of Mirrors a musical based on JM Keynes's experiences at the Paris Peace Conference. His other work includes Magnitsky the Musical. Adam Tooze is Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Professor History at Columbia University and he serves as Director of the European Institute. His books include: Shutdown: how COVID-19 shook the world's economy; Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World; and, The Deluge: The Great War and the Remaking of the Global Order, 1916-1931. Emma West is a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Birmingham and her current research project, Revolutionary Red Tape, examines how public servants and official committees helped to produce and popularise modern British culture. Producer: Ruth Watts