American Intervention and World Politics: War and Diplomacy in 1917 - David Stevenson

[@scottmUTCS]

I LOVE his little verbal tic of asking "Yea?" every 1 0 minutes or so. Great lecture. Love the calm but incredibly informative presentation style.

[@pancakes3250]

Ok, why would the Allies lose if Americans didn't intervene?

[@jeffscheiner1553]

They may not have lost, but they wouldn’t have won.

[@GUSCRAWF0RD]

Because they’d already been sacrificing at an enormous rate for years when America entered and there simply wasn’t the materiel and resources needed to cause the eventual strangulation of the central powers not to mention the efforts to supply and support the eastern front that collapsed when Russia made its separate peace. The only possible winner if American didn’t enter was, well america lol I agree nobody would have been left and it’s take europe eons to rebuild

[@ArmyJames]

They were broke and exhausted.

[@joshualawson1579]

It is uncertain if they would have lost but it is certain that the arrival of about 10,000 men per day in the summer of 1918 caused the Central Powers to initiate a last major attack, further exhausting their resources just as the balance was shifting decisively in favour of the Allies/Entente and as the chaos and deprivation caused by the British naval embargo were creating domestic political crisis in Germany and in Austria-Hungary. Don’t forget the Russians stopped fighting just six months earlier which resulted in more access to resources for the Central Powers and the elimination of an entire front. Without the American participation, they may have bided their time to improve the fundamentals and approach 1919 with renewed vigour and focus. The Americans eliminated that option.

[@ejdotw1]

Superb!

[@kenzeier2943]

Stevenson admits that he revised his own ideas. Nothing wrong with that if we keep in mind that he might do it again. Now this will be controversial, but I am going to say it without any ill will toward anyone. I am just reporting what I heard from a speech that I found on the web. I probably heard it on the web 15 years ago and it was decades before when it had been given. The context is 1917. That is the year of US entry into the war and it is also that in 1917 that the Balfour Declaration was issued. The speaker in the speech, a Jew turned Roman Catholic, stated that higher ups in England promised the Jews a homeland if they would get their brethren in America to convince the leaders in America to enter the war. I like this explanation for two reasons: 1) It is about back room deals and that is how things really get done in politics, and 2) war is about people using violence to get what they want. That is a truism. Clausewitz the 19th c German war theoretician stated that war is forcing others to do what you want them to do.

[@rafaelespinoza6530]

amen❤😂😮😮😊😢🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@michaelrowand898]

Please invite him back. Brilliant lecturer

[@Johnnycdrums]

Excellent lecture, best so far.

[@brucevilla]

Thanks for Uploading.

[@miekwellens4989]

Merci