Nailing History
Introducing "Nailing History," the podcast where two friends attempt to nail down historical facts like they're trying to assemble IKEA furniture without the manual. Join Matt and Jon (or Jon and Matt) as they stumble through the annals of time, armed with Wikipedia, Chat GPT, and a sense of reckless abandon.
In each episode, Matt and Jon pick a historical event that tickles their curiosity (and occasionally their funny bone) and dissect it like a frog in biology class—except they're the frogs, and they have no idea what they're doing. From ancient civilizations to modern mishaps, they cover it all with the finesse of a bull in a china shop.
But wait, there's more! In between butchering historical names and dates, Matt and Jon take a break to explore the intersection of history and pop culture. Ever wondered if Cleopatra would have been a TikTok sensation? Yeah, neither have they, but that won't stop them from imagining it in excruciating detail.
So grab your popcorn and prepare to laugh, cringe, and possibly learn something (though don't hold your breath). With Matt and Jon leading the charge, "Nailing History" is the only podcast where you're guaranteed to leave scratching your head and questioning everything you thought you knew about the past. After all, who needs a PhD when you've got two clueless buddies and a microphone?
Nailing History
123 Wilson's Points Revisited: A Century of Parallels
Could the principles of a century-old peace plan hold the key to understanding today's political landscape? In this fascinating episode, we draw unexpected parallels between Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points and the modern conservative agenda of Project 2025. Join Matt and John as they dissect the historical framework of Wilson's ideals, crafted in the wake of World War I, and compare it to the initiatives promoted by the Heritage Foundation today. We unravel the academic aspirations and idealistic nuances of Wilson's vision, while casting a critical eye on the contemporary echoes and deviations found in Project 2025.
We take you through an in-depth analysis of Wilson's 14 Points, emphasizing key themes such as self-determination, open diplomacy, and free trade. You'll gain insights into the creation of new nations from the ashes of collapsing empires and the complex path to implementing peaceful ideals amidst post-war turmoil. Reflecting on the partial integration of Wilson's points into the Treaty of Versailles and the contentious reparations imposed on Germany, this episode sheds light on how historical aspirations for peace were met with mixed reactions and outcomes.
To lighten things up, we shift gears with a humorous critique of AI-generated advice for podcasting, inspired by Wilson's 14 Points. From drafting our own ideal list to presenting AI-generated tips in rhymes, we conclude with seven whimsical ideas for a better world, from universal love to abolishing time zones. Finally, we discuss the critical role of public relations in promoting both historical and contemporary political plans, questioning whether Project 2025 can achieve its goals through better presentation. Tune in for an episode that's both thought-provoking and entertaining!
all right, welcome to another episode of the nailing history podcast. Hey guys welcome back.
Speaker 2:Are you nervous? You're here with your hosts, matt and john. You nervous coming live? No, I feel great. I didn't. I was, I was. I was blown away. That was the first time we ever uh played the intro and I could hear it. Oh, really, yeah. Um, for our fans who know that when we're not in studio I don't know if our fans know this, but when Matt plays the audio clips, like our intro or drums like that, I can't always hear it, so I only hear it when you guys are hearing it, kind of thing. But for whatever reason, matt messed with the settings and now I can hear all the sound effects too, so that's really cool. So I was flabbergasted to hear.
Speaker 1:It's pretty cool I didn't know that I didn't do anything yeah, it's always something new.
Speaker 2:Every week there's a little new technical either glitch or uh discovery but I think this is a good one. So, but, matt, have you been? How's your uh past week or two been?
Speaker 1:I'm good. How are you?
Speaker 2:I'm quite good. How was your week it was? It was good. Uh, it was just kind of prepping for for today's discussion, a little bit trying to get ready for it. Trying, I was scratching my head as to why you trying to figure out why you wanted to talk about this, of all things. I was really curious to know how it came up in the conversation. Were you talking to anyone about this? I was interested to know a little more.
Speaker 1:So today we're going to talk about, we're trying to think of some things that think of some things that we wanted to go over. We always try to link certain things to current events that are going on in our world, so we're always trying to link the two together. The two together and, um, you know, I was thinking I was listening to, I was on the, I was listening to regular radio on my way into work a couple days ago and, um, there was some political ad and they were talking about, um, this project 2025 that everyone's been all have their panties in a bunch over. And then I also had listened to.
Speaker 1:I was watching a YouTube video about how each president died, which was pretty boring. It was animated, though, and most of them were heart disease, a couple strokes here and there, a couple assassinations that we covered, but the one thing that they brought up about President Woodrow Wilson was that his it wasn't really related to his death, but that his presidency was most known for his 14 points, which were 14 things that he wanted to have done as part of the treaty after world war one, and I was thinking like a list of 14 things. Then it got me thinking about this project 2025 and it's kind of like that. I don't think they're very, very related, but it is like a list of something and I don't know like kind of like how they want things to go. And so I was like, oh, that's, that's something. Know like kind of like how they want things to go, and so I was like, oh, that's, that's something that we could kind of loosely tie in, yeah.
Speaker 2:I well, it's certainly uh. I mean, my understanding of the 14 points, to be honest, didn't really go much beyond what we would have learned in history class in high school. I haven't really ever read too much about World War I and the particulars of the 14 points. I certainly know that Woodrow Wilson was one of the more idealistic presidents we've ever had. He was also an academic before he came into office. It definitely seemed to shine through when he came up with these 14 points, kind of got him and his cronies together Hundreds of academics, it does seem kind of academic, you know.
Speaker 1:Then it had me thinking about like I don't know. Do you know who's behind this Project 2025? Is it like a section of the Republicans in government, or is it even really a thing? I don't really know anything about it.
Speaker 2:It's been put out from what I've seen by the heritage foundation, which is a conservative think tank, um, in the kind of right-leaning space of think tanks you've got, you know um, more I guess, traditional conservatives, uh, you've got more libertarian kind of conservatives. Heritage foundation, I think they currently they fall more within the like neo conservative element where it's like they want, uh, national government, uh, they want more of a religious kind of christian element to the government. Um, at least that's how they're labeled by some of their opponents I'll tell you what.
Speaker 1:Whoever runs their pr is horrible, because just the name project 2025 makes you not want to agree to it. Sounds like something that like if you had this movie that had some about like some dystopian future, and it'd be like, yeah, things were going okay, and then, uh, project 2025. And then, just like this whole horror story of you know mayhem, like it just has that connotation, that like it's bad at like back to the future too, when biff is like which I've never really seen the whole thing. I've seen bits and pieces of Back to the Future 2 but, like you know where Biff is like the president, or is he the president or I forget. He's like or he's like Trump, actually, right, like in a movie like that it would be the same thing.
Speaker 1:Like Marty McFly lands with the De delorean into wherever town he was in and then he's like what the heck happened here? Like everything's all like trashed or whatever, and we got this king and everyone's like working as like and they enslaved whatever. And then marty mcfly's like what the heck happened here? And they're like, oh, project, project 2025 happened. That's what happened. And then it's something like that. It just has that feel to it which maybe that's a good thing that it's named that way, because I guess they're being more upfront about it instead of being like oh, this is a lollipops and rainbows plan, you would think. If you wanted people to get behind something like this, maybe you would call it goals for a better future 2026. Give it two years. No, just having that name. It's just so impersonal and so robotic and just so dystopian. Really. It really sounds like it. I could see that being referenced as a turning point.
Speaker 2:Its full name is 2025 Presidential Transition Project.
Speaker 1:That's worse.
Speaker 2:I think Also not. Yeah, I don't think that's going to get more people on board with it, especially conservatives. I guess that's why I don't really get it. It's I don't know. It seems like it's been labeled a lot by, I guess, primarily people on the left as like a way for, seen as like for donald trump to basically become a king, effectively kind of to rule out to get rid of all the bureaucracy to like get rid of all the fifth column, bureaucracy, jobs, the department of education, all that stuff.
Speaker 2:To basically just like cut everything and, um, console, I guess, consolidate more within the president. Um, that's how it's been labeled. I mean, I don't. I haven't read much about it outside of what I've heard in the mainstream media, but yeah, it seems. One of the things I'm reading here says it proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees in order to replace them with people loyal to the president. Now, before the Pendleton Act, before Chester, now, before the pendleton act, before chester, arthur passed the pendleton civil service reform act. Um, that was a big thing at the end of the 19th century, was, you know, patronage and we?
Speaker 1:learned all about it. Learned all about it.
Speaker 2:Listen back to the assassination episode so I mean, I guess there's a bit of a return to that, which I don't necessarily know if that would be a good idea, but I don't know how many there's a history to it and they're probably like from.
Speaker 2:One of the biggest arguments I'd heard about that civil service reform is that it did create the bureaucratic state and like it was just a simple yeah, there was a more simple time when if you get me votes, you get a job, if you get me votes, you get a job, and like it was just a little more black and white and it kind of watered down um, you know the kind of lobbying element of things. It was just like if you wanted to get elected, you had to kind of find people to help you go get those votes. I don't know if that's what project 2025 is trying to go for, um I doubt it.
Speaker 1:Listen, yeah, they have. The thing is I don't know how many things are on the list. It's just just like a list of things, right? Anything that the government is in charge with that would have anything more than three items. I wouldn't trust them with anything.
Speaker 2:And for me personally, if they're not returning power to the states, I'm already very critical of it. If power is not being returned to the states, if they're just trying to cut bureaucracy but power is going to stay in the federal, federal government, I'm already a skeptic of it. And the right seems kind of silly and I think they are kind of. Maybe I don't know if they were trying to pin this on trump, because actually, like maybe the heritage foundation is not for him and they know the left would just eat it up and they would be able to paint, and so I know trump's been trying to disassociate himself with it because it looks so ridiculous and there is just like all these things that Well, again, he's probably like that name sucks.
Speaker 1:He knows the power of PR, obviously that's his whole thing, so I could see him not getting behind it just because of the name.
Speaker 2:It also only has a $22 million budget. It doesn't even have a $ million dollar budget.
Speaker 1:I think it's a perfect gift that they gave their political opposition to be like yeah, you don't want to follow this who? Yeah, they always do that.
Speaker 2:I feel like that's why the right so stupid, that's why they're so dumb, that's why they keep losing elections. I also would think, you know, just kind of rewinding, like you're saying, it seems like these things we maybe certain, you maybe a number of years go by and then somebody seems to come out with these lofty goals, these big ideal perspective, which I think Pride 25 certainly is. I think the tie-in is the idea of every so often someone comes out of the woodwork, whether it's on the right or the left Oftentimes it's the left because that's kind of the more the progressive element, like they just want to have these big, lofty ideas and ideals that they try to want to meet. But certainly Woodrow Wilson definitely was coming from that camp. He was president of Princeton University. He, you know, came from an academic background and I think even when he was in office he definitely kept that element around him.
Speaker 2:And so when he came out with these 14 points which were a statement of principles for peace, used to bring about some peace negotiations in order to end World War I, he definitely kept a lot of those academic types around and he basically brought them in and they've generated like 2000 reports to say, okay, what are the? What's the issue, what's the underlying problems with this war happening across the Atlantic. Why are these sides fighting? And from you know, just on the top level I mean it, you can just tell people said, okay, well, look, people are fighting. Said okay, well, look, people are fighting, so there has to be a problem.
Speaker 2:But they didn't really take any considerations that they're going back into a continent that's been dealing with centuries of conflict in one way or another. The found, our own founding father, said just stay out of that neck of the woods, we don't need it. That's why we got the monroe doctrine. We said, hey, you guys keep your old world problems over there, we'll keep over here in the new world. You just keep to your, keep to yourselves over there. And um, you know that I don't think that was gonna kind of be quite good enough for for the imperialist presidency, which, which was born in, uh, the early 20th century, you know, we kind of had a big new navy, we had a big new white fleet, great fleet, and uh, yeah, no, roosevelt wanted to flex his muscles.
Speaker 1:You know walk, you know carrying that big village people do a song about being in the navy yes, well, what was that? Song. What was that song in the navy? In the navy, kind of the same as ymca. They were sound like a little bit of a one trick pony huh, I think I don't know if the chord progression was very different.
Speaker 2:I don't know if Kind of the same as YMCA. They sound like a little bit of a one-trick pony huh. I don't know if the chord progression was very different. I don't know if melodies are very similar. But yeah, just 14 points, it's just a real.
Speaker 1:It's kind of funny because like well, let's get into them before we start discussing them.
Speaker 2:Well, I'm just trying to give kind of a higher level. So basically we got, I think everyone's on the same page, everyone.
Speaker 1:The us started thinking that they knew better than the rest of the world after only have been.
Speaker 2:We were very late entrance into world war one. You know we're not going to go into that, the conflict itself so much, uh. But yeah, the us was did not get into world war one until the last year of the conflict, I believe. And, uh, you know, apparently woodrow wilson claimed neutrality for most of that time. It remains to be seen. It's possible that he actually maybe wanted us in the war, kind of like fdr World War II. So yeah, we're here with 14 points. The principles were outlined in a January 8, 1918 speech and we gave a speech to congress and, uh, a lot of his colleagues, so a lot of the other leaders in europe, were quite skeptical of his war, about what the aims were. I mean, yeah, american idealism coming into europe, this european pragmatism, or just the french wanted their cut, the italians wanted theirs, they literally the French wanted their cut, the Italians wanted theirs. The Italians only got into the war because they said, okay, which side should we join? Whatever side gives us the better deal on who wins the war, that's who we'll join.
Speaker 1:So the Allies gave them a better deal.
Speaker 2:The British, that was real classy. So everyone was just like dude, what are you talking about? You're Wilson, you're wilsonian idealism making a cut it here. But he pursued, he kept on going and, um yeah, he came out with these 14 points. So the war was over, correct?
Speaker 1:it was not over but they were, they were winding down and they were really close to treaty talk, so he wanted to get his input of what should be, uh, what should be uh. The maker breaks of the treaty, correct of the treaty of versailles yeah, it wasn't there just yet.
Speaker 2:it was seen that the war was going to be coming to an end and, uh, he just wanted to have his time and because I guess we were now, at that point, combatants in the war, he felt he had a place to.
Speaker 1:He probably was like oh, we basically won it, we won the war.
Speaker 2:Yeah, through our entry we helped the allies cross the finish line. So let's, this was called the war to end all wars. So let me come up with my 14 points. Me and my academic cronies come up with 14 points to hopefully make that become a reality and, uh, some of the main driving aspects. So we have all 14 points, but some of the main kind of themes of them.
Speaker 2:The big thing whenever you know if someone asks you know pub trivia, you know what's the, what's the overarching kind of theme of the 14 points, your answer is probably going to be this the idea of self-determination, where you give minority ethnic groups basically a say in their local government or you even give a carve out to them to create their own country. So I mean, that's why we have today. You've got well, you had Czechoslovakia after the fact, but you have all these countries scattered throughout Europe because at the time of World War I you really only had the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and so, yeah, he kind of had this self-determination principle where, basically, if you're, if they, basically, if you're a large enough ethnic group, you should nationality, you should be able to have your own country effectively, and so you know that's great, all well and good saying that from across the Atlantic, but you know, if you're actually living in Europe and you know having to kind of be the one living with somebody drawing and dividing lines, you know you're going to be, you might be a little more, uh, you might have a little more pushback on that. So yeah, but he came in princeton educated guy, thought he knew it all. And these are his 14 points.
Speaker 2:So the very first point was no secret treaties, in that diplomacy should be open and transparent. So a little historical context there were secret alliances going on before the war between Austria, hungary and Germany and Wilson wanted to prevent secrecy and diplomacy. He just felt that by keeping it under under wraps. You know you have different powers, negotiating different terms and you know talking about, maybe you know partitioning, like poland, for instance, was partitioned three ways at the end of the 18th century, much to the chagrin of our, of our founding father to do skachusko. Poland was partitioned by russia, austria, hungary and germany and prussia at the time, sorry. And so he just thought you know, keeping you got to have all discussions in the open air, can't, uh, can't have it under the rug, and you know disagree why is that?
Speaker 1:I just think you should be able to do whatever you want as a sovereign power yeah, yeah, I mean, I would agree yeah but this was an organization to prevent the, with the stated aim of not having another war impossible. Make like an impossible feat.
Speaker 2:All right, whatever it is impossible, but he didn't stop him or the progressives and from trying all right, so point number I don't want to stick too long on these points.
Speaker 2:So freedom of the seas, so that meant all countries could have free navigation of the oceans. Uh, naval blockades were a big thing going on before the war, and even during the war the German U-boats sank in American Lusitania, which actually kind of got us into the war. So you know, no submarine attacks and that stuff. And so then the next one is free trade. So removal of economic barriers to allow equal trade conditions. I agree to that. There was a lot of protectionism and trade barriers going on before the war. I agree to that. There was a lot of protectionism and trade barriers going on before the war. And even in modern times, as we know, with all the tariff talk, it's kind of always a constant in a way. We've had lulls where we've had quote unquote more free trade in the world, but then people will oftentimes like to pack up and go home and tariffs are kind of a way of doing that protectionism. Yeah, who's a big?
Speaker 1:fan of free trade. Who's that Coldplay? Why is that? I just feel like they always have make trade fair or fair trade on their piano or something.
Speaker 2:You think they're like libertarian free traders? Or you mean like paying people for their chocolate beans and their coffee beans, like paying enough money to the guy picking chocolate. Is that what that means? I think that's more what that means. It's like on the chocolate bar when it says like free chocolate, we made by free trade and not like slave labor.
Speaker 1:Oh, is that what that means?
Speaker 2:I think that's what they probably mean.
Speaker 1:But that doesn't make any sense. But I slave labor. Oh, is that what that means? I think that's what they probably mean, but that doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 2:Christopher martin, chris, I don't think he goes by christopher. Apparently the us wasn't happy about it, though they didn't like this one cold play in the fair trade thing. Well, just free trade in general. I mean, we like to think that the us is kind of a free trade comment, but really not. The british were, I guess, more free traders in the us were at the early 20th century.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and so yeah, but then. So the next one is arms reduction. Uh, you had to reduce military weapons to the lowest point needed for safety, and that's just before the war. There was a massive arms buildup across Europe, and so a lot of smaller countries weren't really happy with that because they thought, well, it could just happen again. If they have to get rid of their weapons, then how can they defend themselves? Fair colonial claims was the next one. So just colonial claims with respect for local populations.
Speaker 1:Don't want to have another Christopher Columbus situation.
Speaker 2:No, christopher Columbus uh, don't want to have another christopher columbus situation. No, christopher columbus. This is also kind of 20 years after, maybe 15 years after, wrapping up the scramble for africa, which was a big carve out. Basically, all the major powers of europe just literally cut up africa and amongst themselves, without any real recognition of the people's living there. So that would have been on the table there.
Speaker 2:Russia number six is russia's sovereignty, to respect russia's independence and help it develop freely. So, like I said, this is kind of right on the heels of the bolsheviks coming to power and russia was in a state of turmoil. Turmoil. The civil russian civil war was on a state of turmoil. The Russian Civil War was on the verge of breaking out, or had just broken out, between the Red Army and the White Army and the Russian Bolsheviks. They were pretty upset, though, that the Allies got involved in the Russian Civil War, describing it as meddling. So Wilson said okay, we'll kind of back off and let you guys do what you got to do, kind of to make find, find your way to making your own one world government with communism.
Speaker 2:And number seven was restore belgium, so that belgium should be evacuated and restored to independence. So they were. They were. They were conquered by germany in 1914, or occupied, I should say, um, they were eventually freed. Number eight was free france. So this was a big one. So the french, after the following the franco-prussian war in 1871, uh, which the french, the french, got railroaded in, so they lost the territory of alsace-lorraine and so, as part of the 14 points, germany would have to secede that back to fr, as well as any other lost territory before the war.
Speaker 2:Number nine was redraw Italian borders. So the purpose being the borders of Italy should align with the nationality of the people. So this is kind of the self-determination, again a self-determination clause, where you know, if there's people italian, those of italian descent or ancestry, living in dalmatia, which is modern day croatia, on the adriatic sea, like they should be part of italy proper, uh, and, like I said earlier, they, they, they, italy explicitly joined the side of the allies, shopping around for the best deal that they could get, based on what the war would happen. Yeah, so they would get their borders redrawn and eventually they would just become furious because they did not get all the territory they were expecting and they considered it a mutilated victory. So, although Italy was on the winning side. They did not get what they signed up for, and yeah All right.
Speaker 1:So a bunch of border redrawing, it seems like, and countries being taken back yeah, is mostly what it is.
Speaker 2:A lot of border redrawing, not hitting the Germans with reparations, as much as that, as much as they would end up having to pay back. But um, getting just back to italy, real quick, it was things like this in italy, and also then what would happen in germany after the war that a lot of people say led to the rise of fascism. So in the case of italy, mussolini and the fascist, in the case of germany, the nazis and um, and then you know, hitler, um. So number 10 autonomy for austria-hungary. So allow the people of austria-hungary self-determination. So yeah, the austria-hungarian empire before the war was just full of all these different ethnicities which we now know by, like their country names. So you've got the czech republic, slovakia, slovenia, serbia, hungary, you know all of these countries which are now today in today's world. But at the time you had all these different ethnic nationalities in this one empire and wilson said, yeah, they should all be able to have their own, say and uh, and then countries, uh.
Speaker 2:Number 11 was freedom for the balkan states. So that's what gave us, would eventually give us yugoslavia, um, bundling all those, the south slavs together, including ser Montenegro, what's now today? Croatia and Bosnia. Number 12, self-rule for Turkey and others. So basically, again, like the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire that included many different ethnic groups and peoples and the say was that Turkey should be limited to just its region proper. So on Anatolia, which is where, when we think of Turkey in today's terms, it's Istanbul and everything kind of west of that or east of that, sorry. But then the rest of the Ottoman Empire, including Syria and Iraq, and I guess I think Egypt was part of it too, that they should be free as well and have their own self-determination.
Speaker 2:But a lot of Arabs and other Ottoman subjects were furious because instead of self-rule they were placed under European mandate, which by primarily Britain and France, after the war 13, was an independent Poland. And again, as I mentioned earlier, poland was partitioned in the late 18th century. It was basically carved up by Russia, austria, hungary and Prussia at the time, and they wanted to basically bring back Poland as an independent country. And yeah, boykaczewska would have been happy with that one. He might have been skeptical at how they'd go about getting it because he knew history himself, but he would have been pretty stoked at that. And last but not least, this was the big one, big kahuna, creation of a league of nations whose stated purpose would be to promote peace and resolve disputes around the world.
Speaker 1:There is. That is the solution of all that's the solution of solutions, dog solution. It's like hey, we can't even get our country to agree on something, how about we get the whole world to try to agree on something?
Speaker 2:that's the way to go, because we all know best well, and someone from myself with more of, I guess, a state's rights perspective, I would look at it as kind of just a continuation. We've already kind of suppressed all the us states into one nationalist mask, one amalgamated mass. Why don't we keep doing that with the rest of the world? Let's just keep the party going. That's kind of how I would look at it. And yeah, he wanted his organization to resolve disputes peacefully to prevent future wars, and it was conceit would have been seen as a major innovation in international relations, but the US was having none of it. Relations, uh, but the us was having none of it. Uh, the senate rejected it, uh, on the grounds led by republican senator henry cabot lodge, uh, who didn't like the idea of the us giving up its sovereignty and having to be told to do anything, a supranational organization telling the country yeah, I mean that's even the us thinking that.
Speaker 1:So imagine like a smaller country being like wait what we're gonna get bullied around the whole thinking that.
Speaker 2:So imagine like a smaller country being like wait what, we're going to get bullied around the whole world. Well, a smaller country no, a smaller country might have an outsized say in something like that. If they make a claim, if a small country wants to have a bigger claim, they can then maybe petition to a power above the power they're competing with and have them rule on it, and then they can have their way. It could work either way.
Speaker 1:I would think. I think his nation sounds like it would be like Native American. It sounds like a Native American name, doesn't it it?
Speaker 2:does Probably more appropriate for that. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Probably would have worked out for them if they did that. Yeah, you think so the league of nate. Like if all the if all the native americans got together, they might have been able to save a little bit more of their land maybe find a way to get together, maybe well the league was created.
Speaker 2:It was weak and failed to prevent world war ii, as I mentioned. There you go. So, yeah, these were all of his points. So the big stories, these were all of his points. This is what big story is. These were all of his points. This is what he took over. The war kept going on for a little while longer, but then it wasn't until the Paris Peace Conference came about, where they actually hashed out the Treaty of Versailles and what to do.
Speaker 1:And which of these 14 points got incorporated into the Treaty of Versailles?
Speaker 2:Well, the League of Nations was created, incorporated into the treaty of versailles. Well, the league of nations was created. Poland was made independent. Uh, freedom for the balkan states. That kind of left a sour taste in some mouth. They kind of carved out yugoslavia, which was kind of ticked off. Serbia, as I mentioned earlier. Italy didn't get what they were expecting. Uh, germany was really put to task and they had to pay all these war debts, which was not part of Wilson's plan. He didn't want to kind of burden any one country in a financial situation to have to pay the amount I think he would have been accepting of some reparation, but the amount that France and Britain primarily, were basically making Germany pay.
Speaker 1:It was just extraordinary. Well, in France and Britain's defense, they're the places that got banged up. Well, that's the argument, that's why everyone thought. It's easy to say that from the US perspective.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and that's what a lot of these leaders said. So Clemenceau of.
Speaker 1:France. It's almost like a League of Nations wouldn't work because they wouldn't agree on that, because of that kind of situation but it's almost like an academic came into the presidency and thought he knew best. Yeah, academics do have a lot of practical skills. So, yeah, that's cool, all right. So germany got yeah, germany got hosed and I think most people understand that, like that was a big part of you know rise and, like you said, the rise of fascism.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think Russia had to deal with their own civil war. Russia went into a very bloody civil war following the end of World War I, which would eventually bring the Bolsheviks to power and supplant communism in Russia. The colonial stuff yeah, that not really. They kind of ignored that one entirely. They said, yeah, now we're not going to worry about it. Britain, britain kept most of their empire, although it was kind of flailing like they'd kept most of it in france as well. But I think even germany, they were even gonna like I think he was cool with even letting germany keep some of their overseas colonial possessions. But at the paris peace conference, they, they.
Speaker 2:So the paris peace conference took place between 1919 and 1920, where the victorious allies set the peace terms for the defeated central powers. So I said this in his speech was given in 18, 18, so the war was still going on. Peace conference didn't start until 1919. But by that point that was just them saying like what are we gonna do? Like how are we gonna, you know, put these guys through the ringer? So for the most part, wilsonian idealism did not win out and uh, yeah, it kind of already set the road to the next war.
Speaker 1:You'd think about it, yeah.
Speaker 2:There you go. A bunch of other things happened, but Hitler at this point was just an Austrian corporal in the army, just some punk.
Speaker 1:No, mustache, probably mustache probably.
Speaker 2:Mustache is probably very small along with his wee wee I think mussolini was. He might have still been a socialist at this point, like a, uh, a designated socialist. And then, obviously, you know, p they were able to use. You know a lot of this, what, how they were treated after the fact of the war. They were able to kind of use a lot of that and, uh, you know, recharge their base and kind of bring in all these uh I get it lesson learned I suppose yeah, but did we?
Speaker 2:because we then created the united nations after world war ii. I don't really know how different that is than the League of Nations. I didn't really put the time in to learn.
Speaker 1:But yeah, so kind of an L for the US, a little bit an L for Woodrow Wilson, even though.
Speaker 2:History still seems to love him. He's still ranked as a top president in most modern rankings.
Speaker 1:Who asked them to do this? Anybody like did the? Did europe ask them? Like it would be funny if, like woodrow wilson like brought it to them and they were like, uh, nope, thanks, uh, nobody asked you. Like this is like they thought. Like woodrow wilson thought like, oh man, we came in, we saved the day. Europe's gonna love us. They're gonna listen to everything we have to say. They're gonna like welcome with open arms. And it'd just be funny if, like woodrow wilson like showed up with all this stuff and europe was like um, thanks, I guess you know this is kind of our thing. You know we're, you're all the way across the ocean. You know this is more. You know, let us handle it. I mean, who were these? Were they like employees of the government or did he just bring them in, bring his boys in?
Speaker 2:150 political and social scientists, known as the inquiry. The inquiry was organized by woodrow, by wilson's advisor, colonel edward m House, to study policy and analyze facts that might come up during peace negotiations. Who was like the guy running the back of house? He was like basically running back of house in the Wilson administration Sidney Mezzi's, a philosopher and academic who was president of the College of the City of New York at the time he was appointed to head the inquiry.
Speaker 2:Walter Lippmann he was a prominent journalist and political commentator who contributed to the analysis of international issues. He was instrumental in developing the concept of self-determination, which became a key point in the 14 points. Isaiah Bowman, a geographer who was responsible for providing detailed maps and geographic analysis, crucial for redrawing national borders in post-war Europe. David Hunt Miller, a legal expert who contributed to drafting the legal framework for the peace negotiations. And James Shotwell, a historian and professor who focused on labor issues in the League of Nations concept. Nice, contributing ideas about international cooperation. Well, it says, edward m house reached out to the allied powers to see if they would accept the 14 points and would they say no, yes, okay, maybe like we'll hear it, like we're fighting a war over here, like we've lost a lot of young men.
Speaker 2:Y'all only just got here with your expeditionary force. Y'all can come up with whatever you want.
Speaker 1:We're going to fight this war, they're like, hey, man, I got a bunch of teachers and we're all going to put it together. We all think we have a pretty good idea on how you guys should run things over there, because, you know, we don't think you know what you're doing. So we figure, you know, we'll, we'll, I'll, we'll take the time and we'll give you, we'll give you our thoughts and we'll show you how to do things.
Speaker 2:And they're like, uh, okay like, and they're probably kind of like, coming from the country that still has segregation and you know you don't even let people drink from the same water fountains. Yeah, I'm sure they'd be like why would we listen to you?
Speaker 1:yeah, like, do you think that's what you think? We look like a bunch of nerds showing up, like that.
Speaker 2:You think about it in that way it could be some of where the arrogance for some people have of america, people thinking americans are ignorant. I mean just some of the no people like americans overseas for the most part in my what I've found. But I think when they think Americans look a little ignorant, I think it's not even just your regular person, it's yeah when you have academics kind of ruling trying to say they know best. We obviously know that happens here. People don't like having to hear from the experts on everything or how to do things.
Speaker 1:Unless they're in politics and everybody wants to hear them.
Speaker 2:That's what it seems like anymore well, now they just talk for the lobbies and for the interest. Yeah, it's kind of silly. I mean, in hindsight it seems silly, but it's like enough people bought into it. I don't know if it was just like the american population was like well, you guys, we voted for you. You guys can do it. Sure, you're smart, it's one of those. Well, you're smart, you'll figure it out. I can figure it out.
Speaker 1:I can see US getting behind. Hey, yeah, we want our idea, for Obviously, everybody wants your idea to be accepted, but I just think Europe's perspective would be funny to think about, like, uh, yeah, okay, yeah, put it over there, we'll get to it kind of thing.
Speaker 2:You know, yeah, well, maybe they just wanted to keep and like they wanted to just keep the americans interested in the war, because maybe they needed they needed them.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's true. Yeah, all right, we have 14 points like if they said like, if they said yeah, if they said no, they'd be worried. The US would be like, all right, well, if you don't want to listen to us, then deuces.
Speaker 2:Yeah, sure, Great 14. Yeah, great number.
Speaker 1:I love that number. That number suits you so well, oh, 14, wow, oh, so now was this developed by like diplomats or anybody with any military background or anything? Oh no, it was just academics who spent all their time studying in liberal arts colleges like Yale and Harvard. That's even better.
Speaker 2:Yeah, definitely. And the City College of New York, suny, it's almost like you. I mean, I got to be honest with you. It's like when, deep state or not, it's not that unfathomable that it exists, that people just with big degrees call shots just have their prescriptions and that project. I'm tying it back into project 2025. I'm sure the heritage foundation has some phds on payroll. Who came up with some of these.
Speaker 1:Oh, why wouldn't that be an issue? Have you ever With no real life experience? Yeah, well, so I thought it would be a good idea, since we're talking about the 14 points, that maybe we should put together our own list of 14 points. I got started on this and I kind of said you know what 14 is a lot, let's do seven points each and we'll merge our list together, um, to create you know what we would think our you know ideal. I don't know, obviously there's no war to settle, necessarily, but maybe, maybe, uh, you know just just more of how we would want things to be going in general.
Speaker 2:Well, I set up my seven points for creating a great history podcast. Kind of rules to follow.
Speaker 1:And ChatGPT wrote these, so you put no input into it and that's what you decided to do. Okay, interesting, I bet you know what. Uh, I don't want to answer, but I bet if you were to do that, number one would be don't use chat gpt. That would be my number If we were putting a 14 list together of how to make a good history podcast. Number one would be don't use chat GPT. So, all right, we'll go ahead, but read your seven points.
Speaker 2:So fancy ego, my seven points for creating your history podcast. I'm not saying I live up to all of them, but I think you'd get a kick.
Speaker 1:Well, chat, GPT is points not your points.
Speaker 2:Let's just be clear.
Speaker 1:I signed off on them okay, like the president, okay, okay, thought of my own. But I wonder if woodrow wilson? Well, he didn't sign off.
Speaker 2:He didn't make them.
Speaker 1:I mean he had a yeah he like used his like figurative chat GPT with his like all of his academic, his academic people That'd be funny. If their initials were GPT, that'd be funny. Glenn, peter and Tom.
Speaker 2:So, number one do your research right, bring the facts to light. If the story is a bore, they'll walk out the door oh, these are rhyming.
Speaker 1:Is that number two? Yeah, all right. Well, you gotta number them, okay. So number one was what do your research right?
Speaker 2:bring the facts to light. Okay, number two if the story's a bore, they'll walk out the door. We've had a couple of those. Number three make the sound clear so all can hear we're trying Dealing with that one. Number four show the twist they can't resist. Focus on surprising moments that grab attention.
Speaker 1:Princess Di, we nailed that one okay, number five keep it tight.
Speaker 2:Don't go all night. Stay focused and concise. Long rambles can lose your listeners. Oh, that's one I gotta follow 100. Number six tell it with flair, like they were there these are these suck dude number seven if you don't, you don't put on a show. That's number, that should be number one.
Speaker 1:Well, no, I don't like that one. I like if you don't know. If you don't know, let it go.
Speaker 2:That's what I would say okay, those are my seven points that's interesting.
Speaker 1:And what did you input to get those Just out?
Speaker 2:of curiosity, I will let you know and our fans know. My friend and I are about to do a history of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points. As part of that discussion, we each want to come up history of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points. As part of that discussion, we each want to come up with our own quote. Seven points, I'd like seven points about how to do a good history podcast, told in rhymes, ie If the glove don't fit, you must quit. Or if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Speaker 1:Okay, Well, they did pretty good at that. They did pretty good at that. They did pretty good at that. I wonder if woodrow wilson would have made his points rhyme, people would have been more on board. Do you want to hear my seven?
Speaker 2:yes, my list of seven, so how? Long did it take you to come up with these?
Speaker 1:I was picking away at. I went for a run yesterday. I was thinking about some grocery shopping. Last night I was thinking about some I got. I got a couple. It took me a little bit. Do you want to hear them? Mine are just kind of seven things that I think should exist in the world.
Speaker 2:Okay, not putting out academics in a room, putting a hundred academics in a room and expecting to end all wars.
Speaker 1:Well, it's more. This is. This is the the uh Joe Publix idea of what the what should be going down in these, in these talks. Got it Number one's pretty short and sweet. Um, it's a quote from a film, semi-pro, which we've talked about on this uh show before. Um, ele stands for everybody love everybody. Simple, simple, simply put. Why not? Right woodrow would agree. Why not? Does everybody love everybody, every? I love everybody, love everybody for everybody.
Speaker 2:Although it seems a little water, it seems like an academic take. But water dad's just for the every man person seems a little academic everybody love everybody yeah, like, how's that happen? Like that's just unfortunately not how the real world works yeah, but it would be nice if it did, it would be. So there's a little idea. So there's idealism in the, in your seven points. This is not like realism practical. This is seven points of living, some of them yeah okay, so it's number one.
Speaker 1:Number two um, no more of this. Oh, didn't have blank on my this year bingo card. I hate that, you know. I mean, you know how people are like oh, I didn't have trump getting assassinated on my 2024 bidding go card. I hate that. Who says that? You don't hear that? That's like a thing referencing bingo cards. Yeah, like they like if something weird happens, you know that, like no one thought would have had, like no one thought would be would have happened. They're like oh, didn't have that on my bingo card, you know, like a bingo card of like crossing things off, things that could happen to cross off on a list.
Speaker 1:I never heard that in my life. I'm trying to think of a good example of it. Let me think about one.
Speaker 2:I mean I understand the metaphor, but I just never heard.
Speaker 1:Oh dude, it's time you're living under a rock, if you haven't heard that do we need to make a bingo card for 2025? No, I'm saying I don't want people to do this anymore.
Speaker 2:Oh, it seems like good podcast content, though do you think should we go through that nailing history just like together, like we have our own bingo? One bingo card for the show Things I didn't have on my 2025 bingo card, project 2025.
Speaker 1:What if that's what 2025 actually is?
Speaker 2:What if that's what everyone at the Paris Peace Conference said to Woodrow Wilson when he showed up with 14 points? I didn't have that on my bingo card. Free Poland I didn't have that on my bingo card.
Speaker 1:I think there should be no more time zones in the entire world and we should all live on military time. I think there should just be one time in the whole world. I think it would cause less confusion and then you wouldn't have to do Even within America. Even if you just did it in the United States States would be nice enough, but if you did it around the world would even be better.
Speaker 2:So it's let's say it's in today. In today's time terms, it's two o'clock in the afternoon in Philadelphia.
Speaker 1:Okay, I say we call that 1400 for one, and then what would it be in China?
Speaker 2:1400. But it's the middle of the night. What does that solve?
Speaker 1:Less confusion. Everyone on the same page.
Speaker 2:What if you're shipping goods, getting everybody together? What if you're shipping things? It would arrive at the same time.
Speaker 1:I mean, I just how much easier would it be it's a great example If you were shipping something to China. I don't know what their timeline is, what their time is.
Speaker 2:There's like one big time zone in China.
Speaker 1:Okay, well, whatever Say, china is net currently just six hours behind us. I think they're probably say, say, six hours behind us, just for simple things. It's just for simplicity. So now, if you're working for a shipping company or anything like that, you're like, okay, it takes 20 hours for it to get to China, oh wait, but then so it'll get there at this time. But it's like, oh wait, but we have to adjust it for the time change. This way you don't have to do it. It's like if it leaves at 0200 and it's 20 hours to get there, it's going to get to China at 2200 and you don't have to subtract that six hours. So then there's no confusion. Another example is like flying planes, like on flights. If you're in a connecting flight somewhere and you read your ticket and it says, oh, you land here at this time, and then your plane leaves at this time, you're always like well, which time is that?
Speaker 1:Like if you're flying to California if you're flying to California and your flight leaves from Philly at this time, lands in Texas at this time and then your connection flight takes off, how much time do I have between flights? I want to know that, and it would just be easier if everything was the same time, and I think maybe that would just make people a little bit more happier. And then go back to number one.
Speaker 2:Everybody would love everybody what if you have to set your alarm, then you like, you got you. You have a mix-up because you're used to like okay, I have to wake up every morning at 0600 in, let's say, in England, because that's Greenwich Mean Time. You fly to the US and then you have to set your alarm. You forget to set your alarm to 0. No, to zero, no, it's zero, because you're used to waking up. So you're waking up at midnight big deal, but what if you don't?
Speaker 1:change your clock. What if you just don't change? I guess that would be new. No, it would be midnight. Well, your phones will change. No, they won't.
Speaker 2:No they won't. That's the whole point you're trying to get rid of.
Speaker 1:Well, what if you're what if your phones, like, realize where you're at and adjust your?
Speaker 2:alarms to that. I think AI I mean, I think the technology certainly there for that I do, I will just want everyone to be on the same page. You want to. You want to yell Lee. You want to yell Lee? I get it. I don't know. I think I'll just throw people off. I'd be willing to try it though.
Speaker 1:I think it's a good idea. All right, that's number three. Number four New Year's. It's not a holiday anymore. Get rid of it. Stupid holiday. There's no point in celebrating it as a holiday. I still get rid of it. I hate New Year's Eve. It only brings on bad things. It stopped people from hanging out in Times Square, which is absurd. All those people hanging out in Times Square, and what is it really celebrating? You're turning around the calendar. I mean, do you celebrate every time that the sun goes up and down? New day, new year, new day Should we have. Goes up and down. New day, new year, new day? Should we have? A new day, holiday, new week? Where does it end? New month, why new year? Why does new year matter? Now, if you're going to talk like maybe new decade, I'd be about that every once every 10 years.
Speaker 1:New decade. Maybe every five years Celebrate Chinese New Year, but one year.
Speaker 2:The new year of the rat or year of the dragon or like those things mean something. It's like you're going to have a good luck this year. Good luck this year because it's the year of the dragon and you were born in this year and that was also a year of the dragon right.
Speaker 1:Well, that's nonsense. Well, no E no, ele, everybody love everybody, that's okay, you can still do that, but just it's not a holiday, that's all I'm saying so you want them out to work on new year's eve, new year's day.
Speaker 2:You want what you want people working on new year's day I just don't think it should be a holiday.
Speaker 1:It's stupid, it's a stupid holiday.
Speaker 2:Okay.
Speaker 1:Number five bring back public executions. Really, yeah, I think that that's a good way to avoid crime and I understand the point that we got away from public executions, being that we're more of a civilized people now and blah, blah, blah. But I think at some point the reason that they were done was for Human nature. Is human nature right? And you know, even though we think we're more of a civilized people, there are certain things that, like people that need to be, you know, made an example of to deter other idiots from doing stupid stuff.
Speaker 2:Do you think we need. It seems like we need to find a way to bring shame back. Yes, more puritan. You want a puritanical, a return to some form of puritanism where shame is actually like a prescription to solve a problem, like people need to feel shame still yeah, I guess yeah, well, that's the big thing.
Speaker 2:People have. No, you don't. You have, you have no shame, like how could he go around doing that thing or dressing that way or acting that way? You have, you know, shame. I mean that's what the the old, the old timers used to say to people.
Speaker 1:I guess the problem is going to be if you do this to somebody who's actually innocent.
Speaker 2:I mean, I don't know We'll just start with showing their wee wee and things go bad.
Speaker 1:I don't learn turn it up a notch kind of like Mussolini. Hey it worked. Has there been another Mussolini? You tell me, like a school shooter Be a perfect example. Yeah, you got to make an example out of these people, so people don't copycat.
Speaker 2:Just something else every time. What do you mean? Just different ways? Maybe you can't do the same thing. It's like you know what I'll be hanged, I'll do that. I'll still commit this crime. Hanging I don't care. I mean, that's fine, everyone's got to go. But if you don't know how they're going to kill you, you can't tell the execution style. Every time it's always a mystery, like one day, and depending on the crime is like obviously one day it's ripping out your toenails um so I mean, that's my thought.
Speaker 1:I think there's a benefit to that. And uh, number six, um, let's, uh, let's, figure out how to work this government within a budget. As a matter of fact, let's cut the budget of that government. I don't think the heritage there you go.
Speaker 1:There's all this talk about one of these hot items in these presidential campaigns are like we're going to raise taxes, but we're only going to raise taxes for the rich or whatever. It's all this like we're going to have the corporations pay more tax. All this more tax stuff. Why doesn't somebody say we're going to spend less?
Speaker 2:Because neither party is interested in that.
Speaker 1:It's just funny to me, but nobody says anything. It's like, yeah, we should just raise taxes to these people instead of just not spending as much money.
Speaker 2:It makes no sense.
Speaker 1:It's literally like paying a credit card with another credit card.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's.
Speaker 1:And that's the dumb thing that you can do. So that's great.
Speaker 2:Well, what is it? When you owe a debt of ten thousand dollars, it's your problem, but when it's like a billion, it's the government's or they can just write it off. Yeah, it's just like they're so indebted on it. It's like no one's ever expecting to get paid back. 35 trillion dollars like these yeah, the money's. That's why you gotta shout out thomas jefferson ran a deficit and andrew Andrew Jackson paid off the debt. There you go. Last time that's ever happened, I think that would be nice.
Speaker 1:I don't even care about the debt, I get how the world economy works. No, I don't get it, but apparently that's how the world economy works and we'll never be debt-free. But to cover them, blowing money like nothing, covering the government blowing, blowing money for whatever, and then just saying like well, we'll just get it from the rich people. And that's just like a total wool over your eyes, that like don't worry about how much money we're spending, we're going to, we're not going to take it from you, even though ultimately they do. And then number seven would be four-day work week.
Speaker 2:You of all people. Yeah, I'm shocked Really why Kind of You're working stiff.
Speaker 1:Hey, that would just give me another day to work on the podcast. That's all I'm looking at.
Speaker 2:So four day work week on a military clock? Yep, well, get your lunch break. You're just out there watching a public execution. Some guy committed some heinous crime with a four day work week week hot button issue right now hot button.
Speaker 1:Well, I think the the the conversation of the four-day work week is will they get? Will you get just as much done in four four days? So might as well just do it in four days, because you know people are not working. You know monday, mondays and fridays are not working. Mondays and Fridays are not as productive of a day as Tuesday through Thursday. But then if you cut back to a four-day workweek, is your Mondays and Thursdays not going to be as productive? All right. So my seven points are everybody, love everybody. No more. Didn't have that on my bingo card for this year. Comments no more time zones. We're all on military time. No more New Year's holiday. Bring back public executions. Cut government spending or cut the budget and a four-day work week. And honestly, if you follow those seven things, that's pretty sweet. I don't know if anyone would disagree with me on that. So do you think that would help?
Speaker 2:No, not at all, not even remotely. We're good at this. There's no way this thing's not going to get demonetized, because all the money we're bringing in. Thank you again to our sponsors All right.
Speaker 1:Well, I thought it was interesting thinking about the 14 points and how no one listened and how that's not more of a joke on our country.
Speaker 2:No one will probably listen to Project 2025, for better or worse. It's just something to pass the time.
Speaker 1:It's just minutiae. Is that what you would call it? Yep, it's just nonsense.
Speaker 2:Until we bring shame back, it's all a moot point. Yeah, big, lofty ideals boils down to 10.
Speaker 1:You know simplistic points that don't make it a human nature oftentimes it's just the pr behind the newest one isn't, as isn't as good as Wilson's 14 points. It just sounds good, so kind of got to that.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:I don't want to be a broken record, but I just think Proctor 2025 could use some makeup. I guess you could say Use a nice makeover to try to get it by. All right, anything else to add, john?
Speaker 2:No, that's, that's it. It's been a great show and I really enjoyed it and I look forward to the next one. Yeah, all right, stay furious.
Speaker 1:And we say bye-bye.