Assuming that Stalinist Russia was preferable to Hitlerite Germany, which actually makes for an interesting argument.
edited 17th Jan '11 6:57:27 PM by Tsukubus
"I didn't steal it; I'm borrowing it until I die."It's also quite a bizarre view of history. It seems humans tend to record their past as a method of deifying individuals, when underlying economic processes are vastly more important. Hitler could have been easily been "stopped" by a more stable international trade regime, expansionary monetary policies in the Atlantic powers, or an inexplicably higher level of investment liquidity in Western European markets.
"I didn't steal it; I'm borrowing it until I die."All the way out here on page 2, this statement might need you to go back and read again for you to get the relevance:
The study wasn't done by random media guys or anything. It was a survey of the academics who study US political history in the UK. You'd need a large enough base of people studying UK political history in the US to make another comparative study. There's probably loads (for the humanities) of US political historians worldwide compared to vice versa for any individual country which makes it more interesting this way round.
Throw Wilson's domestic policies, utter incompetence, and open racism into the mix, and I have to wonder how the hell he got as highly ranked as he did.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.^ Then you have something worse in regards to Wilson's policies domestically. He drafted anti-sedition laws and censorship of the media (the first such laws since 1789) which were blatantly unconstitutional.
Fortunately, everybody outside of him saw right through the charade and didn't enforce those.
Well there's this view that democratic societies can't arm up for war but that's just idiotic. I mean United States is already a perfectly good example of a democratic state armed to the teeth.
But yeah, I think the UK just likes conservatives a lot more in the media and public, as well as academic circles, then I am used to in my country. For most of the people I know, they'd view Reagan as the idiot who restarted the Cold War with his aggressive policies and crippled America's economy for no reason. Because when you look at it in the long run, the Soviet Union is gone but Russia doesn't evapourate off the planet, it's still there. Now, it is resurgent with a strong economic base and is slowly cleaning up its country and re-establishing itself as a regional power. In the mean time, USA now has to struggle with an unstoppable military-industrial complex that is bankrupting it into oblivion.
![]()
Oh God, don't get me started on those. And then the rampant war profiteering he allowed/encouraged....gah. I have to stop. Wilson can piss me off from beyond the grave like no other historical figure.
This study is invalid, and this type of study is invalid regardless of who is conducting it. Different people obviously have different priorities in politics, thus different people have different favored presidents.
If it was about who was the most historically significant, you could do it, but not the "best" overall president. Badass award going to Teddy, nice-guy award going to Carter, but both of them had major faults.
It isn't invalid at all. It lets us know how the UK sees American presidents. If it was only one person's opinion, it would be invalid. But these are the best-qualified people in their country to make this judgement.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.I wouldn't say that. He was definitely in the right in his struggle with Clemenceau at the end of WWI. If Wilson had definitively won instead of stalemating, Those Wacky Nazis would have bee nothing more than an obscure nationalist fringe party, as the thing that made their ideas so seductive (the total rape of Germany by the Allies, who were every bit as guilty for starting and perpetuating the war as Germany was, and the desire of many impoverished Germans to find a scapegoat they could actually do something to) would have never existed. Therefore, World War II, the Holocaust, and the Final Solution would never have happened and tens of millions of people would not have died horrible deaths. If Clemenceau had definitively won, the Holocaust would have begun 20 years early with a different set of victims (Clemenceau wanted to annihilate the German state and subject the German people to massive ethnic cleansing to essentially erase Germanness from the world).
Woodrow Wilson, for all his faults (and they were considerable), was practically the Only Sane Man when the dust settled after WWI; he was the only one who could see beyond selfish nationalism and revanchism. He may have failed in his quest to prevent another global war, but he struggled mightily and deserves credit for it.
edited 17th Jan '11 11:36:53 PM by WoolieWool
Out of Context Theater: Mike K "'Bloody Pussies' cracked me up"![]()
A generation of men had died during WW 1, it was stupid to invite the nations to reach an agreement when anything other than "fuck that guy" was on the homefront agenda.
So all of these experts represent the UK as a whole? My point is that people don't see eye to eye politically, obviously, so opinions can vary.
We prioritize differently, there's no way to say who is the best or worst president, some people hate Clinton and many of his policies, some people loved Clinton. It's an opinions piece, nothing more.
It isn't very likely. Most people in the UK don't really know much about American politics beyond the identity of the current president and maybe half a dozen previous notables.

Speaking of which, whose fault is Vietnam? Eisenhower?
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play