Explaining History

It's all too easy, when reading history, to see the world through the eyes of the coloniser rather than the colonised. The mandate system—the League of Nations framework through which Britain and France claimed legitimacy for their post-war territorial grabs—is often presented as a progressive innovation: a move from old-fashioned colonialism to enlightened trusteeship. But what did it look like from the perspective of those who suddenly found themselves under new rulers?

Drawing on Susan Pedersen's extraordinary book *The Guardians*, we explore how the mandate system was intended to serve multiple, often contradictory purposes. For the victorious imperial powers, it was a tool to legitimate the territorial settlement agreed at Paris in 1919. For internationalists and League officials, it was a mechanism for spreading norms about trusteeship and the open door. For the people of Cameroon, Togo, Samoa, South West Africa, and the Arab provinces of the former Ottoman Empire, it was something simpler: a shameless betrayal of the promises of self-determination made when the Allies had their backs to the wall.

We examine the petition process that emerged despite the explicit intentions of the mandate's architects. Neither the Covenant nor the mandate texts made any provision for petitioning; when the Milner Commission drafted the texts in 1919, all members save the American George Louis Beer agreed that allowing inhabitants to appeal to an international body would make "all administration impossible." Yet a petition process arose anyway—the achievement of thousands of men and women who, often at considerable risk, raised their voices against the new dispensation.

We trace the path of those petitions: from West Africa, where Douala elites protested the transfer of their territories from British to French control; to Geneva, where William Rappard of the League Secretariat found himself sympathising with exiled Arab nationalists; to the corridors of power where Sir Eric Drummond, the League's Secretary-General, did everything possible to suppress these inconvenient voices.

And we meet the figures who made the system work despite itself: J.H. Harris of the Anti-Slavery Society, who used his platform in *The Times* and *The Manchester Guardian* to amplify African grievances; Ormsby Gore, who argued that if a resident of a British colony could appeal to the Privy Council, surely an inhabitant of a mandated territory should be able to appeal to the League; and Rappard, who quietly circumvented his obstructive chief to raise the matter of petitions at the Permanent Mandates Commission's very first session.

The story is one of imperial hubris, international idealism, and the unplanned emergence of a mechanism through which colonised peoples learned to claim that they too were nations deserving to be heard. It is also a story that challenges our conventional understanding of when and how the League of Nations failed.

Topics covered:
- The mandate system as imperial legitimation
- Wilsonian internationalism vs. Anglo-French imperialism
- The promise of self-determination and its betrayal
- The petition process and its unplanned origins
- West African resistance to partition
- The Syrio-Palestinian Congress and Arab nationalist mobilisation
- William Rappard and the conscience of the League
- Sir Eric Drummond's obstructionism
- The Permanent Mandates Commission's first session
- Rethinking the failure of the League of Nations from a colonised perspective

---

Susan Pedersen's The Guardians is the best book on the mandate system I have ever read—a work of extraordinary scholarship that recovers the voices of those too often silenced in the archives.

If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us. We're migrating from Patreon to Substack—more details soon.
Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share.
▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content
Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory
▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation
Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast
Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com
▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper
Website: explaininghistory.org

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Host: Nick
Episode Overview
In this somber and reflective episode, Nick steps away from traditional historical narratives to analyze what he believes is a pivotal, "apocalyptic" turning point in the 21st century. Drawing on the concept of "Westlessness," Nick argues that current tensions in the Persian Gulf and the shifting political landscape in the United States signal the definitive end of Western hegemony and the violent birth of a truly multipolar world.
Key Themes and Discussion Points
The Concept of "Westlessness": Nick revisits the ideas of Dr. Samir Puri, discussing the relative rebalancing of world power. He suggests that we are moving past a world where Western liberal democracy and free markets are hegemonic, entering an era where they are merely one of many competing influences.
The First War of the Multipolar Order: Nick posits that the current situation in the Persian Gulf represents a tipping point. He argues that powers like Iran and China represent forces that the United States can no longer "bomb into submission," marking a limit to Western hard power.
The Moral Decline of Western Institutions: The episode explores the perceived "discrediting" of international law. Nick argues that Western complicity in global conflicts and the failure to uphold the rights of refugees and international borders has stripped the West of its moral authority in the eyes of the Global South.
The Internal Western "Civil War": Nick identifies a structural conflict between two elite factions:
The Traditional "Brahmin" Elite: The neoliberal political class (Reagan/Thatcher consensus) that has overseen mass privatization and social stagnation.
The Insurgent Populist Elite: Figures like Trump, Orbán, and Netanyahu, who weaponize cultural grievances to build coalitions while dismantling democratic checks and balances.
The Rise of "Pax Sinica": While the West is mired in "never-ending wars" and internal discord, Nick points to China’s strategic patience. He speculates that we may see a future where Europe—feeling abandoned or exploited by a Trump-led America—pivots toward Beijing to connect "Brussels to Beijing" in a new economic reality.
Notable Quote
"We are witnessing... one of the key pivotal moments of the 21st century, a moment for which I think whatever happens next, there's no coming back from where we're at."Final Thoughts
Nick concludes the episode with a stark outlook for the 21st century, predicting a diminished and poorer America and Europe. He promises to return to "proper history" in the next episode but emphasizes the necessity of reflecting on these historic shifts as they happen in real-time.
Links & Resources mentioned:
Westlessness by Dr. Samir Puri.
The Explaining History website (for ad-free content and ethical streaming options).

Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share.
▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content
Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory
▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation
Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast
Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com
▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper
Website: explaininghistory.org

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we continue our examination of the unfolding crisis in the Persian Gulf—a crisis that has now reached a point where the world may already be past the threshold of avoiding a major economic recession, perhaps even a depression.
The situation is grim. Trump, through a combination of staggering incompetence and hubris, has launched America into a conflict it cannot win. The proposed invasion of Kharg Island—Iran's largest refinery—would not bring the Iranians to the negotiating table. It would do what Operation Rolling Thunder and the bombing of North Korea failed to do: it would harden Iranian resolve, because for the regime, this is existential.
I explore the historical precedents. The Dardanelles campaign of 1915 shows what happens when great powers attempt to force narrow waterways defended by determined opponents. British and French ships were sunk by mines and coastal batteries; the naval approach was abandoned. The Straits of Hormuz are narrower than the Dardanelles. Any warship that sails through them today would likely be sunk before sunset—not by shore batteries, but by swarms of cheap drones.

This is the great inflection point of 21st century warfare. A few hundred drones launched at a carrier group can overwhelm its defensive systems. The era of the aircraft carrier as the unchallenged tool of world order is ending. China has been signalling this for years with its spectacular drone displays over Beijing. The message is clear: "Imagine what we can do if we attach something to them."
The geopolitical consequences are already unfolding. Europe is rapidly rapproaching with Russia to secure energy supplies. The Ukraine war will likely be settled in Russia's favour. The special relationship between Britain and America is dying—Rachel Reeves, the British Chancellor, choosing Ursula von der Leyen over Trump was a signal that the political class has finally understood that clinging to American coat-tails no longer offers protection, only entanglement.

And then there is Israel. Netanyahu, facing inevitable legal consequences, has a vested interest in perpetual conflict. He has found in Trump a president of almost unimaginable incompetence—one who surrounds himself with informal advisors, ignores professional intelligence, and has torn apart the State Department. This is the gangster state model: don't trust the clever people, because clever people find ways to outwit thugs.
Trump is now trapped in a lose-lose scenario. Either he escalates—leading to a Vietnam-style war of attrition that will destroy him and the global economy—or he retreats on Iranian terms. The Iranians will extract very painful concessions: American withdrawal from the Gulf, reparations, a levy on Gulf shipping that will make them extraordinarily wealthy.

This is how empires decline. Not through sudden collapse, but through catastrophic blunders that reveal the limits of power. The Dardanelles, Suez, Vietnam—and now the Straits of Hormuz. Trump will go down in history as the most incompetent US president, but his place in the history books will be secured not by his crimes or his attempted coup, but by the gift he has given Iran: a humiliation that dwarfs 1979.
Topics covered:

The economic consequences of the Gulf crisis
The proposed invasion of Kharg Island and its strategic impossibility
The Dardanelles campaign as historical precedent
Drones and the end of the aircraft carrier era
Europe's rapprochement with Russia
The death of the special relationship
Netanyahu's interest in perpetual conflict
Trump's informal, de-professionalised decision-making
The gangster state model and its historical parallels
Iran's potential terms for ending the conflict

Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share.
▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content
Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory
▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation
Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast
Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com
▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper
Website: explaininghistory.org

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Description:
In this episode, Nick explores a question currently weighing on the minds of historians and observers alike: are we witnessing the opening stages of a third global conflict? Drawing on the work of Richard Overy and examining the "quasi-peace" of the 20th century, Nick argues that our definitions of "World War" may be too narrow, often ignoring the unrelenting conflict experienced by the Global South since 1945.

We delve into the "hollowing out" of the American economic imperium—a transition from the industrial powerhouse of the Eisenhower era to a financialized economy struggling with internal stagnation. Nick compares the relative decline of the United States to Britain’s post-war trajectory, examining how the rise of China as a strategic, state-planned power has fundamentally broken the neoliberal order of the 1990s. From the resource-driven proxy wars in Venezuela and Iran to the looming shadow of the Taiwan Strait, we ask: can a "Great Power settlement" be reached, or are we destined for a generational period of violent transition?

Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share.
▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content
Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory
▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation
Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast
Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com
▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper
Website: explaininghistory.org

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's been a few days since we last looked at the Persian Gulf crisis, and events are racing forward at such a pace that the only sensible approach is to take a step back and examine the deeper patterns. Behind the headlines about Trump's impulsive decision-making lies a far more consequential story: the moment when a medium-sized power with cheap drones and missiles can hold the world's energy supplies hostage, and the world's sole superpower finds itself with no good options.

I begin with the decision-making in Washington—or rather, the absence of it. Trump, advised by Netanyahu and a handful of Fox News personalities, appears to have launched this war on a whim, assuming he could create "media noise" with no thought to an exit strategy. Military planners who understand the region have been overruled. The system of American governance has decayed to the point where a single egotistical hustler can launch the country into a no-win scenario.

Why no-win? Because Iran has been preparing for this moment for years. Its arsenal of drones, rockets, missiles, mines, and attack boats makes the safe navigation of the Straits of Hormuz virtually impossible. The idea of an international naval flotilla—Trump's proposed solution—is laughable. You would have to maintain it forever, and Iran would interpret any passage not agreeable to them as a hostile act.

I draw a historical parallel: the Dardanelles campaign of 1915. The reason the Allies landed at Gallipoli was because the first attempt to sail through the straits ended in disaster, with British and French ships sunk by shore-based fortifications. The Straits of Hormuz will become exactly that kind of killing zone. It doesn't matter how big your navy is. How many capital ships is America willing to sacrifice for a war Trump started on a whim? How many American lives before the outcry sweeps him from office?

The asymmetry of war is changing. Cheap, mass-produced drones—with motorcycle engines and mobile phones for guidance—can overwhelm anti-missile systems like Patriot and THAAD. Aircraft carriers, the symbol of American power for eighty years, may no longer be the tools for enforcing world order that they once were. China has been signalling this for years with its spectacular drone displays over Beijing: "Imagine what we can do if we attach something to them."

Then there are the geopolitical consequences. Europe will rapidly rapproche with Russia to access cheap hydrocarbons. The Ukraine war will likely be settled in Russia's favour. The push for renewables will gain a new argument: national security, liberation from Trump's whims. Rachel Reeves, the British Chancellor, has already signalled where the wind is blowing, choosing Ursula von der Leyen over Trump when asked.

The special relationship is dying. Suez was a humiliation; this is worse. The British political class is finally waking up to the reality that clinging to America's coat-tails no longer offers protection—only entanglement in unwinnable wars.

And then there's Israel. Nuclear-armed, increasingly isolated, and with an American public whose support has reached an all-time low. If America withdraws from the Gulf, what sense does it make to support Israel as Iran's key enemy? But Israel has always reserved the right to act unilaterally. The situation between Iran and Israel is the one that will continue, long after the current crisis resolves—if it resolves.

I end with two possible futures: a quick resolution where Trump claims an illusory victory and moves on, or a protracted conflict that drags the world into an endless energy crisis. Either way, the lesson of North Korea has been learned: the only protection against American aggression is a nuclear weapon. Iran will never sign another enrichment treaty.

Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share.
▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content
Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory
▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation
Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast
Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com
▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper
Website: explaininghistory.org

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.