It's hard to know what kind of world we are entering in the Trump era - except that it will undoubtedly be volatile and very different from the one we've been used to for so long. That said, taking the longer view, there are some striking parallels with the new world orders which emerged at the end of the First and Second World Wars. The key post-war settlements of Versailles (1919) and Yalta/Potsdam (1945) respectively were agreed at the behest of great powers (the war's winners) which, though they spoke the language of national self-determination and democratic freedoms, essentially imposed the new international system which was to supersede the collapsed empires that the two conflicts brought about. In both cases too, a multiplicity of nation states came into being or were reinstated, leading to new resentments (notably from Germany and, arguably, Japan after WW1) or fresh 'spheres of influence', which amounted at worst to widespread repression (the Soviet bloc in eastern Europe after WW2), at best to a diplomatic and economic imperialism presided over by the USA. This is, broadly, not that far from today's strongest states (most of them autocracies, the United States now included) imposing their will on the smaller nation states which come within their orbit. But the big difference from Versailles and Yalta is two-fold. Firstly, these settlements came at the end of long, costly and destructive world wars. Because of that, the presiding big powers were at pains to establish a different world order that would avoid such wars in the future. In the event, the League of Nations was deeply flawed (not least because the USA did not officially join it) and the UN has certainly not always been effective, but at least they represented an acknowledged rules-based international system and spawned multiple offshoots (in which American influence and money was significant) that, in a quieter way, led to global improvements in peace, disarmament, health, education and poverty. The second point is this: the new world order in both 1919 and 1945 was essentially an American hegemony. Ostensibly, yes, Washington was isolationist after WW1, but it nevertheless played a considerable role in world affairs, if only because the American dollar held such sway. By 1945, as a major victor in WW2 and the richest economy in the world, the USA emerged as a veritable superpower which went on to play a commanding role on the international stage, ultimately outlasting its principal Cold War rival, the Soviet Union. Looking back, few can doubt that the 20th century, even into the 21st, was America's time. In 2025, we can see all this changing as rival great powers (China, Russia, Saudi Arabia et al) challenge America's dominance, both separately and together, in a more multipolar system in which all states, big and small, will pursue their own best interests. Trump's response - seemingly personal, even whimsical - is to start dismantling the world order which served America so well for so long. In doing so, he is not, unlike his predecessors at Versailles and Yalta, hoping to avoid future world conflicts or improve an ailing international system. On the contrary, his intentions are brutally transactional, to exact the best deal for America, whatever it takes, even if this antagonises close and enduring allies. This is an explosive change from past certainties and seems likely to lead to more conflict rather than less. But if the Donald thinks it will make America stronger, how weak does he really believe his country has been for the last century and more?
If you think you know about WW1 and WW2, it's time to think again.
An Understanding History Podcast
Comments