What do you think?
Rate this book
The Madman in the White House: Sigmund Freud, Ambassador Bullitt, and the Lost Psychobiography of Woodrow Wilson
The notorious psychobiography of Woodrow Wilson, rediscovered nearly a century after it was written by Sigmund Freud and US diplomat William C. Bullitt, sheds new light on how the mental health of a controversial American president shaped world events.
When the fate of millions rests on the decisions of a mentally compromised leader, what can one person do? Disillusioned by President Woodrow Wilson's destructive and irrational handling of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, a US diplomat named William C. Bullitt asked this very question. With the help of his friend Sigmund Freud, Bullitt set out to write a psychological analysis of the president. He gathered material from personal archives and interviewed members of Wilson's inner circle. In The Madman in the White House, Patrick Weil resurrects this forgotten portrait of an unbalanced president.
After two years of collaboration, Bullitt and Freud signed off on a manuscript in April 1932. But the book was not published until 1966, nearly thirty years after Freud's death and only a year before Bullitt's. The published edition was heavily redacted, and by the time it was released, the mystique of psychoanalysis had waned in popular culture and Wilson's legacy was unassailable. The psychological study was panned by critics, and Freud's descendants denied his involvement in the project.
For nearly a century, the mysterious, original Bullitt and Freud manuscript remained hidden from the public. Then in 2014, while browsing the archives of Yale University, Weil happened upon the text. Based on his reading of the 1932 manuscript, Weil examines the significance of Bullitt and Freud's findings and offers a major reassessment of the notorious psychobiography. Weil also masterfully analyzes contemporary heads of state and warns of the global catastrophes that might be brought on by their unbalanced personalities.
When the fate of millions rests on the decisions of a mentally compromised leader, what can one person do? Disillusioned by President Woodrow Wilson's destructive and irrational handling of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, a US diplomat named William C. Bullitt asked this very question. With the help of his friend Sigmund Freud, Bullitt set out to write a psychological analysis of the president. He gathered material from personal archives and interviewed members of Wilson's inner circle. In The Madman in the White House, Patrick Weil resurrects this forgotten portrait of an unbalanced president.
After two years of collaboration, Bullitt and Freud signed off on a manuscript in April 1932. But the book was not published until 1966, nearly thirty years after Freud's death and only a year before Bullitt's. The published edition was heavily redacted, and by the time it was released, the mystique of psychoanalysis had waned in popular culture and Wilson's legacy was unassailable. The psychological study was panned by critics, and Freud's descendants denied his involvement in the project.
For nearly a century, the mysterious, original Bullitt and Freud manuscript remained hidden from the public. Then in 2014, while browsing the archives of Yale University, Weil happened upon the text. Based on his reading of the 1932 manuscript, Weil examines the significance of Bullitt and Freud's findings and offers a major reassessment of the notorious psychobiography. Weil also masterfully analyzes contemporary heads of state and warns of the global catastrophes that might be brought on by their unbalanced personalities.
400 pages, Hardcover
First published May 16, 2023
23 people are currently reading
339 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
November 30, 2023
Garbage. This is less about the psychobiography of Wilson and more about the career of William Bullitt.I had hoped the book would go through the conclusion of the book in questions, but it did not . There were even minimal excepts from Bullitt and Freud s work. Disappointing
September 22, 2023
Part long distance psychoanalysis, part biography of a Forrest Gump like figure in the first half of the 20th century, and part literary archaeological excavation of how a published history came into being makes for a mishmash of a read.
September 11, 2025
The Madman in the White House: Sigmund Freud, Ambassador Bullitt, and the Lost Psychobiography of Woodrow Wilson by Patrick Weil. Harvard University Press, 400 pages, $35.00
Schizoid Psychobiography?
by Tom Connolly
Harvard University Press’s shamelessly sensational title beckons with the promise of an historical page-turner that will leave the reader gasping at the prospect of a lunatic Woodrow Wilson frothing away in the Oval Office. However, save for a few halting hints at homosexual repression and a nod to a Christ complex, “Hmmm?” is probably the strongest reaction this book will inspire.
Weil’s archival excavation of the original 1932 manuscript co-written by diplomat William C. Bullitt and Sigmund Freud: Thomas Woodrow Wilson: A Psychological Study, previously buried in Yale’s Bullitt papers is itself praiseworthy, but this book is less an exhumation of Wilson’s tortured psyche than a resurrection of Bullitt as an interesting historical figure.
In 2014, Weil discovered the long-lost complete psychobiography, which portrays Wilson as possessed by messianic mania, self-adoration, and a total inability to accept any inconvenient facts that might query his certitude. Weil’s rigorous investigations are commendable. He rescues from obscurity not only the manuscript but the compelling story of Bullitt, that professional diplomat turned congressional nark. Bullitt had served on the American delegation to Paris, but was repulsed by Wilson’s egocentric approach to the negotiations. Wilson neither sought advice nor offered any information to the peace commissioners. Bullitt alone had the guts to confront the President, and soon he learned that Wilson was willing to scuttle all his idealism for a power play that would give him the League of Nations. Dismayed and disgusted that Wilson had casually tossed aside almost all of the 14 Points, Bullitt resigned and went home to testify against the acceptance of the Versailles Treaty. His eyewitness evidence was crucial to defeating the Treaty.
The best parts of the book are Weil’s insights into Bullitt, who had a fascinating life. Born into privilege, he was both a member of the establishment and a Bohemian dilettante. He brushed up against American radicalism. Bullitt befriended John Reed and, after exhausting his complaisance with his first wife’s bisexuality, married Reed’s widow, Louise Bryant. He was even somewhat sympathetic to dealing with Lenin, though later he would become a fierce Cold Warrior. Thoroughly disillusioned by the aftermath of World War I and the collapse of his first marriage, he sought treatment from Sigmund Freud in 1926. In Vienna, he discovered Freud’s antipathy to Wilson and the two devised a psychobiography of Woodrow Wilson with the aim of revealing the fatal flaws in his psyche that had led to the Versailles debacle.
However, this is where the misleading title frustrates. Less than a quarter of the book is about Wilson, and less than that is concerned with the psychobiography. Harvard even lacks the courage of its compellation, blurbing that it “ostensibly is about the book Bullitt and Freud wrote about Wilson, but it is mostly a biography of Bullitt.” Granted, the manuscript’s backstory and Bullitt’s life fully merit a book, but the Freudian fireworks that Wilson was a closet case with a Christ complex fizzle in light of Wilson’s staunch heterosexuality and devout Christianity. Moreover, Freud and Bullitt took scant notice of Wilson’s white supremacism and apologies for the Confederacy. Bullitt was outraged over Wilson’s betrayal of self-determination in Europe, but unconcerned over Wilson’s trampling on the Constitution at home.
Again, while the book’s title, The Madman in the White House, summons the reader to a forensic dissection of presidential insanity, Bullitt’s personal drama drives the narrative. We learn that Bullitt not only co-authored the Wilson psycho-biography, earlier he had written a play, never produced, “The Tragedy of Woodrow Wilson,” that he sent to Freud, and was the seed of their joint effort. Weil conjures behind-the-scenes plotting of Bullitt’s later-day career as a secretary of state manqué, employed then discarded by Franklin Roosevelt, and his tortuous personal life. He seems never to have fully ended any of his romantic relationships, and his loyalty to the self-destructive Louise Bryant is touching. He ended his days a gadfly in exile, calling for war with “Red China” and estranging old friends such as Charles de Gaulle and Chiang Kai-shek.
Readers eager to fathom Wilson’s psychological flaws may be disappointed; nevertheless, they will learn about Bullitt, an intriguing figure whose place in the social, aesthetic, and diplomatic circles of 20th-century America was unique. Bullitt’s restlessness and grandiosity make him a compelling figure, and Weil sympathetically depicts the frustrations and failures of Bullitt’s final years.
To his credit, Weil teases out the contemporary resonance of Freud and Bullitt’s work. We witness the manuscript’s saga from its inception to its redacted 1966 publication--and Weil points out that many decades later, the urgency of identifying a “pathological personality” in our leadership remains a fire bell.
Schizoid Psychobiography?
by Tom Connolly
Harvard University Press’s shamelessly sensational title beckons with the promise of an historical page-turner that will leave the reader gasping at the prospect of a lunatic Woodrow Wilson frothing away in the Oval Office. However, save for a few halting hints at homosexual repression and a nod to a Christ complex, “Hmmm?” is probably the strongest reaction this book will inspire.
Weil’s archival excavation of the original 1932 manuscript co-written by diplomat William C. Bullitt and Sigmund Freud: Thomas Woodrow Wilson: A Psychological Study, previously buried in Yale’s Bullitt papers is itself praiseworthy, but this book is less an exhumation of Wilson’s tortured psyche than a resurrection of Bullitt as an interesting historical figure.
In 2014, Weil discovered the long-lost complete psychobiography, which portrays Wilson as possessed by messianic mania, self-adoration, and a total inability to accept any inconvenient facts that might query his certitude. Weil’s rigorous investigations are commendable. He rescues from obscurity not only the manuscript but the compelling story of Bullitt, that professional diplomat turned congressional nark. Bullitt had served on the American delegation to Paris, but was repulsed by Wilson’s egocentric approach to the negotiations. Wilson neither sought advice nor offered any information to the peace commissioners. Bullitt alone had the guts to confront the President, and soon he learned that Wilson was willing to scuttle all his idealism for a power play that would give him the League of Nations. Dismayed and disgusted that Wilson had casually tossed aside almost all of the 14 Points, Bullitt resigned and went home to testify against the acceptance of the Versailles Treaty. His eyewitness evidence was crucial to defeating the Treaty.
The best parts of the book are Weil’s insights into Bullitt, who had a fascinating life. Born into privilege, he was both a member of the establishment and a Bohemian dilettante. He brushed up against American radicalism. Bullitt befriended John Reed and, after exhausting his complaisance with his first wife’s bisexuality, married Reed’s widow, Louise Bryant. He was even somewhat sympathetic to dealing with Lenin, though later he would become a fierce Cold Warrior. Thoroughly disillusioned by the aftermath of World War I and the collapse of his first marriage, he sought treatment from Sigmund Freud in 1926. In Vienna, he discovered Freud’s antipathy to Wilson and the two devised a psychobiography of Woodrow Wilson with the aim of revealing the fatal flaws in his psyche that had led to the Versailles debacle.
However, this is where the misleading title frustrates. Less than a quarter of the book is about Wilson, and less than that is concerned with the psychobiography. Harvard even lacks the courage of its compellation, blurbing that it “ostensibly is about the book Bullitt and Freud wrote about Wilson, but it is mostly a biography of Bullitt.” Granted, the manuscript’s backstory and Bullitt’s life fully merit a book, but the Freudian fireworks that Wilson was a closet case with a Christ complex fizzle in light of Wilson’s staunch heterosexuality and devout Christianity. Moreover, Freud and Bullitt took scant notice of Wilson’s white supremacism and apologies for the Confederacy. Bullitt was outraged over Wilson’s betrayal of self-determination in Europe, but unconcerned over Wilson’s trampling on the Constitution at home.
Again, while the book’s title, The Madman in the White House, summons the reader to a forensic dissection of presidential insanity, Bullitt’s personal drama drives the narrative. We learn that Bullitt not only co-authored the Wilson psycho-biography, earlier he had written a play, never produced, “The Tragedy of Woodrow Wilson,” that he sent to Freud, and was the seed of their joint effort. Weil conjures behind-the-scenes plotting of Bullitt’s later-day career as a secretary of state manqué, employed then discarded by Franklin Roosevelt, and his tortuous personal life. He seems never to have fully ended any of his romantic relationships, and his loyalty to the self-destructive Louise Bryant is touching. He ended his days a gadfly in exile, calling for war with “Red China” and estranging old friends such as Charles de Gaulle and Chiang Kai-shek.
Readers eager to fathom Wilson’s psychological flaws may be disappointed; nevertheless, they will learn about Bullitt, an intriguing figure whose place in the social, aesthetic, and diplomatic circles of 20th-century America was unique. Bullitt’s restlessness and grandiosity make him a compelling figure, and Weil sympathetically depicts the frustrations and failures of Bullitt’s final years.
To his credit, Weil teases out the contemporary resonance of Freud and Bullitt’s work. We witness the manuscript’s saga from its inception to its redacted 1966 publication--and Weil points out that many decades later, the urgency of identifying a “pathological personality” in our leadership remains a fire bell.
February 22, 2024
Little about Freud, more about Wilson, but the most about Bullitt, who is not interesting enough to sustain a book of this length.
June 14, 2024
In this biography of W.C.Bullitt, the diplomat and politician is ever updating his psycho biography of Woodrow Wilson until finally publishing in 1966 soon before his death. Bullitt and Freud believe WW's psychology and father-fixation led to his mistakes giving in to empire of UK and France. Furthermore WW is homosexual but that part is suppressed to avoid political criticism from the Church. Along the way Bullitt becomes anti-Communist and damns both WW and FDR for appeasing the Soviet Union.
This book states and criticizes many insider opinions, and US failure to accept Bullitt's opinions and forecasts which he claims were exonerated. In retrospect, the stated opinions claims major mistakes by FDR (on trusting Stalin), Gen George Marshal (on invasion site), etc
Seems his forecast on Communism was prescient, but his focus was on Stalin who didn't control the entire Soviet World, as G.Kennan reminded Bullitt. Read V.Bevins book The Jakarta Method for reminder on how CIA in the 60s sabotaged third world freedom movements with Stalin's inspiration perhaps but no support. While good to be anti-communist, it's overrreaction to think Stalin's influence was worldwide. Bullitt criticized FDR whose priority was ending WWII and saving American lives, not joining an anti-communist crusade. He similarly criticized W.Wilson who "had been convinced that the Bolsheviks would soon lose" so WW was lenient, mistakenly.
Patrick Weil reports an oddly negative critique of W.Wilson and doesn't confront his rating near #10 of all US presidents. The story does not clear up my confusion over WWI's Treaty of Versailles problems and W.Wilson's poor contribution.
This book reports insider criticism of W.Wilson's actions at Versailles, e.g. with Secy of State Lansing. W.C.Bullitt also disagreed but towards other direction, namely Bullitt wanted the original 14 points while Lansing didn't. Then WW watered it down, yielding to influence of UK and France which he couldn't resist because his psychology considered them father figures. The author reports many criticisms of Wilson, that he "had been convinced that the Bolsheviks would soon lose" which was wrong. Also that he was private and accepted no criticism except from inner circle, mainly only Col. House until they disagreed and Wilson acted solo.
The author and Bullitt blamed FDR and Ike for trusting Stalin not to expand borders. Bullitt thought that, like Wilson after WWI, Roosevelt failed to use the power he had attained. In my opinion, it wouldn't have mattered much, Stalin wouldn't stick to any treaty.
Bullitt was headstrong and independent and more moralistic than either president. Anna Freud called him “frightfully arrogant.” His public criticisms angered both presidents, who dumped him. He criticized his superiors. Speaking truth to power is a good trait but doesn't make him right.
He seems anti-gay considering treatment of Sumner Welles, for whom he has some political grudge. Maybe same grudge against Wilson? Author asks "Would Freud and Bullitt have the guts to write that Wilson was a passive homosexual—and then publish it?" His 1930 answer is yes, "he included this conclusion eleven times throughout the manuscript." but when finally published in 1966 he'd removed them, as political impulse, to avoid criticism by Christians. I suppose today's psychologists would call it valid, for Wilson to suppress his nature. Very much conjecture. Bullitt was afraid to put forward this interpretation" of Wilson being passive homosexual and his "submission to God and of Christianity’s power". He also believed that " Knowledge could be sacrificed to avoid harming Christianity in its resistance to atheistic Communism."
I agree with his political decision. Even with the reduced result, R.Nixon told Bullitt he was "driving the liberal establishment out of their minds with your Wilson.”
The last chapter is welcome after a book-long of confusing argument over opinions amid criticism of actual decisions by WW and FDR. Wilson iis called “the supreme paradox”: “he who had forced the Allies to write the League into the Treaty, unwrote it."
Apparently Patrick Weill is not in the majority who rates Wilson high as #10 best president.
If we compare Wilson to his contemporaries, he deservedly rates much better than Harding or Coolidge, TR rates higher but Taft (23) doesn't and maybe should. Likely Wilson's advantage is WWI although his role in its ending is questionable. Wilson gets bad ratings for racial segregation but rates high for his Fourteen Points and liberalism on foreign policy. But self-determination was idealistic rhetoric that he supported for Eastern Europeans but not for colonized Arabs and Irish when it conflicted with empirical goals of his allies. Even there he gave in to UK and French empires, causing Bullitt to object.
Overall, trying to explain too much and to report all opinions, the book fails to make coherent a confusing era.
This book states and criticizes many insider opinions, and US failure to accept Bullitt's opinions and forecasts which he claims were exonerated. In retrospect, the stated opinions claims major mistakes by FDR (on trusting Stalin), Gen George Marshal (on invasion site), etc
Seems his forecast on Communism was prescient, but his focus was on Stalin who didn't control the entire Soviet World, as G.Kennan reminded Bullitt. Read V.Bevins book The Jakarta Method for reminder on how CIA in the 60s sabotaged third world freedom movements with Stalin's inspiration perhaps but no support. While good to be anti-communist, it's overrreaction to think Stalin's influence was worldwide. Bullitt criticized FDR whose priority was ending WWII and saving American lives, not joining an anti-communist crusade. He similarly criticized W.Wilson who "had been convinced that the Bolsheviks would soon lose" so WW was lenient, mistakenly.
Patrick Weil reports an oddly negative critique of W.Wilson and doesn't confront his rating near #10 of all US presidents. The story does not clear up my confusion over WWI's Treaty of Versailles problems and W.Wilson's poor contribution.
This book reports insider criticism of W.Wilson's actions at Versailles, e.g. with Secy of State Lansing. W.C.Bullitt also disagreed but towards other direction, namely Bullitt wanted the original 14 points while Lansing didn't. Then WW watered it down, yielding to influence of UK and France which he couldn't resist because his psychology considered them father figures. The author reports many criticisms of Wilson, that he "had been convinced that the Bolsheviks would soon lose" which was wrong. Also that he was private and accepted no criticism except from inner circle, mainly only Col. House until they disagreed and Wilson acted solo.
The author and Bullitt blamed FDR and Ike for trusting Stalin not to expand borders. Bullitt thought that, like Wilson after WWI, Roosevelt failed to use the power he had attained. In my opinion, it wouldn't have mattered much, Stalin wouldn't stick to any treaty.
Bullitt was headstrong and independent and more moralistic than either president. Anna Freud called him “frightfully arrogant.” His public criticisms angered both presidents, who dumped him. He criticized his superiors. Speaking truth to power is a good trait but doesn't make him right.
He seems anti-gay considering treatment of Sumner Welles, for whom he has some political grudge. Maybe same grudge against Wilson? Author asks "Would Freud and Bullitt have the guts to write that Wilson was a passive homosexual—and then publish it?" His 1930 answer is yes, "he included this conclusion eleven times throughout the manuscript." but when finally published in 1966 he'd removed them, as political impulse, to avoid criticism by Christians. I suppose today's psychologists would call it valid, for Wilson to suppress his nature. Very much conjecture. Bullitt was afraid to put forward this interpretation" of Wilson being passive homosexual and his "submission to God and of Christianity’s power". He also believed that " Knowledge could be sacrificed to avoid harming Christianity in its resistance to atheistic Communism."
I agree with his political decision. Even with the reduced result, R.Nixon told Bullitt he was "driving the liberal establishment out of their minds with your Wilson.”
The last chapter is welcome after a book-long of confusing argument over opinions amid criticism of actual decisions by WW and FDR. Wilson iis called “the supreme paradox”: “he who had forced the Allies to write the League into the Treaty, unwrote it."
Apparently Patrick Weill is not in the majority who rates Wilson high as #10 best president.
If we compare Wilson to his contemporaries, he deservedly rates much better than Harding or Coolidge, TR rates higher but Taft (23) doesn't and maybe should. Likely Wilson's advantage is WWI although his role in its ending is questionable. Wilson gets bad ratings for racial segregation but rates high for his Fourteen Points and liberalism on foreign policy. But self-determination was idealistic rhetoric that he supported for Eastern Europeans but not for colonized Arabs and Irish when it conflicted with empirical goals of his allies. Even there he gave in to UK and French empires, causing Bullitt to object.
Overall, trying to explain too much and to report all opinions, the book fails to make coherent a confusing era.
May 15, 2023
My thanks to both NetGalley and the publisher Harvard University Press for an advance copy of this history about a book, a presidency and two men who tried to get to heart of what went wrong.
To announce that one would be the perfect President of the United States, than travel the country trying to earn money and votes to make this statement seem true, seems a little mad. Or the actions of a grifter as has been proven in our last elections. Coming to the decision that only I could be the so-called leader of the free world, a free world that is coming more and more with limits, that I only I have the strength, the knowledge, the ability and the agility to get things done seems like textbook megalomania. And yet every two years people announce they are running for president, and try to convince others they have the right stuff. Or can grift well. Many books have been written about presidents, what they were thinking, feeling, how their pasts made them, how their actions defined them. Only one of these books featured a co-writer as well known as Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, along with a hurt and jaded American diplomat by the name of William C. Bullitt, who had his own issues. Political scientist Patrick Weil looks at the history of this book, and the events that shaped it in The Madman in the White House: Sigmund Freud, Ambassador Bullitt, and the Lost Psychobiography of Woodrow Wilson.
William C. Bullitt was a self-made man, with a particular set of ideas about family, the world and how leaders should act. Bullitt had travelled quite a bit, was known to many interesting and diverse people. Bullitt also had a thirst for power, and in the government of Woodrow Wilson, had thought that he had met a man who shared similar values. However following the end of the First World War, Bullitt was stunned at how badly Wilson seemed to be handling the peace. Picking fights with allies, getting emotional at times, declaring enemies with politicians he needed for their support, Bullitt left the administration in disgust. Bullitt further burned his bridges by testifying to the Senate about the many wrongs that he felt Wilson had committed. While traveling and having problems with his marriage, Bullitt went to the one person he thought could help in Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis whose friendship Bullitt gained. Bullitt approached Freud with a promising idea. Bullitt would do research on Wilson, talking to friends, family and political cronies, and together the two would write a psychobiography on Wilson, looking at what went wrong.
A different kind of history book, one that covers quite a lot of subject matters. The book is both a history of Europe after the First World War looking at the failures arising from the treaty of Versailles. A biography of Bullitt and Wilson, with a bit of Freud. Also a history on the book Thomas Woodrow Wilson: A Psychological Study, and the many controversies that followed the book's publication. For all the subjects the book covers, the narrative never drags nor seems to get lost. There is a lot of history, both on the people, but of the era. What helps is that the people under discussion are all interesting, Bullitt alone is one fascinating character, worth a pyschobiography of its own. There is a lot to take in, but Weil does a very good job of explaining everything and making the passages not only readable, but understandable.
As I stated a very different kind of history. One that might not be for everyone, but one that I found engaging and very informative. Recommended for both readers of history and of course psychology, as well as those who like to read the stories of people behind the scenes of great events.
To announce that one would be the perfect President of the United States, than travel the country trying to earn money and votes to make this statement seem true, seems a little mad. Or the actions of a grifter as has been proven in our last elections. Coming to the decision that only I could be the so-called leader of the free world, a free world that is coming more and more with limits, that I only I have the strength, the knowledge, the ability and the agility to get things done seems like textbook megalomania. And yet every two years people announce they are running for president, and try to convince others they have the right stuff. Or can grift well. Many books have been written about presidents, what they were thinking, feeling, how their pasts made them, how their actions defined them. Only one of these books featured a co-writer as well known as Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, along with a hurt and jaded American diplomat by the name of William C. Bullitt, who had his own issues. Political scientist Patrick Weil looks at the history of this book, and the events that shaped it in The Madman in the White House: Sigmund Freud, Ambassador Bullitt, and the Lost Psychobiography of Woodrow Wilson.
William C. Bullitt was a self-made man, with a particular set of ideas about family, the world and how leaders should act. Bullitt had travelled quite a bit, was known to many interesting and diverse people. Bullitt also had a thirst for power, and in the government of Woodrow Wilson, had thought that he had met a man who shared similar values. However following the end of the First World War, Bullitt was stunned at how badly Wilson seemed to be handling the peace. Picking fights with allies, getting emotional at times, declaring enemies with politicians he needed for their support, Bullitt left the administration in disgust. Bullitt further burned his bridges by testifying to the Senate about the many wrongs that he felt Wilson had committed. While traveling and having problems with his marriage, Bullitt went to the one person he thought could help in Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis whose friendship Bullitt gained. Bullitt approached Freud with a promising idea. Bullitt would do research on Wilson, talking to friends, family and political cronies, and together the two would write a psychobiography on Wilson, looking at what went wrong.
A different kind of history book, one that covers quite a lot of subject matters. The book is both a history of Europe after the First World War looking at the failures arising from the treaty of Versailles. A biography of Bullitt and Wilson, with a bit of Freud. Also a history on the book Thomas Woodrow Wilson: A Psychological Study, and the many controversies that followed the book's publication. For all the subjects the book covers, the narrative never drags nor seems to get lost. There is a lot of history, both on the people, but of the era. What helps is that the people under discussion are all interesting, Bullitt alone is one fascinating character, worth a pyschobiography of its own. There is a lot to take in, but Weil does a very good job of explaining everything and making the passages not only readable, but understandable.
As I stated a very different kind of history. One that might not be for everyone, but one that I found engaging and very informative. Recommended for both readers of history and of course psychology, as well as those who like to read the stories of people behind the scenes of great events.
Read
August 8, 2023Americans revel in analysing the state of their president’s mind, especially when it helps score political points. Former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson recently ‘diagnosed’ Joe Biden with ‘cognitive decline’, dementia and senility. Biden’s predecessor in the Oval Office, Donald Trump, was probably the most psychoanalysed president in history. Journalists routinely pronounced him a sadistic narcissist with delusions of grandeur. His niece, the clinical psychologist Mary L. Trump, even got in on the act with an explosive book, Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created The World’s Most Dangerous Man, in which she argued that her uncle ‘meets the criteria for antisocial personality disorder’. More than one million copies were sold in its first week. As Patrick Weil shows in The Madman in the White House, this is nothing new. In the 1920s, Sigmund Freud and the US diplomat William C. Bullitt co-authored a study of Woodrow Wilson. Almost a century later, in 2014, Weil found the original manuscript in Bullitt’s papers at Yale University.
Though today Bullitt’s fame is far overshadowed by both Freud and Wilson, during the first half of the 20th century he was an American diplomatic grandee. He had contacts in all the major chancelleries and served as US Ambassador to the Soviet Union between 1933 and 1936, and then to France until 1940. Bullitt had begun his career as Assistant Secretary of State for Europe in the Wilson administration during the First World War. After the Armistice, he became part of the American delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, where the terms of surrender between the victorious Entente and the defeated Central Powers were to be negotiated. Bullitt admired Wilson’s idealism and strongly supported the president’s plan to build a liberal world order from the ruins of the war. But in Paris he found himself perplexed by Wilson’s erratic behaviour: his unwillingness to receive counsel, his constant flip-flopping, his repeated concessions and then his pompous denials that he had made concessions.
Read the rest of the review at HistoryToday.com.
Theo Zenou recently finished a PhD in US history at the University of Cambridge.
Though today Bullitt’s fame is far overshadowed by both Freud and Wilson, during the first half of the 20th century he was an American diplomatic grandee. He had contacts in all the major chancelleries and served as US Ambassador to the Soviet Union between 1933 and 1936, and then to France until 1940. Bullitt had begun his career as Assistant Secretary of State for Europe in the Wilson administration during the First World War. After the Armistice, he became part of the American delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, where the terms of surrender between the victorious Entente and the defeated Central Powers were to be negotiated. Bullitt admired Wilson’s idealism and strongly supported the president’s plan to build a liberal world order from the ruins of the war. But in Paris he found himself perplexed by Wilson’s erratic behaviour: his unwillingness to receive counsel, his constant flip-flopping, his repeated concessions and then his pompous denials that he had made concessions.
Read the rest of the review at HistoryToday.com.
Theo Zenou recently finished a PhD in US history at the University of Cambridge.
October 14, 2025
Not quite sure what to say about this very strange book.
First, I admire the courage of the author to come right out with his own analysis. He was not afraid to argue with the conclusions reached by the two men who crafted a psychobiography of Woodrow Wilson in the 1930s—even when one of those men was Sigmund Freud.
I went into this thinking it was going to be focused mainly on the interpretations of Wilson and his various character traits. Instead, a big part of the book was a biography of Willam Bullit, a career diplomat who co-authored the pschobiography of Wilson with Freud. While Bullit was interesting, even married to Louise Bryant for a while, I would not have picked up this book if I’d known.
Still, the parts that do focus on Wilson are interesting, even though my practical and untrained mind wonders how people took Freud seriously. I’m sure it’s just beyond my ken, but what a penis fascination the guy had.
Anyway, Wilson was a bit of a nut case, which doesn’t surprise me. The historiography of Wilson biographies does fascinate me. Interpretations of his behavior at Versailles and after are all over the place, from knight on a white horse to lunatic obsessed with his father. What a tangled legacy!
First, I admire the courage of the author to come right out with his own analysis. He was not afraid to argue with the conclusions reached by the two men who crafted a psychobiography of Woodrow Wilson in the 1930s—even when one of those men was Sigmund Freud.
I went into this thinking it was going to be focused mainly on the interpretations of Wilson and his various character traits. Instead, a big part of the book was a biography of Willam Bullit, a career diplomat who co-authored the pschobiography of Wilson with Freud. While Bullit was interesting, even married to Louise Bryant for a while, I would not have picked up this book if I’d known.
Still, the parts that do focus on Wilson are interesting, even though my practical and untrained mind wonders how people took Freud seriously. I’m sure it’s just beyond my ken, but what a penis fascination the guy had.
Anyway, Wilson was a bit of a nut case, which doesn’t surprise me. The historiography of Wilson biographies does fascinate me. Interpretations of his behavior at Versailles and after are all over the place, from knight on a white horse to lunatic obsessed with his father. What a tangled legacy!
February 17, 2025
So I really enjoyed a LA review of books podcast episode before inauguration where the guest was a psychoanalyst who discussed this book. The timing is pretty key. I think I can still recommend that podcast episode, but goddamn a lot has changed over the past weeks.
When I listened and began reading at first, the main struggle in my mind is ‘we voted to return to the pox?! Really??!!’ A few weeks later, that thought is a little back burnered since there’s so much other shit to wade through.
Anyway, the psychology of powerful people is important and this is a unique example from history to illustrate that. And it’s explained well. And the historical period and figures are interesting. Except the connection to the current moment has kind of slipped away… cus everything is so bad and so dumb and so bad and so dumb. Pretty much everyone in this book, even those judged harshly, are beacons of valor and honor and wisdom compared to all *this shit*
So, I’ll write this without any idea about its expiration date or the expiration date for the ideas in this book… what would freud’s analysis of alito be? Of thomas? Of gorsuch?
When I listened and began reading at first, the main struggle in my mind is ‘we voted to return to the pox?! Really??!!’ A few weeks later, that thought is a little back burnered since there’s so much other shit to wade through.
Anyway, the psychology of powerful people is important and this is a unique example from history to illustrate that. And it’s explained well. And the historical period and figures are interesting. Except the connection to the current moment has kind of slipped away… cus everything is so bad and so dumb and so bad and so dumb. Pretty much everyone in this book, even those judged harshly, are beacons of valor and honor and wisdom compared to all *this shit*
So, I’ll write this without any idea about its expiration date or the expiration date for the ideas in this book… what would freud’s analysis of alito be? Of thomas? Of gorsuch?
April 19, 2025
A fine book, though it suffers a bit from a case of false advertising. The great majority of the book is essentially a biography of Ambassador William Bullitt, sandwiched between accounts of his relationship with Freud on the one hand and the controversy surrounding the publication of the psychobiography on the other.
Weil's research shows conclusively that, contrary to Anna Freud's claims (along with those of her followers), the psychobiography of Woodrow Wilson was in fact co-authored by her father Sigmund. The complete original manuscript, featuring the signatures of Freud and Bullitt on each chapter, was found among Bullitt's papers decades after his death. Weil posits a plausibly convincing thesis that Bullitt's reticence in publishing the original manuscript stemmed from a fear of a public misunderstanding of his & Freud's discussion of Wilson's alleged passive homosexuality. Bullitt's instincts were probably correct in this regard, because the lay public would come away from the work thinking either that "Wilson is gay, and that's bad" or "They're saying that Jesus Christ was a homosexual!" neither of which reflected what was actually written by the authors.
Weil's research shows conclusively that, contrary to Anna Freud's claims (along with those of her followers), the psychobiography of Woodrow Wilson was in fact co-authored by her father Sigmund. The complete original manuscript, featuring the signatures of Freud and Bullitt on each chapter, was found among Bullitt's papers decades after his death. Weil posits a plausibly convincing thesis that Bullitt's reticence in publishing the original manuscript stemmed from a fear of a public misunderstanding of his & Freud's discussion of Wilson's alleged passive homosexuality. Bullitt's instincts were probably correct in this regard, because the lay public would come away from the work thinking either that "Wilson is gay, and that's bad" or "They're saying that Jesus Christ was a homosexual!" neither of which reflected what was actually written by the authors.
October 23, 2024
It's such a fascinating read! The way it explores the complexities of leadership really makes you think about how personal struggles can affect public decisions. Also, I read about Woodrow Wilson on https://www.topessaywriting.org/samples/woodrow-wilson and they have ao many topiv ideas about him. It’s interesting to see how his decisions shaped the country. When I read about his story it really highlights how history can repeat itself in many ways.
November 7, 2025
The book focuses on a psychoanalytical study of Woodrow Wilson performed by Sigmund Freud and the diplomat William C. Bullitt and Bullitt's peripatetic career during the World Wars and thereafter. Contrary to the title's implication. the study found Wilson not to be insane, but to have fairly normal psychological baggage that influenced his behavior, judgment and effectiveness in the job. A good "behind the scenes" look at the diplomacy involved during the period. Interesting, but dives "into the weeds" too often.
January 29, 2026
This book is about William Bullitt rather than Woodrow Wilson. The majority of the book has nothing to do with 28th President. You'll learn about the treaty of Versailles but you'll be bored out of your mind in the meantime.
Read
March 27, 2024I read about half this book and then the library loan expired. I will get back to it at some point.
November 18, 2024
This is a biography of William Bullitt. The title is misleading and no one actually thought that Wilson was mad. I had a hard time getting through this.
October 10, 2024
Well-written and interesting. However, the title, especially its subtitle, is misleading. I suspect "Madman in the White House" was chosen to reflect the current American political mess.. Yes, the book addresses Freud, Bullitt and their evaluation of Wilson. Each gets roughly a chapter at the start, but Bullitt's career diverges and most of the midbook is about Bullitt during World War 2 and the Roosevelt administration. An interesting biography, but not what the title anticipates. Indeed, Freud makes only a cameo appearance at the beginning and end. The latter chapters revolve around the author's own interpretation of Wilson. The book might have been improved by including more direct quotations from the Bullitt/Freud book on Wilson. Nonetheless, I quite enjoyed reading this book and its presentation of Bullitt's career.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews