3
3
0
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 3
I take this article with a grain of salt. It is not Wilson's lack of moral purpose that contributed to WWII, it was the allies who wanted insurmountable reparation from Germany, and Germany itself.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Ken Landgren
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin - This article makes it appear that the burden of post WWI is Wilsons fault. The conclusion was a team effort. It was the allies who wanted reparation.
(0)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Wilson is the brain child behind the failed League of Nations and the US pretty much led effort to involve the US changed the course of WWI, resulting in an allied victory. It was he who coined the phrase to win this war to end all wars. He was also the one who the Germans went to first to negotiate the terms of surrender, believing he would offer better terms than France or Britain. It was also Wilson who had heavy influence on the Treaty of Versailles which in turn called for the failed League of Nations. One of the reasons it failed is because the US never became a member. Why, Congress refused unless it stated that for the US, Congress had to approve any entry into war. Wilson refused and ultimately was unable to officially join. So yeah, much of this is centered on him. That isn't to say there aren't other factors (significant ones too) but this article is looking internally at what the US did wrong.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Ken Landgren
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin - But the article fails to indicate that the allies wanted the reparation.
(0)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
It alluded to it:
Because Wilson failed, the war ended not with a just and lasting peace, but with a muddled compromise that was neither strategically sustainable nor morally defensible. Germany was defeated, humiliated, and punished, rather than reintegrated into the political and economic order. Empires collapsed but the new League of Nations mandate system was hardly better. In Russia, the Romanovs fell but the Bolsheviks were worse. How can we celebrate the end of the Great War when the war’s end was little more than a segue from one big problem to a thousand smaller ones?
Wilson led the post-war actions for the most part and envisioned the results of it. the Treaty, League of Nations, etc. This ultimately led the feeling by Germany of being defeated, humiliated, and punished, rather than reintegrated into the political and economic order. Not to say it's all on Wilson. The fact remains Germany allowed themselves to be led and influence by a maniacal group of "leaders". But when we look internally at what we as a country could have done better, Wilson's actions moves to the the top of the list.
Because Wilson failed, the war ended not with a just and lasting peace, but with a muddled compromise that was neither strategically sustainable nor morally defensible. Germany was defeated, humiliated, and punished, rather than reintegrated into the political and economic order. Empires collapsed but the new League of Nations mandate system was hardly better. In Russia, the Romanovs fell but the Bolsheviks were worse. How can we celebrate the end of the Great War when the war’s end was little more than a segue from one big problem to a thousand smaller ones?
Wilson led the post-war actions for the most part and envisioned the results of it. the Treaty, League of Nations, etc. This ultimately led the feeling by Germany of being defeated, humiliated, and punished, rather than reintegrated into the political and economic order. Not to say it's all on Wilson. The fact remains Germany allowed themselves to be led and influence by a maniacal group of "leaders". But when we look internally at what we as a country could have done better, Wilson's actions moves to the the top of the list.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next