Were Woodrow Wilson's 14 points a realistic target for the Treaty of Versailles to live up to?

Question

For my AS history debate. It seems some are more realistic than others but overall was it a bit ambitious?

Answer 1

As a military historian, I would have to say Wilson's 14 points were overly-ambitious and somewhat unrealistic in the light of the wartime experiences and pre-existing attitudes of the European 'Great Powers'. There is a case to be made that the punitive peace settlement of 1919 contributed significantly to the rise of Nazism in Germany (although there is an equally strong case to be made that extremism in some form would have arisen in a defeated Germany in any case).

However, while it is very easy to criticise WIlson's 14 Points, it should be remembered that they contributed largely to the creation of the League of Nations, the model for the international organisations which provide the world's political framework today. Wilson's calls for open diplomacy, freedom of the seas, removal of trade barriers and reduction of armaments all supported his central attempt to address the world's problems, but I would without hesitation call the League of Nations the single most important point of all.

Although Wilson was idealistic, and the League of Nations ultimately failed, he was probably correct in seeking to create a 'higher level' multinational organisation to which political and diplomatic problems could be referred. Wilson's proposals must be viewed in the context of their times. The prevailing wisdom of 1919 (largely correct, in fact) was that the 1914-18 War had been brought about by secret diplomacy and interlockinmg alliances. The League of Nations was an attempt to introduce arbitration, transparency and enforcement to international relations, in order to avoid a repetition of the power-political situation which had prevailed in Europe between about 1889 and 1914.

Therefore, while it's easy to criticise Wilson - particularly as the USA then went into 'isolationist' mode immediately after he left office - we should see the 14 Points as a sensible attempt to address the continuing problems inherent in international relations in the early 20th Century.

Where Wilson's 14 points were too ambitious was in what he called their 'essential rectifications of wrong and assertions of right'. While the evacuation of Russian territory and the restoration of Belgian Sovereignty were fairly obvious and indisputable points, there were others which created more problems than they solved. The proposed settlement of colonial claims, the return to France of the disputed territories of Alsace-Lorraine, the adjustment of Italy's borders on the basis of nationality, and the de facto break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, created as many, if not more, problems than they solved. Tensions were heightened, not reduced, and fresh territorial and national disputes arose to replace those which had existed prior to 1914.

Had Wilson been content to restrict himself to the creation of an international body and the reduction of armaments, all may have been well. Any territorial or national problems could have been referred to the new League of Nations, whose reputation may have been enhanced by the successful resolution of the claims arising from the aftermath of the war. By attempting to cover too broad a canvas, Wilson ensured the ultimate failure of his central thesis - world peace through the reduction and resolution of tensions and conflicts.

Answer 2

Wilson was a lawyer and idealist who had not allowed the USA to participate in the war until quite late on. Thus his countrymen did not witness or experience the slaughter of the Western Front to the extent that others did from Belgium and France - and even Britain.

The 14 Points were an attempt to outline a utopian ideal settlement. They could not possibly have worked because they were applied differentially in the Versailles negotiations of early 1919. For example, to demand the renunciation of Empires by Germany and Turkey, in the name of self-determination, was not applied to the French or British Empires.

Wilson should have known that the French would have had a more punitive plan in mind. They had suffered severely and wanted to prevent German aggression by bringing Germany to its feet. No way could the Americans expect France to accept some kind of equal status among nations with Germany.

Of course in the Spring of 1919 Wilson suffered terribly from the Flu epidemic that killed more people across the world than the whole of the war had, and he was not able to put his arguments across.

Answer 3

Wilson was an idealist and his ideas were basically good, but he could not get England and France to cooperate in the Peace Treaty of WWI. They wanted harsh punishments for what the Germans had done. The punishments were so harsh that during the Weimar Republic that followed Kaiser Bill could not repay the "debts" and they money became so inflated in value that it would take a wheel barrow full of 100,000 Mark bills to buy a box of matches.

Too many questions to answer, the Germans looked for someone to take over and Hitler, promising everything, took over. Thus you can say that the treaty of World War I, which was never ratified by the United States, was the cause of WWII.

Other things caused by the treaty of WWI were the wars in what was Yugoslavia, the problems (all of them) in the Middle East up until this day. Truth of the matter is that WWI is not over yet.

Answer 4

The 14 points were incredibly ambitious, pretty much unrealistically so. The idea of self-determination is a nice idea but in practice it became unwieldy. The hope for no war reparations was unrealisitc in the atmosphere that existed in Europe at that time. Even Wilson's own country was not behind his plan, the idea that the US would emerge from its isolation after barely entering an unpopular war, was optimistic at best.

Answer 5

Overall yes-far too ambitious. The French especially were out for blood. Also self determination-hah! Only for nations dominated by the losing side-Ireland sent a delegation and were basically laughed out of it. Anyway didn't it turn out that the League of Nations had no teeth-Abyssinia for example. Really worse than the UN, if such a thing can be imagined.....

Answer 6

It is a common tactic for negotiators to raise issues that would be considered long-shots. Not all negotiating points are raised in attempt to secure them. Frequently, there are ulterior reasons to bring a position to the bargaining table.

Some ulterior reasons to raise a "long-shot issue":
-- Domestic consumption. Useful if you want to please your constituents.

-- Create an image abroad. No doubt the US benefited by promoting itself as an idealistic and principled nation.

-- Gain bargaining capital. By putting forth a moral bargaining position that aligns with your opponent's stated belief system, you put them on the defensive. When they shoot it down, the human sense of give-and-take dictates that they must respond by giving you something in return.

-- Propoganda. Many soldiers aren't happy dying to oppose a just cause.

-- It just might work. Occasionally, man's reason overcomes his base instincts, and while you don't know if it will work, it certainly won't work if you don't try.

I can't help but contrast Wilson's idealism against the Realpolitik epitomized by Kissinger and his ilk. The US gained a lot of "soft power" through the efforts of people like Wilson, which contributed strongly to winning the Cold War. If we hadn't squandered so much of it, we would be winning the "war on terrorism".

Answer 7

In theory yes, but in practice it is impossible due to the fact that he was relying on the instincts and leadership techniques of war time prime ministers who are in practical applicablility very different to peace time prime ministers. He was also relying in the co-operation of people who have just proven they are powerful and probably wanted to maintain their western supremacy ideology and apperance. The point being these people were trying to co-operate with each other when they never trusted each other. It is impossible t try to get people to work together if they have spent the last 4-5 years fighting each other, and how do we expect the losers of the wars to feel if the winners are now forcing them into certain agreements, that affected them negatively.

Answer 8

Six points would have been about right. It was far too ambitious but nevertheless worth a try. Next season he was higher up the table- past the salt.

Answer 9

He could have easily gotten more points than 14 on Yahoo Answers.