Essay On Woodrow Wilson's Approach To War
Woodrow Wilson’s approach was idealistic toward solving the conflicts of Europe once and for all with a just and lasting peace. He felt that if the US intervention in WWI could help determine the outcome of the war, that he would be able to broker a lasting peace, as H.G. Wells quoted in 1914, this would be “the war that will end war”. However, I would argue that it really was the ‘War to Start Wars”. President Woodrow Wilson’s unprecedented decision to join into a war in which no harm had been done to anyone in the United States was controversial. It was his decision to join the war in the name of spreading democracy and aiding allies, in my opinion this, led to the United States becoming the future, “world police,” by getting involved in
…show more content…
conflicts not based actual threats but rather perceived or potential enemies. This is supported by my analysis of the background on the years leading up to US intervention to WWI and then dissecting the US intervention in Korea to look for parallels.
The United States entry into World War I was significant as it was the first time that this young sovereign nation decided to enter into a war where our direct interests were not threatened. We had a financial interest in supporting the allied powers as we had supplied them with considerable in kind aid but that would not have risen to the level of committing the lives of Americans in this conflict. The fact that Wilson was able to convince congress and the American people that a war a continent away was worth fighting to try and establish a just and lasting peace has had significant influence on major policy decisions surrounding war since 1919.
World War I began in 1914 and the US did not commit troops until 1917. President Woodrow Wilson had just been re-elected, in 1916, after the majority of his campaign was based on the anti-war slogans such as “he has kept us out of the war” and “he proved the pen mightier than the sword”. Shortly after re-election, he made the decision to join the war. Although his moral justification was to create an eternal peace, joining after he was essentially elected based on his neutrality, created controversy. Prior to joining the war, the US provided food, resources and military supplies to our future allies who were in need. The US was providing many of these supplies without being compensated. This gave the US an interest to who won the war since the Allies were deeply indebted to US manufacturing. Later, it became clear that the manufacturing capacity created by the war would mean the US will control Europe, economically, for the foreseeable future. Wilson knew the history of Europe fighting for hundreds of years, trading boundaries and never fully resolving conflicts, merely settling battles and wars to be continued at a later date. Wilson’s knowledge of these never ending battles provided the foundation for what today is known as Wilsonianism. Wilsonianism was based on creating democratic, capitalist nations for those that were still at the will of monarchies. Even though Wilson went in with the notion of engaging in war to establish world peace, what it also did was launch the US as a dominant world superpower because of the industry it created around it. Wilson’s goal for entering the war was probably never achievable to begin with; he was committed to concept of self-determination with a generation of people who didn’t understand that.
The Treaty of Versailles represented a fundamental shift in diplomacy, historically, when two countries would go to war, the ultimate goal was to gain land or punish the original aggressor. The victor set the terms. Punishment was typically in the form of monetary reimbursement from whoever started the war. Wilson’s concept was to not punish, that the terms of peace often laid the foundation for the future conflict. The goal of the Fourteen Points was to find a true and lasting peace, the primary reason Wilson entered the war. It has been speculated that this was the reason allied forces never went into Germany during WWI, German soldiers received a heroes welcome when they came home because the Allies never made it to the homeland.The Fourteen Points were never approved by even his own country's congress, if the congress couldn’t understand what Wilson’s end goals were and support them, it is no surprise that they all failed. He felt that if the US could help determine the outcome of the war, that he would be able to broker a lasting peace, as quoted earlier, this would be “the war that will end war”(wiki). This phrase was later adapted into the more familiar term “war to end all wars”.The main treaty goal was to gain world peace, to do that some of the US power needed to be seceded to the collective for there to be lasting world peace.
The Treaty of Versailles really wasn’t the main reason for WWII and that is a very common misconception. Germany was very unhappy with the settlement that was agreed upon but that is not the reason they started the war. The settlement they agreed on was 6 billion pounds. In reality Germany only ended up paying 1 billion and that was over the course of 13 years. There were many other causes for WWII such as the depression, fascism and anti-Semitism. The Treaty of Versailles really didn’t make anyone happy. Although everyone except China signed it, it didn’t solve the real problems at hand. France was unhappy with the amount of land they received, Japan and China felt betrayed by the United States and Great Britain. Great Britain wanted more revisions after it was already decided upon. Wilson was quoted when he was speaking to his wife as they were leaving France saying “Well little girl it is finished and as no one is satisfied, it makes me hope we have made a just peace. But it is all in the lap of the Gods”. The United States was in favor of tough peace, essentially everyone had to lose some and be unhappy for there to be world peace. Unfortunately, that was not the case.
Englishman Harold Nicholson characterized the peace treaty as follows: “ We came to Paris confident that the new order was about to be established. We left it convinced that the new order had merely fouled the old. We arrived as fervent apprentices in the school of President Wilson, we left as renegades.” The American involvement in World War I established the precedent that Presidents could commit the nation to defend a perceived threat or advancing an agenda, not just in defense of our country.
The United States involvement in every major conflict, except possibly the first Iraq war, has been in defense of democracy that Wilson quoted in his famous speech leading up to our involvement. In Korea and Vietnam, we became involved with the threat of the Domino Theory, that nation states would all start to fall to communism if we allowed them to get a toe hold. Even if Korea were to fall to communism it would be half a world away and not an immediate and direct threat to the United States. We were committed to taking the fight to Korea to protect American ideals and prevent a war coming to our borders. Committed to defending the ideal of democracy and self determination. Preventing the spread of communism and allowing people to self govern and self determine are lasting ideals of American government.
During World War II The United States had committed American lives and industry to liberating Europe, while the Russians retained Eastern Europe, the ideal of a free self determined people was seen as a goal to prevent future world wars.
The division of Korea at the end of World War II and the subsequent Chinese-Russian led invasion of the South led America and the rest of the world to commit troops to defend South Korea. Our role of world police and advancing democracy led us to be the primary force behind the defense. Without the precedent established by Wilson, the American people might not have supported sending troops to Korea and potentially causing the “first domino” to fall.
The legacy of Wilsonian foreign policy also continues as one of Wilson’s intellectual heirs, Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the main creator of Bush’s Iraq policy. Discussing Wilson’s legacy, Hoyng stated “And then he uttered a sentence that US presidents have used again and again to justify military intervention -- no one more clearly and with less credibility than George W. Bush on the eve of the Iraq invasion. "The world must be made safe for democracy," Wilson said.” (Hoyng) This quote helps build on Hoyng’s argument that Wilson’s foreign policy decisions are still influential
today.
The United States had the mistaken notion that they would be able to topple Saddam Hussein, eliminate the military forces and that democracy would become the law of the land. President Bush returned to the US to proclaim “mission accomplished”, yet twelve years later, the country continues to struggle to establish an effective form of government and the United States military forces remain in an advisory role in Iraq. Historians would suggest that fifteen years is not a measurement of success of a policy that is expected to last generations. One day the Iraqi people may embrace a Wilsonian democracy, but ultimately that is for them to decide.
The United States has historically used this policy in situations that tend to have financial as well as political advantages. We did not intervene in Rwanda, we have not sent significant troops in support of African conflicts. While we have supported UN resolutions and supplied troops it is often where our economic interests align with political goals. Our current involvement In Afghanistan is an effort to provide democracy to a country that may not have the infrastructure, education or will to self govern. The United States has spent billions in a war on terror that has no plan in place to establish a true democracy.
Wilson’s goal of creating a lasting peace was a bold and controversial strategy. Whenever an attempt to shift policy of this magnitude occurs, it will have lasting effects for generations. We have seen this policy influence our current president’s decisions on war and it’s reasonable to expect future presidents will use the same justification. The prospect of using war to advance an ideal can be dangerous as it can be used without limits.
conflicts not based actual threats but rather perceived or potential enemies. This is supported by my analysis of the background on the years leading up to US intervention to WWI and then dissecting the US intervention in Korea to look for parallels.
The United States entry into World War I was significant as it was the first time that this young sovereign nation decided to enter into a war where our direct interests were not threatened. We had a financial interest in supporting the allied powers as we had supplied them with considerable in kind aid but that would not have risen to the level of committing the lives of Americans in this conflict. The fact that Wilson was able to convince congress and the American people that a war a continent away was worth fighting to try and establish a just and lasting peace has had significant influence on major policy decisions surrounding war since 1919.
World War I began in 1914 and the US did not commit troops until 1917. President Woodrow Wilson had just been re-elected, in 1916, after the majority of his campaign was based on the anti-war slogans such as “he has kept us out of the war” and “he proved the pen mightier than the sword”. Shortly after re-election, he made the decision to join the war. Although his moral justification was to create an eternal peace, joining after he was essentially elected based on his neutrality, created controversy. Prior to joining the war, the US provided food, resources and military supplies to our future allies who were in need. The US was providing many of these supplies without being compensated. This gave the US an interest to who won the war since the Allies were deeply indebted to US manufacturing. Later, it became clear that the manufacturing capacity created by the war would mean the US will control Europe, economically, for the foreseeable future. Wilson knew the history of Europe fighting for hundreds of years, trading boundaries and never fully resolving conflicts, merely settling battles and wars to be continued at a later date. Wilson’s knowledge of these never ending battles provided the foundation for what today is known as Wilsonianism. Wilsonianism was based on creating democratic, capitalist nations for those that were still at the will of monarchies. Even though Wilson went in with the notion of engaging in war to establish world peace, what it also did was launch the US as a dominant world superpower because of the industry it created around it. Wilson’s goal for entering the war was probably never achievable to begin with; he was committed to concept of self-determination with a generation of people who didn’t understand that.
The Treaty of Versailles represented a fundamental shift in diplomacy, historically, when two countries would go to war, the ultimate goal was to gain land or punish the original aggressor. The victor set the terms. Punishment was typically in the form of monetary reimbursement from whoever started the war. Wilson’s concept was to not punish, that the terms of peace often laid the foundation for the future conflict. The goal of the Fourteen Points was to find a true and lasting peace, the primary reason Wilson entered the war. It has been speculated that this was the reason allied forces never went into Germany during WWI, German soldiers received a heroes welcome when they came home because the Allies never made it to the homeland.The Fourteen Points were never approved by even his own country's congress, if the congress couldn’t understand what Wilson’s end goals were and support them, it is no surprise that they all failed. He felt that if the US could help determine the outcome of the war, that he would be able to broker a lasting peace, as quoted earlier, this would be “the war that will end war”(wiki). This phrase was later adapted into the more familiar term “war to end all wars”.The main treaty goal was to gain world peace, to do that some of the US power needed to be seceded to the collective for there to be lasting world peace.
The Treaty of Versailles really wasn’t the main reason for WWII and that is a very common misconception. Germany was very unhappy with the settlement that was agreed upon but that is not the reason they started the war. The settlement they agreed on was 6 billion pounds. In reality Germany only ended up paying 1 billion and that was over the course of 13 years. There were many other causes for WWII such as the depression, fascism and anti-Semitism. The Treaty of Versailles really didn’t make anyone happy. Although everyone except China signed it, it didn’t solve the real problems at hand. France was unhappy with the amount of land they received, Japan and China felt betrayed by the United States and Great Britain. Great Britain wanted more revisions after it was already decided upon. Wilson was quoted when he was speaking to his wife as they were leaving France saying “Well little girl it is finished and as no one is satisfied, it makes me hope we have made a just peace. But it is all in the lap of the Gods”. The United States was in favor of tough peace, essentially everyone had to lose some and be unhappy for there to be world peace. Unfortunately, that was not the case.
Englishman Harold Nicholson characterized the peace treaty as follows: “ We came to Paris confident that the new order was about to be established. We left it convinced that the new order had merely fouled the old. We arrived as fervent apprentices in the school of President Wilson, we left as renegades.” The American involvement in World War I established the precedent that Presidents could commit the nation to defend a perceived threat or advancing an agenda, not just in defense of our country.
The United States involvement in every major conflict, except possibly the first Iraq war, has been in defense of democracy that Wilson quoted in his famous speech leading up to our involvement. In Korea and Vietnam, we became involved with the threat of the Domino Theory, that nation states would all start to fall to communism if we allowed them to get a toe hold. Even if Korea were to fall to communism it would be half a world away and not an immediate and direct threat to the United States. We were committed to taking the fight to Korea to protect American ideals and prevent a war coming to our borders. Committed to defending the ideal of democracy and self determination. Preventing the spread of communism and allowing people to self govern and self determine are lasting ideals of American government.
During World War II The United States had committed American lives and industry to liberating Europe, while the Russians retained Eastern Europe, the ideal of a free self determined people was seen as a goal to prevent future world wars.
The division of Korea at the end of World War II and the subsequent Chinese-Russian led invasion of the South led America and the rest of the world to commit troops to defend South Korea. Our role of world police and advancing democracy led us to be the primary force behind the defense. Without the precedent established by Wilson, the American people might not have supported sending troops to Korea and potentially causing the “first domino” to fall.
The legacy of Wilsonian foreign policy also continues as one of Wilson’s intellectual heirs, Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the main creator of Bush’s Iraq policy. Discussing Wilson’s legacy, Hoyng stated “And then he uttered a sentence that US presidents have used again and again to justify military intervention -- no one more clearly and with less credibility than George W. Bush on the eve of the Iraq invasion. "The world must be made safe for democracy," Wilson said.” (Hoyng) This quote helps build on Hoyng’s argument that Wilson’s foreign policy decisions are still influential
today.
The United States had the mistaken notion that they would be able to topple Saddam Hussein, eliminate the military forces and that democracy would become the law of the land. President Bush returned to the US to proclaim “mission accomplished”, yet twelve years later, the country continues to struggle to establish an effective form of government and the United States military forces remain in an advisory role in Iraq. Historians would suggest that fifteen years is not a measurement of success of a policy that is expected to last generations. One day the Iraqi people may embrace a Wilsonian democracy, but ultimately that is for them to decide.
The United States has historically used this policy in situations that tend to have financial as well as political advantages. We did not intervene in Rwanda, we have not sent significant troops in support of African conflicts. While we have supported UN resolutions and supplied troops it is often where our economic interests align with political goals. Our current involvement In Afghanistan is an effort to provide democracy to a country that may not have the infrastructure, education or will to self govern. The United States has spent billions in a war on terror that has no plan in place to establish a true democracy.
Wilson’s goal of creating a lasting peace was a bold and controversial strategy. Whenever an attempt to shift policy of this magnitude occurs, it will have lasting effects for generations. We have seen this policy influence our current president’s decisions on war and it’s reasonable to expect future presidents will use the same justification. The prospect of using war to advance an ideal can be dangerous as it can be used without limits.