To what extent was Woodrow Wilson's actions dealing with entry into WWI and negotiating the treaty of Versialles consistent with his actions in the Western Hemisphere? (USe specific details to support your ideas.)
Make sure to build of the ideas prior to your post and reference which idea you are responding to so thread builds on ideas rather than just restating them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In order to fully assess this question, his actions regarding the Treaty of Versailles negotiations must be defined.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that The United States of America was a member of the Allied powers; the victors. However, given that the United States was involved in the war (officially) for about a year, they lacked the justification to "throw the book" so to speak, at Germany. (compared to the Prime Minister of Great Britain who was sent to Versailles with messages to the effect of "Hang the Kaiser") Given the lack of public support for heavy reparations, Woodrow Wilson did not impose extremely harsh penalties on Germany.
What he did do, however, was attempt to create the League of Nations, which was designed partially to promote global democracy. For a majority of his political career he intended to operate under a pretense of "Moral Diplomacy" which was a shift from the respective militaristic and capitalist leaders before him.
These traits manifested in the Treaty of Versailles negotiations.
If a person were to analyze his diplomatic actions in Latin America in during his presidency with out reference to his Darwin-driven motives, they would look extremely similar to that of other equally interventionalist presidents. He seemed to struggle with an unidentified brand of inner turmoil, given the struggle between what is ideal and what is practical. A part of me assumes that Wilson thought that the Latin American countries would be extremely willing to assimilate to American Culture, in reality they were not.
He could not "sweet-talk" (for lack of a better word) his way through the Latin American dictators, which led to 19 interventions. He also removed a figurehead from a Latin American culture due to his immoral pursuit of power, but did not replace him with a stable or moral leader, leaving that region of Latin America in ruin.
Referencing the two styles of action, Woodrow Wilson's ACTIONS were not consistent between the Treaty of Versailles Negotiations and his role in the Western Hemisphere. His MOTIVES were extremely similar, he wanted to promote democracy. Aka, he wanted everyone to be like him. The difference between his actions in the two different regions has to do with the justification for their execution. The constantly arising tyrannical leaders in Latin America threatened Latin America, so he had more of a "fun-ticket" when developing US foreign policy in that region. However, the US lacked the obligation/justification to "avenge" its own honor and impose strict regulations, compared to Great Britain, and more so France.
Hi Mr. Bouchard,
ReplyDeleteMy name is Taylor Peterson. I didnt have your class last year. That makes me sad. I wish I would have, have your class. I was told I wasn't supposed to answer the question. Have a nice day!
I have to agree with Becca's statement regarding the Treaty of Versailles and Wilson's Latin American policies. It is very true that Wilson's Moral Diplomacy ideas were what drove his developments of the Fourteen Points, and this is very clear when one examines the clauses that support the spread and support of democracy throughout Europe.
ReplyDeleteAnother important aspect to note is when Wilson made his decision to enter the war. One very important factor in this decision was the Russian Revolution. When Russia became communist this scared Wilson, who is ever vigilant to support democracy, and of course feared the spread of communism if Russia could gain influence. I would consider this to be very in line with his policies in Latin America, as he often intervened simply to stop any non-democratic government. Therefore, it is obvious that Wilson was acting on the same policy when he entered WWI.
I too agree with Becca's statement on the Treaty of Versailles and the Latin American policies. Given the lack of US support for the League of Nations, and harsh penalties for Germany, there was little Wilson could do to force the issue. This was seen later in his bid to the US to support and adopt the League of Nations, which never happened due to a lack of support, and due to issues concerning article X.
ReplyDeleteHowever, what was consistent in both was his desire to solve conflicts peacefully, and without resorting to war. This was seen in his attempts to bring peace to Europe, and in try to deal with Latin America peacefully. However in Latin America, what eventually happened was interventions similar to those done by other presidents of the time. Later, America did intervene in Europe again, in the form of joining WWII, though not with Wilson as president.
Given his unsuccessful bids for peace, Wilson's actions could be seen as consistent, however on a closer scale, his different ways of reaching for peace were very different.
-Kailonna Crawford
Woodrow Wilson's reasoning behind both the Treaty of Versailles and his lack of moral diplomacy in Latin America completely contrast each other. Though he would argue that his main goal was to push democracy, his actions spoke otherwise in Latin America, yet he plays the "good guy" with the Treaty of Versailles when he looked for a way that everyone could win. So, to answer the question, he was entirely inconsistent with his actions and there was no extent of similarities between the two other than Woodrow Wilson pretending to not have a hidden agenda.
ReplyDeleteIn Latin America, is is quite obvious that Woodrow Wilson had no intentions of upolding his idea of "Moral Dislomacy." He looked for virtually anything to take as agression so that he would have the public's support to invade. That was one of the few things that Wilson was successful at, brainwashing the public to believe that invading Latin America 19 times was justified by Moral Diplomacy. Nice job Woodrow!
In reference to the Treaty of Versailles, Wilson took a completely different stance. Woodrow Wilson was still out for U.S. interests only, don't misunderstand, but he was much more clever in allowing the other big countries to believe that the League of Nations would actually be a good idea. He could have honestly not given a crap about what happened to Germany, after all, the United States was the biggest economic success of the war. He claimed to be out for the good of the world and the spreading of democracy, but "o'contrare" Mr. Wilson, the United States was growing aware of his hidden agenda with the League of Nations and was shut down.
All in all, Woodrow Wilson was a big phony and his mental disorder of a foreign policy will never be forgotten for that very reason.
I would have to agree with Tristan and Becca about Wilson's efforts in trying to resolve things peacefully without resorting to war. However, this is obviously countered with the fact that his "Moral Diplomacy" ideas were thrown out the door when he intervened in Latin America time and time again. He did what was best for his country and if he had to go against what he said was intially right then so be it.
ReplyDeleteOverall Wilson seemed more interested in what was best for America than actually helping anybody else. The United States did not enter WWI until the end of the war and when they did enter, it was already fairly obvious who was going to win. Would he have entered the US on the losing side? Of course not, but in that case I dont think he would have entered at all. So when the Allies won to little surprise, having the US be one of the big talkers in the Treaty of Versailles really was not fair. The US took the smallest hit in the war but came out of it with a lot to gain, once again putting US interests first.
I have to once again agree with Becca in that his motives were very consistant but I also think that his actions were also consistant. He would say he wanted one thing and his actions consistantly showed otherwise.
same person, same ideas. Wilson wanted democracy around the world, his moral diplomacy did not go as planned so the Treaty of Versailles was another chance for Wilson to make this happen. Like others stated a big factor that made the US want to enter WWII was the Russian Revolution and the spread of communism. Wilson felt he could not let the Russians win and spread communism so he entered the war trying to prevent it. Wilsons main goal through the Treaty of Versailles was to create world peace, his idea of peace was just a world filled with democratic countries that would get along because they all had the same type of government. Wilson's moral diplomacy and Treaty of Versailles had the same motive behind them, world democracy.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Becca in that I believe Wilson's motives for entering the war, negotiating the treaty, and acting in Latin America were the same. During the time period he was very consistent in exercising his beloved "Moral Diplomacy".
ReplyDeleteHis goal in both situations was to promote democracy. In Latin American he attempted to do so without intervention, but as that idea failed he justified intervention 19 times and forcefully promoted democracy. The selfishness of his motives was revealed by this because his idea of self-determination was contradicted when he forcefully imposed democracy. It was clear that the real motivation behind Moral Diplomacy was not to simply better other nations morals but to make them more like U.S. and therefore make business with them easier.
In Europe his true motivations behind Moral Diplomacy were also clear. U.S. entrance into the war so late that the winner was already known shows that one of Wilson's main goals was to benefit the U.S. Similarly in the treaty negotiations his main goal was to establish a League of Nations and promote world democracy, hoping that more countries could be like the U.S.
In Europe as well as Latin America Wilson's main goal was to spread democracy which could ultimately benefit the U.S.
Danielle Durham...you sum up everything that is right in this world. Woodrow Wilson's term of presidency can be summed up by two words: HIDDEN AGENDA!! He may not have officially entered the United States in WWII until later in the war, but that does NOT mean he had no intentions to. He wanted to enter the US in the war all along, but he had to wait for the right time and place. He wanted to enter America in the war much before the public did, so his biggest task/obstacle was to convince the public that war was what was best. Like Tristan said, the Russian Revolution provided him with much of what he needed. Communism was coming, and the American public did not like it. It threatened their love for democracy and equality. Thus, war was the only solution right? How convenient for Wilson; he now had a reason to enter war. (initiate sarcasm...) He was only doing what was best for the American people. Ok whatever you say Wilson; we all know you wanted to enter war all along.
ReplyDeleteHis Latin American diplomatic practices were awkward and unfitting with his post-war actions. He was all over the place; he was ripping country leaders out of positions while not replacing them with fitting leaders as well as tearing societies apart. His intentions may have been good, but he was a little crazy.
And then we are brought to what he did post-WWII. He was a man "all about peace". But was he in it for world peace or simply American peace? Answer? AMERICAN!!! that's about it.
--Emily
Woodrow Wilson's intentions with the Treaty of Versailles were to try and incorporate his ideas of Moral Diplomacy from Latin America and make them applicable to the entire world. However, he did not go about his actions in a diplomatic way when concerning the Latin American countries. Considering the fact that they were never in complete aggreeance, and he forcefully invaded 19 times.
ReplyDeleteAgain, when concerning his entrance into WWI and the creation of the treaty, he did so according to his own agenda rather than the needs/wants of other countries with less power.
His ideas were not necessarily to spread Democracy to every country but rather to put them under the control of Democratic countries therefore ceasing/preventing the spread of Communism. This is clear when you consider that the territories lost by Germany in the war were not given the right to self rule, but were put under the control of Great Britain.
His reason for entering the war could have arguable been to help the Allies, yet he conveniently got exactly what he wanted out of the Treaty once they were all deemed victorious; The League Of Nations, as well as to present his idea of the 14 points. (Which had sprung from his ideas of Moral Diplomacy in Latin America)
All of this is in complete aggreeance with Tristan and Becca! Have a wonderful night :)
Also, this is from Andi Grover.. but the only way this will post is if I do it anonymously... odd !?
I think that Danielle is right in that Wilson wanted to enter the war and looked for an excuse to do so. I also agree with most of what Becca and Alex said in that he was conflicted and tried to promote democracy.
ReplyDeleteA new idea I would like to bring up is some of the other of the fourteen points. Wilson wanted free seas and free trade, and saw the peace treaty after WWI as the way to achieve these goals. In addition to what has already been said Wilson entered the war to be able to participate in the negotiations and to ensure an Allied victory. By doing this he came closer to getting trade with China and free seas. This underlying motive is also seen in his Moral Diplomacy. He wanted to be able to trade with and have influence over the Latin American countries.
The Treaty of Versailles was a way for Wilson to further advance his free trade and free seas ideologies as well as promoting world peace.
wow! some people are sippin on the haterade! Nobody is perfect especially the leaders of our country, and obviously they want the best thing for the US because the USA is the best thing ever. Wilson clearly had the best intrests of US is mind both with his Moral Diplomacy in Latin America and his negotiations in the treaty of Versaille. Wilson worked hard to try to hid his true intentions of helping the USA to become more powerful by claiming his little 14 Points and League of Nations, these helped to get public support for his actions because if he just claimed oh I'm going to go take over these countries, and enter a war it wouldn't go over so well with the public. His actions in the Western Hemisphere and entering World War one and negotiating the treaty of Versailles were very much the same. Wilson played his cards and did what he had to in order to try to spread democracy which would benefit US business intrests because everybody loves America. God Bless the USA. I'm proud to be an American.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Larissa said about being proud to be an American, but just because a person was our President, doesn't mean that we have to defend them. I agree with what Andi said about how Wilson's attitude in Latin America was different than his attitude in the peace conference. In the peace conference, he was willing to let most matters slide to get the other European countries to approve his League, but in Latin America, if the leader wasn't in complete agreement with his idea, he intervened and replaced them with another leader more like-minded. He showed just how much his attitude changed in the fact that when Ho Chi Min(leader of Vietnam during the Vietnam war) talked with him about self-determination, Wilson said that he only wanted self-determination for the European countries.
ReplyDeleteLarissa,
ReplyDeleteI love America as well.
--Becca
Josh I am not defending anybody!!
ReplyDeleteI just love America!!!!
Woodrow Wilson's action concerning the Treaty of Versailles and Foriegn Policy in the Latin Americas were drastically different.
ReplyDeleteEvery President that has commanded the nation of the U.S. has had their own hidden agendas, whether it be control of the Americas, or control in Asia involving our assests. Woodrow specifically was in love with his 14 points, he wanted to go down as a victorous man not only in the eyes of America, but throughout Europe as well. That was some criticism that may or may not be true. But it shows that Wilson's ideals invovling the foreign policies within his term are far from concrete motives. The foriegn policy at the end of WWI that ended with the Paris Peace conference, can be seen as the ultimate goal of Wilson. He wanted to seal the United States Place as a World Power, being apart of post world war negotations would seal this fate and thus have economic desires met as well as political. Being a part of the Big Four at the conference, allowed Wilson to be a huge influence and was able to persuade and dictate the discussions at the treaty; being a world power and part of the new world that the war and the treaty would create was his idea. Although he was more civil in his goals towards Europe, the desire to be influencial and a man of 'peace' was evident in his foreign policies with Latin America.
Although unsuccesful, the Moral Diplomacy was Wilsons attempt to gain a type of control outside the U.S. boarders. A man in power is always vunerable to the desire to have more no matter their true intentions or pervious personality before becoming Commander and Chief. The possiblity of Racial and 'white man's burdern' ideas could have come into play with Wilsons actions toward the Latin Americas, for it cannot be denied that Wilson held an apperence of wanting to be influential and known around the world. Being the first sitting President to travel to Europe holds some connatation in the involvement of needing to be influential and wanting the United States public to demand U.S. interference and using that as a fun ticket to alterative motives and being a true man of world history.
Wilsons actions before the war, during and after show that he had a hidden agenda. That although he behaved differently in the two continents, his idea was still the same. Make U.S. a solid world power and influential in the new world order.
-amanda h.
After reviewing all the posts I intitially felt that there was a lack of things left to say and I felt that I would have to cleverly restate what has already been said in such a way that I would befuddle the mind and sneak in with an unoriginal, yet fresh idea. Yet, there is one aspect of President Wilson that has yet to been brought up.
ReplyDeleteLet us not forget the very shady ways that President Wilson went about entering the U.S in to WWI. Neutrality was a point of major conflict in the years and months preceding up to U.S entrance into WWI. The fact that Wilson approved the extension of credit to the allied powers in much greater numbers than to Germany was one issue that brought about debate. Also, his attacks on German unrestricted warfare while simultaneously casting a blind eye towards the British blockade drew conflict. And lest we forget, also remember how he snuck in legislation and later approval for U.S. merchant ships to be armed prior to formally entering the conflict.
This shady behavior directly cooerlates with his actions at the Treaty of Versailles. With his all might "14 Points" aside Wilson did not follow his moral ideals. He held no reservations about keeping the treaty process strictly between the four great powers, and even then Italy found itself cast aside in most areas. Also, his refusal to meet with Vietnam's leader about Vietnemese self determinatio showed that not everyone was afforded the "blessing" of his moral diplomacy.
In conjunction with his actions in the western hemisphere Wilson was also less than open on his activities. While it appears that he made efforts to use his moral diplomacy as a true foriegn policy in Latin America his instant reaction of military intervention when things didn't quite go the U.S. way disregards all of his words. Just as we saw with Taft and his futile effort to replace bullets with dollars, Wilson's attempts to morally deal with his little, southern neighbors fell short.
I agree with Becca and Tristan so far that Wilson's ideals outlined in the Treaty of Versaille and the League of Nations were much different from his actions on these matters, and have to settle for being a hater and determining that his actions did indeed completely differentiate from his ideas discussed in peace negotiations in WWI.
ReplyDeleteAs previously mentioned, Wilson did intervene 19 times in Latin America, which clearly shows how much his "moral diplomacy" was mostly jargon and never actually an intended foreign policy. While Wilson may have sincerely envisioned a world united with free trade and peace abound, any attempts to revise or counter any part of Wilson's vision were met with hostility and, in Latin America's case, military intervention. Even in Europe, when Wilson pushed for his 14 points to be adopted into the Treaty of Versailles and was allowed for the establishment of the League of Nations to be included, the opposition met by other countries with Article X resulted in Wilson not even signing his own “covenant” and entering the US into the league.
So basically across the board, Wilson attempted to achieve democracy and order amongst nations, but only so long as it benefited the US and fit into his “utopian” vision of society. When countries in Latin America didn’t govern in a way that Wilson approved or saw benefiting the US economically, Wilson seized control and caused all sorts of havoc in Nicaragua, Haiti, Dominican Republic…it would be distasteful to continue.
Compromise wasn’t an option for this enlightened President, so therefore his actions in Latin America completely countered his ideals outlined in his original 14 points as well as his brief entry into the war purely for economic and imperial benefit.
well, let us not forget wilson's supposed "neutrality" before entering WWI and how the great William Jennings Bryan resigned from secretary of state because he felt that wilson wasn't acting neutral at all. Now that i have made on WJB reference i can continue haha. But to get to the point, Wilsons actions with Latin American diplomacy and his actions before/during WWI as the same because they both seemed to be based on a moral bases. His Moral diplomacy was to help out his little brown bothers, while his entrance into WWI was to be apart of the war to end all wars. Of course his goals were not completely reached his ideas were based off of the idea of spreading democracy and helping those around him.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Nadine (and most of you others) in that Wilson's policies were inconsistent which can be seen by the fact that Wilson's own men left office so as to not be associated with Wilson and his choices. Wilson's dealing with entry into WWI were deceitful to the American people and immoral in that he allowed American citizens to board vessels which could possibly be targeted by German submarines. His actions with the Treaty of Versailles were the same way. He allowed France and Britain to exact their revenge (albeit to an extent) on Germany through the reparations which were feared to cause great repercussions to the social and economic structure of Germany. Wilson's policies were not moral except for the advancement of the United States as a whole and his words and actions contradicted each other in too many ways for me to feel safe in saying otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that Wilson ultimately had strong opinions based on creating a better United States. He worked toward this by developing the idea of Moral Diplomacy. I agree with Danielle's point that he did not drive this point farther to better the US and their relations with with other countries. His idea of foreign policy was perhaps driven by the idea of war and focusing mainly on how he could better his administration, not the public of his own or foreign countries. On this point, I also agree with Andi that his relations which sprouted from the idea of Moral Diplomacy led to a forceful invasion in Latin American countries. This surely does not put Wilson in a great light and while it can be said that he had good intentions, they were not followed through and hence led to his downfall, as is seen through our deep criticizing of his actions during his presidency.
ReplyDeleteI think Larissa has the general idea of Woodrow Wilson. The realistic viewpoint on the matter is simple: the president is going to do what he thinks is best for his country, despite harming others. It is, after all, his main function - to protect and benefit the U.S. Ideally, Moral Diplomacy was good intentions, great image, little results. In his "Peace Without Victory," speech in 1917, one of his statements was that war should not be blamed on anyone. Yet two years later in the Versailles Treaty, Germany was forced to sign accepting sole responsibility for starting the war. Not to say they shouldn't have, but to point out the contrast of ideas, especially when the Versailles Treaty created the League of Nations, a direct product of Wilson.
ReplyDeleteWilson also contradicts himself by having said the U.S. would never again gain territory through conquest with his diplomacy and that people should be assured of self-determination when under false rule. There is less evidence to support this statement with his repeated interference in Latin America.
At the very least, Wilson began a staunch democrat and ended a democrat. The United States and its leaders have always attempted to spread democracy in one form or another and Wilson did as well. Latin America was reportedly inferior, requiring the guidance of the U.S. and so Wilson pushed the idea of democracy upon them. Another reason he joined WW1 was the opportunity to, yet again, spread democracy. In this aspect he remained constant.
I agree with Becca, Tristan, and Jessica that the actions taken by Woodrow Wilson did not align with his views of “Moral Diplomacy”. Though he said the he was operating under Moral Diplomacy his 19 interventions proved otherwise. I also agree with Danielle in the sense that Wilson was looking for small things to convince the public that invading was justified. In relation to the treaty of Versailles Wilson went into the negotiations looking out only for American interest. Wilson’s fourteen points were their idealistic nature, the league of nation creating peace among everyone was a nice idea but it was something he was not going to create easily; especially with the addition of the controversial article x. All in all Wilson was only making choices for the U.S and this was defiantly shown at the Versailles “peace talks” when Wilson did all the taking and many didn’t even get a word in.
ReplyDelete-Sidney Erickson
I enjoyed your posts and thought many of your comments were insightful. I agree with many of you that Wilson was inconsistent in his actions but also recognize he had two different goals. I did want to clarify a few things.
ReplyDelete1) His interventions in Latin America were different in nature and cannot be just lumped into 19 times summary that many people used. For example, in Mexico he intervenes because he disagrees with how Huerta overthrows an elected democracy and wants to force democratic elections. When Huerta refuses, Wilson uses the Impico Incident and powers Congress gives him to sieve arms met for Huerta. This action leads to violence that eventually forces Huerta to step down. But in interventions in Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic he intervened to secure US investments and then nominally pushed for democracy. The Nicaraguan intervention leads to Bryan- Chamorro treaty in 1916 that makes Nicaragua an economic protectorate.
2) Remember that Wilson had to negotiate with three other powers that did not believe in the 14 points and wanted to punish Germany. Wilson’s major concern was the League of Nations because the US could have reduced the reparations, help re-draw the maps that took away all the territory and have a much larger voice in how the treaty terms were dealt out. I do have to agree that Wilson did not give colonies and smaller countries voice but again his major concern was to prevent another war.
Overall these were good posts. I will post a depression question for you to consider tomorrow.