Britain mined international waters and seized neutral assets back in 1914, so any claims to Allied moral superiority are pure propoganda. However, if we were to side with the Allies, if we had done so earlier, the war would have ended by 1917 at the latest. Instead, Wilson's pseudo-neutrality dragged out the war. With a quicker war, there would have been no Soviet Union. A quicker war would likely have ended in a negotiated peace that would have left no side so humiliated that WWII would have been inevitable just 20 years later. Wilson meant well, but his policies ended up dooming Europe to millions more violent deaths in the 20th Century than needed to have been. Even given a Central Powers victory, the collapse of the ramshackle Hapsburg empire was inevitable, altho like our own history, it may have taken the entirety of the 20th century to see its final collapse, as the last remnants of Hapsburgism only ended in the last decade with the break up of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. And finally given our own sorry treatment of Mexico in the early part of the 20th century (let alone the 19th), it could well be argued that Germany was offerring to help Mexico with its overbearing neighbor to the north that coveted its oil fields, just as we helped Kuwait with its overbearing neighbor to the north that coveted its oilfields.
I agree with the majority of what you are saying but I just felt that Wilson was getting an unfair bad rap. Hindsight is 20/20. I commend Wilson for his efforts to have small nations and peoples gain some form of self determination.He was a little too idealistic about a lot of things but his heart was in the right place.. At least Poland had a twenty year run while it lasted.
Poll
