Transcripts For CSPAN3 World War I Legacy Of President Woodrow Wilson 20180220

Have not told you is not a single political leader supported the movement. Matt won the crusade for voters. And naacp down. Elected leadership down. Nobody anywhere supported it so we asked the city council would you at least put the measure on the ballot so that the people can decide whether they want it or not. Would you allow the people to vote on it, and they didnt do that. At the time i think tim kaine was the mayor of the city, and i said, tim, can you work something out to at least put it on the ballot that people decide it . He said i can only get four votes. I cant get five votes, the majority to do it. Now with that, so what we had to do was to go out and get the people to sign the petition, and if you get the percentage of numbers of people to sign the petition, then it can go on the ballot, so we were able to get about 15,000 signatures to make certain that it had gone on the ballot, and even though the entirety of the leadership was against it, when the people voted, 80 of the people said we want to change. Now, that was in 2003 here. If 80 of the people felt that way then, that sent a message to me. That said the leadership is totally out of touch with the people, so it didnt have anything to do with me. It had to do with the message that was being resonating, that people didnt believe that the leadership was doing the job for them. You can watch this and other American History programs on our website where all our video is archived. Thats cspan. Org history. Next on American History tv, thor . For strategic and International Studies host a discussion with historians on world war i and the legacy of president Woodrow Wilson, a century after he outlined his 14point statement of principles in an address to congress. This is about two hours. All right. Welcome to csis. Im dr. Mark warner, the head of the project on military and diplomatic history. Thank you all especially for braving todays weather. Great to see all this interest in world one one. For those who havent been here before our project is focused on history that also provides insights into contemporary affairs. Were delighted to have a cohost of todays event with the world war i Centennial Commission and the csis project and dan rundy who runs that project, thank you for your support. When we think about or when historians think about what are the most important events in world history. World war i usually comes out at number one, but americans tend to be fixated on other wars like the civil war and world war ii, but this one is in many respects the most important, and were here today to try to provide some additional awareness. 1100 years ago today Woodrow Wilson appeared before a joint session of congress to deliver his 14point speech and he was the president of the institution and he drew upon his economic colleagues to come up with principles for european peace which ultimately became the 14 points. Its worth remembering a little bit of Historical Context. This was in fact rather presumptuous act to be doing this, and at the time of the speech, the u. S. And army and marine corps were still getting organized and the u. S. Had yet to fight a significant battle in europe. And it was certainly far from clear as to who was actually going to win, and we were at the same time giving our ideas for peace to countries who had seen a whole generation of people killed. For those who dont remember the 14 points i will give you an overview for which the panelists will go into detail it. A lot of the points were restoring and reestablishing countries damaged by war. There was talk of giving a right some sort of right to selfdetermination to senator warner, if you can grab a seat here well get going here in a minute. So point four talked about the need to reduce armaments and point 14 talked about an International Governing Body which led to the league of nations, and the 14 points remain a matter of great controversy and youll hear about some of that today. For some people their idealism is more dangerous and to those who are sympathetic they more provesized to a more rulesbased order. The impact has certainly been profound and the 14 point greatly influences the final year of the war and also very much influence of the peace. Wilsons rule view and wilson interpreted whats been calls wilsonianism. Before i introduce senator warner i want to recognize a few other people who made this event to be. Ambassador todd sedgwick, if you could raise your hands. He serves on the Advisory Board of the Centennial Commission and came to us at csis with an idea that became the event. Dan roundy, instrumental again. His staff has also been great in helping the details, including checking people in here and all the other administrative details and Chris Metzger in particular. Also, is terry hamby here yet, the commissioner of the world war i commission and hes going to come here and probably got delayed by the weather as many have. Hopefully he will get here when conditions we are mitt. So before we bring up our panel of distinguished historians who who are three of the very top historians from world war i were going to hear from another member of the world war i commission, the honorable john warner, who is lass csis counsellor, a former fiveterm senator from the Common Wealth of virginia and secretary of the navy. At the age of 17 he volunteered for active military duty which i didnt mention and served in the final years of world war ii and as lieutenant in the u. S. Marines during the korean war. In 1969 he received a president ial appointment as undersecretary of the navy and later became secretary of the navy during a period of conflict in vietnam. Between 1974 and 1976 senator warner was serving as administrator for the American Revolution by the Centennial Administration and 1979 was elected to the senate and served five consecutive terms, establishing a record of being the second longest serving senator in the history of the commonwealth of virginia. During all of thinks 30 years in the senate he served on the Armed Services committee, and in his final years the Committee Members elected him to leadership positions, are first as a ranking republican and then for his last six years he was full committee chair, so, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome senator john warner. You can sit if you prefer. [ applause ] thank you. Thank you very much for that resounding introduction. Youre in good luck today and come through this questionable weather to join us, and ive to the a terrible cold and i cant talk for about five minutes and how about this. The most dangerous thing you can ever get a retired senator is a microphone with no restrictions on who is going to take it back and april way from him, and im quite anxious as you are to move on to a wonderful Panel Discussion on a subject that is really becoming quite interesting all across the country. I must confess that my father was an army captain, United States Army Fifth Division in world war i in the trenches. He was a medical doctor, and he was right out on the front lines doing the triage as he brought the wounded in. He had the difficult task of saying we can save this one. We cant save that one, and i remember he had his little tin army hat with a red diamond in the Fifth Division ton in our library and it was and he admonished us, my brother and myself, i only wear that hat and that, of course, was a challenge my brother and i to steal it at any time he couldnt wear it, but so i grew up with a really wonderful man who had served and seen that war, and for me now to have the opportunity in my final years of life to share with you and many others a interesting afternoon like this, and with five individuals who have given their careers over for a minute to put together a monologue and to share with you their own information on a vital subject. I thought how best to prepare my very few years and i thought i read about three books and one of them was john eisenhauers book, and that brings me just to a little bit of a personal message that i would hike to give you, and that is that eisenhower clearly puts in here, president Ike Eisenhowers son. I was privileged to know him. He laid out very carefully and very objectively that the case that the failures after the fighting to come together internationally, and at that moment in history, after the enormity of the carnage and suffering, all over europe. To put together something that would help foreclose thank you so much foreclose any future similar strifes like this, and he said, unfortunately, it wasnt come back and ill come pack and address one or two aspects of that, an as a consequence a mere 23 years since the armistice. We were right back into world war two. Some of the reasons for that were the very serious and Failing Health of president wilson. I must say im a politician and i studied politics and have been active in it all my life, and and it was fascinating to go back for my first trip to read a lot of the things that wilson had tried to and, of course, the subject today is the 14 points, by surrounding the 14 points was the league of nations and the fact that we were going to enter a treaty, and we had this opportunity and we had shown the world that this little somewhat inconsequentialal collection of states that suddenly comes in to be one of the major powers of the world and its an absolute clear case that our contributions and sacrifices led to the final victory and the defeat of the German Military and their allies, so it was important but what greeted them as wilson started around. They called it the league fight. I guess that was a way to demean it. President wilson toured the country giving speeches, pleading for members in the league of nation. The quality or thought of these debates was usually far more elevated than any other political debates since the civil war. For American Foreign policy this conflict elicited breadth and depth of discussion that had not arisen before and that remained unmatched since, so we got off to a good start, and there was a lot of enthusiasm and then it sort of began to steadily go downhill. President wilson was an early convert in the concept of security and around it were many of his policies before and after the world war i experience. He represented the u. S. At the peace conference where he succeeded in make the idea a reality of getting the league incorporated in the pretty of versailles. The treaty was much more than the league of nation and the articles contained a whole lot of things, but congress rejected it, and no matter how hard he traveled and really extraordinary in my readings. He just he was determined to get this done, but along the way, i mean, he encountered reluctance within his own party, the democrats. The republicans were growing in strength, and i even found this in another book. Nearly every leading republican cordially, this is an interesting use of words, nearly every leading republican cordially despised wilson while the president regarded most of them with anger and contempt. The good fellowship extend broadly within the restrictive parties themselves. Wilson challenged americans to build a new world order by joining the league of nations and by saying at versailles in 1919, quote, shall we or any other free people hesitate to accept this great duty. Dare we reject it and break the heart of the world. Well, congress did reject it. But if you go back in and as ive done and as im sure youre panelists are going to do it and i want to carefully not tread in their domain, there are time and time again references if wilson had only shown the slightest willingness to compromise, he could have seized it and fashioned a compromise agreement. He but he refused this is perplexing to me anyone from capitol hill being among the american negotiators in paris. Well, that was a direct affront to the congress of the United States. I mean, they should have been had seats there, and but they didnt, and then he avoided counsel with noncongressional leaders of other peters. In other words, he didnt want to meet the senior politicians of both parties to get their superintendents. Bitterly fought midterm elections in 1918 and had the United States divided by government by awarding majorities in the houses of congress to wilsons republican opponents, and the tide shifted with that. That circumstance body ill for the cooperation over peacemaking and League Membership and it went downhill from there. But then we have to reflect on the sadness that he experienced in his own physical situation. He suffered a very major heart attack on his triple. As a consequence that have he had to abandon the trip across the United States urging the poem in turn to come back and tell your congressional leaders, particularly the senate of the need to have this league of nations and the treaty of paris and to ratify the treaty. But all of it ended up in failure, and im sure our speakers are going to address it in some detail. So i want to conclude though talking a little bit talking about what were doing as an organization. Were holding forums much like this one, wherever we can, all across the country. Were very active. Weve got a Remarkable Group of volunteer, trustees, commissioners. They are very diligent, very attentive and this one right here in the front row, the good ambassador, is one of their leaders. The president or the chairman as we call him is just a marvelous, good rough and tumble tennesseean right out of the heart of the country, and we all have developed a great fondness and love for him, and hes just a grand fellow. Sorry weather has precluded hits being here today, but were coming along and were making some good progress, and it is my hope that this will continue to build in its importance, but were up against one problem that nobody is to blame. Nobodiy really had the foresight to see it. But the Pershing Park was put together many years ago. And selected by the powers to be to locate the statue there, and along came another succession period of legislation by congress saying that there be no more memorials on the mall. Well, then we were confronted now with no alternative to pershing call. We were stopped by law, but in our work as trustees and volunteers on getting Pershing Park ready to receive a national mall, were clearly seeing the strong disadvantages and eisenhower points it out in his book, and its as follows. Every single Major Military memorial that this country takes pride in is on the mall. Everyone, and he starts with the washington monument, our war of independents. You go to the civil war regrettably at the other end and represented by magnificent structure to abraham lincoln, a very powerful president to this day idolized by people and they are the two boundaries and in between the world war i mean, we start in succession. The first was the Korean War Memorial was built and then the Vietnam Veterans memorial was built and lastly the world war ii memorials were built, and thats why we feel ever so strongly that our National Monument to world war i should likewise be on the mall and he eequated significance to the other great memorials, and the group of us, the ambassador and i, and terry hamby, the chairman, and those trying to get passage through congress of a needed amendment to get the option to do it so we havent given up. Were in there still fighting, but this session today is just another Building Block towards drawing americas attention to the importance of this. The casualties in world war i were extraordinarily high. Terry handby uses the statement that the combined death and wounded in world war i exceeded any of the major battles that we experienced in world war ii. So i think we all have a moral obligation to see that this anniversary of 100 to the armistice is coming up november the 11th on this year and is done with the dignity befigure all of the sacrifices made by that generation 100 years ago, and my father among them. Im proudly to say, and and i thank each of you for finding the opportunity to come today and i continually thank our panel and ccsi has been a home for me for years. Just a youngster crawling through the hauls of congress when i had moral burke and dave abshar, our distinguished representative in the front row knows, began to put together the concept of this marvelous organization. It represents the premiere crew among the growing importance of think tanks in the nations capital. Im going to say this bluntly. Im free to say whatever i want to say now, and ive watched in the 30 years that i was in the senate the concept of think tanks, and you could almost name on ten fingers the number in town in those days and grow to where they are in the hundreds today, but they perform a very vital function. They can have forms like this. They have no restrictions whatsoever on what should be said. They are devoid of most of them politics. I mean, sure, plenty of politicians like myself who love to come. Ive spoeblgen here many times through the years, and its not looked upon as a political situation and its largely supported from contributions from within the private sector almost entirely and occasionally a government grant or two, but they have done a magnificent job of really filling somewhat of a gap that has existed here between what congress is able to do and the executive branch that youre able to do by working together and theres a void in there, and these think tanks like csis can move right in and do a lot of the analytical work and hold the hearings and forums that somehow Congress Finds awkward in doing so my hats off to csis. Thanks to each one of you, and now lets proceed to get to the heart of the matter and weve said what we have to say. I listened to my introduction. I always think of teddy roosevelt. He was about to march up san juan hill, and i used to love to ride horses. He pulled his horses up for a rest, and he turned to his aide de camp amend he said whichever one of us gets to the top of the hill first can become president of the United States. Well, this rather diminutive young sergeant sort of looked at him and said thats very interesting, honestly, plrngts all i ever want in life is to return home safely and become sheriff of dinwiddie county. Will, im now just sheriff of my own county. Thank you very much. [ applau [ applause ] thank you, senator warner, for those wonderful remarks. Im going to introduce our panel of speakers in the order that they will be speaking, and with the support of the program weve been able to really bring you the very top people on this subject and soy were delighted to be able to bring you a quality presentation. So the first person speaking will be jennifer kee ane, the professor and chair of the History Department at Chapman University and also the current president of the society of military history. Shes published throw books on the american involved in the First World War. The first is dough boy, the great war and remaking of the america, second, ward wore one, the american soldier experience and three, the United States and the First World War. Among the many awards is the fullbright senior Scholar Award to france and the congress of fell hoerksship and International Studies. Shes currently working on several projects related to the world one one centennials and a new synthesis of American Experience with a new contract with Oxford University press and a member of the historical Advisory Board that we heard about from the senator. Next is michael nyeberg seated next to me. Hes the inaugural chair of war studies in the department of National Security and strategy at the United States war college. He chose the author of many high hi regarded books on the First World War and also on the second world war. His 2011 book dance of the furies, was named one of the five best books on world war i by the wall street journal. In october 2016 Oxford University press published his path to war, a history of american great responses to the war and our third speaker is professor of history at Harvard University where he teaches International History and the history of the United States in the world. He also served as director of graduate programs at harvards Weatherhead Center for International Affairs and cochairs harvards international and global history seminar. His most recent book is empires at war, 1911 to 23, the book of his most relevant to todays discussion is the wilsonian moment, selfdetermination and International Origins of anticolonial nationalism. Hes held fellowships for the National Endowment for the humanities, the American Academy of arts and sciences and the American Council of learned societies, among others, and he what is a burkhart fellow at Radcliffe Institute for advanced study, so dr. Keane, if you could start us off. Great, well, good afternoon, everybody. Thanks for coming out. I left sunny california for what i expected to be a cataclysmic, you know, ice storm so im really disappointed that its just a few drops of rain, but maybe it will get worse later on. Thank you very much, csis for organizing this event. Its really a great opportunity to talk about the importance of the First World War. So i wanted to start out today by in a sense kind of stating the obvious which is that its very easy to mock Woodrow Wilson, and i think the person who did it the best was french premier george clemenseau who gave us this loud. God gave us Ten Commandments and we broke them. Wilson gave us his 14 points and we shall see. I dont think he really said it but its a very good quote and im going to repeat it anyway. Clemenseau did stay this. Talking to Woodrow Wilson is like talking to jesus christ. Many other criticisms have come wilsons way. Hes been called a hypocrite for immediately abandoning his promise. In the first of the 14 points, calling for open covenants of peace, openly arrived at by agreeing to secret closed door nations at the versailles peace conference. Hes been accused of harboring a messiah complex after he was greeted in paris with newspaper headlines labeling him, quote, the savior of humanity, and more recently historians and activists have rightly focused on wilsons racism as an essential rather than a relevant part of his presidency. However, by far the most condemning insult flung his way is not to call him a racist but to call him an idealist. The 14 points, which is our subject today, wilsons blueprint for the postwar world, offers much evidence for putting wilson in this idealistic camp. Dreaming an impossible dream. In this document wilson called for freedom of the seas, free trade, disarmament, quote, free openmind and absolutely impartial adjustment of all Colonial Claims that took into consideration, quote, the interest of the populations, but most condemning of all was point 14, and im going to read t. Quote, a general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording usual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike. Now, wilson wasnt the first to advocate for an International Organization for collective security, and no one in the 14 points does the term selfdetermination actually appear, but not beless these would be the two concept, perhaps the most idealistic that would hereafter ever be associated with wilson and the portrayal of wilson the idealist is captured perfectly by the south african foreign minister who thanked wilson for when he arrived at the peace conference this moral idealism and this vision of a better world which has borne us up through the dark night of war. Let us not underrate our opportunity, he said, the age of miracles is never passed. Now, after all of that no wonder american editorial cartoons pictured wilson blowing smoke bubbles soap bubbles into the sky. Now, wilson clearly had an International Audience in mind with the 14 points, and he was trying to introduce an element of hope in a difficult time, but i would argue that all these portrayals of wilson as an idealist have obscured his pragmatic side only paying attention to his desire to remake the world obscures how much he was stoppeding to domestic concerns and desires. So im going to make an argument here that we in fact should read the 14 points as an exercise in pragmatism, not idealism. The 14 points was given at a moment when the war was not going well. The second phase of the Russian Revolution had become with the bolsheviks taking control and immediately opening up negotiations for separate peace with germany. Having exposed secret allied treaties that divided territories among themselves he challenge the the allies to say they werent fighting for territorial expansion, just like germany and this presented and ideological reason to defend the allied cause which he did in the 14 points. In this he encouraged the russian people to demand democracy, not just a new tocksy and this fit with his ideological aspirations, but convincing the russians to stay in the war or at least remain friendly to the alice and not enter into an alliance with germany had the more pragmatic goal of trying to save american lives. In january 1918 as mark alluded, to the u. S. Had only been at war for seven months. The First American troops are just landed in france and the training of millions of new recruits was plagued by difficulties. The allies expected and feared a german spring offensive from a german army now freed from having to defend the Eastern Front. Getting russia, on our side was only one of wilsons stated goals. After the italian defeated at caparetto the u. S. Declared war on austria hungary and wilson didnt want austria hungary as an an my and he opens the door to a separate peace for austria hungary not for dissolution of the austrian hungary i dont know empire but for its Autonomous Development and this overture as well can also be seen as an attempt to avoid expanding the u. S. Military mission even further. Finally concerns with militarism and reaches out to berlin as well with offers of a future partnership if they make political reforms and territorial concessions and if it is as im suggesting the 14 points is read as an attempt to limit american casualties and constrain American Military commitments then in some respects it was successful. And after all germany began speaking a peace based on the 13 points in october 1918 setting the stage for the abdication of the kaiser on november 9th and an armistice agreement that incorporated most but not all of the 14 interpo. In a way the 14 points offered germany a facesaving way out of the war, but there were other pragmatic concerns that perm theated the points. Europe went to war at a time when war was considered a completely acceptable way to advance a nations policy games. By 1918, however, attitudes had changed and for many people modern war seemed too deadly and catastrophic to risk again. Wilsons 14 points to find what he saw as the major reasons for the war, and its underlying causes. The arms race and imperialism and defensive alliance and the flawed Decision Making among european leaders in the fateful summer of 1918 that saw war for necessary preservation. The first task was wing the war and then fashioning not just a peace but trying to find a way to avoid future wars, and the international progressives and pacifists who were important parts of wilsons Democratic Base certainly thought that that was worth a try. The speech was widely distributed at home and abroad, and its very formulation barred from a new form of selling the war the propaganda poster that relied on short pithy slogans to encapsulate war goals and aspirations and in a sense you can also see the 14 points as a Public Relations man dream, very much like the long and ponderous war adlaes wilson had given in april. Progressive thinking was also an integral part of the 14 points. Not just in its final formulation but in the process of its creation. The final document was based on a draft provided by the inquiry, a group of experts assembled to advise wilson on the numbing array of regional issues a peace settlement would have to address, and this reliance on expertise and the use of data to solve societal problems was a hallmark of domestic progressivism. It was in a sense an approach that was ideologically inspired and pragmatic and scientific in application and this approach to policymaking also left a lasting legacy. Senator warner talked about think tanks and this was the first think tanks and it was a precursor to todays council on Foreign Relations and many other think tanks that have symposiums like this to have factual scientifically based policymaking. Now, perhaps moist remarkably wilsons vision in the 14 points to remake the world perfectly suited american selftrmpts the provision for absolute freedom of the thats been one of the main reasons that the United States had entered the war with wilson arguing that german submarine warfare threatened National Security, but the freedom of the seas also challenged British Naval supremacy and the naval disarmament treaties of the 1920s demonstrated that British Naval strength was also a primary goal of u. S. National security policy. Now the fourth point of the 14 points, im not kwigds you on them, but im just telling you which ones they are, called that called for disarmament is often considered one of the most idealistic. In part thats because nobody actually remembers wilsons words which were not a call for complete disarmament but rather, quote, that National Armaments be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety. I ask you. Wasnt thats exactly what American Defense policy had been before the war . The prewar Preparedness Movement had been controversial and mostly unsuccessful in 19141916. If the nation couldnt be convinced to support a large military while a world war wageled, how likely it was that there would be support for a large military after the war. Well, as it turns out, not very likely. The u. S. Reverted once again to maintaining a relatively small defensive establishment and, again, i ask you. Was it idealistic or pragmatic to convince the rest of the world to adopt a similar attitude towards the military establishments given that there was no political will in the u. S. To support a large military . Finally, the points that if a if a sized territorial adjustments were framed to satisfy the desires of Many Americans. Atrocities committed by germany in belgium, the socalled rape of belgium, been rebel publicized in the u. S. And was a fixture of u. S. Wartime propaganda. Demanding restitution in point seven sat perfectly with the expectation that the u. S. Was fighting the war to save belgium and france as well, including the restoration of alcace and lorraine to france, point number eight and finally the recent waves of immigrants from Eastern Europe to the u. S. Created strong interests within these communities over proposals concerning poland, russia, it italy and serbia and other points in the 4 points and the importance of sult rate issing immigrants for the war effort is often overlooked but its worth recalling one out of every five soldiers in the u. S. Army was foreign born in the First World War. Okay. So, why should we care about any of this today . What does it all mean, and so ive got 14 but four points that i think we might contemplate. The first is reconsidering the pragmatism in the 14 points suggests the need to stop idealism and pragmatism as die could the mouse. Was it realistic to believe that the First World War to solve more problems than it created . Was it realistic to believe that a punitive piece would prevent another war. . Was it realistic to think that the u. S. Would accept millions of casualties silently and stoically . And second the 14 points asserts that theres little difference between serving Americas National interests and the world interests so its not a question of America First or america second. By making the world more secure, american gains National Security in its defense, its trade, its Political Institutions and its way of life. As Wilson States in the 14 points, quote. All the peoples of the world are in effect partners in this interest, and for our own part we see very clearly that unless justice be done to others, it will not be done to us. The program of the worlds peace, therefore, is our program. The third, it is difficult for the u. S. To be the voice of moral authority in the World Without keeping our own house in order and this point speaks more to the weaknesses of wilsons vision than its strengths. During world war i the government enforced the most antisedition legislation in the nations history launching a fullscale assault on Civil Liberties and wilson was tone deaf in responding to the dramatic increase in racial violence during and immediately after the war. And finally, moral matters. In fighting a difficult war, it is difficult to fight a war with a dispirited divided and disillusioned population. The 14 points was a terrific speech because it was vague enough to to appeal to the broadest numbers of people, and i would shrewd by suggesting just like 100 years ago there is value in inspiring words from the nations leaders that emphasize the values and aspirations that can unify rather than divide us. Thank you very much. [ applause ] thank you jennifer. I introduced the speakers in the incorrect mortgage. Professor minela is goes to go next. Weve got his powerpoint slides up next. Thank you, mark. The order doesnt matter except that the slides are set up in a certain way. Thank you, everyone, for being here. Thank you, mark, for having me. Its a real pleasure to be here and its especially exciting for me as a historian that were doing this event precisely on the day that 100 years ago Woodrow Wilson gave the 14 points address not far from here. Its something ironic about anniversaries and centennials, right. By definition they tell that is we are further away from the event that weve ever been before, and yet they make us feel closer to the event, so i enjoy that feeling and that iron en. I want to begin by recalling the specific Historical Context which led to that speech 100 years ago and the most important part of that, as jennifer mentioned, the bolshevik revolution. Its true that wilson worried about lenins promise to take russia out of the war. But i think of something more important here which is that wilson saw lenin in his revolution as a symptom of a broader malaise affecting Human Affairs at that historical moment, a malaise that went beyond russia, even beyond europe, even into the body politic of america itself. And i further want to argue to you that wilsons perception of the threat that lenin posed grew out of his analysis of the challenges facing the United States domestically in his time. And now what do i mean by that . Wilson came of political age in what we now know as the gilded age, be a age of profound historical transformation in u. S. History. If we wanted to sum it up, we would include an age of rapid globalization, largescale immigration bringing new diversity and new tension into u. S. Society, sweeping technological and economical changes and recurring financial panics and social dislocation and finally a steve rise in in equality with attendant strains on the social fabric. In short, his time was one not unlike our own. Now, wilson looking at all of that, serving that landscape, worried about the decline of democracy in america in the face of the growth of unaccountable power held in the hands of the few, and he was thinking in particular of the great financial and industrial barr barrel barrons of the errors. He was worried about too dangerous instability at home. One i said is the decline of democracy in the face of growth of unaccountable power which i depicted here on the right with jpmorgan, and he was worried equally about what he saw as the inevitable reaction to this concentration of wealth and power, namely, social unrest and indeed revolution. And this i depict on the left with a picture of a less famous by arguably no less important character leon cho lg us who was the assassin of president mckinley. So what was wilsons answer to this as a political leader, as a. . What he wanted to do as a progressive in the sense of the early 20th century was to push for a stronger Government Role in the economy in order to promote economic stability, to advance protections for labor and to break up monopoly capital. In other words, what he was looking for a third way between plutocracy and anarchy. A path of reform that would check unaccountable power and in that way stave off upheaval and revolution. So thats a domestic scheme, and wilson was a domestic thinker. He was a scholar of u. S. History, u. S. Constitutional history and constitutional structure. He gave very little thought to International Affairs or International Relations until after he became president and so he used the scheme that he had developed in his mind for thinking about u. S. Domestic affairs, to thinking about World Affairs as well. Looking at the International Arena during the great war he spied a similar dialectic at work. I put wilson here positioning himself in the center and the dialectic he spied in the International Arena was similar in structure to this. You had unaccountable power on the right which for him was symbolized by the german accusers but we could also put the russian czar there before his abdication. And on the other side you had for him the inevitable reaction to to unaccountable power which is revolution. That is to say lenin, and for wilson his task, americas task in the war, in the world, was precisely to find that middle way, that third way, that path to reforming International Order in such a way that would make it more accountable and more stable as less revolutionary. Now, when lenin first lenin and the bolsheviks first came to power in november of 1917, wilson knew very little about him, about his movement. We have to remember how marginal this group was before they came to power, but he knew enough to know that he didnt like their program, that their program was about anarchy, not about order. The after all, what wilson wanted is to is change in order to improve the liberalist capitalist order. They both shared the sense that World Politics had to be transformed, but the transformation each of them wanted was very different. Wilson sought to chargt a third way. And lenin sees this analysis very clearly. He says it very clearly. For lenin the choice was stark. You could either have reaction, which he defined as capitalism and imperialism. Of course the two were in his mind intimately connected, or you could have revolution. For lenp, there was no third way. So this is the context. This is i think how we need to understand the broader scheme thats behind the 14 points. Yes, one of the things he sought to do was to keep the bolsheviks in the war by highlighting the goals he shared with them but more importantly he saw to plunt appeal of the revolution by coopting some of their many program and most notably, at least for my few minutes here on the stage, he soon adopted the principle of selfdetermination as his own with widespread if not wholly intended consequences. So, one way for us to think about the 14 points is at the first instance of what historian john lewis, the cold war historians, called an american strategy of containment of communism. Now gaddis, of course, was thinking and writing about postworld war ii strategy of diplomatic contain thement of the soviet union. Containment was more than that, more of an ideology than it was an aim to contain so state power, and we have to remember that the 14 points were coupled with u. S. Support from an allied military intervention in russia that tried to roll back the revolution, but if the 14 points, the first salvo in a strategy of containment, it was not a passive containment that sought to restore the world before the revolution. It was a strategy that was founded in wilsons view that longterm historical trends that well call today modernization and globalization required. Its not that he thought that this would be a good idea or lead to some kind of ideal world but the situation and the Global Crisis required a major transformation of International Order and that the devastating shock of the war itself about which senator warner reminded us so eloquently, the devastating shock of the war itself made that transformation both more urgent and also more possible, more likely by shaking the foundations of the old order. Now the 14 points were the first outline. They werent the complete articulation, the first outline of wilsons vision and what we call a liberal International Order. They include free trade, open diplomacy and this was not a very novel idea at the time, a primitive International Organization, league of nation, that would facilitate in an International Collaboration for peace and stability, but the one element of the 14 points that i want to focus on for the remainder of my time is the principal of selfdetermination and how that fits into the broader scheme. Now, contrary to still common perception, the phrase itself, selfdetermination was nowhere to be found in the january 1918 speech. Still, its understandable that its been remembered as part of that speech because in some sense its spirits did permeate the address. For example, several points called for quote, unquote, the Autonomous Development, Autonomous Development for the peoples of the ottomans and the hapsberg empire. He didnt describe what the development meant and that was part of the point. Wilson was no expert on the history and poe pogity or greigity of the region but he knew this is in part what helped ignite the war. It did begin, after all, with the assassination of an austrian archduke in the name of the selfdetermination of the slav people so in his mind he wasnt introducing a new principle into international discourse, already adopting one that was already out there as he called it a necessary principle of action. But the point that i find most interesting of all, lets see if this is going to work, i mentioned these. This is the most interesting of all, point five. Not the precise text of the entire point but just the summery and basically in of the concerned, the colonial populations, equal weight with those of colonial governments. This isnt a fullthroated endorsement of anti imperialism. For its time, for an american president , it was quite a departure from american policy. Now, why do i find this so interesting . Well, first of all, its that we know from the paper trail of the 14 points addressed that we find in the archive that it was the one point of all of the 14. It was the one point wilson drafted entirely on his own. All the other points were based on various drafts that he had gotten from his advisors, from his experts in one way or another. This one originated entirely with him, which i think is fascinating. It was not drawn from the recommendations handed to him by his advisor and it is especially interesting because it injects what we might call the colonial question into the discussion of the postwar order and this was a question he didnt need to inject. Most of his close advisors and certainly his closest allies a brood, the british and the french, were not interested in talking about the colonial question at the paris peace conference. Would have preferred he leave it out entirely. Yet he didnt. And after all, its pointfive that leads to what we later know the league of nations system, a system that challenges at least in principle the sovereignty, the complete sovereignty of colonial powers. It made them in theory caretaker governments, accountable and this is a keyword here accountable to a Higher International authority. This goes back to what i said before about his sense of the need to increase accountability in International Affairs. And what this tells me and the fact that he added this point into his 14 points address maybe he didnt want he thought 13 points would be unlucky. I think its got to be more than that. Its got to be more than that. Thomas would have had a nice quip with 13 points. [ laughter ] so, why did he introduce the colonial question into his peace talk even when there was no obvious pressure to do so . Again, it went to his view that governments accountable to their population were the key to peace and stability both at home and abroad and to me it suggests that despite some later interpretations, he believed at least in principle that this principle of selfdetermination ought to apply not just in europe, but worldwide. Although he also believed that its implementation, especially outside of europe, would be slow, would be gradual, would take time, and thats where he parted ways with many colonial activists who heard his rhetoric and acted on it. So, by the wars end, as jennifer reminded us, the president becomes a worldfamous symbol of the coming of a new world order onto which various groups, both within europe and outside of europe, projected their fondest hopes and dreams. Its interesting even to this day in prague you have various monuments and streets and avenues named after wilson. At the same time, viennese siegemund freud didnt like him. He becomes a symbol. His words helped inspire and mobilize anticolonial movements in regions from north africa strefrpi stref stretching from north africa and egypt and china and korea, all of which exploded in protests, popular protests in the spring of 1919. And if youre interested in more on that part of the story, my book is basically a full treatment, and im happy to talk about this in q a as much as you like. Now, wilsons failure to make good on his perceived promise of selfdetermination led some anticolonial activists and i also talk about that in the book. These activists include the young ho chi minh, the young mao tsetung, all of whom are just beginning their political careers. Indeed, arguably some of them certainly is true for ho chi minh and mao, their political careers are significantly launched at that moment. They all see wilson as a disappointment and they all, to one extent or another, look to bolshevism for inspiration and support to liberate their respective countries. So, what i put before you is that despite his failures and they were legion, wilson made selfdetermination a central principle of International Legitimacy where it persisted and still persists today. It was then notably revived by franklin roosevelt, or during world war ii, when he compelled compelled the reluctant church hill in the atlantic charter. Roosevelt also took it further than wilson had, particularly as it applied to territories outside europe, to the colonial world. For wilson, selfdetermination outside europe was not beyond the pale, but it was a low priority. For roosevelt it was an urgent issue. If we look at the antiimperialist in wartime in wartime u. S. , the second world war, apparent, for example, in Something Like Wendell Wilkes best seller one world we might think selfdetermination would be central to post war foreign policy. But heres the thing. To wilson, support for selfdetermination and opposition to communist dictatorship had seemed entirely consistent. Remember that scheme. They were two central elements in an International Order based on Accountable Government and he saw the bolsheviks as something other than Accountable Government. The Accountable Governments cooperating through International Organizations an mated by liberal traditions. What he missed we now know is the tension or a tension, one of the tensions at the center of u. S. Advocacy of selfdetermination. And thats the tension. What if a nation having gained its selfdetermination determines to take a path that is opposite of u. S. Interests and values. How do you choose when the selfdetermination clashers with other principles or interests that you hold dear . You being in this case the american policy maker. Already in the late 40s we see washington choosing containments over selfdetermination when it backed the french war in indochina and throughout the cold war, u. S. Both supported selfdetermination of emerging nations on one hand and undermined it in containment on the other. The soechl yet can be similarly hip thit cal. After all it was lenin who introduced selfdetermination in the First World War. The soviet union, of course, invaded hungary in 56 and czechoslovakia in 68. Where does that leave us today . First, as i said, the 14 points were the origin point of the u. S. Strategy of containment toward russian communism. But it was more than that. As already mentioned, it was the founding document in the construction of the u. S. Led liberal International Order. An order that has solidified after 1945 has under girded International Relations for the better part of a century. Specifically on selfdetermination it is an order based, this International Order is based on the proliferation of selfdetermining states. We had 20 something states in the world in the around the time of world war i, around the time of the peace conference. We now have close to 200. Thats selfdetermination at work. This led on one hand to more Accountable Governments, and on the other hand, to weak states and inflexible territorial configureations among other problems. So, thinking about the 14 points highlights the difficulties of constructing and preserving such an order. In particular, highlights the contradictions embedded in such a project. Thinking of the 14 points as the founding document of the liberal order also reminds us that it is an order that is now facing unprecedented challenges. Not least from the very place not far from here in which it was drafted. Now, the current circumstances and historians always have to say this, are very different from those of a century ago. Still, just as wilson understood the international upheavals of his time as part of a broader historical set of historical processes that encompass both a dough mystic and International Arenas, they saw the same largescale processes at work both at home and abroad. We, too, must think of our own challenges in a way that puts developments both at home and abroad within a single analytical frame. Now, what do we see if we do that . We see a recent past in our time of accelerating globalization, of largescale immigration, of economic and technological change tied to crises and dislocations, and we see a steep rise of inequality, challenging longstanding social contracts and Political Institutions in the u. S. And abroad. By the way, many of these institutions that are being challenged, at least in the United States, go back to wilsons own time. Now, like wilson 100 years ago, America Today is faced with the challenges of finding a path of reform, the third wave between plutocracy and upheaval. And one more thing. The odd coupling of wilson and lenin a century ago cannot but remind us of possibly an equally odd relationship between the u. S. President and the russian leader today. Now, putins authoritarian nationalism may not have the universal ambitions of lenins continental internationalism, but the two share a disdain for democracy and a desire to exploit its weakness and to dee stab stabilize and perhaps destroy it. In his own time wilson understood that the challenges of globalization he must push for a more responsive accountable politics both at home and abroad. It is this insight i put before you that lay at the core of the 14 points, however flawed wilsons efforts to implement it were. And i think it remains a fundamental insight today. Thank you. [ applause ] here we go. I want to thank mark and thank senator warner for all of your hospitality in bringing us all here together. At the u. S. Army war college where i teach, we tend to teach war and peace as two sides of the same coin, but it seems to me this is too simple and not quite right. War is a reaction to crisis, Something Like a 9 11, Something Like a pearl harbor, Something Like germany, resuming unrestricted submarine warfare in the spring of 1917. Whereas peace is about grand strategy. What do you want the world to look like . What resources do you have to make it look that way . And what barriers, what limitations do you have to face . And thats one way to think about the 14 points, as a vision of what the world should look like, and a vision of what the United States ought to do to make it look that way. Now, what i want to show you here is the grand strategy is really, really difficult to do. So, im going to focus on those shortcomings and limitation ends of what the 14 points means. And i want to do it by introducing you to somebody else whose initials were w. W. This is linn wester man. He was a man from bell ville, illinois, educated in the United States, educated ironically enough in germany. In the summer of 1917, he was history professor at the university of wisconsin. He was a world specialist on egyptian papyras skrolz. Hard to get more esoteric than that, hard to get more mild mannered than that. Here he is as part of the group which has come up before, the inquiry. This group haas formed in september 1917. I found the initial document. Senator, i dont know if this has ever been done before in u. S. Government history, but they were given the authority to spend whatever money they want, the bills are to be sent to the white house. [ laughter ] they put together this core group in 1919 but they were formed in september 1917. As jennifer mentioned, many of the individuals in this image here go on to form the council on Foreign Relations so we really can think of them as the worlds first or americas first real think tank. Now, whats interesting to me about this which will i dont know wester man was put on this committee because studying the scrolls he is one of americas experts on the middle east. On december 11, 1919, william linn wester man finds himself in paris discussing with the british and the french whether or not the city of constant nope l should be given to turkey or to greece. To me there is a really interesting symbolism in that. In the two years, this man, like the United States, goes from having no interest whatsoever in what happens to turkey or greece or constant nope l, to actually having a voice in that final decision. Now, as jennifer mentioned, the United States was not really bound by any agreements that it hadnt signed. The United States did not declare war on the otto man empire yet here the americans find them self. I want to talk a little about that process and trying to work their way through in a kind of think tank environment what this means. Now, wester man who went on to become a professor at Columbia University in new york where his papers are today was joined by some other really talented academics, talented but not nice people, the man sitting in the middle of the couch went on to become president of Johns Hopkins and was part of another think tank to advise harry truman on what to do as the british were getting out of palestine. These are interesting people whose views mattered an awful lot. Wester man admired what Woodrow Wilson had done, admired wilsons ideals, but he remarked in his diary, no one knows what is in the president s mind beyond vague phrases and beautiful ideas. Now, as they mentioned, here is one of his vague phrases and beautiful ideas. The peoples of austria and hungary whose places we wish to be safeguarded and assured should be accorded the free est opportunity to Autonomous Development. The professor in me immediately looks to the passive voice in that construction, should be accorded without identifying who should accord it. But lets forget that for a minute unless one of my students is watching, then remember it absolutely for this moment. And lets forget the vagueness of the idea. As jennifer said, the United States declared war in austria and hungary late in the game. The United States was not bound by any agreement by austria and hungary. United states had no plans to get involved in the area, certainly no plans to send troops to the area. Yet here was the inquiry charged with giving wilson some advice. And another of the vague phrases wilson gave to the inquiry was this guidance. Tell me what is right and i will fight for it. Why . What is causing the United States to end up in this position . And im going to mention just three that jennifer and aires have already mentioned. They are in this because of the collapse because of most other systems of authority. The austria haungary empire, second as both previous speakers mentioned, the universalist message of Woodrow Wilson. If it applies in one place, it must apply every place. And third, the need to separate the United States from the bulshovik message of lenins and russians. Even if the United States did not want to be involved in this problem in austria and hungary, ill talk briefly about syria or as i wont talk about china, it has largely spun this web for itself, or in Woodrow Wilsons woords to his propaganda george creel, im wondering if you have spun a net from which there is no escape. Which seems like classic Woodrow Wilson, blaming everyone else for his problems but softening it from controversy. The inquiry is supposed to be progressive in the sense that it is to be scientific. It is to be rational in the sense that it is to proceed along clearly identifiable social science methods and is supposed to be evidencebased. And my favorite piece of documentation that i found so far in the inquiry files is this great phrase, the truth is out there. [ laughter ] so, the inquiry got to work, and im going to show you a couple of maps that are at Yale Universitys archives today. They started putting together things like this. Detailed analysis. What does the austral hungarian empire look like . Who lives there . How do we identify who lives there . These are incredibly detailed. As you can see, gorgeously produced maps that look at ot production, that look at barredly production, that look at where railroad go. Where do canals go . Who lives there . What do we do with them . This is a this map is of the languages of the austral hungarian empire. I love how they did this in an age before powerpoint and computer programs, by shading Different Levels of ink for colors of intensity. This isnt the way i would try to break up an empire, especially as people on the ground are saying, hey, look, these are people that recently moved in. Our claim to the land supersedes their claim to the land. A familiar phrase that were going to have to be dealing with. Its the progressive mindset. If you get the right data and the right experts, the right answers ought to follow out. But as you can see from this map and from some of the other ones im about to show you, the answers arent quite so simple. How can you make states that are ethnically consistent, economically sustainable and strategically defensible . Ill talk about that in a minute in just a second. Heres another one of the maps. This is an idea they come up with. This is a federated greater austria based upon ethnic groups. In other words, if you can say that language is a marker of identity, and that itself is a fairly controversial point, maybe the best way to handle this is to draw the lines this way while keeping some sort of Central Authority over the entire region. Now, to me, im fascinated by ideas like this because they show that in 1919, and 1945, and other parts of history, there were a lot of possible outcomes. The way that history came out doesnt necessarily mean thats the way it was destined to come out, which we historians call hindsight bias. How to put them into action. Lets say for just a moment, that this is the future you want to create for central europe. How could the americans actually do it . What modes of influence did the United States have . Its quite clear to everybody and ill show you one person in particular that the United States has no intention of sending the United States army into that, to try to straighten it out and figure it out. It is equally clear that Woodrow Wilson did not want to do this by the power of economics. That is, he did not want to tie the resources of the United States economy into figuring out how to solve the problems of central and Eastern Europe. He had questions about whether it was legal for him to do so given that most of those assets were in private hands. And he had moral questions about how to do it. I have a british colleague of mine who insists this came from his presbyterian background. Im not presbyterian so i have to trust his analysis on this. Hes a religious historian so i trust him as far as it goes. Forcing people to convert to his ideas was the wrong way to do it. They had to see the wisdom in wilsons ideas for what they were, thus all of his appeals as jennifer said to the publics of europe over the heads of their leaders. Could a league of nations do Something Like this . Could you create an International Organization that could go in and somehow monitor this new greater federated austria that you had in mind . Now, i have no context for the next image i want to show you but i find it really interesting. This is another idea that the inquiry came up with. I dont really know how to interpret this so much. This is another suggestion for the way you might order central europe. This was going to be as near as i can figure four states, a check vok i cant state which doesnt correspond with the states they claimed. The claims of the yugoslavs, and monte negro in 1915, and a yellow state called corridor. Im not sure what they thought they would be able to accomplish by this, but it shows the many ways theyre thinking. One problem they quickly realize theyve run into is that its possible, it may just be possible to create states that will be ethnically homogenous. It may also be possible to create states that can feed themselves, that is, are economically sustainable. And it may be possible to create states that can defend themselves. It is not possible to create states that can do all three. What do you want to prioritize . This is what produces ideas like the polish corridor and the internationalization of the city of dan zig. Its these kinds of ideas that give the land of czechoslovakia. The goals you want in states, the things you want them to do are, in fact, mutually incompatible. And no matter what you do, one of those three things is going to suffer, even if ulk get the people who are actually living there to agree to live under these states. Now, one guy who immediately saw the problems was this man, bliss, for whom the building attached to my building is named and im very glad that it is. Bliss was a pennsylvaniian which i also have to give two thumbs up to, educated at buck nell and educated at west point. The able istoman in ableest man in europe. When he was feeling stressed out, he would pour himself a glass of whiskey and he would read in the original greek. Something ive advised all Senior Army Officers to start doing. [ laughter ] bliss understood immediately some of the core presumptions under which the United States was operating were badly false. One of which is that the American People would be willing to commit their treasure, their resources, their prestige to enforcing whatever agreement came out of versailles. Bliss in my mind is a slightly tragic figure because wilson paid him almost no attention at the paris peace conference and i think he got it as well as close to right as anybody that was there. The way they set it up is they listed five eve country got five representatives at the peace conference. Bliss did not make the list. He wanted to insult his senior general so he put foshs name 6th on the list of five. This is what bliss said about the new states he wanted to create in central europe. He said, quote, the submerged nations are coming to the surface. As soon as they appear, they fly at someones throat. They are like mosquitoes, vicious from the moment of their birth. In other words, just because a state is new, just because its small, and just because its homogenous does not necessarily mean its virtuous. And bliss was particularly upset that the United States was taking its surplus weaponry in europe and selling it to these new countries. Bliss had the idea that you should put those weapons on ships, wait till the ships were halfway over the Atlantic Ocean coming back to the United States and dump them all over board, get rid of them. A second problem bliss ended up getting involved in and a second set of beautiful phrases and ideas i wont read this one out, but this is the turkish portion of the otto man empire. The United States had no war with the oto man empire and no necessary reason to find itself being drawn into the crisis that became the otoman empire. Yet there we were and there was william linn wester man sitting in a meeting to describe where the most important region constantanople would go. The british wanted to operate on this map agreed to 1916 and very quickly what this is, the areas in blue would go under french control. The areas in red would go under british control. The area listed here as a would be under french influence. The area under b would go under british influence. And this little yellow bit right here called palestine would be put under some yet to be defined international territory. Now, the americans hated this arrangement. Both because it violated everything that was in the 14 points, and because the british and french had agreed to it secretly. The americans found out about it when the bolshiviks found it and published it. The americans dont want to honor this. To say you dont want to do this, you have to come up with something different. The european challenge to the United States was if the United States really wanted to walk the walk, the United States had take this as its own area. If you guys talked about armenia for all those years and how awful the turks were in armenia, take over the mandate for armenia. Take it over for palestine. Put skin in the game. Do what were doing, and take on the burden of operating these parts of the world. Now, i can talk about it more if you want, but im going to skip ahead to what tasker bliss thought about this because i find its really interesting. Bliss understood the odds of the United States coming into this part of the world and making it better were really slim. All the ideals, all the good ideas, all the wonderful things in wilsons 14 points and in other documents simply werent going to work. Bliss said this. It seems that certain promises were made to the arabs. Hes referring here to promises by the british to take all that stuff and make one Arab Federation out of it. In the early days of the war and now they are so unkind as to insist on these promises being fulfill fulfilled the consequence of grand triangular route on part of the arabs the matter be arbitrated by the United States. I myself have declared that i would not touch the question even with a pole long enough to reach syria unless i were positively order today do so by my government. Bliss is saying, this isnt our fight, stay out of it. According to the documents of the 14 points, the ideals of the 14 points, the United States had a reason to get involved. And many arab leaders including fisol, great leader of the arab revolt, turned to the United States, going to wester man, going to tasker bliss and saying, we trust you americans in a way that we dont trust the british and the french. You need to get involved. Now, i dont think tasker bliss, if he were alive today reading the ancient greek, would be too surprised to know were still in the middle east 100 years later and that it has gotten more complicated and more dangerous than it was in 1919. Now, america got out of the syria trap, but only by accident and not to anybodys satisfaction. British diplomats of the paris peace conference proposed a compromise to undertake a fact finding visit to syria to figure out what the syrians themselves might want. Now, they didnt do this because they cared about the syrians. They did it because they wanted to slow the momentum of what they saw as a profrench solution. The french themselves were furious because they guessed few syrians would desire french protection. Fisol by contrast was so elated that he drank his first glass of champagne. The result was a war between the french and the syrians that further divided the christians and syrians apart and break the christian part of syria they called lebanon away from the state of syria. This is what wester man said. The net result in syria is another bit of poison which will rot the near east till the distant day when arabs in all the east will discard the unjustified assumption of westerners embodied in the formula of white mans burden. Syria of course remains a bit of poison with no answer in sight and no obvious role for the United States to play. Now, jennifer mentioned one of the great critics of, of Woodrow Wilson. Ive seen it at least reported in french newspapers so i think we can say that he real did i say it and it is entirely consistent with the man. Mr. Wilson bores me with his 14 points. God himself was content with 10. And sidney, the italian prime minister, shouted at wilson during one session in the paris peace conference. Go to the balkans and try an experiment with your 14 points. The point i want to make is the tension between the idealism of wanting to impose the 14 points and the reality of the limits of what the United States was capable of doing. Now, for some people like bliss, this was a straight argument for the United States not getting involved in parts of the world where it could not have any real power or influence. To others, it led to great dissolution as the United States seemed to get itself in all corners of the world. And i didnt talk about china but i could have talked about china here as well. Without having the authority to back up those ideals. William bullet who later went on to become the First American ambassador to the soviet union, later ambassador to france. There is a new biography im interested to read. He was so frustrated with what the United States did in paris he wrote a letter to his mother in which he said im going to go lie on the sand and watch the world go to hell. And bliss himself wrote, what a wretched mess it all is. If the rest of the world will let us alone, i think we had better stay on our side of the water and keep alive the spark of civilization to relight the torch over here. After it is extinguished here, meaning in paris. If i ever had any illusions, they are all dispelled. Now im afraid there is no high note on which to end this talk. [ laughter ] the middle east, russia and east asia remain trouble spots and some, if not indeed all of the roots of this problem, these problems date back to the First World War era. A point i try to make to my students at the Army War College and anybody who will listen, the problems of this modern world date back not just to the First World War, but the particular way in which the war ended and the grand strategic visions that the United States and the european great powers tried to put in place. Now, another thing that i try to talk to my students about is the ways in which the world was changing that these quoteunquote great men didnt realize. The ways in which the people eres mentioned ho chi min, mao tsetung, neru, others, they were not willing to accept european rule under the way it existed in the First World War. In that sense, paris, the paris peace conference represents a real transition and a real shift in the paradigm that very few people, including tasker bliss, fully well understood. Even if the United States tried to ignore the fact for another generation, and even if Many Americans wished that it werent so, because of the First World War the United States was now fully a part of the interNational Security environment from china to syria and beyond, a role this country continues to play a century later. Thank you very much for your attention. [ applause ] thank you, jennifer, ares and mike for three terrific speeches. You have exceeded all our expectations. Left us with many things to think about. I wanted to pose a couple questions before we open it up to the audience. Ares made the point that wilsons, although he was a historian, was a historian of domestic affairs, not International Affairs. Curious, one of our beliefs here is that understanding the history of International Affairs is critical to making good foreign policy. So, i wanted to ask was there anybody it sounds like bliss was at least were there many people who actually knew military and diplomatic history having input with the 14 points or followed with wilson . And had there been more of a historical awareness might things have been different . Ill leave it up to whoever wants to take it. Youre looking at me. Well, i would say that its not i dont like dichotomies, as you can tell. So, i dont think that we should say that wilson needed to have read deeply in european history or even have had necessarily strong advisors with that expertise. Wilson was an american historian and he looked at the Historical Development of the United States as a model for how new societies and new countries could form. And he did believe in american exceptionalism, yet at the same time saw the american model as something that was transferrable. And he looked at the history of the United States and saw a country that had absorbed large numbers of immigrants. We had people with speaking many different languages, many different religions and we had been successful in coming together as a nation. And so in that sense thats the model in your mind, theres no reason that these new fledgeling european nations, empires couldnt do the same thing. So, i think that is his historical understanding didnt have to be european based to have a mind this could be a successful model to follow. Well, yeah you have to press the button. Unpress it now. I entirely agree with jennifer. I think that wilson i love hearing things like that. Okay, ill say it again. Say it again. I entirely agree with jennifer. I think wilson certainly, for example, on thinking on the league of nations, as i was saying, this is not he hadnt thought about an International Affairs prior to becoming president prior to the war. It wasnt the league of nations wasnt some pet idea he had nursed for a long time. But thank you. [ applause ] when faced with a colossal world crisis, he reached into American History and the league of nations was clearly based on the american federal constitutional experiment. I will say that Robert Lansing, wilsons secretary of state at the time was not an International Historian, was an International Lawyer. And wilson, he didnt know him personally, but on that principle also he cut him out of the deliberations because he really hated lawyers. He thought lawyers lawyers could only understand what was. They couldnt understand what could be. And so he just thought they were too set in their ways so he said many times, i dont want any lawyers involved in the drafting of this. And he, he wasnt an International Historian per se, but he certainly drew on his understanding of history and the forces of history to try to figure this out. I will say, and this is somebody started a conversation, mike, with you. Everything youve said about tasker bliss, what he seemed to have extracted was what couldnt be done, what problems couldnt be solved. It wasnt clear to me whether he had any constructive advice as what could be done, what he would have done differently. Thats a great point. The first thing i wanted to say is there are historians on the inquiry. There are historians who are forming ideas. But history doesnt produce any straight answers either, right, two historians three opinions, in this case four historians five opinions. It us didnt produce straight answers. To your question, ive only been through the bliss papers a couple of quick times. From the letters hes writing to his wife which is when hes most honest and most unguarded, he sees the biggest problem as the growth of bolshevism. Everything else youre trying to do doesnt matter if it goes to lenin. The focus ought to be on figuring outweighs either militarily or nonmilitarily. Hes of the mind its going to have to be nonmilitary. Its going to have to be the United States people simply arent going to go to war over the future of hungary. Theyre not going to do it. So, they went to war as bliss understands it and i understand it to protect themselves. Now that the germans have laid down their weapons, what are you doing, what are you trying to accomplish . In one letter he writes to his wife i find remarkable, its right before, must be late april, early may of 1919, when its not clear germany will actually sign the treat i of versailles. If they dont, the war starts again. He writes her and says, dont come to europe. I cant guarantee your personal safety if you come here. If the germans dont side, its worldwide revolution. So, thats his big worry, is, a, how to compel the germans to sign a document that is grossly unfair to them, and b, what to do about this growing bolshevik threat. Thats where the worry should be, not the borders. Thanks. You ably covered a lot of the criticisms of wilson and how unfair they were. Another one that is often made is wilson had naive view of human navy and h human nature, and his system of the world depended on human being better than they behaved and practiced and states behaved and practiced. Wanted to ask if you think that is a fair critique he had, an unrealistic view of human nature and that formed the 14 points and his other ideas . Well, since i spent 20 minutes talking about how pragmatic he was, i guess i dont agree with that as a completely holistic formulation of Woodrow Wilson. I think that he was a politician. He understood politics. I mean, hes not naive and doesnt the only ph. D. Ever to become president , i dont think youre a naive person in terms of forging that path. I think he understood politics. But i do think that what he was trying to do was, again, to suggest that you dont have to make a choice between pursuing your selfinterest and as being president responsible for the nations National Security and also thinking about what could be, and reordering International Relations to him was, yes, a kind of plan, a dream, a hope. But at the same time, were the alternatives better . To go back to a balance of power system, to end this war with these empires intact, how could you go to all of the people who had suffered and lost and hoped and tell them this is the outcome of the war. If you think people are disill ustianed because of the versailles peace treaty, imagine how people would have feld t if that had been the outcome of the war. We always read the 14 points back from the versailles peace treaty. People forget about the versailles peace treaty. Yes, you had the league of nations on the side, but you had wilson promising to have a bilateral Defense Alliance with france. That never got to the senate. That shows hes not just thinking this is what he had to do to get the french to agree. So, there was a sense, too which would have also been a hard sell because we didnt have those kind of alliances either. So, that would have been as hard for america to join a balance of power system. It is a harder sell to america as the idea of joining a league of nations. So, then a sense we kind of in retrospect say that would have been like the real way to go. Was it as idealistic as the vision he was presenting. That is in a sense of understanding the different politics of that time, which i think he did. Its an interesting question to ponder, a hard one to answer partly because i think in order to judge definitively whether wilson understood or misunderstood human nature, i would have to understand it first myself. And im not sure im quite there yet. Im close, im close, but not quite there. I think one of the things we tend to forget when we talk about wilson International Relations is he was quite an effective domestic politician, both as governor of new jersey and then as a domestic president. His presidency was quite transformational. I hinted, i alluded in the talk that many of the institutions that today were questioning were put together in his time, starting with the Federal Reserve early in his term and ending with the constitutional amendment that gave women the vote in the federal level. All that happened and many things, happened in the domestic arena under his administration. All sorts of bad stuff happened, too, but the point is that he was quite an effective politician. He understood the system. He understood how to get things through congress. He understood how to work public opinion. You know, john cooper who is probably the single biggest wilson expert alive, he wrote the big biography a few years back, in the end says it was his deteriorating health in early 1919 that explains much of his deteriorating of function in the peace negotiations themselves, and then especially the latter part of the negotiations when they were doing all that stuff that you were suggesting. The first part was the league of nations covenant and that got through, and afterwards when he came back. Of course by september he had the stroke and he was out of commission. And so i think trying to sort of pin wilson down as a fixed target and say this is how he was and thats it, it doesnt really work because he changed over time. His views changed over time. His health also changed over time and we dont like that kind of explanation as historians because its not really a morality tale. Its just stuff happens, but it does. History, stuff happens. I think im reminded a comment one of my dissertation advisors made, never think of human beings as consistent. We tagged wilson as universalist themes. I think understand Willie George more than i understand wilson. Hes a hard guy for me to figure out in part because hes not consistent. Hes a politician. He moves sometimes in the direction he thinks he needs to move. Im not sure i could do anything more than to say i agree with jennifer and ares on that. We have time for a few audience questions. If you will state your name and affiliation, and then pose a question and avoid providing a speech. So, start here. Can you hear me . A student of International Relations from nsc, socialist. My question is to ares. Pointfive of wilson had direct antecedents to the International Congress of 1885, and all india of 1905. If you see the wording, its direct quotations from the manifesto. If youre looking for the genesis and the antecedents of pointfive, i wanted to point it out. Thanks. Hi, my name is alana. Im a full bright scholar at George Washington university, a historian in the netherlands. Thanks very much for very fascinating discussion. I just want to ask a brief question about selfdetermination idea. I could agree, of course, the statement is very much about laying out a blueprint for American Power in the postwar moment, but im curious as to why exactly wilson seeks to institutional ize this International Order as creation of the league. As part of that effort he uses the word peoples rather than nations even though the league is an effort to institutional ize the for matt of the nation state. So, im wondering if you could Say Something about the contradiction inherent in that idea, and whether or not that is also then an inherent criticism of british and french internationalism and modes of european empire. Thanks for three excellent presentations. Im with israel studies at the university of maryland. I want to address one point that professor nyberg brought up, that who would enforce all of these ideas. And id say from that we can understand that the world wasnt as open at that point because there clearly wasnt any overarching and we can see that after world war ii, when there was at least one power that was ready, willing and able to change things. So, it seems to make that versailles really couldnt have accomplished the things that they their universe of options really wasnt that large. I guess the way i would respond to that is im also struck by just how incredibly quick these changes are. So, palestine, just to take the part of the world that you referred to, had been under the otto man empire for 1500 years, forever 500, of course. Forever. And theres no british plan in 1914, 1915, or 1916 to change that. And then in the course of 1917, and the course the few months of 1917, the british decide they will change it and allen b marches through the gate. The shock of how unbelievably fast they change, and faster than the International System can catch up with it. What bliss, particularly and the americans are looking at in all of this, is okay, if youre going to make palestine international, what does that actually mean . Who controls it . Who runs it . What do you do with it . And frankly, no one has really thought about what the answers to these questions are. I think part of the answer to the point that you made would be just how unbelievably rapid change is happening, and how fundamental that change is. The Ottoman Empire is gone. The austral empire is gone. The romanovs are gone. These are tech tonic shifts and someone has to fill that in. To pickup on your point, incredibly insightful point hes talking about peoples, not nations. In part, nobody has a sense of what reaches the threshold of nations so wilson doesnt think the irish are a nation. Theyre a people, not a nation. What do you do with them, how do you understand their governance and are they properly represented through london . Are the indians properly represented by london if you change the structure . These are questions, again, nobody has thought of. In 1916, i wrote a book on this. In 1916 nobody in america is thinking about these problems. Two years later theyre all on the table and you can reshuffle it anyway you think you can. So, i think thats part of whats happening here. It is this intellectual confusion of how fast change is coming and i dont know that well do this. My guess is historians a generation or so from now will look at the cold war in much the same way, that almost everything was on the table. Thank you for the point and the International Congress. I would be very surprised if wilson had known about those texts that you mentioned. But yes, the general idea expressed in that, in that pointfive had been current for decades prior. It had never been expressed in that way, but by a western leader at that level as a principle for International Order. It was certainly claimed by colonial nationalists, had been claimed for a long time. [ inaudible ]. Absolutely, absolutely. Absolutely. To the question about nation ands peoples, i think its so interesting and mike wrote the book about it. Ill give my own sense, which is generally speaking, wilson was a social darwinist in the sense that he believed societies evolve. Theyre not fixed through time. They evolve both at the center in terms of their norms and culture and so forth, and also at the edges in terms of whats in and whats out. I would there is an Interesting Exchange, there are a couple things id like to say actually. There is an Interesting Exchange he has with a british journalist when he just lands he crosses the atlantic to go to the paris peace conference. The peace conference doesnt start for a few weeks so he has a tour of england and italy and france. And he gives this interview to a british paper and i dont have the exact quote here, but also ill paraphrase. The journalist asked something that implied the brits and the americans are anglo saxons, but uses the word race to tie them together. Again, im paraphrasing here so bear with me. He said something along the lines, look, the american nation is no longer an anglo saxon nation. It was once, if we brits and americans share something, are connected by something, its about our ideals, not by our lineage. And he says that as he himself is exploring there in his touring his own british heritage. But he is also well aware the american body politic has changed. The other point i want to make, and i wanted to put this in the speech in the talk, but i had to take it out just for time. When wilson goes over on that boat ride, he has a draft of the league of nations covenant that he prepared himself on his typewriter. He was probably the last president who actually wrote his own speeches on his own typewriter. No staff, the white house is a bare bones operation at this point in time. And so he has this draft. And one of the articles of the draft i forget what the number was in the original draft, but it says Something Like the league of nations will guarantee the territorial integrity and security of the member states. Semicolon. But it will also be able by a majority again, im paraphrasing by a majority of 3 4 to make changes and boundaries and territorial definitions as required i think he said by changes in social Economic Conditions or by changes in there are a couple of different criteria that he outlines there for how these changes would be made. And i think he imagined that the league would be this kind of ongoing process of debating and redrawing, without an end point necessarily based on what he saw was inevitable evolution of peoples. And so the nation would be continuously the nation as a political entity would be continuously redefined. Now, what happens is Robert Lansing sees this and hes flabbergasted and his other legal advisors, David Hunter Miller and others see it, theyre flabbergasted. The french see it and theyre flabbergasted. The negotiations, they get rid of the whole thing under the after the semicolon, and it becomes the league will guarantee the territorial integrity of the member states. And this becomes article 10. So, this is not a well known story. I wrote a little piece about this some years ago, but apparently it hasnt percolated. [ laughter ] few people knoll about this, that the original concept of article 10 from wilsons perspective was the exact opposite of what it ended up doing, the borders of a particular moment in time. Were still struggling with this. How do you change borders in a peaceful way . Its a huge problem in our structure. He was thinking about this. But you know, other people saw it as dynamite. That was going to be a very dangerous way to run things. [ inaudible ]. Lawyers, exactly. We have time for one more set of questions. So, a row here, three in a row. [ laughter ] well take those three and well have [ inaudible ]. Stanley culver. I was wondering what this analysis does to the Democratic Peace theory. The idea has been you get rid of the dictator and then the people will spontaneously resolve their differences. Doesnt seem to work. The bliss quote is wonderful about the mosquitoes. Whats the alternative . Once you win the war, then what are you supposed to do . Are we stuck with hobbs leviathin . Next two questions, then this is the question that deals with money. France is a pretty complicated country and so is great britain. Did they somehow see that the reparations from germany after the war, did they foresee that how these reparations and how this huge amount of money was to be distributed and handled . Did they ever see that there could be complications in the future since being a complicated country that france was preworld war i and also britain preworld war i, did they somehow see this huge amount of money could somehow be used in another manner . I was just curious about that. Final question . Jimmy, retired Foreign Service officer. The 14 points are often characterized or mischaracterized as a passaging of rules based world order. Even if it didnt happen after world war i, it seems to have been a model which was happening after world war ii and the whole last half of the last century. And maybe up to the Current Administration with the u. S. With institution ands processes which the u. S. Was a leading member and a guarantor. It seems as though the Current Administration thinks this is out of date or that this isnt in the u. S. Interest to do. First, was this a myth to begin with . Was there no rule of law that was in the u. S. Interest with all these institutional structures . And is it over . Well start with jennifer and move down. I think ill say a few things that my tie together for all these questions. I think the first thing was that when you think about money and we think about the reparations payment as being kind of a big transfer of money that is going to occur to help postwar europe, at least britain and france rebuild, i think we should also realize that the flow of money from the United States to europe continued in the postwar period. And it continued through private philanthropy. So, Herbert Hoover who had led this huge Philanthropic Mission in 1914 to 1917 over the rape of belgium and foreign aide was flowing into the areas, continued that philanthropic effort all wait to 1923 and redirected that into most of Eastern Europe. And it was a lot of that aid was then to prevent epidemics, famine, the british blockade in the peace treaty was still in effect. It was a matter of feeding these populations. So, the idea that the United States could also use soft power, that it could use economic aid and develop trade relationships that it could begin to connect with portions of the world that are not seen as strategic interest, this was increasingly in the mindset. And as you just point out, in the prewar period while hoover was directing a lot of aid to britain and france, there was the Jewish Joint Distribution Committee that came into existence which is very famous for helping survivors of the holocaust after world war ii. That is a world war i organization that was created to help jewish refugees who were fleeing on the Eastern Front which was the huge war of movement. Every time the army moves 200 miles, a bunch of civilians are running in front trying to get out of the way. So there was a huge refugee problem we havent really addressed that also had to be handled in the postwar period. And, of course, in addition, the hope was that hungary people i mean, the thought just like after world war ii was, hungary people are mo hungry people are more likely to turn to bulshavism. It was in the hands of the peace treaty, set up some International Law and this is going to handle all the worlds problems is a false way to look at a more integrated approach that people were taking in the post war period. It was not just this is the answer and theres nothing else that we can do. And i would really underline the saying earlier, about the intended flexibility of these organizations. The 14 points itself is not a blueprint, and its not my way or the highway. Theres a lot of vagueness and flexibility in this language intentionally so. Wilson intended this to be the opening conversation starter. And he knew, and he campaigned on this when he was pushing for the league of nations. I know theres problems in the versailles peace treaty, absolutely. And you know the best way to fix them . Be part of the league of nations and then these things will start being renegotiated. And reparation payments were immediately renegotiated. The bill was immediately lowered. The schedule of payments was immediately changed when the french occupied the war. After that, theres going to be no military aspects to that. So, in other words, i think we kind of lose sight of the fact that americans, diplomats, bankers, philanthropists, were very much part of this postwar world and there was a kind of multifaceted way to approach this problem of restoring europe because america needed europe to be restored. It was still our primary trading partner. Our postwar economy could not thrive without a strong europe, just like after world war ii. That was much longer. Sorry. Again, i agree with jennifer. [ laughter ] yes, i mean, the league was not never intended the treaty was never intended to be an entity. It was intended to be the setting up of a process. And the notion or the concede was not that the achievement was some sort of perfection, but rather it was preferable to the system that preceded or would be preferable to the system that preceded the war. Wilson was actually very clear about the graduated system that he thought the league should carry out to mitigate conflict. The first stages, its a threestage process. The first stage arbitration. If arbitration doesnt work, then economic sanctions, which would be coordinated through the league. And if that doesnt work, then military power would be used, again coordinated through the league. And actually we may think that this is oh, this is utopian. When we think about it this is the system we used to through the united nations. We have economic sanctions. Theres lots of stuff that happens outside of that, but thats still there. We have the security kourcounci. We have Peace Keeping forces all of that is intended to be part of the system. And i think, yeah thats correct really touches on the question of rulesbased. The United States is one of the Major Centers in the late 19th, early 20th century of the promotion of International Law. Americans, american lawyers, American League of profession are in love with International Law. They think International Law is great and it will solve everything. And in some sense wilsons thinking builds on that, but he thinks its insufficient and too inflexible. And his sense is if youre going to have law, you need to have bodies that both create law and manage there has to be politics in it. You cant have law without politics. Thats his insight from being constitutional scholar, right . So, the league is intended to be the cognate of the u. S. Congress. The place the various states can meet and do the politics that will make the law be effective, buy into this regime. So, he thinks law is nice, but nowhere near sufficient, and thats why he wanted to have these additional institutions. Just very quickly because i know were nearing the end. I want to stress the complexity of this time period and the number of possible options. Again, that are on the table. In terms of money, yes, they knew. What they recognized was any economic structure you set up, wealth is going to transfer from one party to another party. Whatever you do, someone is going to win in that relationship and someone going to lose. John maynard keenz wanted instead of reparations so lower the debt everybody owed to everybody. The problem was when you do that, then there are american banks who say, well, we loaned money in good faith. Were a private institution. The government cant write away the debts that are owed to us. So, reparations become, as jennifer pointed out, they become a way to try to either encourage good german behavior lowering them if the germans are behaving well or a punishment behavior. Again, they understand what money means and understand it as a tool. There is just no easy way around it. The Democratic Peace theory, if you have an answer to that one, i have a job for you at the u. S. Army war college. [ laughter ] certainly i dont think the french believed in Democratic Peace theory at all. They believed as Theodore Roosevelt did, roosevelt was the first commissioner of the new York City Police department, this was an occasion of one state, germany, having committed a crime. And germany had to be punished. That was the way you did it. You proved to the world if one state gets out of line, you smack it down. David lloyd george of the british believed what happened was the system got i am balanced and what you needed to do was kr recreate that balance. Everybody has their own idea of what is going to make it right. I have to confess in the eight years ive been teaching at the Army War College i am inclined to the Democratic Peace theory. Democratic states can certainly go to war. And third, that the International Organizations point that you brought up, im sympathetic to a french friend of mine who said the difference isnt that americans have turned this can back on international institutions. The difference is the United States no longer dominates them. That is what has unnerved americans which would reflect on ares point, International Law is very much the preserve of the people who write and enforce the laws. So, this french friend of mine believes whats changed in the United States is not so much what has changed is that the United States can no longer enforce its dominance over the International Organizations the way it once did. There are states that will challenge the organizations from outside. There are nonstate actors that simply ignore those organizations and there are organizations that the United States used to be able to depend upon to follow those systems which no longer do it in quite the same way. And what the recent rye action in the past couple of years has been has been a response less to the institutions themselves, but americas relationship to them. And i have to say im sympathetic to that argument. Thanks. That will be the last word. Thank you all for braving the weather and coming here and please join me in a round of pla applause for our three great panelists. [ applause ] [ birds cawing ] cspan, where history unfolds daily. In 1979 cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Cable Television companies. And today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of the white house, the Supreme Court, and Public Policy events in washington, d. C. And around the country. Cspan is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. Cspans history series landmark cases season 2 beginning february 26 at 9 00 p. M. Eastern, with a look at the significance of Supreme Court decision mccullough v. Maryland heard in 1819. Associate law professor at the university of virginia, and law professor at the university of arc a author of mccullough maryland securing a nation. Watch live monday february 26 at 9 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Cspan. Org or listen with the free cspan radio app and for background on each case order a copy of the landmark cases companion book available for 8. 95 for shipping and handling at cspan. Org landmark cases. The interactiontive constitution