<p>Hello all-</p>
<p>I would assume that most of you have taken AP US or at least have a basic understanding of US history. Anyways, I have reached the conclusion independently (and later found this article to corroborate my theory) that Woodrow Wilson, in addition to being an arrogant, power-hungry aspirant dictator, was the primary reason for WW2. </p>
<p>I put forth this argument- If America had never intervened in WW1 (which we had no right to), it is likely that either a German victory or a long, protracted stalemate would have ensued. Certainly not the decisive Allied victory. This means that there would have been no Treaty of Versailles and no war reparations. Not only would this eliminate a key cause of the Great Depression but also eliminate the primary cause of WW2. No economic depression, no rise of the Nazis, no Holocaust, no D-Day, no blitzkrieg. The advent of the Cold War might even have been completely different, if it happened at all.</p>
<p>There are many other arguments I could use to label Wilson as a dictator and without a doubt the worst president the nation has ever seen.</p>
<p>Maybe I'm taking this too far, but the contemporary criticisms of Wilson are wide and varied. Read this article, let me know what you think. CC is full of opinionated people, and hopefully this will get you thinking of an historically profound issue.</p>
<p>So, APUSH students especially, debate!</p>
<p>Woodrow</a> Wilson: America’s Worst and First Fascist President Conservative Colloquium</p>
<p>No right? Psh, it was the Germans who attacked unarmed civilian ships. You realize, without the American intervention, chances are we will not be chatting right now.</p>
<p>Did you read the article? The British were blockading Germany, cutting off food to hundreds of thousands. They were more than willing to end the sub attacks in return for an end to the blockade. And it wasn’t all that many ships either. Fair warning was given, in paper ads and otherwise.</p>
<p>“Wilson took over the US economy completely.”
Hardly. I won’t say any more about that unfounded claim. </p>
<p>“Wilson himself was a major cause of the outbreak of World War II.”
Had he acted differently, things could have turned out differently. But this is a ridiculous argument; this does not make him evil at all. Should we blame Wilson’s mother for birthing him while we are placing blame on those that did not cause the problems?</p>
<p>Some of the other criticism is logical though.</p>
<p>Personally, I was aware of the warnings. It is an act of war regardless of warning or not.</p>
<p>Is it an act of war if they didn’t know that it was an American ship?</p>
<p>I’ll admit that the thing about the economy is unfounded.
The British were brutal, I’m sure Billy would agree. The Lusitania was nothing to British atrocities.</p>
<p>And Lusitania was a British ship of the Cunard line, not American.</p>
<p>I don’t think enough people are blaming James K. Polk. If he hadn’t invaded Mexico, we wouldn’t have had the power to fight in Europe, meaning Hitler never becomes dictator!</p>
<p>At the end of the war, though, Wilson argued AGAINST everything that was put into the Treaty of Versailles. He did not want to incur heavy punishments against any nation.</p>
<p>The British, French, and Italians were the ones who pushed for such brutal punishments. And if Germany had won, they would have too. Even so, Wilson could not have foreseen that America wouldn’t have had any influence in the peace talks, since they were the decisive factor in the war, so you can’t blame him for that either.</p>
<p>P.S. - I lawled at that too, HarryJones. You can tell it was written by a neoconservative.</p>
<p>Sure, Wilson didn’t want the payments. War without victory, etc.
But he was so intent on the League that he backed down and allowed the reparations to be enforced.</p>
<p>This is ridiculous on several levels. First of all, you don’t see anything that could have possibly gone wrong if Germany, a country hungry for domination that started WW1 virtually out of spite, had won the war? Yeah, a lot of bad stuff happened as a result of the Treaty of Versailles, but I would be willing to bet that a lot of bad stuff would have happened if there was no Treaty too. </p>
<p>The writer’s biggest fault is the complete disregard of Wilson’s mindset at Versailles. Had he not kept Britain, France, and especially Italy in check another war would have broken out much sooner. Wilson’s commitment to keeping natural borders saved the world from some serious conflict.</p>
<p>I could go on and on, like on how Wilson’s 14 points prevented similar circumstances that caused WWI to emerge again, but I leave you with the request of not making completely unfounded claims just to start debate.</p>
<p>My response to HarryJones’ selection from the article:</p>
<p>"In sum, Wilson was the first fascist president of the US and first major fascist dictator of the 20th c. Oh really?
Wilson took over the US economy How so? He didn’t have much power over the War Industries Board, etc, and even so, the economy wasn’t geared towards the military nearly as much as during the Cold War or nowadays, infringed on American civil liberties especially by suppressing dissent The Espionage and Sedition Acts were a bit extreme, but they were constitutional, oppressed the unpatriotic, And the Patriot Act and general conservative mindset/agenda doesn’t? and purposefully sought to drag the US into war Perhaps, but again, since when was America not “purposefully dragged into war”? At least he didn’t have to lie about WMDs. This Marxist, totalitarian, jingoistic, and militaristic Democrat president was a fascist lol at this sentence, just no. He worshiped the power of the state, and such statolatry is exactly what fascism is lol again.</p>
<p>I dont think President George W. Bush is a fascist, but his Wilsonian idealism for spreading democracy should disturb any conservative. America was attacked on 9/11; no such thing happened during Wilsons presidency So the Lusitania and many other corresponding incidents don’t count?. The Patriot Act is no where near as harmful to civil liberties as Wilsons Sedition Act was, if harmful at all But back in the early 20th century, there were different standards; people were as a whole more willing to give up some rights for the war effort - see war bonds, Wheatless Wednesdays, etc.</p>
<p>Though the Democratic Party is largely dominated by anti-war people now (even though Soviet communism and radical Islam have been actual threats to national security unlike the Kaisers Germany) lol again, this guy is sputtering out a load of crap, Wilsons fascism still remains with the party, especially with regard to economics and expanding the power of the federal government in general whenever possible. This should not be surprising since fascism is a product of the Left, not the Right, side of the political spectrum You’re doing it wrong, bro, fascism is on the extreme Right. Communism/Anarchism are on the extreme Left."</p>
<p>Please note that I am a very moderate individual. I despise both the Democrats and the Republicans.</p>
<p>@joshmay94 - The reason he gave up so much to secure the League of Nations is because he felt that the League was the single greatest hope. If nothing else could be put in, he wanted the League because he was sure it would prevent any future wars. Granted, the League ultimately failed, but that doesn’t mean Wilson was a fascist dictator that caused WWII at all.</p>
<p>^^ To be fair, Germany did not start the First World War. They just invaded Belgium once France declared war on them.</p>
<p>Germany started the war when they supported/ financed the Austrian invasion of Serbia.</p>
<p>They were mandated to by the alliance they had with Austria-Hungary; they didn’t want to, but it was essentially a requirement from their defensive treaty.</p>
<p>If anything, Europe started WW1. No one nation is more responsible than another. It was a powder keg waiting to blow.</p>
<p>Austria-Hungary’s and Germany’s alliance was based on the threat of a Russian invasion, and Germany owed nothing to A-H in helping them invade Serbia, yet funded the invasion anyway. Had Germany not given the go-ahead to AH, the demands AH posed to Serbia would have been much more lenient and WWI wouldn’t have happened.</p>
<p>WWI was a huge mix of imperialistic battle where no one side was in the right.</p>
<p>I’m curious as to how Wilson could be both a fascist and a Marxist, as I was fairly certain that those groups were diametrically opposed and quite often killed each other (Nazis killed communists, socialists, and trade unionists before Jews).</p>
<p>Had Wilson been listened to by France and Britain, WWII would have been averted. Had Wilson not suffered a stroke and thus failed to get the LoN treaty through an opposing Congress, WWII could have been averted. Had US banks not caused the Great Depression, WWII would have been averted. Had Britain and France not appeased Hitler, WWII may have been much different.</p>
<p>Had all three dinosaurs from nest 1837429 78 million years ago lived into adulthood, WWII would have been averted.</p>
<p>See, I can do it, too.</p>