History lesson... Today in 1918, Wilson articulated his 14 Points for Peace in the Post WWI World. Even though some unintended consequences would later come to the fore (especially the merging of nationalism and ethnic identity), it's interesting to me that Wilson was probably the last (and maybe only) President to really think about the world situation in a way that did not always put US interests first. (Though that is debatable.) Some of the language in this article from the NY Times is reflective of the time and, in retrospect, funny. My favorite is "Teuton hordes." _______________________________ President Specifies Terms Basis For World Peace; Asks Justice For Alsace-Lorraine, Applauds Russia, Tells Germany She May Be An Equal But Not A Master -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPEALS TO GERMAN PEOPLE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilson Declares We Must Know for Whom Their Rulers Speak -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- READY TO FIGHT TO END -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Insists That Principle of Justice to All Nations Is Only Basis for Peace. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEMANDS FREEDOM OF SEAS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Congress Cheers Utterance as Momentous Declaration of Entente War Aims. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Washington, Jan. 8 -- The terms upon which Germany may obtain peace were given to the American Congress for the benefit of the whole world by President Wilson today. With scant notice of his coming, notice barely sufficient to enable the Senate and the House to make the necessary arrangements for a joint session, the President appeared at the Capitol, and in an address, brief by comparison to the momentous issues discussed, enumerated the conditions for a cessation of hostilities, the rejection of which will place upon Germany the responsibility for the further bloodshed that must precede the final victory of the allied nations. President Wilson's address bore a striking resemblance to the speech made last Saturday by Mr. Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister, before the Trade Union Conference on Man Power in which he specified the war aims and peace conditions of the British Government. The diversions in the President's address from statements of the Prime Minister were for the most part more in the form than in the substance. But in the opinion of many of those who compared Mr. Wilson's address with the utterances of Mr. Lloyd George, the President was more definite in declaring that the wrong done to France though the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine must be righted and he differed from Mr. Lloyd George with regard to the Russian situation in that he held out to the Russian people an offer of assistance from America, and tendered sympathy for the aims that those now in control of the affairs of that perturbed country are seeking to achieve. Leaves No Doubt of Unity By the President's official utterances he has pledged this Government to the achievement of ends that affect Europe more intimately and deeply than the United States. No doubt was left in the minds of those who listened to the President's words that this Government has entered heart and soul into the cause of the Entente Allies, to fight for the objects for which they are fighting to free Europe from the menace of Prussianism, to take Alsace-Lorraine from German domination, to prevent Russia from becoming part of the German Empire, to see that Italy has restored to her those portions of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that are inhabited by a people who are Italian in heart and blood, to bring all the Polish peoples into a common Government, to restore Belgium, Serbia, and the small nations that have been devastated by Teuton hordes, to their own, to give the separate nationalities of Austria-Hungary, Turkey and the Balkan States the right to govern themselves as separate entities, to have Northern France restored to French control. And, in addition to these aims, the allied nations, in order to find a peace acceptable to them, must be assured of freedom of the seas, the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among the nations of the world, the reduction of armaments and an association of nations in a league to enforce peace. There must also be no secret agreements among nations that would threaten again the peace of the world. Immediately following the delivery of the President's address, there was a disposition manifest to refer to his outline of the conditions which Germany must accept before the war could end as a definition of peace terms. But in the official quarters best qualified to interpret the meaning of the President, it was declared that his statement must be taken as a definition of war aims. The President left no doubt that, unless Germany consented to enter into peace exchanges on the basis of the conditions set forth in his address, the United States and the Allies would fight on until the Central Powers realized that there could be no peace in any other way. "It was an outline of war aims, not a peace address," declared one official. Terms Clear and Definite Never before has President Wilson or any other spokesman for a nation at war with Germany made such a clear and definite exposition of the conditions upon which the war must be fought or put another way, the conditions upon which peace might be obtained. Until today the President had refrained from making any official expression whatever as to the views of the Washington Government concerning Alsace-Lorraine. Nor had he indicated how the Government felt toward the aspiration of Italy to regain the territory that Austria had obtained through the Treaty of Vienna. He had refrained also from expression of sentiment concerning the disposition of the German colonies which have been taken from her since the war began. But today he made clear that in these as in other questions that must be adjusted around the peace council table, the United States and the Allies are fighting to achieve common objects, and each has assumed its share of helping its partners to gain the ends that more immediately pertain to their welfare and future happiness and stability. Washington- that is, official and diplomatic Washington- was never more interested by any official utterance since the United States entered the war than by the words spoken by President Wilson in the hall of the House of Representatives today. No statement has come from any Administration source to give closer interpretation of any of his declarations. Those who are anxious to know whether the President delivered his definition of war aims with the knowledge and consent of the Allied Governments could obtain no satisfaction. Upon that point the State Department had no comment, but there was a very general opinion that exchanges had taken place between Washington, London, Paris, Rome, and possibly Tokyo and an agreement reached along general lines as to what the President should say. Counseled with Colonel House It is believed also that the speech of Mr. Lloyd George was not prepared until its substance or its text had been communicated to the capitals of the other Allies and their views obtained. The President is supposed to have begun the preparation of today's address last Saturday, the day that Mr. Lloyd George delivered his speech. Colonel E. M. House, the President's unofficial emissary and adviser in war matters, who returned recently from a mission to Europe which resulted in the establishment of an interallied war council, came to Washington on Saturday evening and has been the President's guest since. No inkling was given by the President that he contemplated delivering an address defining the war aims of America. Even some of those who ordinarily would have known of this work were apparently kept in the dark. The manuscript of the address was sent to the Government Printing Office last night, and copies of it were delivered at the White House this morning. When the Senate and the House assembled, Vice President Marshall and Speaker Clark had been notified that the President desired to address the two houses in joint session at 12 o'clock, and the half hour intervening after the hour of assembling was spent in putting through the necessary resolution for the joint meeting and the march of the Senators to the House wing of the Capitol. The President's statement was generally approved in Congress. Republicans were as enthusiastic as Democrats in endorsing the President's outline of the conditions for world peace. There was an under-current of private criticism over his statement with reference to Alsace-Lorraine on the ground that he was so specific that Germany might find this a stumbling block to peace overtures, but those who voiced this sentiment wished to be understood that they felt that the address was otherwise so commendable that it would be poor taste for them to find cause for dissent in this particular feature. Republican Fear Free Trade The only real outspoken criticism came from Republicans who saw in one of the war aims specified by the President a declaration that would commit the Allies and their enemies to the establishment of free trade for all the world for a basis of peace. This condition of war stated by the President in these words: "The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance." If this meant an acceptance of the principle of free trade that would permit Germany as well as other nations to dump their products in American ports and bring them into competition with American production, the Republicans, it was asserted, would enter a vigorous protest and would not consent to any peace that included such a condition. Generally, however, Congress gave hearty approval to practically everything that was said by the President. Cheers for Alsace-Lorraine Perhaps the most surprising evidence of responsiveness was given when the President referred to Alsace-Lorraine. He declared that "the wrong, done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine should be righted." Up to that time there had been hearty applause for several of the sentiments and war aims enunciated by Mr. Wilson. But when he referred to Alsace-Lorraine, floor and gallery made known its sympathy with this view in a way that left no doubt of the heartiest endorsement of the thing nearest to the heart of France. With more feeling than he had shown at any time in the delivery of his address today or in any other important utterance made to the Congress, the President began reading his declaration with reference to the lost French provinces. "All French territory," he said, "should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine --" But here he was obliged to pause. A great shout went up from the Senators and Representatives. The whole Congress came to its feet and continued to express its approval with shouts and hand clapping. The galleries too rose to the occasion and soon the House was in a turmoil of enthusiasm that showed the President how deeply the American people were interested in the realization of France's dearest hope. Demonstration for Russia The President had read a page and a half of his address before the enthusiasm, which grew in volume with each successive outburst, was manifested. A reference to Mr. Lloyd George's speech was greeted with a round of hand clapping. A minute later his expression of sympathy for the Russian people brought a longer demonstration of approval. It was apparent that the President's words struck home when he declared the intention of the Government to assist the Russians in realizing the ideals that they had set forth in their statement of peace terms to the German envoys at Brest-Litovsk. In this connection, it was noted by many Senators and Representatives that the President's expressions differed somewhat from the declaration made by Mr. Lloyd George with reference to Russia. The view of the British Prime Minister had been interpreted here as meaning that the British Ministry believed that Russia was lost to the Allies, and that no good could be accomplished by any further effort to bring that country back into the war on the side of the Allies. But according to the opinion most prevalent in Washington after the delivery of the President's address, the United States Government will use every endeavor to make the present Russian authority realize that its views are those of America and that this nation in fighting on is seeking to help Russia achieve the aims laid down at Brest-Litovsk. A view rather generally held among Senators and Representatives is that the President delivered his address today partly to encourage Russia to adhere to the principles proposed to the German Peace Commissioners and to understand that America and the other allied Governments would help her in every way. Means have already been taken by the Government to have copies of the President's address distributed in Russian, and it is felt in official circles that the heads of the Petrograd authority are bound to be impressed by the sympathy with Russian democratic ideals shown in Mr. Wilson's words.
is it really all that bad that elected leaders put the interests of the nation they're elected to serve above the interests of people/nations who did not elect them? there is a difference between putting your own interests first and seeking to take over the world. as long as a leader of a nation doesn't seek to attack another country without reason or provocation, i have no problem with that leader putting his own peoples' interests ahead of my own. in fact, i expect him to.
as long as a leader of a nation doesn't seek to attack another country without reason or provocation, i have no problem with that leader putting his own peoples' interests ahead of my own. So then you have no problem with other countries trying to create WMD? If Cuba decided to start building WMD -- this is a country that has never shown interest in attacking the US -- you'd be OK with it? The problem isn't with putting your own interests ahead of other countries - that's perfectly fine. The problem is when a country hurts another country's interests to further their own. That is what pisses off other people and that is what creates the resentment that serves as a breeding ground for bad things in the future. That's why so many people think it's important to look at how one country's actions affect others around the world before doing whatever they want to do.
Um, ever heard of the <B>Cuban</B> Missile Crisis? If not, you weren't paying attention when we went to see <I>Thirteen Days</I>.
Um, ever heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis? If not, you weren't paying attention when we went to see Thirteen Days. I did not realize MadMax's views were portrayed in Thirteen Days?! Which character were you, MM?!?! Notice I asked his views on the situation, not how the US would react!
Well, you could've used a much better example than Cuba since they have shown a desire to bomb the U.S.
I didn't say it was bad or good, just interesting... and I actually agree with you in principle. However, I don't think all foreign policy decisions should be based solely on an American interest calculation.
How about putting it this way: global flourishing and contentment is in the long-term best interest of our country. In the short term, this is debatable. And most political decisions are made with a 1-4 year depth of focus.
Well, you could've used a much better example than Cuba since they have shown a desire to bomb the U.S. When did they show a desire to bomb the U.S.? They put missiles on their soil... But then, we had missiles all over Western Europe aimed at the USSR and didn't intend to actually attack them. As far as I know, there's no evidence to actually suggest that Cuba was interested in nuking the U.S. and getting blown off the face of the Earth. Of course, we couldn't take that chance, but that's my point with MadMax -- when nations do things to further their own cause, they are fine. But when it affects someone else (in this case, Cuba trying to strengthen itself threatened the US), then it creates problems. That's why foreign policy needs to take into account other countries' views and attitudes.
I think simply allowing the U.S.S.R. to put nuclear missiles on their island and have them pointed at the U.S. should be proof enough. If not, I don't think you can prove that anyone ever "desired" to bomb the U.S. I whole-heartedly agree with B-Bob, BTW.
I think simply allowing the U.S.S.R. to put nuclear missiles on their island and have them pointed at the U.S. should be proof enough. So you think Turkey intended to bomb the USSR because they let us put our missiles on their territory? What the USSR was trying to do in Cuba was no different than anything we did in Western Europe. Nuclear missiles were almost entirely a defensive & diplomatic tool during the Cold War. Neither country wanted to destroy themselves.
If not, I don't think you can prove that anyone ever "desired" to bomb the U.S. I think you can quite easily make the argument that Al-Queda desires to bomb the U.S., well before 9/11. Keep in mind also, with Cuba, the US attacked first with the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Cuba probably had every reason to believe the US wanted to bomb the hell out of them (or invade them) when they accepted USSR missiles.
Cuba's still a bad example. If you had said Turkey developing WMD, then it'd have been a good example since Turkey's never had WMD pointed at <B>us</b>. Of course, I'm assuming that Turkey's never had WMD pointed at us.
Cuba's still a bad example. If you had said Turkey developing WMD, then it'd have been a good example since Turkey's never had WMD pointed at us. Turkey's not a relevent example, because they couldn't attack us from there if they wanted to. MadMax stated: <I>as long as a leader of a nation doesn't seek to attack another country without reason or provocation, i have no problem with that leader putting his own peoples' interests ahead of my own.</I> That's exactly what Cuba did. They put the interests of their nation ahead of the interests of the US. Turkey building WMD isn't doing anything at the expense of the interests of the US since we probably could care less. There's no reason to think that Cuba intended to attack us without reason or provocation. (If anything, they had provocation in the Bay of Pigs.) That's why I want to know if MM was OK would be OK with that move by Cuba, and not by some random act by Turkey that doesn't affect us.
So 747s are now classified as WMD? What are you talking about? Al-Queda has attacked us before. They are believed to be trying to make WMD. They have stated they want the destruction of the US. I think the dots can be connected fairly easily. I never said they used WMD against us.
You said: I countered that it was a bad example because you could very well argue that Cuba has shown a desire, with or without provaction (a caviat you didn't put in your original question), to bomb the U.S. Turkey, to my knowledge, as never had WMD pointed at us.
I countered that it was a bad example because you could very well argue that Cuba has shown a desire, with or without provaction (a caviat you didn't put in your original question), to bomb the U.S. Turkey, to my knowledge, as never had WMD pointed at us. And I asked you if you think Turkey (or the US) has shown a desire to bomb the USSR - a question you continued to ignore. We did the exact same thing putting missiles in Turkey (amongst other places) and pointing them at the USSR. I'd say no, in both cases. Cuba did not want to bomb us, and we did not want to bomb the USSR. Putting missiles somewhere is a defensive and diplomatic move designed to improve your negotiating position. It's a far cry from saying you want to attack someone. What the hell are we talking about? You started a bad example about WMD. And you somehow concluded that 747s and WMDs are related. Cuba is the exact example I want to make, because it shows the point of doing things bettering your own country at the expense of others.
"Never changes. After all these years, somebody points out my work, and I think 'nice!' and I even think I'm gonna have a good day here in the afterlife. Then two assclowns start arguing about what it means exactly to want to bomb another country. I should have stayed in my cloud-bed!"
