History Analysis / WoodrowWilson

1st Oct '14 10:24:26 PM mlsmithca
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Additionally, while Wilson ''usually'' had an ability to find a compromise (even if he is most remembered for the time he didn't), he was up against Georges Clemenceau, France's prime minister. He was alive when Prussia (the German state which united the others into a single Germany in 1871) defeated France in the UsefulNotes/FrancoPrussianWar and always had a deep-seated hatred of the country as a result. He was a dominating, forceful personality while Wilson was a quieter, more introspective man. Clemenceau succeeded in one-upping Wilson during the conference and managed to succeed at his goal of not just punishing the country, but making Germany suffer. As for the UK (the strongest power at the time), its prime minister, DavidLloydGeorge, was an agreeable sort of fellow and didn't want to alienate Conservatives at home and ended up doing little to try and find middle ground between these two opposing men--if indeed he would have had the wherewithal, considering that he was even less forceful than Wilson (hence his famous quip after the Peace Conference that he hadn't done badly, considering that he had been negotiating with "Jesus Christ [i.e. Wilson] and Napoleon [i.e. Clemenceau]"). It also didn't help that Britain was in the process of trying to give its colonies a freer hand, and had to mediate among the various leaders of the Dominions--made extremely difficult by the fact that Canada was more or less aligned with Wilson but Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa (and especially Australia, thanks to PM Billy Hughes) were with Clemenceau. In the end, the peace treaty leaned a lot closer to Clemenceau's vision than Wilson's. History may well have taken a ''very'' different path if literally any other man was representing France.

to:

Additionally, while Wilson ''usually'' had an ability to find a compromise (even if he is most remembered for the time he didn't), he was up against Georges Clemenceau, France's prime minister. He was alive when Prussia (the German state which united the others into a single Germany in 1871) defeated France in the UsefulNotes/FrancoPrussianWar and always had a deep-seated hatred of the country as a result. He was a dominating, forceful personality while Wilson was a quieter, more introspective man. Clemenceau succeeded in one-upping Wilson during the conference and managed to succeed at his goal of not just punishing the country, but making Germany suffer. As for the UK (the strongest power at the time), its prime minister, DavidLloydGeorge, UsefulNotes/DavidLloydGeorge, was an agreeable sort of fellow and didn't want to alienate Conservatives at home and ended up doing little to try and find middle ground between these two opposing men--if indeed he would have had the wherewithal, considering that he was even less forceful than Wilson (hence his famous quip after the Peace Conference that he hadn't done badly, considering that he had been negotiating with "Jesus Christ [i.e. Wilson] and Napoleon [i.e. Clemenceau]"). It also didn't help that Britain was in the process of trying to give its colonies a freer hand, and had to mediate among the various leaders of the Dominions--made extremely difficult by the fact that Canada was more or less aligned with Wilson but Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa (and especially Australia, thanks to PM Billy Hughes) were with Clemenceau. In the end, the peace treaty leaned a lot closer to Clemenceau's vision than Wilson's. History may well have taken a ''very'' different path if literally any other man was representing France.
12th Apr '14 3:50:47 PM johnnyfog
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

->''"''[W]''hen I came to study Wilson at Versailles, blithely carving up the Austro-Hungarian empire, I could understand why this ignorant would-be [[TheChessmaster Metternich]] drove [[UsefulNotes/SigmundFreud Dr. Freud]] so mad that he felt obliged to publish a libelous 'psychoanalysis' of Wilson, without having met him, of course."''\\
--'''Creator/GoreVidal''', ''Palimpsest''
16th Feb '14 1:49:31 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Additionally, while Wilson ''usually'' had an ability to find a compromise (even if he is most remembered for the time he didn't), he was up against Georges Clemenceau, France's prime minister. He was alive when Prussia (the German state which united the others into a single Germany in 1871) defeated France in the UsefulNotes/FrancoPrussianWar and always had a deep-seated hatred of the country as a result. He was a dominating, forceful personality while Wilson was a quieter, more introspective man. Clemenceau succeeded in one-upping Wilson during the conference and managed to succeed at his goal of not just punishing the country, but making Germany suffer. As for the UK (the strongest power at the time), its prime minister, DavidLloydGeorge, was an agreeable sort of fellow and didn't want to alienate Conservatives at home and ended up doing little to try and find middle ground between these two opposing men--if indeed he would have had the wherewithal, considering that he was even less forceful than Wilson (hence his famous quip after the Peace Conference that he hadn't done badly, considering that he had been negotiating with "Jesus Christ [i.e. Wilson] and Napoleon [i.e. Clemenceau]." It also didn't help that Britain was in the process of trying to give its colonies a freer hand, and had to mediate among the various leaders of the Dominions--made extremely difficult by the fact that Canada was more or less aligned with Wilson but Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa (and especially Australia, thanks to PM Billy Hughes) were with Clemenceau. In the end, the peace treaty leaned a lot closer to Clemenceau's vision than Wilson's. History may well have taken a ''very'' different path if literally any other man was representing France.

to:

Additionally, while Wilson ''usually'' had an ability to find a compromise (even if he is most remembered for the time he didn't), he was up against Georges Clemenceau, France's prime minister. He was alive when Prussia (the German state which united the others into a single Germany in 1871) defeated France in the UsefulNotes/FrancoPrussianWar and always had a deep-seated hatred of the country as a result. He was a dominating, forceful personality while Wilson was a quieter, more introspective man. Clemenceau succeeded in one-upping Wilson during the conference and managed to succeed at his goal of not just punishing the country, but making Germany suffer. As for the UK (the strongest power at the time), its prime minister, DavidLloydGeorge, was an agreeable sort of fellow and didn't want to alienate Conservatives at home and ended up doing little to try and find middle ground between these two opposing men--if indeed he would have had the wherewithal, considering that he was even less forceful than Wilson (hence his famous quip after the Peace Conference that he hadn't done badly, considering that he had been negotiating with "Jesus Christ [i.e. Wilson] and Napoleon [i.e. Clemenceau]." Clemenceau]"). It also didn't help that Britain was in the process of trying to give its colonies a freer hand, and had to mediate among the various leaders of the Dominions--made extremely difficult by the fact that Canada was more or less aligned with Wilson but Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa (and especially Australia, thanks to PM Billy Hughes) were with Clemenceau. In the end, the peace treaty leaned a lot closer to Clemenceau's vision than Wilson's. History may well have taken a ''very'' different path if literally any other man was representing France.
15th Feb '14 11:58:16 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Additionally, while Wilson ''usually'' had an ability to find a compromise (even if he is most remembered for the time he didn't), he was up against Georges Clemenceau, France's prime minister. He was alive when Prussia (the German state which united the others into a single Germany in 1871) defeated France in the UsefulNotes/FrancoPrussianWar and always had a deep-seated hatred of the country as a result. He was a dominating, forceful personality while Wilson was a quieter, more introspective man. Clemenceau succeeded in one-upping Wilson during the conference and managed to succeed at his goal of not just punishing the country, but making Germany suffer. As for the UK (the strongest power at the time), its prime minister, DavidLloydGeorge, was an agreeable sort of fellow and didn't want to alienate Conservatives at home and ended up doing little to try and find middle ground between these two opposing men--if indeed he would have had the wherewithal, considering that he was even less forceful than Wilson (hence his famous quip after the Peace Conference that he hadn't done badly, considering that he had been negotiating with "Jesus Christ [i.e. Wilson] and Napoleon [i.e. Clemenceau]." It also didn't help that Britain was in the process of trying to give its colonies a freer hand, and had to mediate among the various leaders of the Dominions--made extremely difficult by the fact that Canada was more or less aligned with Wilson but Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa (and especially Australia) were with Clemenceau. In the end, the peace treaty leaned a lot closer to Clemenceau's vision than Wilson's. History may well have taken a ''very'' different path if literally any other man was representing France.

to:

Additionally, while Wilson ''usually'' had an ability to find a compromise (even if he is most remembered for the time he didn't), he was up against Georges Clemenceau, France's prime minister. He was alive when Prussia (the German state which united the others into a single Germany in 1871) defeated France in the UsefulNotes/FrancoPrussianWar and always had a deep-seated hatred of the country as a result. He was a dominating, forceful personality while Wilson was a quieter, more introspective man. Clemenceau succeeded in one-upping Wilson during the conference and managed to succeed at his goal of not just punishing the country, but making Germany suffer. As for the UK (the strongest power at the time), its prime minister, DavidLloydGeorge, was an agreeable sort of fellow and didn't want to alienate Conservatives at home and ended up doing little to try and find middle ground between these two opposing men--if indeed he would have had the wherewithal, considering that he was even less forceful than Wilson (hence his famous quip after the Peace Conference that he hadn't done badly, considering that he had been negotiating with "Jesus Christ [i.e. Wilson] and Napoleon [i.e. Clemenceau]." It also didn't help that Britain was in the process of trying to give its colonies a freer hand, and had to mediate among the various leaders of the Dominions--made extremely difficult by the fact that Canada was more or less aligned with Wilson but Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa (and especially Australia) Australia, thanks to PM Billy Hughes) were with Clemenceau. In the end, the peace treaty leaned a lot closer to Clemenceau's vision than Wilson's. History may well have taken a ''very'' different path if literally any other man was representing France.
15th Feb '14 11:57:20 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Additionally, while Wilson ''usually'' had an ability to find a compromise (even if he is most remembered for the time he didn't), he was up against Georges Clemenceau, France's prime minister. He was alive when Prussia (the German state which united the others into a single Germany in 1871) defeated France in the UsefulNotes/FrancoPrussianWar and always had a deep-seated hatred of the country as a result. He was a dominating, forceful personality while Wilson was a quieter, more introspective man. Clemenceau succeeded in one-upping Wilson during the conference and managed to succeed at his goal of not just punishing the country, but making Germany suffer. As for the UK (the strongest power at the time), its prime minister, DavidLloydGeorge, was an agreeable sort of fellow and didn't want to alienate Conservatives at home and ended up doing little to try and find middle ground between these two opposing men--if indeed he would have had the wherewithal, considering that he was even less forceful than Wilson (hence his famous quip after the Peace Conference that he hadn't done badly, considering that he had been negotiating with "Jesus Christ [i.e. Wilson] and Napoleon [i.e. Clemenceau]." It also didn't help that Britain was in the process of trying to give its colonies a freer hand, and had to mediate among the various leaders of the Dominions--made extremely difficult by the fact that Canada was more or less with Wilson but Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa (and especially Australia) were with Clemenceau. In the end, the peace treaty leaned a lot closer to Clemenceau's vision than Wilson's. History may well have taken a ''very'' different path if literally any other man was representing France.

to:

Additionally, while Wilson ''usually'' had an ability to find a compromise (even if he is most remembered for the time he didn't), he was up against Georges Clemenceau, France's prime minister. He was alive when Prussia (the German state which united the others into a single Germany in 1871) defeated France in the UsefulNotes/FrancoPrussianWar and always had a deep-seated hatred of the country as a result. He was a dominating, forceful personality while Wilson was a quieter, more introspective man. Clemenceau succeeded in one-upping Wilson during the conference and managed to succeed at his goal of not just punishing the country, but making Germany suffer. As for the UK (the strongest power at the time), its prime minister, DavidLloydGeorge, was an agreeable sort of fellow and didn't want to alienate Conservatives at home and ended up doing little to try and find middle ground between these two opposing men--if indeed he would have had the wherewithal, considering that he was even less forceful than Wilson (hence his famous quip after the Peace Conference that he hadn't done badly, considering that he had been negotiating with "Jesus Christ [i.e. Wilson] and Napoleon [i.e. Clemenceau]." It also didn't help that Britain was in the process of trying to give its colonies a freer hand, and had to mediate among the various leaders of the Dominions--made extremely difficult by the fact that Canada was more or less aligned with Wilson but Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa (and especially Australia) were with Clemenceau. In the end, the peace treaty leaned a lot closer to Clemenceau's vision than Wilson's. History may well have taken a ''very'' different path if literally any other man was representing France.
15th Feb '14 11:56:50 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Additionally, while Wilson ''usually'' had an ability to find a compromise (even if he is most remembered for the time he didn't), he was up against Georges Clemenceau, France's prime minister. He was alive when Prussia (the German state which united the others into a single Germany in 1871) defeated France in the UsefulNotes/FrancoPrussianWar and always had a deep-seated hatred of the country as a result. He was a dominating, forceful personality while Wilson was a quieter, more introspective man. Clemenceau succeeded in one-upping Wilson during the conference and managed to succeed at his goal of not just punishing the country, but making Germany suffer. As for the UK, its prime minister, DavidLloydGeorge, was an agreeable sort of fellow who didn't want to alienate Conservatives at home and ended up doing little to try and find middle ground between these two opposing men--if indeed he would have had the wherewithal, considering that he was even less forceful than Wilson (hence his famous quip after the Peace Conference that he hadn't done badly, considering that he had been negotiating with "Jesus Christ [i.e. Wilson] and Napoleon [i.e. Clemenceau]." In the end, the peace treaty leaned a lot closer to Clemenceau's vision than Wilson's. History may well have taken a ''very'' different path if literally any other man was representing France.

to:

Additionally, while Wilson ''usually'' had an ability to find a compromise (even if he is most remembered for the time he didn't), he was up against Georges Clemenceau, France's prime minister. He was alive when Prussia (the German state which united the others into a single Germany in 1871) defeated France in the UsefulNotes/FrancoPrussianWar and always had a deep-seated hatred of the country as a result. He was a dominating, forceful personality while Wilson was a quieter, more introspective man. Clemenceau succeeded in one-upping Wilson during the conference and managed to succeed at his goal of not just punishing the country, but making Germany suffer. As for the UK, UK (the strongest power at the time), its prime minister, DavidLloydGeorge, was an agreeable sort of fellow who and didn't want to alienate Conservatives at home and ended up doing little to try and find middle ground between these two opposing men--if indeed he would have had the wherewithal, considering that he was even less forceful than Wilson (hence his famous quip after the Peace Conference that he hadn't done badly, considering that he had been negotiating with "Jesus Christ [i.e. Wilson] and Napoleon [i.e. Clemenceau]." It also didn't help that Britain was in the process of trying to give its colonies a freer hand, and had to mediate among the various leaders of the Dominions--made extremely difficult by the fact that Canada was more or less with Wilson but Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa (and especially Australia) were with Clemenceau. In the end, the peace treaty leaned a lot closer to Clemenceau's vision than Wilson's. History may well have taken a ''very'' different path if literally any other man was representing France.
15th Feb '14 11:53:23 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Additionally, while Wilson ''usually'' had an ability to find a compromise (even if he is most remembered for the time he didn't), he was up against Georges Clemenceau, France's prime minister. He was alive when Prussia (the German state which united the others into a single Germany in 1871) defeated France in the UsefulNotes/FrancoPrussianWar and always had a deep-seated hatred of the country as a result. He was a dominating, forceful personality while Wilson was a quieter, more introspective man. Clemenceau succeeded in one-upping Wilson during the conference and managed to succeed at his goal of not just punishing the country, but making Germany suffer. The UK's prime minister, DavidLloydGeorge, didn't want to alienate Conservatives at home and ended up doing little to try and find middle ground between these two opposing men. In the end, the peace treaty leaned a lot closer to Clemenceau's vision than Wilson's. History may well have taken a ''very'' different path if literally any other man was representing France.

to:

Additionally, while Wilson ''usually'' had an ability to find a compromise (even if he is most remembered for the time he didn't), he was up against Georges Clemenceau, France's prime minister. He was alive when Prussia (the German state which united the others into a single Germany in 1871) defeated France in the UsefulNotes/FrancoPrussianWar and always had a deep-seated hatred of the country as a result. He was a dominating, forceful personality while Wilson was a quieter, more introspective man. Clemenceau succeeded in one-upping Wilson during the conference and managed to succeed at his goal of not just punishing the country, but making Germany suffer. The UK's As for the UK, its prime minister, DavidLloydGeorge, was an agreeable sort of fellow who didn't want to alienate Conservatives at home and ended up doing little to try and find middle ground between these two opposing men. men--if indeed he would have had the wherewithal, considering that he was even less forceful than Wilson (hence his famous quip after the Peace Conference that he hadn't done badly, considering that he had been negotiating with "Jesus Christ [i.e. Wilson] and Napoleon [i.e. Clemenceau]." In the end, the peace treaty leaned a lot closer to Clemenceau's vision than Wilson's. History may well have taken a ''very'' different path if literally any other man was representing France.
15th Feb '14 11:20:00 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


To add insult to the growing list of injuries, he didn't live up to his own 14 Points: Wilson wanted an end to all secret treaties, but the peace talks were held in secret. He wanted all nations treated as equals, but consented to telling Germany to ''wait out in the hallway'' while the other nations talked about the terms of the peace treaty. (Compare that to the Vienna Conference of 1815, where the European victors agreed to welcome French representatives following Napoleon's defeat.) Though, it is worth pointing out that many other Allied leaders wanted to prevent the Germans from being involved in the peace conference at all - Wilson supported their delegation's right to be there despite pressure on all sides. He demanded self-determination for all national groups except Germans, thus condemning the entirety of the German people rather than merely the Prussian militarists and autocrats he so despised. He eventually abandoned most of his 14 Points in favor of the League of Nations. This led to the war guilt clause which saddled Germany with the fault for the war as well as the reparations to pay for it. And Wilson consented to all of this.

to:

To add insult to the growing list of injuries, he didn't live up to his own 14 Points: Wilson wanted an end to all secret treaties, but the peace talks were held in secret. He Points; most notably, he wanted all nations treated as equals, but consented to telling Germany to ''wait out in the hallway'' while the other nations talked about the terms of the peace treaty. (Compare that to the Vienna Conference of 1815, where the European victors agreed to welcome French representatives following Napoleon's defeat.) Though, )[[note]]The Point of the abolition of secret treaties is also brought up in discussion of Wilson's hypocrisy, arguing that Wilson's consent to keeping the Paris talks private contradicted that. This is simply not true. By the abolition of secret treaties, Wilson meant the abolition of treaties whose ''terms'' and very ''existence'' were secret; he also probably meant that when two governments were in negotiations about something, they should acknowledge the fact. However, Wilson was just barely realistic enough to understand that the ''content'' of negotiations leading up to a treaty might need to be kept secret until a deal was reached. To put things simply: When governments talk to each other they shouldn't try to hide it; when governments agree to something, they should say what they have agreed to. Everyone knew the Paris talks were happening and what they were about; and when the talks ended, the whole of the agreements reached were completely public.[[/note]] Though it is worth pointing out that many other Allied leaders wanted to prevent the Germans from being involved in the peace conference at all - Wilson supported their delegation's right to be there despite pressure on all sides. He demanded self-determination for all national groups except Germans, thus condemning the entirety of the German people rather than merely the Prussian militarists and autocrats he so despised. He eventually abandoned most of his 14 Points in favor of the League of Nations. This led to the war guilt clause which saddled Germany with the fault for the war as well as the reparations to pay for it. And Wilson consented to all of this.
9th Jan '14 5:08:56 AM LongLiveHumour
Is there an issue? Send a Message


On the foreign policy front, he has become highly controversial for getting America involved in the war in the first place. Some of the PatrioticFervor policies he pursued during America's entry into WorldWarOne may well have assisted the spread of Spanish Influenza from its starting point in Kansas despite the warnings of doctors and scientists of the time to avoid the massive, crowded war rallies that were great for morale but terrible for sanitation and containing the spread of disease. This, combined with the fact that the world for the most part still had lacked the capacity and knowledge to easily contain a disease to any one area helped assure that the pandemic that had originated in the United States came to the rest of the world. He also favored the British and French during the conflict, while, at the same time, overlooking their own violations of American neutrality, by doing such things as mining the North Sea and cutting the Trans-Atlantic Cable.

to:

On the foreign policy front, he has become highly controversial for getting America involved in the war in the first place. Some of the PatrioticFervor policies he pursued during America's entry into WorldWarOne UsefulNotes/WorldWarOne may well have assisted the spread of Spanish Influenza from its starting point in Kansas despite the warnings of doctors and scientists of the time to avoid the massive, crowded war rallies that were great for morale but terrible for sanitation and containing the spread of disease. This, combined with the fact that the world for the most part still had lacked the capacity and knowledge to easily contain a disease to any one area helped assure that the pandemic that had originated in the United States came to the rest of the world. He also favored the British and French during the conflict, while, at the same time, overlooking their own violations of American neutrality, by doing such things as mining the North Sea and cutting the Trans-Atlantic Cable.



All of these points have led to a major controversy surrounding Wilson's legacy. This has even led to thoughts among some that Wilson can accept a lot of the blame for WorldWarTwo. The discussion of the issue is currently a source of contention and ongoing discussion.

to:

All of these points have led to a major controversy surrounding Wilson's legacy. This has even led to thoughts among some that Wilson can accept a lot of the blame for WorldWarTwo.UsefulNotes/WorldWarTwo. The discussion of the issue is currently a source of contention and ongoing discussion.



Additionally, while Wilson ''usually'' had an ability to find a compromise (even if he is most remembered for the time he didn't), he was up against Georges Clemenceau, France's prime minister. He was alive when Prussia (the German state which united the others into a single Germany in 1871) defeated France in the FrancoPrussianWar and always had a deep-seated hatred of the country as a result. He was a dominating, forceful personality while Wilson was a quieter, more introspective man. Clemenceau succeeded in one-upping Wilson during the conference and managed to succeed at his goal of not just punishing the country, but making Germany suffer. The UK's prime minister, DavidLloydGeorge, didn't want to alienate Conservatives at home and ended up doing little to try and find middle ground between these two opposing men. In the end, the peace treaty leaned a lot closer to Clemenceau's vision than Wilson's. History may well have taken a ''very'' different path if literally any other man was representing France.

to:

Additionally, while Wilson ''usually'' had an ability to find a compromise (even if he is most remembered for the time he didn't), he was up against Georges Clemenceau, France's prime minister. He was alive when Prussia (the German state which united the others into a single Germany in 1871) defeated France in the FrancoPrussianWar UsefulNotes/FrancoPrussianWar and always had a deep-seated hatred of the country as a result. He was a dominating, forceful personality while Wilson was a quieter, more introspective man. Clemenceau succeeded in one-upping Wilson during the conference and managed to succeed at his goal of not just punishing the country, but making Germany suffer. The UK's prime minister, DavidLloydGeorge, didn't want to alienate Conservatives at home and ended up doing little to try and find middle ground between these two opposing men. In the end, the peace treaty leaned a lot closer to Clemenceau's vision than Wilson's. History may well have taken a ''very'' different path if literally any other man was representing France.
14th Oct '13 7:51:47 PM MysteriousF
Is there an issue? Send a Message


To add insult to the growing list of injuries, he didn't live up to his own 14 Points: Wilson wanted an end to all secret treaties, but the peace talks were held in secret. He wanted all nations treated as equals, but consented to telling Germany to ''wait out in the hallway'' while the other nations talked about the terms of the peace treaty. (Compare that to the Vienna Conference of 1815, where the European victors agreed to welcome French representatives following Napoleon's defeat.) He demanded self-determination for all national groups except Germans, thus condemning the entirety of the German people rather than merely the Prussian militarists and autocrats he so despised. He eventually abandoned most of his 14 Points in favor of the League of Nations. This led to the war guilt clause which saddled Germany with the fault for the war as well as the reparations to pay for it. And Wilson consented to all of this.

to:

To add insult to the growing list of injuries, he didn't live up to his own 14 Points: Wilson wanted an end to all secret treaties, but the peace talks were held in secret. He wanted all nations treated as equals, but consented to telling Germany to ''wait out in the hallway'' while the other nations talked about the terms of the peace treaty. (Compare that to the Vienna Conference of 1815, where the European victors agreed to welcome French representatives following Napoleon's defeat.) Though, it is worth pointing out that many other Allied leaders wanted to prevent the Germans from being involved in the peace conference at all - Wilson supported their delegation's right to be there despite pressure on all sides. He demanded self-determination for all national groups except Germans, thus condemning the entirety of the German people rather than merely the Prussian militarists and autocrats he so despised. He eventually abandoned most of his 14 Points in favor of the League of Nations. This led to the war guilt clause which saddled Germany with the fault for the war as well as the reparations to pay for it. And Wilson consented to all of this.
This list shows the last 10 events of 22. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Analysis.WoodrowWilson