Wilson's War: How Woodrow Wilson's Great Blunder Led to Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and World War II

This book makes a very important contribution to a proper understanding of the terrible events of the first half of the 20th Century. I think the author does a credible job of showing how the folly and meglomania of one man in a position of power can spawn terrible unintended consequences for the whole world. I am now convinced that Woodrow Wilson was, indeed, the worst president in American history.

I'm going to continue to use Publisher's Weekly as a benchmark on whether or not I should buy a book. Whatever they recommend, I'll do the exact opposite.

This is the first book I have ever seen that takes a Critical Stance on Wilson and his actions. Wilson's unknowledgable actions caused (Directly/Indirectly) many events in history, and caused the Most murderous dictators in history to gain power, through exploiting the suffering of their people. Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and the people Those 3 Eventually caused, I.E.; Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Kim Ii Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc. So thus through those Indirect ways, Wilson caused the majority of the Suffering throughout the 20th century, yet apparently, He had good intentions, yet he still caused them. Adolf Hitler, when he reformed the German Workers Party into the NSDAP, and Got Elected Chancellor In 1933, He only was able to get up to that position through Amazing Charisma, Persuasive Decieving, and Sly Illegal Actions (Such as his Attack on Munich in 1925, and Other activities). The German People were suffering so much, through the incredible inflation, (By the 1920's, over 1 Trillin Marks = 1 US Dollar, and Kept on Rising and Falling unpredictably). Hitler often used personal stories of suffering from the people, in order to appeal to the emotions of the German People, and thus make them think voting for him will stop the economic disaster. In 1917, After Wilson forced The Tzar to stay in the war, The Russian People finally were fed up, and revolted in Feburary 1917. The Provisional Goverment then was trying to use Democratic Principles, But due to the econmic disaster, and Once Wilson was willing to relieve the economic disaster in Russia by loaning money, but only under the condition that the Goverment stay in the War, It was a lose-lose situation for Russia. The Goverment accepted the money, and stayed in the war, which made the Russian People angry again. The Bolshevik Minority, During the class between the other parties, slyly captured several Important Goverment Buildings in Petersberg, and declared themselves the Goverment, in October/November 1917. The Continued chain of events, all caused by WW1 and then the allies taking revenge after WW1, caused eventually death and suffering on a near unaccountable scale. One could loosely attach almost everything major in post-WW1 Europe and America to WW1. The Cold War, WWII, The Peacetime-Dying of the 1930's, and such. One must rememeber these events, yet sadly though, these kind of books are almost never accepted by the General public, for they have been educated to love America, or if not to love all of america, at least then they are nearly forced Psychologically to Love FDR, Wilson, and The USA interventions in WW1 and WW2. This sad lying tradition must someday end, and these kind of books, if publicized enough, might just change the tradition a little.

In reviewing the pannings of "Wilson's War" (both by reviewers here and Publisher's Weekly), one notices a preponderance of disdainful denunciations aimed not at Jim Powell's book itself, but at Powell's supposed "libertarian philosophy" that underpins his historical writing in general. These potshots fail entirely to appreciate the unique value of "Wilson's War" as a critical thesis about World War I, outside of any ideology, and as an excellent complement to Niall Ferguson's always-intriguing "Pity of War" that tackles the Great War from a far different vantage point, yet reaches similar conclusions. Powell's subject matter could not be more important both for historical discussion and for debates about modern policy, and critical treatments like his--which investigate the backdrop to the war and the blunders that led to it--are therefore essential. Although WWII receives the most attention in popular culture and military history dissertations, WWI was by far more influential in its effect on the modern world. From the rise of totalitarian regimes, to the resentments of Versailles leading to WWII, to industrialized warfare, to the embroilment of the West in Iraq and the Middle East (as Britain and France carved up the Ottoman Empire), to the Cold War, to the unsustainable human, material and financial damage which destroyed the British Empire (perhaps its most significant effect overall), World War I is the defining conflict of the modern era. Powell's thesis is difficult to encapsulate in a single sentence but can be roughly summarized as follows: Woodrow Wilson's partly well-intentioned, partly less noble reasons for bringing the United States into WWI, were directly responsible for the immeasurable catastrophes which ensued in its wake, since Wilson denied the quarreling European powers of the essential respite of an armistice, to forsake the ambitions which were blinding them and accept the futility of the war. The European powers had stalemated each other so much by 1917 that, without American entry, they had little other choice but to negotiate an armistice which, while denying significant gains to any side, would have finally imparted to them the crucial lesson that the war would produce only losers on all sides. Whatever one's quibbles about Powell's emphasis on markets rather than bullets, his thesis is entirely reasonable and also suggested by conventional WWI historians such as Tuchman and Keegan, as well as in Thomas Fleming's elegant treatise, "Illusion of Victory": Like bruised and bloodied boxers who have pummeled each other for 12 rounds, the combatants were moving to forsake the possibility of a "knockout punch" as they gained mutual, mature respect for each other and tired of the conflict. In citing Wilson's belief in "democratic militarism" in bringing the US into the war on the side of the Allies-a move which, even after the Lusitania and the Zimmermann Telegram, was deeply unpopular in the States-Powell affir

It is interesting to read the hostile comments regarding Jim Powell's book on Woodrow Wilson and the entry of the United States into World War I. People forget that Wilson promised during his re-election campaign in 1916 to keep the USA out of the war -- while he secretly was planning its entry. We have been taught throughout our history classes that our involvement in that disastrous war somehow was inevitable -- that those dastardly Germans forced us into it. Moreover, there was not the great excitement to enter the conflict as many "distorians" would have us believe. One telling statistic is the small number of men who volunteered to fight after Congress declared war in April 1917. Seeing that American men were not willing to die in the trenches of Europe, Congress saw fit to enact conscription. Apparently, not too many Americans believed that Mexico constituted a Great Threat to our Republic or that we were in danger of losing California to the PRI. World War I also brought marginal income tax rates upward of 70 percent and a near-complete government takeover of the economy. The economic consequences of our involvement still are with us today. This war was a disaster for civil liberties, including freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and it empowered government agencies to have control over the lives of people that had not been the case before. Had the United States not entered that war, I have serious doubts that we then would have been invaded by Germany or anyone else. The "peace" that the United States helped to impose upon Europe following the war was hardly peaceful, and it did set the stage for World War II.