Welcome back to the deep dive. I am I am just
so thrilled to have you joining us today. Yeah,
it's great to be here We've got a really good
one today. We really do because whether you are
you know, prepping for a history class or maybe
trying to make sense of modern geopolitics or
you're just insanely curious. We have got a truly
fascinating story for you. Absolutely. We are
pulling directly from a really comprehensive
encyclopedia article that breaks down Woodrow
Wilson's famous 14 points. Right, which is a
it's a document that most of us have probably
heard of, like maybe back in high school history
class. Exactly. But our mission for today's deep
dive is to look at these sources and explore
a really wild historical paradox. Yeah because
we're talking about a single speech delivered
in 1918 and it was entirely intended to bring
about lasting global peace. But as we are going
to see it accidentally ignited nationalist revolutions,
fueled future global conflicts, and just completely
reshaped the 20th century in ways its author
never ever intended. It really is a stunning
example of unintended consequences. I mean, we
are looking at how a document meant to establish
a just, transparent world order ended up paving
the way for Benito Mussolini's rise to power
in Italy. Wow. Yeah. And the founding of the
Chinese Communist Party. Not to mention a devastating
political myth in Germany that directly contributed
to the outbreak of World War II. OK, let's unpack
this. Because to really understand the 14 points,
we have to put ourselves in the, well, the intense
pressure cooker of the year 1917. Right. The
United States enters World War I in April of
that year. And that was triggered mostly by Germany's
unrestricted submarine warfare. And of course,
the infamous Zimmermann telegram. Right. Where
Germany trying to get Mexico to invade the US.
Exactly. But President Woodrow Wilson, he did
not want America fighting for traditional nationalistic
ambitions, right? No territorial land grabs.
If the U .S. was going to send young men to die,
Wilson felt he needed a high, almost unassailable
moral aim. He did. The conflict with Germany
was the immediate military concern. Absolutely.
But if we look closely at the sources, the real
immediate urgency for drafting the 14 points
actually came from Russia. Wait, Russia? How
did they force Wilson's hand on a peace speech?
What's fascinating here is that Wilson's 14 points
were largely created as a desperate ideological
alternative to Vladimir Lenin's communism. Oh,
wow. Yeah. In November 1917, Lenin and the Bolsheviks
overthrew the Russian provisional government.
And almost immediately, Lenin issues what he
called a Decree on Peace. I guess. It sounded
pretty appealing to a world completely exhausted
by trench warfare. Highly appealing. He calls
for an immediate end to the war, with no annexations,
no indemnities, meaning no massive financial
penalties forced on the losers, and an absolute
end to seizing diplomacy. And Lenin didn't just
talk about ending secret diplomacy, did he? I
mean, imagine you are watching the news today,
and a rogue politician suddenly publishes a rival
nation's highly classified, secretive emails.
There's a perfect analogy. Because that is essentially
what Lenin did to the Allies. Yeah, he actually
opens up the former imperial vaults in Russia,
and he publishes the secret treaties that the
Allies had previously signed with each other.
Just puts them out there for everyone. Exposes
to the whole world. that Great Britain, France,
Italy and Japan had secretly agreed to carve
up the globe into exclusive spheres of influence
after the war. So while the Allies are publicly
claiming to fight for freedom, Lenin provides
hard proof that they are actually just fighting
for real estate. It was incredibly embarrassing
because the Russian government hadn't signed
secret treaties with the Central Powers, Germany
and Austria -Hungary. So only the Allies' greedy
territorial ambitions were laid bare for you
and the rest of the public to see. He caught
them red -handed. Lenin successfully claimed
the moral high ground. He really painted himself
as the true idealist fighting for ordinary people
against selfish imperialists. So Wilson is sitting
in Washington watching this massive public relations
disaster unfold. And he is terrified. He's worried
that communist revolutions might spread globally
if Lenin's message really takes root. Right.
Wilson realized he had to offer a competing idealistic
vision for the post -war world. He had to seize
the narrative back. So how does a president even
begin to draft a blueprint for the entire globe?
I mean, did he just sit in the Oval Office with
a notepad? Not quite. He secretly formed a massive
brain trust called The Inquiry. The Inquiry sounds
like a spy movie. It does. But this was a team
of about 150 geographers, historians and political
scientists. And it was led by his close advisor,
Colonel Edward M. House. 150 experts. That is
a massive logistical undertaking just for a single
speech. It was totally unprecedented. They produced
nearly 2000 separate reports and at least 1200
maps just to prepare for every conceivable post
-war border dispute. But foreign policy wasn't
the only headache Wilson had. The sources mention
he was facing some serious heat at home, too,
right? He was. And this brings in a crucial,
often overlooked detail from the text. Wilson
was dealing with fierce domestic criticism regarding
the Armenian Genocide, which began in the Ottoman
Empire in 1915. OK. Former President Theodore
Roosevelt and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge were
just publicly hammering Wilson over it. What
was their main argument against him? They argued
the United States had a profound moral duty to
declare war on the Ottoman Empire immediately.
to stop the genocide. Which puts Wilson in a
tough spot. Extremely. Roosevelt even wrote a
nationally syndicated column accusing Wilson
of crying crocodile tears over the Armenians,
claiming that if Roosevelt were still president,
the U .S. would have already intervened with
military force. But Wilson is already fighting
Germany. He probably didn't want to divert military
resources away from the Western front to open
a whole new war against the Ottomans. That was
his exact strategic dilemma. So to counter this
massive domestic heat, Colonel House ensured
that the drafting of the 14 points implicitly
addressed the Ottoman situation. Wait, how do
you address a genocide, implicitly in a peace
treaty proposal? They included specific language
demanding the undoubted security of life and
autonomous development for minorities currently
under Ottoman rule. Oh, I see. They didn't name
the genocidal regime directly, but it was a clear
response to the horrific homogenization campaign
against Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians. So
it was a way to promise a solution to the crisis
after an allied victory without having to declare
war on the Ottomans right then and there. Exactly.
So with all this preparation, geopolitical panic,
and domestic pressure, January 8, 1918 rolls
around. Wilson pitches his grand vision to Congress.
Let's walk through what he actually proposed
so you, the listener, have the full picture.
The core concepts were sweeping. They included
open diplomacy, meaning no more of those secret
treaties Lenin exposed, absolute freedom of navigation
on the seas, the removal of economic barriers
to establish global free trade, a massive reduction
in national armaments, and an absolutely impartial
adjustment of colonial claims. And he didn't
stop at broad concepts either. He laid out specific
border adjustments too, like evacuating Russian
territory, restoring Belgium, returning the Alsace
-Lorraine region to France, readjusting Italy's
borders, and creating an independent Polish state
with access to the sea. And finally, the big
one. forming a General Association of Nations,
which would eventually become the League of Nations.
So how did the European allies react to this?
I have to imagine they were thrilled to have
the American president laying out the terms of
their victory. Actually, the reaction is where
the diplomatic friction really begins. European
allied leaders were highly skeptical of Wilson's
idealism. Bro. Remember, they hadn't been consulted
before the speech. The French leader, Georges
Clemenceau, famously and sarcastically remarked,
the good lord had only ten. That is a brutal
review from an ally. But what about the enemies?
Did the central powers look at this and say,
OK, this seems fair. Let's stop fighting. Initially,
the German military dictatorship led by figures
like Hindenburg and Ludendorff completely rejected
it. In early 1918, they were supremely confident
that their planned spring offensive would win
the war outright. So they didn't think they needed
Wilson's peace terms. Right. So when did they
change their tune? It wasn't until October 1918.
Their grand offensive had failed. Total defeat
was staring them in the face. And suddenly the
German imperial chancellor, Prince Max of Baden,
reached out to Wilson requesting an armistice
specifically based on the 14 points. Of course.
They wanted the generous terms only when they
knew they had lost. Precisely. Here's where it
gets really interesting. Because the speech didn't
just impact the nations fighting in Europe. The
text shows it sent shockwaves across the entire
colonized world. It really did. If you were an
anti -colonial leader in Africa or Asia living
under European rule, you elevated Wilson to an
almost quasi -religious figure. They saw him
as an agent of global salvation. They heard his
soaring rhetoric about autonomous development
and believed he was going to force the dismantling
of the European empires and grant them immediate
independence. But didn't the text point out a
massive linguistic catch here? A huge one. Wilson
never actually used the term self -determination
in the 14 -point speech itself. Wait, he didn't.
So the entire world is rallying behind a phrase
he didn't even say? Nope. He never said it there.
How did his actual beliefs align with what these
colonized nations were hoping for? I mean, was
he truly an anti -colonial crusader? The historical
record is quite clear on this, and we have to
view it objectively based on the sources. Wilson
was a fundamental believer in white supremacy.
Oh. He believed that non -European races were
inferior and that the quote unquote third world
was entirely unready for self -governance. So
what was his actual plan for those regions? He
felt these nations required a long period of
strict colonial tutelage to become sophisticated
enough to participate in the global commercial
market. And conveniently, bringing them into
that market would greatly benefit U .S. trade.
Very conveniently. His calls for sovereignty
were solely aimed at destabilizing and breaking
up the enemy empires. The German, Austro -Hungarian,
and Ottoman empires. He had absolutely zero intention
of dismantling the empires of his British and
French allies. That disconnect between the utopian
interpretation of his speech and his actual imperialist
views led to massive global disillusionment.
Let's walk through a few case studies from the
sources so you can see just how explosive this
misunderstanding was. Let's start with Korea.
Right. In 1919, fully expecting Wilson support
based on the 14 points, Korean nationalists issued
a formal declaration of independence from Japanese
rule. Over a million Koreans took to the streets
in what became known as the March 1st movement.
A million people protesting peacefully, expecting
the leader of the free world to have their back.
How did Wilson and the allies respond? Wilson,
Clemiso and British Prime Minister Lloyd George.
completely ignored their appeals. Which ignored
them. They treated the entire movement as an
internal Japanese domestic matter. And without
Western intervention, Japan brutally and violently
crushed the unarmed protests. That profound sense
of betrayal by the Western democracies drove
many Korean nationalists directly into the arms
of Soviet Russia. Which makes sense. If the capitalist
democracies ignore you, you look for a new ally.
Exactly. And the sources note this played a major
role in the birth of the Korean Communist Party.
And it wasn't just Korea feeling the sting. We
see this exact same pattern of soaring hopes,
followed by crushing betrayal, play out in North
Africa too. In Egypt, a group of politicians
led by Saad Zaghlou planned to go to the Paris
Peace Conference to demand independence from
the British occupation. And how did the British
handle that diplomatic request? They arrested
Zoglu and deported him to Malta. Wow. Yeah. This
heavy -handed suppression sparked the revolution
of 1919 massive nationwide demonstrations, demanding
the British leave immediately. So Wilson's words
are accidentally sparking revolutions. But perhaps
the most consequential fallout happened in China.
The sources bring up something called the Shandong
question. Could you define what that was for
us? Certainly. Before the war, Germany had held
a 99 -year lease on the Chinese province of Shandong.
But during World War I, Japan invaded and took
it over, eventually forcing China to sign a treaty
handing the economic rights to Japan. So China
goes to the Paris Peace Conference looking to
get their land back. How did they argue their
case? They sent a brilliant, young, bilingual
Chinese diplomat named Wellington Koo. And Koo
used the 14 points flawlessly against the allies.
Oh, nice. He argued that the treaties giving
Japan control were signed under the threat of
extreme violence and were therefore legally invalid.
He essentially used Wilson's own logic against
him. Precisely. He argued that the people of
Shandong were overwhelmingly Han Chinese and
wanted to be part of China, leaning heavily on
the principle of self -determination that everyone
associated with Wilson. Koo even pointed out
that the secret treaties the allies had made
supporting Japan's claim violated point one of
Wilson's own speech. Koo's argument sounds legally
and morally airtight based on Wilson's framework.
So did Wilson back him up. Wilson ultimately
sided with Japan. Are you king? He argued that
it was better for global stability to honor a
bad treaty than to tear it up, effectively handing
a massive Chinese province over to Japanese control.
The betrayal felt by the Chinese public was absolute.
On May 4th, 1919, thousands of university students
marched in Beijing in protest. This sparked the
May 4th movement, which many historians consider
the birth of modern China. And just like in Korea.
The stark reality that Soviet Russia was the
only global power seemingly willing to treat
them as an equal led directly to the founding
of the Chinese Communist Party in 1920. Think
about the irony there. Wilson's speech, which
was fundamentally designed to prevent the spread
of Lenin's communism, actively pushed major anti
-colonial movements right toward it. It really
highlights the extreme danger of projecting high
-minded ideals without the willingness to apply
them equitably. But the application of the 14
points wasn't just a political disaster in the
colonized world. It created an absolute geographical
nightmare back in Europe. Let's talk about that
geography. Because drawing borders along clear
lines of nationality sounds wonderful on paper.
But in central Europe, it's like trying to draw
a straight line through a marble cake and expecting
to only get chocolate on one side and vanilla
on the other. It is geographically impossible.
That's a great way to put it. The region was
a deeply mixed patchwork of populations. There
were no straight demographic lines to draw. Let's
look at the region of Upper Silesia as a concrete
example of this impossibility. It was a vital
coal mining and industrial area inhabited by
both Germans and Poles. So how did the Allies
decide who got the coal? They decided to hold
a referendum in 1921 to let the people decide.
68 % voted to stay in Germany and 32 % voted
to join the newly reborn Poland. But as you mentioned
with the marble cake, the voting didn't fall
into neat geographic halves, did it? Not at all.
Often the dense urban centers voted German, while
the surrounding rural countryside voted Polish.
You literally couldn't draw a line without trapping
massive amounts of people on the wrong side of
the new border. Exactly. And this confusion led
to fierce violent fighting between German and
Polish paramilitary groups, both trying to seize
territory by force before the borders were finalized.
And then you have the headache of Danzig. Point
13 of Wilson's speech said Poland needed free
and secure access to the sea. Danzig was a deep
water port perfectly situated for this, but its
population was 90 percent German. How do you
solve that puzzle? You really can't, not cleanly.
The British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, adamantly
opposed forcing a city that was 90 % German to
live under Polish rule. That makes sense. So
they created a highly awkward compromise. They
severed Danzig from Germany entirely and made
it a free city. Oh, free city. Yeah, it became
a quasi -independent city -state where Poland
had special economic rights, but didn't own the
territory outright. It sounds like a solution
designed to leave absolutely everyone resentful.
So what does this all mean for a country like
Italy? Because their situation is arguably one
of the most explosive outcomes of the peace conference.
Well, when Italy joined the war, the allies had
secretly promised them huge chunks of territory,
including the region of Dalmatia in the secret
treaty of London. And since Wilson hates secret
treaties, I'm assuming he didn't want to honor
that. He absolutely refused. Wilson argued that
Dalmatia was overwhelmingly populated by Croats,
who wanted to be part of the new state of Yugoslavia,
not Italy. OK, sticking to his principles there.
But then Wilson did support giving Italy the
region of South Tyrol, taking it away from Austria.
Wait, if he denied them Dalmatia on the grounds
of ethnic self -determination, why give them
South Tyrol? Was it mostly Italian? That is the
bitter irony. Wilson later admitted he made a
mistake because he genuinely didn't realize at
the time that the vast majority of people in
South Tyrol spoke German. That is wild. He denies
them one territory based on principle and hands
them another out of sheer geographical ignorance.
How did the Italian public react to this? If
we connect this to the bigger picture, the psychological
impact on Italy was devastating. The Italian
Prime Minister went home seemingly empty -handed
regarding their primary territorial goals. This
birthed the incredibly powerful narrative of
the Vittoria Mililata. The mutilated victory.
Meaning they felt they had bled for the allied
cause, lost half a million men, and were cheated
out of their rightful spoils by Wilson's sanctimonious
hypocrisy. Yes. And this intense national resentment
was directly weaponized by Benito Mussolini.
Wow. His fascist party used the mutilated victory
thesis to paint the existing democratic politicians
as weak and pusillanimous, paving the way for
his totalitarian takeover of Italy. And the tragic
irony just keeps compounding, because back in
the United States, the 14 point and the resulting
League of Nations were deeply hated by many domestic
politicians. Senator William Borah passionately
wished the League of Nations buried in hell and
20 ,000 leagues under the sea. Meanwhile, in
Germany, the narrative was entirely different,
but equally toxic. Throughout the interwar period,
Germans fiercely attacked the Treaty of Versailles
as an illegitimate diktat, a dictated peace that
fundamentally betrayed the promises of the 14
points. They fixated on the idea that they were
promised a just peace and instead were subjected
to cruel punishment. Right. But the sources bring
in a vital perspective from historian Gerhard
Weinberg, who completely shatters this common
misconception about the treaty. Weinberg argues
that the supposed harshness of the Treaty of
Versailles has been vastly exaggerated by history.
Okay, so how does he prove that? Weinberg points
out a fascinating comparison. We need to look
at the Oderneis Line. Could you clarify what
the Oderneis Line is for us? Think of it as the
border drawn between Germany and Poland after
the Second World War in 1945. Under that 1945
settlement, Germany lost far more territory to
Poland than they ever did under the Treaty of
Versailles. And in 1945, the ethnic Germans living
there were forcibly expelled from their homes.
Yet... That much harsher 1945 settlement did
not cause a third world war. In fact, in 1991,
a reunified Germany peacefully accepted those
exact borders permanently. Exactly. So if the
Treaty of Versailles itself wasn't uniquely monstrous,
what was the real issue driving Germany toward
another conflict? The real issue wasn't the treaty's
adherence to the 14 points at all. It was the
Dolstos legend, the stab in the back myth. Walk
us through what that myth actually claimed. The
vast majority of the German elite and much of
the public genuinely believed that their military
had decisively crushed the Allies in 1918. They
believed they only lost because they were betrayed
from within by a revolution on the home front,
orchestrated by socialists and Jewish populations.
Wait, they actually thought they were winning
the war when the armistice was signed? even though
their armies were retreating. They absolutely
believed it. Because of that pervasive, deeply
entrenched delusion, Weinberg argues that any
peace treaty, no matter how lenient or how closely
aligned with the 14 points, would have been violently
challenged by Germany. Because they couldn't
reconcile the reality of their defeat with their
belief in their own military invincibility. Precisely.
It is staggering to think about how deeply a
national delusion can run. And the depths of
that delusion are truly terrifying. Weinberg
notes that this very myth explains Adolf Hitler's
incredibly flippant decision to declare war on
the United States in December 1941. How does
the stab in the back myth connect to declaring
war on America decades later? Well, Hitler and
the elite German military command genuinely believed
they had already defeated the US military in
1918 and were only robbed the victory internally.
Because they bought their own myth, they assumed
the German military was fundamentally invincible
and that they would easily crush the U .S. again.
When you look at the big takeaway from all these
stories, it is mind bending. You have a single
speech fueled by high minded idealism, but severely
lacking a grasp of ground level geographic and
political realities. It acted as a chaotic catalyst
for the entire 20th century. It created false
hope for the global south, accidentally pushing
major anti -colonial movements towards Soviet
communism. And it gave defeated nations like
Italy and Germany a potent rhetorical weapon
to challenge the fragile post -war order. It
really is a master class in the dangers of promising
a utopian vision without the mechanisms or the
genuine desire to execute it fairly. And looking
at the text, this raises an important question,
one that historian Alan Sharp touches on regarding
point one, the call for open covenants of peace
openly arrived at. The end of secret treaties.
To most of us today, that sounds like the most
basic requirement for a healthy democracy, right?
We demand absolute transparency from our leaders.
We do. But Sharp notes that at the Paris Peace
Conference, Wilson himself ultimately had to
abandon open diplomacy because it made negotiating
impossibly cumbersome. How so? When every demand
and concession is completely public, leaders
are trapped into posturing for their domestic
audiences. They can't look weak. So the transparency
actually paralyzed the negotiations. Exactly.
Sharp even suggests that in the case of Italy,
the traditional secret diplomacy might have actually
worked better. It would have allowed them to
compromise on territories like Dalmatia without
losing face at home and sparking a fascist revolution.
That is fascinating. So I leave you the listener
with this thought. As you watch modern global
summits on the news and demand absolute transparency
from world leaders, consider the 14 points. Is
open diplomacy actually a recipe for peace or
does it just trap politicians into rigid public
posturing, making the quiet, messy compromises
required for actual peace impossible? That is
a brilliant and slightly unsettling thought to
end on. Thank you so much for joining us on this
deep dive into the 14 points. We highly encourage
you to keep exploring the sources and the incredibly
complex. history we've discussed today. Until
next time.