That business in France was already won. He could of stayed out of it, but then how to you get major input into a league of nations that was supposed to rule the world without jumping in?
Of course the league failed, so we needed another war and then the UN was born.
I’d say we’re about due again. Too many nationalist people now, we can’t have that. We’re all supposed to welcome our overlords.
First time I've ever seen somebody claim that.
Most posters here, especially our Lost Causers, claim the US should have stayed out of the First World War so the Germans could win and then, amazingly, no Hitler or Second World War, Holocaust, etc., etc.
Of course a little thought and I'd guess Brits & Canadians would claim Americans weren't needed -- just a bunch of glory hounds anyway, did very little fighting then took all the credit, in the mean time French, Brits, Canadians & everybody else died in their millions so Americans could steal the show!
I "get" that, and guess I'd be a bit miffed too, especially when we consider Versailles.
On the other hand I don't think Wilson was solely to blame for Versailles and the League of Nations not necessarily a terrible idea -- we live and we learn.
Bulwyf: "I’d say we’re about due again.
Too many nationalist people now, we can’t have that.
We’re all supposed to welcome our overlords."
Too many youngsters were taught in school that "nationalism" is a bad word so it's not really their fault.
The truth is that "nationalism" and "patriotism" are synonyms and, in the right degree, necessary for survival of any country.
Think of those words like a medicine, or vitamin, we need to survive but too much is a poison that will also kill us.
Anyway, as I think you're suggesting, our globalists, internationalists, socialists, one-world-without-borders-ists don't like words like "patriot" or "nationalist" and will do their best to squash us if they can.