Woodrow Wilson

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Woodrow Wilson, the man who was most responsible for WWI dragging out at least one year longer than it had to and for the occurence of WWII.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Britain mined international waters and seized neutral assets back in 1914, so any claims to Allied moral superiority are pure propoganda.  However, if we were to side with the Allies, if we had done so earlier, the war would have ended by 1917 at the latest.  Instead, Wilson's pseudo-neutrality dragged out the war.  With a quicker war, there would have been no Soviet Union.  A quicker war would likely have ended in a negotiated peace that would have left no side so humiliated that WWII would have been inevitable just 20 years later.    Wilson meant well, but his policies ended up dooming Europe to millions more violent deaths in the 20th Century than needed to have been.  Even given a Central Powers victory, the collapse of the ramshackle Hapsburg empire was inevitable, altho like our own history, it may have taken the entirety of the 20th century to see its final collapse, as the last remnants of Hapsburgism only ended in the last decade with the break up of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.  And finally given our own sorry treatment of Mexico in the early part of the 20th century (let alone the 19th), it could well be argued that Germany was offerring to help Mexico with its overbearing neighbor to the north that coveted its oil fields, just as we helped Kuwait with its overbearing neighbor to the north that coveted its oilfields.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The convential wisdom is that Wilson became too stubborn after his stroke.  In any case, had he been willing to compromise on Article 10 of the Treaty of Versailles, then the US would have joined the League of Nations.  Quite frankly tho, given the lack of American enthusiasm in the inter-war period, I can't see American involvement in the League changing very much.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I doubt if the Bolsheveks could have come to power if a peace had occurred in 1917, of whatever variety.  I doubt if the Tsar could have kept his throne unless a peace was worked out in 1916.  By mid-1917, the end of Romanov rule was inevitable, the only thing that remained to be seen was what course Russia would take afterwards.