In 1914, the world witnessed a ripple effect of war declarations as existing treaties compelled governments to defend nations with which they were allied. At the origins of the skirmishes, the assassination of the heir to the throne of the Austria-Hungary Monarch, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, by a Serbian nationalist pitched the two countries against each other (Foner GML, 733). In other words, Austria-Hungary made the first war declaration, against Serbia. Now, the individual States had existing agreements with other powers and as a result, more nations joined the skirmishes as part of either the Allies or the Central Powers to engage in the First World War. Notably, while World War I commenced in 1914, the United States joined the Allied forces in 1917 under the then President of the country, Woodrow Wilson. Wilson’s ideologies throughout the war revolved around global democracy the United States was central to his plans for ensuring the same. However, as Mao Zedong conveniently pointed out, democracy at such a large scale required more than the desires of an American president and for that reason, the situation Wilson’s goals for a world “safe for democracy” were unachievable. To that end, this paper analyzes the grounds on which Mao Zedong felt sorry for Woodrow Wilson and goes on to prove why his assertions were right but misplaced because his support of communism was no different.
Foremost, in 1919, delegates from an estimated thirty nations convened for the Paris Peace Conference to discuss the terms of peace after the Great War. Extensively, the document that the meeting dignitaries dubbed the Treaty of Versailles went against most of Wilson’s ideologies. At the forefront of the many contrasts was the fact that rather than have open discussions the negotiations were predominantly secretive. Extensively, whereas Woodrow Wilson’s A World Safe for Democracy speech before Congress called for “political liberty” through the protection and security of “the faith and freedom of nations,” the new agreement achieved the exact opposite (Foner VOF, 102). In other words, and as evidenced by the later eruption of the Second World War, the terms reached during the Paris Peace Conference were more punishment-oriented than they were a method of achieving global peace. For example, as Zedong points out, the Peace Conference ignored issues of independence in Korea and instead, focused on the “splitting up of Turkey” for the Arabs (Foner VOF, 103). In that sense, Mao Zedong was right to feel sorry for Wilson because liberty in the international scene was a mere myth.
Meanwhile, the necessary creation of the Committee on Public Information did not spare the societies and politics of the United States. In Eric Foner’s words, the agency solely sought to manipulate the “habits and opinions of the masses” by creating anti-war sentiments across the States (GML 739). Apparently, the depiction of Germany as a tyrannical nation served sufficiently in portraying the United States’ ideals of democracy only because the former attacked the latter during its state of neutrality. On that note, the United States joined forces with the Allies after the sinking of the Lusitania ship by a German submarine, despite the fact that Americans were yet to accede to the battles at the time (Foner 734). Now, before the decision to take up arms against the central powers, the United States was democratic as the government’s failure to choose a side meant that it satisfied the desires of its people. After all, there was no need for any war recruitments and the pro-Central Powers individuals such as the German-American nationals were content, as the British did not receive any aid. However, once Congress endorsed the mentioned A World Safe for Democracy proposal by Woodrow Wilson, the United States compromised liberty within and outside its borders.
Thus said, Mao Zedong’s assertions that Wilson attended “various kinds of meetings where he could not speak his mind” make Poor Wilson applicable in the Paris Peace Conference and the United States (Foner VOF, 104). The American government did not achieve its democratic goals after joining the Great War; in fact, it is as though the war facilitated the disparities on the meaning of liberty for its people and those of the losing Central Powers. For that reason, Mao Zedong’s mockery of Wilson’s calls for world democracy was acceptable if not inevitable. On a personal level, the appropriate thing to say to Zedong would have been a word of caution. Wilson’s plans might have had more success if his focus had been the American States alone instead of the entire world. Consequently, once Zedong came to power, he would have made more progress if his concentration were on promoting communism in China alone. Otherwise, he would face the same challenges and warrant the writing of “Poor Mao” instead.
Works Cited
Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty!: An American History. 4th. Vol. II. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2013. Print.
—. Voices of Freedom: A Documentary History. 4th. Vol. II. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2013. Print.
