The Wilsonian Moment: Self-Determination and the International Origins of Anticolonial Nationalism

by Erez Manela

During the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, while key decisions were debated by the victorious Allied powers, a multitude of smaller nations and colonies held their breath, waiting to see how their fates would be decided. President Woodrow Wilson, in his Fourteen Points, had called for "a free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims," giving equal weight would be given to the opinions of the colonized peoples and the colonial powers. Among those nations now paying close attention to Wilson's words and actions were the budding nationalist leaders of four disparate non-Western societies--Egypt, India, China, and Korea. That spring, Wilson's words would help ignite political upheavals in all four of these countries.

This book is the first to place the 1919 Revolution in Egypt, the Rowlatt Satyagraha in India, the May Fourth movement in China, and the March First uprising in Korea in the context of a broader "Wilsonian moment" that challenged the existing international order. Using primary source material from America, Europe, and Asia, historian Erez Manela tells the story of how emerging nationalist movements appropriated Wilsonian language and adapted it to their own local culture and politics as they launched into action on the international stage. The rapid disintegration of the Wilsonian promise left a legacy of disillusionment and facilitated the spread of revisionist ideologies and movements in these societies; future leaders of Third World liberation movements--Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, and Jawaharlal Nehru, among others--were profoundly shaped by their experiences at the time.

The importance of the Paris Peace Conference and Wilson's influence on international affairs far from the battlefields of Europe cannot be underestimated. Now, for the first time, we can clearly see just how the events played out at Versailles sparked a wave of nationalism that is still resonating globally today.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, American History, World History, International Relations, Grad School

352 pages, Hardcover

First published July 1, 2007

About the author

Erez Manela is a professor of history at Harvard University, where he teaches the history of the United States in the world and modern international history. He also serves as Director of Graduate Programs at Harvard's Weatherhead Center for International Affairs and as co-chair of the Harvard International and Global History Seminar (HIGHS).

Reviews

[Murtaza · Rating 3 out of 5]

As strange as it is to contemplate now, there was a brief moment during the early 20th century when the chief icon of global anti-colonial revolt was not Lenin, Trotsky or Mao Zedong, but American President Woodrow Wilson. When Wilson endorsed the principle of national self-determination and a rules-based international order at the end of WWI, he ignited the hopes of hundreds of millions of people in Africa and Asia who were then struggling to free themselves from the yoke of Western imperialism.

Wilson became an almost messianic figure for Indians, Egyptians, Koreans and Chinese among others. For them, Wilson and the liberal United States embodied their hope for deliverance from a Darwinian form of geopolitics in which they were dominated by European imperialists and lacked a universal moral claim with which to defend themselves. Although Wilson endorsed the aspirations of these hopeful liberal nationalists almost by mistake, intending his words to mainly apply to the smaller nations of Europe, he ended up launching a vision of world order that could viably compete for the support of Asians and Africans against the siren song of Communist internationalism.

The liberal order that Wilson laid the groundwork continues to be a powerful motivating idea for those living under oppression, though it has never completely lived up to its promises. Even during his own time Wilson balked at fulfilling the hopes of the Egyptians and Chinese who saw in his famous “14 Points” a vision of their own freedom and emancipation from imperialism.

As Manela describes, the hopes that Wilson raised, and quickly dashed, by his failure to endorse the freedom of the colonized still ended up gaving vital momentum to independence movements across the world. Thwarted in the path of liberal reform that they chose (directly inspired by Wilson’s own words and principles) these national movements ended up becoming more radical over time.

The revolutionaries inspired by Wilson were popular, resolutely liberal and genuinely enthralled by the seeming promise of America. They would up being humiliated by Wilson’s unwillingness to live up to his words and ended up being marginalized by illiberal factions over time as a result. Had Wilson seized the moment and acted differently, we may well be living in a much different world today, without the Chinese Communist Party, North Korea, Egyptian Arab Nationalism or Islamism and with a still-united and pluralistic India. It’s a tantalizing idea and history shows exactly where things began going wrong, at the thwarted revolutions of 1919. It also goes to show that no group of people is inveterately hostile to liberalism. People all over the world were attracted to “American values” as Wilson articulated them, but were driven away by the exigencies of geopolitics.

It’s quite amazing to read about how highly Wilson was held in regard by anti-colonialists during his time. The rhetoric lauding him as a hero was no lesser than religious figures or Marxist leaders would later enjoy. Even hardened revolutionaries like Mao and Nasser invoked his 14 Points as a rebuke to the rapaciousness of later Western leaders. In fairness, Wilson was never quite the transcendent figure people thought him to be. He was also in no position to live up to the grand promises that he’d inadvertently made to the people of Asia and Africa, given that the European empires would remain alive for a few more decades until dying in the cataclysms of WWII. Had Wilson embraced the full implications of his 14 Points and endorsed the aspirations of the Third World, however, the world would be a very different place today. It’s interesting to imagine it would be a much better one, more liberal and spared much of the bloodshed of the 20th century.

This book is rather academic for the most part, though it has some excitement towards the end. It’s certainly not a thriller like Pankaj Mishra’s “Ruins of Empire.” As edifying as I found it I probably wouldn’t recommend it to anyone but IR nerds or Asian history buffs, though those people will greatly appreciate it.

[J.M. Hushour · Rating 5 out of 5]

A seminal classic in international, comparative history. Simply, the 'Wilsonian moment' was when the US president's invocations of democracy, self-determination, and human rights became the clarion call of local movements against the old imperial order. Manela (sounds like manila) looks at Egypt, China, Korea, and India, all going through simultaneous nationalist uprisings against British and Japanese imperial shenanigans. On the re-read, this is still a strong book but doesn't get as normative as it could (judge! muthafuckahs!) since it would be easy to point out how 3 out of the 4 cases studied here (and there are many others) all ended up being ideological and political foes of the US once Wilson dashed their dreams, went back on their words, and Empire basically stayed the same. Manela barely delves into this, which would have made the work much more fun.

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent study and a landmark book for international history. Drawing on an incredible range of sources from multiple languages, Manela sheds new light on how the post-WWI settlement transformed international thought and politics, with consequences for the remainder of the century. He does so in clear and accessible language and in a fairly concise book. Before I get into the argument, let me just say this is a must read for those interested in Wilson, liberal internationalism, decolonization, and international history in general.

The Wilsonian Moment refers to the sliver of time (about 1917-1920) in which Wilson's ideas of self-determination of people, equality among nations, and international law enforced by a League of Nations created a new normative paradigm for international politics. Manela's major contribution is to show how Chinese, Korean, Indian, and Egyptian activists, expats, and ordinary folk viewed WW's ideas as a refutation of imperialism, which they were, at least at the pure level of ideas. Self-dtr, the most important concept in this book, meant to these colonized peoples that empires were illegitimate political entities and that they should have their own independent states. Manela shows how these groups understood WW's ideas, applied them to their own situations, recognized the import and potential of this moment, and lobbied the US, the Versailles Conference, and the broader int'l community for greater, if not total, independence.

The Wilsonian moment came and went in a flash. It soon became clear that Wilson was not able or willing to really challenge his French, British, and Japanese partners on the topic of imperialism. For example, he feared that pressing the Japanese to leave Shandong would cause them to leave the League of Nations and become hostile to the US; plus, Wilson shared the condescending view of most whites at the time that the darker races of the world were not yet ready for independence. Self-dtr, for Wilson, was to be applied mainly to the now-broken empires of Eastern and Central Europe; the rest of the world would receive, at best, a mandate system in which the European powers would maintain control. This was a hugely disappointing result for anti-colonial activists, and it had two important consequences. It prompted a disillusionment with the United States, which many of these activists had once seen as different from the European imperialist powers, more selfless and ideologically consistent in its anti-imperialism.

The betrayal of the Wilsonian promise didn't kill the liberal anti-imperialism of Rhee, Sen, Haykal, and others, but it certainly sapped its legitimacy and led to the search for other models of opposing imperialism, particularly that of Lenin. MOvements like the INC which had once advocated home rule or gradual reform shifted to demands for instant independence, often leading to revolts in 1919-1920. For figures like Mao and Ho, the Wilsonian letdown just intensified the belief that only force and a more radical ideology could destroy imperialism. This was not an instantaneous shift, but it was clearly a tragic one given the disastrous and brutal wars of decolonization and the horrific behavior of communist-inspired regimes (not to mention right wing authoritarian post-colonial regimes) once they seized power. The tragedy here is that you can't really blame them for their disillusionment with WIlson!

This book makes Wilson into a doubly tragic figure. We all know the story of Wilson's magnanimous peace being undermined by the vengeful French and British at Versailles, sowing the seeds for the 2nd World War. Manela shows the tragedy of a potential push for reform, independence, and a more equal community of nations falling short for a variety of reasons. Understanding both tragedies is hugely important for understanding the course of 20th century politics. I saw the Wilsonian moment as the perfect illustration of soft power, or the cultural and ideological attraction that a state like the US has regarding other states. The US clearly was a model and hope for most of the world, not as a savior but as a beacon and a power that could rearrange the international playing field in ways that helped the dispossesed. There are a lot of lessons for the US in this book, including the importance of consistency in one's ideas and the dangers of rhetoric that gets people's hopes way, way up. Manela wraps up the book with a quote from Wilson (who was well aware of all of this) that perfectly summarizes his own disappointment in the failure of the Wilsonian moment. In reading this, I couldn't help but think of Obama's struggles with the Arab Spring, of being caught between obligations to longstanding yet authoritarian allies and the moral and practical need to support oppressed people crying out for dignity and freedom.

If I'm ever lucky enough to teach a grad seminar on international history or U.S. history, I'll definitely assign this book. It's just fascinating and illuminating, one of those books that gives you a new lens on not just a moment but an entire century. Writing books of this quality is how you get a job at Harvard, where Manela teaches.

[Will · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Paris Peace Conference which concluded the First World War has long been examined by historians as a failure. These criticisms have primarily been directed at the inability of the European great powers to reach a stable settlement with Germany, thus paving way for the Second World War two decades later. In The Wilsonian Moment, Erez Manela notes another failure of the conference; the inability of the great powers to match Wilson’s rhetoric of self-determination with respects to the colonised peoples of the Earth.
In his introduction, Manela notes that the chaos of the World War resulted in two new conceptions of the world emerging, both of which rejected the pre-eminent belief in the power and importance of great empires. These two conceptions were epitomised by Lenin, who wished to radically alter the world system, and American president Woodrow Wilson, who spoke in grandiose terms of a league of nations, in which all peoples of the world would have equality. The weakness of the fledgling Soviet Union and the power of the victorious United States in the war meant that the Wilsonian ideas were by far the more popular among the peoples of the world in the immediate months following the war. The language of self-determination and national rule was so popular that it inspired disparate anti-colonial actors from all over the world to engage in an extraordinary “moment” of international dialogue and cooperation. This moment would last until the following spring, when it became apparent that Wilson had no intention of applying his ideology to the world’s colonised peoples.
The Wilsonian Moment is divided into three parts. The first of these is primarily interested in looking at Wilson himself, at how a racist American politician came to stand for the hopes of the oppressed peoples of the world. Manela tracks Wilson’s development from as early as the Spanish-American War in 1898, when the Princeton academic and essayist began formulating his world view and opinions regarding ‘non-white peoples’. This extended lens of analysis allows Manela to argue against prevailing historical opinion, which stated that the President gave little thought to the world outside of Europe. Rather, the president had a clear idea of the colonised world, but it was a world which he felt needed the tutoring hand of European rule (Wilson supported the US administration of the Philippines, for example). In his second chapter, “Fighting for the Mind of Mankind”, Manela tracks how he powerful Allied news-media spread the rhetoric which President Wilson used in the Great War all around the globe. This fascinating chapter helps explain how the Fourteen Points, ideas which were tailored for a Central-Eastern European audience, reached as far afield as East Asia and India. Advanced global communications had proved a boon for the allied war effort, but now had entirely unforeseen consequences.
The bulk of Manela’s book consists of Part II, which explores the way in which the colonised peoples responded to Wilson’s rhetoric, as the author puts it, “how anticolonial nationalism was internationalised” (61). In other words, this chapter looks at the adoption of the ideals of self-determination by nationalised who wished to challenge the global legitimacy of Empire, not just win limited autonomy for themselves. Manela wrote in the introduction of the need to walk a fine line between a work which was either too sweeping and shallow or too long and dense. To compromise between the two, he decides to look in depth at the effects of the Wilsonian movement on four national groups- Egyptians, Koreans, Indians and Chinese. All four of these peoples had long, developed cultural identities and powerful educated elites. These elites saw in Wilson a change to grant their people presence on the international stage, and all had representatives in Paris advocating their case. Importantly, Manela does not consider the leaders of these four nations as naïve figures duped by Wilson- rather, they are presented as sly operators, perfectly aware of the President’s shortcomings, but determined to use him for their causes.
The final part of the book examines the death of the Wilsonian dream, as it became apparent that self-determination for the victims of European Colonialism was not on the cards of the conference. Wilson comes across as a sympathetic, but weak, figure, whose earlier promises no longer held the same power which they once had. The failure of his to sell the vision of the League of Nations to the American people and congress is played out simultaneously to a wave of revolutions which sweeps though Korea, Egypt, China and India. By comparing these revolutions side by side, Manela shows how all were linked through the discourse they used and the ideals which they shared- as well as the anger that these ideas had not been realised. In the end, it seemed that Wilson had only made “a world safe for Empires”, as radicals turned towards Lenin (Mao spoke of the extreme sorrow he felt for Wilson at the conference with the “Thieves” of the other great powers) (137).
Overall, I regard The Wilsonian Moment as a strong example of a work of world history. The author skilfully integrates six different settings into an convincing narrative, as characters move from their home nations to the melting pot of the Paris conference. The physical act of moving from place to place is not the only global aspect of this study. Ideas themselves were diffused from colony to colony- Koreans in Manchester read about Wilson’s speeches in Cairo. The aims of the colonised elites were international in scope- the idea of an equal League of Nations was the most inspiring of all the Wilsonian ideals. I would have liked to have seen a greater look at the ordinary peoples of the four nations, but a focus on the elites is understandable both in terms of writing a shorter piece and for their important role as the diffusers of the Wilsonian idea.

[Jakob Toet]

erez manela er en stor anbefaling til alle dem som er nysgerrige i krydspunktet mellem nationalisme og antikoloniale bevægelser. manelas udgangspunkt er fredskonferencen i paris, og hvordan den amerikanske præseident woodrow wilson bliver et symbol for national selvebestemmelse og en skuffelse over at imperiernes greb om kolonierne virker unedbrydeligt. ironisk nok så er det, ifølge manela, den internationale orden der skal sætte europa i midten der ender med at blive slutningen på europas verdensdominans.

[Bram · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book that reframes Wilson’s discussion of self-determination and highlights the ways in which colonized peoples actively reinterpreted the idea of self-determination.

[Lauren S]

THIS WAS PHENOMENAL. Literally wanted to steal this man’s writing style (I did not, that would be an academic honesty violation)

[Adam S. Rust · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 1919 Woodrow Wilson became the first sitting president of the United States to set foot on European soil. With his Fourteen Points in hand he hoped to transform the corrupt imperial order that he felt gave rise to the slaughter of World War I. Several months, and an additional cross-ocean trip back and forth later, Woodrow Wilson was a broken man. His vision thwarted by European power politicians both more cunning, and more grounded in concrete political realities, than he was.

The Wilsonian Moment by Erez Manela is not about that story. Instead, it is a story about an idea Wilson co-opted from Marxist leaders, self-determination, and how that idea reached people he never intended to reach, and inspired hopes he never intended to inspire. Prof. Manela focuses on the responses of Egyptian, Indian, Chinese, and Korean nationalists to this idea, and how it had consequences of further reach than Wilson, or anyone else could have possibly anticipated.

The book is broken into three parts. Part I deals with the basic background of Wilson's developing ideas of self-determination. While various colonial nationalists interpreted (or chose to interpret) President Wilson's call to self-determination as a call for instant national autonomy, this was not Wilson's intent. Rather, Wilson intended to speak to the smaller ethnic-national groups in Europe. His view for most non-white races was that of a "trusteeship model" of colonialism similar to his views of blacks in America. Like American blacks, Wilson saw the various non-white colonial holdings as not yet ready for full democratic citizenship. While they would eventually be worthy of full citizenship. Wilson felt, and certainly the Allied colonial powers of France and England agreed, that the time for full self-determination was not yet.

Part II focuses on how the hopes of the various colonial nationalists were lifted by Wilson's rhetoric of self-determination. Rather than siding with the still politically insecure Bolsheviks in Russia, the colonial nationalists decided to hitch their ride on to Wilson's far more politically influential carriage. The colonies learned about the self-determination ideas of Wilson in part because most colonial countries (Japan-occupied Korea excluded) had easy access to the significant political speeches of all Allied leaders, including Wilson. While the American propaganda apparatus did not specifically target the colonies, the interconnectedness arising from globalizing effect of the telegraph communicated Wilson's message far beyond his intended scope.

The final part of the book focuses on the tragic disappointment of the various colonial nationalists as they came to the realization that President Wilson was not the man they hoped he was. Prof. Manela calls this section "the failure of liberal anti-colonialism" and lays out, in heart-breaking detail, the frustration experienced by each of the nations. Even China, ostensibly an autonomous state, was unable to retain the region that gave birth to the Chinese sage Confucius because of the strong-arming of Japan at the negotiating table with China before the end of World War I, as well as in Paris afterwords. The fact that China, in spite of American support and its taking the Allied side in the war, was unable to retain land that it owned before the war, is probably the strongest condemnation of Wilson's diplomatic ability at the Paris peace conference.

The weakest points of this book occur in Part II, which seems a bit repetitive. Each chapter is basically each of the four countries chosen by Manela effusively praising Wilson's advocacy for self-determination. The most interesting parts of these sections are brief discussions about how each culture fit the concept of self-determination into their already existing intellectual framework. A deeper exploration of this line of thought would have greatly enhanced these sections. Another shortcoming of the book is Manela's failure to deliver on his thesis about how the Wilsonian moment created a trans-national dialogue between the various colonial subject-states. While this is briefly alluded to in various chapters it is not developed substantively. Manela's style is easy to read and an extra hundred pages would have greatly helped in elucidating this line of argument.

All these criticisms aside, if you are in the slightest interested in early 20th century history this book is worth a read. It challenges the simple, West-centric framework of history and is an excellent illustration in the unintended consequences of ideas when they escape the audience that they were originally intended for.

[Connor Morris · Rating 4 out of 5]

pretty good book on an intriguing and rarely discussed period but very "academic" and dry. Didn't go into the domestic political opposition as much as I would've liked.

[Supriyo Chaudhuri · Rating 4 out of 5]

This 'Global' history of Wilson's Fourteen Points, and the expectations of self-determination that it aroused, and disappointed, in the Colonial World (specifically, Egypt, India, China and Korea) is an interesting and insightful read. The central thesis of the book is that Wilson's pronouncements, and the American propaganda efforts disseminating them worldwide, transformed nationalist aspirations in the Colonial nations, and created a discourse of liberal anti-colonialism at the end of the Great War in 1918. However, this 'moment' could also be described as one that was never been, as Wilson's proposition was never meant to extend to various colonial territories held by various victorious powers. So, the expectations were quickly disappointed, and the narrative became one of the world Wilson never made, leaving the space for just what Wilson was made to fear - Bolshevist influence!

The book is a fine read, with lucid arguments, engaging style and tightly structured narratives. This shows the promises of 'Global history' - that new perspectives can open up by looking beyond the closed world of national histories - as well as its problems - that one can overstate the case as easily. In making the case that there was indeed such a moment, the book somewhat ignores the endogenous reasons, so often privileged in national histories, how such transformations came about. For example, Amritsar massacre, mentioned in passing, became an incident connected to the Moment, but not a transformational event in itself. That both Gandhi and Mao would largely ignore Wilson's role, was mentioned, but it didn't sway the argument. The movements in Korea and Egypt that didn't fit the narrative was marginalised, thereby amplifying Wilson's supposed influence.

Indeed, this is all acceptable as long as we take this as one of the many possible narratives about anti-colonial nationalism. However, one has to also guard against explaining anti-colonial nationalism purely in Centre-periphery terms, as there existed a network of anti-colonialism that spread across Asia much before Wilson came along. Privileging the Wilsonian narrative as this great global moment when Anti-colonialism came to the fore risks marginalizing the other global moments, Japan's victory over Russia in 1905, Mustafa Kemal's ascension in Turkey, etc, which had great influence across Asia.

[Eleanore · Rating 2 out of 5]

Given the potency and interest of this book's subject, the execution proved to be deeply disappointing. The narrative was both too short and too superficial to fulfill its promise. It was also disconnected, somewhat, from the arguments the author was drawing from the materials, reading like a revelatory first draft that somehow failed to be revised... Agreed, I think we could all aspire to such a first draft or such a dissertation, but nonetheless I was frustrated given the credentials of the author, the expanse of his research and the rather intriguing line of argument he put forth...

[Meihan Liu · Rating 5 out of 5]

In terms of May Fourth Movement studies, the two chapters about Wilson and China deserve a solid five star rating.

[آية · Rating 1 out of 5]

Once upon a time the whole world was ruled by Europe (and America but no one cared). Then World War 1 happened. And ended. US President Wilson seized the moment and used all his PR strategies to popularize America around the world. He preached a "new world order" in which every nation would have the right to self-determination. Suddenly, after decades of colonization, the colonized world woke up. They were inspired by Wilson, who taught them that they can be independent, too. They got excited. They went to the Paris Peace conference demanding the rights that Wilson promised. But a few months later (a few months after their new-found goal) when it became clear that neither Europe nor America ever really intended on giving anyone non-European a bit of self-determination, the colonized people became disillusioned. And angry. And so they rebelled. In 1919, nationalist anti-colonial revolutions sparked around the world, and especially in Egypt, Korea, India, and China, which are the places in focus here. All because of good old Wilson.

Or so Erez Manela says.

I don't understand how this is taken as a serious scholarly book. It ignores decades of nationalist anticolonial resistance and credits it all to Wilson. Manela says that he doesn't see the non-European nationalist leaders as naive, that they were using Wilson's language for their own rhetoric. But everything else he says credits Wilson for the simultaneous 1919 revolutions. Wilson--the president of a country that was not even a world power at that point. It honestly minimizes the intelligence of the colonized people in these four nations, and argues that any connection between them was based on Wilson.

One of the few benefits of this book is that it discusses the non-Europeans' roles in the Paris Peace Conference, which is often studied only in terms of Europe and the US. But even then, it is so American-centric and would have better served as a history of President Wilson. Ironically, Manela says that Wilson is not the protagonist of this book--the anti-colonialist leaders are--but that is simply untrue. Wilson gets the credit...for everything.

[David Hollingsworth · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book covers the international aspect of Wilsonianism beyond Europe after World War 1. Focusing on Egypt, India, China, and Korea, it delves into how nationalist/anti-colonial movements in each country initially adapted Wilson's rhetoric of self-determination and vision of a democratic international order as momentum for independence in each area grew. Unfortunately, the failure of Wilson himself to advocate for self-determination and equality beyond Europe would lead to severe disappointment for these and other anti-colonial movements, many of which would turn to Marxist-Lenninism after the failure of Wilsonian liberal democracy.

This book is very well done. It balances detail with readability in a way that will make it equally appealing to casual readers and historians alike. It's also well-organized and lays out a lot of interesting ideas beyond the main thesis.

My only real complaint is that the beginning and end of the book emphasize the transnational character of the so-called Wilsonian Moment. While the beginning and end do a good job of putting the information presented in the book in a transnational context, the chapters about each individual country make them seem more like national movements (with the exception of the Korean chapter mentioning Chinese support in passing). I would've loved to see more about how these movements fed off of each other.

Another issue I had, though this isn't exactly a complaint, is that I wish the author went beyond the four countries mentioned. I understand that doing so would've required a lot of extra research and gone beyond the scope of what Manela was trying to do, so this isn't something I think is "wrong" with the book more than it is a personal wish of mine. Though, that said, I do think another Middle Eastern country being covered, and its relationship with the Egyptian movement during this time, could've really benefited the book.

Overall, this was an excellent read. Again, it strikes a great balance between being informative and being readable. It's also an important book in that it takes an era of history dominated by the European perspective and presents the perspective of those in the periphery. I highly recommend this to anyone even remotely interested in the topic.

[lizzielee2003]

required reading

The Wilsonian Moment provides an interesting perspective into the period of the Paris Peace Conference, the wide acceptance of Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points by colonial people groups, and the disillusionment after the Versailles Treaty. Manela's writing is easily digestible and the book is set up in a way that would be understandable for audiences unfamiliar with the time period and the confusing state of international affairs during World War One.

This book gave me more insight into the mindset of colonial people groups during World War One, specifically their veiwpoints towards America and Wilson's presidency. I severly underestimated the global reach of Wilson's ideas and the disappointment when the policies that he preached did not come to fruition. Manela laid out an interesting argument regarding the ways that the Paris Peace Conference and the Treaty of Versailles impacted the future of international affairs and the future of the individual people groups covered.

[Matthew Rohn · Rating 4 out of 5]

A clear and well supported central argument Woodrow Wilson's proclamations about Self Determination were a big deal and taken very seriously by nationalists in , creating the possibility for a more thoroughly new world order after 1919 which the Paris peace conference failed to fulfill. The supporting material is useful but this is the kind of book where you can get the vast majority of what's important from the intro and conclusion unless you're a specialist on China, India, Korea, or Egypt. Would have liked to see deeper engagement with other trends in intellectual history within these colonies, as well as the examination of at least one colony in sub-Saharan Africa, which feels like a weird omission

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a World History teacher Manela's book helped me to globalize my understanding of World War I. Manela presents and analyzes a plethora of colonial voices protesting imperialism by invoking and appealing to Woodrow Wilson in 1918-1919. I read this while preparing a presentation of the global nature of World War I, and will be mining the book for statistics, quotations, and anecdotes to illustrate the global, and generally unintended, impact of Wilson's rhetoric.

[Pablo Martín · Rating 5 out of 5]

The voice of despair of those who believed that there really were some noble principles in the powers that were fighting for Liberty. A sad but necessary reading.

[Kris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read for Diplomatic History of the United States. As my professor had warned, it was very dense, yet lucid at the same time. Just had to take breaks to digest.

[Yukinosita Yukino · Rating 5 out of 5]

The methodology this book uses is marvelous: truly global and thoroughly social in interpreting ideas and their dissemination.

[Brandy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this for a grad class on foreign policy.

Interesting angle into Wilson, the 14 Points, and anti-colonialism/nationalism. It's surprising how much of a gap really exists in scholarship here - you'd think it'd be natural area of focus.
That being said, I think Manela's work is a good start. It's a well written book with a very interesting argument, but it doesn't seem to be wholly satisfying to everybody. A good start, but really should spark some responsive scholarship. In my particular course, people brought up questions of the impact of Bolshevism and interest in looking at cases that were not British colonies or East Asian peoples - such as sub-Saharan Africa, maybe one of the more successful Eastern European cases, Latin or South American peoples who maybe knew the United States better.
Definitely thought provoking and raises more questions than it answers, and we can debate whether that's a good or bad thing.

[Jack · Rating 4 out of 5]

Important to consider American foreign policy from outside of the US. Wilson talked about self-determination for all, and folks in Asia and Africa thought that that sounded great. And then Wilson basically said, "but really for white people." Anyone who knows anything about Wilson knows that he was a racist. But then, just about everyone was a racist then. (Perhaps it's better to say, everyone was an outspoken racist then.) The outsiders in this book still stand up and embrace nationalism. But Manela thinks that they took more radical turns because the US didn't stand behind them. Tough sell on that last part.

[Melissa Maxwell · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book was different and an unusual take on Wilson and one of his fourteen points. I never saw the link between Wilson's Self Determination and the beginning revolutions in Egypt, India, China, and Korea. This book is different and needs to be read for a better understanding of this era.

[Benemint · Rating 2 out of 5]

Too much focus on diplomats' attributes... No larger historical context, not much depth in analyzing "anti-colonial nationalism" in each case either.

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was very interesting. Definitely an angle of history that I had not studied before.

[Yunis · Rating 4 out of 5]

A idea that revolutionized the world

[Jesse Morrow · Rating 4 out of 5]

As the Great War ended, peoples under the imperial yokes of other nations faced two examples of national liberation. The first was Lenin's National Liberation through armed rebellion of the working class. The second was Woodrow Wilson's Self Determination.

The Peoples of the defeated Central Powers - especially the Austrian and Ottoman Empires - saw independence as the two empires lost the war. The "Self-Determination" of Wilson brought independence to Hungarians and Poles and Czechs and Slavs and Arabs.

However, peoples within the victorious Entente Powers' empires did not.

Any sense of Wilsonian idealism were erased by the realism of the Versailles negotiations. Manela uses four nations - Egypt, India, China and Korea - to exemplify this lack of Self Determination.

Each nation has its own complaints of Wilsonian non-compliance. In China, the Shandong province was handed from German overlord to a Japanese one. In Egypt, the independence movement was rejected by the British Empire. In India, the INC was just moving toward demand of full independence. And, in Korea, the Japanese strengthened their hold over the nation.

Wilson and his associates were little if any help toward these independence movements. The idea that India should be removed from the British crown was rejected out of hand. While Egypt was key to British plans to hold India. Meanwhile Chinese and Korean complaints were ignored to maintain Japanese support for the Treaty and the League.

In the end, there was no independence for any of these nations. It was only after the Versailles system collapsed with the Second World War that these four nations found the independence they wanted 30 years before.

Like much of the post-Versailles world, we are left to wonder what would have happened if things had been done differently in Paris.

This work in diplomatic history deserves it place as a complement to Paris 1919 and End of Order and a piece in the future failures of the Economic Consequences of the Peace and Carr's Twenty Year's Crisis.