Wilson's War: How Woodrow Wilson's Great Blunder Led to Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and World War II

by Jim Powell

The fateful blunder that radically altered the course of the twentieth century—and led to some of the most murderous dictators in history

President Woodrow Wilson famously rallied the United States to enter World War I by saying the nation had a duty to make “the world safe for democracy.” But as historian Jim Powell demonstrates in this shocking reappraisal, Wilson actually made a horrible blunder by committing the United States to fight. Far from making the world safe for democracy, America’s entry into the war opened the door to murderous tyrants and Communist rulers. No other president has had a hand—however unintentional—in so much destruction. That’s why, Powell declares, “Wilson surely ranks as the worst president in American history.”

Wilson’s War reveals the horrifying consequences of our twenty-eighth president’s fateful decision to enter the fray in Europe. It led to millions of additional casualties in a war that had ground to a stalemate. And even more disturbing were the long-term consequences—consequences that played out well after Wilson’s death. Powell convincingly demonstrates that America’s armed forces enabled the Allies to win a decisive victory they would not otherwise have won—thus enabling them to impose the draconian surrender terms on Germany that paved the way for Adolf Hitler’s rise to power.

Powell also shows how Wilson’s naiveté and poor strategy allowed the Bolsheviks to seize power in Russia. Given a boost by Woodrow Wilson, Lenin embarked on a reign of terror that continued under Joseph Stalin. The result of Wilson’s blunder was seventy years of Soviet Communism, during which time the Communist government murdered some sixty million people.

Just as Powell’s FDR’s Folly exploded the myths about Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, Wilson’s War destroys the conventional image of Woodrow Wilson as a great “progressive” who showed how the United States can do good by intervening in the affairs of other nations. Jim Powell delivers a stunning reminder that we should focus less on a president’s high-minded ideals and good intentions than on the consequences of his actions.

A selection of the Conservative Book Club and American Compass


From the Hardcover edition.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, War, World War I, Biography, American History, World War II

352 pages, Hardcover

First published March 29, 2005

About the author

Jim Powell is Senior Fellow at a libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., with which he has been associated since 1988. He has also done work for the Manhattan Institute, the Institute for Humane Studies, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the National Right to Work Committee and Americans for Free Choice in Medicine.

Powell is an author on the history of liberty. He wrote three books that reported findings about the unintended consequences of major presidential policies. Altogether he has written eight books and is perhaps best known for FDR's Folly, which has been praised by Nobel Laureates Milton Friedman and James M. Buchanan, Harvard historian David Landes and historian Thomas Fleming. Powell's books have been translated into Japanese.

Reviews

[Amora · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s pretty widely agreed that Woodrow Wilson is America’s worst president, but what’s often not talked about is how his intervention during the First World War lead to the rise of Lenin, Hitler, and Stalin and, as a result, the Second World War. He had no moral case for intervention and bribing the Provisional Government of Russia was the worst mistake Wilson made during his time in office.

[Wesley F · Rating 3 out of 5]

Woodrow Wilson is a much more controversial figure than he was when I was in high school. In history class, I learned he was among the first progressives in America, bringing about needed reforms to reign in the industrial age robber barons, protect consumers, and solidify the country's place as a world power. That portrayal was false, as this book confirms. While Wilson was indeed a leading progressive, his reforms accomplished little domestically and his foreign policy was an abysmal failure.

Jim Powell's thesis is that Wilson's blunders caused the atrocities that happened after he left office in 1920, including the rise of Communism, Nazism, and World War 2. Unfortunately, he fails to persuasively make that case. At most, he establishes that Wilson was guilty of contributory negligence during the WWI and the negotiating of the Treaty of Versailles. Wilson did not intend for Communism and Fascism to take root in Europe but his poor decisions played a role. He was one of many actors guilty of negligence, however. A more accurate title for the book would've been "How the Allies Great Blunder Led to Hitler...", etc.

A large portion of the book is a description of Europe from the late 1800s until World War 2 in 1939. Powell challenges some of details in modern history books concerning World War 1, President Wilson himself, and the horrible crimes of figures like Stalin, Lenin, and Hitler. He is persuasive and provides plenty of evidence for these areas. World War 1 was a pointless human disaster and everyone bears responsibility for what happened as well as the consequences.

Unfortunately, only about a third of the book is about Wilson's role. Powell makes a reasonable case against Wilsonian foreign policy but it is not very detailed nor comprehensive. The lesson is that interventionist foreign policy is problematic. The book was published in 2005, and was obviously a not so subtle shot at George Bush's foreign policy and neoconservatism.

The book places a lot of emphasis on Wilson's lack of understanding and general incompetence, not the flaws of his foreign policy. It is unclear whether another President would've fared much better.

Still, it is clear Wilson did nothing to "make the world safe for democracy" as he claimed. His assent to the redrawing of Europe was a horrible mistake. The use of US troops in a European war was also a mistake. Wilson did not nothing to prevent the humiliating and outrageous demands of the Treaty of Versailles, and even threw out his own ideals to ensure Germany paid for the war. Germans resented being blamed for the war as well as the debilitating sanctions. The government, weakened by the Treaty, inevitably collapsed, paving the way for radicals like Hitler.

Stable countries with reasonably competent leadership seldom fall to radicals like Hitler or Lenin. It takes an epic collapse or crippling depression to give radicals an opportunity. The Nazis were not popular until the economy fell apart in 1929-1932. The cause of the depression is loosely related to WWI and the Treaty of Versailles but had more to do with bad economic policy and the worldwide Depression that occurred. Wilson can hardly be put on the hook for that.

I also take issue with Powell's attempt to place responsibility on the US and Wilson for the horrible policies of foreign countries. The US is not responsible for bad economic policy in Europe, nor can the US do anything to prevent their election of incompetent or radical leaders. Powell is convinced by simply NOT intervening, Russia and Germany would've been better off and Hitler and Lenin would've never emerged.

History doesn't support his claim that US non-intervention benefits the world. Atrocities occur whether the US intervenes or not. World War 1 was killing people by the millions long before the US intervened. Millions were dying in Russia long before the US pressured them to stay in the war. Before Wilson, the US was largely isolationist, yet bad things happened all the time.

Overall, the book fails to make a strong case for Wilson's direct responsibility. His negligence and poor decisions contributed to the chaos afterward but the leadership of the other Allies, particularly France, share plenty of blame as well. Their negligence created the conditions necessary for monsters like Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin but no one could've foreseen the scale of the atrocities to follow.

I recommend this book for people unfamiliar with World War 1 and the mistakes of Woodrow Wilson. However, the thesis is not well supported and Powell's personal bias is evident early on.

[Robert Sparrenberger · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting take on Woodrow Wilson and the consequences of WWI. The basic premise is that Wilson entered the First World War for no solid reason. The author states that the United States was under no threat from Germany and Wilson took the U.S. Into the conflict because he wanted to practice politics and nation building at the highest levels with the fourteen points.

That being said, I've read a bio of mr Wilson and visited his museum in Staunton,Virginia. I've also read numerous books on the First World War. It's an interesting premise that the United States entering the war set off a string of events that led to the world we know today.

I totally agree with the author that when rating presidents, Woodrow Wilson is always rated near the top and I think that's a total misjudgment. The fourteen points about self determination that president Wilson presented to the world was a cruel joke. Only people Wilson deemed worthy were meant for that. Case in point is Ho Chi Minh. He showed up in paris after the war wanting freedom for Vietnam. He was turned away because he was Asian and not ready according to white guys pulling the strings. France continued its oppression of Vietnam for another 35 years and then came them United States again. Without getting into the fact that Wilson was most likely a racist to boot. Firing of African American government employees apparently doesn't move one down the list very much or showing questionable movies in the White House dealing with the KKK.

The redrawing of the map of Europe and the Middle East also turned to chaos in less than a generation no explanation needed.

The author really gets into Lenin and the Russian revolution and the rise of Hitler as further consequences of Wilsonian doctrine of getting envolved. He gets a little long winded about these two topics and delves into quite a bit of detail.

The epilogue sums up the book nicely and succinctly. He also adds a few foreign policy tidbits which I enjoyed. After reading this I couldn't help notice that the interventionist method of Wilson has continued with George Bush the younger. Surely a hold over from almost a hundred years ago. Nothing has changed and history still repeats itself.

I would recommend Paris 1919 about the peace conference and Wilson by Berg. Both excellent.

[Dan Sasi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Was Woodrow Wilson the worst president in American History? There is a very strong case for him being one of the worst 5 if not worst 3 presidents in our nations history.

Jim Powell’s Wilson’s War presents a provocative reassessment of Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, particularly his decision to enter World War I and its long-term consequences. Powell challenges the mainstream narrative of Wilson as a progressive idealist, instead portraying him as a misguided leader whose policies set the stage for some of the 20th century’s most catastrophic events.

Woodrow Wilson is a very interesting president to study. I believe he is our only president with a Phd and a phd in PoliSci nonetheless. This enables us to have real insight into his philosophical views and beliefs. With other presidents or presidential candidates, you never know what they really believe or what they are trying to sell the public. Wilson’s views of progressivism were written about extensively before he ever decided to run for office. He believed the US’ constitutional republic was inferior to Britain’s parliamentary system because it didn’t give the president enough power. Wilson also held very racist views, and that is in the context of his time not today. He brought segregation back to the White House, he restricted blacks from attending Princeton while he was president of the school and as governor of New Jersey he signed a eugenics bill into law. He also instituted the federal income tax and he created the federal reserve. What a legacy, huh?

These are all footnotes to his real legacy of Wilsonian interventionism - he thought George Washington was wrong, and in the modern age, the US’ role on the world stage was to spread democracy, irrespective of how much blood shed would be required to execute his plans. He wrote extensively about this prior to him running for office.

I could go on and on about Wilson, but this is a review of Jim Powell’s book, so back to that. If you have read extensively about nazi germany, ww2 and the Soviet Union, there isn’t much new stuff here about its weaved together in a compelling way.

Powell’s central thesis is that Wilson’s intervention in World War I not only prolonged the conflict but also contributed to destabilizing Europe, leading directly to the Treaty of Versailles. This punitive peace, Powell argues, humiliated Germany, paving the way for Adolf Hitler’s rise. Simultaneously, the war’s chaos facilitated the Bolshevik Revolution, which eventually led to the emergence of Lenin and Stalin. Powell contends that, had the United States remained neutral, the European powers might have negotiated a less destructive peace, potentially averting the rise of fascism and communism.

Historian Ian Kershaw agrees: “without a lost war, revolution, and a pervasive sense of national humiliation, Hitler would have remained a nobody…”

The Russian’s wanted out of the war, the tsar was overthrown and the provisional government came into power. The Russian’s were done, their country had been ravaged by famine, bloodshed, loss of life etc. They were on the precipice of revolution. But Wilson pushed them to stay in, with extensive loans that were desperately needed. But the US conditioned the loans of the Russians obviously staying in the fight. They pushed the Russians to launch the Grand offensive, their last military operation of the war that ended in disaster and led to the Bolsheviks pushing the provisional government out of power. And Wilson cheered on the socialist revolutionaries because …why wouldn’t he.

“There is no doubt that the launching — let alone failure — of the offensive led directly to the summer crisis which culminated in the downfall of the provisional government and the Bolshevik seizure of power.” - Orlando Figes

I really enjoyed how Powell weaved economics, cause and effect, throughout the storyline and history of 19-20th century Europe. Powell draws a sharp contrast between the relatively peaceful, prosperous period of classical liberalism during the 19th century—dominated by free markets, limited government, and minimal state interference—and the more turbulent, interventionist policies that emerged in the lead-up to World War I and beyond. Powell describes the 19th century as an era shaped by classical liberal values across much of Europe, emphasizing how economic growth, technological progress, and expanding trade flourished under minimal state intervention. Britain’s economic dominance, Germany’s industrial rise, and France’s recovery from the Napoleonic Wars are framed as products of open markets and a belief in free enterprise.

Powell argues that by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, government intervention in economic and political affairs began to erode the liberal order. European powers increasingly embraced nationalism, protectionism, and militarization, laying the groundwork for conflict. He highlights the rise of state-sponsored monopolies, subsidies, and welfare programs as signs of growing state control, which Powell sees as precursors to more aggressive foreign policies and interventionist tendencies.

The German Empire under Otto von Bismarck serves as a key example in Powell’s narrative. Bismarck’s policies—such as social insurance programs and tariffs—are portrayed as deviations from classical liberalism, contributing to tensions that would later erupt into global conflict. Powell also points to France’s economic nationalism and the United States’ gradual shift away from isolationism as part of this broader pattern of interventionist drift.

In his conclusion, Powell lays out the first principles that he believes, ought to guide our foreign policy. 1. Defend America, 2. Stay out of other people’s wars, 3. Don’t try and build other peoples nations and 4. Free and open markets create prosperity and peace, America should be the shining light on the hill it once was by setting the world example here.

A quote from Powell, which I couldn’t agree with more. If we want peace, freedom and prosperity, we should push our leaders to acknowledge this

“The worst US foreign policy disasters of the past century have been consequences of Wilsonian interventionism. Critics have been dismissed as “isolationists”, but the fact is that Wilsonian interventionism has dragged the US into pointless wars and ushered revolution, terror, runaway inflation, dictatorships and mass murder. It’s time to judge Wilsonian interventionism by its consequences, not the good intentions expressed in political speeches, because they haven’t worked out.”
- Jim Powell, Wilson’s War

[Anna · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wilson's War is an interesting read, but Powell does not make a very compelling argument for his main thesis that “No other U.S. president has had a hand – however unintentional – in so much destruction. Wilson surely ranks as the worst president in American History.” Powell’s book is significantly different from other more traditional books about U.S. presidencies which highlight facts about the lives of the men in office. Wilson’s War only briefly talks about President Wilson’s personal history. In fact, there are only about four pages which highlight Wilson’s life, and his presidency for that matter, outside of information relevant to the First World War. The book is intently focused on the singular issue of the reasons and consequences of President Woodrow Wilson’s decision to involve the United States in “The Great War.”

Powell quickly turns the reader’s attention, in the first chapter to directly inculpate Wilson for numerous offenses perpetrated in the twentieth century. The blame, so to speak, rests squarely on Wilson’s “arrogant” decision to leave behind the isolationist policies of the past, and pursue entrance into World War I. Wilson’s view that he could “make the world safe for democracy” was one which Powell felt only fed his own ego. As a result, Powell credits him with causing the emergence of the Soviet Union and the Third Reich and all of the resulting atrocities thereof. And, obviously, one cannot blame Wilson for the rise of the Soviet Union and Germany, without also charging him with causing World War II, and the Cold War.

Amidst the various arguments which Powell puts forth as the reasons why the United States should not have been involved in World War I, it is a bit frustrating that he practically ignores the traditional reasoning behind Wilson’s decision to engage the United States in Europe. Even if one takes into account the fact that the Allied Powers were not entirely blameless in regard to the conflict in Europe and that it was wrong for the United States to conceal its intentions, one cannot discount the fact that the Central Powers took direct action against the United States. In this sense, Powell’s book is an attempt at revisionist history. He is essentially asking the reader to disregard popular ideology which asserts that Wilson decided to enter World War I on a number of other, more concrete, pretenses.

As a result, his argument produces a number of questions which must be asked. Should the sinking of the Lusitania, which killed 128 Americans, and the sinking of American merchant ships in the Atlantic, have been ignored? Even if Wilson’s interests lay in arrogant visions of himself as a grand player on the international political scene, as Powell suggested, were not the actions of the Central Powers against the United States measures directly warranting American involvement in World War I?

Furthermore, if the Zimmerman telegram was, in fact, what it was supposed to be, should this have just been disregarded as well? The Zimmerman telegram essentially was an invitation from the Central Powers to Mexico to wage war with the U.S. One can also look at this situation and determine that this alone could be considered an act of war.

One cannot completely discount the idea that the way in which Wilson went about involving the United States in Europe was certainly not without flaws. However, when looking at the complete picture of what was going on in the United States prior to its involvement in the war, it is reasonable to surmise that America could not have remained neutral throughout the conflict under any circumstance. In this way, Wilson’s War asks the reader to assign entirely too much blame to the actions of a single man.

Powell points out several factors which indicate the possibility that the Allies would have achieved victory, without United States intervention. By 1918, the Germans were literally starving to death because of the British blockades in the North Sea. This was compounded by the fact that there was a massive influenza epidemic which devastated the German population. At the same time, the Allied Powers defeated the Germans in their last offensive, without the full deployment of United States forces. Taking all of this information into consideration, Powell is unable to provide evidence that the Allied Powers would not have been able to achieve eventual victory, despite the stalemate on the Western Front.

Time after time, Powell challenges the reader to recognize the contradiction in his theory which points out that Wilson’s decision to enter World War I was the sole cause of years of destructive subsequent history. Because Powell wished to tackle such a divisive topic as this, one would hope that his support for such an argument would include more concrete evidence. Additionally, as if these points were not enough, he furthers the contrary nature of his thesis by discussing preceding European history, and spends a great deal of time talking about pre-war conditions in Europe which lead to the onset of World War I.

An entire chapter is devoted to an in-depth pre-war history lesson, which sheds some light on the real causes of World War I. However, if one had just read the insert describing Wilson’s War, they would probably reach the conclusion that pre-World War I history had nothing to do with the outcome of the war. Powell still asserts that it was Wilson who influenced years of destruction, but he begins by describing the consequences of the Napoleonic Wars, and ends with the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This entire chapter can be seen as theory which contradicts Powell’s thesis.

He begins by telling the story of the Napoleonic Wars and how they affected relations throughout Europe for years to come. In Napoleon’s quest to build an empire, he gave birth to a problem in Prussia (and later in the German Empire) which would continue well into the twentieth century. Powell contends that “The consequences of the Napoleonic wars, were devastating as they played out decades later in Prussia and throughout Europe.”

The Napoleonic Wars cut Prussian lands in half, but generated a highly efficient Prussian army. Resultantly, Otto Von Bismark, the “founder and first chancellor of the German Empire,” assumed power and made it his mission to expand German territory. Otto Von Bismark and the German Empire generated the escalating tension in Europe which would see itself through to World War I.

Amidst the friction generated by Germany, was the British empire who was seeking to expand its imperialist hold on Europe. Things in Russia were equally as unstable, and as a result, relations between European nations grew more strained. Secrecy and interventionist foreign policy flourished, and Powell surmises that European history in between the Napoleonic wars and World War I, was marked by trade wars, arms races, and national hatred.

Therefore, it is no surprise that by the time war broke out 1914, it happened with the expectation and anticipation of most Europeans. Finally, Powell points out that a number of political leaders in Europe made mistakes in their actions and policy, which leads his readers to the beginning of the war. He states: “The war began with an assassination and a series of miscalculations.”

As a result of what is said in this chapter, Powell again leaves a number of unanswered questions in regard to his main thesis. Why does Powell afford errors in judgment to European leaders, and not to Woodrow Wilson? Why does Woodrow Wilson assume a greater portion of responsibility for the rise of the Third Reich and Soviet Union, and the onset of World War II and the Cold War, than characters such as Napoleon and Otto Von Bismark? These are questions which Powell fails to comprehensively answer.

One must admit that the main idea of Jim Powell’s Wilson’s War is one which is quite intriguing: all of the major twentieth century tragedies in Western history were brought about by the decision of one man to enter a war. Powell blames Woodrow Wilson for the Third Reich, Soviet Union, World War II, and the Cold War. However, Powell’s argument for indicting Wilson with these charges falls short of proving this point; he ignores European historical influences, and possible outcomes of the war in order to assign guilt to Wilson. As a result, Wilson’s War can only be viewed as a sub-par piece of revisionist history. Perhaps if Powell had made a more compelling argument, more scholars would agree that Woodrow Wilson should be ranked as the worst president of all time.

[Bruce]

I have only read 53 pages of this book and I don't thing I can get any farther. It is a Neo-Conservative screed. Let me get this straight: in the prologue and chapter one the author claims all the world’s present problems are a direct result of Woodrow Wilson, a "progressive" the author points out, because he took us into World War One. World War One occurred because of Napoleon’s ravaging of the European country side. World War One marked the end of a glorious era of peace that began after the defeat of Napoleon. Laissez-faire was introduced and okay until liberals got the government involved. The unification of Italy and Germany caused their farmers and workers to demand ever higher tariffs on foreign products. This led to an arms race.
In late 19th century American “progressive” Ida M. Tarbell wrote a worshipful biography of Napoleon and therefore American “progressives” had a blind spot for the perils of political power.
There were entangling alliances, secret treaties and national hatreds, then fatal miscalculations.
Author Jim Powell’s bold assessment on page 52: "None of this was inevitable. If the horrors of the Napoleonic Wars had remained fresh in people’s minds—rather than having conquests glorified by “progressives”—and if the laissez-faire policies of Richard Cobden and John Bright had been continued, there never would have been a world war.”
The slant of the screed is all the more obvious by the author always putting the word "progressive" in quotes.

[Bill Gunn · Rating 3 out of 5]

The single concept that this book drives home is that entangling alliances between nations have dire short term and long term consequences. The often overlooked reality that manipulation of markets by government and empire building (nation building) always lead to conflict are points that are well presented in this book. Had Russia, Germany, Britain, France and other nations not aligned themselves and committed themselves to the defense of each other, made trade agreements in order to bolster their abilities to profit and acquire more lands, WWI would have been nothing more than regional retribution for an assassination, and even that may not have transpired.
Powell presents compelling arguments for holding Wilson in poor esteem, but his assumption that evil men would not have risen otherwise is poorly founded. He also empowers Wilson beyond his actual scope of influence.

[Sean Rosenthal · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting Quote:

"None of the belligerents [in WWI] had clean hands, so it just wasn't possible to make a credible moral case for American intervention. If Wilson backed the British, French, and Belgians, he would have enabled them to seek vengeance against the Germans and protect their empires...If Wilson backed the Germans, he would have enabled them to build an empire and seek vengeance against their adversaries."

-Jim Powell, Wilson's War

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book first came on my radar while listening to the Dangerous History podcast megaseries on Woodrow Wilson (extremely dense but worth a listen), as CJ referenced it a couple times throughout. While I'm sympathetic to the idea that Powell was trying to make, I think it was a case of 'good idea, poor execution'. The thesis Powell was putting forward is that America's intervention in WWI was unnecessary and harmful as it lead to German defeat, the punitive punishment at Versailles also due to Wilson's hubris, the Bolveshik victory in the Russian Revolution, all of which set the stage for the rise of Hitler and Stalin, and ultimately WWII.

However it felt a bit forced and poorly researched. Little things like referring to the Austro-Hungarian Empire fighting Napoleon (an entity that didn't exist until decades later) maybe minor, but gave me the impression of an American historian somewhat ignorant of European history. Powell's biases as a libertarian are also evident when, for example, he compares Germany to city states like Singapore, or his worship of free trade. 'Wilson's War' not all bad though and has some good nuggets. The best chapter in my opinion was the one around the Russian Civil War, and the role that the Entente and US played in pressuring the collapsing country into continuing the fighting. This is a particular black mark on Wilsonian and Anglo-French strategy that doesn't get enough attention, and is a good illustration of this line of thinking's ignorance of 2nd and 3rd order effects, of which we still see to this day. Overall, it might still be worth a read if you want to understand when America started seeing itself as a revolutionary state with a duty to carry out a role of 'liberal interventionism' around the world.

[John Considine · Rating 5 out of 5]

A good read for those lovers of history who have been fed the crap fed to us in high school and college. Powell isn't afraid to blame the current state of bad US foreign policy on Wilson and his disciples.

[Mike Glaser · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting read that challenges the standard historical view of Woodrow Wilson. While I do not agree with everything that the author concludes, I do believe that Wilson was one of our worst presidents.

[Suzie Quint · Rating 2 out of 5]

I generally really like Jim Powell's books, but this one never quite hooked me.

[Provere · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting in parts but not consistent.

I thought the book tended to wander rather far afield in spots and managed to miss significant parts of the story.

[Earl Ballard · Rating 5 out of 5]

definitely a good transition book for a reader like myself reading about WWI and WWII. Gives a good high level summary of WWI and how we then got into WWII. Great read.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

When the history of the West is written, World War I may be seen as the beginning of its end. The more one studies history, the more one becomes aware of the magnitude of this tragedy. The repercussions of it that have yet to finally play themselves out. Alternative histories are necessarily, and at best, only informed speculation, but had the United States not intervened, what was essentially a European civil war would have been worked out by the Europeans. A reasonable argument can be made that the settlement would have been more equitable, and thus more stable and the consequences less damaging and far reaching than they turned out to be. The twentieth century was the most bloody, violent and repressive century in Western history when measured by the magnitude of suffering, especially when compared to what might have been. Things could have turned out differently, and would have had not the United States become involved in the war. And Woodrow Wilson is the person who was ultimately responsible for that involvement.

Lacking the perspective of hindsight, of course, Woodrow Wilson could not have foreseen the dire consequences his good intentions would have. But the proverbial road to hell is paved with good intentions. Subsequent leaders (our "best and brightest") would be well advised to remember that the best of motives can precipitate the worst of unforeseen calamities, and exercise due humility. A deadly combination often forms when the desire to "help" combines with the arrogant confidence in one's plans to effectively do so.

[R. Jones · Rating 1 out of 5]

Utter garbage. This is revisionist history at best, and a neo-conservative manifesto at worst. From the first few pages, I knew I was going to disagree with the author, but I was still excited to learn something, and to even read about a viewpoint that I had maybe not considered. This was not meant to be; it quickly grew apparent - I'm talking about the first few dozen pages - that every fact in Powell's book was covered in a thick, oily sheen of political agenda. Wilson's War contains disingenuous vocabulary, intellectual dishonesty, and naked ad hominem arguments. I regret the four dollars I paid for this book, and I no longer respect the man who's book list recommended it.

I dare not give or even throw this book away, for fear of inflicting a terrible curse on its recipient. I could burn it, but I'm worried about choking on its noxious fumes. But what alternative do I have? I'd be humiliated to have it on my bookshelf.

[Edward · Rating 1 out of 5]

As much as I am critical of Wilson's policies, I find the author's accusations to be too much. Woodrow Wilson becomes solely responsible almost for the Second World War, rather than being a key architect in the new world order that would fail to prevent it. The author does a disservice to his objective by marginalizing the failures of others within the Post-Versailles system that could have contained Hitler and preserved the Weimar Republic. Further more, he blames "Wilsonianism" for plenty of other foreign policy disasters, which I think is not really the fault of the man who deceased decades ago by the time of Vietnam. I blame Wilson for much more tangible things, like excluding Republicans in the delegation, which can be argued to lead to the Senate's rejection of the treaty. The author should definitely consider revising his work so that he doesn't stretch his thesis too far.

[The American Conservative]

'We often hear of the unintended consequences of government intervention into the economy. For example, attempts to lower the price of milk by means of price controls will lead to shortages of milk. In Wilson’s War, Jim Powell is at pains to demonstrate that foreign intervention, too, has its unintended consequences—hence his book’s provocative subtitle.'

Read the full review, "Making the World Safe - Again," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...

[Greg Hoyle · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fantastic look at the devastating results of Wilson's interventionist strategy and subsequent entrance into the bloody and stalemated European War. Consequences not the least of which would be the rise of three of the most deadly and wicked dictators the world has ever known. One would think that current Presidents would learn from this tragic foreign policy. Instead, many chose to repeat history and involve us in foregin wars like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. Long live Wilsonian foreign policy!

[Alicia · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book very informative. I'm not sure that I agree with everything that author says. I appreciate that facts presented. I did have a hard time following some of it, as he skipped around mentioning timelines: they were not consecutive.

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good book. The author makes a good argument that Hitler and Lenin would have never come to power if Wilson didn't make the decision to enter into World War 1. Pretty big mistake if you ask me. The whole 20th century would have been much different.

[Anthony · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some useful historic information but disjointed in relation ot it's title.

[Lisa Tangen · Rating 4 out of 5]

the US should have never gotten into WWI...Wilson was a meddling know-it-all

[Edward Gregory Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

Outstanding scholarship. Very accessible. Articulate prose. Good read.