Michael H. answered • 01/15/20
In-depth knowledge combined with clunky use of technology!
This is a very broad question! Please bear in mind that teachers generally want answers that reflect things that were discussed in class and answers that are supported by facts or quotes from the class readings. Therefore I can only give you some ideas to consider and develop into an answer.
Let me assume that we are talking about the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. The biggest difference between Wilson and the other leaders is that Wilson -- not absolutely, but to a great extent more than the others -- was a "disinterested" negotiator who was fighting for a set of principles he believed in, rather than for his own country's national interest. Again, however, I must emphasize that this is not absolute. Because America did not border any European country, American interests dovetailed very nicely with Wilson's carefully reasoned principles. For example, America benefitted from free trade, and Wilson believed in freedom of navigation and frowned upon colonialism. But on the other hand, the other leaders really did have to pay closer attention to securing the borders of their own countries and to public opinion within their countries -- and they had no interest whatsoever in Wilson's high-fallutin', new-fangled ideas.
France, Britain, and Italy had lost a far greater proportion of their young men and their country's wealth to the war than America had. America, remember, only got into the war toward its end - and shared no border with the combatant countires. France itself had been a battleground. The priority for its leader, Georges Clemenceau, was to prevent Germany from ever invading France again. Britain had lost its fortune, hundreds of thousands of men, and its preeminent place in the world order. David Lloyd George, the prime minister, wanted Germany to pay. Wilson, on the contrary, had a set of ideas for making peace permanent, his 14 points. There were to be no more secret treaties, there would be a league of nations to resolve disputes, etc. But remember, America had lost fewer men than the other major combants, had risen to world dominance, and had actually made money during the war!
A second distinction that must be noted is that Wilson really wasn't a people-person. Unlike the prime minister of Britain, the American president does not have to earn his bona-fides as a senior memeber of the legislature and cabinets; he is chosen by a completely separate process to head a completely independent branch of government. Consequently, he doesn't always get along well with Congress -- or with foreign leaders. Wilson was an extreme case. He seemed to think that if he had better ideas and stronger arguments than his colleagues, then they should listen to him and go along with what he proposed! Of course, real people don't obey that way. Actual people have their own desires and ideas and can be stubborn as mules. Clemenceau was very stubborn indeed. Lloyd-George was happy to negotiate -- but he was crafty and would try to manouver things to come out his way.
In the end, nobody got what he wanted. The U.S. Senate declined to join the League of Nations; Britain lost her hegemony and became poor; and Germany again invaded France about two decades after the Peace Conference.
One other characteristic of Wilson's -- one that has become very popular to write about -- he was a racist He promoted self-determination as one -- I think the first -- of his 14 points, believing that people should choose their own governments; but this prescription did not extend to countries in Africa or Asia. For example, the leader of the people of Viet Nam, which was then a colony of France, wrote to Wilson to plead for his country's independence, but nothing came of that whatsoever. If Wilson even saw the letter, he ignored it. Again, Wilson did not object too strongly to letting Japan, who - like France or Italy - was one of the Allies, keep her colonies in China -- and take over defeated Germany's colonies in China, too! There was never any serious discussion of giving them back to the Chinese people so that they could choose their own government, as Wilson ostensibly believed every people has the right to do.
There you have a few things to think about. If any of them sound familiar from class, then feel free to write about it yourself, and find some passages in your readings to prove it. I hope this helps. If you want to see a video about it all, watch An Ocean Apart, episode one: Hats Off to Mr. Wilson on YouTube. You may also wish to reference Margarette McMillan's excellent history book: Paris 1919.
