Was Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations achievable?

The ever positive and idealistic Woodrow Wilson envisioned a League of Nations that would create a long and lasting peace in Europe. His speech of January 1918 where he listed his 14 Points to how Europe could rebuild itself after World War 1 and create an atmosphere of peace and prosperity while idealistic was, you could argue, light years ahead of his time and something we strive for still.

But was he too far ahead of his time, were his ideas actually achievable? Were the American public and the Republican Congress ever going to vote for a Christian Democrat who had previously won his election on the slogan of "he kept us out of the war"?

Wilson was so horrified at the thought of the slaughter house that Europe had turned into that he felt quite passionately that it was the role of the civilised countries to create a situation where this could never happen again.

Wilsons' first point is...

"Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view."

It is quite understandable where Wilson came to the conclusion that all peace deals should be conducted publically and there should be no private international "understandings". If you consider how the First World War became the slaughterhouse it did and an international conflict rather than a small war between two countries, it was because of the Alliances system. So you can really see where Wilson was coming from when he said that there should be no underhand deals between countries.

Wilsons' fourth point of "adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety." is again something that relates almost directly to the causes of the war. The build up of armaments such as the Dreadnought and the ensuing competition between Germany and Britain led to both alliance systems having such a store of weapons that it made it easier to declare war. If neither party has the ability to go to war on an industrial scale then there is a natural deterrent and more of a reason to try to solve international conflicts with diplomatic measures rather than military solutions.

Wilson's tenth point of "The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development." is linked both to the causes of World War 1 and to the anti-colonial sentiments held by America. The European desire to build large Empires was linked directly to the short term cause of the war and also was likely to continue conflicts on after the war. The progressive attitude that Wilson held was key in supporting smaller countries finding their independence with the support of larger, less imperialistic nations.

But was he ever going to succeed? Were America and Europe too bitter after the fighting and devastation of the war to look to a peaceful conclusion? Both France and Britain were seeking some sort of retribution, on a different scale as France had been physically devastated, but still both parties were looking for some sort of punishment for Germany.

Three years after his speech, congress voted against his League of Nations. You don't really wonder why, the League would have been almost completely pointless. Germany and Russia were not to be included which would have meant that two countries likely to be involved in further disputes due to their lack of inclusion in the Paris Peace Conferences of 1919, would not have had their say in furhter negotiations. The League was reluctant to use their second tool of imposing economic sanctions on countries due to the fear of pushing countries further into debt and closer to the arms of the communists who were sweeping across Russia and potentially the rest of Europe.

The biggest blow to the ability of the League to take charge of Europe's political disputes and come to a peaceful conclusion was that America did not join. Despite Wilson's optimism and idealistic approach to politics, he was unable to convince either Congress or the American public to join.

Should Wilson have lowered his sights and actually come up with a solution that was more likely to be accepted by the US Congress thus enabling America to maintain peaceful solutions to conflicts in Europe? If he had compromised on his 14 points and maybe come to a vote sooner than 1921 would he have been able to prevent the financial devastation in Europe and therefore the rise of the dictators, thus preventing World War 2? The League would not have been able to prevent the financial crisis caused by the Wall Street Crash but they could have supported countries in financial ways to prevent the devastation that hit Germany and other Eurpean nations.

What do you think? Was Wilson too optimistic? Should he have been more realistic and in-tune with the feelings of his European counterparts?