ces only an accident? Historians have developed different views of this question, some seeing Wilson as out-maneuvered, some seeing him as having sold out his principles in service of ending the war. An examination of these different views shows the range of opinion on this matter.
One view of Wilson's participation is offered by Robert Lansing, the negotiator Wilson replaced at the conference. Wilson is not stating that the President did not work hard or take an important role; rather, he argues that the President should not have been at the conference at all. One might take this view with a grain of salt given that Wilson replaced Lansing at the conference, but many others have expressed the same belief. Lansing states that Wilson was in the driver's seat without going to the conference at all because the other participants knew that the United States had turned the tide leading to victory. Once Wilson was at the conference, Lansing believes that he served a particular role--he wanted to maintain the position of unbiased arbiter, and at the same time, Germany looked to him as the one hope of limiting the spirit of revenge which animated the other allied powers. Lansing believes this would have been the case even if Wilson had stayed in Washington:
If he remained in Washington and carried on the negotiations through his Commissioners, he would in all probability retain his superior place and be able to dictate such terms of peace as he considered just. But, if he did as he purposed doing and attended the Peace Conference, he would lose the unique position which he held and would have to submit to the combined will of his foreign colleagues becoming a prey to intrigue and to the impulses arising from their hatred for the vanquished nations.
Richard M. Watt also sees the ultimate failure of the Peace Conference as the result of Wilson's decision to attend, and he calls this the first and most crucial of the mistakes d...