Book Review - Fleming

The Illusion of Victory

At around five hundred pages, Fleming's The Illusion of Victory was daunting at first glance. I didn't really know what the book was about, other than it had to do with America's role in WWI. The back of the book gave a broad overview of what it would encompass, but I was under the impression that it was the typical history book, detailing all the different steps of America's involvement over a broad range of general knowledge. Once I began reading it, I realized that the entire book revolves around Wilson and his policies. For all intents and purposes, this is a biography.

The first chapter set the pace and delivered an effective narrative of the events surrounding Wilson during his declaration of war. At first, I felt that there seemed to exist a level of discontinuity as to the sequence of events. For instance, with little forewarning, the book switches from Wilson about to give his address that would declare America's entrance into the war, to a Tribune story that covers the hostility towards Wilson. It then shifts to such topics as Wilson's personal habits and moods and Colonel House's role in Wilson's decision making. At first, I felt this was distracting, but I began to realize that Fleming is slowly exposing the reader to a broad cross-section of what was going on at the time. Often times, books focus primarily upon one topic before moving on to the next one. While it is perhaps more organizationally sound, there are times that my mind begins to wander with the extent of the details, some of which can become monotonous. Fleming's tactic of spreading the information out over broad sections kept me interested, and the short segments made it easy to pick up the book and read a few pages without feeling daunted by the sheer size of the book.

Fleming adds in many side stories that kept me on my toes. I never really knew what to expect at each section, but many of these stories brought out the humanity of what was going on. For instance, one segment focused on Marian Baldwin and her fellow canteen worker, Alice. He tells an interesting story about how they went with their 148^th^ regiment all the way to the front, in order to support their troops. They were constantly turned back, but still managed to support them during their time in combat, giving out tobacco, chocolate and water. However, they also realized that many of the men they were supporting were not coming back, and there is a level of tragedy to it all, ending with the quote, "Our hearts were pretty heavy as we crept into out blankets." (277) These side stories are essential in grounding the reader to the more personal costs of battle. Personally, I think Fleming does a superb job of balancing his duty as an historian to provide critical information while keeping the reader entertained. He writes ina narrative style, and I believe he is more effective than many other WWI historians.

When I read about a single topic, especially in history, I often lose sight of the bigger picture. There is a tendency to get so engrossed in one specific subject that it is difficult to break out and understand how it is shaped by what is going on in the rest of the world. For instance, I read a biography on Andrew Jackson, and while it was well written, it seemed as if the world outside of Jackson's realm did not even exist. There was no introduction or explanation to the larger context of his decisions or perspective from anyone else's view (were native American views less irrelevant?). On the other hand, Fleming slowly brings in some of the major players that both precede and succeed Wilson. Entire sections are devoted to powerbrokers such as Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge and Robert La Follette. More importantly, he presents a clear path to the rise of the next generation, including FDR and Douglas MacArthur, but does so inauspiciously. It is refreshing to see how some of these powerful future leaders made their journey, and it puts Wilson's decisions into the larger historical narrative.

All of the world leaders played a role in the war, and while the majority of the fighting was in Europe and the surrounding areas (North Africa, Middle East, etc.), America was a late entry. Because of this, America never really had the credibility to push their agenda in the same way of those who had lost the most, and Fleming makes a very clear argument to this regard. On the American front, Fleming is also quite critical of Wilson, but at the same time he balances the criticism with acknowledgement of the difficulty being in his position. In Fleming's opinion, historians have for too long glossed over the very characteristics that failed Wilson. He works to bring them back to the limelight, and argues that Wilson's failure was due more to his poor leadership skills rather than his ideas themselves.

Fleming makes the point that "The most dangerous aspect of American idealism is its tendency to become utopian, to propose as ideals a foreign policy or political reforms or a world order that ignores the realities of the way men and women-and nations-live and prosper" (478). This quote sums up his view of Wilson, and I think it is quite accurate. There was a disconnect between Wilson and both his subjects and peers. Wilson thought the world would work to make his ideas reality, but he never figured out how to work with the rest of the world. Interestingly, Fleming makes the point that "Wilson was not a very profound thinker or a good historian" (477). From earlier reading, I had been under the assumption that Wilson was a good academic (he was president of Princeton University), but unfortunately, I have not had the chance to read his works first-hand. I probably cannot speak knowledgeably about this, but I know when I read about some of his general ideas, such as the disconnect between creating policies and implementing them, the need for simplicity in government and constitutional liberties, I see very agreeable and rational opinions. Ironically, Fleming names Wilson's predecessor Theodore Roosevelt as one of the better historians, despite TRs blunt personality. I do not know if I can stand fully behind Fleming in claiming that Wilson was not a great, or at least solid, academic, I will let others who have actually read his work argue that point. However, the argument involving idealism is a valid criticism that I do not think Wilson could overcome. Wilson never learned how to work with others or understand his audience, and this simple void had powerful implications for the future.

Fleming writes a very compelling book that revolves around Woodrow Wilson to explain America's entrance and experience in WWI. His ability to delve into what made Wilson and what ultimately failed him, coupled with his surroundings and fellow confidants paints a scathing, yet rational picture of the man. While Fleming admittedly does not hold Wilson in high esteem, he does provide sufficient background information that allowed me to make my own decisions about this powerful, yet controversial man. Overall, the book provided more than what I expected. With its narrative format, it kept me interested and spread the vast amount of information into smaller anecdotes.