Journal of Unification Studies Volume VIII - 2007
When World War One ended in November 1918, American president Woodrow Wilson was the man of the hour. Standing on a victorious world foundation, Wilson wanted to create a new world order -- a brotherhood of nations called the League of Nations. Wilson was inspired by Providence to take the American national foundation of democracy and expand it substantially on the world level. This is in accord with the Divine Principle’s assertion that the age of absolute monarchy should give way to democracy:
We recall that the purpose of monarchic society was to construct a kingdom which could support the Messiah. When this dispensation was not accomplished, God began a process that would eventually tear down monarchies. In their place, God raised up democracies in order to commence a new providence for rebuilding a sovereign nation fit to receive the Messiah.
Wilson entered the First World War “to make the world safe for democracy.” America at the time was an ‘associate power’ in league with the entente powers of France and Great Britain. Seeing himself ultimately as a mediator between the entente powers and the central powers of Germany and Austro-Hungary, Wilson wanted a peace based on his so-called Fourteen Points, which were designed for a lasting peace between brotherly nations rather than a vindictive peace. Thus World War I was to be “the war to end all wars.” It is this writer’s view that had Wilson’s program been realized, the history of restoration could have been consummated at that time. In other words, the biblical Last Days -- from 1920 to 2000 -- should have begun amidst very positive political changes. It was the divine Will that the Messiah should have been born in this restored Eden-like world environment.
This paper is based on the premise that it was never God’s intention that the Messiah must personally confront and overcome such difficult issues as militant nationalism, atheistic communism and the collapse of Idealism with the onslaught of secularism and relativism. The Paris Peace Conference that concluded the First World War (1919-1921) should have removed many of these unfortunate obstacles to world peace and prepared the way for the coming Lord: making straight paths for him.
Many promising new beginnings did occur as a result of the First World War. Muslim Arabs for example, had worked together with the Christian West to liberate their land from the Turks. Military leaders from the West respected Muslim culture and restored many historical transgressions between the two great faiths. Japan and Germany could also have been exemplary nation members in the new Wilsonian world. Moreover, Korea and many other oppressed peoples surely could have gained their national autonomy under Wilson’s principle of self-determination. Independent states would have acted in harmony and unity with each other as equal member states in the democratic League of Nations. A spiritual renaissance should have emerged to extinguish extreme nationalism, Bolshevism and racism (e.g. social Darwinism). This is difficult to imagine now because of the trademark tragedies of the twentieth century -- genocide, communism, and third-world poverty.
What happened to all these wonderful possibilities for world peace? Why did they not bear fruit? In the last forty years of the 400-year Period of Preparation for the Second Advent, Korea opened up its country to the West. This paper will look inside Korea for the initial causes: Korea failed to inherit the Christian and democratic foundations of Western Civilization due to the mistakes of its Royal family. The West too has its share of errors, especially at the Paris Peace Conference. A Korean delegation was refused admittance. The entente powers did not support Wilson’s Idealism. France wanted a vindictive settlement against Germany. The American congress never supported the League of Nations.
When I began this study, my focus was mainly on the war itself and the miserable peace treaty afterwards. But the research began to show me that the historical tragedies in Korea actually prompted the need for the First World War from a more internal and providential point of view. From this viewpoint, the obstinacy of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany and the ambitions of Imperial Japan became less important and functioned more like consequences, effects analogous to the Old Testament judgments on Israel from outside heathen nations. This is different than the way conventional historians look at and analyze history: What they view as causes (e.g. aggressive Germany and Japan), the restorational perspective on history views as effects of a deeper cause: i.e., lack of faith and internal disunity.
I have come to the conclusion that just as Abraham failed in his offering and the dispensation was extended into three successive generations, so in like manner the First World War was a failed offering and the dispensation was extended into three successive world wars in three successive generations. On first impression, this seems to contradict the Divine Principle, which states the need for three successive world wars:
The restoration of this world requires that it first be divided into Cain-type and Abel-type worlds, and that there be three final wars in which the heavenly, Abel-type world prevails over the satanic Cain-type world.
This was true from the vantage point of 1952 when the first Divine Principle was written -- two world wars had already taken place and one more was underway. Although this paper agrees with the Divine Principle teachings of Reverend Sun Myung Moon, it nonetheless asserts that God’s providence for “The Great War” (as it was once called before a number was attached to it) could have accomplished world-level Cain and Abel reconciliation in one singular successful war. Even in its own day, World War I was called “the war to end all wars.” It had this mission. By its successful conclusion, Satan would have been expelled conditionally from the world. Then the Messiah could have cleansed the world unconditionally of all satanic claims whatsoever and set up God’s Kingdom of Heaven on the Earth.
This paper is divided up into four parts:
Part I looks at Korea during the period between 1880 and 1920, a forty-year period when the Korean people were to inherit the internal Christian and external democratic foundations of Western Civilization via America, as preparation for the birth and well-being of the messiah in Korea.
Part II looks at the United States during the period between 1865 and 1920 when the country reunited and moved to the world stage. Providence was leading America to becoming a Pacific power with commitments to people in the Far East, namely Korea.
Part III looks at the providential significance of the First World War and America’s role as the central nation for the Foundation of Faith and the Foundation of Substance to prepare a World Foundation for the Messiah.
Part IV looks at the lost opportunity for the complete consummation of the history of restoration afforded by the Paris Peace Conference in 1919.
When a providential nation like Korea undergoes ruthless oppression, there exists an internal reason or ‘condition’ for the satanic ‘invasion.’ Even in ancient Israel, the internal cause for outside empires like Egypt, Assyria or Babylon to attack, destroy and conquer Israel was due to Israel’s own sins, usually perpetrated by the King and royal family. In Korea, there was also a royal family who did not act in the best interests of its people or God’s Providence.
In 1882, Korea entered into a treaty with the United States, the first Western power to establish formal diplomatic ties with Korea. In the treaty, America pledged to defend Korea’s national sovereignty from any outside threat:
ART. I -- There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between the President of the United States and the King of Chosen and the citizens and subjects of their respective Governments. If other Powers deal unjustly or oppressively with either Government the other will exert their good offices, on being informed of the case, to bring about an amicable arrangement, thus showing their friendly feelings.
As we will see, America failed to back up its words with actions. But in this 40-year time interval, the Korean monarchy also failed to cultivate a well-seasoned lasting relationship with America that could have strengthened America’s resolve to defend Korea.
In the last 40 years of the 400-year Period of Preparation for the Messiah, Korea was to inherit the internal and external foundation of Western civilization, which God had been working through in the New Testament Age. Unfortunately, between 1880 and 1920, the Korean king failed on three occasions to open up his country to democracy and Christianity. The king stubbornly held on to a ‘top-down’ absolutism that hindered Korea from inheriting the Abel-type view of life.
The first opportunity came in 1882. The king had just come of age to rule directly. As a youth, his father, Tai Won Kun had ruled on his behalf as Regent. The Regent was the son’s physical father. Having no heir, the previous Korean monarch adopted Tai Won Kun’s son.
Russia was advancing towards Korea from the north. Japan was modernizing and becoming more powerful, seeking its former suzerainty over Korea in place of China. French Catholic missionaries were infiltrating into the country to convert Koreans to the western religion. Korea had two alternatives: oppose all foreigners as had been the policy under the Regent Tai Won Kun or make treaties with the foreigners. The young king chose to make treaties in opposition to the Regent’s and Korea’s traditional isolationist policy.
America appeared most promising: it promoted the Open Door Policy in the Far East for unrestricted trade. America did not want to become a colonial empire and the Open Door approach honored Korean, Chinese and Japanese independence. Thus, the king was prepared to open the Hermit Kingdom to Western commerce and America as its new protectorate. “For 500 years we have carefully guarded our coasts to prevent intercourse with foreigners, therefore we have seen and heard but little of other people,” wrote the king in a formal dispatch to the people. The king continued:
In Europe and America many wonderful things have been invented; they are all wealthy countries… I am about to make treaties with England, America and Germany. For this change I am abused by all the scholars and people in the kingdom, yet I bear it patiently, knowing there is nothing to be ashamed of.
When the king signed the American-Korean Treaty of 1882, he wanted Western goods and American protection but not Christianity and democracy. The king firmly believed in absolute monarchy and the suppression of the Christian faith:
We can be friendly without accepting their religion… If some stupid, empty-headed people should learn and believe the foreign doctrines, we have an unalterable law by which they must die and may not be pardoned, so that it will be easy to get rid of that religion.
This was the first failed opportunity for Korea and its people to inherit the Abel-type view of life. Consequently, Satan invaded this foundation by dividing the royal house and the Korean people against itself. Once weakened and divided, Korea was vulnerable to outside powers that did not have Korea’s best interests in mind. The former Regent -- now called “Great Elder,” undermined his son the king and his authority. He aroused the people to attack the royal family and all foreigners. The queen sought China’s assistance and dismissed the king’s defense treaty with America. The Japanese were understandably upset to see Chinese military troops in Korea and their own people attacked. This fed tensions that led to the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895).
Had the queen sought American protection instead of Chinese intervention, Japan might have acted with more restraint and good faith. But this was not to be because, as we shall see, the queen sought royal advantages for her Ming family and feared the influence of America and its democratic principles. Why was the queen so powerful? In his two books about Korea at the turn of the twentieth century, overseas British journalist, F. A. McKenzie, stationed in Korea, believed the king was weak-willed and the queen strong-willed in their relationship.
A second opportunity for the Korean king to work with and accept the Abel-type view of life from America came after the Japanese victory in the Sino-Japanese War in 1895. The Japanese helped organize a new (pro-Japanese) Korean cabinet to ‘advise’ the king. Bent on modernizing the country by force (as it had done previously to its own people), the Japanese forced new customs on the Korean people, most notably forcing all Korean men to cut off the ‘top-knot’ hairstyle. In this way, Japan caused great resentment throughout the country. The Japanese installed Prince Pak Yong Hio, the son-in-law of the former Korean monarch, as Korea’s Home Minister and Premier. Prince Pak resisted the queen’s efforts to buttress an absolutist monarchy as well as the Japanese attempt to create a limited monarchy under the sway of a puppet cabinet. However, his fellow countrymen distrusted him as an agent of the Japanese who had installed him. The Japanese also disliked him because he would not yield to their wants.
At this time, Protestant missionaries from America and Great Britain entered the country. They built schools and hospitals, and this in turn increased the missionaries’ growing influence. There were many converts, especially in Pyongyang in the north. Unlike the Japanese or Chinese who came into Korea, these Protestant missionaries were intent on maintaining Korea’s independence. Noting the positive influence of the Protestant missionaries, Prince Pak told an American:
Our old religions sit lightly, and the way to Christian conversion is open. An army of Christian teachers and workers should be placed in every section of our country. Our people should be educated and Christianized before they undertake any constitutional reform. Then we shall have constitutional government and, in the distant future, perhaps, a free and enlightened country such as yours.
America was so far away, he reasoned, that its motivations could not be suspected of selfish designs. Under the leadership of Prince Pak, Korea now had a second opportunity to inherit the Abel-type view of life from Western civilization.
The queen, meanwhile, was antagonistic to the far-sighted vision of Prince Pak because his plan also envisioned a more limited role for the monarchy. She gave orders for his arrest as a traitor. Fearing arrest and death, Prince Pak fled the country. “My trouble has come upon me solely through the Queen,” he lamented. “She is a very shrewd and ambitious woman. She has but one aim, and that is to keep the Ming family in power.”
Once again Satan invaded, and an opportunity was lost. First, a thinly-disguised plot by the Japanese rulers in Korea was hatched to murder the queen. The “Great Elder” Tai Won Kun was part of plot. He would be installed as ruler by the Japanese in return for greater commercial concessions.
After the shocking murder of the queen, Western officials in Korea refused to recognize the Japanese attempt to install the former Regent. Japanese General Viscount Miura, who hatched the plot, was sent back to Japan for trial. The judge in that trial ruled that Miura had planned the queen’s murder yet there was not sufficient evidence to prove his involvement.
In 1896 the king, fearing for his life, fled with his son to the Russian Legation for protection. For the moment the Japanese were disgraced and had lost all power and the Russians held a supreme position.
An important young Korean emerged at this time; his name was So Jai Peel. For the past 15 years, he had lived in the United States. Initially speaking no English and willing to do any menial work, he progressed rapidly, entered college and graduated with honors. He became a doctor and an American citizen, taking the name Dr. Philip Jaisohn. After the queen was murdered, he returned to Korea as a paid Foreign Adviser. For the moment, Korea was free of Japanese control and Dr. Jaisohn worked quickly for the general Americanization of the country.
The king returned to his palace and took on the new title of Emperor instead of king. He was surrounded by a conservative government that believed in a ‘top-down’ system of administration. Dr. Jaisohn noted that his advice interfered with the “private schemes and privileges” of the Cabinet officers: “They informed the Emperor that I was not a friend of his, but a friend of the Korean people, which at that time was considered treason… I gave up the idea of helping the government officially and planned to give my services to the Korean people as a private individual.”
Dr. Jaisohn set up an extremely popular and well-circulated Korean-English newspaper in Seoul, called The Independent. For the first time, the people felt they had a voice in the affairs of the nation. After this, Dr. Jaisohn set up a debating club, the Independence Club. It leased the largest and best meeting house in Korea. “In the beginning the Koreans were shy about standing up before an audience to make a public speech,” notes Jaisohn, “but after a certain amount of coaching and encouragement I found that hundreds of them could make very effective speeches.” The idea of creating public opinion was not appreciated by the royal court, Russia and Japan.
On one occasion, a certain government policy (Russian military advisers) was discussed by the Club. It was decided that the government policy was wrong. Ten thousand members of the club protested in front of the palace. The Emperor first engaged the group through messengers but the people refused to accept the Emperor’s explanation. In the end, the Emperor’s government consented to the wishes of the people but there were consequences. In 1898 the Emperor disbanded the Independent Club, paid Dr. Jaisohn the balance of his contract and dismissed him.
The Korean people rose up in both violent and passive protests. In one of them, several thousand men went to the front of the palace and sat there in silence for fourteen days. It was an old national custom of protest. On another occasion, the Korean police refused to use their swords as ordered to attack the protesting crowds. Foreign merchants offered Dr. Jaisohn a salary if he would continue to live in Korea. Instead, Dr. Jaisohn decided to return to the United States.
After this third opportunity for Korea to inherit the Western Christian and democratic foundations was lost, Korea was divided into two spheres: Russia set up railroad and telegraph lines connecting Seoul to the North and Japan did likewise in the South. Tensions between Russia and Japan culminated in Japan’s declaration of war on Russia in 1905.
Russia lost the war and Japan took on the role of conqueror over Korea. In November 1905, the Marquis Ito handed the Korean Emperor an ultimatum. He demanded Korean unity with Japan for the sake of peace in the Far East. He stressed the further need to be strong ‘against’ the white man’s civilization. The King knew this would mean the end of Korean sovereignty and refused.
Ito then appealed to the Korean cabinet ministers, “Agree with us and be rich, or oppose us and perish”. The ministers saw it differently: destruction or submission into obscurity. Either way meant an end to everything they knew. They submitted to the Japanese and history records their deed as traitors.
Tens of thousands of the most undesirable elements of Japanese society, seeking a better life, poured into Korea. They entered Korea like a plague, taking land, homes and businesses either by force or murder. Japan did nothing to mitigate the chaos or help make the transition of its many immigrants into Korea a peaceful one.
It is this writer’s view that the Korean royal family erred on at least three different occasions, blocking Korea’s inheritance of Western civilization’s internal religious and external political institutions. As a result, the Korean people underwent severe persecution under Japan for nearly 10 years. And as will be discussed below, by not inheriting American institutions and values, Korea remained insignificant in the eyes of American policymakers who were in a position to intervene on Korea’s behalf.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
These words from the Declaration of Independence (1776) are not so much a political statement as a revolutionary outlook in which “all men” everywhere in the world are equal under God. Yet America compromised this ideal. As argued by George P. Fletcher in his book, Our Secret Constitution, this ideal of human equality under God was overshadowed in the U.S. Constitution (1787), which made no mention of God and did not recognize the principle of human equality until the fourteenth amendment in 1868. The first American Republic (1787-1860) remained divided by regional and state interests. The government acted more like a loose tribal confederacy than a united people. God could not move America onto the world stage without it standing united first on the national level.
The War Between the States (1860-1865) brought this division into open conflict. President Abraham Lincoln unified America around its earlier covenantal ideal that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights under God. Setting a precedent for Woodrow Wilson and America’s treatment of belligerent Germany, Lincoln argued in his Second Inaugural Address for a policy of “malice towards none, charity toward all” in its treatment of the South. After it thus united as one nation under God, America could stand as a player on the world stage, thus emerging from its isolationist and divided past.
America’s new-found interest as an actor on the world stage broadened considerably under President Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William Henry Seward. Seward believed human history and empire-building was moving ever westward. The world’s future was moving towards the Pacific Rim nations. To meet this future, Seward believed America must pursue ties with Japan, Korea and China. This could not be done with military force but rather by open trade.
To help America look westward, and towards the Far East, Seward promoted a transcontinental railroad and a canal across the Central American isthmus. Seward also made two important purchases for the United States: Alaska and the Pacific island of Midway in 1867.
America fought unselfishly for the universal rights of other peoples when in 1898 she entered the War for Cuban Independence against Spain. In that instance, America fought for the Cuban’s right to self-determination. Unexpectedly, America instantly acquired an oversea empire from Puerto Rico in the Caribbean to the Philippines in the Far East. America, so it seemed, was being enticed by Providence to strengthen its commitments in the Orient. President William McKinley walked many a night in the White House pondering what to do with the Philippines. Traditionally, Americans believed that people have a right to rule themselves. How could America abide by this principle and still rule over another people? In the end, McKinley believed America had the responsibility to educate, uplift, civilize and Christianize the Filipino people. America paid $20 million to Spain for the Philippines. In this way, America began to solidify its presence on the world stage. In the same year, America changed its heart towards the Hawaiian Republic ruled by descendants of American missionaries and annexed them at their request.
Even without the presence of a world body like the League of Nations, America sought to raise up other peoples with democratic principles based on the American model and then give them independence. Cuba had its own American-style constitution by 1901. William H. Taft was sent to the Philippines to prepare the Filipinos for self-government. America promised the Philippines eventual independence in 1916. This became the model for the League of Nations concept of ‘mandates,’ by which developed countries would take backward nations under their care and raise them up.
Korea stood out from other nations due to the success of Protestant missionaries there. “Their converts have established congregations that are themselves missionary churches, sending out and supporting their own teachers and preachers to China. A great light has been lit in Asia,” wrote British journalist McKenzie. Korea was seen as a “light unto the nations” -- just like America. This kinship, centered on Protestantism, could have deepened America’s resolve to protect and safeguard the Korean people. “Isolation is no longer possible or desirable,” proclaimed U.S. President McKinley. “God and man have linked the nations together. No nation can longer be indifferent to any other.” The day after delivering this speech in Buffalo, NY, McKinley was shot; he died a week later.
Theodore Roosevelt inherited the U.S. presidency after McKinley. War broke out between Russia and Japan over Korea in 1904, and Japan achieved. a swift victory. Because Japan promised Korea its independence, America sided with Japan in the war. Many inside America and the western powers thought Japan could bring needed reforms to backward Korea. “Japan,” wrote Roosevelt to his son, “is playing our game.” Japan asked Roosevelt to mediate a peace treaty between Russia and Japan. Roosevelt did this with the Treaty of Portsmouth in New Hampshire:
ART. III. The Imperial Government of Japan definitively guarantees the independence and territorial integrity of the Korean Empire.
Although perceived initially as liberators and reformers, the Japanese changed and took on a domineering air as victors over Korea. The Korean Emperor believed the 1882 treaty with the United States would be enough to ensure that “America would exert her good offices to bring about an amicable arrangement,” as stated in the treaty. However, the American Minister in Seoul, Dr. Allen, believed that was impossible under the Treaty of Portsmouth which declared “Korea was placed under the protection of Japan.”
In October 1905 the Korean Emperor sent Professor Homer B. Hulbert, editor of the Korea Review, to Washington with a personal letter to President Roosevelt. Informed of this, the Japanese hastened their plan to annex Korea. When Professor Hulbert came to Washington, both the White House and the State Department refused to receive the letter from Korea’s Emperor with his personal seal:
I received the astounding answer that the President would not receive it. I cast about in my own mind for a possible reason, but could imagine none. I went to the State Department with it, but was told that they were too busy to see me.
The U.S. government hesitated to get involved because the Korean Cabinet had signed away Korea’s independence in the treaty forced upon them by the Marquis Ito. Yet the Korean Emperor himself never signed on, even under the threat of death.
Once again, the Korean Emperor cabled a telegram to Mr. Hulbert for President Roosevelt:
I declare that the so-called Treaty of Protectorate recently concluded between Korea and Japan was extorted at the point of the sword and under duress and therefore is null and void. I never consented to it and never will.
Some years later, Theodore Roosevelt acknowledged that Korea should be independent, but since Korea was helpless, it was out of the question to suppose that America, having no interests of its own in Korea, “would do for the Koreans what they were utterly unable to do for themselves.”
The rise of strong Japan created fear in the white race: Australia and America stopped Japanese emigration. Worried about China and the Philippines, America under Theodore Roosevelt signed the Root-Takahira Agreement with Japan in 1908. In this containment policy, both sides promised to respect each other’s possessions in the Pacific. This Agreement led to the formal annexation of Korea by Japan in 1910. This Agreement unfortunately tied America’s hands and prevented America’s outright intervention in Korea in the event of a popular arising, as had been the case in Panama in 1903.
In this writer’s opinion, had Korea inherited the Christian and democratic foundations of the West, it could have remained strong, united and independent. It would have been a light unto the nations of Asia, catching America’s foremost interest. Instead, Korea appeared backward and Roosevelt could not recognize Korea’s providential value.
This writer believes that to liberate Korea and allow its people to pursue Christianity and democracy openly and freely, God raised up President Wilson and his vision for a new world order. Centering on President Wilson, World War I and the Paris Peace Conference that followed had the mission “to make the world safe for democracy” and establish a world organization to safeguard the freedom of oppressed people everywhere. Of course, Wilson and the other world leaders did not understand the importance of Korea. But if the idealism of Wilson’s Fourteen Points had been secured, the Korean people could surely have won their independence from Japan in a short period of time. The Messiah would then have been born into a promising environment where people shared hopes for a bright future.
If a conflict is not resolved on an ideological level between the Abel and Cain-type views of life, a military conflict may be necessary. But a military solution alone cannot reconcile the two ‘brotherly’ sides. According to the Divine Principle, the military defeat of the Cain-type view of life must be followed with a peaceful solution that mutually benefits both sides:
One way to bring Satan’s side to surrender is through armed conflict. However, at the conclusion of the conflict, there should come an ideal world in which all humanity is to rejoice together. This can never be built merely by defeating enemies in battle. Afterward, they must be brought to submission internally, that everyone may be reconciled and rejoice sincerely from the bottom of their hearts.
As we have seen, in the last forty years of the 400-year Period to Prepare for the Messiah (1517-1920), the Korean royal family opposed the Abel-type ideology coming from the West -- Christianity and democracy. Conservative and autocratic, the royal family resisted its peoples’ inheritance of the Abel ideology from America for a peaceful and progressive independent Korea, which could be strongly aligned with and safeguarded by America. The king’s repression of the peoples’ desires was in time replaced by Japanese repression of the Korean peoples’ aspirations. Although both the Korean king and the Japanese opened up their countries to the West, they only accepted Western “things” while greatly resisting Western “ideas.”
For ten years, from 1905-1915, Japan tried to modernize backward Korea with coercive force as it had done towards its own people, but with a distinctive twist: there was ethnic discrimination against the Koreans themselves. The Japanese goal was assimilation: to vanquish the Korean culture and replace it fully with its own language, religion and ‘top-down’ governing style. In this approach, the Japanese saw their imperial policy as superior to the British:
There are only two ways of colonial administration. One is to rule over the people as aliens. This you English have done in India, and therefore, your Indian Empire cannot endure… The second way is to absorb the people. This is what we will do. We will teach them our language, establish our institutions, and make them one with us.
While there are merits to the pathway of social integration and cultural assimilation, the Japanese were unfit to lead God’s Providence because it opposed the Abel-type View of Life in three ways:
1) It rejected political power by the people (self-determination and democracy).
2) It rejected inalienable rights to freedom and equality under God.
3) It rejected the Christian faith and its non-violent virtues.
Meanwhile, America was emerging as a leader on the world stage, dedicated to lofty ideals and principles in an age that was increasingly becoming its opposite: a world governed by brute force and inequality. This opposition was the Cain-type view of life. In the case of World War I, this worldview was taken up by a group of nations governed by autocracy, militarism, racism, secularism, agnosticism, relativism, and materialism. Germany for example defended the doctrine that “might makes right.” Thus was the stage set for a world-level confrontation between materialism (Cain) and idealism (Abel).
When Adam sinned and became a servant of two masters, God symbolically divided Adam into Cain and Abel for the sake of restoration. Using the O-D-U principle, the subject position of Abel was to initiate change for the common benefit of both Abel and Cain. Cain, feeling more distant from God, was to have welcomed the collective benefit and removed his fallen countenance. In the course of restoration, this is called Cain’s natural surrender and his volitional submission to Abel, which removes a fallen countenance. The true destruction of evil is not its punishment, but rather its dissolution through reconciliation. Their subsequent unity would have created a purified solid base, called the Foundation for the Messiah.
Due to past failed Foundations for the Messiah, human history has expanded its scope from divided families to divided nations and a divided world. This Cain-Abel division took shape in Korea between the liberal reformers (Abel) and the conservative traditionalists led by the royal household (Cain). Yet the Cain side did not submit, but instead continued to occupy an unprincipled subjective position. This allowed militarist Japan to impose a greater Cain-type force of occupation over Korea.
God’s Providence regarding the First World War was for America to uplift the Abel-type view of life to preeminence and have other nations like Germany and Japan submit naturally to its ideals, in a win-win situation for everyone. Indirectly Korea, too, would have benefited. To this end, President Wilson spoke out nobly for a “peace without victors and vanquished” and for a settlement “without annexations or indemnities,” since “only a peace between equals can last.” 
The central figure in God’s Providence must first lay a Foundation of Faith before the Abel and Cain representatives can reconcile. The central figure creates this foundation by making symbolic offerings and going through the number 40. In the Modern Period, Protestantism was this central figure laying the Foundation of Faith. Through symbolic offerings (i.e. upholding the New Testament word) over a time period based on the number 40, Protestantism was able to create a world-level Abel-type view of life especially in the Anglo civilizations of England and America. This was accomplished during the 400-year period beginning with the Protestant Reformation on October 31, 1517.
During this long 400-year course, America inherited the position of the central figure, with its Protestant (Hebraic) culture harmonized with an enlightened democratic (Hellenistic) culture. For example, America’s motto “In God We Trust” is inscribed on its currency. This symbolically reflects the American emphasis on spiritual principles over the commercial and material values.
In the first three years of the war (1914-1917), there was no real providential significance, in this writer’s opinion, until America, as the representative and fruition of the Abel-type Worldview, entered the fray.
The protagonists in the First World War were seeking unconditional surrender. Unconditional surrender meant vindictive punishment and retribution. This was contrary to the Foundation of Substance in the Principle of Restoration. Both sides wanted to benefit materially through the war at the other's expense by incorporating more lands and people into their empires. For example, Russia was granted Constantinople and Italy was promised portions of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. Japan was granted German possessions in China and islands in the North Pacific. Until America entered the war in 1917, reconciliation between the Entente and Central Powers, was not possible. There was no vision of restoration through Abel and Cain unity.
America under President Woodrow Wilson entered the war for more noble aims. On April 2, 1917, Wilson made a speech before Congress asking them to declare war on Imperial Germany and her allies. “We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion,” declared the president in his war message. Wilson entered the war for very different reasons than the Entente Powers who sought multi-nation states and territorial imperialism. He stated the American goal was to “make the world safe for democracy.” In order to assure a just and enduring peace, Wilson promoted “Peace without Victory.” He did not want a victor’s peace because it “would leave a sting, resentment, a bitter memory upon which terms of peace would rest only as upon quicksand. “Only a peace between equals can last.”
To this effect, President Wilson insisted that America’s fight was against the “military masters” in Germany and not towards the German people, to whom he expressed “sincere friendship.” This was very different from the position of America’s allies in Europe and Japan. They wanted a victor’s peace directed against the German people as well as their leaders. This was dangerous and not aligned with the concept of Abel loving Cain.
On April 6, 1917, the American Congress voted in favor of war. War was declared in the early morning hours of the Christian holy day of Good Friday. In ways similar to Christ’s selfless sacrifice on the cross for the sake of the world, America now put itself on the cross to save a world that resented its ideals. This began a three-year period of darkness that was similar to Christ’s three hours on the cross and three days in the tomb. It was a three-year period, the dispensational moment when Abel was to reach out to Cain with a new vision of mutual benefit and for Cain to remove his fallen countenance. The history of restoration could have been accomplished once the Foundation of Faith (1517-1917) and the Foundation of Substance (1917-1920) were fulfilled. Hence, after these three ‘days,’ Christ could reappear on the earth in a new resurrected form. Such a moment, called the Foundation for the Messiah, occurred in 1920. In 1920, the Messiah was indeed born.
To many, it seemed that America was fighting a separate war against Germany. Moreover, Wilson’s war was seemingly as much against the Entente victory as against a Central Power’s victory, since both coveted more territory and oversea empires. Wilson insisted that American forces would cooperate with Britain and France against Germany but not come under Entente control as had other allies. America was never part of the Entente Powers’ (Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan) strategy to expand at the expense of the Central Powers (Germany, Austro-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire). America was an “Associate Power,” cooperating with the Entente against German aggression. This irked Entente leaders like Clemenceau, who perceived America as a co-belligerent but not a true ally.
President Wilson ignited the imagination of the Koreans and other oppressed people around the globe. “No right anywhere exists to hand peoples about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were property,” he declared. He affirmed the principle that governments derive all their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Wilson and America were fighting for principles that supported Korean independence. The Abel-type view of life, championed by the United States, rejected a humiliating peace by the victors over the vanquished. It sought to expand onto the world stage the principles that had brought its own diverse original thirteen colonies into unity and harmony. This was a vision for a New World Order centered on a League of Nations, a brotherhood of equal nations. A wonderful Foundation for the Messiah could have been created.
On January 8, 1918, Wilson introduced his Fourteen Points to Congress for a just and lasting resolution to the First World War. Eight points dealt with political and territorial goals (e.g. independence of Turkey, Poland and Belgium). Five points dealt with high ideals, most notably open covenants (no secret treaties), self-government by the people, and reconsideration of all colonial claims. The final point called for an association of nations to guarantee the independence of all states, great and small alike.
Wilson’s use of ideas and principles was as effective as any modern weapon of war. For example, Wilson promised the various nationalities inside the diverse Austrian-Hungarian Empire the right to self-determination (point 10). That prompted popular revolts inside the Dual Monarchy among the Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Romanians, Hungarians, Czechs and Slovaks. The Austro-Hungarian Empire fell apart from within: it disintegrated without outside military intervention. Towards Germany, Wilson offered its people a place of equality among the nations of the world once it had overthrown its military masters. His words drove a wedge between the German people and their government. This gave Germany the incentive to overthrow the Kaiser and arrange a ceasefire. A peace convoy met the French on November 8 to begin armistice talks. The Kaiser fled to neutral Holland on the following day. The French general Foch unfortunately explained the terms of surrender as being unconditional. “But President Wilson…” began one German representative. The French envoy immediately silenced him.
From the Divine Principle point of view, Germany had removed its fallen nature (i.e. the Kaiser) and had made a natural voluntary surrender in order to participate in a new world order initiated by President Wilson. New principled Germany longed for reconciliation and union with the world as a reformed prodigal brother nation, centering on America. This was a very providential moment and the Cain cultural movement on the world level -- espousing militarism and relativism was crushed -- for the moment.
Having won over the Central Powers to a Wilsonian New World Order, the immediate challenge before Wilson was to have the Entente Powers get on board with Wilson’s concept “a peace without the vanquished” instead of a traditional vindictive peace with new annexed lands added like jewels to the crown of the victors. Publicly, Georges Clemenceau, the premier of France, endorsed Wilson’s Fourteen Points (as derived from the French Enlightenment) and sought only France’s 1870 boundary. Privately, however, Clemenceau resented the independent-minded Wilson acting as an ‘Associate Power’ whose true intent was to look down on and reform the Entente Powers almost as much as the belligerent Central Powers. He resented Wilson’s distance from the allies and self-appointed role as world leader. Wilson repeated this unfortunate stance of separateness and aloofness with the Republican congress, provoking their ire as well.
In the weeks following the German surrender, Britain’s David Lloyd George won a December 1918 election for Britain’s Prime Minister. In his campaign he changed his stance from a peace without greed or revenge to one bent on compensation: Germany must “pay for the whole cost of the war.”
As mentioned earlier, the 3-year period from 1917 to 1920 was to lay the Foundation of Substance between the Abel-type and the Cain-type worldviews. Although the war itself ended in early November 1918, the peace also had to be won in a manner that could lay the Foundation for the Messiah.
The first of Wilson’s Fourteen Points, open covenants, was the first ideal to be ignored. The Paris Peace Conference was held behind closed doors by the “Big Four” (America, Britain, France and Italy).
The new liberal German Republic, which had ousted the Kaiser and sought an end to hostilities, felt unduly punished: the German delegation was not invited for discussions. The German delegation had assumed peace settlements would be based on principles rather than a victor’s dictates over the vanquished.
Change was coming too quick for the world representatives at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. People began to realize the extent of the changes that principles like self-determination and equal treatment of nations would entail. Even President Wilson was alarmed. It meant the victorious powers would have to readjust as much, if not more so, than the defeated powers. This was unsettling to say the least. Germany, though not admitted to participate in the Conference, nonetheless stood to gain a good deal by these principles. For example, the German-speaking people would become a larger single country: Austria and the Sudetenland, two regions of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, wanted unification with Germany. France wanted several smaller German states. Wilson compromised: he left Germany largely intact but refused to allow other German-speaking peoples to unify with Germany.
Wilson believed all the compromises at the Paris Peace Conference, however unjust, could be rectified if a League of Nations could be established. To this end, his foremost concern was the League Charter.
A second challenge came from the Japanese delegation at the Conference. Led by a liberal progressive, Prince Saionji, Japan made three attempts to include a racial equality clause into the Preamble of the League of Nations Charter. Japan had a large population and wanted more lenient emigration into the West. It was offended that America, Australia and New Zealand prohibited Japanese immigration into their countries and hoped this racial equality clause would alter such restrictions and put a stop to discrimination against Japanese people already in oversea nations like America.
Incorporating the principle of racial equality into the League of Nations charter would have many implications. It would dovetail with the Declaration of Independence’s self-evident truth that “all men are created equal.” It would challenge the Social-Darwinian theory of innately inferior races:
Anthropological researches undertaken all over the globe have shown the necessity of abandoning the old theory that… justifies the assumption of a remote relationship… between races.
For the United States, it would challenge the Jim Crow laws in the South and Asian immigration restrictions in California. For Great Britain, it would challenge comfortable notions of Anglo superiority and their ‘natural’ position over the Indians, Chinese and Africans. From a Divine Principle point of view, the clause would have helped prepare the world for an Asian Messiah and inter-racial marriages.
The Japanese may have been a terrible scourge over Korea, but at this providential moment Japan was an instrument for positive social change in the world. In this writer’s view, Japan was ready to discard her militant past for progressive mutual enlightenment. The Japanese delegation met and discussed the racial equality clause with Colonel Edward House, Wilson’s most trusted advisor, who hated racial prejudice. After conferring with other Anglo delegations and provoking their ire, House and the Japanese delegation apparently abandoned any attempt to include a separate clause for racial equality.
A second opportunity afforded itself on February 13, 1919, as the first draft of the League’s Covenant was being readied. The Japanese introduced racial equality as an amendment to the religious liberty clause. President Wilson wanted the League of Nation’s charter to support the principle of religious liberty. Christian missionaries were having difficulty in some regions of the world and Wilson listened to their concerns. Wilson had tried to get Japanese support for the principle of religious liberty. The Japanese saw this as an opportunity to once again put forward the principle most important to them -- racial equality:
The equality of the nations being a principle of the League, the High Contracting parties agree that concerning the treatment and rights to be accorded to aliens in their territories they will not discriminate, either by law or in fact, against any person or persons on account of his or their race or nationality.
Still there was opposition. It was decided to remove the whole religious liberty clause with its racial equality amendment altogether. The Japanese made it clear that they intended to raise the issue again. Meanwhile, the conflict broadened into protests by the Japanese and those opposed all over the world.
A final opportunity came on April 11. The polite and calm Japanese delegation put forward a more modest proposal recognizing “the principle of equality of nations and just treatment of their nationals.” Wilson believed any reference to racial equality would alienate key politicians on the West Coast whose votes he needed to get the League through Congress. The Japanese insisted on a vote. Eleven of the seventeen votes were in favor of racial equality. If a majority approved, protocol stated it was a win. But President Wilson took an unprecedented step. As chairman, he rejected the outcome stating in this lone case, it needed a unanimous decision.
These compromises at the Paris Peace Conference that vitiated the Wilsonian ideals marked a turning point. As Clemeneau noted, winning the peace was harder than winning the war. The peace conference left Japan and Germany feeling injured. These nations nursed their anger and passed it on to the next generation. “Liberal, internationally minded Japanese were dismayed,” noted Margaret Macmillan in her book Paris 1919; Six Months that Changed the World:
They had played the game, they had shown themselves ready to participate in the international community, and yet they were still treated as inferiors… The failure to get the racial equality clause was an important factor in the interwar years in turning Japan away from cooperation with the West and toward more aggressively nationalistic policies.
“We have won the war: now we have to win the peace,” remarked Clemenceau. “That may prove harder.” If Wilson had not compromised his ideals at the start of the Paris Peace Conference, it is hard to say just how much the world could have accepted racial equality, a larger Germany, and a German delegation at the Conference conferring openly with mutually- beneficial legal agreements. Could trust have dispelled national mistrust and insecurity? As never before in the human history, the world would have been challenged to accept a higher standard of justice for long-term lasting peace. Was the world community willing to meet this opportunity with faith, despite the sacrifices it entailed? Could the Christian movement in that era, which was liberal and progressive, help its people support the Wilsonian ideals of a new world order? We will never know, but I would like to think it was possible.
The Paris Peace Conference certainly fell short of the high ideals envisioned in Wilson’s Fourteen Points. But it did inspire the Korean people to uphold the Christian and democratic principles of the Abel-type worldview. Through the March 1 Independence Movement, Korea inherited the Abel view of life and thus laid the Foundation for the Messiah. In this sense, the First World War accomplished at least some of its providential goals. For the first time in Korea’s history, all of its people, rich and poor, old and young, male and female, farmer and scholar, united together throughout the country in an organized non-violent grassroots protest against Japanese occupation. The Emperor’s death prompted the event. Throughout the country, Koreans journeyed to Seoul for the Emperor’s funeral, scheduled for March 4. To many Koreans, the time seemed ripe to proclaim a republic. Korean organizers believed it would have the support of the world leaders in Paris. A Korean Declaration of Independence was made and copies of it were printed and spread secretly throughout the country:
A new era wakes before our eyes, the old world of force is gone, and the new world of righteousness and truth is here… This work of ours is in behalf of truth, religion and life, undertaken at the request of our people, in order to make known their desire for liberty. Let no violence be done to any one.
The Japanese became suspicious. Organizers hastily changed the date of the peaceful nationwide protest from the date of the Emperor’s funeral to March 1. The movement was not a riot but a peaceful demonstration. The Declaration was publicly read. Korean flags waved and shouts of “mansei” filled the air:
We have no wish to find special fault with Japan’s lack of fairness or her contempt of our civilization and the principles on which her state rests; we, who have greater cause to reprimand ourselves, need not spend precious time in finding fault with others.
The Korean people were determined to return love for hate and friendship towards their enemy:
Ought not the way of enlightened courage to be to correct the evils of the past by ways that are sincere, and by true sympathy and friendly feeling make a new world in which the two peoples will be equally blessed?
It is the opinion of this writer that if a victory of the Abel-type worldview at the Paris Peace Conference had been achieved, the Korean Independence Movement also could have succeeded on that foundation. Instead, a vindictive peace was being hatched in Paris and Wilsonian principles were being compromised. This did not bode well for Korea or the world. The Japanese pursued a ruthless campaign against the Korean demonstrators that lasted for months, yet still the Koreans, young and old, stood up for their rights. They refused to acquiesce, even amidst unspeakable physical torture, verbal abuse and oftentimes death. Spiritually speaking, the Koreans were victorious and truly inherited the Abel-type view of life.
The Japanese suspected the Protestant missionaries as underground organizers of these demonstrations. When interrogated, the missionaries claimed to know nothing of these peaceful protests. In fact, Korean Christians deliberately kept their plans for the demonstration from the missionaries to protect them.
Christian teaching broke down the old ways in which women and girls were seldom seen by men outside of their immediate family. School girls in particular led the way in public demonstrations in large cities and small towns to demand Korea’s national restoration. This in turn, stirred up the men and old folks. All over Korea, the girls were arrested by the Japanese police. In the police stations the girls were routinely stripped naked, humiliated, punched and kicked. One Christian girl explained her ordeal this way:
I thought of how Paul had suffered in prison, and was greatly comforted. I knew that God would give the needed help, and as I bore it for my country, I did not feel the shame and misery of it.
President Wilson was the first American president to travel abroad while still in office. It was unprecedented. He carried with him to Paris the American foundation of democracy, but France and the other allies rejected his high-minded idealism. The League of Nations became a reality, but it was a mere shadow of its former potential because America never joined the League. Thus, the League could not inherit the national democratic foundation from America. Yet Korea did, and on that successful foundation the Messiah was born.
Yet Japan never released its unprincipled hold on Korea. The Messiah was born into an oppressive environment. Both he and the Korean people had to endure another 25 years of injustice as Japan sought to destroy Korean culture, its Christian faith and democratic ideals. Korea had to indemnify the 400-year Period of Preparation for the Messiah through a 40-year period of trials and tribulations under Japanese auspices.
The First World War -- the war to end all wars -- should have created a New World Order possessing the freedoms and purity for God’s third Adam as the first Adam had enjoyed in Eden at the beginning of human history. God had likewise intended that Jesus, the second Adam, be born and raised in a good environment as well: the house of the Zechariah. There he could have had a good education by rabbinic teachers who would have treated him with respect. Instead, Jesus was born in a stable for animals. Reverend Sun Myung Moon was born into an unfortunate situation similar to Jesus because the Korean people had to undergo severe and unjust oppression, being treated like chattel. The Korean homeland can be likened to its stable.
In this paper, we have learned how the Korean royal family blocked the Korean people’s inheritance of the Abel-type view of life. Weakened and divided, Korea was occupied by Japan. The highest providential purpose of the First World War was for the world to receive the Abel-type view of life from America and impart it to Korea. The Korean Independence Movement accomplished the latter purpose amidst torture and death, even as the world foundation was compromised at the Paris Peace Conference. Thus a Foundation for the Messiah was laid in Korea, but Korea remained under Japanese oppression. The reason this oppression persisted despite Korea’s victorious foundation was because of the failure to adequately erect a world foundation for the Abel-type view of life at the conclusion of the First World War. The failure also led to the Providence of Restoration being extended to three world wars.
 Exposition of the Divine Principle, (New York: HSA-UWC, 2005), p. 340.
 The history of restoration is the theory that human history is returning to a once-forsaken state of Edenic purity. Eden is not the end goal or purpose of human history but rather the true beginning point for progressive true human growth towards human perfection.
 Hak Ja Han Moon, “The Central Role of Women in the Ideal World,” True Family and World Peace (New York: HSA Publications, 2000), p. 23.
 The modern Christian cultural sphere held a similar position to the coming Lord like John the Baptist or an Old Testament prophet cleaning the nation so as to receive new blessings from God.
 Exposition, p. 367.
 Father Moon finished writing the first Divine Principle in Pusan on May 10, 1952.
 F. A. McKenzie, The Tragedy of Korea (Seoul: Yonsei University, 1969), p. 276. The American-Korean Treaty was signed May 22, 1882. Its American representative was R. W. Shufeldt.
 According to the Divine Principle, the Abel-type view of life is a Hebraic cultural outlook held by the people (p. 356). It was the people collectively rather than a central figure/king that God was working through to prepare a ‘bottom-up’ grassroots type foundation for the Messiah’s Advent in the 400-year Period of Preparation for the Messiah. The Abel-type view of life seeks the internal spiritual aspects of life. The Cain-type view of life pursues the external ‘Hellenistic’ aspects of life foremost.
 Tragedy, p. 13.
 To this end, Japan sought and received a treaty with Korea allowing Japanese into the country on the condition Japan recognize Korean independence. In 1876, the treaty was signed. Japan liked the idea of Korean independence as the first important step for Korea to step away from Chinese sovereignty over Korea. The Regent opposed the young king’s treaty with Japan saying, “If we admit the Japanese, we must admit the white men, and if we admit the white men we must adopt their wicked faith” (Tragedy, p. 16).
 Tragedy, p. 20.
 Ibid., p. 21.
 Ibid., p. 15.
 Strictly speaking, Korea was not facing an external threat. America was only to intervene if an external power threatened Korean independence. This conflict was between the liberal progressive and conservative traditional factions in Korea.
 Tragedy, pp. 19, 58.
 Ibid., pp. 47-48.
 Ibid., pp. 54-55.
 Ibid., p. 55.
 Ibid., p. 38.
 Ibid., p. 84.
 Ibid., p. 55.
 Ibid., p. 54.
 Ibid., p. 56.
 Ibid., p. 72.
 Ibid., p. 81.
 Ibid., p. 83.
 F.A. McKenzie, Korea’s Fight for Freedom (New York: AMS Press, 1970), p. 67.
 Ibid., 68.
 Ibid., 69-70.
 Korea’s Fight, p. 72
 Tragedy, p. 134
 Ibid., p. 136
 Ibid., p. 122-123
 The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
 George P. Fletcher, Our Secret Constitution: How Lincoln Redefined American Democracy, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 2-5, 36.
 Ibid., pp. 40, 98.
 Ibid., pp. 35-37, 68.
 Ibid., p. 48.
 James West Davidson, Mark H. Lytle, Christine Leigh Heyrman, William E. Gienapp and Michael B. Stoff, Nation of Nations: A Narrative History of the American Republic, Volume 2: Since 1865, 3rd edition (Boston: McGraw Hill, 1990), p. 743.
 Henry W. Bragdon, Samuel P. McCutchen, History of a Free People (New York: MacMillan, 1964), p. 465. Congress approved military troops to Cuba with the understanding “to leave the government and control of the Island to the people.”
 Ibid., p. 467.
 Korea’s Fight, p. 315.
 History of a Free People, p. 475.
 Korea’s Fight, pp. 80-81 Unfortunately this faith in modern Japan only considered the external industrial, banking and military aspects of modernity. Japan was slow to incorporate Christianity and democracy.
 Fight for Korea, pp. 86-87, Tragedy of Korea, p. 306.
> Fight for Korea, p. 99.
 Ibid., pp. 100-101.
 Ibid., p. 101.
 History of a Free People, p. 486.
 A revolution broke on the Panamanian isthmus and an independent Republic of Panama was proclaimed on November 3, 1903. A similar event would take place in Korea on March 1, 1919. In Panama, the U.S. prevented Columbian troops from landing to suppress the rebellion. In the following days, America recognized Panamanian independence. (History of a Free People, p. 482.)
 Exposition of the Divine Principle, p. 376.
 Crane Brinton, John Christopher, Robert Lee Wolff, A History of Civilization: 1815 to the Present, 5th ed. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1976), p. 686.
 Tragedy, p. 146.
 The Divine Principle notes the Cain-type worldview as essentially empowered by the Hellenistic approach that uses empirical (sensual) and deductive (rational) methodologies. The American philosopher William James (1842-1910) summed up the Cain-type and Abel-type views of life as being either ‘tough-minded’ or ‘tender-minded.’ The tough-minded side is convinced that the world of sense experience is the real world whereas the tender-minded perceive the sense-experience as illusionary and believe the real world consists of utopian ideals which some identify as God’s mind (A History of Civilization, p. 665).
 Ibid., p. 527.
 Alan Palmer, Victory 1918 (New York: Grove Press, 1998), pp. 94-95.
 “The key for the success of the American Revolution was that it was able to harmonize the Christian and humanist currents.” CAUSA Lecture Manual (New York, 1985), p. 152.
 Victory, pp. 32-33.
 Ibid., p. 99.
 History of a Free People, p. 530.
 Ibid., p. 531.
 Victory, p. 99.
 Ibid., p. 100-101.
 Victory 1918, p. 100.
 www.worldwar1.com/france/clemenceau.htm (retrieved February 20, 2007) Wilson ultimately saw himself as a mediator between the two great powers, as a fair and just reconciler (History of a Free People, p. 92).
 History of a Free People, p. 101.
 The analogy has some limitations. The League was not a world government to replace sovereign states.
 Victory, p. 267.
 Ibid., p. 268.
 History of a Free People, p. 539.
 Victory, p. 281
 www.worldwar1.com/france/clemenceau.htm (retrieved Feb. 20, 2007)
 An Abel figure cannot stand proudly and triumphantly in the subject position as leader until he has won over Cain who grants him the subjective position of preeminence. In this way, humble Abel also removes his fallen countenance.
 History of a Free People, p. 540.
 Victory, p. 294.
 Ibid., p. 303.
 Ibid., p. 294.
 Ibid., p. 305.
 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed. (London, 1911), p. 119.
 Margaret Macmillan, Paris 1919; Six Months That Changed The World (New York: Random House, 2003), pp. 317-318.
 Paris 1919, p. 318.
 Ibid., p. 320.
 www.jiyuu-shikan.org/e/database2.html (retrieved February 11, 2007)
 Paris 1919, pp. 320-321.
 Ibid., p. 287.
 Excerpt from “The Proclamation of Korean Independence” of 1919 (Korea’s Fight, p. 249).
 Ibid., p. 248.
 Korea’s Fight, p. 290.
 Ibid., p. 297.
 The Republican congress rejected it, fearing the loss of its Congressional right to declare war if the League’s plan for collective war against an aggressive move on any of its member states was approved.