When the war was in progress, England and France agreed

When the war was in progress, England and France agreed

22/09/2025
25/10/2025

When the war was in progress, England and France agreed wholeheartedly with the Fourteen Points. As soon as the war was won, England, France, and Italy tried to frustrate Wilson's program because it was in conflict with their imperialist policies. As a consequence, the Peace Treaty was one of the most unequal treaties ever negotiated in history.

When the war was in progress, England and France agreed
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed wholeheartedly with the Fourteen Points. As soon as the war was won, England, France, and Italy tried to frustrate Wilson's program because it was in conflict with their imperialist policies. As a consequence, the Peace Treaty was one of the most unequal treaties ever negotiated in history.
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed wholeheartedly with the Fourteen Points. As soon as the war was won, England, France, and Italy tried to frustrate Wilson's program because it was in conflict with their imperialist policies. As a consequence, the Peace Treaty was one of the most unequal treaties ever negotiated in history.
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed wholeheartedly with the Fourteen Points. As soon as the war was won, England, France, and Italy tried to frustrate Wilson's program because it was in conflict with their imperialist policies. As a consequence, the Peace Treaty was one of the most unequal treaties ever negotiated in history.
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed wholeheartedly with the Fourteen Points. As soon as the war was won, England, France, and Italy tried to frustrate Wilson's program because it was in conflict with their imperialist policies. As a consequence, the Peace Treaty was one of the most unequal treaties ever negotiated in history.
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed wholeheartedly with the Fourteen Points. As soon as the war was won, England, France, and Italy tried to frustrate Wilson's program because it was in conflict with their imperialist policies. As a consequence, the Peace Treaty was one of the most unequal treaties ever negotiated in history.
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed wholeheartedly with the Fourteen Points. As soon as the war was won, England, France, and Italy tried to frustrate Wilson's program because it was in conflict with their imperialist policies. As a consequence, the Peace Treaty was one of the most unequal treaties ever negotiated in history.
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed wholeheartedly with the Fourteen Points. As soon as the war was won, England, France, and Italy tried to frustrate Wilson's program because it was in conflict with their imperialist policies. As a consequence, the Peace Treaty was one of the most unequal treaties ever negotiated in history.
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed wholeheartedly with the Fourteen Points. As soon as the war was won, England, France, and Italy tried to frustrate Wilson's program because it was in conflict with their imperialist policies. As a consequence, the Peace Treaty was one of the most unequal treaties ever negotiated in history.
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed wholeheartedly with the Fourteen Points. As soon as the war was won, England, France, and Italy tried to frustrate Wilson's program because it was in conflict with their imperialist policies. As a consequence, the Peace Treaty was one of the most unequal treaties ever negotiated in history.
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed
When the war was in progress, England and France agreed

In the words of Sun Yat-sen, father of modern China, we hear a cry not only of history, but of wisdom carved by betrayal: “When the war was in progress, England and France agreed wholeheartedly with the Fourteen Points. As soon as the war was won, England, France, and Italy tried to frustrate Wilson's program because it was in conflict with their imperialist policies. As a consequence, the Peace Treaty was one of the most unequal treaties ever negotiated in history.” These words recall the hour after the First World War, when the blood of millions still cried from the soil, and yet the nations of power chose self-interest over justice. They remind us that lofty promises may be cast aside when victory is secure, and that the cause of the weak is often trampled beneath the ambitions of the strong.

The Fourteen Points, spoken by Woodrow Wilson, promised a new world order: open diplomacy, freedom of the seas, respect for peoples’ right to self-determination, and a League of Nations to guard against future wars. To the weary, it sounded like the voice of a prophet proclaiming a new covenant. The colonized peoples of Asia and Africa heard it and believed that their hour of liberation was near. China, too, hoped that territories long seized by foreign hands might at last be restored. But Sun Yat-sen reveals the bitter truth: when the cannons fell silent, the victors clothed themselves again in the garments of imperialism. The dream of equality gave way to the hunger for dominion, and the treaty of peace became instead a document of injustice.

The ancients knew this pattern well. How often did kings promise their allies riches and honor, only to discard them once victory was won? In Greek tales, Agamemnon and Achilles quarreled over spoils while Troy still burned, proving that men are quick to betray noble words when greed enters their hearts. So too did the Treaty of Versailles bear witness: it punished the vanquished with crushing reparations, rewarded the victors with colonies and concessions, and left those who had hoped for freedom in deeper chains.

History gives us a living example in the May Fourth Movement of 1919. When the treaty awarded Shandong—a province of China, long oppressed by foreign powers—to Japan rather than returning it to China, the people rose in anger. Students filled the streets of Beijing, their cries demanding dignity and justice. This protest lit a fire that shaped a century of Chinese awakening, for it revealed that promises from abroad could not be trusted, and that only through unity and strength could a nation secure its rightful place. The betrayal at Versailles thus became not only a scar, but a seed of renewal.

Sun Yat-sen’s words remind us that peace without justice is no peace at all. A treaty that enriches the conquerors and silences the oppressed plants the seeds of future conflict. Indeed, the injustice of Versailles did not end war, but sowed the anger that later gave rise to yet another world war. Thus the lesson is eternal: victory must be tempered with fairness, and the strong must not forget the weak, lest the world descend again into bloodshed.

The teaching for us today is clear: beware the promises of those who speak noble words in times of need but abandon them in times of power. Look always for actions, not just declarations. And if you hold influence, let your word be steadfast, that you do not become like those whom Sun Yat-sen condemned. Seek justice, equality, and honesty in agreements, whether among nations or among neighbors, for only then can trust endure.

So I say to you, children of tomorrow: do not be dazzled by the fine phrases of leaders unless their deeds give them weight. Demand treaties that uplift, not enslave. In your own lives, let your promises stand firm even when it no longer serves your advantage, for this is the true measure of honor. And remember always: peace without righteousness is an illusion, but peace with justice is eternal. In this way, we may yet avoid the errors of Versailles, and walk the harder but nobler road of true peace.

Sun Yat-sen
Sun Yat-sen

Chinese - Leader November 12, 1866 - March 12, 1925

With the author

Tocpics Related
Notable authors
Have 5 Comment When the war was in progress, England and France agreed

CT7A3.41.Nguyen Cong Thanh

This quote really speaks to the cynical side of politics, where promises of peace and democracy are often overshadowed by imperial ambitions. I can’t help but wonder—did Wilson truly believe his Fourteen Points would be respected, or was he just naive about the political realities of the time? How much of the Treaty’s unequal nature was unavoidable, and how much of it was a conscious decision by the leading powers?

Reply.
Information sender

TPThu Phuong

I find Sun Yat-sen’s perspective on the peace treaty fascinating, especially his emphasis on the conflict between Wilson’s idealism and the imperialist agendas of England, France, and Italy. But I wonder, was it even realistic for Wilson’s vision to succeed in such a context? Given the geopolitical interests at play, could any treaty have truly been just, or were the terms always going to reflect the dominance of the victors?

Reply.
Information sender

HTTran Ngoc Huyen Trang

Sun Yat-sen’s comment on the peace treaty being one of the most unequal treaties in history makes me question the fairness of many historical peace agreements. How often do these negotiations reflect the true intentions of all parties involved, and how often do they prioritize the interests of the powerful? Could there ever have been a more equitable treaty, or was the power imbalance simply too great to overcome?

Reply.
Information sender

TQNguyen Thuy Quynh

This quote from Sun Yat-sen sheds light on the political dynamics of the post-World War I era, but I’m curious—how did the smaller nations or colonies feel about the peace treaty? If the major powers were focused on imperialism, what kind of consequences did this have for those outside of Europe? Did Wilson’s ideals have any real impact on the negotiations, or were they merely a bargaining chip used by the victors?

Reply.
Information sender

BAVu Bao Anh

Sun Yat-sen’s analysis of the Peace Treaty reflects a deep skepticism about the true motives behind international politics. It raises an important question: how often do countries, in the aftermath of war, prioritize their imperial interests over the promises of peace? Can we ever truly achieve lasting peace if the major powers are more interested in maintaining control than honoring idealistic frameworks like Wilson's Fourteen Points?

Reply.
Information sender
Leave the question
Click here to rate
Information sender