[somenameforme]

Well we did say idealistically didn't we? But in general I don't really think this idea is so radical. This seems to be one of the very few topics countries of widely different ideological values could see eye to eye on. It's not because of some sort of grander ideological values or whatever, but good old fashioned self interest.

The cost of participation would be less than zero in one case - don't screw around in other people's countries, and negligible in the case of allowing emigration, which near to all countries excepting a handful of places like North Korea, already do. While the benefits of not having others screw around in your country would generally be significantly greater. So violating the agreement would generally not be in one's self interest.

[AlbertCory]

Wasn't that the idea of the Fourteen Points?

[somenameforme]

In spirit perhaps, but most certainly not in the implementation. For instance Wilson apparently intended and meant for one of his points to suggest that Danzig (a strategically vital 90%+ German city) should go to Poland. And that, among other absurd ideas, did happen in the Treaty of Versailles. It's difficult to claim you're about respecting the interests of others when making decisions like that.

And again this isn't about ideology or ethics, but simple self interest. Danzig (And other dubious decisions from the Treaty of Versailles) all but guaranteed WW2. In general it's quite interesting to consider how many major conflicts since WW1 can, in one way or another, be tied directly back to WW1. The War to End All Wars was really more like the War to Start All Wars.

[AlbertCory]

> In spirit

yes. Good intentions, maybe, but they induced Germany to surrender but then feel betrayed by the ultimate Treaty. It would have been better to just continue, let everyone in Germany realize they were beaten, and bring the troops home. The Europeans have a lot of experience in diplomacy and they could hardly have done any worse.