The Post’s Feb. 12 World article about the United Kingdom’s divergent views of World War I [“100 years on, WWI sets off a fight in Britain”] offered useful insights into some of the ongoing debates. The crucial point, however, is that the nature of the negotiated settlement at Versailles in 1919 produced lasting problems and diluted any gains.

Fighting ended with an armistice, not a definitive victory (a distinction Ulysses “Unconditional Surrender” Grant had understood in an earlier war, and Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt in a later one), and huge reparation payments were imposed on Germany — facts that left a situation that inevitably led to an even greater conflict. Any gains for the United Kingdom from World War I were largely lost by postwar politicians.

As Gen. Ferdinand Foch, commander-in-chief of the Allied Armies, said with pinpoint accuracy of the 1919 treaty, “This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years.” John Maynard Keynes also did a thorough job of demolishing the treaty in “The Economic Consequences of the Peace.”

The question remains, however: What would have happened after World War I if the United States had taken a leadership role in the world and, for example, participated in the League of Nations?

Kenneth Button, Arlington