I reject the themes that think all longer term consequences of a war were/are possible to anticipate, particularly as far as changes to shifting alliances. There may be consequences but many cannot be anticipated when a war starts, or due to its causes; conditions that often only become clear “when the dust settles”.
Wilson was NOT the bigggest proponent for entering WWI - he was a reluctant late comer. If the disfunction of the League of Nations had anything to do with WWII, or if the terms inflicted on Germany in the WWI treaties caused it, neither was a result of actions directed by Wilson or due to actions Wilson had the power to prevent. The GOP controlled Senate kept us out of the League of Nations and Wilson had to play second fiddle to France and England with the Paris treaties and could not have forced them into a different result.
Blaming Wilson for everything is no different than not seeing what others saw, as detrimental to the U.S. and its interests, if Germany had won WWI, if Germany had defeated England and France. I think THAT would not have prevented WWII in Europe or prevented the Bolsheviks.
Many bad things in Europe evolved from changes wrought by WWI. Blaming them all, or even the most important ones on Wilson is not history and lets the Europeans off the hook too much.
Wilson was an arrogant jerk who thought he could solve the world’s problems on the backs of average Americans who gave their body parts to that awful war.
That said—it is true the European leaders were even worse.