None of these ideals will be perfectly compatible with the ideals of other individuals or groups also attempting to realize their self-determination ideals. As such, conflicts will arise as self-determination issues clash. The world after the first World War was no exception. One significant issue related specifically to boundaries. To some, self-determination meant not only being governed by leaders of their own choosing, but also that their boundaries would reflect either national or ethnographic divisions. In some cases, this was just not possible. In Italy, for example, the boundary shift to include a Tyrolese sector is problematic, as the latter will not be reconciled to a nation that has victimized them for centuries. To others, the self-determination term meant no more than a political tool to further their own ideologies. Neither Wilson nor Lenin intended the concept to be universally applicable. As such, many nations had the right towards self-determination in little more than name only.

It is...

One example of conflict brought about by self-determination issues is Ireland, in which the battle towards self-determination has culminated in violent conflict lasting for decades.
From the reading, it is clear that self-determination is neither a simple nor a peaceful concept. In addition to leaders using the concept as a political tool, citizens also have their own ideologies relating to the concept. Self-determination simply means too many diverse things to too many different people to ever be realized peacefully or indeed fully according to the desire of each individual or group. While it was therefore realized to a certain extent by certain people, self-determination was neither fully nor peacefully accomplished after World War I.

Chapter 6, p. 67

Chapter 6, p. 69.