America & World War I
Why did the Senate refuse to allow America's entrance into the League of nations? How would the 20th Century have been different if the League had power? Do you think the United nations has done enough to keep peace in the world? (use real examples to support your position)
The League of Nations was to prevent warfare in which executed in settling disputes between countries through arbitration. When the League of Nations held their first peace conference in Paris, France, Woodrow Wilson took the privilege in representing the US to try and “prevent another world war from ever happening again,” (Source 1). Since this was what the UN was so ‘gung-ho’ about keeping peace between nations, Wilson felt that he would be able to persuade the Senate to ratify his proposal. However, this was not enough to get the members of the senate to approve of this proposal because the treaty was rejected “precluding American participation in the league,” (Source 1).
ReplyDeleteHenry Cabot Lodge, leading opponent in the Senate, disproved of the treaty because he felt it “amounted to a cession of American sovereignty,” (Source 1 ). The reason why this would become a dilemma for the US is because it would decrease our nationalism, in which we fought hard for in order to be apart of the League of Nations. In other words, we would be subject to international law and regulations rather than having our own to lead our country. After this refusal to accept the Versailles Treaty, American diplomacy would be characterized by isolationism, (Source 1).
If the League of Nations had power over the United States, our nationalism would barely even exist. Our laws would be completely manipulated by their international laws that it would repeal what we had fought so hard for to mark the beginning of our nation. In my opinion, the United Nations shouldn‘t even exist. It’s just another gimmick of socialism that tries to put us under an ‘umbrella’ to control and dictate our nationalism.
Sources:
Source 1 - http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/league-of-nations.htm
Source 2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations
` Meghan Post
The senate refused America's participation in the League of Nations because, Henry Cabot Lodge opposed the Treaty in due to his belief that the Treaty amounted to a cession of America's sovereignty. This idea from Lodge triggered an era of American isolationism, for the next ten years, in the League of Nations.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, had the League of Nations been in power, WWII would not have occured. I think this because, the League of Nations would not have allowed for Nazism to rise in Germany. They also would not have allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, or the nuclear bomb that attacked Japan by the US.
The UN was created to defeat the Axis Power, Italy, Japan, and Germany. Has the UN done enough to keep peace in the world, yes, to a certain degree. The UN has definitely stopped Mussolinni in the past, as well as Nazi German progression, and anti-Japanese totaliarism. In more recent events, I still feel as though the UN has a lot to accomplish, however, they have done enough in terms of the Iraqi War, Afghan War, Israeli-Jordan War.
http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/un.htm
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe senate refused to allow America into the League of Nations because Henry Cabot Lodge opposed the Treaty in due to his belief that the Treaty amounted to a cession of America's sovereignty. If the LEague had Power, the 20th Century would have been different because it would not have allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. I believe the UN has done an okay job at keeping peace in the world. I believe that the UN just still has a little bit more work to do with the middle east. But then again, you can't please everyone.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/un.htm
The League of Nations, established in 1920, was a world organization proposed by President Woodrow Wilson which served the purpose of promoting international peace. This time period was the end of World War I, which obviously impacted the decision to establish a peaceful organization. In fact, it was organized by the victorious nations at the Paris Peace Conference. “Its strongest advocate was US President Woodrow Wilson, [but,] ironically, his own country’s Senate refused to ratify membership and hence the world’s strongest state withdrew into a form of ‘isolation’.” (Political Dictionary, David Carlton) “[The] United States never joined the League of Nations because irreconcilable disputes developed between progressives and conservatives in the American internationalist movement over whether the United States should be able to expand its army and navy and exert force independently.” (US Military Dictionary)
ReplyDeleteThe task of the League of Nations was to prevent “international armed aggression” through a system of collective security. “Analysts have differed ever since as to whether such a system of collective security would in all circumstances have proved unworkable or whether the failure was due in the particular case to so few great powers being loyal members.” (Political Dictionary, David Carlton)
There will always remain the question of how the United States’ participation in the League of Nations would have affected the success of the organization. “As it was, the direction of the system was left in the hands of states - primarily Britain and France - whose altruism was questionable and whose economic resources had been crippled by the war.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/league_nations_01.shtml)
However, despite the short amount of time the league was in effect, by December of 1920, 48 states had already signed the League Covenant and decided to cooperate in order to eliminate aggression between nations. In fact, “A series of disputes - between Germany and Poland over Upper Silesia, between Italy and Greece, and between Greece and Bulgaria - were resolved under its auspices.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/league_nations_01.shtml) For these reasons, I believe that if the League of Nations had continued to grow into the 20th century, World War II could possibly have been avoided.
Overall, I do not think the United Nations has done enough to keep world peace. “Between 2007 and 2008, the [Heidelberg] institute recorded a rise of seven “high” intensity conflicts, rising from 32 to 39. Nine of these were considered full-on wars.” (Andreas Zumach) For example, in Africa “[the] Heidelberg institute recorded 12 “high” conflicts in 2008, with three officially described as full-on wars. Conflicts were recorded in Sudan, Chad, the Congo, the Central African Republic of Somalia, Ethiopia, Mali and the Niger. None of these 12 “high” conflicts in Africa were ended or concluded with a political solution as of...2009.” (Andreas Zumach) In addition, there have been an increasing number of conflicts in Iraq, Iran, Sri Lanka, India, and on the American continent, just within the past two years. Clearly it is unreasonable to expect complete world peace at any time. The amount of conflicts reported continues to increase annually, yet it is the purpose of the United Nations to eliminate and/or avoid these conflicts.
Sources:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4710127,00.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/league-of-nations
The League of Nations, established in 1920, was a world organization proposed by President Woodrow Wilson which served the purpose of promoting international peace. This time period was the end of World War I, which obviously impacted the decision to establish a peaceful organization. In fact, it was organized by the victorious nations at the Paris Peace Conference. “Its strongest advocate was US President Woodrow Wilson, [but,] ironically, his own country’s Senate refused to ratify membership and hence the world’s strongest state withdrew into a form of ‘isolation’.” (Political Dictionary, David Carlton) “[The] United States never joined the League of Nations because irreconcilable disputes developed between progressives and conservatives in the American internationalist movement over whether the United States should be able to expand its army and navy and exert force independently.” (US Military Dictionary)
ReplyDeleteThe task of the League of Nations was to prevent “international armed aggression” through a system of collective security. “Analysts have differed ever since as to whether such a system of collective security would in all circumstances have proved unworkable or whether the failure was due in the particular case to so few great powers being loyal members.” (Political Dictionary, David Carlton)
There will always remain the question of how the United States’ participation in the League of Nations would have affected the success of the organization. “As it was, the direction of the system was left in the hands of states - primarily Britain and France - whose altruism was questionable and whose economic resources had been crippled by the war.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/league_nations_01.shtml)
However, despite the short amount of time the league was in effect, by December of 1920, 48 states had already signed the League Covenant and decided to cooperate in order to eliminate aggression between nations. In fact, “A series of disputes - between Germany and Poland over Upper Silesia, between Italy and Greece, and between Greece and Bulgaria - were resolved under its auspices.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/league_nations_01.shtml) For these reasons, I believe that if the League of Nations had continued to grow into the 20th century, World War II could possibly have been avoided.
Overall, I do not think the United Nations has done enough to keep world peace. “Between 2007 and 2008, the [Heidelberg] institute recorded a rise of seven “high” intensity conflicts, rising from 32 to 39. Nine of these were considered full-on wars.” (Andreas Zumach) For example, in Africa “[the] Heidelberg institute recorded 12 “high” conflicts in 2008, with three officially described as full-on wars. Conflicts were recorded in Sudan, Chad, the Congo, the Central African Republic of Somalia, Ethiopia, Mali and the Niger. None of these 12 “high” conflicts in Africa were ended or concluded with a political solution as of...2009.” (Andreas Zumach) In addition, there have been an increasing number of conflicts in Iraq, Iran, Sri Lanka, India, and on the American continent, just within the past two years. Clearly it is unreasonable to expect complete world peace at any time. The amount of conflicts reported continues to increase annually, yet it is the purpose of the United Nations to eliminate and/or avoid these conflicts.
Sources:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4710127,00.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/league-of-nations
The senate refused America's participation in the League of Nations because, Henry Cabot Lodge opposed the Treaty in due to his belief that the Treaty amounted to a cession of America's sovereignty. If the League had power in the 20th century, things would be a log more different then it is now. The reason why I say this is because I don't think WWI would have happened because they would not have let Nazism to take over Germany or would have let the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. I think the United Nations did all they could do so far. If it wasn't for them, I think a lot more wars would have happened and there would be a lot more hatred in the world. It's better to have something helping rather then nothing.
ReplyDeleteThe senate refused America's participation in the League of Nations because, Henry Cabot Lodge opposed the Treaty in due to his belief that the Treaty amounted to a cession of America's sovereignty. If the League had power in the 20th century, things would be a log more different then it is now. The reason why I say this is because I don't think WWI would have happened because they would not have let Nazism to take over Germany or would have let the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. I think the United Nations did all they could do so far. If it wasn't for them, I think a lot more wars would have happened and there would be a lot more hatred in the world. It's better to have something helping rather then nothing.
ReplyDeleteThe league of nations was just starting out, after World War I, and needed support from every country. Wilson was there in a flash to help the league obtain some power and support, but the senate would not even consider helping the league. The senate was still stuck on isolation, on the fact that America didn’t need help on peace keeping, they were perfectly fine on their own. “The Senate's refusal to accept the treaty signaled a resurgent isolationism that would characterize American diplomacy through the 1920s and early 1930s.”(source 1) If America had help the league obtain some power, maybe the world would never have seen the blood bath of World War II, maybe so many lives wouldn’t be scared today. And maybe the world would have known what peace and compromise were. No I don’t believe the United Nations has done a lot to keep peace between other countries or even keep peace inside a country. Look at Africa it continues to destroy itself, and the countries around it help them destroy themselves to. Darfur continues to be at war with itself and everyone just watches as people destroy themselves. “Nearly all of its major ethnic and religious groups have fought one another, and politics continues to be dominated by mistrust, outside interference and combustible animosities.” (source 2) It is not the fault of the United Nations for the stubborn of and the unwell fullness of the other nations. You can’t make peace, one must be willing to follow.
ReplyDeletesource 1:http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/league-of-nations.htm
Source 2:http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/sudan/index.html
After World War I, it was clear that war was not healthy for international relationships. The League of Nations was initiated in order to prevent wars from breaking out again. The American Senate however, refused to allow America to be in the League of Nations because of Henry Cabot Lodge’s opposition. He felt that by participating, American leaders would be focusing on international affairs more than focusing on their own country, decreasing nationalism. I believe the relationships of countries in the 20th century would be a lot better if the League had power by preventing complications between countries, like the attacks on Pearl Harbor from the Japanese. The League could have prevented the spread of Nazism to other countries like Poland, but I believe that the rise of Nazis within Germany could have still occurred. Although there has not been peace between every country, I believe there has been enough peace to at least keep everyone satisfied and their pistols in their
ReplyDeletepockets.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/leagueofnations.htm
The reason why Senate refused to allow America’s entrance into the League of Nations was mainly because of a personal dispute between Woodrow Wilson and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. Woodrow Wilson outlined the provisions for peace in Europe in his “14 Points”. These “14 points” were met with much acceptance in Europe. Because of this widespread acceptance, Wilson believed that he would return to the United States and receive the same amount of acceptance. This did not happen. There was massive dispute over his “14 points” because they went against the isolationism policy that the U.S. participated in at the end of World War I. The major source of dispute over Wilson’s idea of creating a League of Nations with the United States at the head was between Lodge and Wilson. Lodge created, in a response to Wilson’s “14 Points”, fourteen reservations that were safeguards reserving “the rights of the United States under the Monroe Doctrine and the Constitution” as wells as any other measure that protected the United States’ sovereignty. Wilson, not wanting any alterations to the Treaty of Versailles, told all true democrats to vote against the treaty with Lodge’s reservations attached. As a result, the Senate denied the treaty 55 to 39. Wilson simply did not want the Treaty of Versailles to have Lodge’s reservations tacked on.
ReplyDeleteIf the United States had joined the League of Nations, thus granting them the assistance of the leading world power, the League could have possible prevented the development of World War II. Also, had the League of Nations had power, this would have encouraged many countries to join so that their security would not be threatened.
The United States has not put much effort in keeping world peace. One major example is its participation with the Allied powers in World War II. First of all, had the joined the League of Nations in the first place World War II probably would not have occurred. However, even when World War II was going on, and the United States KNEW it was going on, the US just ignored it. The only reason we joined World War II was because Japan bombed our naval base at Pearl Harbor, and because Hitler directly declared war on the United States. Had those two things not happened the U.S. would not have fought and possibly not have won.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/leagueofnations.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations#Origins_and_structure
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080311211148AAM8h47
http://www.worldwariihistory.info/WWII/United-States.html
The Kennedy Book
Despite the fact the League of Nations was Woodrow Wilson's mind child, America wasn't apart of it. The league was made in response to the affects of WW1. The sole purpose was to prevent wars and keep good international affairs between countries to further prevent conflicts between one another. But thanks to Lodge's opposition on the matter, the Senate refused to be apart of it when they refused to ratify the Versailles treaty. But sooner than later the League dissolved and led way to the unpowerful United Nations.
ReplyDeleteBut if the League had power, the 20th century would have been a lot different. If the league had power, they would be able to do their sole point, to better relations. The league would have prevented the spread of NAZI Germany's thoughts and maybe even actions from infecting Europe. In sequence, the attack on Pearl Harbor wouldn't have happened. Nor in response would the bombing of Japan's Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Relations would between most would be great!
Its successor though, the United Nations has, as you yourself have put it, no 'teeth' to real do anything at all. The UN has a bag of 'soilders' with 'UN' painted on the side of the helmets who are there to maintain peace. But what peace can they maintain when there enemies are rebels with weapons (we most likely sold them.) They can't really do much to fight the genicide in Africa if they have no real power to do so. With no power, the U.N. is really just a group of deaf orators who can only utter to others what should happen rather than hear there own thoughts and take action.
-DOUG!!
After World War I, it was clear that war was not healthy for international relationships. The League of Nations was initiated in order to prevent wars from breaking out again. The American Senate however, refused to allow America to be in the League of Nations because of Henry Cabot Lodge’s opposition. He felt that by participating, American leaders would be focusing on international affairs more than focusing on their own country, decreasing nationalism. I believe the relationships of countries in the 20th century would be a lot better if the League had power by preventing complications between countries, like the attacks on Pearl Harbor from the Japanese. The League could have prevented the spread of Nazism to other countries like Poland, but I believe that the rise of Nazis within Germany could have still occurred. As for the United Nations I believe they have been doing an alright job at keeping peace in the world. Any hostile instances that happen usually stay between two or three small countries and don’t bring in every other country along with it, just like the conflicts in Iraq and Iran. Although there has not been peace between every country, I believe there has been enough peace kept to at least keep everyone satisfied and their pistols in their pockets.
ReplyDeleteMuh bad. this was my revised version.
The League of Nations was founded in 1919 as a result of the Treaty of Versailles and the end of World War I. Woodrow Wilson had personally represented the United States at the Versailles peace conference, and he arrived in Paris intent upon establishing a collective security organization that would prevent another world war from ever happening again. The league and its covenant were the ultimate expression of that vision, and President Wilson submitted the treaty to the Senate confident that he could persuade enough of its members to vote for ratification.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the treaty was ultimately rejected (precluding American participation in the league), the political fight that surrounded the Versailles Treaty proved to be one of the most important episodes of the interwar period. The president campaigned for its ratification personally, criss-crossing the country to deliver speeches on its behalf and placing all of his prestige behind the sole question of ratification. Wilson's opponents in the Senate were led by Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts, a dyed-in-the-wool Republican patrician who opposed the Versailles Treaty on the grounds that it amounted to a cession of American sovereignty. The Senate's refusal to accept the treaty signaled a resurgent isolationism that would characterize American diplomacy through the 1920s and early 1930s.
I believe that if the League had power a lot of things would have been changed due to the input of the League also it could have prevented wars or battles and could have promoted peace.
The United States has always had a positive side to wars in some ways but in some ways our country did take action in selfish matters. Did we do all that we could to prevent war? no i don't think we did. Did we have intentions for peace? Yes, But I do believe we acted out of many reasons regardless of peace. Reasons like territory and resources or preventing another nation from getting territory and resources. We was drawn to the Philippines because we was preventing Japan from taking over their land.
-http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/league-of-nations.htm
The United States Senate refused to join the league of Nations because they wanted to avoid the "foreign entanglements" of the League. This was due from a strong push from Henry Cabot Lodge who opposed the Treaty in due to his belief that the Treaty amounted to a cession of America's sovereignty.
ReplyDeleteIf the League of Nations had power over the United States, our nationalism would have diminished. Some of the lwas we have now we probley wouldn't have.Then again maybe we wouldn't have seen the rath of World War 2 and the world would be a more peaceful place or maybe just the oppisent and the world would of went into chaos because the League tried to take total control of all the nations. Then again maybe Germany and Japan still would have left the League of Nation and we still would of had WWII and the things that followed it today like the UN. I think the United Nations has tried to keep world peace but doesn't have an enough back bone to do it. Countries aren't really afraid of the UN because they really don't use any force when a country is doing something wrong.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090331185458AAplUtL
During the 1920's , there was a Senate named Henry Cabot Lodge who opposed becoming apart of Something America is apart of Today, the United nations. The idea of having a uniting the Nations became the face of hope and a solution to end wars. Though seeming like a great idea and being backed by its creator President Woodrow Wilson, America did not join. Cession of American sovereignty was the issue Henry Lodge opposed President Wilson's campaign with. Because of the senate's disapproval of the presidents idea to break out of isolationism, Wilson wasn't able to have the U.S join up in hopes to become a part of the solution to stopping war.
ReplyDeleteAt the time of United Nations, I believe that if they did succeed the way Wilson wanted them to, maybe less outbreaks of war would have happened
In my opinion i believe Wilson's mind was before his time and the idea of becoming apart of something to overtake and control war was to much for america at the time. Though Wilson's mind was before its time, I do believe everything happened they way it was supposed to and trying to fathom how things would have turned out differently is irrelevant. Anything , everything could have and would have happened if history changed.
In 1920, Woodrow Wilson established the League of Nations. Its primary purpose was to endorse international peace, and prevent war. In disharmony with that, the Senate refused to allow America’s entrance into the League of Nations because Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points. “The Fourteen Points was a speech delivered by United States President Woodrow Wilson to a joint session of Congress on January 8, 1918. The address was intended to assure the country that the Great War was being fought for a moral cause and for postwar peace in Europe. People in Europe generally welcomed Wilson's intervention, but his Allied colleagues (Georges Clemenceau, David Lloyd George and Vittorio Emanuele Orlando) were skeptical of the applicability of Wilsonian idealism.” However, America did not welcome this address in the same manner. In fact, they did not welcome it at all. Wilson’s Fourteen Points went against the isolationism policy, a policy that America already favored. Not to mention, Henry Lodge made his opposition toward Wilson's plan clear.
ReplyDeleteThe 20th Century would have been different in huge way if League of Nations had power. The League could have fulfilled its duty of preventing war (World War II) and promoting peace cross borders.
It is clear that the United Nations has not done enough to keep peace in the world. HELLO!! LOOK AROUND! You can’t even find peace in Lindenwold, let alone in entire nations. The United States, at the end of the day, cares about one thing: The United States. The U.S. would not have even taken part in World War II if it wasn’t for Pearl Harbor, and before Pearl Harbor, there was not an ounce of promotion of international peace. Why is everyone so selfish? Everyone remains indifferent to the problems of others until the problem involves them. It’s one thing to get involved just to be nosy, controlling countries. It is another thing to try to make a circumstance better for a country, and in turn, better for one’s own country.
CHRIS PRICE!