1991 Dbq Analysis

511 Words2 Pages

Upon the conclusion of the First World War, the strength of the Senate against the Treaty of Versailles, and President Wilson's stubbornness, brought its defeat. This is mainly due to the common feeling of staying away from further European involvement, the fear of implementing a poorly drawn-up treaty, Senate's assertion of its power against the executive, and the plurality of Republicans in Senate versus the Democrat President. Both the conservatives and liberals during time realized that American involvement had gone too far. They were suppose to be promised isolation. Sentiments of the 1914 Proclamation of Neutrality had come back, mainly due to the involvement of over 100,000 American deaths in a war which did not even concern them. As Washington said in his Farewell Address, to resist being involed in foreign alliances, so did the liberals. Take the article from the New Republic (Doc. B) for example, the article indicates its reluctance to continue with an alliance to "intensify . . . the old and ugly dissentions." The conservatives also felt that further involvement would be futile, for such a pact would mean future skirmishes would lead to new wars, where the U.S. would have to enter, as a result of …show more content…

Herbert Hoover (Doc. D) felt that the treaty had conflicting clauses that would lose public support. This can be seen when in the treaty called for a League of Nations to mediate international problems, when it also included great demands of reparations from Germany. If the U.S. were to take the side of collecting such reparations, the foreign relations with Germany could be seen as caustic. Also, a renewed Germany, full of disspute may take it upon themselves to take revenge on the Allies. The economists also realized that if other nations did not want to get involved, why should the U.S.? This can be seen from Keynes point of view (Doc.

Open Document