More handpicked essays just for you.
The success of the League of Nations
The League of Nations and its achievements and failures
The success of the League of Nations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Following World War I, President Woodrow Wilson became the mastermind for the creation of an international organization (Dudley 72). Eventually he was successful in the creation of the League of Nations and fighting for it to become a part of the Treaty of Versailles (Dudley 72). Although the League became a point in the Treaty of Versailles, the United States still had to ratify the Treaty to become a part of the League themselves (Dudley 76). Americans became split about whether the United States should have a place in the League or not, and the U.S. Senate had a decision to make (Dudley 76). On one side of the argument was a Democratic senator of California, James D. Phelan (Dudley 74). Mr. Phelan believed that the United States should join the League of Nations because it is the duty of the U.S. to uphold our ideals and support Democracy (Dudley 76). However, on the opposing side of this argument was people like Lawrence Sherman, a Republican senator from Illinois (Dudley 76). Mr. Sherman felt that the United States should not join the League of Nations because that would go against the policies of isolationism he felt the U.S. should follow, and he believed that the League of Nations would bring America too much into the conflicts of Europe (Dudley 76). …show more content…
Phelan’s opinion is the correct one in this case by seeing how the U.S. has a responsibility to defend Democracy in taking part in the attempts to keep peace in the world, and support the ideals that Americans have fought and lost their lives
The United States were unjustified in going
America joining World War 1 is a huge decision that can affect the lives of millions of people and our country as a whole. There are many things that could happen that we need to consider. Some pros to joining the war could be a better economy, more jobs, and stopping Germany. Some cons of joining the war could be losing money, losing lives, and possible losing the war. Deciding whether to enter the war or not is a difficult decision and the pros and cons must be considered to make a decision.
As part of his fourteen points, Wilson proposed formation of a body that will be assigned to handle international disputes which was later named League of
Based on Wilson’s war message to Congress, It was believe that the United States had a moral and humanitarian obligation to intervene in World War I and “make the world safe for democracy” (Wilson). Luce’s point in The American Century was not imperial, but idealistic. It was America’s time to shine, “to be the powerhouse from which the ideals spread throughout the world and do their mysterious work of lifting the life of mankind from the level of the beasts to what the Psalmist called a little lower than the angels” (Luce). Both sources demonstrate that the ideals of Woodrow and Luce inspired many Americans and shaped much of the foreign policy for the remainder of the twentieth century and on. The more significant viewpoints are the differences.
Between 1895 and 1920, the years in which William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson reigned in the presidents, the United States struggled for not only justice at home but abroad as well. During this period policies such as Roosevelt’s Big Stick diplomacy, William Taft’s Dollar diplomacy, and Woodrow Wilson’s Moral diplomacy were all used in foreign affairs in hopes of benefit for all involved. However, it would be appropriate to say that self-interest was the most important driving factor for American policy and can be exemplified through economic, social, and political relations.
When World War I broke out in Europe, Woodrow Wilson announced that the United States would stay out of European affairs and remain neutral. Wilson was aware that the United States had no interest in the matters that did not directly affect the interests of American citizens. He hoped that the United States would remain neutral and continue to trade with warring nations. The American view of neutrality meant we were entitled to safely and freely trade with either side at war as long as it was out in the open seas. The United States hoped to stay out of the way because war was viewed as wasteful, irrational, and immoral.
Throughout history, America has had its hand in conflict with other countries. Some of those conflicts have turned into wars. Looking back at America’s “track record” with war, America has a worthy past of having its citizen’s support. Obviously the two World Wars are not controversial. The United States in the Korean War was criticized, fairly, for its strategy, but the need to defend South Korea was never questioned.
In his book, “Woodrow Wilson Revolution, War, and Peace” by Arthur Link, Link walks step by step through President Woodrow Wilson’s career beginning from the time he was born and focuses on his role during and after World War I. Through his entire book, Link acts as an apologist for the actions of Wilson as well as argues against the opinions of other historians. Link speaks about Wilson almost as if he idolizes him; as if despite what other historians and public opinion might say that he can do no wrong.
Although hesitant to enter war, President Woodrow Wilson knew the United States had to intervene to help bring world order. Wilson gave two speeches, one before the US entered the war and one after the conclusion of the war. The first speech was directed towards the Senate and focused on the US entering the war to bring peace and safety to all nations in the world. However, the second was directed towards Congress and focused on ending hostilities and repairing the damages made during the war while striving for global cooperation. The theme of both was for the most part, similar, but there are some noticeable differences, such as the vagueness of one and the preciseness of the other, in terms of the US’ role in determining the agreements after
In my paper I argue that the US violation of a country’s sovereignty should come only after a careful consideration and deep investigation of the reasons behind an international conflict. Moreover, all interventions should be based on specific achievable end-goals and strategies. Also, US military campaigns’ rationale should suit America’s vital national self-interest, as I define it later. Several reasons support such an international policy:
America entered World War One in 1917. America and the President, Woodrow Wilson, were horrified by the destruction that had taken place in such a humane part of the world. The only way to avoid a repeat of such a disaster was to create an international committee whose purpose was to prevent wars by maintaining world peace. This would be the task of the League of Nations. Woodrow Wilson was the creator of the League of Nations in his Fourteen Points Speech. This was ironic because the United States failed to join the League of Nations. This can be seen in the US delegations in Paris, the Congressional election of 1918, Article X, Wilson's conflict with republican senators and his problem with compromising, the Americans that didn't agree with The Versailles treaty.
Loewen uses two examples—Helen Keller and Woodrow Wilson—in order to illustrate his point, and I would like to focus on the latter for this analysis. Loewen states that while Woodrow Wilson is often presented as the founder of League of Nations following World War I and the leader of progressive causes like women’s suffrage, textbooks rarely make any reference to racial segregation of federal government and his military interventions in foreign nations (22). Wilson intervened in countries like Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Nicaragua, and, which set up dictatorship in those nations, but surprisingly documentary evidences only emphasize his role in withdrawing the troops, which sounds ironic considering that he “wasn’t” the one who put the troops in at the first place (25). Instead, textbooks portray his intentions as building up friendship or take a step further and blame the invaded nations themselves (24). Next argument that Loewen makes is that Wilson was a racist who effectively closed the Democratic Party to African Americans, a fact that most of us are not aware of because textbooks either exclude such facts or imply that the president had no other choice but to enforce segregation policies for the best interest of the nation (29).
The United States disagreed with rules of the League of Nations because the Irreconcilables, a bitter opponent for the Treaty of Versailles. This term specifically refers to about 12 to 18 United States Senators, both Republican and Democrats fought intently to defeat the ratification of the Treaty in 1919. Many feared the League of Nations might supersede, or to take the place of a person or thing previously in authority, the power of congress to declare war. The League of Nations was an intergovernmental
William G. Carleton does not believe that Woodrow Wilson was responsible for failure of joining the League of Nations. Carleton believed that Wilson knew the role that the United States need to play in the League of Nations. Wilson did not want any reservations, but Henry Cabot Lodge did. Lodge was a republican and chairman of the Committee
International Disputes Versailles: The Western powers after the First World War viewed Germany as the main leader of the war and imposed a treaty upon the defeated nation. The Treaty of Versailles was one of the post-World War I treaties, presented by the Western powers, for German leaders to sign in order to surrender different territories belonging to the different nations prior to Germany’s invasion and occupation. The different territories belonged to Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Poland, parts of Prussia and France. In addition, Germany was forced to surrender all their overseas colonies to the League of Nations. However, the greatest thing that affected Germany was not their loss of colonial land but the “War Guilt Clause,” Article 231 of the treaty, which forces Germany to accept the complete responsibility for starting World War I and make reparations to all nations for material damage.