Treaty Of Versailles Dbq

Just before the conclusion of the devastating World War I, which had taken more lives than any other war in history, President Woodrow Wilson and the delegates of the Senate in 1919 had conglomerated to come to a decision as to the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles, which had primarily been proposed to set forth conditions which would ultimately put an end to the war. Specifically, according to Wilson’s propositions at the Covenant, the Treaty would make peace with the United States’ adversaries by …; however, its major caveat was that it would divert all blame and responsibility for the war to Germany. This clause would cause several disputes between Wilson and his fellow Senators, which had eventually led to the vetoing of the Treaty

Specifically, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s primary aim in establishing hearings pertinent to the Treaty of Versailles had been to rally the undecided, or the Mild Reservationists, to accept compromises to the League of Nations, alongside other of his original 14 points. However, President Wilson had refused to allow the League of Nations, as well as any of his other points, to be modified or compromised in any way, to any extent. Wilson’s involvement with the Republican party, specifically Henry Lodge, had created a turmoil which had eventually escalated to the defeat of the Treaty of Versailles at the Senate. As expressed by W. E. B. DuBois in “The League of Nations”, the League of Nations had harbored the potential to reunite the world round and to cement the twentieth century as the most progressive, most peaceful of the history of the United States. To the contrary, it had been Wilson himself who had stood in the way of progress: “Forty-one nations, including nearly every Negro and mulatto and colored government of the world, have met in Geneva and formed the assembly of the League of Nations. This is the most forward-looking event of the century. Because of the idiotic way in which the stubbornness of Woodrow Wilson and the political

Precisely, as stated by Irreconcilable William Borah in a speech to the Senate in 1918, the League of Nations in particular stands no chance at imposition, and certainly does not stand on its own, for it clearly, contradictorily advocates for the very measures that it seemingly goes against: “The first proposition connected with the proposed league is that of a tribunal to settle the matters of controversy which may arise between the different nations. Will anyone advocate that those matters which are of vital importance to our people shall be submitted to a tribunal created other than by our own people and give it an international army subject to its direction and control to enforce its decrees? I doubt if anyone will advocate that … if you do not do so, Mr. President, what will your league amount to? … In its last analysis the proposition is force to destroy force, conflict to prevent conflict, militarism to destroy militarism, war to prevent war. In its last analysis it must be that if it has any sanction behind its judgment at all. This is where the difficulty lies” (Doc A). In his potent statement against