What arguments were made for and against the League of Nations?
How did they compare with arguments for and against U.S. involvement in World War I?
Use these documents to answer the two questions:
1. Wilson's Joint Address to Congress Leading to the Declaration of War Against Germany
2. Henry Cabot Reservations with Regard to the Treaty
3. An expert from the Senate Debate on the League of Nations
4. Wilson's Final Address in Support of the League of Nations
1. Wilson's Joint Address to Congress Leading to the Declaration of War Against Germany:
For: The key argument Wilson presents for U.S. involvement in World War I is the defense of democracy and the shared values of the United States and its allies. He argues that unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany constitutes a real danger to international order, commerce, and peace, and that it is the duty of the United States to intervene to protect its own interests and to champion justice and the rights of humanity.
Against: In this document, arguments against U.S. involvement would center around the idea that America should not be the policeman of the world and that war should always be the last resort. Wilson himself acknowledges the wish of the American people to remain neutral and not get entangled in foreign matters, but urges that circumstances have changed, and intervention is necessary to defend core values.
2. Henry Cabot Lodge's Reservations with Regard to the Treaty:
For: Lodge acknowledges the need for international cooperation and an organization that could help prevent future wars. However, he raises concerns about the League's ability to infringe upon the autonomy and sovereignty of its member nations, especially in relation to its mandate for collective action in case of aggression against one member by another, and its ability to override treaties or agreements made by the United States in advance.
Against: Lodge's reservations argue that the League, as structured, could entangle the U.S. in unnecessary conflicts, usurp national sovereignty, and impose burdens that would be especially unwelcome for a nation still reeling from the cost of World War I, which many considered avoidable for the U.S. in the first place.
3. An excerpt from the Senate Debate on the League of Nations:
For: Senators who supported the League argued that joining the organization would allow the United States to play a leading role in global politics and shape the peacekeeping efforts in the post-war world. They viewed the League as an important step towards collective security, a way to ensure long-lasting peace and prevent future wars through diplomacy and open communication among nations.
Against: Senators who opposed the League feared that it would manipulate U.S. foreign policy and diminish the country's ability to act independently. There was a strong sentiment of isolationism, and critics worried that America could be drawn into international disputes that were irrelevant to its interests. They also raised concerns that the League did not have a fair mechanism to resolve international disputes, which could lead to disagreements and even wars among members.
4. Wilson's Final Address in Support of the League of Nations:
For: Wilson passionately argues for the League, stating that it serves as the keystone to a lasting peace and a new world order where international cooperation and collective security are valued over militarism and imperialism. The League would provide a forum for arbitration and dialogue, where smaller, weaker countries could voice their concerns and have a say in world affairs, which would ensure a more even distribution of power and less likelihood of conflict due to disagreements between nations.
Against: Wilson's critics would argue that his idealism is admirable but unrealistic, especially considering the strong nationalist sentiments lingering after the war. They would claim that the League would not be effective in preventing future conflicts or preserving American sovereignty and that the U.S. could better protect its interests by staying out of global organizations, where its actions and decisions would be subject to scrutiny and influence from other nations.