For this post, you will read the following article that discusses how America viewed the world after WWI. You will read about the arguments for and against U.S. ratification of the Treaty of Versailles, as well as actual arguments from President Wilson (in favor) and three Senators (opposed).

http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/lesson_75_notes.htm

In your blog post, you should pick a side - in favor of or against U.S. ratification of the Treaty of Versailles - and write an introduction to a debate in which you argue your view. Your arguments should be backed up by examples and evidence from the past (i.e. if you say signing it is bad because that makes us get involved, cite examples of other countries being drawn into conflicts because of their relationships - think outside of just WWI). Please be sure to back up your arguments and follow length guidlines.
 


02/27/2012 15:04

I'm probably against this treaty becuase we in ways, backstabbed President Wilson and Germany was refusing to sign this treaty in the first place. Threats was coming out of France for an invasion. Wislon said that this treaty needs to bring peace and wanted this treaty to stop the war. If no one will stop the war, war will continue on till no country is able to move. Depression will come and no one will find a situation cause every country, that is involved.

Reply
Margarita Navarro p.2
02/28/2012 17:09

i'm a little confused, what does backstabbing the president have to do with agreeing to not have the treaty? Just because Germany didnt want to sign it means that we arn't because we follow what ever Germay does? zthe treaty would have essentually ended the war because everyone would have "forgiven" each other. i dont get how depression has a part in signing the treaty. maybe it's be or i just dont see where you're comming from.

Reply
Margarita
02/28/2012 17:10

* maybe it's me

Montana
03/05/2012 23:54

i agree i don't see where hes coming from either nowadays the president is "back-stabbed" all the time by his representative and other member of congress. and the fact that he says he is "probably against the treaty" makes me think he probably just scanned the article or he would have made to the main point.

Hannah Liska
02/27/2012 15:59

My View: Opposed to the U.S. ratification of the Treaty of Versailles

As we can see from past history (and the war going on presently) of wars that the US has fought against other countries in, isolationism is a very smart idea. There is no reason to get our soldiers involved in wars on matters that do not effect our country all that much. Just as our founding fathers wanted, I would like to see our country stay out of issues with other nations in order to create less conflicts. The US should only act when they are being threatened directly and the well being of this country's citizens are at stake. We can see from WW1, WW2, Vietnam wars that looking back after all has been said and done, little has been gained for the United States. Most importantly, our country could have saved itself a billions of dollars and innocent lives of soldiers if we stayed out of affairs with Iraq before the attacks on 9/11 that caused tension between many countries. Though many people would argue that isolationism is not the answer, my opinion is that, if at all possible, the US should be a practicing isolationist country.

Reply
Vanessa Schnurer
02/27/2012 20:21

I agree with what Hannah said because isolationism will keep our country from wasting money on a war that we dont belong in. But I also believe that isolationism can also hurt our nation if we become too isolated where we prety much stop any type of interaction with other nations. This could negatively effect our economy. I agree that our nation should only intervine when we are directly involved in the conflict. If we are not directly involved, we should let the countries that are involved try to figure things out on their own. After all America isnt the world poliece. Why should we have the responsibility of getting into other nations business. We sholdnt just stay out of other nations business just for the sake of not being nosey, but its simply not our conflict to get involved with. Its prety silly to join ino a war especially if your loosing lives and money because of it!

Reply
Emily Arnold
02/28/2012 13:07

I agree with Natalie on this subject. I am a strong believer in islonatism and this treaty would have gone against that idea. I believe that we should only fight if the cause is good enough. I feel like the US gets involved in a lot of matters that really don't concern us. I am all for helping a country, but I believe that we should really consider if getting involved would be the right thing to do or not.

Reply
Mrs. Moore
02/29/2012 11:28

Good post, Hannah. You share the views of many people in the United States and around the world.

Reply
Jasmyne Miller
02/29/2012 11:45

I disagree with your opinion. There was no avoiding the war considering we were somewhat allies with Great Britain and they needed us. Paris also needed us to help them too. We basically were directly threatened when they attacked the Lusitania considering they were using cowardly warfare and a lot of US citizens were on the boat. Also it was pretty direct when we intercepted the Zimmerman note so easily. Germany was shady and were provoking us so much trying us to get involved little did they know our power. After we came in and had to bill Germany that much we really should have tried to maintain peace with them. Isolationism is really not a good idea considering it’s impossible to stay to yourself considering we rely on other countries economies. Maybe i'm wrong, agree to disagree.

Reply
Rosa Flores
02/29/2012 18:22

I agree with what Hannah said because it's true that America never really needed to get involved in the war because it didn't even pertain to us and we were just wasting money and lives. America should've just waited to go to war when they were actually being targeted at because then that actually gives them a reason to fight. Isolationism would've been great for America too because then they wouldn't have many enemies and we wouldn't even have to ever go to war.

Reply
john Wilson
03/02/2012 14:54

i fully agree with what you are getting at. not being apart of conflicts that werent meant for us to fight would be something that the United States has to work on. I think that the only reason why the United States is usually apart of other nations conflicts is because the world sees the U.S. as international policemen. that is at least what i think...

Reply
Jasmine Espindola
03/02/2012 23:14

I partially agree with you where you said America shouldn’t get in other countries business. I think every country should have the power to fix their problems and the people should have the right to overthrow the government and put a new one if they want. Over the years, many South American countries strongly dislike the U.S. because it has gone into their country, overthrown a leader and put another one who sides with the U.S. This has lead to oppression of basic human rights and a dictatorship of a couple Latin American countries (Chile and others in the 70’s).The Us also helped train Uruguay with interrogation tactics and send them supplies and this lead to Dan Mitrione being infamous for his use of torture. These are just a few examples of why I think the U.S. should let the people of the country handle who they want running their government. I only think the U.S. should step in when serious threats against many human lives are there like world war 2 with the holocaust.

Reply
Jake Finley
02/27/2012 17:13

I agree with Wilson and his view on the U.S. ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. It wasn't our war to start with and we did join pretty late but we still fought in it and lost lots of men. We did create a shift in the war so I do think we played a big impact so we should have ratified it. I don't really agree with the League of Nations because it didn't work and only created problems, but I agree how Wilson says by not ratifying the treaty American soldiers died in vien. I think if the U.S. did ratify it, the soldiers that died wouldn't have died in vien. By not ratifying the treaty it also took the U.S. out of the picture as a leadership country. We were involved in the war so I just think we should have ratified it.

Reply
Heidi Garbers
02/29/2012 19:46

I think Jake makes a really good point with agree with the treaty when he says "It wasn't our war to start with and we did join pretty late but we still fought in it and lost lots of men." That is a very smart thing we especially weren't there in the beginning but we still helped end and changed the course of the war. So i agree with jake in that he agrees with the Versailles Treaty.

Reply
Lucas Broyles
04/20/2012 09:38

I agree Jake, the league of nations wasn't a good idea because if the other nations wanted to start a war we didn't agree with we would have to be dragged into it and we would lose american lives and the lives of our allies, and that would only cause problems. We went over there for a reason and like you said Jake all the lives that were lost would have been in vain, gone and killed for nothing. And if we hadn't ratified it we would have made Germany 100 times more bitter towards us because of the original plans that were made such as put all the blame of the war on them and make them give up their territory and make them pay us money for the money that was lost funding the war, and that would have just made a big rivalry a lot worse.

Reply
Vanessa Schnurer
02/27/2012 20:18

I am against the Treaty of Versailles. I doubt that the Germans', on top of being defeated by the Aliies, were too happy about paying various nations money for the war. Although the Germans were defeated, the Treaty of Versailles can only cause more trouble. No nation would be happy about paying, not one, but many nations for the war. America wasnt even involved with the war in the first place, yet America helped come up with the Treay of Versailles. Just rediculous. Not only was America involved with the war that it shouldnt of been apart of, but America lost people and supplies and money because its involvement in World War I. To be more specific, America lost 116,000 soldiers and all together 8.5 million killed and 21 million wounded. America wasted so much money and time in a war that we didn't even belong in. Then to add to this, we decide to support the Treaty of Versailles. Like Germany is going to want to pay the allies the 6,000 million dollars that they wanted for the war, ha, yea right. This treaty can only cause more trouble. I know that Germany lost the war and all but, that doesnt mean that theyre going to be like, "Ohh alright you got us, we lost. Here, go ahead and have all of our money. No, we insist!" Of course there not going to be happy about this and of course this unhappyness would only lead to more trouble!

Reply
Jocelyn Melendez
02/27/2012 22:09

I agree that the Germans would not be happy to pay reparations and accept the blame for the war. Pride is a very big deal with the powerful countries, so this kind of humiliation would only cause bitterness and lead to further conflict. However, I did disagree a bit on other things, you said that America wasn’t even involved in the war yet it was involved in the drafting of the Treaty of Versailles. But America was involved in the war, and had we not been involved the Central Powers would have most likely won because they gained a great advantage when Russia exited the war. So I think it was important for America to take part in the drafting of the treaty because we helped turn the tide of the war. Also, there were more opposing arguments to the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles dealing with the League of Nations. I wish you would have added some more supporting information to your argument using those facts.

Reply
Mrs. Moore
02/29/2012 11:43

Jocelyn, your response is very well stated and you make some great points. Nice job!

Mrs. Moore
02/29/2012 11:42

Vanessa, great post. You are correct in stating that the Treaty of Versailles could cause a lot of trouble and it did. The conditions laid out in the Treaty of Versailles definitely laid the groundwork for World War II.

Reply
Cory Noonan
02/27/2012 20:46

I would have to say that the treaty or versailles was not a good idea. It only made Germany more angry and upset about having to pay for the war. The treaty didn't help either. Germans still tried to attack us after they signed the treaty of versailles. I dont think president wilson was to happy about the treaty either. He was never included in the idea of bringing peace with Germany.

Reply
colton cavner
02/29/2012 10:54

i agree with you cory that the treaty of versailles only made Germany angry. i dont think that wilson realized that germany was angry about having to pay and were angry about it.

Reply
Lauren Curtis
05/29/2012 21:07

I completely agree with Cory because this Treaty would cause many more problems than it would solve. Germany would be angered by the fact that they had to pay for the war and it would never help us grow stronger or help us maintain peace with Germany.

Reply
Jocelyn Melendez
02/27/2012 21:33

Both groups that were opposed and in favor of the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles had some valid points and concerns, but ultimately, I would have been in favor of the ratification. My reasoning for this is that it would help facilitate our quest for world peace if we had an organization set up where we could settle things diplomatically instead of through war. Also, the United States was not an isolationist country in my opinion when WWI started because it was an imperialistic capitalist country, actively involved in trading with other countries. Protecting our economic interests overseas is one of the reasons, our country joined WWI. We needed to have some contact with other countries because we needed to do business with them and trade. Another thing, id like to address in the argument of those opposed is that in our book it states that the League of Nations did not have military power but it was based only on morals. Therefore, it’d be highly unlikely for the League of Nations to control the US military personnel since the League didn’t even have a military. Lastly, another thing I learned in the book concerning the League of Nations was that, if one member of the league was attacked then it’d be like they were all attacked. This perk of being in the League was that any war that did happen, it would end quickly because all of the countries in the League would join and would most likely outnumber their opponent and have an easy victory without too many negative consequences for the countries in the League.

Reply
Claire Purvis
02/28/2012 15:08

I agree with you Jocelyn because America truly was not an isolationist country prior to WWI. We were opening trade with China and had many foreign interest in the Pacific. I also agree that the League of Nations would not have control over Americas military but rather would serve as an established oversight organization in keeping the peace. Diplomatic negotiations are far more desirable than entering into war. The ratification of the treaty would have shown our willingness to be apart of the ongoing solution in maintaining world peace. Jocelyn is again correct in her analysis in that the United States was not an isolationist country because the United States along with every world nation found benefits in the positive economic interaction with other countries and therefore had knock down the borders between countries for the beneficial aspects of interaction, including trade and access to scarce resources. There would have definitely been a benefit for the United States to belong to an organization, which monitors the world.

Reply
Mrs. Moore
02/29/2012 11:44

Very well-written and well-thought out response, Claire. Great job!

Megan Galloway
02/28/2012 23:07

You have a lot of good points! I especially like your last one- "This perk of being in the League was that any war that did happen, it would end quickly because all of the other countries in the League would join and would most likely outnumber their opponent and have an easy victory without too many negative consequences for the countries in the League." That's so true! Since so many countries are a part of the League, although yes- it drags more countries in, but it also helps to shift the balance of power so it doesn't continuously stay in the hands of one country. We're able to take control ourselves and not necessarily bring the power into our own hands, but shift it just enough so it's not for example, all in Germany's hands.
As well, if we did support the idea of isolationism which would be the opposite effect of the Treaty of Versailles, how would we be what we are today? How could we say that we are the "International Police"? Then what, if we aren't going to be involved in foreign affairs, was the "Great White Fleet" ever for?

Reply
Ralph Galvez
02/27/2012 21:54

After reading the article I decided to side with Wilson for the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. I believe that the treaty would help with foreign relations and help us set our rightful place as a world power. We remained isolated from the rest of the world for quite sometime but eventually we did enter the war. In order to solidify our influence as a world power we must ratify the treaty. Perhaps the League of Nations isn't the best solution to this treaty but we need to have one regardless.

Reply
John Wilson
02/28/2012 14:10

I understand where you are coming from Ralph, but think about it. there were plenty ups and downs about the United States entering the war, but with the signing of the treaty, we were basically PULLED INTO the war because we had to protect our allies. If the treaty was never ratified, there was a chance that we wouldnt have even been apart of a war that wasnt our war to fight.

Reply
Hannah Liska
03/01/2012 13:35

John makes a very good point. Making this treaty that was not thought out as thoroughly enough really ruined our country's chance to keep away from violent fights with other countries. In the end, I don't think that the little our country has gained has been worth their decisions.

Mrs. Moore
02/29/2012 11:46

Ralph, good start to your post, but I'd like to see you expand more. What other solution do you think might be better than the League of Nations?

Reply
Ralph Galvez
02/29/2012 21:49

Ratifying the Treaty of Versailles already showed that the US was gonna play a larger role in international affairs. The League of Nations was also brought up because the Treaty pretty much ensured American involvement in it. The League of Nations probably wasn't something that had to be created due to the signing of the treaty but something like it would have emerged anyway. I think that the League was good just lacking here and there perhaps a better solution would be to create a document similar to the Monroe Doctrine stating the US' intentions to stay fairly neutral in foreign affairs yet keep trade open. Something that states that the US is interested in keeping peaceful relations with other countries but if trade becomes effected due to other conflicts with nations we will consider it our problem as well and worst case scenario declare war. That's at least the best I can come up with as a solution to this.

Josh Kessell
02/29/2012 21:42

I agree with Ralph because the ratification was probably the best way for the US to show that we are a world power and a force to be reconded with but in a very suttle way. I agree that even though we did not ratify the treaty, the league of nations was still needed reguardless because something had to be done. we couldnt just go to war and walk away like nothing ever happened. But the Treaty remains my best option to agree with

Reply
Brad Power
02/29/2012 21:58

I really liked your post because i had a different opinion on what was good for post war America. But after reading your post, i feel that ratifying the Treaty of Versailles could have actually been pretty beneficial for America. Establishing itself a major world power could have been good because it would have given America the ultimate image of power being in the league of nations. Plus the foreign relationships gained would have been very helpful in the future.

Reply
Natassja Sebastian
02/28/2012 11:32

I agree with Woodrow Wilson to have ratified the Treaty of Versailles. America was just recovering from becoming a new nation and was getting itself together when we decided to join on the long escapade of World War I. I think it only caused America a whole new set of problems to solve that wasn’t ours to begin with. I couldn’t even imagine how much money was spent for our troops to go into was across sea and fight, let alone all the men who had things back home they had to leave behind. I think that the Treaty of Versailles would help mend foreign affairs a bit to bring more peace to the world. Regardless, we have to have communication between other countries in order to maintain open trade.

Reply
Zach Carlson
02/29/2012 10:50

I agree with natassja because i basically said the same thing and we had the sam opinion on this. I still feel after reading everyone agaisnt the treaty that we still should have signed it because it might have kept the germans from going insane and starting world war 2 and we could have been so much more peacefull instead of other countries liek germany splitting in half and being communist untill 1989 when the wall was torn down that all might have been prevented if we go tthe treaty passed.

Reply
alexmoon
02/29/2012 21:39

I totes agree natassja, america competely jumped the gun there when they got involved in WWI, since they already had a lot of problems before this. Le treaty should've also been a lot less harsh on the Germans, since this could've prevented further battles and led to peace. and peace is a good thing :)

Reply
cory noonan
03/02/2012 16:33

I agree with you natasha on this one because i was able to agree with what you said about america. I find it very true to say that america maybe wasnt ready to go to war. I mean if i had a country that was just found and trying to form new laws and get the country together, i would have said no to war as well. I would be afraid to lose the land and nation that i just started. I think america should have thought maybe the treaty could fire up the germans to want to fight another war for revenge.

Reply
Emily Arnold
02/28/2012 13:03

I am against signing the treaty. I don't think that signing it would have done America any good. The reason for that being, look at how this war got started. All those treaties that were made made the war longer and more dangerous. The League of Nations seem to be just one big treaty. I know that Wilson worked hard for this and I'm glad that he wanted peace, but I really do feel like joining the league of nations and signing a treaty would have us obligated to fight for a country that maybe we don't reallly know. At least for WWII, we fought of our own accord and we decided when we would join and who we would attack. That's why I am against the TOV.

Reply
02/28/2012 13:59

Emily, I like your comment. I, too, am against the treaty. I loved how you put supporting details for your claim. I agree with you 110%.

Reply
Matt Bond
03/01/2012 19:02

I agree, by signing this treaty we're simply making it inevitable for us to be dragged into future conflicts. I understand using treaties as a form of suport but since we didn't have any powerful enemies at this time we really didn't need any support from other countries. We had nothing to gain from it, and much more to loose.

Reply
Summer Anderson
03/02/2012 20:54

I agree with emily because the war began because of the allies between the countries. If the countries hadnt had so many allies then the war between Austria-Hungry and Serbia probably would have been shorter and at a smaller scale. Also being in such a big alliance with everyone would get the U.S. in a lot of wars that we dont need to be involved in. Which would cause more men to be lost. Also joining the league of nations would take away some of our independence and military strength

Reply
Jake Finley
02/28/2012 13:36

I agree with Ralph because he thinks the treaty would have put the U.S. as a world power. We entered the war so we became part of it so I think we should have ratified the treaty. Ralph also thinks the League wasn't a good idea and I don't really agree with it either but in my opinion we still should have ratified the Treaty of Versailles.

Reply
John Wilson
02/28/2012 14:08

I personally think that the ratification of the Treaty or Versailles was a bad idea for a few reasons. Because of the signing, that put the United States in the position to fight in the war. Being apart of the treaty made the U.S. back up any of the other countries in Europe that happen to be in a state in war. So basically what the treaty did was just pull the U.S. into WWI and forced us to take actions. For example, the Zimmerman Note; this note was a telegram that was sent to Mexico to side with Germany during WWI. They wanted Mexico to fight with them so that the United States had to fight a two front war and make it difficult for the U.S. the fight back. Mexico didnt accept the offer because they didnt want to get involved in the war that they was going to affect their country to a great extent. Another example; Revolutionary War when France joined the battle to fight with the Continental Navy. It wasnt a great idea for the French to get involved with the war because if affected their country, but it still played a enormous part in the victory against Britain. But again, i still personally think that the ratification of the treaty wasnt a great idea because it just pulled the United States into a war that wasnt their war to fight in the first place.

Reply
Ashley Cotten
02/28/2012 16:30

I thought your examples were very understandable and related well to this topic.Countries egging other countries on to participate in conflict really doesn't get anyone anywhere. The Zimmerman Note was not fair at all, and was a good example of the forceful nature of war starting countries. Getting involved with any way that isn't yours to fight will almost always end up with many lives taken in vain, and will ultimately do more bad than good. Getting pulled into the war wash't good for our nation, and neither would the signing of the Treaty.

Reply
Lyle Heidenfelder
02/28/2012 18:54

First of all, we didn’t actually sign the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty came after WWI and was supposed to prevent future conflicts. It was an early form of the United Nations, with only a few countries involved.
The Zimmerman Note was almost the opposite of a treaty. It was one country trying to cause another one to join the war. Meanwhile, the League of Nations was a number of countries trying to come together to prevent war. I’m confused with the reference to the Revolutionary War and France. Are you trying to say that there were good and bad reasons for France to get involved? If that’s what you’re trying to say, I agree with you that there were good and bad things for America to join WWI. It costed us a lot in money and human life. However, Americans helped end the war very quickly and break the stalemate.
It was kind of like a tug-o-war that isn’t going anywhere until someone new joins on one end of the rope.

Reply
Claire Purvis
02/28/2012 14:54

The ratification of the Treaty of Versailles is paramount to maintaining peace throughout the world. We cannot loose the lesson of WWI, which drew in country after country like the domino affect which lead to catastrophe. Our peaceful future in this world would be jeopardized if this Treaty is not ratified. Is it not better to set up an organization to referee the conflicts in the future before they become worldwide wars in their scope? By not signing this treaty, we forfeit this permanent position at the negotiating table of world leaders. The ratification of this treaty will prove to the men and women that served nobly that their efforts were not in vain.

I don’t believe that the treaty was perfect, however I believe America’s ratification of this treaty would have indicated that America wanted peace throughout the world and was willing to not only lead but also work with other nations to insure that peace. I certainly sympathize for those senators who had reservations but I did not understand those who were not willing to see the need for a corporative effort in maintaining world peace. It is clear from America being drawn into WWI that not signing it allowed Germany and Japan to once again become aggressors on the world stage. Only upon the bombing of Pearl Harbor was America drawn back into a worldwide conflict that we tried very hard to isolate ourselves from.

Reply
Kendall Talbott
02/28/2012 19:57

I liked your response Claire. You seem to have a really strong idea on what happened, and I like that you emphasize the fact that the treaty was NOT perfect, but still had a good purpose.

Reply
cory noonan
02/29/2012 18:32

I agree with the points you made Claire.America did want to stay away from trouble and getting involved in the war. I think Americas thought was that they didnt want to get in the war but if they had too, they would fight hard and as long as they needed to win. I believe you when you say that America did want peace all over the world and to stop the war

Reply
nick beall
02/28/2012 15:49

Many Americans thought the war was a waste of time. They didn’t understand why we went to war to protect other countries. They felt our soldiers died and all America got from it was debt, inflation, and influenza. At the end of the war the US had to decide in favor or against the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. I believe that the US did the right thing by opposing this treaty as it would have changed the US forever and today we could be a country ruled by other nations.
By signing the Treaty of Versailles we would have lost our military independence. This could have led to other nations controlling our military and eventually our country. Also, by not signing, we were free to go to war when we felt it was necessary and without the push from other nations. We remained independent.
We could have also risked not going to war if other countries did not agree with it. If our country was in trouble, and other countries did not agree to go to war, then we couldn’t defend ourselves. In Iraq and Afghanistan the US went to war to protect itself from terrorism. Since then we haven’t had a major terrorist attack. If we hadn’t gone to war, we might have had other attacks like September 11th. In the end we were right not to sign and be an independent nation.

Reply
Mrs. Moore
02/29/2012 14:28

Nick, you make some great points about the feelings of many Americans after the war and the threat to our independence and the possible inability to go to war without the support of other nations. Nice job.

Reply
Brittany Shumate
02/28/2012 16:07

I think that the Treaty of Versailles is not a good idea because the U.S. just came out a huge world war and it was not fun. World War I cost us millions of dollars and more than 50,000 lives. Not one person wanted to go back to war so why risk it again by joining the League? The League sounds like a good idea because if we joined it, then we would have allies to back us up if we were threatened by war. But, that means we would be responsible to back up other countries as well, which would draw us into another world war, and wasn't the war we were just in supposed to be the war to end all wars? Being an isolationist country is a good idea if we just stayed out of other countries affairs. But we can still do trade with them and so on, we just have to keep out of their war talks and everything. Even if we want to maintain peace by joining the League, fights are still breaking out about minor things despite the war ending and being involved just to maintain peace is still being involved so war will be imminent.

Reply
Ashley Cotten
02/28/2012 16:25

I highly agree that we really should have never entered WWI, in the end we were left with many of our young men dead and our nation in a worse condition than it was before the war. Our country was left in debt, and many other nations have bitter feelings towards us. There are definitely points for and against the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, but if I have to pick one I’d pick to be against it due to the bigger picture of things at that time. Ideally it’d be wonderful if we could just get all the nations together and talk out our problems, but we all know that’s not how the world works. The League of Nations would of probably led to a huge bickering fest, and eventually lead to even more conflict. In a perfect world all nations would get along and respect each other and our differences, but at times of conflict isolationism seems like a better decision for both us and the other millions of people in the world. Trade wise, I think it’s beneficial for us to communicate with foreign countries. Wilson’s arguments about the men of our country fighting in vain is very depressing, especially since he died thinking not signing the Treaty was a huge failure on his part. Sure he promised his soldiers that this was “a war to end all wars”, but obviously it did just the opposite. We already spent a ton of money and lives on this war, and no one wanted to take any dangerous chances with foreign affairs. If only we could all just mind our own business and maintain peace without the bloodshed.

Reply
Luke Kullberg
02/28/2012 20:30

I agree with Ashley about being against the signing of the Treaty of Versailles because it would have discredited everything that we did and stood for in the war. I liked how she talked about how much money we spent in the war and that it was a waste of time. Also I agree with her that this was the complete opposite of the war being a war to end all wars because obviously it didn’t end all wars. Finally I agree that the League of Nations would have made for problems than solutions to the worlds problems.

Reply
Bailee Davis
02/29/2012 11:18

Ashley, after I read this I wanted to change my opinion on WWI because this response was so bomb. It's true that our country was left in debt and still today, some countries still have bitter feelings towards us. It's a good idea to have all of the countries come together and communicate but that just wasn't an option back then because many of the leaders were excited and ready to fight. With or without the war, I think we would have ended up with a peace treaty but it would have been a totally different concept and things would be different in our life today.

Reply
Mollie Privett
02/29/2012 11:36

I definitly agree with your post Ashley. You're completely right when you said that it's not ideal for all the nations to get together and talk out our problems. That could never even be close to happening because with every country, there is another country who wants to destroy them. Everyone has enemies because everyone has allies. For that reason, the League of Nations did not seem ideal or possible because someone in the end would be unhappy, and a country would suffer. I think the treaty intended to many optimistic propositions that were very unlikely to happen. I also agree with you when you said that we should just mind our own business. If we could just work on our country's problems over the rest of the nation's problems then I think everyone would be much happier in the end.

Reply
Isabella Araujo
02/29/2012 22:28

I totally agree with Ashley's statement. I loved your realistic view on the issue and all your points made perfect sense. We truly did waste a ton of money on these issues when in all honesty we should have been dealing with our own issues and maintaining our own peace.

Reply
Karly Holthaus
02/29/2012 23:25

I agree with everything Ashley said, especially how i'd be idea for us all to get along but that that would obviously not happen. I think you had a really realistic take on the article and realized that the end result was really many lives taken and our country in debt.

Reply
nick beall
03/01/2012 20:24

I agree with Ashley as she says that if she had to pick on a side to sign or not to sign the treaty she wouldn’t. If all countries would round up for discussion even more conflicts would break as everyone had different thoughts. Isolationism can sometimes be the best option, as we do not want to create conflict and have more enemies.

Reply
Anthony Rue
02/28/2012 16:51

There are many different reasons to either support or refute the Treaty. The majority of responders would argue that ratification was completely unnecessary. We as Americans believed in freedom for each and every country, yet with no expense to ourselves. The United States, upon ratification, would have foregone all control over the national military. Yet, playing to the same tune, we believed that german natives had the right to control their own decisions. This idea of self-determination slightly unnerved the other nations who had ratified the Treaty believed that Germany had no rights and so they held no reason to be included in the protection guaranteed by the Treaty. Regardless that they had signed or not.

Reply
José Antonio Partida
02/28/2012 16:56

Well, after reading the arguments between the senators and the president, I have concluded that I side myself in favor of the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. The League of Nations was the only path towards the end of marcial affairs with Germany and world. The treaty specifies that Germany will not have a bigger army than 100,000 men and have a controlled weaponry. It also gives trade between the countries and resolves war affairs in peaceful means, instead of armed interventions. Not forming part of the League of Nations was exactly the reasons why Germany became "AGAIN" an expansionist country. The selfishment of the US the ideas of isolionist gave opportunity to Germany (a country punished by it´s ambishousness) to expand again and create a new global terror known as the Nazis. Shame to those that didn´t think as a single world and stayed in there selfishness, there patriotism only created a new hate that grew in giant proportions against humanity causing a new bloodbad called World War Two, only created by men that just think in their selves, instead of a united world.
Now think in the United Nations, it is the same as the League of Nations, just with another name. That's why I'm in favor of the Ratification of the Treaty of Versailles.

Reply
Margarita Navarro p.2
02/28/2012 17:00

I believe that the Treaty of Versailles should be put into place not for one but may reasons. It could help the world settle back into peace at a time of chaos. Forgiving other nations for their actions is best because if there are grudges, another war could possibly happen at any given moment. Another reason the treaty of Versailles is needed is because the United States should be a leader in all of this too keep a strong hold of the situation. If anyone gets out of hand, we’ll be right there to protect and serve. I believe that new contacts do not mean war. If we learn from this war we can work out our problems not with gun fire, or tanks, or bombs, but by ways that don’t harm our people and your people too. This could eventually save all of us money and time and people. War only hinders and doesn’t help. Even though Germany has to pay money to the French, the French still lost people and building and a whole bunch of money. This could all be avoided if we have the League of Nations to keep us in check.

Reply
Brittany Shumate
03/01/2012 16:29

Margarita, I agree with what you say about the peace treaty being a good way to bring peace and getting along. But, it's not really good because the French and the British wanted to humiliate the Germans for invading them and president Wilson let them do that, even though the Germans said it violated the Fourteen Points which Wilson came up with himself. The Germans are going to resent us for that and that will be a reason for them to want to fight us in the future. Personally, if I were living during that time period I would protest the Treaty of Versailles because I wouldn't want to be involved in another war or battle just because we couldn't solve the end of this war.

Reply
Lyle Heidenfelder
02/28/2012 18:38

The Treaty of Versailles was a peace treaty between Germany and the Allied powers. This treaty would require all nations signing it to agree not to go to war with each other. It also required Germany to accept responsibility for starting the war and to make payments to the Allied nations to make up for what they had done. This seems to relate to geography, politics, economics, and social structures.

In my opinion, we should have ratified the Treaty of Versailles. The ratification of the treaty would have helped the world be more peaceful. Since the U.S. didn’t ratify it, this agreement was less powerful. It made Americans look bad because it looked like we didn’t care about world peace and we only cared about ourselves. The signing of the treaty would have helped us to form strong relationships with the other nations who signed the treaty. Not signing it made us look more like an enemy to them. In the article, under those in favor of isolation thought that being involved with other nations meant war. I disagree with this because the whole idea of the treaty is good relationships, which mean less chance of war. The better you know someone the less chance of wanting to go to war with them.

Reply
Lexy Perez
02/28/2012 19:04

All of the arguments based on this treaty are all very valid and appropriate. But what these arguments lack are morals. Sure, not passing the treaty would be cheaper and mean less sacrifices, but is it the right thing to do? Sometimes we have to be willing to help and sometimes that means sacrificing things. The treaty of Versailles had a main noble cause, world peace. World peace is what everyone dreams of. Everyone from teachers, to political leaders, to beauty queens all want world peace. But it is a far-fetched dream, peace in a household is difficult enough to achieve. Today’s United Nations is the equivalent to The League of Nations, more or less. Today’s UN strives for the unity of nations and peace between them. For the most part if you’re willing to help someone out they are very likely to return the favor or in the world sense at least not declare war on you. WWI was promised to be “the war to end all wars”. With the signing of the treaty of Versailles it would ensure the end and would also ensure peace and unity throughout the world. Ask yourself this: Is a little bit of sacrifice too much to ask for when it comes to peace, unity, and no more wars throughout the world?

Reply
Aurora Roberts
02/28/2012 22:47

I agree with Lexy on this. I think the treaty was very appropriate and there where lack morals. There is no right thing to do but I think it was the best for the United States to help and be involved with the war and then not to be because we wanted to be isolated.

Reply
Sarah Rigoli
02/29/2012 23:48

You made some really good points Lexi and i agree with you mainly when you said "Sometimes we have to be willing to help and sometimes that means sacrificing things" because it is so true especially when it comes to valuable lives. I don't understand why there would be a war to end all wars that is so ignorant like if i was fighting with my sister i would not say okay lets have another fight to end all our fighting...instead the rational thing would be to just resolve the problem not resolving with another fight. I mean it is just common sense and when it comes to countries i would think that that humans would not step to this level it make me sad

Reply
Marissa Gray
03/02/2012 22:45

I agree with your statement of how it's difficult to keep peace in households. I can completely relate to that since I'm the oldest out of five. Having younger siblings, they fight a lot, and it's hard for our parents to permanently stop it, like how it's obviously hard to end a war without conflict. Wilson truly did have good intentions, but they were somewhat unrealistic.

Reply
Zach Carlson
02/28/2012 19:05

My opinion on this is that we should have signed the treaty because if we would have gotten involved maybe world war 2 might not have happened. Now i think of myself as not talking about my personal life that much most people do know like two main things about me thought so as i see it i would not want to have another person or country get involved with myself but in this case i can see it as being acceptal because germany was like the bullied kid that finally got his revenge it be like if i told someone i was getting into huge fights with my family and we wernt getting along they would want to step in and fix the problem that is basically what wodrow wanted to happen but it did not because we wanted to be isolationist which i can understand but i would have rather have helped germany and not have had world war 2

Reply
Kendall Talbott
02/28/2012 19:55

I'm defiantly against this treaty because we backstabbed President Wilson and Germany was refusing to sign this treaty to begin with. Threats were coming through France for an invasion. Wilson said that this treaty needs to bring peace and it needed to stop the war. If no one will stop the war or at least try to stop the war then war will continue on till no country is able to move. Depression will become intense and it will cause more problems. No one will find a situation because every country that is involved.

Reply
Luke Kullberg
02/28/2012 20:26

I oppose the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles for many reasons. To a certain extent, I do not believe getting involved in this issue was worth it. Yes many worldly things were solved, but at an extreme cost. Many of our young soldiers died as well as our economy becoming worse than it was before the war. I believe if it was signed, our trade connections would have been more open and therefore our country wouldn’t have been in such terrible shape. I also agree with Wilson and how he believed the war would have been for nothing because it all would have angered many Americans. Another positive is that it took us out of the spotlight all the time and ensured our countries freedom. Finally the non-ratification of it saved our country lots of money.

Reply
Laura Williams
02/28/2012 20:55

I agree with President Wilson's arguments in favor of the U.S. ratifying the Treaty of Versailles. I, as Wilson did, believe that world peace could only be a good thing. Wars should not be going on if they are not necessary. Through the treaty, the U.S. had an opportunity to stop having to do so much fighting. Also, failing to ratify would only cause more problems than already present. It would bring up more issues because other countries would be mad at the U.S. for not making an attempt to stop things. American does not want to appear as though peace is not on her agenda. As a result, conflict with other nations may occur. It seems as though the options would be to ratify the treaty and create lots of peace or not ratify the treaty and end up with even less peace in the world than was before. Seeing that the U.S. probably could not handle any extra enemies, the logical decision here would have to be ratifying the Treaty of Versailles. Admittedly, there are a few flaws to the decision of ratification and of course, it will not create total world peace because there will always be little conflicts going on between some countries. However, the arguments in favor of ratifying the Treaty of Versailles seem stronger than the reasons not to. The outcome of ratifying is more idea.

Reply
Carlos Montes
02/28/2012 21:55

The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt at creating a permanent international organization that maintained peace in foreign affairs. It would have promoted lower tariffs and stronger communication and cooperation among neighboring nations and power houses.

Overall, the United States did the right choice in not joining the league of nations. The United States at the time was the most financially secure due to all the loans it will return from WWI. Also, the US military had the least exhaustion, and the US would be free to do as it wished without the approval of other nations, on top of not having to help with foreign affairs. The perfect example for this is WWI itself; it all started because of allies of nations adding to the wild fire.

Overall, the United States is, from then on, a kick@$$ country that does not need the approval of anybody to do as it wished.

Reply
Frank McNeill
02/28/2012 22:18

I have different thoughts on being for or against the U.S. participation in the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, because you could make strong arguments for each. But I will argue for being for the signing of the treaty. If the United States had participated in the signing of this treaty there might not have been as much tension between the Allied Countries and Germany. And if there wasn’t so much tensions between the Allied Countries and Germany the world might have been able to avoid the Second World War. But as it turned out it didn’t end up that way. President Woodrow Wilson saw this issue coming after the war and facing with the Treaty of Versailles. He knew that Germany would be upset about these punishments that the Allies were giving them and Wilson knew that they would want to someday get back at the Allies.

The whole issue on whether the U.S. should or shouldn’t have signed the treaty and been a part of the League of Nations would change the future of the European countries. Some may say that it would be smarter to stay out of European Affairs and stay isolationist, but I think in the long run it would have been a better choice to sign the treaty and join the League of Nations. We should have joined the League of Nations because without The U.S. joining the league wasn’t as popular. The U.S., if we joined the League of Nations, could have been able to keep peace in Europe by settling disputes and other problems with diplomatic solutions.

Reply
Aurora Roberts
02/28/2012 22:45

To be honest I am against this treaty of Versailles for many reasons. I do not believe getting involved in this the treaty was worth it. One is because of the signing it put the United States in the position to fight in the war. Being apart of the treaty made the united states back up any of the other countries in Europe that were in the war. So basically what the treaty did was just pull the U.S. into WWI and forced us to take actions.Plus World War I cost us millions of dollars and more than 50,000 lives, so why did anyone want to join the League again.

Reply
Megan Galloway
02/28/2012 23:01

Personally, I think that I would be on Wilson's side. I think that the Treaty of Versailles is something that is very important to creating the world we live in today. By supporting Wilson and the creation of the League of Nations, yes- we have opened ourselves up to more foreign affairs, but that also opens us up to more opportunities as well for creating bargains in foreign countries- like Asia. Or, more likely in Asia's case, we can just show off that we are a country that's more like a world power. However, I think that if we hadn't enforced our vote towards ratifying the Treaty of Versailles, as the article stated- we could very well have lost our place as a world power because we'd be more involved in isolationism than we already were. And if that were to happen, then our economy would fall behind until we were possibly dominated by another country. Quite a few different ideas and approaches, but I do believe they explain the point that I'd like to reach.

Reply
colton cavner
02/29/2012 10:46

i disagree with ratification of the versailles treaty because it was just going to drag us into another war. we would have been dragged into another war if we had joined the league of nations. this treaty only pissed germany off which led to world war 2. although that world war 1 was supposed to be the war to end all wars it didnt do that

Reply
braden crabb
02/29/2012 22:49

I agree with Colton when he says that all this treaty did was piss off Germany which led to WW2. I also agree when he says we would've been dragged into another war if we joined the League of Nations.

Reply
Anthony Rue
03/01/2012 12:52

Good call on the 'war to end all wars bit'...it currently applies to ww2 (until we have a real life Red Dawn) yet the war did end most of all external wars, mostly due to the reconstruction efforts set forth by the american populace. No refutation upon your standpoint.And to save Wilson, signing the Treaty would have entangled the United States in external affairs...violating one of the fourteen points in the Wilson document.

Reply
Bailee Davis
02/29/2012 11:13

In my opinion, I think the involvement of the U.S. in such a huge world war was a good thing. If we didn't get involved, Germany would have probably taken over many countries because the U.S. wouldn't have been there to aid their Allies. Without entering the war, we wouldn't have been one of the greatest countries to this day because we wouldn't have ever shown Austria-Hungary or Germany that the United States could fight and win so no one should mess with us.

Woodrow Wilson was very passionate about the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles and he always thought that signing this treaty would make sure there would be peace between all countries. He just wanted everyone to get a long. When I look at WWI, it kind of reminds me of brothers and sisters fighting because with all of the fighting that can be done, good will come of it and problems will be solved.

Reply
Mollie Privett
02/29/2012 11:22

I am against the U.S. ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. When looking at the pros and the cons of the war itself, I definitely concluded that our country suffered more from the negatives. Wilson did have good intentions when entering WW1 because he aimed to show other countries our dominance and leadership. He also primarily entered our country in the war in order for us to keep our word to our allies and to overall use our power to help the cause of the war. However, it’s certain that Wilson’s intentions came with many negative doings onto our country. The Treaty of Versailles was created in order to end the war and it was proposed by the Allies stating that Germany would “have to pay” for all of the problems they caused us. How will getting Germany back help us in any way? It doesn’t work like that. The treaty should not be signed because it will just create more tension and more problems in the future. The League of Nations would have ultimately in the end caused more chaos for our country, even though it was meant to do the opposite. For example, if we were to join and try to ensure that war were to not break out, then obviously the countries we were trying to convince would turn against us. It’s the same thing for the treaty. If we were to sign the treaty and made Germany suffer for making us suffer during the war, they would eventually get us back. Karma always comes along when you least expect it. The Treaty should not have been signed because the United States should have taken the high road and left Germany at peace. Even though thousands of our soldiers died and Wilson said that without the treaty being signed they died for nothing, that’s not necessarily true. Our soldiers died fighting for our country and stressing our leadership and power. If we were to get back at Germany killing thousands of our soldiers, they would remember that. We needed to focus on our own country and we needed to start to build ourselves up again from loses from the war. I’m against the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles ultimately because I think it’s important to resolve issues, move on, and maintain peace.

Reply
Mollie Privett
02/29/2012 11:28

Continued:

Also, the Treaty of Versailles would have to do with the historical theme of Politics and Social Structure. It was politcally a huge issue because of the sense of "going behind the back" of Wilson, who was for the signing of the treaty. Since the treaty was ultimately never signed, Wilson, as president, felt betrayed. The Treaty effected the social structure of our nation because it must have divided our citizens who were either for or against the treaty. Also, we suffered in society from a huge loss because of the many deaths of fighting soldiers in the war.

Reply
Jasmyne Miller
02/29/2012 11:28

I feel we should have ratified the Treaty of Versailles. I feel this way because people didn’t want us to become involved in other affairs and to resort back to isolationism, well even though we didn’t ratify it we are still involved in other countries business and we still do not have world peace. I feel that maybe if we had ratified it there could have been a chance of peace. No matter what were going to have tension with Germany considering we humiliated them and fined them $33 B. Yes, they deserved this but they are an extremely nationalist country and did not respond well to this in the future. If we had gone back to isolationism we would just be continued to be provoked into joining the problem. Considering we had no involvement with the war when it started, and we were just tempted so much and provoked to join. This would only continue if we stayed out of other affairs, and we didn’t. Now we’re involved in two wars and have far from world peace. Maybe if we just gave the League of Nations a try we could have all come to a neutral agreement for peace. I know world peace isn’t possible but we could be a lot closer to it now then we are. There was no avoiding entering the war if we wanted to show we were a dominamt country and couldn't continue to be victimized by Germany.

Reply
Johnny McCaull
02/29/2012 11:43

For once in my life I agree with you devil Women. I think that we should have ratified the treaty. As well i Like how you made the 33 billion dollars A big deal and included it in your blog like I did. Germany sucks alot and they for sure deserved this. I like when you said "Now we’re involved in two wars and have far from world peace" peace is the only way so Every boddy that dissagrees with your blog i got your back Rose

Reply
Fred Schlichtholz
02/29/2012 21:51

i do like how you support your view real well and this is what i think for this side but like i said in my blog is that im 50/50. but you do have a strong point and really convincing.

Reply
Johnny McCaull
02/29/2012 11:39

After reading the article and with my prior knowledge on WW1 i I think that we should have ratified the treaty of Verasiles. People in this time had seperate ideas and views on the Treaty and what do about the end of the War. Some wanted to turn back to isolationism and some wanted to progress in society and spread democracy and get involved in outside affairs. Like Wilson did during the start of the War but eventually things caught to intence and the USA was forced to join the War. If we had ratified the treaty there would have been a better chance for peace. But I love how Germany got totally screwed after the War 33 billion dollars holy crap thats nuts. If I had 33 billion dollars I would go to a Island like in Castaway and hire a bunch of immigrants and make a Island Matropalis. If we decided to become isolationism like we were at the start of The war the second World War would have cam alot sooner. My spell Check is off so all the people that are gunna make fun of me I DISLIKE YOU

Reply
kevin fahey
02/29/2012 12:37

After reading ther article, I am mostly for the ratitfication of the Treaty of Versailles. The signing of the treaty would have out restrictions on Germany's military, borders and made them pay reparations. The miliatry restrictions on the german like how they were not allowed to have more than 100,000 troops, restrictions like these helped reassure nations that Germany was not going to be a major threat moving forward. The territoral restrictions made germany give back lands that they had conquered back, which also made the country of Germany much smaller as well as it's borders. If Gerrmany's territory was decreased, it would have an affect on them being a world power because they wouldn't be in control of so many different countries which gave them power. The reparations that Germany had to pay destroyes their economy. Having so much debt after having to pay billions of dollars, Germany would have needed lots of time to rebuild and woould have been less of a threat to major powers.

The only reason I am a little against the ratification is because of our involvment in World War l. The U.S. would have needed time to rebuild and restrucure society, due to all the people that died in the war.

Reply
Justin Smith
02/29/2012 13:08

I am completely against the treaty of Versailles because of the fact that germany had backstabbed everyone and if this treaty was being negotioated for any other country they would not sign it and completely take over that country. Also, the fact that the United States was able to overpower Germany showed that they were only taking over the weaker countries at first and through conquering those countries is the way that they were able to get stronger. The only part of the treaty that i agree with is the fact that germany is being blamed for the entire war. Germany would disagree with this and most likely would say that they may have contributed to the war but they weren't the main cause of it. The reason that they would say this is because of the fact that pride is extremely important to the countries that are larger in the world. The Treaty of versailles was a weak point in the United States when we were able to show mercy on another country that we wree just at war with and the reason that i say it was weak is because of the fact that if we were in their position then we would not have recieved the same opurtunities that we gave to them. These are the main reasons for why i disagree with the treaty of versailles and why i believe that it was a weak point in U.S history.

Reply
Carson Cavner
02/29/2012 13:54

I think that we made the right desicion in not ratifing the treaty of Versailles. I wish that we had made the desicion to stay be a neutral country throughout history, but now that we are were we are, i do not think that it is possible. We have enemies abroad who will stop at absoulutly nothing to see our country and way of life destroyed. And in our case the best defense is a good offense. With iran, they do present a threat to us, so we must destroy them .

Reply
Chase Fischer
02/29/2012 16:45

I do think that ratifying the Treaty of Versailles was the right move. Now i know, war is a terrible thing and nobody wants to fight when it is un necessary, but was it? Of course not! Think about how much worse it could have been! Who knows, Germany could’ve taken over the whole world with their USW. My second point is, by this time whether we liked it or not, we were involved. The Germans destroyed a ship with American citizens on it. How would that have looked to the rest of the world if we just let it go and didn’t stand up for what we believed in? We needed to earn respect and our place in this world. And you can be sure that it is a better one because of what we did and how we controlled that war. It wasn’t like we just jumped into the war with no meaning, no plan, and no resources. We were ready to fight and do what must be done to protect the United States of America. I don’t know about you guys, but I’d do whatever it took to make sure my country was safe. Wilson knew that it would be tough, trust me it wasn’t easy to him, but he did what had to be done. We came out of the war with a victory.

Reply
Carson Cavner
03/02/2012 09:05

I agree with chase because of the wars that we have been in, the world is a better place. If we had not intervined in ww2 at the time we did, we might be under nazi rule at the moment. Plus like chase said we do not join wars for absolutly no reasons.

Reply
Rosa Flores
02/29/2012 17:45

I am against the Treaty of Versailles. First of all, isolationism was a really good idea because it would keep us from having any enemies if we just kept to ourselves. If we confronted other countries, we could risk the chance of angering them in some way which will then result in a war. I don't think it was a good idea for us to go to war in the first place because there was nothing that originally involved us and we had no reason to send in troops to fight and risk their lives.We also wouldn't have had to spend so much money on something we never even had to worry about in the first place. During World War I, America got involved and they didn't even need to, and this probably caused other countries to look at us as a superior country for trying to intervene which would cause them to resent us and try to make us weak by going against and trying to defeat the U.S.

Reply
Aaron Polk
02/29/2012 18:19

I agree with the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. Now like Chase said how war can be bad and all I still believe it was the right move because we can't let people or countries push us around and get away with it especially after how we were treated with King George and wanting freedom and the chance to do our own thing. Germany was starting to get "cocky" and they needed to be dropped down a notch or two and shown that they can;t just walk right over people because of their narcissism. I believe that because we jumped into the war after the Germans sank a ship with Americans on it we had a fire burning to finish the war and state our dominance over anyone and anything we could and setup a fear and respect system for ourselves so we don't get stepped on. I agree with how the president at the time reacted and made sure he did what was best for the nation. Not everyone has to like war but they do have to know that nothing comes free in this world sooner or later people step up and say or do something to make people mad and consequences follow. As the Germans found out for the first but not he last time...Don't F with the U.S.A and we came out of the war with a W!

Reply
michael beeson
02/29/2012 18:35

I feel like were too involved in other countries problems. i think that we make too many alliances with too many countries just so that we can keep our high, powerful social stature. i don't think that we should have ratified the treaty of versailles because of one simple reason. We need to help our selves and make our selfs stronger before we make a bunch of alliances with other countries. Sure you could say that ratifying it would be better because that means that we might get more money from war and things like that, but think of the consequences. We are going to have hundreds of thousands of men die, for what? To say we helped out? i don't think it was smart.

Reply
Cody Laconte
02/29/2012 23:20

I agree we are to involved in the problems of too many foreign countries and it's broken our country apart by making us go into debt. It's even made us lose a lot of men and for what? To help some countries that we had an alliance with that never cared for our well being there just too scared to fight by them selves because they knew a country like germany were overtake them.

Reply
Brian Keith
03/02/2012 20:20

I agree with you when you say that we were too involved with other countries' problems. We should stay away from things that aren't our business, because it only leads to trouble and loss of things that we as a country need to survive.

Reply
Matt Bond
02/29/2012 18:44

It is my opinion that the ratification of the treaty of Versailles was a mistake. The treaty did little too help the Allies and instead was simply a form of punishment on the Central Powers, one last challenge that the central powers would indeed rise to meet in the form of WW2. The time after the war should have been a time of collaboration and reconstruction throughout Europe. The best victories are those in which one turns an enemy into an ally. Rather than kicking Germany while it was down it would have been better to help it back on its feet and hope that it will do so in return. Had the allies done this they would likely have gained the admiration of the Central Powers rather than their hatred. Best to be gracious in defeat and humble in victory. I understand the Allied powers thirst for blood but they should have based such a desition on rational and cooled thoughts than on emotions and a sense of patriotism.

Reply
Carelen Camero
02/29/2012 18:45

I believe that the Treaty should have been ratified because it created the opportunity of fostering positive relations with other countries. While I don't believe that we should stick our Democratic-Noses into the business of other countries, I also don't believe the United States should live in this sad little bubble of "We're the only country in the world" because, like it or not, eventually Nations need to interact. Fostering positive relations should be a priority (as long as we can also keep our distance when we need to)

Reply
JT Strabala
02/29/2012 21:10

I agree with Carelen because she gives the perfect vision of american international affairs. That we shouldn't just "sick our Democratic-Noses into the business of other countries," it is the reason why we were at war in Iraq. But she also shows some intilect by saying that we cant remain isolated and need interaction with other countries but need to refrain from over doing it.

Reply
Lexy Perez
02/29/2012 21:44

Carelen, I like how you put your opinion about this. I really like your little analogy about "[the] sad little bubble of 'We're the only country in the world'". I agree that we can't live in this world without eventually having to interact with other nations.

Reply
Alex Gastelum
02/29/2012 19:13

Im also with Ralph when he said " After reading the article I decided to side with Wilson for the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. I believe that the treaty would help with foreign relations and help us set our rightful place as a world power" I feel the same way and I think it was a right idea." But I also agree with Corny when he stated " made Germany more angry and upset about having to pay for the war. The treaty didn't help either. Germans still tried to attack us after they signed the treaty of Versailles" because it did do some harm instead of all good.

Reply
Heidi Garbers
02/29/2012 19:43

I agree with the ratification of Versailles Treaty and that i think it was a smart decision that we sign it since it did bring an end to WW1. Also it is good to get in good with outher countries especially the ones that signed it just incase of future wars which did come later (WW2) and that having those countries on our side was a good move. Versailles Treaty was a smart move for the U.S. to sign but i also believe that the U.S. should stay out of other countries business until we necessarily have to. Nothing good comes from war! So why act out on some countries when its not our war to fight until the U.S. has personally been affected, then it is okay. So i think the U.S. signing the treaty was a good move that helped us in the future.

Reply
Ashley Engelman
02/29/2012 20:38

I'm personally on the side of Wilson on this one simply because, as he stated, the war would have been in vain if more wars just sprang up again and the League of Nations would at least try to prevent that. I know that the League of Nations and the United Nations are not the same thing and have many fundamental differences I'm going to use the UN as an example. The United Nations has an affect on the world beyond preventing wars and helping to reign in wars. If the League of Nations operated in even slightly the same way as the UN does then it would be doing a world of good. Also, as stated in the text book, the League of Nations would be something we are a part of in conscience only, not treaty or alliance. For these reasons I agree with Wilson that the League of Nations was necessary.

However I do think that it was a little too soon for him to try and pass this. America had just gotten out of a long bloody war that had everything to do with alliance, for something to even slightly look like an alliance would set off immediate red flags in the people's minds.

Reply
Scott Smith
02/29/2012 21:40


I agree with Ashley because it the League of Nations is just purely conscience and involves no treaties but I also agree that it was a little soon to join the League of Nations because of World War One. In World War One due to alliances made countries fall into war like domino pieces. I believe if Wilson held off a little long it would have been more successful than his first attempt. Also the United States is a very powerful world power, in fact arguably the biggest world power, and the United States along can be the difference between peace and bloodshed.

Reply
Kristen Beck
03/01/2012 18:47

I agree with Ashley. The war would've been in vain if more wars came up, but the League of Nations would try to prevent them. Also, the League of Nations wasn't even a treaty, it was, just like Ashley said, conscience. I also agreed with when she says that Wilson could've waited a little longer to pass this.

Reply
Ashley Aucoin
03/02/2012 00:01

I like what you said about Wilson trying to pass it a little bit too soon. We weren't ready to start thinking about another war. Maybe he thought he needed to nip it in the bud so that there wouldn't be a WW2.

Reply
JT Strabala
02/29/2012 21:05

I aree with Wilson's ideas about the treaty and how he tried to get his part in it and hold back Britan and France from taking so much from Germany, that it would create more problems (and a future war). So, Wilson was the only level headed person who didn't want to take a lot from Germany and wanted to create a group of nations that would help maintain peace. But some may argue that we shouldn't get into wars where we are not directly threatened and remained isolated, well if you remember the reason why we went to war was the Zimmerman Note. Which was a direct threat to the US. So, ha i win.

Reply
Scott Smith
02/29/2012 21:22

I am in favor of signing the Treaty of Versailles and joining the League of Nations. I also agree with Wilson’s points about signing it. I believe that the United States should be involved with world affairs because we are so powerful but I think the U.S. should put themselves before others. I know that by signing the Treaty of Versailles and joining the League of Nations we put ourselves in the position of helping whoever we are delegated to. Also I believe that by not signing the Treaty of Versailles other troops fought for nothing and those who died, died for nothing. Without the United States democracy could have been lost in both World War One and World War Two, if the United States did not interfere the world could be very very different and democracy could have been abolished. The United States stand for freedom and justice which I believe we have to back up by fighting for what we think is right. Also without signing this treaty may leave us with no help if someone happens to strike upon us. Furthermore I believe it is the United States destiny to become a world power and to lead the world with peace and force.

Reply
alexmoon
02/29/2012 21:23

I disagree with the Treaty of Versailles because it was incredibly harsh and completely unnecessary on Britain and France's part to try and completely shut it down. As everyone knows, the terms of this treaty also indirectly started WWII. I believe that terms should've made it a little more fair instead of dumping all the blame and war guilt on Germany and its allies. And though I support US involvement in the war, since the Central Powers most likely could've won the war with Russia withdrawn, I agree that isolationism was probably good for it, since WWI was definitely the first of its kind in terms of violence and cruelty. Also another point, which wasn't mentioned in the text, was that Italy and Japan weren't particularly pleased by the peace negotiations, both having come into the war to gain territory. This also led to grudges being held by the two countries that definitely could've had a role in their involvement in WWII against the allied powers. Another thing is that the war didn't really have anything to do with America, so it would definitely come through our minds that all the deaths of American soldiers during this war was completely unnecessary and future conflicts such as these weren't wise to become involved with.

Reply
Ashley Engelman
03/02/2012 20:23

I agree that the T.o.V. was way too harsh on Germany if they only just managed to pay all the war reparations back a few years ago. This treaty didn't really make that much sense to me because not only did it set the stage for another war but it was almost childish in it's severity. I can understand that they were angry and hurt by the war but doesn't it seem a little much? Germany just paid their reparations back a few years ago and it was almost a hundred years ago! In conclusion, I agree that the T.o.V was ridiculously harsh.

Reply
Sean Franks
02/29/2012 21:24

I believe that President Wilson was smart and made a good decision in favoring the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. First off I agree that we must be involved in the League of Nations because we are a big, powerful country that deserves the right to have a say when it comes to dealing with outbreaks of war. Second the treaty put an end to World War one, which was very good considering how bloody it was getting towards the end when new military weaponries.
All in all i think Wilson did the right thing for his country and it benefitted us greatly for the next World War.

Reply
andrea perez
02/29/2012 21:24

The treaty was a bad thing, i really think we wouldve been better off not signing it. Even though it did end the war and all but it was just punishing the central powers not really helping us much. even tho isolation was good idea for us keeping us away from the enemies, also wilson wanted to show other countries that we were better than them kind of why we joined the war but it didnt really work out

Reply
Josh Kessell
02/29/2012 21:33

I agree with wilson that the US should be involved and at the table when the treaty was being disciussed because if we werent then it makes it look like the US is not invloved in a war that we clearly just fought. I think he was right in his thinking of ratification of the treaty because it would keep peace and the league of nathions was a new idea that probably would have worked but no one wanted to try it. I believe that how France and GB wanted Germany to pay up to 33 billion in damages was a bit absurd. And Wilson knew it too. He did not want to cause too much post war hate between US and Germany by charging them a fortune like France and GB did. We still ended up having some 11.5 Billing owed to us from Europe anyway after the war.
Arguement: The US was right to want to ratify the treaty because after cleary fighting a war that was a big mess causing a lot of damage, the US needed some kind of closure. We couldn't just show up, fight a war, cause damage and walk away without a word. Wilson was right to want closure because it would keep us from more harm later on.

Reply
Carelen Camero
03/01/2012 19:07

I agree with what Josh is saying here because, during the time period we are discussing, the United States had just fought in a WORLD war. To not be involved in the Treaty of Versailles would have meant that the US wouldn't have "stuck to it's convictions", so to speak.

If we are going to go through all the trouble to fight a World War, we need to be able to follow through with the whole POINT of fighting in the first place.

Reply
Brian Keith
02/29/2012 21:35

I believe we should never have joined in on WWI. It was unnecessary for us to get involved with other country's problems. Had it not been for the alliance system, this would have been more or less a minor dispute between two countries. But no, everyone and their mother had to get involved in it. It was smart for Wilson to stay out of the war for as long as possible, because it had nothing to do with the United States. As soon as the US heard of a war breaking out in Europe it should have been slowing down the trade. It should not have supplied the Allies because that made it unsafe for the merchant ships.

Reply
Dylan Gouthro
02/29/2012 22:07

I also agree that we should have never got involved in WW1. It was none of our business and it only costs our nation money and lives. They weren't our problems, they were other countries. I also agree that it was smart for Wilson, to stay out of the war for as long as possible because it didnt involve us! That's like your friend getting caught for no helmet riding a bike, and you can get away, but you choose to take the hit for it to. Why? You are going to get penalized and it may look nice at the time, but will be stupid in the long run.

Reply
Brad Power
02/29/2012 21:39

The treaty of Versailles is something that America does not need to be a part of. Since the war was not really supported by most Americans, actions to prevent another war must be taken. Isolationism is key for America and will keep us out of another war. Aside from trade relations with european countries, minimal involvement with European nation will keep America neutral. Neutrality will also be key for preventing another war.

If America ratified the treaty and joined the league of nations, then there was definitely the possibility of a another war. Wilson tried to stay neutral during WW1 but realized that it wasn't possible because of our foreign relations. So if we got involved with more alliances and relationships then we would end up getting stuck in a position where we had to go to war. Ratifying the treaty of Versailles is not what America needs.

Reply
Jordan Kelley
02/29/2012 21:49

I agree with Woodrow wilson because America was just recovering from becoming a new nation and was getting itself together when we decided to join on the long escapade of World War I. I think it only caused America a whole new set of problems to solve that wasn’t ours to begin with. I also I disagree with the Treaty of Versailles because it was incredibly harsh and completely unnecessary on Britain and France's part to try and completely shut it down. The terms of this treaty also indirectly started WWII. I believe that terms should've made it a little more fair instead of dumping all the blame and war guilt on Germany and its allies. I also agreeing with Brad Power stating that "Ratifying the treaty of Versailles is not what America needs."

Reply
Jordan Kelley
02/29/2012 21:51

Woodrow Wilson***

Reply
Fred Schlichtholz
02/29/2012 21:49

I am kind of 50/50 on it actually. i think both hold good views and obviously one worked but i still think the treaty had good views. the whole point behind the treaty i guess was good and bad. the treaty would of made us join the league which i guess in a way is good cause it means there is unity and if one person fights everyone helps which would do good if the majority was in the league. The bad thing is that we would be in war which if you keep in mind wouldnt be alot and our soliders may have died but they were happy to die for america at the time alot of nationalism was pumping so war wasnt a deal. Bad parts are if the countrys disagree and break apart casue there wouldnt really be a leader then who would go on whos side and this and that a hug war would break out. if we didnt ratify it well history can tell you that. we will still be in wars and because of other countrys so i mean there still isnt much peace still today. but maybe if we were in a league war would go fast cause it would be alot vs alittle so i mean i dont know it would go either way for me.

Reply
Dylan Gouthro
02/29/2012 22:04

I agree with the opposition of Senator William E. Borah. He stated, "We are told that this treaty means peace. Even so, I would not pay the price. Would you purchase peace at the cost of you independence?" I agree with this because although peace is something everyone wants, it is a sacrafice. If i had to give up my independence for a chance at the world of having peace, that could change in a slight instant, i would choose independence. That may be selfish, but i know that the smallest things trigger people, and peace can be broken very fastly. As long as i am concerned, my independence will stay with me forever.

Reply
Kacie McBarron
02/29/2012 22:20

I am against the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles because we didn't properly think about how Germany was going to make it up to the worn out countries. Germany had to pay not only for their own war debts but other countries as well, which made Germany very poor and they were in search of a new leader *cough Hitler cough*. Also we were never really that interested in the war. It was Europe's fight so why couldn't they handle it, because they didn't take it that seriously until we got there. Also I'm not a big fan of the League of Nations because who will contribute the power to the League other than the US? Probably no one. The League of Nations would also be just a waste of more money. The only good thing that came from the war was the business. The US was the only industrial country that could ship and send products letting our economy go up.I think we should just stay away from the Treaty and stick to our own country for a little while.

P.S. I don't know if there are spelling mistakes I'm too tired to check and or be aware of what letters/ words I'm typing, but the thoughts are all there

Reply
Isabella Araujo
02/29/2012 22:25

In my opinion I'm against the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. We went into WWI fighting for our country and such, but in the end we ended up losing thousands of men and wasting money on the war. The point of the treaty was to create peace between all the countries but joining the treaty would create involvement in the war and other countries problems. The arguments for ratifying the treaty were “The future of world peace is at stake,” which doesn't even make sense because all it would do is involve us in other countries problems, second reason was “The League of Nations is the future of solving world problems.” even though the League of Nations would have probably caused more problems considering they would have an opportunity to gain control of U.S military personnel and take advantage of that, and the third reason was “Failure to be involved places us and the world in danger. The US must have a place at the table to take a leadership role” when in reality the more we would have became involved, issues would've arise, more money would've been spent and unsafe involvement with other countries would come into play.

Reply
mariana
03/01/2012 15:55

I agree with Isabella thoughts on the Treaty of Versailles being a waste of money and soldiers, which would only get the U.S. involved in other countries problems/wars. I also like how she talks about the treaty's point was to create peace between all the countries, but joining the treaty would create involvement in the war and other countries problems; which is so crucial since the reason of the League of Nations was for security and peace. Another reason why I liked her response, was because it contains the treaty's main points and she argues why there bad, therefore shaping her opposition to the Treaty of Versailles.

Reply
Jack Alldredge
02/29/2012 22:29

The League of Nations fundamentally was a good idea but like any first trial of a new system there will be errors and mistakes which will be taken into consideration and improved upon in future trials. This was true for the League of Nations as it was very flawed and not extremely effective. Without the use of federal troops the League of Nations was actually very unsuccessful in solving future world problems. I believe looking upon the US’s decision from a historical standpoint it was a prosperous move to not ratify the treaty and join the League of Nations however looking at it from a tactical standpoint without knowing the outcome of the situation I would side with Wilson on the subject. Wilson viewed the League of Nations as an organization that would do a greater good for the word in maintaining peace, much like the purpose of the United Nations today. Wilson had his head on right with his view on involvement in the Great War and his view on the Treaty of Versailles. Our involvement of the war was helpful in purpose of the Allies and when the Allies were victorious, our spoils were beneficial and our new stature as a country was raised much higher to now a dominant world power. This would play a huge role in WWII as our involvement in WWII was of great importance in the fight against the Axis of Powers. Ironically, as involved as we were in the WWII, the League of Nations which we refused to join had failed at preventing such a large scale conflict. So in this case, the arguments against the treaty, since “contact meant war”, were invalid since even though the treaty was not ratified and the efforts to stay isolated were obtained, we still entered full scale world conflict only two decades later. As flawed as the League of Nations may had been, it was a necessary learning curve placed in the course of history that would eventually lead to the improved creation of the United Nations and other important peace keeping alliances such as NATO.

Reply
Sean Franks
03/03/2012 10:35

I agree with Jack that it is always hard to succeed in a new system the first time around. You must learn from the errors and improve them so it will hopefully pass the second time around. Considering that the League of Nations did not have a army of its own, it would not be very effective as jack states it. I think it is very true that whatever side we picked would play a huge role in WW2 . I agree that Wilson did the right thing. Overall Jacks post is very intelligent and is well said to help describe what was going on back then.

Enjoy the Brownie;)

Reply
Lucas Broyles
02/29/2012 22:32

I supported the war because the sinking of the Luistinia was a tragedy and like 200 american civilians and soldiers were killed because a german submarine shot it with a torpedo and sunk it. We are America and when something like that we dust off the ol twelve gauge and go knocking on our attackers door and stick the barrel to their head and blow their head off, cuz were america and thats just what we do we take care of our problems. That may be an exaggeration but still my point stands valid, what were we gonna do just write germany a letter telling them how angry we were now and ask them to stop. we had to step in and even the score with the krauts and to honor our fallen brothers in the luistinia. We entered pretty late in the war but we still were a very vital part of the allies victory in ww1. It seems to me though that we didnt even really have a choice not to go to war ya know, like one of our ships was sunk and 200 of our boys were killed and our allies were getting shot at so we couldnt just sit there and do nothing. But peace is cool dude and i can stand by Wilson not wanting to sign the treaty because it put all the blame and war guilt onto germany and the central powers and thats not really right after they begged us for peace, its like kicking a kid in the face while hes already on the ground after you beat him up.

Reply
Patrick Powell
02/29/2012 22:34

I believe that the treaty was bad because is indirectly caused WWII. It did very little to help any of the violence. I feel that it just made more tension between the central powers and the US. Making the central powers mad was not the greatest idea. We could of totally avoided another world war. I feel that the United States is not the very best at making friends and this has hurt us many times in the past.

Reply
Paloma Estrada
02/29/2012 22:36

I am in favor of the Treaty of Versailles and Wilson’s points because it ended the war that was supposedly the war to end all wars. It brought peace upon many feuding nations after losing so many men; it punished those who deserved to be punished. I also agree with Wilson when he says that the treaty needed those reparations against Germany because if those were not made, then the U.S. would’ve been involved for not as good of a reason and all those men would’ve died in vain. If we did not get involved, then the outcome of the war would’ve been most likely in favor of the Central Powers and everything would be different.
Since we are such a powerful and leading country, always getting involved in foreign affairs such as imperialism and expansion, then it was our duty to help our alliances. Even though Germany many not have been too happy about the outcome of that treaty and it most likely led to WWII, it was a necessary evil because it didn’t let them get off easy. The U.S. saved the Allies by getting involved during the battle in Paris and other instances. If they hadn’t, then other countries wouldn’t have had the chance to adopt the Democratic system and everything might’ve been completely different.

Reply
Carly Cutright
02/29/2012 22:41

I personally think that the ratification of the Treaty wasn't such a good idea. The United States wouldn't quite be prepared economically or physically. To me, all of the countries in Europe are like little sticks in a fire and by signing the treaty, we threw ourselves in too. So really what the treaty did was force us into actions. I understand that there is nothing wrong with helping one another, I'm all for that, but I don't think it was quite our time and place to act. Other countries were in the same situation as the United States, so I still believe that without the signing, we wouldn't have felt obligated to fight.

Reply
Braden Crabb
02/29/2012 22:46

I have to say I am not in favor of the U.S. ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. I am not in favor of it because I don't think it would be the American thing to do. The treaty, if I'm thinking right, called for the dismantlement of Germany pretty much. It called for Germany to pay war reparations and basically just be there to pay the Allied Powers back. I am for Germany paying war reparations, but just the money part. I don't want the country to fall off the face of the Earth for what they did. I feel to a certain extent, they owe us. Also, some of the people in the article were against the U.S. even going into the war in the first place, which is ridiculous. I feel this way because it's all about what the word "ally" means. Being an ally means we back our allies up when they are in trouble. That's why we went to war.

Reply
Kristen beck
02/29/2012 22:46

Im in favor of signing the Treaty of Versailles. Mainly because it's like what Wilson said, it is to end the war of wars. This is our peaceful end to WWI. And if the Treaty of Versailles isn't signed then our troops fought for nothing. It's important to be involved with world affairs, not all, but a decent amount to know what is going on. And also that way we can make allies/bonds with other countries so we know if were to be attacked that they will come help us when needed. Although we should be careful because we don't want to get to involved and lose sight of our priorities, our nation should be first. I think if we didn't sign the Treaty of Versailles then we could've lost control of our nation, like lose democracy.

Reply
Deming Tobin
03/01/2012 18:30

I agree with everything that Kristen wrote. Signing the Treaty of Versailles would lead to a peaceful end of WWI and it would be great if the United States were more involved with world affairs. I liked the part where she wrote that our nation should be first and that signing the Treaty or Versailles could have led to American loosing sight of our own priorities because it could have led to us getting so caught up in whats going on with other countries there wouldn't have been much focus put into our own nation.

Reply
Marissa Gray
02/29/2012 23:04

I am against the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. It would've caused more war which is exactly what we didn't need, but then at the same time, this treaty was aimed for maintaining peace after the fighting had ended. I will say that Wilson had respectable intentions, but there’s never truly peace, no matter how bad we want it. I also am in favor of isolation because then it would hopefully keep us away from the war, but then it would’ve given Germany the upper hand to go off and conquer more territory. The bad thing about us having to defend other countries and enter the war is that we weren't prepared for it at first, so getting out of that situation was best. I do have to also agree with how Wilson wanted to keep a “place at the table” and have some kind of involvement, but for this it wasn’t all necessary. We didn’t need to get involved in the war, but since we did, we were tangled in a mess that wasn't even ours in the first place.

Reply
katie pletcher
02/29/2012 23:27

i agree, im against the ratification of the treaty of versailles. i also agree it wouldve caused more war. wilsons intentions were good in wanting peace, but yeah, i agree, there never really will be peace. we got involved in a war that we didnt need to be a part of.

Reply
aaron galindo
02/29/2012 23:12

In most of the situations that occur I usually side with ideas that would benefit mankind as a hole, and although America during this time always acted for itself and its own investments. Even if I don’t agree with these ideals joining the League of Nations still would have benefited America’s interests. First of all we joined WW1 because the war interfered with free trade. And we joined Britain due to our close ties with them. The war had nothing to do with America even the death of those from the U-boats were warned before hand. It’s only logical that Germany would sink all ships around the enemies. It’s an insane idea to let any type of resource get to an enemy. Even after the war America could have taken the spoils but instead we chose not to. So now we start over. We got into a war because we wanted to keep the trade going, we choose a side and win the war, take nothing back but the 11 billion the owed to us, then we decide not to join an organization who’s soul purpose is to prevent the entire reason we entered the war. it gets even more hypocritical when we stand to stop colonization and protect south America as a worlds policeman and new super power but refuse to join an international organization of for peace. The counter argument for this is that they feared the League of Nations controlling the powerful American army, but if said League of Nations had no power but moral promise what was there to truly fear?

Reply
Cody Laconte
02/29/2012 23:16

My viewpoint is against the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. Sigining anything ultimately involves the U.S. in world affairs automatically, and the U.S. should not of been involved in the first place. The only fight for ratification states "THe future of world peace is at stake" but hows there any world peace if this means we can just get sucked right back into war. Nothing good comes from any war, all the U.S. has received from war is the loss of thousands of men for matters that do not even purtain to our country. In result our allies that pulled us into the war aren't even thankful their rude, hypocritical, foreign neusences to us and we should have never helped them. The U.S. should have known that our allies would eventually turn against us. Isolationism actually is a good way to keep our country out of foreign affairs adn to keep our people safe because in all honesty most wars that we've fought in we never even had a reason to get in them until allies made us help them, so the alliance system screwed us over. More results were also having to pay for war debts and spend money on war projects and weapons just so we could make sure we could have a powerful outlook from others.

Reply
Carlos Montes
03/01/2012 19:48

I agree with Cody with the fact that the United States should not ratify the Treaty of Versailles. However, I disagree with your reasons why. The United States economy was (and still is) relying heavily on foreign investment and trade. The US' two biggest trading partners at the time were England and France, which were getting crushed by Germany. If Germany took over France, it would have left England as left overs and US would no longer have major trading connections with Europe. Thus, our economy would have been worse than the Great Depression, leaving millions hungry, homeless, and hopeless. The war might have been avoided overall by all the powerhouse nations, but if powerhouses pit against eachother, it is smart for the US to get involved, especially when they can gain economic status from it.

Also, having a powerful outlook from others while practicing isolationism would be a big waste of government funding, having our economy slowly going down the drain.

Reply
James McCluskey
02/29/2012 23:17

I am against the Ratification of the Treaty of Versailles because it was totally unfair and unconventional towards Germany. Yes they lost the war but they shouldn't be the ones to blame for this. In my opinion it was Serbia who started the war and the terrorist group that got the Arch Duke of Austria-Hungary assassinated. I mean yes i believe that new laws and ground rules needed to be set to negotiate peace but the terms and conditions were so harsh. For example they had to pay an extremely harsh cost for damages and reparations of other countries that experienced any damage through the war. Germany also were singled out and had to take on full blame for starting the great war and they also had their military extremely reduced to the point of not even needing one. I believe that if the allied powers didn't law down so many harsh laws in the Treaty of Versailles then you would see a rebuilding, stronger Germany with no thoughts of revenge or hatred and stop the Second World War from ever happening. The Treaty in my opinion led to the death of all the millions of people that came during WWII that could have been easily prevented. It makes me sad even just thinking about it. So all in all I believe that it was necessary for their to be a treaty or law system to promote peace and stop the war but one with less stricter and harsher laws.

Reply
Ralph Galvez
03/01/2012 20:11

I totally know where you are coming from Mr. McCluskey. The Treaty was really an attack on Germany's economy and helped to the rise of Hitler. The alliances between nations really caused this war and Austria-Hungary and Serbia could have just settled it by themselves. It seems like the allied nations became a little greedy over the spoils of this world war and the Treaty showed it for sure. A treaty that focused mainly on peace and not on compensation would have indeed been a better approach to this.

Reply
Karly Holthaus
02/29/2012 23:21

There were definitely more cons then pros when looking at the outcome of World War I, there were so many lives lost and it left our country hated by many and in severe debt. The Treaty of Versailles was a good idea in theory, along with tons of other things, but we all know, ideas don't translate as well onto paper as we'd always like. I suppose it's human nature that we'll never be able to get along with everyone so isolationism seems to be somewhat beneficial, but I believe it's still very important for us to communicate and keep a relationship with other countries because you never know what may happen in the future. WWI may have been something that we were just not ready to be able to take on and it hurt us far more than it helped us.

Reply
Anna Bill
03/01/2012 21:56

I think that Karly raises an interesting point: ideas are not always carried out as they are written on paper. I would have to say that there is something powerful about writing, however actions are what make the real difference. It is easier said than done, and I don't think that the Treaty of Versailles took this in to consideration. If it were easy to make peace by writing it down, than our world would have peace today. It is an idea often striven for by many people, but in actuality, like Karly said, it is human nature to fight. Peaceful relationships can happen, but they take work. A treaty proposes this action but must be followed before any change will come in to play.

Reply
Sam Everett
02/29/2012 23:21

I am for the Treaty of Versailles. Even though I don't think world peace is an obtainable goal; I don't think it is wrong to try for it. If America had entered The League of Nations it probably would not have been for the worse. It makes sense that after a war that was supposedly going to end all wars, that America gets in league with some other countries. Isolation wasn't exactly realistic either because America was already trading in China. In fact because of the open door policy isolation would be impossible without closing out all foreign trade. The treaty could just make things easier between the previously conflicting countries.

Reply
katie pletcher
02/29/2012 23:22

I disagree with the Treaty of Versailles. it wouldve caused problems with others on the fact of taking it the wrong way and maybe causing a bigger problem then what we had in the first place. i know it was put together to maintain peace after the war though, but really in reality, there will never be peace, its called the "world". woodrow might have tried many ways to accomplish peace but, in the end all his attempt cant be fulfilled. not having alliances would have given us a better outcome of staying out of the worlds affairs and dealing with our own countries problems, but we coudnt let that happen if we wanted to be the superior country, we had to attain other countries and show we had the power to do whatever. going into the war we were weak, and barely had experience, so it was at first not a great idea to get caught up in the war, so when the treaty was brought up it was good we ended it. honestly i think the war was over something stupid and we needed not to involve ourselves in it, but we did anyway.

Reply
Anna Bill
02/29/2012 23:28

The Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28th 1919, exactly five years after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The other Central Powers on the German side of World War I were dealt with in separate treaties. Although the armistice signed in November 1918, ended the actual fighting, it took six months of negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference to conclude the peace treaty. With that said, I would have to disagree with Americas signature of the treaty. Wilson's plan was viable, however had a few flaws. Aligning with certain countries for peace is a sure deal for another war (as many of you previously stated). I am against US involvement to begin with, because my belief is that there is more damage done than anything else. When we ratified the treaty, we were basically saying "hey, we are the peaceful countries," which in turn upset the opposing side. It isn't safe to put oneself on a pedestal and I would have to say that is what America did at the time.

Reply
Sarah Rigoli
02/29/2012 23:41

If I had to pick one side I would most likely go against the signing the Treaty of Versailles because that would just lead to more chaos along with the consequences that would happen. Just the thought of getting involved with other major conflict is enough to not have the Treaty of Versailles signed.This war had nothing to do with us and although we wanted to be perceived as a heroic country we would in end be caused more damage and created a war that was more intensified and another country would be involved. It is like adding fuel to a fire it isn’t being heroic in any way.This would create unnecessary troubles on everyone and would lead to a loss of men which should be a big enough reason to not get involved but if that wasn’t enough the loss of supplies and weapons would be another factor along with many other reasons to not get involved with a war which wasn’t ours to fight in the first place.

Reply
Thomas Bryans
02/29/2012 23:54

I think America's original policy of isolationism was a good one, and probably the best. At the time, open door policty was good, but at the moment, we need to focus on what's in our own country. It's something we're not really good at doing and it's wrecking us. Germany had to pay reprimands for it's actions during WW1, and 2, thankfully we didn't have to pay as much, however us owing, even as much as we do, has put us in debt and in a HUGE crisis. Hopefully we can get out of it.

Reply
Erin Fitzgerald
02/29/2012 23:56

MIDNIGHT. BOOM.
The side that was for and the side that was against the ratification of the treaty of Versailles both had very strong arguments and reasons, but I personally would have been for the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. I feel this way because I think it would assist our ultimate goal and hope for complete peace. If a certain organization existed that would solve nations’ disputes and quarrels, we wouldn’t have to try to fix things through war. On top of that, America certainly was not an isolationist country when WWI began, because of the fact that it was an imperialistic capitalist country; a country which is frequently devoted to trade between and with other countries. Making strong and safe our overseas economic portfolio was an example of one of the reasons that the United States joined WWI. Still needing to facilitate business and trade with foreign countries, we needed to be able to have contact with them. Also, we needed to keep them safe so that we could keep our own interests safe as well. From the book, I found that the League of Nations would have no military power to enforce things, but would only run on trust (which doesn’t seem all too foolproof to me). However, this means that we needn’t worry about our forces being taken over and manipulated by opposing countries. I also learned that if one member of the league of nations was attacked then “each country would be attacked too” and they would all stand together to fight off the one opposing country, clearly crushing it quickly and effectively.

Reply
Thomas Bryans
03/01/2012 12:35

RESPONCE. BOOM.
I agree with you. And stuff. I'm really only responding to yours because I like the begining. I don't really know WHY you wrote it but it's cool. Swag. Shawty. So yeah uhm WW1 was some pretty bad 'ish and Uncle Sam gets props for smackin down all the hoes that were up in his grill. I mean it was really Europe's fault, and we were like the Big Momma coming in cleanin shit up. So yay us. I think I've written enough now for a responce huh? I really don't know what else to say. So i'm gonna tell you my favorite kinds of cheeses and meats. I shall continue this as soon as possible.

Reply
Jack Foley
03/01/2012 00:00

I personally think that it was good that we asserted our dominance over an aggresive country though it may have caused wwII we needed to prove that we were not someone to be effed with and though Germany was forced to pay for a war they caused it was expected for them to get mad but it should not have created another world war but in turn it arguably did

Reply
Anna Bongiovanni
03/01/2012 00:09

I believe that we should have never entered WWI. We were left with many of our young men dead and our nation in a worse condition than it was before the war. Our country was left in debt, and many other nations have bitter feelings towards us. I would honestly have to say I'm completely against the Treaty of Versailles due to many reasons. In a utopian society, it would be great if we could just get all the nations together and talk out our problems, but we all know we do not live in such a society. In a perfect world all nations would get along and respect each other and our differences, but in times like these, that's the last thing nations are willing to do. Communicating with foreign countries is good for many things if we do it right. Trade is such an essential thing so, having an open communication with foreign countries is clearly a good thing. Wilson promised his soldiers that this was a war to end all wars, but it ended up doing just the opposite.We would be much better off if we all could function as countries without the incredible conflict. If we could maintain peace without war, that would be lovely. But, sadly the two come hand in hand. You have to actually fight for peace, and that's not peace at all. It's just an agreed upon compromise. It's actually kind of a silly thought now that I think about it.

Reply
Jack Foley
03/01/2012 12:53

acctually Anna after ww1 our country strived we were the wolrd leader so to speak thats why it was called the roaring 20s our stockmarket was booming indusrie was producing more than we couls consume every thing ws great but you are right about how we did lose many young men but thats war sadly and your right we do have to fight for peace which is ironic but thats the reality

Reply
Chrissy Taylor
03/01/2012 00:31

If I were arguing for or against the US involvement in the League of Nations, I would argue against Wilson - even though the poor guy kinda put everything he had into this one cause - just because the League of Nations was a good idea, but the League had a few very important flaws. Most notably, it had no forces of its own, but instead relied on the utmost loyalty and charity of its member for any and all means of enforcement. This proved highly ineffective so the League would become basically a think-tank of developing ideals with no way to implement any change or judgment into action. The US getting involved in another complex alliance of interests and binding their more-stable economy to the economies of highly unstable post-war nations would have also been a poor decision. The Treaty of Versailles was also too harsh and lead to residual resentment in the complex ashes of Germany, eventually becoming a direct cause of the NEXT "war to end all wars", WW2.
Wilson was wrong, but the ideas of an international task force to keep the world's powers in check and the ideas of a treaty to put a larger amount of blame and responsibility on the losers of WW1 were not altogether bad ideas. The UN of today is basically the League of Nations with vital improvements made, and the UN arguably contributes a lot to the politics of today's world.

Reply
Carelen Camero
03/01/2012 19:29

(yes, I already responded, but I couldn't resist)
Chrissy, doesn't the fact that both World Wars were started/spearheaded by Germany kind of attest to the idea that maybe Germany ISNT the nicest country and SHOULD in fact be punished for what I will now euphamise as their "foreign policy"?

Reply
Amelia-Marie Altstadt
03/02/2012 05:46

I agree with Chrissy. I think that Wilson had the right idea, but he was too idealistic and that is what caused the plan to fail. The League of Nations was ineffective like the Article of Confederation was ineffective. Right idea and a good start, but not quite good enough to work.
I'd like to tack on that the main reason World War One started was because of fear. The fear militarism caused, caused more and more countries to get involved, as a reaction, in the militarism policy. Combine this with allies countries have formed and you have a country that cannot or will not be able to back out of war. This is the position Germany was put in. Either having a war on two fronts, breaking their alliance, or backing out of the war and having to give up land and control by their own people.

Maddy Williamson
03/01/2012 00:46

In my opinion, this treaty should have been ratified. Wilson's main goal (known as the fourteen points) was to have peace among all of the nations. By ratifying this treaty, we would have been joining the League of Nations. This is a group used as a peace maker. It ensured peace and security for all nations involved. Why would people oppose to this after we are working to get out of a nasty war? Sure people argue that it made Germany mad, but look at what Germany did. They invaded an innocent country to get to another one and demolish it. They also used restricted submarine warfare...on us! They sunk the Luisitania (one of OUR NATIONS ships) Germany deserved to pay for all of the madness they caused during this war. People also argue that joining the League of Nations takes away something from America which can be argued against by many. By joining the League of Nations, we wouldnt have lost anything. We would have gained ensured peace and security. In my opinion the Treaty should have been ratified. After all we did get Germany to sign it even though they may have been slighty angry. I also very much agree with Wilsons statement that is we did not ratify the treaty, the war would have been fought in vain and chaos. Wilson made a promise to his men that this was a war to END all wars. He pushed for his goals to be met so he could keep his word to his soliders he was a man with a goal and tried everything it took to try to accomplish them.

Reply
Alisha Keeter
03/02/2012 19:51

I agree with Maddy when she says that the treaty should have been ratified. Like she said Wilson main goal the fourteen point was to have peace. Restricts submarine warfare was also a big part. The Lusitania was suck and that was one of our ships. I agree with Maddy when she said she agrees with Wilson's statement that if we did not ratify the treaty, the way would have been fought in vain and chaos. Wilson promised that this would be the end to all wars.

Reply
Andrea perez
03/03/2012 11:27

Maddy made a good blog this week, I agree with what she said about having to ratify the treaty of Versailles and Germany would do stuff

Reply
jack perkins
03/01/2012 14:48

personally i am against the treaty of Versailles. I dont think there will ever be peace to be honest and i think that there kind of pulled that one out and was like ok well we need somehting to end this so i gotta iece this puppy up with a stupid treaty and i dont htink it was a good idea. Patching up the war was alright but the treaty itself was a bit to thrown together for me...AND YES I MADE MIDNIGHT :D

Reply
mariana
03/01/2012 15:40

I think that the United States should not of ratified the Treaty of Versailles. I oppose the treaty because it brought decisions and direct fights with foreign countries that we shouldn't of put on ourselves. For example at the end of World War 1, they say Germany never forgot the humiliation that the Allied forces had them go through, only causing more problems and enemies (could be the reason for Hitler's hate towards other races except Germans). Another reason why I don't agree with the treaty was because it forced the U.S. to support and provide for a war they weren't initially involved in. The only reason the U.S. decided to join Italy, Britain, Russia, and France was because Germans sank the RMS Lusitania; which wasn't a direct attack on the U.S. We can also observe that wars don't resolve conflicts (take a look at the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, we've been fighting in them for years and we yet have not come to some sort of closure). Therefore wars only bring destruction, enemies, violence, and resentment; which leads to more wars.

Reply
Ashley Aucoin
03/01/2012 23:59

Seems to me the Treaty of Versailles was a huge problem at the time, and even though there are reasonabl e points to opposing sides, I would ultimately be against the treaty due to the fact that if we had ratified it, we would have probably joined the League of Nations. At the time, we should have been growing as a country vs. busying ourselves with foreign problems. If it had been a major threat to our country, I would probably be pro treaty and League of Nations. I believe that was a huge mistake on account of other countries, as well as our own, getting involved with other countries- it’s what made such a miniscule problem something worldwide deal. One point of Wilson’s that I do agree with, was “The US must have a place at the table to take a leadership role”.

Reply
Amelia-Marie Altstadt
03/02/2012 06:08

I am against ratification of Treaty of Versaille for two reasons: League of Nations and revenge.
The League of Nations was a fantastic idea, but the actual implementation of it led to confusion and ineffectiveness. It was too idealistic. The Articles of Confederation were the same way. Great idea but in actuality very ineffective. Later, when United Nations (UN) came about it was much more organized and effective. I am glad we were not a part of the League of Nations.
Revenge and humiliation were on these European countries' minds at the time of the treaty. However horrible World War One was, the way they piled on the blame to Germany was horrible. It wasn't called the War of Germany. Everyone had a part in World War One should've shared the blame. I am glad the United States did not sign the Treaty of Versaille because doing so would convey a silent approval of the treatment of Germany, becoming resentful, while signing a treaty for peace.

Reply
Dakota smith
03/02/2012 13:31

I agree with Mollie because when she says that when Wilson said the soldiers died without the treaty being signed they died for nothing. I think that's completely not true and also kind of rude. They obviously didn't die for nothing? I don't agree with most of Wilson's way of thinking . Sometimes it just Dosent make sense and Dosent help anything in the long run. Also it's kind of disrespectful to say they died for nothing.

Reply
John Scales
03/02/2012 22:37

I agree with Ashley because the League of Nations is just purely Weird and involves no treaties but I also agree that it was a to soon to join the League of Nations because of World War 1. In World War 1 the alliances made countries fall into war like charlie sheen on you know what. I believe if Wilson held off for a little longer it would have been more better than his first try. Also the United States is a very powerful world power, in fact the biggest world power, and the United States along can be the difference between peace and bloodshed.

Reply
Jasmine Espindola
03/02/2012 23:16

Ms. Moore, can we do late blogs and get partial credit if we forgot to do it in the week & if yes how will that work?

Reply
Montana
03/06/2012 00:03

i feel like signing the treaty would have probably been just a joke, i mean aren't things like this what originally got us into war in the first place. we made treaties and became allies then bam we all had to fight each other for each other.(well maybe not quite like that) but on the other hand the main reason it wasn't signed was was because some places really wanted to stick it to Germany with all the punishment.. with that said isn't it all the punishment we gave them what egged on WW2?? correct me if im wrong but the Germans were pissed of while following these requirements and a rebel genius politician(that is not a personal opinion) comes along and says "hey forget them lets make our own force and get rid of all the races we don't like, heres how well do it." who knows millions could have been saved if it wasn't signed ever..


or i could just be thinking too far ahead and missing the point.

Reply
Kacie McBarron
03/14/2012 21:00

I am against signing the Treaty of Versailles. One reason would be because we have our own problems we don't need to worry about Europe's problems anymore. Another would be is we didn't get hit, for example major French cities were destroyed so they needed to physically repair their country. Finally we can't enforce the treaty, the League of Nations will probably mean just United State forces would get involved if resistance broke out. That's because the other countries are too worn down to fight against rebellion. The Treaty of Versailles should not be signed and the League of Nations should not be created.

Reply
Jordan Kelley
03/15/2012 13:23

In my opinion I'm against the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. We went into WWI fighting for our country and such, but in the end we ended up losing thousands of men and wasting money on the war. The point of the treaty was to create peace between all the countries but joining the treaty would create involvement in the war and other countries problems. The arguments for ratifying the treaty were “The future of world peace is at stake,” which doesn't even make sense because all it would do is involve us in other countries problems, second reason was “The League of Nations is the future of solving world problems.” even though the League of Nations would have probably caused more problems considering they would have an opportunity to gain control of U.S military personnel and take advantage of that, and the third reason was “Failure to be involved places us and the world in danger. The US must have a place at the table to take a leadership role” when in reality the more we would have became involved, issues would've arise, more money would've been spent and unsafe involvement with other countries would come into play.

Reply
ryan zeller
03/24/2012 13:57

i completely agree with you jordan. its good we didnt ratify the treaty and we should have just stayed a neutral country in ww1 .

Reply
Ryan zeller
03/24/2012 13:54

I think the us ratification of the treaty is wrong. this is because how are you going to expect a country that just got beat in war to pay so much in war debts. Also how are you going to tell such a small defenseless country that they cant have an army to even protect them self. in my eyes because the of this treaty the second world war was started which no one wanted to do. so if the us had not made the stupid choice in signing the treaty it would have saved the world a lot of pain and suffering.

Reply
Lauren Curtis
05/29/2012 21:03

I do not agree at all with the Ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. If this treaty had even the slightest possibility of ending in war i would not recommend ratifying it. Although there were good points on each side of this argument i believe that all that would come is the US joining the League of Nations which was not what we needed to be focusing on at the time. What we really needed was to be strengthening ourselves rather than helping strengthen others.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Instructions

    Each Monday I will post a question, primary source document, or a discussion topic related to our current area of study.

    It is your responsibility to respond to each of the posts.  You will be required to submit one original post by 11:59pm every Wednesday. By 11:59pm every Friday, you must have also responded to a posting from another classmate.  Your original postings must be a minimum of 200 words and should include analysis and demonstrate critical thinking. Keep in mind the themes we study in history as you respond to each post: Geography, Religion, Art & Architecture, Politics, Economics, Social Structures (G.R.A.P.E.S.). Posts that earn full credit will identify and discuss the historical theme(s) present in the topic, article or other document.

    Your responses to postings from other students must be a minimum of 150 words and can question, challenge, expand upon, or affirm their post.  You may offer differing opinions, but please do so respectfully (I will be reading these!).

    Your initial post is worth 20 points and your response to another post is worth 15 points. Late posts will NOT be accepted unless approved by me in advance.

    Last thing, please make sure your display name or the signature at the end of your post will tell me who you are!  You will not get credit if I don't know who posted!

    Archives

    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed