Why did the United States fail to sign the Treaty of Versailles - Research Paper Example

? WHY DID THE UNITED S FAIL TO SIGN THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES? Why did the United s fail to sign the Treaty of Versailles? Following the First World War the signing of the Treaty of Versailles was possibly the most important, but definitely not the final, moment in such a time taking process of making peace1. President Woodrow Wilson was all set to sign the Treaty of Versailles and then enter the country into the League of Nations. In fact, he worked a lot for that to happen but the end result did not turn out as he had wished. The United States did not sign the treaty because Wilson did not have the vote of all the Senate members. Wilson required constitutionally mandated two-thirds vote for ratification which he did not get. Henry Cabot Lodge and Alfred Beveridge were highly against the treaty. Lodge was a Republican and the Senate majority leader and Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, thus holding a lot of power and responsibility. The failure of the United States to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and, eventually, join the League of Nations is a story of conflict. However, no matter where the focus is on – personalities, political parties and branches of government, or ideas and institutions, Wilson certainly did lie at the crux. It was his overweening confidence in the view that he held of the world that he dealt with which formed the basis of the defeat of the very tool that he had devised in order to secure the world of future wars. Clemenceau once said bitterly: “Talk with Wilson! How can I talk to a fellow who thinks himself the first man in two thousand years to know anything about peace on earth?” and “I get on with you. You are practical. I understand you, but talking to Wilson is something like talking to Jesus Christ.”2 Woodrow Wilson entered the United States on July 8th. By the next two days he had already presented the treaty before the Senate, a testament to the priority it held for him. The President “spoke before an audience such as is seldom seen in the Senate and received a most enthusiastic greeting except by the Republicans”3. Wilson made the League of Nations his greatest quest. He saw the peace conference as an opportunity through which he could set up a new world order which would have a system on the basis of morality and justice, instead of competition and power. Wilson was a visionary reared with a strong moral background. While others wanted to punish Germany, Wilson wished to get rid of the old system and come up with a new world order which would not treat Germany like a defeated enemy; instead he wanted to her to be like others, a partner of the new system he had envisioned. On the other hand, Clemenceau did not wish to end the old system but rather to make it stronger to build peace, and this meant that the conquerors would divide the spoils to come up with a reimbursement as satisfactory as possible to their respective nation’s requirements. History has paid substantial attention on the personal enmity that existed between Wilson and Lodge, and, from the consequences that we have seen it is clear that there was, in fact, a lot of political animosity between them4. It should also be considered, however, that they had opposite views regarding the issues of the day and thus their political behavior showed varied opinions. From the way Lodge was repudiating the President it seemed that it was his behavior rather than genuine ideological opposition. Instead of coming up with actual and meaningful debate that would list the reasons why the treaty should not be signed, Lodge kept delaying action by reading – word-for-word – the language of the Treaty5 6. Therefore, what it resulted in was just endless criticism that took about six weeks of public hearing. For the Senate Foreign Relation Committee he chose those senators whom he thought would go against the treaty. After the committee had reported the Treaty to the full Senate they did so after burdening it with corrections which Lodge had said were necessary to adopt and had made them a precondition. Few of these amendments were logical enough and concerned issues like the idea that participating in the League of Nations could not diminish the role of Congress in matters of foreign policy, or negotiate the very sovereignty of the nation, or implicate the US in an undue or misguided war. Other than these, the rest of the “amendments” were just listed to defer and postpone the ratification of the treaty. Basically, there was a lot of tension in the relationship between the executive and legislative branches under the US Constitution. Before talking about the disputes that existed between the American and French delegations at Versailles, it is vital that the origin and nature of those differences are examined. Woodrow Wilson came to Paris bringing with him a peace program which was about his moral, idealistic notion of a new world order. Before that he had also gone to England. Wilson had talked about how he wished to overthrow the old diplomatic system even before he had made his Fourteen Points speech in January 1918. When the US entered the Great War, the President had wanted that there be “peace without victory” and the Fourteen Points were supposed to make sure of that together with altering the diplomatic relations to such an extent that future wars would be prevented. Wilson could clearly see that the conclusion of the Great War was an opportunity for him through which he could take forward his moral, idealistic, and progressive policies. He promulgated his vision of peace and tried to make the people understand the requirement of a “new order”. Wilson said: “Our thought was always that the key to the peace was the guarantee of the peace, not the items of it; that the items would be worthless unless there stood at the back of them a permanent concert of power for their maintenance”7 Like later on the French said, Wilson lived in the “luxury” of being able to make up his peace program from the safety of the United States. The Atlantic Ocean provided Wilson the protection again the very cruel realities of war first-hand; therefore, Wilson was able to easily develop the program depending completely on moral principles. Since the French experience of the war was intimate they had to come up with a program that solved issues of security and reparations – the two precepts that they had to consider since they had been invaded by the same enemy twice within fifty years. Besides these two tenets, the French also wanted old world diplomatic system. Before going to Paris Wilson had fully prepared himself for every opposition that he might face there regarding the treaty. He found it surprising, though, that even in Paris the treaty was attacked from every side the way it was in his home country. But he did get some support, even from Republican senators who pledged their allegiance in return for some amendments they had proposed. During his first term Wilson had been able to handle the Congress flawlessly, and it seemed that he can definitely save the treaty which also meant making sure of the US becoming a member of the League. However, such was not the case this time. His political skills failed him at such an important time. He rejected any further compromises. He was upset and shocked at this and thought it was better to address the people directly regarding this issue. Another reason behind his not being able to get people to see his point and view and make them agree was his illness. Wilson had had a stroke and his personality had changed, thus not allowing him to efficiently deal with Lodge. According to Cooper, “Wilson’s emotions were unbalanced, and his judgment was warped… Worse, his denial of illness and limitations was starting to border on delusion”8. In fact, Wilson stopped the press as well and thus did not hold any more press conferences for them. Instead of that he preferred to use the Committee for Public Information to spread his campaign. Initially the drive behind Wilson’s campaign was that he saw a lot of support from the people. He believed that the people of the world were with him and this gave him energy and made him more determined to work for the cause. When he arrived in Europe for giving speeches and bolstering the people, he was received well. It is to be noted, however, that right after Wilson gave his speech London, Clemenceau proceeded to address the people, too, the next day and his speech was opposite to that of Wilson’s. Still, the same nice reception was given to him upon his entrance in Paris. In fact, “…not only men and women, but also little children, standing with uncovered heads to cheer the passage of the special train”9. It was unfortunate, though, that Wilson still had this encouragement even after the views of the French had changed; he had failed to see that and was busy working on the campaign considering that he had the required support. Summer and autumn of 1919 saw “Wilsonian peace” strictly criticized. But even though Lodge was trying his best to obstruct the Treaty of Versailles, there were still chances of Wilson getting the required two-thirds vote. Most of the country was also in favor of the treaty. Within 3 weeks Wilson had given speeches and heavily campaigned for same. He gave 37 speeches in 29 cities. He travelled by train, stopping in cities for making speeches through which he conveyed to them the importance of forcing their senators to vote for the treaty. However, this appeal was nothing but a waste of time and energy as the republican senators did not alter their views. Whatever doubts there were among the people they were mostly concerned with the League membership that Wilson had included into the treaty. There were some objections from the side of the American “liberals” and socialists, and “conservative” Republicans, although both had different reasons. The pro-war liberals starting losing confidence and they were worried about the strict terms being the basis for another war10. On the other hand, in the views of the radicals the US participation in the League was just an extension of the Entente alliance. There were some critics who were fine even with the supposedly harsh terms of the treaty; what they had a problem with was the League of Nations as according to them it was “a device for absorbing American power far too directly into the defense of the pre-Allied European settlement”11. Here it was Wilson’s duty to make the Americans see how the Allies were progressive and not imperialistic, and also that the League of Nations would work against any future wars and not create them. At the end of the day Wilson’s personal “appeal to Caesar” had hardly any effect on the consequences. He had failed to mobilize Democratic legislators while defending the treat’s provision and this was why he failed in his cause. The third and last voting performed resulted in the Senate rejecting ratification by 49-35. Wilson tried to force the acceptance of the treaty in the absence of any reservations and thus he vetoed a Congressional attempt for providing a formal end that would technically keep the US at war. The resulting peace from the Treaty of Versailles was totally different from the one that Wilson had initially dreamt of at the outset of the conference. The very first priority that every nation should have is that it should look out where its interests best lie. Those elected leaders are really respected who look about around them and find solutions for global problems while maintaining respect for democratic procedures. It is, thus, illogical to think that the consequences of such a meeting would have been acceptable by all three countries and no one would have put forward any objections. Clemenceau, Lloyd George, and Wilson proposed the Treaty of Versailles to their respective legislators in order to show and get confirmation of what they had together succeeded in doing. The French were seen to be quite narrow-minded because they were trying to keep Germany weak. However, their motive was correct if their method wasn’t in case the treaty did not get accepted in 1919. The experience of the First World War did not result in the creation or solution of the vigilance toward Germany. The British were not decided about the terms of the treaty yet. According to the understanding of Lloyd George, it was the national economy, labor and empire that were to be focused upon and concerned about. Of course, it was important that there was a compensation given for paying the debt they had taken during World War I, but at the same time it was also vital to prevent events such as socialist revolution in Russia. Thus, on the part of the British the terms of the treaty were questioned regarding the long-standing British attention to balance of power in Europe and security of markets globally. However, the aims that Wilson had set were much nobler and thus there were even more concerns in his country regarding the treaty. There probably has not been another treaty yet in history which “has produced so much comment, has been so freely criticized, and possibly so little read and understood”12 as the Treaty of Versailles. Under President Roosevelt’s direction in October 1943 an annotated version of the treaty was investigated in a way such as to concentrate on understanding the relations with Germany during the interwar period13. Even today disapproval and lack of support for providing for the Treaty of Versailles have been examined and related to foreign policy problems like appeasement, international boundary quarrels, and decolonization. In fact, the inadequacies of the Treaty of Versailles, more particularly the corrective meaning of the treaty for Germany, have, since forever, been thought to be the reason behind the Second World War. The results that Clemenceau, Lloyd George and Wilson brought about through their work and discussion at the Versailles conference have been blamed for the problems that the world faced in the 20th century. Historians have talked about and delved into the extent of Wilson’s compromises, and also the reasons behind his deviation from the policies he had originally set. But then others have also proclaimed that – even though these views are considered too simple – Wilson did achieve something from the program, at least as much as he realistically could. In the end, the United States was the only Great Power that had rejected the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles and, therefore, has to stay out of the League of Nations permanently. References Baker, Ray Stannard. Woodrow Wilson and the World Settlement Doubleday. Page & Company. 1922. 3 vols. Cooper, John M. Woodrow Wilson: A Biography. Vintage, 2011. Graebner, Norman A., and Bennett, Edward M. The Versailles Treaty and Its Legacy: The Failure of the Wilsonian Vision. London: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Grayson, Cary T. The Diarv of Rear-Admiral Cary T. Gravson. Unpublished manuscript in the Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Firestone Library, Princeton Univ. Parts I and n. Levin, N. Gordon. Woodrow Wilson and World Politics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968. Lodge, Henry C. The Senate and the League of Nations. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1925. Martel, Gordon. A Companion to International History 1900-2001. John Wiley & Sons, 2008. The Treaties of Peace 1919-1923. New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1924. The Treaty of Versailles and After: Annotations of the Text of the Treaty. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1947. Schlesinger, Arthur M. The Crisis of the Old Order, 1919-1933. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1957. Watson, David R. Georges Clemenceau: A Political Biography. London: Eyre Methuen, 1974. Read More