{"id":3808,"date":"2020-08-16T00:14:20","date_gmt":"2020-08-16T00:14:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/hist-282pinsker\/?p=3808"},"modified":"2020-08-16T00:14:20","modified_gmt":"2020-08-16T00:14:20","slug":"treaty-of-versailles","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/hist-282pinsker\/2020\/08\/16\/treaty-of-versailles\/","title":{"rendered":"Treaty of Versailles"},"content":{"rendered":"

“At the time and since, blame has been variously cast for the outcome of 1919-20 [when the US rejected the Treaty of Versailles].\u00a0 Lodge and the Republicans have been charged with rabid partisanship and a deep-seated personal animus that fueled a determination to embarrass Wilson.\u00a0 It can be argued, on the other hand, that they were simply doing the job the political system assigned to the ‘loyal’ opposition and that the Lodge reservations were necessary to protect national sovereignty.\u00a0 The Democrats have been criticized for standing firmly –and foolishly– with their ailing leader, instead of working with Republicans to gain a modified commitment to the League of Nations.\u00a0 Wilson himself has been accused of the ‘supreme infanticide,’ slaying his own brainchild through his stubborn refusal to deal with the opposition….The defeat of Wilson’s handiwork leaves haunting if ultimately unanswerable questions.\u00a0 The Wilson of 1919-20 believed that vital principles were at stake in the struggle with Lodge and that compromise would render the League of Nation all but useless.\u00a0 Would a more robust and healthy Wilson –the artful politician of his first term– have built more solid support for his proposals or found a middle ground that would have made possible Senate approval of the treaty and U.S. entry into the League of Nations?\u00a0 Could a modified League with U.S. participation have changed the history of the next two decades?” –George Herring,\u00a0From Colony to Superpower,\u00a0<\/em>pp. 433-34<\/p>\n

\n

Discussion Questions<\/strong><\/p>\n