Skip to main content

What were the consequences for the USA for rejecting the Treaty of Versailles and the League of nations?

The United States did not suffer any immediate aftermath for rejecting the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations.  The United States signed a separate peace treaty with German in 1921, thus formally ending the war.  The United States was unable to alter the level of blame leveled at Germany since the chief negotiator, Woodrow Wilson, contracted Spanish Influenza while in Versailles--this gave the British and French more power at the treaty table as they could always point to their losses and say that they deserved reparations more.  As news leaked from the treaty conference that the victorious Allied powers were using the war as an excuse to add to their already-impressive empires, the American people also lost patience with the treaty negotiations, thus giving Senate Republicans more power to go against Wilson and his internationalism.


 The United States started to suffer for its isolationism during the 1930's.  Since the U.S. did not join the League of Nations, there was no country powerful enough to force Japan to abide by the Kellogg-Briand pact which denounced war as a method of settling disputes.  Japan left the League of Nations during its initial invasion of China.  The British and French were too busy with their own economic crises at home to notice German militarization.  While America was not truly isolationist, as it did host the Washington Naval Conference in 1921 and it led the Kellogg-Briand pact, its failure to join the League of Nations was a strong contributing factor to WWII, which was far more costly in terms of blood and treasure than WWI.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more