Skip to main content

Did the decision by the United States to not ratify the Treaty of Versailles cause international tensions and how?

The decision by the United States to not ratify the Treaty of Versailles led to problems in the world that eventually created tensions.


The United States didn’t ratify the Versailles Treaty because some United States Senators were concerned that we might have to get involved in conflicts that weren’t in our best interests. This was required by the charter of the League of Nations which was part of the Versailles Treaty. They asked President Wilson to accept amendments to the charter of the League of Nations which would exempt us from having to get involved in any actions recommended by the League of Nations if we felt these actions weren't in our best interests.  When President Wilson refused to do this, the Senate didn’t ratify the Versailles Treaty.


Since we didn’t ratify the Versailles Treaty, we also didn’t join the League of Nations. The League of Nations was created to help prevent conflicts from arising. There were many issues with the League of Nations. One issue was that it didn’t have enough power to enforce its actions. Another issue was that the United States didn’t join the organization.


As a result, when Germany, Japan, and Italy began to take aggressive actions in the 1930s, the League of Nations wasn’t able to do much about these actions. This created tensions as the Allies grew more concerned about what was happening in the world. Because the League of Nations was weak and ineffective, and because the Allies were dealing with the effects of the Great Depression, they couldn’t do much to stop these actions that Germany, Japan, and Italy were taking.


The failure of the United States to ratify the Versailles Treaty and to join the League of Nations contributed to the growing tensions in the world that eventually led to the start of World War II.

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

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more