1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
uranmaximum [27]
2 years ago
12

In a paragraph, explain why President Wilson encountered opposition in the U.S. Senate in his efforts to ratify the Treaty of Ve

rsailles. Your response should discuss key terms such as League of Nations, Irreconcilables, Reservationists, isolationism, and interventionism.
Please help, asp
History
1 answer:
sergey [27]2 years ago
8 0

Answer:

On the side of Wilson, that is, for the adoption of the Treaty of Versailles and the ensuing entry into the League of Nations in order to continue direct intervention in European affairs, a significant part of both the ruling circles and the "public" spoke. Wilson's position was supported by prominent business leaders. The defense of the Treaty of Versailles focused on proving the United States’s worth of creating the League of Nations. With the help of the league and the Versailles Treaty, senators Hitchcock, Kellogg, Owen and others said that the United States will be able to rebuild Europe, sell its goods widely, which will improve the country's economic prospects for many years to come. The mandate system will open access to the colonies, to the Turkish Straits, to Middle East oil and other raw materials.

But the central argument of supporters of the Versailles system remained the argument that through the League of Nations the United States will be able to gain the position of the dominant power in the world. Senator Owen argued during the discussions that the League of Nations has a whole arsenal of means - diplomatic pressure, arbitration, and the International Court of Justice, boycott, blockade, the use of collective armed forces - and with their help the fate of any international dispute can be decided. Wilson’s supporters said the US’s joining the league will help “overcome social unrest in Europe,” stop the growth of socialist forces.

The opposition to the Wilsonists was called isolationist, although it itself did not recognize this name. The term "isolationism," despite all its conventions (in fact, it did not mean calling for the isolation of America), nevertheless had a constant content: the rejection of political and especially military alliances with Europe, 'bequeathed' by George Washington in 1796.

In the Senate, the first movement was a bloc of so-called “irreconcilable” (with a fluctuating number of 12 to 36 out of 96 senators), headed by William Bora, one of the most critical opposition leaders. Bora, Lafollett, Norris and other senators of this group 'attacked' the League of Nations as a tool for drawing the United States into alien wars, in defense of extraneous interests, and protested against anti-Soviet intervention.

Explanation:

You might be interested in
Which event is the CLEAREST example of conflict between state and national governments?
katovenus [111]
A: The Civil War
Assuming that you're talking about the American (U.S) civil war, that is.

The civil war was a conflict between the rights of the (slave owning) states and the national government. A war about state rights.

The war of 1812 was between 2 independent, sovereign nations.
The great depression was just an economic thing.
The northwest ordnance, I have the least knowledge of, but it still wasn't between states and the national government.
Hope this helps.
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What fertility rate is needed to replace the population of people dying
Andrej [43]

Answer:

2.1 children per family

Explanation:

When the total fertility rate is at replacement (2.1 children per family), the two children born essentially replace the parents when they die. The replacement level TFR is 2.1, not 2.0, since not all females survive to their childbearing years.

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Did the Spanish Help or Hurt?
lukranit [14]

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

Although there are no options attached we can say the following.

Did the Spanish Help or Hurt?

Well, it all depends on the perspective.

From the European perspective, the Spanish helped by evangelizing the Native Indians into the Catholic church principles and in offering education because the Spaniards considered the Indians as ignorant, primitive people.

On the other hand, in the Mexican and Latin American perspectives, the Spanish hurt so much.

The Spaniards were fortunate in the act that the Aztecas believed they were their gods coming back to fulfill the prophecies, and because of that the Aztecs welcomed them with an open hand and open doors.

The Spaniards were greedy people that only ambitioned richness for them and the Spanish crown, and they did what they knew best, kill and conquer.

The Spanish conquered Mesoamerica and instilled New Spain More than helping the Indians what the Spanish really wanted was to exploit the many raw materials and natural resources of the Americas. And exploit they did. They also tried to disappear the culture, traditions, beliefs, and religion of the Indians. Furthermore, they brought European diseases that almost wipe out 80n% of the Indian population. Diseases such as chickenpox, smallpox, malaria, influenza, and cholera.

So we could say they hurt more than what they helped.

4 0
3 years ago
What effect did the Revenue Act of 1926 have on Americans? a) It raised the estate taxes Americans had to pay. b) It increased t
Anna007 [38]
The Revenue Act of 1926, which was signed by President Coolidge, mainly had an effect on upper-class Americans, because it eliminated many inheritance and "gift" taxes.
<span />
5 0
3 years ago
When the light bulb industry went from being a single-seller market to a competitive market, the price of light bulbs increased
Snowcat [4.5K]
When the light bulb industry becomes a competitive market, the price of the light bulb will decrease. This is due to the fact that the industry will no longer monopolize the production of light bulb, other competitors will bring their product to the market. Thus, this will result to competition which will bring the prices lower since consumers will opt to buy lower prices of the same product.
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • When and where did ptolemy make his astronomical observations?
    10·1 answer
  • Garibaldi and Bismarck both united their countries (Italy and Germany) by ?
    10·1 answer
  • Why was king tut tomb small
    5·1 answer
  • What conclusion can be drawn from the presence of groups like the Puritans, Pilgrims, Jews, and Catholics in the early British N
    8·1 answer
  • What did the civil war teach us
    9·2 answers
  • What is likely being carried by the large sailboat
    14·2 answers
  • Senator Ramirez listens to her constituents’ wishes on every piece of legislation, but always votes her conscience, even if it g
    9·1 answer
  • How did Enlightenment thinkers influence the development of capitalism? Limits were placed on property ownership. Enlightenment
    9·1 answer
  • Which statement best describes the government of russia in the 20th century?
    5·2 answers
  • Which natural resources were most important to the development of industrialization in the United States? Check all that apply
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!