Alittle help please?!?

Question

President Wilson and the Treaty of Versailles." At issue here is the American involverment in the League of Nations.

President Wilson went to Paris at the end of World War I, to ensure that a fair and just peace would be established at the end of the war. Membership in the League of Nations, he said was essential. Without an international peace organization to handle international disputes, said Wilson future wars were inevidable. Wilson 's critics, lead by Republican Senate leader Henry Cabot Lodge, argued that Wilson was not a realist. Americans wanted peace now, not further involvement in European affairs, said Lodge.
Question:

What do you think about President Wilson? Was he just too idealistic about world peace? Did President Wilson really understand what was needed at the end of World War I ?

And i dont need people coming in here being assholes..either help me out or not!!

Answer 1

First, make sure you understand the passage you just quoted.

Briefly, here's what the passage means:
WWI occurred because of a bunch of alliances (bonds) made between different countries in Europe. Germany had been stockpiling weapons. At the end of the war, Germany surrendered (gave up) and the countries who were against Germany in the war (France, England, etc.) went to write a treaty, to decide what Germany would have to do to make up for the damage it had caused during the war.

Wilson went to Paris to make sure everything went fairly for all the European countries (including Germany), and wanted to set up the League of Nations, with the U.S. as its leader to keep the peace in Europe.

Henry Cabot Lodge said Wilson was not a realist (a person who accepts the world as it actually is and deals with it as it is). Lodge said Wilson was an idealist (a person who makes decisions based on how he thinks the world COULD be). He thought Wilson was being silly -- that he should just make peace in Europe and then leave them alone.

The question is asking whether you think Wilson was right and the U.S. should help make world peace, and whether it would even be POSSIBLE for the U.S. to do it.

**Ignore the people that are arguing about World War II in these answers. It will not help you and is not answering your question. Only read people who answer about World War I! Good luck!

Answer 2

To debate Regerugged: we have no idea how many wars the UN has prevented. We made it through the Cold War without blowing up the world, but it's hard to say if any of that is the credit of the UN. We have only had small wars since then, but there has been a lot of conflict that never got resolved.

I think Wilson WAS being idealistic, but I think he had the right idea. Obviously, peace is better than war, and discussion is better than machine-guns. The fault of the UN, I think, is that the United States has abandoned it. When the founder of the organization and the most powerful nation on Earth sees the UN as either a rubber-stamp committe or an obstacle to be maneuvered around, it's never going to have the status that it needs.

Answer 3

We have had the UN since the end of WWII. It has not prevented any wars. Except for some humanitarian aid, it has not done much good. There is every reason to believe the League of Nations would have been the same.

Answer 4

Ahh, grasshopper. Ask yourself: Did Wilson go to Paris to establish a fair and just peace...or did he go to establish global political control? Are they the same thing?

Answer 5

Sounds like you need to do your own homework.