why did congress deny the treaty of versailles?
94727
History has taught us that peace must be kept at all costs. At the end of World War 1, the common goal between the victorious nations throughout the world was to declare peace. The leading statesmen of these triumphant nations met in Paris to draw up the Treaty of Versailles, which would decide the fate of the central powers. Woodrow Wilson, the American President, created fourteen points as the basis for peace negotiations. Among these fourteen points was the most controversial and yet the most important to President Wilson, the League of Nations. President Wilson developed its charter and soon died from exhaustion after his own country, the United States, refused to ratify it in the senate. American policy had temporarily shifted from isolationism to internationalism because of the war, however the United States senate was not ready for the responsibilities of a world peacekeeper. Due to a republican majority, senators Henry Cabot Lodge, Alfred Beveridge, and other isolationist senators helped to sway the rest of congress to deny the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. These senators believed that by entangling themselves in an international organization they would create new alliances, which would commit them to go to war. Also, Lodge felt that the League of Nations would be able to control the United States military by limiting the number of armaments that a nation could have. Due to Article 10 and the limitations on armaments, which the senators objected, and the inability to compromise on the deadlock between the President’s beliefs and the Senators, led to the failure to ratify the Treaty of Versailles. These factors lead the senate to their decision, which left the world vulnerable for another war and the eventual demise of the League of Nations.
470985
There wasn't much of a coherent argument. People were scared because of the Panic of 1893 that the US was running out of natural resources and capital, and businesses feared that they would need to have new land to be able to be competitive in the industrial world. The actual expansion that took place was justified by accusations that Spain was abusing its colonies, and so we had a moral obligation to come to their aid, but that's clearly not why we went to war with Spain.
223678
pretty much all of america was against it but we had an obligation as allies to the european nations at war so we got involved anyway. it was a totally pointless war in the first place and popular american sentiment was to let the euros handle their own problems instead of sending our young men to die which i couldn't agree with more. isolationism rocks!
220254
Because they say the future of what would be needed in world community.  The US, except for President Wilson, was still in the isolated mode.  Without the US support the League of Nations did not last.
676922
Yes. Arguably, Versailles LED to WWII.  The Treaty of Versailles (ToV) harshly punished and blamed Germany for a war that was caused by poor dimplomacy and an all-around lack of goodwill on all sides that might have prevented the war in the first place.  The causes of the war were extremely complex, not the least of which was that many countries were just ITCHING to "play" with the new "toys" of war that industrialization had provided.  America acutally wanted a more balanced outcome at Versailles but wasn't strong enough on her own in 1919 to bring that about (and was in any case reeling from a flu epidemic at home that incapacitated their president).  Thanks largely to the self-righteous attitude of some countries that were out for blood - France in particular - the Germans were singled out as the cause of the war and were made to bear the brunt of the defeat.  This quite naturally led to considerable resentment among the German people - the wisdom of hindsight now allows us to see that this anger and resentment were to become the fertile soil upon which the fanatic Hitler was able to successfully sow his seeds of hatred and destruction.  Following WWII - a much stronger America - mindful of the lessons learned from the conclusion of WWI - insisted on creating strong and wealthy democracies out of the deafeated nations of Germany and Japan instead of creating punished adversaries seething with resentment.  The results of that courageous American vision stand in stark contrast to that offered by the European powers after WWI, as well as the Soviet model offered to Eastern Europe after WWII - and the results are plain for all to see.
105817
The United States took a neutral position before entry into WWI.  Wilson had initially run on the platform of the man who would keep the U.S. out of the war.  The government also felt that entry onto the British side would divide the nation (with the U.S.'s large german population.)  The Zimmerman telegram would change all that, of course....
710826
The us has one of the worst histories in upholding treaty obligations, they are made then broken when they can take advantage of it. My people, American indians engaged with the governement in 535+ treaties, all of which were broken by the US at their earliest possible convience, so no never trust a treaty
644370
Because its predecessor, the Articles of Confederation, failed:\n\n"[The Articles of Confederation] had three great weaknesses:\n(1) It had no means of revenue independent of that received through its requisitions on the States, which were nothing more than requests, which the States could and did disregard; and it had no control over foreign or interstate commerce. \n(2)  Behind these lacks was its inability to compel the States to honor the national obligations. It could make treaties but had no means to compel obedience to them; or to provide for the payment of the foreign debt. It had responsibility but no power as a national government; no means of coercing the States to obedience even to the very inadequate grant given to the "League of Friendship" by the Articles of Confederation. \n(3)But its greatest weakness was that it had no direct origin in, or action on, the people themselves; but, unlike both the Declaration of Independence and the later Constitution, knew only the States and was known only to them, calling them sovereign." http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html\n\nAbout the Article of Confederation (1781): http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/charters_of_freedom_4.html\n\nHistory of the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_history.html\n\nConstitution FAQs: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html
334555
WW1 ended with the Treaty of Versailles.  The terms of the Treaty imposed harsh conditions on Germany.  Germany could not have a standing army, land was taken from Germany and the German nation was forced to pay huge sums in reparations.  The enconomy was experience hyperinflation.  This is where the money loses its value, almost to the point of being worthless.  People would ask to be paid at noon so they could run out and spend it---because by the end of the day their pay would only be worth half as much.  There are pictures of men pushing wheelbarrows FULL of German money down the street.\n\nHitler was a WW1 hero.  He saw the problems that Germany was facing under the unjust terms of the Versailles treaty.  He saw the wreck the economy was in.  There were no jobs for German citizens in the private sector, so Hitler created huge government projects that employed millions of Germans.  As the people went back to work, their apathy dissipated.  Hitler gained even more power, and in time was able to repudiate the Versailles Treaty and raise an army.\n\nthis is just the tip of the iceberg.  Read and study more about pre-WWII Germany.
788604
It has everything to do with the Treaty of Versailles. As it's name points out, this is a treaty signed in the Hall of Mirrors in the French city of Versailles. It was the peace treaty that officially ended World War I and unofficially started World War II.\n\nOne of the terms of this treaty was the creation of the League of Nations, whose goal would be to prevent another world war. Other parts of the treaty stated that Germany was to be fully blamed for World War I and because of this, Germany was demanded to pay up all damages calculated of WWI. Also, Germany was denied having an airforce, a navy and was only allowed to have a limited land army. It's colonies were taken away and other damages were also imposed. In a nutshell, Germany was brought to it's knees and into a depression.\n\nThis helped bring about the rise of Hitler who promised to tear up the hated treaty. Of course, Germans supported him and once he arranged for virtually limitless power, it was too late. Nations part of the League of Nations were also fooled by Hitler. They allowed Hitler to take over Austria-Hungary, which belong to Germany prior to WWI. The League of Nations did not disagree much with Hitler's request to undo the Treaty of Versailles. They agreed with him that the terms were much too harsh.\n\nIt was only until Hitler marched into Poland that everyone realized what was happening. But of course, that set foot into a much bloodier World War.\n\nReally, the League of Nations failed to prevent WWII by allowing a genius psychopath to manipulate them. (This is my opinion.)\n\nHope this novel of mine answers your question.
281877
Wow, just ignore the previous post. Someone has their wars mixed up.\n\nThe United States was neutral during WWI because they felt that this was a European conflict, and none of their business. What drew us into the war was a German U-boat attack on a US ship.
70618
The US Congress declared war on Germany on April 6, 1917.  An armistice went into effect on November 11, 1918.  The Treaty of Versailles, which officially ended the war, was signed on June 28, 1919.
282950
the treaty of versailles was the big outcome of WWI. It put a whole bunch of restrictions on Germany, including the war guilt clause (they admitted to starting the war)\nThe main terms of the Versailles Treaty were: \n\n(1) the surrender of all German colonies as League of Nations mandates; \n\n(2) the return of Alsace-Lorraine to France; \n\n(3) cession of Eupen-Malmedy to Belgium, Memel to Lithuania, the Hultschin district to Czechoslovakia, \n\n(4) Poznania, parts of East Prussia and Upper Silesia to Poland;\n\n(5) Danzig to become a free city; \n\n(6) plebiscites to be held in northern Schleswig to settle the Danish-German frontier; \n\n(7) occupation and special status for the Saar under French control; (8) demilitarization and a fifteen-year occupation of the Rhineland; \n\n(9) German reparations of £6,600 million; \n\n(10) a ban on the union of Germany and Austria; \n\n(11) an acceptance of Germany's guilt in causing the war; \n\n(11) provision for the trial of the former Kaiser and other war leaders; \n\n(12) limitation of Germany's army to 100,000 men with no conscription, no tanks, no heavy artillery, no poison-gas supplies, no aircraft and no airships; \n\n(13) the limitation of the German Navy to vessels under 100,000 tons, with no submarines;
884957
I thought only Congress could declare war.What date was that?
568470
1. The Treaty of Versailles was known as a Diktat in Germany, where it was seen as an imposed and humiliating treaty. The Treaty stated that Germany was responsible for starting WW1. As the reasons for WW1 were actually much more complicated, and Germans were led to believe they were in the right by their Kaiser, this seemed very unfair. Plus, Germany now had a democratic government.\n\nThe treaty forced Germany to pay huge reparations. This seemed impossible as Germany's economy was in tatters. Also, Germany lost a lot of land, significantly the Polish Corridor, which split Prussia in two. So right from the start, the Treaty was resented. Hitler was able to exploit that bitterness as part of his Nazi campaigns. \n\nBy the time Hitler was in power, people in Britain sympathised with Germany's anger about the Treaty. Therefore many accepted it when Hitler broke the terms.\n\n2. The Nazi-Soviet pact occurred in 1939. It was a cynical pact between two dictators, Hitler and Stalin, who planned to invade Poland and share it between themselves.\n\nGermany invaded Poland in September 1939.\n\nThe Battle of Britain took place in the early years of the War. \n\nD-Day occured in 1944, when Allied troops landed at Normandy.
547633
You can post this question as many times as you want, you're still wrong.  Wrong on so many levels;\n\nWilson did not "force" the US into WW1.  War was declared as set out in the Constitution.  Wilson was elected President and given authority to take exactly those decisions.  Given the behaviour of German submarines while the US was still neutral the general view is that he behaved with remarkable restraint. Certainly the idea that he wanted a war is BS.\n\nIf the US had not declared war the most likely outcome would have been for the Germans to over run northern France and then the Allies would have sued for peace.  If you remember the Russians had recently signed their own peace treaty with Germany following the revolution.  Several million German troops were heading for the western front at the point the US entered the war.\n\nSuggesting that the Nazi Party just wanted "Redemption of Germany" is a particularly revolting smear on the memory of all the people murdered by Hitler's regime.  What the Nazi Party wanted is set out in black and white in Mein Kampf, published before Hitler came to power.  It's all there if you bother to read it.  How you can possibly equate the murder of 6 million plus innocents and the invasion of a dozen European countries with payback for the WW1 peace treaty is beyond me.\n\nThe Serbian state did not assassinate anyone.  It was the work of an extremist political group.  And the idea that the assassination "forced" Germany to invade Belgium is truly pathetic.
171021
[1] No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. \n[2] No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. \n[3] No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops and ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.