In addition, for three years the Russians had fought on the side of the Allies,
suffering higher casualties than any other nation. However, because Russia was
excluded from the peace conference, it lost more territory than Germany did. The
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (or Soviet Union), as Russia was officially
called after 1922, became determined to regain its former territory.
Finally, the treaty ignored claims of colonized people for self-determination,
as in the case of Southeast Asia, where the Vietnamese people were beginning to
demand the same political rights enjoyed by people in Western nations.
OPPOSITION TO THE TREATY
When Wilson returned to the United States, he
faced strong opposition to the treaty. Some people, including Herbert Hoover,
believed it was too harsh. Hoover noted, “The economic consequences alone will
pull down all Europe and thus injure the United States.” Others considered the
treaty a sell-out to imperialism because it simply exchanged one set of colonial
rulers for another. Some ethnic groups objected to the treaty because the new
national boundaries it established did not satisfy their particular demands for self-
determination. For example, before the war many Poles had been under German
rule. Now many Germans were under Polish rule.
DEBATE OVER THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
The main domestic opposition,
however, centered on the issue of the League of Nations. A few opponents believed
that the League threatened the U.S. foreign policy of isolationism. Conservative sen-
ators, headed by Henry Cabot Lodge, were suspicious of the provision for joint
economic and military action against aggression, even though it was voluntary. They
wanted the constitutional right of Congress to declare war included in the treaty.
“The League of Nations posed a threat
to U.S. self-determination.”
Senator William Borah was one of the foremost critics
of the Treaty of Versailles because he objected to U.S.
membership in the League of Nations. Borah feared
that membership in the League “would draw America
away from her isolation and into the internal affairs
and concerns of Europe” and involve the United States
in foreign wars. “Once having surrendered and become
a part of the European concerns,” Borah wondered,
“where, my friends, are you going to stop?”
Many opponents also feared that the League
would nullify the Monroe Doctrine by limiting “the right
of our people to govern themselves free from all
restraint, legal or moral, of foreign powers.”
Although Wilson argued that the League of Nations
would have no such power of restraint, Borah was
unconvinced. He respond-
ed to Wilson’s argument
by asking, “What will your
League amount to if it
does not contain powers
that no one dreams of
giving it?”
“The League of Nations was
the world’s best hope for lasting peace.”
President Wilson campaigned for the League of Nations
as “necessary to meet the differing and unexpected
contingencies” that could threaten world peace. Wilson
believed that the League would create a forum where
nations could talk through their disagreements. He also
hoped it would provide collective security, in which
nations would “respect and preserve as against exter-
nal aggression the territorial integrity and existing politi-
cal independence of all members of the League,” and
thereby prevent devastating warfare.
Critics complained that membership in the League
would limit American independence in international
affairs. However, Wilson argued that League member-
ship included “a moral, not a legal, obligation” that
would leave Congress free to decide its own course of
action. Wilson tried to
assure Congress as well
as the general public that
the League was “not a
straightjacket, but a vehicle
of life.” It was also a defi-
nite guaranty . . . against
the things that have just
come near bringing the
whole structure of
civilization into ruin.”
