World War I was one of the bloodiest and most important events of the 20th century. It showed the world the true horrors of modern technology, trench warfare and the risks of entangling alliances. Nevertheless, the aftermath of World War I gave way to a brief window of opportunity that had the chance to alter the scope of international relations: the League of Nations. The League of Nations offered the world a stark alternative to achieve security, however the debate over the true reason behind U.S. Senate’s failure to join it still continues to this day. Some historians like Arthur Link posit that the divide between advocates of collective security and limited internationalism led to the failure to confirm while Walter McDougall believed that …show more content…
Senate failed to join the League of Nations was due to the controversial nature of Article 10. Seen by Wilson as the focal point of the Covenant, Article 10 stated that each member had to pledge to “respect and preserve against external aggression of the territorial integrity and political independence of all Members of the League.” This provision of the League of Nations was seen as a direct threat to the power of the Senate because in order to “preserve against external aggression” of the member states, all decisions as to how to deal with aggressor nations would not be convened by the Congress but by the League of Nations. Furthermore, Article 10 was bolstered by Article 16, which articulated that an attack on one member of the League would be akin to an attack on all the members who could then exercise military force or economic sanctions as deemed by the League. Also, the Senate was not given any clarity if it had to act immediately if Article 10 was put into effect, giving it more reason to fear ratification.Since the right to declare war was constitutionally given to the Congress, the fact that the Senate would have had to forgo its inherent rights to the League is why LaFeber deemed it “the obstacle to …show more content…
In the Senate, there were a myriad of different groups, like the “Irreconcilables” led by Senator Borah from Idaho who would not acquiesce to any American involvement overseas. However there was a different group, the “Limited Internationalists” (135), who fought against the Wilson faction that championed a strong system of collective security. Similar to LaFeber’s criticism, the inclusion of Article 10 in the League of Nations was the vital point that drew ire from the Senate Republicans, who were Limited Internationalists, due to the risk embroiling the United States into foreign affairs. However, Link’s more nuanced interpretation is founded in his contention that the true failure to ratify was over the disagreement between “champions of a strong system of collective security and a group who favored a more limited commitment in international affairs” (134). The disagreement between the two sides was seen by Link to be the largest stumbling block impeding the United States from confirming the