What if?
So, today in class we discussed the Treaty of Versailles and League of Nations. We were having a very intense conversation, and I thought I would bring it to our "blog." I have a few questions about the League of Nations, and how they voted on the treaty. What would have happened if there was no reservationists party? Would there be some other party in its place? What numbers/parts of the treaty would have passed with no swing voters?
I would say that the numbers/parts of the treaty that would pass would be the ones that gave the impression that "American was the best." An example of that would be # 14, which is saying that American can do what ever it wants and the League can't do anything about it. They don't have to follow any rules. Would there be a treaty without the reservationists?
By Hannah
"After a hard day's work diggin' up the sod, we're ready for chow."
Welcome to our class's blog. We are discussing the latest topics we're studying in American history and literature. This website has been active since December 2005. Selected Excel 10 students will take turns posting their thoughts, and other Excel 10 students will comment on these posts. Parents, staff, and other interested persons are invited to add their comments on our musings. Any inappropriate comments will be deleted.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Hannah-
Okay, so I think that if there was no reservationist, there would still be no treaty. It sounded like most people were against the treaty and all its reservations and the reservationist were just more votes against the treaty.
--Natalie
Hannah,
Excellent question. I think that if there hadn't been any reservationists, those willing to find common ground between the two extremes of isolation and internationalism, this would have been a very polarized debate.
What I meant by that is that was neither side would be willing to compromise, and little would get done. It's usually in the middle where you'll find the solution and the people who are most willing to compromise. Sometimes, the people on either end of the extremes live by their principles and are willing to let something die rather than compromise those principles.
Can you tell I'm a pragmatist?
Hey Hannah.
I think that if there were no reservationists, the debate would have gone longer than hoped but there would still be a treaty. Without the reservationists, the republicans and democrats would have clashed, making it harder to come to a decision. Both sides would have been to stubborn to make any changes to what they want.
-Maggie
I agree with Maggie about the republicans and democrats clashing. In the debate we knew the reservationists were going to vote no, so we had to be careful and please the other party so they wouldn't vote it down but so we also got some of the changes we wanted in there. Both the democrats and republicans were trying to please each other because they were the deciding votes. If there were no reservationists, there would not have been much compramise becaue there would not have been a majority of no votes to start out.
if the reservationists weren't there, i think that the debate would have never ended. The reservationists were the swing votes and if they werent there, all the republicans would have voted the treaty down and the democrats would have voted for it, and since the groups were even in our class it would have never ended. The reservationists were needed by both parties to get swing votes for their view on the treaty.
,Alex P.
Post a Comment