Treaty of Versailles DBQ Scanned - Mr. E's Forum: 2006-2007

Date: Feb 26, 2007

Treaty of Versailles DBQ Scanned

Date: Feb 26, 2007

first of all I'd like to ask God to forgive me if i screw this up. Somebody help me pleeaaasee?? I still have no idea what I'm doing. I feel like a complete idiot.

Date: Feb 26, 2007

So how can I help? Think of the question: who is to blame for the Treaty's rejection in the US Senate. Choose a side. Support it with background, evidence, information, and some documents. Use the links from the previous forum link with all of that helpful information. Don't freeze up! Ask simple and direct questions if you don't know what you're doing. List them out here on the forum and I'll answer them for you (or someone else in the class will). We all help our own!

Date: Feb 26, 2007

i dont even know what to ask. there's absolutely nothing in my head right now.

Date: Feb 26, 2007

I'm having the same problem.

Date: Feb 26, 2007

Krystal wrote:

i dont even know what to ask. there's absolutely nothing in my head right now.

Read the material. Research the issues. Ask specific questions. Work at it. I can't help if you won't let me. Don't expect this to be made easier. Rise.

Date: Feb 26, 2007

how do we redo the dbq?...do we put what we already have and fix up the parts we messed up on plus add other information, or do we have to start completely over?...and i had another question, but seem to have forgotten it.

Date: Feb 26, 2007

Yeh it is going to be tough to add that info that were looking for...im a go for it thoguh if i have any questions ill be asking u Mr. E.

Date: Feb 26, 2007

Jarred had asked me to post the comments I made in class today. Here they are:

nMany generalizations (‘many people believed’, ‘most Americans thought’) n
Thesis statements did not specify WHY Wilson was stubborn or WHY the Senate opposed the Treaty. n
Very significant lack of outside information and knowledge, either specifically or in context of the events and issues surrounding 1917-1921. n
Many claims had little or no analysis. n
Quotes were much too long. n
Many were unfinished.

-- Edited by mre at 23:51, 2007-02-26

Date: Feb 26, 2007

Tanya wrote:

how do we redo the dbq?...do we put what we already have and fix up the parts we messed up on plus add other information, or do we have to start completely over?...and i had another question, but seem to have forgotten it.

If it ain't broke... I wouldn't change the parts that were sound, supportive and detailed in content and analysis. I would change anything that had a comment on it or a question or, more specifically, on the essay checklist. Yes, I would rewrite or retype them, keeping in mind the comments previously made.

Date: Feb 26, 2007

C. Santos wrote:

Yeh it is going to be tough to add that info that were looking for...im a go for it thoguh if i have any questions ill be asking u Mr. E.

Thanks, Curt. Orso and I are proud of you all. Oh, did I tell you all he won an Oscar?

Date: Feb 26, 2007

This is hard Mr. E. I don't know when to add more information and when not to.

Date: Feb 27, 2007

mre wrote:

C. Santos wrote:

Yeh it is going to be tough to add that info that were looking for...im a go for it thoguh if i have any questions ill be asking u Mr. E.
Thanks, Curt. Orso and I are proud of you all. Oh, did I tell you all he won an Oscar?

Im not gonna lie but that Oscar looks highly foney. Nice try though lol

Date: Feb 27, 2007

is it ok if i just scan what i already did, and then just finish it, because i was honestly perfectly happy with the grade i got...

well....thats what im doing....

Date: Feb 27, 2007

I'm not sure if this was the question I forgot about before, but how exactly are we supposed to site the documents?...do we quote them and then after put which document it came from in parentheses and then explain it?

Date: Feb 27, 2007

s.bailey wrote:

is it ok if i just scan what i already did, and then just finish it, because i was honestly perfectly happy with the grade i got...

well....thats what im doing....

That's fine, but I would try to address any comments or suggeestions on the checklist missed.

Date: Feb 27, 2007

Tanya wrote:

I'm not sure if this was the question I forgot about before, but how exactly are we supposed to site the documents?...do we quote them and then after put which document it came from in parentheses and then explain it?

There's an example on the essay checklist rubric involving Thomas Jefferson and the Notes on the State of Virginia that should give you an idea. If you'd like, I can explain it in more detail.

Date: Feb 27, 2007

okay, that one was checked off on my checklist, but i think i put the document in parentheses in the wrong spot...am i supposed to put the document i got it from after i explained how i interpreted/analyzed it?, or do i put it right after i just say where it came from?
like, 'who said the document/what it's about; my analysis; (Doc. A)'
or would it be, 'who said the document/what it's about (Doc. A); my analysis'?

Date: Feb 27, 2007

Butchie wrote:

This is hard Mr. E. I don't know when to add more information and when not to.

Butchie, take a look at the checklist and the comments I made. Look at the DBQ rubric. Make sure your claims are supported. Make sure you don't generalize or oversimplify. I don't remember you essay specifically...

Date: Feb 27, 2007

Tanya wrote:

okay, that one was checked off on my checklist, but i think i put the document in parentheses in the wrong spot...am i supposed to put the document i got it from after i explained how i interpreted/analyzed it?, or do i put it right after i just say where it came from?
like, 'who said the document/what it's about; my analysis; (Doc. A)'
or would it be, 'who said the document/what it's about (Doc. A); my analysis'?

This one ('who said the document/what it's about (Doc. A); my analysis'?) is closer, yes. There's no perfect way of doing it and it doesn't need to be precise. You've got the basic idea. Many didn't.

Date: Feb 27, 2007

ok.. if for some reason i cant do this (again).. does it count as a zero for another test grade?

Date: Feb 27, 2007

Krystal wrote:

ok.. if for some reason i cant do this (again).. does it count as a zero for another test grade?

Yes, of course. I can't make exceptions, in order to be fair to all students. I'm sorry. Try, and give me something specific I can help you with.

Date: Feb 27, 2007

wow wee mr e, this is harder than i thought!!! if i fix a lot of your comments in my essay and add outside information, will it be good enough.
For example:

republican leaders (lodge) -- helped prevent the treaty from getting passed because he followed wilson around during his speeches expressing how he opposed the treaty.

wilson's stroke -- affected the turn out of the treaty because the president was ill. When a president becomes ill his authority and presence is lessened? ****** i dont know if this is correct.

return of wwI us veterans -- They were involved with Europe's bloody war. ***** How does this have to do with the treaty?

media coverage of war's end -- Media was restricted ... there was little freedom of press. Media ended up favoring wilson's ideas and turning public opinions in a certain direction

also, what about these topics?
anti-german backlash
combination of military & economic interests
washington's neutrality proclamation
monroe doctrine
roosevelt corollary to the monroe doctrine
i only wrote a few things down this morning that was on the projector. I really didnt feel good

Date: Feb 27, 2007

also, i was wondering what some of Woodrow Wilson's philosophies were in the treaty. I was looking it up on some of the links you gave us the night before, but i can't find it.

sorry about all the posts and questions.

Date: Feb 27, 2007

kathryn m wrote:

wow wee mr e, this is harder than i thought!!! if i fix a lot of your comments in my essay and add outside information, will it be good enough.
For example:

republican leaders (lodge) -- helped prevent the treaty from getting passed because he followed wilson around during his speeches expressing how he opposed the treaty.

wilson's stroke -- affected the turn out of the treaty because the president was ill. When a president becomes ill his authority and presence is lessened? ****** i dont know if this is correct.

return of wwI us veterans -- They were involved with Europe's bloody war. ***** How does this have to do with the treaty?

media coverage of war's end -- Media was restricted ... there was little freedom of press. Media ended up favoring wilson's ideas and turning public opinions in a certain direction

also, what about these topics?
anti-german backlash
combination of military & economic interests
washington's neutrality proclamation
monroe doctrine
roosevelt corollary to the monroe doctrine
i only wrote a few things down this morning that was on the projector. I really didnt feel good

Lodge didn't follow Wilson. Others (Borah) did. The stroke adds emphasis to demonstrate Wilson's determination to 'convince' the American people and bypass the Senate. The returning vets didn't influnece the Treaty per se, but they did influence American opinion concerning the war the Treaty was supposed to address. The media was restricted during the war, but after, not as much. Yes, during the war, the American people didn't see the horror as much, but after, it wasn't possible to fully hide the effects of the flu (remember) and also Wilson's trip to Paris was highly covered in the American press. Americans were closely watching. Anti-German backlash could end up supporting the Treaty, since it was hard on Germany too. Both could cause the other. Military and economic interests drive foreign policy... even now. Think of how the adoption of the Treaty could have affected those interests in the Pacific and Latin America, for manufacturers, war profiteers and farmers. The rest finally have to do with American non-involvement in European affairs (in our backyard) as well as TR's corrollary concerning the new, stronger US presence in the region (Latin America). Help?

Date: Feb 27, 2007

kathryn wrote:

also, i was wondering what some of Woodrow Wilson's philosophies were in the treaty. I was looking it up on some of the links you gave us the night before, but i can't find it.

sorry about all the posts and questions.

Check out this site: http://www.rpfuller.com/gcse/history/2.html and at the bottom examine how the 14 points were ignored.

Date: Feb 27, 2007

Mr. E, I went through my DBQ and fixed up the parts you commented on and I added a few other things here and there, but I'm still not sure how well it is.

But I need to do quiz corrections for my pre-calc. class now, so I'm not going to be able to fix it up any more.

Date: Feb 27, 2007

AP U.S. History 1 Curt J. Santos

Treaty of Versailles DBQ 4-310 A 2/26/07

The strength of the two opposing forces against the Treaty of Versailles led to the Senate defeat of the Treaty of Versailles rather than the stubbornness of Woodrow Wilson because the Senate was able to know the faults of the League of Nations and the treaty, the Senate also determined that the treaty was harsh against Germany and the fact that the League of Nations took away the United States power to either go to war or stay neutral and make profit off their trading and the League made this a lose/lose situation for the United States of America. The Irreconcilables were in many ways isolationists who wanted to stay out of war in the first place and remain neutral. The United States went into war to spread their rights of self determination and to make a name for itself internationally as well as to defend itself from threats of attacks. After the war was declared over and the treaty was finalized in Europe, it came to the U.S. for acceptance, but the Irreconcilables and the Reservationists turned it down. The treaty itself was made to punish the Germans and spread the British and the French’s imperialistic ambitions but, Woodrow Wilson contributed to it and created this League of Nations. The League itself was made for collective security internationally and held restrictions for imperial powers. The thing was that many members of the Senate wanted nothing to do with European issues just like before this war and wanted nothing to do with going into war when they didn’t really need to. The Reservationists didn’t want to totally get rid of the treaty but wanted it to be revised in some points. The only stubbornness shown by Woodrow Wilson was that he didn’t wish to revise the treaty because he was frustrated all of his points were added and seen it as being perfect the way it was. His stroke later on in life made it hard to argue that the Treaty of Versailles and the League was the way to go but again it didn’t totally affect the defeat of the Treaty of Versailles.

One of the main provisions of the League of Nations states that if any member of the League is attacked, the other armies must go to protect and secure their fellow allies. Supporters who were against the treaty like Senator William Borah seen this idea of the League of the Nations was a bad idea. In Document A, Borah brings up the fact about the terms of the League of Nations not being wise. Borah explains that using international force and power to deal with wars is not in the best interest of the United States. The Senate and the American people didn’t want to be entangled in foreign affairs when the U.S. had its own trouble on its own grounds including in their newly acquired territories.

The Reservationists wanted some provisions of the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations so that they can make it match our constitutional rights, such as the right for war neutrality, war expenses and laws in our country. In Document B, it states the goal of the liberals was “to end class bondage and moralize nationalism”. Then it entails that the treaty was doing the complete opposite to what the liberals wanted. The Reservationists say that the treaty made it worse by actually influencing imperialistic ideas. Herbert Hoover, a reservationist, believed that imperialistic countries were too strong and would get stronger after this war and with the passing of the treaty which was totally against what the U.S. wanted in the ideas of self determination. In Document D, Hoover states that the League of Nations could be good if it was structurally set up to promote our democratic rights and ensure that our needs are met as well. The argument was that the treaty was just giving more power to the monarchies and making them stronger lessening the democratic idea. In Document F, Keynes explains that the treaty demoralizes, degrades and demolishes Germany. This was against the liberal ideas of democratic peace but in the treaty it does punish Germany greatly which wasn’t good for the U.S. business-wise. This argument deals a great blow to Wilson’s defense of the treaty and his defense against its revision.

The thing that really made the treaty bad was the fact that our rights were endangered by the League of Nations. If we joined the League of Nations and war started, the U.S. would get dragged into it and couldn’t choose to stay neutral. This weakened the power of Congress and meant the checks and balances would also be weakened and maybe almost destroyed. In Document E, the political cartoon shows that U.S. would have to be forced into foreign entanglements by the League of Nations. It is then represented that the Senate believes the idea of international mess and being involved in these affairs are unconstitutional because the balance of powers is broken and the power is given to every other country. The idea of an isolationist and neutral country would be destroyed and the U.S. would be dragged into every little problem in Europe which they don’t want anything to do with many times in the past. The Isolationists ideas are shown through the Neutrality Proclamation during the French Revolution, The Monroe Doctrine, the Roosevelt Corollary and the closing off of land to certain groups of people (Japanese). Also this would harm the intentions of the U.S. to take over more smaller countries as their territories because now they can be told its bad.

Neither group of the opposition to the treaty wanted it to be passed as it was. For the most part the irreconcilables wanted nothing to do with it and wanted the U.S. to deal with its own issues instead of the issues across the ocean. The reservationists wanted to maintain a democratic power and spread it internationally but the treaty was actually supporting the imperialistic ideas. The main issue was that we were losing our rights as Americans if we had signed the treaty because all the freedoms we had would mean nothing. These arguments against the treaty was strong enough for the Senate to vote it down and led the U.S. to signing a separate peace with Germany in 1921 ending the ideas of U.S. involvement in the league of nations and the idea of being forced into international affairs.

just in case i coundt print it tommorow =)

Date: Feb 27, 2007

My Printers .broken ..

President Wilson’s stubbornness and ineptitude led to the Senates defeat of the Treaty of Versailles as well as the strength of the opposition forces both liberal and conservative due to the Internationalists, the Reservationists and the Irreconcilables combined with the loss of Wilson’s own campaign. President Wilson was an idealistic progressive, one who favors change, improvement, reform and making progress towards better conditions. Getting more power then their government supported The Internationalists sided with the Treaty of Versailles while the Irreconcilables wanted nothing to do with it. The Reservationists in the middle of the mix wanted to change some things about the Treaty that they didn’t approve of. When Wilson shared his ideas with the Internationalists, the Reservationists and the Irreconcilables it left him with a complete set back. Some believed that the Treaty was too passive while others believed it was too harsh. Although some of Wilson’s terms were frowned upon like his thought of the covenants of peace, freedom of navigation, and establishment of equality of trade he still went by the terms of the treaty. Even with the fact that some senates were willing to compromise President Wilson didn’t want anything to do with it in fear of jeopardizing the original fourteen Points and the United States. In Document C, President Wilson states “… But the inevitable, logical center of the whole system of the Covenant of the League of Nations and I stand for it absolutely!”” No matter what the Senate said or agreed to whether they were Internationalists, Reservationists, or Irreconcilables Wilson was not going to change to fit their needs. It was his way or no way. The conservative and liberal opposition forces led to the defeat of the Treaty of Versailles also even though it’s hard to believe. In Document A, Senator William Borah in a speech to the Untied states Senate said “..The proposition is force to destroy militarism, and war to prevent war.” Borah believed that resulting conflict would cause there to be no such event ever again. The Picture in Document E, reprinted by Tribune Media Services, shows that the U.S senate was willing to compromise as long as it met the needs of the United States constitution. Also in the political cartoon it shows that foreign countries were to join however creating entanglements with many other countries. In Document D Herbert Hoover is politically correct when he says “the American public will not appreciate the saving values of the Covenant,” Herbert Hoover was correct if the Covenant didn’t respect the Constitution then they didn’t want any part of it. If it didn’t protect or abide the constitution the Covenant wouldn’t approve of the Treaty, only if it went by some rules of the constitution. In the period of 1917-1921 the Senate defeated the treaty of Versailles due to President Wilson’s stubbornness and ineptitude and the strength of opposite forces of liberal and conservative points of views.

Date: Feb 27, 2007

fin!

Date: Feb 27, 2007

               Word War I brought out the very best and the very worst of humanity, forcing the nations of the world to face their virtues and sins head on. It was the "war to end all wars" as Wilson once said, and with the Treaty of Versailles he attempted to ensure that his words would ring true across the course of history. Although it cannot be denied that Wilson's stubborn refusal to relinquish points of contention was a factor in the defeating of the Versailles Treaty in the Senate, the strong opposition movement by both liberals and conservative factions alike cannot be disregarded.
               Wilson's refusal to negotiate on the League of Nations is actually the reason Congress refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles when it was presented to the Senate. At this point in time, the American people feel that they have become far too involved in the affairs of Europe, and are hesitant to ratify a document that would ensure their continued entanglement in Europe's sordid dealings with one another. Wilson however, in his speech on September 5, 1919 stated to America's soldiers "you are betrayed" in response to the Senate's denial of ratification. He believed that by not joining the League of Nations, America was placing herself, and the world at large, at a greater risk for another world war. His opponents however, felt that only by removing America from international affairs would she be safe. John Maynerd Keys wrote in "the Economic Consequences of Peace", written in 1920, that "the policy of reducing Germany to servitude for a generation of degrading the lives of millions of human beings, and of depriving a whole nation of happiness should be abhorrent and detestable&"
              History would prove Wilson right in the end; he originally called for the Versailles Treaty to be less harsh on the defeated nations, so as not to fuel hatred and anger. Outvoted by Great Britain, France, and Italy in the negotiation about the treaty's conditions, he instead implemented the League of Nations to watch over the actions of lesser nations in Europe and around the world. Given the mood of the American people after WWI, and the anger and malice Europe held in her heart for Germany at the time, it is more than reasonable to conclude that it was a variety of factors that contributed to the Treaty of Versailles being rejected for ratification by Congress.

thats the best i can do for tonight.