HST 203 (Escobar META 42298 42299): HTDF Topic #2

An isolationist-internationalist spectrum emerged as the United States ventured into the 20th Century. Under the Class Handouts link, you will find the HTDF_Materials (htdf_2) you need for this assignment. We will start with just three items. First, read Lodge villain article, then listen to the pro_league speech by the Secretary of War, Newton Baker in 1919. Finally, see how the debate persisted until just before WWII in the isolationism and internationalism article.

Consider your own position on the spectrum and discuss the finer points of the historical issue of the establishment of the League of Nations. On which points do you agree or disagree? We will start by discussing past history first, and then I will introduce some new materials, and the discussion can and will move forward to contemporary times.

NOTE: Here is some information provided by one of your fellow students. She says about being able to view the HTDF video clips, "The Macintosh computers in the computer lab at the health building are friendliest to different types of headphones. There are only a few, but they tend to be very available before 10AM and after 5PM."

Edit | Delete | Reply

I found the Wilson administration an interesting time in history. I never knew much about the World War I era before this class, and Internationalism vs Isolationism is a political subject I always wanted to know more about.
What struck me about Wilson, is how close his reaction to WWI is to what my reaction may have been. At first he ran a campaign for peace, standing up against imperial interests. But after red flags like the Zimmermann telegram, he concluded Germany was a threat. Rather than simply joining the allies however, he tried to use what leverage the US had to create a more peaceful planet. To me, this seems like a very respectable course of action, even if it was overly optimistic.
It was a frustrating bit of history that Wilson failed to get the US in his League of Nations. To me, it seemed a given that most of 14 points would be impossible to implement. But I do think that LoN - if nothing else - was a step in the right direction. World peace (in my opinion) is an impossibility, at least in this millennium. But that doesn't mean international involvement is a lost cause. WWI is testament to the domino effect that Roosevelt-style power balance can cause. We need to keep our hat in the international diplomatic arena.
As for Lodge's concerns over American sovereignty, I find them justified. Particularly during this time when the scenario of America being forced into another world war seemed quite possible. I guess where my opinion differs from Lodge, is that I think he underestimates how much power the US has in international organizations. I find it hard to believe that the US would ever be drug into a war that they truly didn't want to be in - just because France, Britain, and Germany, thought it was a good idea. Likewise, America doesn't seem to mind going to war with other countries, no matter what the modern UN says. I think article X of the 14 points, would have been tossed long before such a scenario took place.
It was far less irksome (for me) reading about Lodge's opposition, than it was reading about Wilson's failure to work with the republicans. To me it seems that if he had truly had the American people's interest in mind, he would have not allowed all the American blood to be spilled - only to be walled off from the LN. I guess this exposes some of the faults with Wilson: his stubbornness and over-optimistic outlook. But however misguided, I do believe he had his sights on the right direction for the country.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

Our involvement in WW1 was inevitable, but its commendable how long Wilson managed to stay neutral even though the U.S. eventually had to enter the war. Contrary to Wilson's course of action i would have agreed to enter the war earlier with the allies to oppress the war before it could escalate. Wilson's 14 points were the guidelines the Germans wanted to enter the peace negotiations with but Wilson could not fulfill his promise of keeping the points. Majority of the points were thrown out while most of the others kept were compromised. Im sure Wilson's points had the people in mind but it violated congress's constitutional right to declare war. I believe that the 14 points were a little too much for Wilson to achieve and if he was more inclined to accept compromise we would of had a powerful tool in the League of Nations. I also do not agree with Wilson seemingly making promises that he did not have the power to ultimately fulfill. Which mislead Germany into peace negotiations and signing a treaty that ultimately hurt them (not at all what Wilson's points aimed to accomplish). Overall though Wilson made a valiant effort to become the "savior" of the war but no one person can put that on their shoulders because in a democracy one person cant have supreme power without consulting the people.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

Isolationism is a tough issue, there are pro's and con's to the issue, it is definitely not as black and white as some people seem to view it. For example our entry into WWI aided in the allies levying harsh reparations on Germany that in part led to WWII. We shifted the balance of power enough to cause a very harsh treaty which should have never gone through. Had we stayed out, economically and militarily, the war would have most likely ended with a victorious Germany, who knows if they would have been as harsh of victors as France and Britain were.
Furthermore, to what degree should we intervene in international affairs, is it our duty to establish democracies across the globe? Should we crush brutal dictators whenever we encounter them? If that is the case, why did we ally with Stalin versus Germany, Stalin was as bad, or worse then Hitler, should we have entered the war when they we both allies, committed ourselves to crushing both dictators?
I am in favor of some form of international governing body, Wilson had some good ideas with the league of nations, I wish that he had stuck to some of his other fourteen points over it though, or at least been willing to make some compromises with the senate.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

What the United States government should be doing is protecting the best interest of our country including protection from foreign invasion and economic downfall. The United States were tied into the war from the beginning exporting goods to either side but heavily on the allies. To protect our economic welfare and not to mention the millions dollars loaned to the allied powers it was necessary for us to get involved especially since most of this money depended on an allied victory. I also believe that it is imperative for a mediating Authority to oversee and press for peaceful negotiations. If we didn't enter WW1 regardless of the outcome the United States would of been affected. For the better or the worse is your decision but i completely stand by the choice to go to war as the most effective.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I honestly don't agree with isolationism, but what we did, and have done, is not necessarily for the best. I do find that how we have interfered in the world has not necessarily always been consistent, such as us not intervening in various genocides throughout the 20th, and into the 21st century. I definitely dont see idealism as the governing factors in our entry into wars.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

These articles were very interesting because Isolationism Vs. Internationalism is still a main political issue today. And there are still many similarities between the past and modern debates. In 1919 Secretary of State, Newton Baker said in a pro-League of Nations speech, “…in the modern world, things move to fast for the stagecoach diplomacy of the middle ages.” Meaning it’s a smaller world. This is especially true today were everyone is affected in some way by events—good or bad—that happen all over the world (global warming, oil, food, etc.). In this sense we should play a role, but in my opinion not always to the point beyond diplomatic discussion. What would our Internationalist policy be like today had it not been flamed by two world wars and the nuclear age? Was internationalism born more of humanitarian or imperialistic motives?

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

Hi Everyone! First of all, I just want to say that I am a pre-pharmacy major so history is NOT my strongest subject(and that's an understatement! ); But I am going to give it my best shot.

My position is definitely scattered about on the spectrum of Isolationism vs. Internationalism. It is important to have other "strong" countries as allies; who are willing to help you when you are in need of help (ex. war, economic despair), and it is also crucial to help your own country, and stay out of other countries affairs. I don't want to sound selfish or inconsiderate, but I would rather see our nation's economic situation improve before we help other foreign nations. What would our economic situation look like if we weren't spending billions of dollars on the Iraq War?

I just watched the video with Ron Paul, and I found it very interesting and debatable. During the video Ron Paul said, "We shouldn't be the worlds policemen." I thought about this statement for awhile and I agree with him; It would be the most beneficial if the United States could stay out of as many wars as possible. It's justifiable to go to war if we are attacked or threatened, like Pearl Harbor during WWI. Is it justifiable to go to war if it's not physically threatening our country?

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I just watch the video of the republican debate and the words Fmr. Amb. Alank Keyes (R) Maryland said really hit home with me.

The United States is a land of opportunity with the choice to pursue happiness. Why should we have the right to sit on our high horse and watch other countries fight for these rights only to be denied by unruly dictatorship. We have the means to help and millions of volunteers wanting to lean a hand to pick up this mess.

Ron Paul wants to pull armed forces out of others countries too let them fight there own battles.

Attending public schools we often had to deal with the schools “Bully”, just like in war these “Bullies” need to be shown this is not the way thing work. Most of the time it’s a problem that can’t be taken care of by oneself and the need for outside help (big brother, teachers, ect.) to intervene with situations like this are common.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I would say Ron Paul is a perfect example of what the modern voting population considers too reactionary. For example, Ron Paul doesn't think we should have any embassies in other countries, and thinks the CIA should be disbanded (to be fair, I think he argued it should be part of the military). As far as Republicans go, I like Ron Paul. But his isolationism strikes me as too extreme, and judging by his results during the primaries, I'm not the only one.
I bring this up is because it shows how the isolationism of the early twentieth century, is considered reactionary now. This seems to be one of many issues that moves to the left as time goes on. That doesn't mean we have to invade every country ran by corrupt governments. Many people disagree with that besides Ron Paul. But we can exert our position as the worlds superpower to insure a more peaceful globe. Its never going to be perfect, but I think we are a lot safer as an internationally involved country, as opposed to a isolated one (assuming the leadership doesn't screw up astronomically).

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

Isolationism moved to the right of the spectrum? Or did it move to the left? If I understood what Daniel was saying, I have the same question. First off, I like Ron Paul because he’s “extreme.” But Isolationism to me seems like it jumps back and forth on the spectrum. Hilary’s running tv ads saying, “she’s got what it takes,” while they show pictures of Pearl Harbor and other similar scenes I don’t remember. Obama says he wants, “out of Iraq,” and, “change.” McCain comes out with a fresh pair of depends and says, “Will stay a long as it takes.” Today its seems as if the International policies and the Internal policies are conflicting with what is considered Democratic and Republican, or Radical or Reactionary.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

Ron Paul *cringe* (now that I got that out of the way!) Has a reactionary ever gotten the populous vote? No. Hopefully this trend continues. I realize we have many issues in our own country that need attention. Healthcare, education, helping the less fortunate but to not be involved in the worlds politics could have detrimental effects on our society as we know it. There are reasons the US is involved in the affairs of most other countries. Whether or not it is right or wrong it just is and if we weren't it could have a huge impact on our power. Yes, I said it, POWER! Is it such a bad thing?

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

U.S. involvement in international affairs is crucial in keeping national order. It is not necessary to send military over seas and begin a bloody war in order to maintain peace between nations. But, U.S political involvement and support can help global affairs by discussing any differences that may be encountered between nations. Well, peace cannot be reached to its entirety, but stability can be achieved in a civilized manner. Although, at times discussing international differences isn't always enough. So, when there is no other alternative military involvement is much needed.

At the time of World War I The U.S. was at a state of neutrality, but due to violations from The English and Germans, we were forced to take part in the war. Many Americans imposed, but our involvement was completely impossible to avoid. I respect President Wilson for his optimism and determination of creating world peace by having the approval of his 14 points and the signing of The League of Nations. Although Wilson's plan to create peace was not successful, his persistance was a respectable trait. Henry Lodge completely faught against Wilsons concept of the signing of The league of Nations. I do respect Wilson for his determination ,but I mostly agree with Lodge's point of view.

After viewing the Republican Debate and interview with Ron Paul my point of view on isolationism stands firm. I dont agree with the exclusion of U.S involvement in international organizations. There is no reason to sit back and relax and wait until someone decides to attack us in order to become nationally invovled. As I stated previously it is not necessary for the U.S to send in military troops across the globe before anyone decides to attack, but it would be clever for us to stay internationally invovled with other nations to be well informed with any global issues. Also, if any issue does rise that doesn't include us but other nations it is proper to offer a lending hand to whom may need it. If we have the blessing and privilage to help we should extend our arm and support.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I completely agree with sandy that U.S. involvement in international affairs is necessary. Also that peaceful negotiations should be sought before war solutions. That being said i find that Ron Paul's approach to international affairs is ridiculous, Without The U.S. helping to oversee and keep peace in foreign affairs total wars are bound to breakout. Military presence is necessary to keep the peace. So i firmly stand an internationalist.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

	Re: HTDF Topic #2 by Kayley Walker - Sunday, May 4, 2008, 11:54 PM
	I am very torn between everyones responses. I agree somewhat with Ron Paul's ideas, and I also support The U.S. helping overseas. Is anyone else torn between the two? Show parent \| Edit \| Split \| Delete \| Reply

I am also torn. I guess there are pros and cons to every issue especially involving something as complex as running this country and politics throughout the world. As far as Ron Paul's views are concerned he states that he stands for what our original forefathers stood for when writing the constitution and the principals of limited government. He supports small government which, in this time of war may or may not be effective in solving the problems Bush caused by going to war. I honestly don't think his views are going to be tested this election. I think he is a little to far to the left for many Americans to be comfortable voting for him.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I disagree with Ron Paul to some extent. I believe it is the duty of a world power like the U.S. to intervene in certain situations. For example, if pearl harbor was never attacked, how long would it have taken for the U.S. to join the war? How much farther would Germany have advanced? Once Hitler had control over the weaker nations, who's next? You can compare this to cancer, you have to get it before it spreads too far; the U.S. had the power to intervene, and I hold fast to the Idea that it is the most powerful nations duty to protect the weaker ones. However, the U.S. should not intervene in absolutely every situation. so in that regard I agree with Ron Paul. i think there is a certain medium of the spectrum that should be paid close attention to. It would be wrong to go to far to one or the other side.

Previously someone used our current situation in Iraq as an example for Isolationism. I believe their argument was the billions of dollars that the U.S. spends as a negative to being the "worlds policemen" I completely disagree because the situation with Iraq is a different situation than that of pearl harbor and entering WWII. Is the U.S. spending 12 billion dollars a month for almost a decade now because they care that much about the people Iraq? Furthermore, is it a coincidence that the majority of the worlds fossil fuel is located in the middle east? Also, the U.S. was never attacked by Iraq, whereas the U.S. was attacked by a member of the Axis.

In conclusion, I don't believe that it would be right to stick to one place on the spectrum. I think that the spectrum changes just as the situations change. For the most part I would say to help if a certain nation is in need, even if it costs, because we are all human first and we would want the same treatment.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

It seems like the majority of people here agree that some level internationalism is flat out necessary. The question really comes down to a matter of how and when.
Personally, I think a small (relative to the budget) amount of spending can go a long way. War seems to be the most costly in both resources and human life. At times however, it is foolish not to use force against aggressors such as the Axis or Al'Qaeda. What these two threats have in common, is that they both attacked the U.S. before we resorted to military force.
The tough question - in my opinion - is whether to use force against countries that are clearly pursuing nuclear power with ill intent. Thats where I think the next debate is going to be.
It seems that both the democratic presidential candidates commit to using war only as a last resort. John McCain seems to pay lip service to this idea, but I can't honestly say I trust the guy.
I hope is that the next president will be a little less gun ho with the war option. Sometimes its necessary for the countries safety. Otherwise, we can't afford to police the world. There are a lot of dictators and violent governments out there.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

Though I can understand were Lodge is coming from, the frustration of “inaction and pale neutrality”, and I think highly of his scope of the world relations being wider than the average persons was. I don't agree with his Superman complex to right the wrongs of the world. I think that Wilson was very much in the right for delaying as long as possible the U.S‘s entry into the war. While it's important to see that world is largely connected, even back then, it is also important realize it is not our place to tell others how to live. Bender points out we settle things through democracy and Europe through armament which I think that is the biggest reason for needing the right degree of internationalism. I agree that we need to be able to come together as nations to aid when needed, but I believe that declaration of war in musketeer style of all for one is unrealistic with each countries difference to solving international disturbances. At the same time Ron Paul is at the extreme where unless we are attacked it isn't justified.I think in extreme case when dealing with the use of extreme methods such as genecide, yes we need to step in. I dont think we need to make them like more "civilized" as so many have called it in the passed. I do think it is our job as human beings to not except so much killing as just another way to govern. I would say I fall more toward isolationism but by no means far from the middle/neural point.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I'd first like to say that Ron Paul's comment that it isn't the duty of the American government to relieve crisis throughout areas of the world is somewhat appalling. With the attitude that isolationists like Ron Paul and Lodge hold, it sets the United States up to further be looked upon as selfish and greedy. What are we to do with all of our vast wealth if we aren't using it to at least help to better some of the great issues faced in other parts of the world today? If we simply sit around on our accumulated pile of wealth, than it is more than likely that the already negative view the world has of us will only get worse. However, there are two sides to every story. There are definately right and wrong times to be an internationalist. I do not believe that is the duty of the American government to "help" other societies by invading their countries and demanding that their cultural way of life is wrong, and that they would have better results if they were "Christianized" and "Westernized." I think it is very possible that many Americans are discouraged by the idea of internationalism because it is often used (i.e.: the War on Iraq) for the material and political gain of America's elite. Also, in agreement with one of the posts above, both Ron Paul and Lodge are great examples of how those who are extremely reactionary and hugging a certain side of the spectrum could never be favored by the American public. In both of Ron Paul's speeches, he is almost abrasive in his demeanor when delivering his ideas.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

You are here