engine of souls | forum 3

mre · Senior Member

Assignment #11: Treaty & League

theaa · Veteran Member

b block :

so what's the game plan? i totally forgot. are we dividing up the fourteen points among each other and stating the strengths and weaknesses? or are we just sticking to the essay? or are we doing the debate?

responses would be greatly appriciated.

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

I'm in A block, but I believe that we are debating the statement he gave out in class about the spread of democracy as a result of the Great War on the forum.

Matthew Wasilowski · Veteran Member

Hey APUSHer's

Is this debate A Block vs. B block or is each class having their own debate. Also, what side is gonna be negative and what side will be affirmative?

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

Matt,
You just choose your own position and support it and people on the opposing end will possibly cross-ex you. It is not A block v. B block.

mre · Senior Member

Here's the original assignment before modifications:

Students have been learning about the Great War this week. In class today, they will read and highlight Part II – Securing the Peace, from the Choices Program packet on the League of Nations debate. Copies will be available in class. Students will then read President Wilson’s Fourteen Points. Copies will also be available in class. They will discuss collaboratively the strengths and weaknesses of the 14 points and then individually answer the prompt: “To what extent was the Great War, and by extension, the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations, a victory for democracy?” Students will answer the question collaboratively, in DBQ format. They must demonstrate a thesis statement, inferences and details from primary sources and a list of outside information in their answer. Their work must be individually posted on the online discussion forum, to demonstrate how each person contributed to the response. Students may choose to divide the tasks among each other, including writing the final essay, which also should be collaboratively written (demonstrating who wrote which sections). Each class will submit one essay. It will be due Monday, Feb 22nd. For homework, students should also answer questions from the Study Guide and Advanced Study Guide on pages 79-81 of their PDF packet on the League of Nations debate. Wish everyone a great vacation, and thanks!

So, B block asked to do a debate about to what extent the Great War, the Treaty and the League was a victory for democracy. We broke the work down into the three tasks that made sense in writing a DBQ: 1) creating a thesis statement, 2) gathering primary sources (from the PDF file and outside sources) and using them to support your thesis and 3) gather a list of outside information and again, use it to support the thesis.

So let's see some work! :) My B blockers said they would get most of the work done in the first weekend, but now that the fire is lit - let's get some debatin' done!

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

Debate Constructive

It is fair to say that the result of the Great War, the Treaty of Versailles, and the League of nations were not a significant victory for democracy and in some cases, a hindrance to it, because of, the failure to establish democratic governments in all but one of the newly established countries as a result of the Treaty of Versailles, the establishment of a Communist Soviet Union under the Bolsheviks and the failure to establish Wilson’ principle of “self rule” by failing to grant independent democratic states to all world colonies.

In his speech declaring war on Germany and the Central Powers, President Woodrow Wilson stated: “To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured” (U.S. Declaration of War with Germany, 2 April 1917, http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usawardeclaration.htm). These “principles” that Wilson was referring to in his speech was that of democracy, and it was clear that as a result of the war, he hoped, along with other members of the Big Four, that the war and the preceding events that followed it would be a victory for democracy. However this was clearly not the case, for after the Great War concluded, and the Treaty of Versailles was signed, the new countries established by the Treaty, for the most part did not establish democratic governments. In his Fourteen Point Plan, Woodrow Wilson called for the “freest to autonomous development” (The Fourteen Points-Choices Program-pg.47- http://sz0168.wc.mail.comcast.net/service/home/~/ChoicesLN.pdf?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=43480∂=2) for the people of the Austria-Hungarian Empire, along with “an independent Polish state” (Fourteen Points-Choices Program-pg.47- http://sz0168.wc.mail.comcast.net/service/home/~/ChoicesLN.pdf?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=43480∂=2). The Treaty of Versailles called for this similar independence, stating that “Germany . . . recognizes the complete independence of Poland” and that “Germany acknowledges and agrees to respect as permanent and inalienable the independence of all the territories which were part of the former Russian Empire on August 1, 1914” (The Treaty of Versailles- http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob18.html). Some of these new countries established in Eastern Europe were Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Austria, Eastern Prussia, Lithuania, etc. Although Wilson sought to spread this great gift and principle of American democracy, this was hardly the result. In fact, according to government analysis: “Czechoslovakia was the only east European country to remain a parliamentary democracy from 1918 to 1938” (U.S. Department of State- http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3237.htm). This meant that from the end of the Great War in 1919, up until 1938, Eastern European countries established by the Treaty of Versailles either chose not to or were not able to establish a democracy. Many of these countries, such as Poland established a government principle of authoritarianism (U.S. Department of State- http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2875.htm). However, authoritarianism is far from democracy, and in fact is a system where the leaders “exercise power arbitrarily and without regard to existing bodies of law, and they usually cannot be replaced by citizens choosing freely among various competitors in elections” (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/44640/authoritarianism). In fact it is true that “Authoritarianism thus stands in fundamental contrast to democracy” (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/44640/authoritarianism). Therefore, because the Great War was unable to result in states of democracy except for one where it was established and maintained and in some cases was replaced with fundamental opposites such as authoritarianism; it is indeed factual that the Great War did not create a victory for democracy itself.

It was also clear that the Great War was not a victory for democracy, and in this case actually inhibited it, for it led to the Bolsheviks establishment of a Communist Russia, otherwise known as the United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR). Russia, which had just overthrown that Czar Monarchial system in its country in 1917, established a socialist democracy under Alexander Kerensky. However, Russia had suffered “millions of casualties in the war as well as economic deprivation on the home front” (The Russian Revolution-The Choices Program-pg.18-http://sz0168.wc.mail.comcast.net/service/home/~/ChoicesLN.pdf?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=43480∂=2). Kerensky’s continuation of Russia’s involvement in the war led to his forced exodus, and the welcoming of the Bolshevik Communists led by a man known as Lenin. Lenin, a disciple of British Communist Karl Marx, disliked capitalism and countries like the U.S. who promoted it, stating negatively in his book Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism that “If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism.” It was clear that: “The Russian Revolution threatened Wilson’s vision of the world and his plan to bring the United states into the war ‘to make the world safe for democracy’”(The American People: Creating a Nation and a Society-pg.731). However Wilson’s dream of the world being safe for democracy truly was inhibited by the war, just by the case of the Russian Revolution to Communism. Surely, had the war not had such adverse effects on the Russians, based on the evidence provided above, Russia may have remained with its Socialist Democracy and not have turned to Communism in such desperate measures, therefore reinstating the claim that the Great War was not at all a victory for democracy, but rather a hindrance to its establishment.

The Treaty of Versailles, which ended the Great War, was certainly not a victory for democracy for it did not allow for self rule for colonies around the world. Self rule which is “government under the control and direction of the inhabitants of a political unit rather than by an outside authority” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-government), which is certainly an applicable definition of what democracy truly is. In fact, it was in President Wilson’s Fourteen Point Plan that: “A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined” (The Fourteen Points-Choices Program-pg.47- http://sz0168.wc.mail.comcast.net/service/home/~/ChoicesLN.pdf?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=43480∂=2). It was clear that Wilson did not wish for entangling colonial claims to exist, but rather a principle of impartiality and self-rule. However as a result of the Great War and its Treaty that followed this was hardly the case, for: “Wilson’s desire to promote self-rule was overwhelmed by France, Italy, Japan, and Britain’s determination to maintain their colonial holdings and acquire new ones from the conquered Central Powers” (The Fourteen Points-Choices Program-pg.24 - http://sz0168.wc.mail.comcast.net/service/home/~/ChoicesLN.pdf?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=43480∂=2). And so, as a result of these determinations, the Treaty mandated that: “All German overseas colonies were divided up and given to France, England and in the Pacific to Japan” (The Treaty of Versailles-http://www.saskschools.ca/curr_content/history20/unit1/sec5/sec5_14.html). Due to this lack of democratic self rule established in regards to colonization as a result of the Great War, it is again logical to claim that the Great War was not a victory for democracy.

Democracy is “the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives” (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn). It was clear that based on the evidence provided above that the Great War and the Treaty of Versailles and League of Nations that followed it clearly failed to be a victory for democracy. The Treaty and the League of Nations certainly showed their non-victorious acts in favor of democracy for they failed to create and maintain democratic states out of the countries created after the Great War. In fact many of these countries would not establish democratic governments well after World War II. The Treaty and the League once again would show their failures in being victorious for democracy for they allowed for a Communist Russia and did instill the democratic principle of self-rule in establishing impartiality in colonization. It is even factual to claim that based on the hardships the war caused, democracy was hindered for it was overthrown in Russia in favor of communism. Therefore, because of the failure to establish democratic countries, the cause and allowance of a Communist Russia and eventual USSR, and the failure to establish self rule in world colonies, the thesis is proven factual that the Great War, The Treaty of Versailles, and The League of Nations did not create a significant, if any, victory for democracy, and in an instance proven, actually hindered its establishment and defense.

I now stand open to rebuttal and/or cross-examination.

-- Edited by Justin BRAGA on Thursday 18th of February 2010 10:28:22 PM

-- Edited by Justin BRAGA on Thursday 18th of February 2010 10:35:28 PM

mre · Senior Member

Yo! Where's the debate?

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

I'm hoping that somebody replies to my constructive at least...

Matthew Wasilowski · Veteran Member

Justin BRAGA wrote:
Debate Constructive

It is fair to say that the result of the Great War, the Treaty of Versailles, and the League of nations were not a significant victory for democracy and in some cases, a hindrance to it, because of, the failure to establish democratic governments in all but one of the newly established countries as a result of the Treaty of Versailles, the establishment of a Communist Soviet Union under the Bolsheviks and the failure to establish Wilson’ principle of “self rule” by failing to grant independent democratic states to all world colonies.

Justin, your statement is true and makes a good point, however is it fair to say that the war was not a victory? Think about what would happen if the Central Powers won World War 1. Imagine if the Von Schlieffen plan succeeded and the Germans controlled France. That would be a huge step backswords for democracy. Also if the Central Powers won World War 1 we could assume the treaty to end the war would also be a huge hindrance to democracy. The war kept democracy safe in some countries. Isn't that a victory for democracy?

Matthew Wasilowski · Veteran Member

The Great War, the Treaty of Versailles, and the League of Nations were a victory for democracy because they created the new democratic country Czechoslovakia. Also, the war caused 19^th Amendment to be passed. However, The Great War, the Treaty of Versailles, and the League of Nations were not a victory for democracy because they caused the establishment of the USSR, the horrible treatment of German-Americans, the treatment of African-American soldiers, and they didn’t expand the ideal of democracy to many countries.

Czechoslovakia (which was made up of what are today Carpathian Ruthenia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.) was established in 1918 by the Treaty of Versailles. It was a democratic republic country that was made up of most of the industrialized regions of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. Czechoslovakia was the only country after The Great War to become a democratic republic country. This is defiantly a small victory for democracy.

In 1917 the U.S sent over five-million troops to Europe to fight in the war. (Two-million volunteers and three-million drafted.) This caused many new work opportunities in the U.S. Many of the occupations were taken by women. (DOC 13) Women gained a bigger role in American society. Women who belonged to unions like the Women's Trade Union League held the threat of a strike. Women also made groups like “Leaders of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom”. (DOC 12)These issues made women’s’ rights a large issue.

Also, Wilson stated that the U.S got involved in the war because “The world must be made safe for democracy”. (DOC 2) This led to many women protest calling for democracy in the U.S. Both of these issues led to the 19^th Amendment. Women also gained suffrage in Britain during this time (DOC 4). These were major victories for democracy.

World War One had a major impact on Russia. The war seemed extremely tough on the Russians. Their first major battle, The Battle of Tannenberg, was a failure. It left 90,000 Russians captured and 30,000 dead or injured. Over 390,000 Russians died in 1914, just five months into the war. The War only got worse as Germany sent more troops to the east in 1915. The German troops were better led, better trained and better supplied. Many poems and stories were written about the war (DOC 6). The ill-trained Russians took many staggering losses as the war raged on. (DOC 1)

Of course these battles led to many mutinies. Many Russians knew they were inferior to the Germans. There were many reports of Russians fraternizing with the enemy in 1916. These started to rise as the Russians ran out of food and other resources like weapons and ammunition. Some troops were sent into battle without weapons and were told to take the weapons of their fallen comrades. The horrible conditions of war and the many defeats they faced lowered the moral of the Russian troops.

Off the battlefield, Russia was experiencing rough economic times. Food shortages and lower wages made it harder to survive in Russia. These factors increase prostitution and crime in Russia. The amount of strikes raised during this time as companies lowered their wages. This caused a panic in Russia that would set the stage for a rebellion.

The Tsar of Russia, Nicholas the Second, was blamed for the crisis. The State Duma told Nicholas the Second that “a terrible disaster would grip the country unless a constitutional form of government was put in place” This led to the Russian Revolution of 1917that ended the Tsarist autocracy and led to the takeover by the Bolsheviks and the creation of the Soviet Union. The rise of a communist Soviet Union was a large hindrance to democracy.

There were many new countries formed during The Great War. (DOC 3& DOC5) However, the only new democratic country was Czechoslovakia. Other countries like Poland, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Austria, and Lithuania did not have democratic governments. The U.S got involved in The Great War to make the world “safe for democracy” however it just created more non-democratic countries.

Anti-German propaganda was very common in America during the Great War. (DOC 9&10) German-Americans tended to side with the Germans when the war began. As the war moved on Germans were heavily discriminated against. (DOC 7) German-Americans were not allowed to join the Red Cross during this time because of fear of sabotage. In Iowa, the Babel Proclamation banned the use German and all other languages besides English. The California Board of Education banned the teaching of German in public schools, calling it “a language that disseminates the ideals of autocracy, brutality, and hatred.” Libraries removed German books from their shelves and merchants changed the name of German products. (“Sauerkraut” became “liberty cabbage”) A Minnesota minister was tarred and feathered when he was overheard praying in German with a dying woman (DOC 11).Many Germans during this time changed their names to avoid harassment. Many would Americanize their names, (“Schmidt” to “Smith”). (DOC 8)

Many African-Americans took part in the Great War. However, African-Americans were discriminated against in the army. In Atlanta, Georgia one draft inducted 97% of the registered African-Americans and exempted 85% of whites. African-Americans could not join the Marines and had menial jobs in the navy. They were only six black nurses in the army and they only worked with African-Americans units. Also, the U.S only let African-Americans fight with the French armies. (DOC 15) The Americans also told the French not to “spoil the Negroes”. Some African-Americans troops were awarded the Croix de Guerre which is an extremely great honor in France. (DOC 14)

Democracy is defined by an “absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges”. This means in a democracy everyone is supposed to be equal under the law. The treatment of Germans and African-Americans during this time was a major fault in democracy.

It is clear how The Great War, the Treaty of Versailles, and the League of Nations were a victory for democracy because they established the new democratic country Czechoslovakia and caused 19^th Amendment to be passed. However, it is also clear that The Great War, the Treaty of Versailles, and the League of Nations were not a victory for democracy because they caused the establishment of the USSR, the atrocious treatment of German-Americans, the treatment of African-American soldiers,and they didn’t expand the ideal of democracy to more than one country.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sources~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(Note: Choices Page: # means the packet Mr.E sent to us last week)

Doc1 http://history1900s.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?once=true&site=http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww1-loss.htm

Doc2

http://wadsworth.com/history_d/special_features/ilrn_legacy/wawc2c01c/content/wciv2/readings/wilson1.html

Doc3

http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/brummettconcise/chapter98/medialib/thumbs/ch30_708.html)

Doc4

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/W1918.htm

Doc5

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/resource/wwi.htm

Doc6

Choices Pages: 74-77

Do7

http://wpscms.pearsoncmg.com/long_longman_mhlus_0/0,11867,3124835-content,00.html

Doc8

Choices Page: 16

Doc9

http://www.ww1-propaganda-cards.com/

Doc10

http://www.cornellcollege.edu/history/courses/stewart/his260-3-2006/04%20four/WWIantiGerman.htm

Doc11

http://www.amacad.org/publications/bulletin/winter2006/brinkley.pdf

Doc 12

http://wpscms.pearsoncmg.com/long_longman_mhlus_0/0,11867,3125421-content,00.html

Doc13

http://wpscms.pearsoncmg.com/long_longman_mhlus_0/0,11867,3125648-content,00.html

Doc14

http://wpscms.pearsoncmg.com/long_longman_mhlus_0/0,11867,3125179-content,00.html

Doc15

http://wpscms.pearsoncmg.com/long_longman_mhlus_0/0,11867,3125180-content,00.html

I am open to any and all rebuttal, cross-examination, questions, comments, concerns, and applause. =D

Matthew Wasilowski · Veteran Member

YO APUSHer's

check out this 'Pojertastic' site. Its full primary source documents

http://www.historyteacher.net/APEuroCourse/WebLinks/WebLinks-WorldWar1.htm

This should help with the outside information. =D

Arthur · Veteran Member

Justin, I’m afraid I have to agree with Matthew on this issue.

Even though the communist governments did appear in the east on behalf of the war, democracy was not hurt and even spread to Czechoslovakia. According to your argument, your idea of victory for democracy is a global democratic system, which wouldn’t be possible for America to help achieve in the one year of war which we were evolved in. For the time we spent in the war, just planting the seed of democracy into the east where democracy can continue to broaden (Czechoslovakia) was an achievement and victory.

Your statement, Justin, suggested that democracy had failed in the war.

In conclusion, there was no huge victory for democracy. This however does not mean that it was a failure. biggrin

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

I would like to respond to both Matt's and Arthur's remarks respectively.

Matt, you state: "Think about what would happen if the Central Powers won World War 1. Imagine if the Von Schlieffen plan succeeded and the Germans controlled France. That would be a huge step backswords for democracy." However with this statement, you fail to realize the status quo prior to the war. As the resolve asks for, the war didn't result in France or even Great Britain being democratic, for they already were before the war. Basically, they didn't need to fight the Great War in order to establish democracy in their respective countries, for it already existed.

Also, you go on to claim that the Great War “caused 19th Amendment to be passed." However your misconception of anointing this as the sole cause of women's suffrage is false. Although the war may have played a partial cause in passing the 19th Amendment you fail to take into account the efforts of woman suffragists such as Alice Paul and the National Woman's Party. In fact: "Alice Paul was the architect of some of the most outstanding political achievements on behalf of women in the 20th century"(http://www.alicepaul.org/alicepaul.htm). Therefore although the war may have aided in establishing woman's suffrage in the U.S. it cannot be credited as a cause for it, for their were many other, possibly more significant factors.
Arthur, you stated: "your idea of victory for democracy is a global democratic system, which wouldn’t be possible for America to help achieve in the one year of war which we were evolved in. For the time we spent in the war, just planting the seed of democracy into the east where democracy can continue to broaden (Czechoslovakia) was an achievement and victory." First let me address the issue of this "failure" of democracy that the war caused. Arthur I made it clear in my constructive, and backed it up with evidence that Kerensky's Socialist Democracy was overthrown in Russia for Lenin's Radical Bolshevik Communists because of the economic hardships that the war itself caused. Communism "is a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power"(www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/red/back2.html). I would like to note that I provided in my constructive evidence that authoritarianism, which according to my previous definition is the foundation of a communist government like the USSR, is the complete opposite of democracy. So therefore, if the war caused a type of government that is the opposite of democracy in Russia, which became the USSR, it is in fact accurate to say that the war was beyond just not a victory for democracy, but also a hindrance and yes, a failure for said democracy.

Matt and Arthur, you claim in a way "victory" for democracy based on its establishment in Czechoslovakia and Arthur you went on to claim that it "wouldn’t be possible for America to help achieve in the one year of war which we were evolved in." However you obviously failed to realize my statistics in my constructive from the United States Federal Government Department of State which stated that of the Eastern European countries in the post-Great War era, Czechoslovakia was the only to maintain democracy until 1938. This was more than just a year Arthur, it in fact would take until after World War II to establish these democracies in Eastern Europe. Also, take into consideration of the numerous, non-democratic, authoritarian government established in Eastern Europe after the Great War.

Therefore it is only reasonable to say that the Great War was not victorious in establishing democracy, and was even a hindrance, for as stated, it resulted in a Communist, non-democratic USSR and of all the countries in Eastern Europe, was only able to establish and maintain all but one democratic government, that being Czechoslovakia, within not just a one year period but one of 20 years and greater.

-- Edited by Justin BRAGA on Saturday 20th of February 2010 06:17:51 PM

Matthew Wasilowski · Veteran Member

Justin,

You state " As the resolve asks for, the war didn't result in France or even Great Britain being democratic, for they already were before the war. Basically, they didn't need to fight the Great War in order to establish democracy in their respective countries, for it already existed."

That's true but like I said before "Imagine if the Von Schlieffen plan succeeded and the Germans controlled France". Germany was an Empire not a democracy. So if Germany took over part of France would if be safe to assume the French would lose their democracy?

Russia was also a monarchy before the war so it didn't lose democracy. I can understand Communism is bad for democracy but it is not like they had a democracy to begin with.

If you look at the war their were no cases of democratic countries losing democracy. Also, as you stated before Czechoslovakia gained democracy. Doesn't that seem like a victory?

Matthew Wasilowski · Veteran Member

Justin BRAGA wrote:

Also, you go on to claim that the Great War “caused 19th Amendment to be passed." However your misconception of anointing this as the sole cause of women's suffrage is false. Although the war may have played a partial cause in passing the 19th Amendment you fail to take into account the efforts of woman suffragists such as Alice Paul and the National Woman's Party. In fact: "Alice Paul was the architect of some of the most outstanding political achievements on behalf of women in the 20th century"(http://www.alicepaul.org/alicepaul.htm). Therefore although the war may have aided in establishing woman's suffrage in the U.S. it cannot be credited as a cause for it, for their were many other, possibly more significant factors.

Of course the war was not the sole cause of women suffrage but the war wasn't the sole cause of the USSR either. Anyway, think back to your reform movement DBQ. Women were trying to get suffrage since the Second Great Awaking Justin. That’s over 100 before the 19th amendment. So what everyone now decided "hey, now would be a good time to let women vote"? It’s not like the government officials were just bored and needed something to do. They had many other problems at this time Justin. Also on January 12, 1915 a vote to get a suffrage bill failed to get passed. That’s just four years before the 19^th amendment. So, what event happened between 1915 and 1919 that influenced their decision?

The war was not the sole cause of the 19th amendment but it defiantly caused it to be passed.

Arthur · Veteran Member

Justin,
you write... "Arthur you went on to claim that it "wouldn’t be possible for America to help achieve in the one year of war which we were evolved in." However you obviously failed to realize my statistics in my constructive from the United States Federal Government Department of State which stated that of the Eastern European countries in the post-Great War era, Czechoslovakia was the only to maintain democracy until 1938.This was more than just a year Arthur"

****about your comment in red...

if you look at my post again, and read it properly.... i was making a point about your interpretation of the word "victory". In that statement i said that it seemed, from your mere position and the way in which you present it, that your idea of victory for democracy was a complete world wide democratic system (all countries are democratic).

i have the feeling that you didn't read it that way....

if you did, I'd really like for you to explain how America could even plan to force all countries to become democracies.

****about your comment in green...

this was another misinterpretation of yours. i said that the US was involved in world war I for one year! (1917-1918). i did the math.... it's one year

sometimes skimming just isn't a good way to read.........

-- Edited by Arthur on Saturday 20th of February 2010 08:07:17 PM

-- Edited by Arthur on Saturday 20th of February 2010 08:11:31 PM

Matthew Wasilowski · Veteran Member

Arthur said,

"sometimes skimming just isn't a good way to read........."

I don't think Justin is the type to skim, sometimes it's just hard to understand someones post because you can't know the context they are saying it in.

-- Edited by Matthew Wasilowski on Saturday 20th of February 2010 08:20:17 PM

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

I would again like to address a few misconceptions.

Arthur, I did not skim your answer. I thought what you meant was that with the U.S. being in the War for just one year, that seeing victories in democracy could not happen in such time. My point was that democracy did not stabilize in Eastern Europe over 20 years after the U.S. entered the war. It may have been a misconception but that was my point. And I do not skim read :]! That being said, my point was again basically that in over 20 years after the war, only was country in all of Eastern Europe established and maintained democracy. It doesn't seem like much of a victory when all but one country in a region of numerous conforms while the rest don't up until and after another war! I hope that clears things up and sorry again for the confusion there Arthur.

Matt, as far as your Woman's Suffrage argument stands; you can make you point that the war may have been a factor, but was the war the driving force? Was it the main cause? My point being above that people like Alice Paul were driving the movement, and had it not been for Paul’s along with many others' determination, nobody would have even considered Woman's Suffrage as a Constitutional Right. The Congressman didn't just automatically decide to conform without there being human complaints.

In regards to the Soviet Union, let me repeat my evidence in stating that in the War Russia "millions of casualties in the war as well as economic deprivation on the home front" (The Russian Revolution-The Choices Program-pg.18-http://sz0168.wc.mail.comcast.net/service/home/~/ChoicesLN.pdf?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=43480∂=2). With that being said, it is true that Lenin took the Revolution as a war against capitalism, but the people turned to Lenin's Radical, non-democratic government because of the harsh affects the war caused. It doesn't matter who was in government for Russia prior to the war. All that matters is that during the war, the people of Russia overthrew the Socialist Democracy in favor of Communism due to the hardships of the war. That right there proves that the war in fact inhibited democracy.

-- Edited by Justin BRAGA on Sunday 21st of February 2010 09:25:26 AM

AWHBRY · Veteran Member

Wow you have all been getting quite into this :) it was interesting to read all of your comments back and forth. As for my position, I agree with all of you concerning some of your claims.

- Justin i see your point in saying that it didn't seem much of a victory because not only did the Great War and the Treaty of Versailles result in the future USSR and simply one democratic country (czech rep.) but it hindered the democratic becoming of Russia because it caused the Bolsheviks to overthrow the Kerensky gov't.

- However Matt makes a point that Russia wasn't democratic to begin with, they were a monarchy beforehand under Czar's rule, which Justin, you did mention in your constructive.

- And as for the creation of the USSR there is truth in Matthew's statement "..but the war wasn't the sole cause of the USSR either".

- In regard to one of arthur's posts : here arthur replies to justin - "According to your argument, your idea of victory for democracy is a global democratic system, which wouldn’t be possible for America to help achieve in the one year of war which we were evolved in. For the time we spent in the war, just planting the seed of democracy into the east where democracy can continue to broaden (Czechoslovakia) was an achievement and victory. Your statement, Justin, suggested that democracy had failed in the war… there was no huge victory for democracy. This however does not mean that it was a failure. "

* I agree with the section of arthur’s statement that I have put in red. America alone could not expect to have a democratic compliance from all countries, (majority of whom had never ruled as a democracy), and have it in so short a time.

* Arthur’s claim in purple briefly exemplifies where I stand on the matter. Immediately, the war along with its treaty and the proposed League of Nations may not have had results but they were the baby steps in leading to a future with more democracy. The Great War resulted for the better of democracy whether it appears so or not. Had the Central Powers won there was a great chance that not democracy would have survived in Europe. In that sense The Great War and its Treaty was a democratic gain.

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

Keeping it short, Aubrie, also consider just beyond one year. Democracy didn't exist in any Eastern European country at all, except for one,until for 20+ years after the Great War. That right there shows that the Great War didn't really do much for democracy, for war was again brewing in 1938, 20 years after 1918 which was the end of the Great War. One country isn't a significant victory for democracy in a region of numerous countries.

Also, even though Russia was a monarchy before the war, the war still caused a failure and hinderance for deomcracy because again, its econmoic hardships caused the Russians to turn to non-democratic, Bolshevik Communism. That therefore supports my thesis and answers your qustioning of it.

mre · Senior Member

To the four who have posted so far - and interesting discussion. To the others... It's 9PM on Sunday at the end of vacation... where's the rush to get your work in? :)

mre · Senior Member

Justin,

On a more broad note, do you think that America's entry alone to international affairs was a 'victory for democracy'?

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

Mr. Everett,

I would have to disagree with the fact that "America's entry alone to international affairs was a 'victory for democracy." Even though the United States is a country of democracy, the results are what count and clearly in case of the Great War, there were very few, therefore not making it significant victory. As I stated previously, this war, and yes in fact, U.S. intervention resulted in over a twenty year period one Eastern European country being democratic, a Soviet, Communist Russia, authoritarian governments throughout Eastern Europe, and constricted imperial colonies. As you can see, their were both minimal results in favor of democracy, and even a strong case of its decline in the world for Russia went from Democratic to Communist. Therefore intervention is one thing, results are another. Let us look iat an even more modern context with U.S. intervention in Iraq today (hope I'm not going to ignite a new debate). Although the war has been lengthy, the U.S. has helped to establish a democratic government in Iraq. That can be claimed as a victory for democracy, for U.S. intervention resulted in Iraq's government transforming from a dictatorship to a democracy. These victorious results seen in Iraq were far and few on a global scale for democracy, and therefore I would have to disagree with the fact that U.S. intervention alone is a victory for democracy.

courtney · Veteran Member

Wow this is getting really serious! haha

There are two different ways that I look at this. The Great War, the Treaty of Versailles, and the League of Nations were a victory for democracy and they were also not a victory for democracy.

I believe that the Treaty of Versailles was a victory for democracy. I agree with Matt in that it was a democracy because it created Czechoslovakia, which was a democratic republic country that was made up of most of the industrialized regions of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. But I agree with Justin in the sence that the great war did not result in a victory for democracy because it only resulted with one democratice country and it created the USSR. But on the contrary i agree with Aurthur in that it was " a seed of democracy into the east where democracy can continue to broaden."

Even though the end of the war resulted in democracy in one country it gave a base or stepping stone for the otheres to start with.

But to answer the question with a direct, yes or no answer, i belive that the Great War was in fact NOT a victory for democracy. This is because at the time of the conclusion of the great war it had not created democray in all the countries. The question states "WAS THE GREAT WAR A VICTORY FOR DEMOCRACY" , yes it is a possibility that it was a planted , but NO, THE GREAT WAR itself was not a victory for democracy.

- Courtney

-- Edited by courtney on Sunday 21st of February 2010 07:03:41 PM

-- Edited by courtney on Sunday 21st of February 2010 07:09:08 PM

courtney · Veteran Member

And yes Mr. E it goes to show that we are all having soo much funn on our vacation and we seem to procrastinate a bit! :p

Arthur · Veteran Member

Courtney and Justin... my question for you is, if the treaty and great war wasn't a success for democracy, than what was it? It definitely wasn't a failure.......Right? It may not have been an enormous victory for democracy, but it was still a success and not a failure.

****Metaphor for my point*******

An atom may be the smallest particle in the universe, but it is still matter and takes up space.

biggrin

Cara · Veteran Member

"I think we learned a great deal from the Great War. The first point is that as soon as international warfare is launched, nobody can predict the outcome...And I think the final thing that the First World War taught us is that the easy access of individuals to democratic procedures is very fragile. Warfare suspends democracy. How high a price is victory?"

Jbrag, you have stated that "However this was clearly not the case, for after the Great War concluded, and the Treaty of Versailles was signed, the new countries established by the Treaty, for the most part did not establish democratic governments." Consider page 24 of the choices packet, it discusses how Article X, which would have created many truly independent governments, was opposed by the France, Japan, and other Allied Powers though a compromise was drawn up. This compromise included a mandate system which, "called for Allied powers to secure control over some of the former territories of the Central Powers in an effort to 'prepare' the native inhabitants for eventual independence." It went onto so that that this, "inspired a promise of self rule." Also, I would like you to clarify, what exactly are you considering democracy? One of Wilson's major principles going into the League of Nations was the promotion of self government, which, according to what you've stated in regards to Poland and other new countries, these countries achieved. This independence is one of the greatest democratic ideals.

Going on, I don't agree with your opinion that communism only arose because of the Great War. I believe that if the Russians had stayed involved, they would have been a part of the league of nations and the divide between the capitalist world and the communist nation of the Soviet Union.

I'll post more later, but I definitely agree with Arthur. I think he's right in the fact that it would be silly to declare this war and its outcome a complete loose for democracy because there were many positive effects.

AWHBRY · Veteran Member

In response to justin's response to my response:
Justin you say that the only result was a democracy for Czech Rep. nearly 20 years later and claim that is not a significant victory. But the question here is not simply whether it was or wasn't significant but tto what level of significance was a victory if you believe there was one. You believe there wasn't because there was no immediate, overall, dramatic effect where 80% of the countries would become democratic and the league of nations would work out just perfectly or perhaps the Treaty of Versailles treated all fairly. Ok that didn't occur but i agree with arthur in that if anything it was not a "hindrance" just a small victory on the scale of significance for democracy. In your constructive you assert that "The Treaty of Versailles, and The League of Nations did not create a significant, if any, victory for democracy, and in an instance proven, actually hindered its establishment and defense." My argument is that true it did not create a GRANDE significant victory for democracy but it did not hinder it's establishment. Had the allied powers have won it wouldn't have even been a small victory, but they didn't.

courtney · Veteran Member

Arthur,
I get your point totally. But the point i am trying to make is you said it was like "just planting the seed of democracy." This statement makes sence completely. It may have been a stepping stone into a country of democracy but the great war itself was Not a complete victory for democracy, it was just a "planted seed."

Arthur · Veteran Member

Courtney,
I see where your coming from, but personally i would consider a planted seed of democracy a victory. It is still the spread of democratic ideals, which is the ultimate goal of democratic-government supporters. I think that the the biggest reason why we disagree in this debate is because of our interpretations of the word victory. A victory for democracy doesn't necessarily mean that America persuaded a large quantity of countries to become democratic. In all actuality, one might even just consider the survival of democracy a victory, never mind the spreading of it. To me, your point of view just shows that you had higher expectations for democracy. Those expectations obviously weren't met which is why you consider the war and treaty a failure for democracy. smile

Arthur

Charlene · Veteran Member

Jbraga, armed with the detergent of knowlege, bleached with experience, is ready to fight the stains of your argument. This debate is quite deep.

In theory, Wilson's visionary dream of a global democracy, a new world order and
peace was fine. Yet in reality, Wilson's dream was somewhat of a failed dream. Ironically, Wilson, the puppeeter behind the League of Nations, and his nation, supposedly the "prototype" of a democratic government, wouldn't even join. After the Great War, the United States would become increasingly isolationists. While the war did result with the establishment of Czechoslovakia, like Matthew said. it was merely one country. Communism, as well as the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany, slowly appealed and became dominant in Europe, downtrodden by widespread depression and poverty, after the war. And the idea of "democracy" and "independent governing" seemingly didn't apply to countries like Vietnam, a French colony at the time. While the seeds were planted, the garderner, America, failed to water the soil.

But perhaps the Great War helped achieve some form of a democratic victory. Within our nation's borders. It can be argued that the fullfillment of women suffrage shortly after World War I in 1919 through the Nineteenth Amendment, due to their changing role during the war, was caused by the Great War and was, in sense, a democratic victory due to this achievement. Ideally, the right to vote is part of a democracy, a "government by the people or by their elected representatives", right?

-- Edited by Charlene on Monday 22nd of February 2010 07:48:15 PM

-- Edited by Charlene on Monday 22nd of February 2010 07:48:33 PM

Savanna · Veteran Member

I love how I am totally late on all of this. I apologize for my scattered thoughts on this. Lack of sleep will do that to you confuse

As for the topic, victories for democracy were made, small victories, but victories none the less. Justin, in you first constructive you stated that "the result of the Great War, the Treaty of Versailles, and the League of nations were not a significant victory for democracy"

But it is a victory. Decocracy is so important to our nation as it is to others, so anything in favor of it is a victory.

It may have not seemed like much of a victory for democracy with the poverty and depression that followed the end of WWI, but these are not usual when is comes to the aftermath of war.

I liked what you said Arthur, about high expectations for democracy. Wilson's goal of global democracy may not have met some peoples' standards for democracy which leads them to think its a faliure.

I whole heartedly agree with Charlene. Wilson's vison of global democracy was all well and good and he set te wheels in motion to achieve his dream. But as Charlene said it was a failed dream. After World War I American became counter productive for Wilson's dream, becomming isolated from everything it feared and pretty much killing the dream of global demcracy.

The actions taken or rather not taken may have lead to the spawning of communism and the USSR . Seeds were planted, but not properly attended to. To quote the word-master Charlene DaSilva "While the seeds were planted, the garderner, America, failed to water the soil." I could have not put it better myself.

War itself is not a victory for democracy, but the Treaty of Versailles certainly was. The end of the war brought the chance of rebirth and reform of countries that now lay in ruins. Czechoslovakia was established. Democracy is all about change and thats what the Treaty brought. Good or bad, change needed to happen for the world to move forward. That is how the Treaty of Versailles is a victory for democracy.

Not to mention women getting the right to vote. Girl Power! biggrin

-- Edited by Savanna on Monday 22nd of February 2010 08:13:18 PM

theaa · Veteran Member

The treaty of versailles, the league of nations, and WWI overall did not spread democracy as far as Wilson intended it, but democratic influence did spread throughout Europe, changing it's positions in the world.

the treaty of versailles was a victory for democracy because it included the provisions to end the great war and also set up covenants for the league of nations. Doing so spread the democratic influence because it helped the countries involved in the war become more independent and fight for their rights in the changing world. These countries in the war needed a steady place to start to rebuild ,and in some cases, create new countris. By giving these countries the opportunity to govern themselves and create systems that work for them, democratic influence was spread, bettering the countries and the lives of it's citizens in the aftermath of the great war.

the league of nations was a failure overall for creating a central group for all of the big nations since many of the articles were not agreed with, creating tensions when Wilson returned to Paris. He was forced to compromise his points which were seen as an opportuntiy for democratic success, which made it's impact lessen. But as stated above in many posts, the seed was there.

the great war set up the ability for democracy to be spread to these European countries. it was seen that being democratic would help their country prosper and at the end of the war under the convenants, they compromised many points to help these countries advance after the turmoil.

everyone had really good points for what they were arguing and i agree with both sides for some of the ideals.
i really liked what arthur said about planting a seed, because that's all you need to get started.

and i would comment more but i have a problem with my eyes where i can't look at the computer screen for too long with small font so i didn't get to read everything :(

Cara · Veteran Member

Again, I still agree with what Arthur is saying and that even a planting of a democratic seed should be considered a victory for democracy. On the other hand, however, the war did cause some very non-democratic effects. For example, the Espionage Act (http://wpscms.pearsoncmg.com/long_longman_mhlus_0/0,11867,3124641-content,00.html) was put into place with essentially took away the right to free speech from American citizens. This act specifically prohibited the criticism of the U.S. government or the war by threatening imprisonment (see Eugene V. Debs) or large fines (up to $10,000). The refusal of this freedom took away an essential part of what made democracy possible.

Anyway, looking at Wilson's Fourteen Point plan, it is hard to deny that the Great War was not at all a form of a victory for democracy. The first article states, "I. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view." This allows more of a democratic process in how peace is achieved and how foreign policy is created.
Article V states, "V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined," which successfully called for an increase in self government among previous colonies which helped spread democracy further.
Article X stated, "X. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity of autonomous development," this is the most obvious democratic statement.

Also, to expand on what Savanna began to say, WWI helped gain women the right to vote because more and more women began to work outside of the home and began gaining importance in the industrial world as well as in the war efforts which helped them bring the issue of the vote for women to the forefront of U.S. politics by permanently changing women's role in the u.s.. http://schoolshistory.org.uk/Year9/firstworldwar/1918/march.htm

felicity · Veteran Member

The Great War, League of Nations, and Treaty of Versailles did not serve to further democracy. The creation of the Soviet Union, a communist power-house, the establishment of only one democratic nation in the light of the first worldwide war, Czechoslovakia, and the failure of the League of Nations were all major blows to democracy in the wake of one of the most destructive wars in the history of mankind.
“The Great War” was an international conflict that resulted in the death of an estimated eight and a half million people and the destruction of countless homes, villages, and cities across Europe (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/treaty_of_versailles.htm). In light of this horrific tragedy, United States President Woodrow Wilson, among others, encouraged the assembly of a body of countries from across the globe, all with one goal; maintaining world peace (the League of Nations). Despite the lofty ideals it represented, the League of Nations crashed to the ground. Many countries were excluded from the international body, including Germany and Russia, while the United States of America opted out of the offer and instead began to engage in isolationism. Russia later went on to become part of the Soviet Union, the greatest threat to democratic expansion in this time period, alongside countries such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Armenia (http://www.russianlondon.com/list). Woodrow Wilson one said during his Fourteen Points Speech, “Whether their present leaders believe it or not, it is our heartfelt desire and hope that some way may be opened whereby we may be privileged to assist the people of Russia to attain their utmost hope of liberty and ordered peace (http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/wilson-points.htm).” Wilson, and other men and woman who advocated democracy in the war-torn countries of Europe suffered a great defeat at the hands of the Soviet Union; the anti-democratic nation.
The Treaty of Versailles was yet another failure for democracy; it allotted lands to countries such as France, Belgium, and Denmark. However, despite the lands it carved out, only one country adopted a democratic government, Czechoslovakia, in 1918 (http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Checkoslovakia). Instead, many countries organized under The Soviet Union and adopted the communist flag. The Treaty of Versailles ended the war that scourged countless countries, but did not remedy the issue which had sparked the conflict; the de facto governments. The ailing monarchies of Europe were finally losing both their power and prestige, and the unhappy citizens they controlled began to long for a new government, better tailored to their needs. The Treaty of Versailles did not further democracy because it did not promote democracy by implementing new democratic governments in newly independent countries.
In conclusion, the Treaty of Versailles, the organization of the Soviet Union, and League of Nation’s failure all did not serve to promote democracy, and thus have blotted history as failures.

mre · Senior Member

Now we are getting a debate...

Danny · Member

OK, right now it seems like everybody vs Justin, lucky for him I am also against his postion.

1. The defeat of the Germans in WW1 meant the ending of a possible monarchy ruled Europe

2. With Czechoslovakia adopting democracy, that's one more democractic government then there used to be.

3. Internal changes in democracy with women suffrage in America, Britain, Germany (woman suffrage was granted in the new constitution of the Weimar republic in 1919), Holland, Poland (allowed voting rights to women without restriction from the start), and Sweden,.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage#France

Perhaps, Democracy wasn't adopted by all nations, but regardless, Czechoslovakia did, and many other nations suffrage was granted. Arthur states this very well that the war planted the seed of Democracy. How many nations prior to WW1 are now Democractic? If, as you state, the war ended in a failure of democracy why did at least one country adopt its principles any many more soon after.

You state " As the resolve asks for, the war didn't result in France or even Great Britain being democratic, for they already were before the war. Basically, they didn't need to fight the Great War in order to establish democracy in their respective countries, for it already existed."

During the war the infrastructure of France and Belguim were really hurt. It was very possible that France would have fallen... one less democratic government.

Also in the Treaty of Versailles all german colonies were handed over to the league of nations. Basically all preivious monarchy ruled colies = gone.

In conclusion the Great War may have not Globally forced Democracy, but Czechoslovakia adopted democracy and the seed was planted (thanks Arthur), we also avoided a possible monarchy ruled Europe, and finally granted sufferage to many women in different nations.