The Instigator
sliebs123
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Tophatdoc
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

should have joined the League of Nations

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Tophatdoc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 17,262 times Debate No: 42000
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

sliebs123

Pro

The U.S. should have joined the League of Nations as president Wilson desired, because it was an organization capable of creating a disposition towards a full collaboration between countries. Joining the league was in our best interest, peace without having to go to war; and it could have saved millions of U.S. lives. Instead, the U.S. chose isolationism, which ultimately led to another World War and the massacre
Tophatdoc

Con

I accept. I would like to thank the pro for hosting the debate. As the Con side I will explain several clear reasons why the United States should not have joined the debate.

1. The League of Nations was weak.
The League of Nations was incapable of effectively dealing with conflicts. For example, radicalism spurred fervently in Europe during the inter-war period[1]. Fascism and Communism became popular while the League of Nations became inept. The League of Nations did nothing of significance to stop conflicts. So in the inter-war period we saw the Depression, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, the rise of a Third Reich, and the Spanish Civil War.

The League of Nations did nothing to stop the Depression or alleviate the burdens associated. The League of Nations did nothing about the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. Nevertheless China was extremely unstable during this period yet not a peep of support was given to China. The League of Nations at least attempted to impede the Italian invasion of Abyssinia by having the United Kingdom and France slap Italy with sanctions[2]. But that action only pushed Mussolini more into the hands of Hitler. One could say this action helped enable Hitler to commit to fighting a world war knowing he had a new ally. The League of Nations did nothing about the Adolph Hitler and him violating the World War 1 surrender conditions. So Hitler was able to re-militarize Germany without anyone doing or saying anything about it till it was too late[3].

2, The United States became more powerful than all of the countries in the League of Nations.
The United States nor the Soviet Union were members of the League of Nations. We saw who was competing for global influence in the post World War 2 period. Neither of the main super powers of the Cold War were ever member states of the League of Nations.

3. The League of Nations was only ideal not practical.

4. "Joining the league was in our best interest, peace without having to go to war"
This is a real erroneous assumption. I will quote one of my favorites by Alexander Hamilton for this one to be decisively clear.

"Let us recollect that peace or war will not always be left to our option; that however moderate or unambitious we may be, we cannot count upon the moderation, or hope to extinguish the ambition of others "-Alexander Hamilton

Remember, Neville Chamberlain thought he secured peace in Europe with the Munich Agreement. But obviously peace was not secured and millions of people had to die because the wrong actions were taken.

5. To quote the British historian, AP Taylor's assessment of the League:
"The League died in 1935. One day it was a powerful body imposing sanctions, the next day it was a useless fraud, everybody running away from it as quickly as possible. Hitler watched."
The League failed to stop bullets from flying in Abyssinia, Manchuria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Spain. The United States shouldn't have joined such an inept organization.

[1] http://ap_history_online.tripod.com...
[2]http://www.johndclare.net...
[3]http://www.johndclare.net...
Debate Round No. 1
sliebs123

Pro

sliebs123 forfeited this round.
Tophatdoc

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
sliebs123

Pro

sliebs123 forfeited this round.
Tophatdoc

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
sliebs123

Pro

sliebs123 forfeited this round.
Tophatdoc

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
sliebs123

Pro

sliebs123 forfeited this round.
Tophatdoc

Con

Extend all arguments. It appears my opponent has fofeited this debate entirely. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
sliebs123TophatdocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF