The Impact Of The Reservationist View On The Treaty Of Versailles

A person holding a reservationist’s point of view on the Treaty of Versailles in the United States has reservations about the Treaty because reservationists are more interested in national sovereignty than in cooperation that might require defending other nations. Reservationists want the U.S. to reserve the right to make a decisions about whether or not to enter into battle with other nations, rather than relying on the League to make the decision for them. Americans who support Wilson and his party disapprove of reservationists, calling them cowards and disloyal to their country because they are unwilling to fight on America’s behalf. However, Senator Key Pittman, a reservationist, stated, “We may adopt the policy of isolation and profit; we may decide to remain in an existence of selfishness, greed, and war, but we will not stand for national cowardice, pretense, and dishonesty” (28). Reservationists are not afraid to fight, but they stand for America’s right to choose which battles it fights. Most Americans agreed with the reservationists because they didn’t want to be forced into battle.
The article on reservationists states, “The treaty requires member nations to submit to arbitration, permanently reduce armaments, contribute to expenses of the League, and it regulates future U.S. relations with Germany” (26). The reservationists interpret these aspects of the treaty as a threat to their power to make decisions about arbitration, armaments, expenses, and relations with Germany. Those who favor the Treaty will not be satisfied with the reservationists’ perspective, and this could impact foreign policy by generating anger from League members toward the