Sunday, October 9, 2011
Text Analysis: The Defense of the League of Nations
In Woodrow Wilson's speech, he argues of the importance of the League of Nations, and how crucial it is make every effort possible to avoid war. He gives the issue depth by explaining that the development of the League of Nations "is not merely a settlement with Germany; it is a readjustment of those great injustices which underlie the whole structure of Europian and Asiatic society." Wilson continues to emphasize the possible prevention of war by explaining that all of the "great fighting nations" will be united to promise "that they will not use their power against one another". To rebuttal against those who were skeptical of whether the League of Nations works, he reasoned that international law was changed by adding universal morals that applies to everybody. Personally, I find his speech very persuasive because of his incorporation of several different persuasive strategies. First trait of his persuasiveness is his simple, but clear language. His transitions between point to point keeps the audience interested, and one can't be very persuasive if the audience isn't engaged. Another trait is his ethos with the audience and engage them emotionally while staying relevant to the topic. A prime example is when he tells of a time that he visited a cemetery of dead soldiers in Paris. Assuming he's emotional at this sight of the soldiers sacrifice, he states "I wish that they could feel the moral obligation that rests upon us not to go back on those boys, but to see the thing through". I feel as though this statement can be convincing to almost everyone because of its universal moral appeal. To convince those who aren't as emotional or moralistic, he also uses logic to justify himself. Towards the end of his speech he asks "Do you want not only no probability that war will not recur, but the probability that it will recur?". Even though the answers are both the same outcome, looking at it from both sides helps the audience realize that this is an important prevention to war. I guess that Wilson knew that when asking the question. Despite his logic and persuasion, his efforts failed, as the United States did not join the league. Regardless of the failure, this speech is a significant part of American history. This is not only because it supports internationalism or that he won the Nobel peace prize for his ideas, but because its ideas would become the UN, which has been positive for the world as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you this speech is an important part of history and maybe one of Wilsons greatest speeches. Wilson truly believed if we did not join the League of Nations that we were doing nothing and in a sense that is what America did. America was going back to a time of the Monroe doctrine and isolationism (http://www.globalpolitician.com/21637-american-foreign).
ReplyDeleteArticle X, which is what Wilson so strongly based his argument on, was also the article that helped to defeat the treaty. In Wilson’s argument he talks about the safe guards that are in place to prevent war with another League of Nation member. If I were listening to this speech I would want to get behind this treaty and put those safe guards into place. To give America some insurance as Wilson called it. But the article also goes on to say that if needed we would be obligated to act maybe even in military way against a member of the League of Nations, which Wilson does not address in his speech.
If I had been standing in Pueblo, Colorado I would have been on board with Wilson’s League of Nation. He made some great arguments and some emotional reasons to join. But after researching a little bit about why it was defeated I can also see the hesitation of the other side to join.
I agree with you Alex, the speech made by Wilson, I find to be very convincing and persuasive! It is in my perspective probably one of the best, strongest and biggest speeches ever made. I think Wilson made this speech from the bottom of his heart with much emotion, care, and hope. He’s very friendly and engages with the audience well, he shared lots of stories in his speech, and explains the whole purpose well. One of the things I found convincing was his tone; "But, you say, "We have heard that we might be at a disadvantage in the League of Nations." Well, whoever told you that either was deliberately falsifying or he had not read the Covenant of the League of Nations. I leave him the choice. I want to give you a very simple account of the organization of the League of Nations and let you judge for yourselves." I think this part of the speech is what really gets the audience to think about the whole idea; he is being very careful here, not pressuring his audience. He is also very persuasive when he says; Do you want not only no probability that war will not recur, but the probability that it will recur?" This I think also gets the audience to think again about the whole idea by letting them know that the League of Nations is important for the prevention of war. I like Wilson, I truly believe all Wilson ever wanted was peace, and throughout his speech he shows that his idea for the League of Nations is to maintain peace, Wilson hoped that the league would, “establish rules of international conduct and resolve conflicts between nations through rational and peaceful means.” I was very convinced. He made the creation of the League of Nations seem even more like the right choice especially when he talks about the lives of young men that were lost in World War I. It’s true, if the women who should hate him most thanked him, then the idea was something worth considering.”
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alex that President Wilson presented deep insight into the philosophy behind the League of Nations. Woodrow Wilson was forced by circumstance to abandon his pacifistic policy of international diplomacy and instead bear the psychic armor of war. His mission to Versailles and the almost messianic reception he received from throngs of cheering French men and women was his road to Damascus. The vision he saw was the potential of redemption for the bloodshed that he unleashed. However, the failure of the Allies to accept the Fourteen Points presented as an enticement for armistice coupled with Wilson’s lack of power to sign a treaty without Congressional ratification all but destroyed his bargaining power. Wilson’s final glory was the creation of the League of Nations. His fervent belief that the war must stand for a higher purpose than mere political boundaries radicalized him and sent him on a cross country journey appeal to all Americans. Wilson, in his own words, felt deeply guilty when mothers “who lost their sons in France ... said “God bless you, Mr. President.” “Why should they weep upon my hand and call down the blessings of God upon me?” he asks aloud, knowing that his orders were the instruments of death for those young men? It was because they believed this war was fought to protect the liberty of all peoples and “to see to it that there was never such a war again.” To prevent the horror of future wars, Wilson gave his very life to promote the League of Nations. To end a war with a compromise that does not effectively resolve conflicts or creates an abused underclass (e.g. the unresolved issue of slavery in the case of the American Revolution) only leads to further war. The tragedy here was that Wilson was well aware of this fact, and like Cassandra of Greek mythology, he was not believed when he told this simple but profound truth and thus, powerless to affect a change. Woodrow Wilson may have suffered a series of strokes, but he died of a broken heart.
ReplyDeleteYes, a very emotional and passionate plea by Wilson to defend and sell his idea of liberty and world peace to American citizens that we should become a member of the League of Nations. He surmised that if the fighting powers of the world were in agreement as to how they would handle conflicts, then they would not harm each other's interests and essentially stamp out the threat of attack from smaller countries against this alliance of nations. He covered all of his three main points well by first addressing opposition and false statements. Right after the introduction and pleasantries, he said, “I have perceived more and more that men have been busy creating an absolutely false impression of what the treaty of peace and the Covenant of the League of Nations.” Second, he spoke to what the treaty would and would not do by getting into the specifics of the Covenants and Articles. He asked engaging questions, like “And what do they unite for,” and what is Article X?” Although he said that he wasn’t certain he could recite from memory a “literal repetition of its language,” he was sure he could “give an exact interpretation of its meaning,” and then articulated the purpose of Article X and XI that followed. Lastly, he wanted the American public to know how he wanted the passing of this treaty to honor the sacrifice of fallen soldiers and that future generations of sons “should not be called upon for a similar gift – the gift of life.” It truly was a powerful and persuasive speech, but I think the timing was wrong. If after the Great War he had turned his immediate focus to the labor strikes, the Red scare, race riots, postwar recession, and other homegrown problems, then perhaps Americans could have supported his efforts abroad. As an African American woman that was still fighting for social and economic equality at home, I would have likely had the same view as the “Irreconcilables” that opposed it.
ReplyDeleteIn the reading it says how it was Wilson's dream to be in the League of Nations, and how he "urged the crowd to let the deaths of the American troops in France to have some meaning -- to give the next generation a chance to enjoy peace." Woodrow really wanted the world to have peace. His language was understandable to all people. He explained things clearly for example what the League of Nations really was and what the Covenant was, that all nations had to follow and if they had problems, they had to talk to the council for six to nine months to decide what will happen next. Woodrow brought up Article X and gave an exact interpretation of its meaning "that every member of the League covenants to respect and preserve the territorial integrity and existing political independence of every other member of the League as against external aggression." He's very convincing when he brings up the mothers of the American soldiers that had passed away in France. They came to Wilson, thanking him because they "rightly believe, that their sons saved the liberty of the world." and "France was free and the world was free because America had come!" When the question came up "Is the League an absolute guarantee against war?" he brought up a personal experience about his friends that had the habit of losing their tempers, like the nations when they have a problem, he said to "Give them space to cool off." Even though the United States never joined the League of Nations, Woodrow's speech was most impassioned.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Alex, the speech made by Wilson was one of the most persuasive speeches i've ever read and maybe ever read in history. It's very heart felt and to be honest it the complete truth as he stated that "Every Nation in the world has devoted a larger share of its revenue and levied a large share of it's taxes not for the purpose of promoting the welfare of the people, not for the pirpose of advancing their education, not for the purpse of developing the resources of the country,not for the purpose of improving the standard of living, but for the horrible purpose of making war on other countries..." This statement is remarkably true becasue most nations due only focus on war or focus mainly on war and ignore all the other issue that's going on in their countries. This is the reason why Wilson wants to be in th league of nations, He says " Let the deaths of the American soldiers in France have a meaning". He is convinced that war is not the right direction to go and that it effects every single country in a bad way, The Economy decreases, Resources get wasted and many lives are taken away from their familys and loved ones. Wilson wanted to start a new era as he says "If this great enterprise now going on in paris under the leadership of the United States succeeds, we are to pass into a new era of the world, which historys will record as a new era". But even after all this great talk and speech Wilson gave the U.S never did join the "eague of Nations"
ReplyDeleteOctober 12, 2011 8:05 AM