Was Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations achievable?

The ever positive and idealistic Woodrow Wilson envisioned a League of Nations that would create a long and lasting peace in Europe. His speech of January 1918 where he listed his 14 Points to how Europe could rebuild itself after World War 1 and create an atmosphere of peace and prosperity while idealistic was, you could argue, light years ahead of his time and something we strive for still.

But was he too far ahead of his time, were his ideas actually achievable? Were the American public and the Republican Congress ever going to vote for a Christian Democrat who had previously won his election on the slogan of "he kept us out of the war"?

Wilson was so horrified at the thought of the slaughter house that Europe had turned into that he felt quite passionately that it was the role of the civilised countries to create a situation where this could never happen again.

Wilsons' first point is...

"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."

It is quite understandable where Wilson came to the conclusion that all peace deals should be conducted publically and there should be no private international "understandings". If you consider how the First World War became the slaughterhouse it did and an international conflict rather than a small war between two countries, it was because of the Alliances system. So you can really see where Wilson was coming from when he said that there should be no underhand deals between countries.

Wilsons' fourth point of "adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety." is again something that relates almost directly to the causes of the war. The build up of armaments such as the Dreadnought and the ensuing competition between Germany and Britain led to both alliance systems having such a store of weapons that it made it easier to declare war. If neither party has the ability to go to war on an industrial scale then there is a natural deterrent and more of a reason to try to solve international conflicts with diplomatic measures rather than military solutions.

Wilson's tenth point of "The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development." is linked both to the causes of World War 1 and to the anti-colonial sentiments held by America. The European desire to build large Empires was linked directly to the short term cause of the war and also was likely to continue conflicts on after the war. The progressive attitude that Wilson held was key in supporting smaller countries finding their independence with the support of larger, less imperialistic nations.

But was he ever going to succeed? Were America and Europe too bitter after the fighting and devastation of the war to look to a peaceful conclusion? Both France and Britain were seeking some sort of retribution, on a different scale as France had been physically devastated, but still both parties were looking for some sort of punishment for Germany.

Three years after his speech, congress voted against his League of Nations. You don't really wonder why, the League would have been almost completely pointless. Germany and Russia were not to be included which would have meant that two countries likely to be involved in further disputes due to their lack of inclusion in the Paris Peace Conferences of 1919, would not have had their say in furhter negotiations. The League was reluctant to use their second tool of imposing economic sanctions on countries due to the fear of pushing countries further into debt and closer to the arms of the communists who were sweeping across Russia and potentially the rest of Europe.

The biggest blow to the ability of the League to take charge of Europe's political disputes and come to a peaceful conclusion was that America did not join. Despite Wilson's optimism and idealistic approach to politics, he was unable to convince either Congress or the American public to join.

Should Wilson have lowered his sights and actually come up with a solution that was more likely to be accepted by the US Congress thus enabling America to maintain peaceful solutions to conflicts in Europe? If he had compromised on his 14 points and maybe come to a vote sooner than 1921 would he have been able to prevent the financial devastation in Europe and therefore the rise of the dictators, thus preventing World War 2? The League would not have been able to prevent the financial crisis caused by the Wall Street Crash but they could have supported countries in financial ways to prevent the devastation that hit Germany and other Eurpean nations.

What do you think? Was Wilson too optimistic? Should he have been more realistic and in-tune with the feelings of his European counterparts?

Without technology, would we be unhealthier or healther?

           Technology has changed our lives in many ways. Both in positive and negative ways. But overall, has it made us unhealthier or healthier?

           Many people will argue that the advent of new technology such as the mobile phone and the car has actually led to society being unhealthier and that we need to move away from becoming reliant on this technology in order to boost our health. The fact that 29.6 million people in Britain owned a car in 2009 can be linked to the rise in obesity and heart disease in the adult and child population. You could argue that even the short walk to the bus stop or to school twice a day would increase the amount of walking that children do. There are campaigns at the moment on the radio that remind parents to turn off their car engines when they are waiting outside schools waiting for their children in order to cut down the amount of pollution. If children were encouraged to walk to school more then they would be getting more exercise and equally there would be less pollution around schools.

                 Microwaves are another technological invention that could have led to health problems in both the adult and child population. How many people now regularly cook everything from scratch? Making fresh soup is now a thing that is left to people who have talent or desire to be able to prepare food from scratch and make it into a healthy soup. Most people who want a nice bowl of warm soup in winter would opt for a nice Heinz can that they put into a bowl and fling in the microwave for it to be cooked perfectly within 3 minutes with barely any effort.
But all this pre-prepared food can't be good for us. How many people would be able to pick up a swede and know the best way to cook it, and more than that, use it as a key ingredient in a nutritious meal? How many preservatives are needlessly added to our tinned and frozen food to keep it fresher for longer that wouldn't be necessary if we all just cooked our food from scratch?

Our brains are also being affected by the use of technology. Have you used a map recently? Done some mental arithmatic? How about used an encyclopedia that wasn't Wiki? The ability to write at length by hand is now becoming a lost art. The skill, and pleasure of sitting quietly and reading a book at length is now seen as less useful than being able to pick up the latest smart phone and "google" what you want.

                   However, technology has changed the way doctors approach making a diagnosis, it has changed how we discover facts and figures about our bodies and how we make changes to our health. Instead of visiting a trusted professional to make a judgement about our symptoms and waiting sometimes months for results of a test, most people will go to the internet as their first medical port of call. Normally to discover after a short questionaire sponsored by a drug company that they are likely to die of some horrible disease last found in the back of beyond in 1952.
              The internet has enabled doctors to communicate their ideas and findings far more easily and to communicate with doctors and other health professionals the world over. Conferences between medical professionals can now enable knowledge to be shared quickly and easily. Surgeons can now record their surgeries to show future surgeons and other learners how to carry out procedures. Test results can be shared with doctors far quicker saving the patient the long and worrying wait for test results. X Rays can be studied on High Definition screens that multiple health professionals in various locations can study which saves the transfer of a hard X Ray copy to 3 different locations before a final decision is made.

                 Operations that previously would have caused patients to be admitted to hospital for weeks and leave eventually with a large wound that could lead to further complications can now be completed with patients leaving with 2/3 stitches after a few days.

So has technology caused more problems than it has fixed? Has it actually saved more lives in the long run than it has caused health problems? Would we be able to reach people at quickly in an emergency situation? Would we be able to pinpoint tumours within millimetre accuracy and use radiation therapy to cure people? Would we be able to keep people alive while we take a heart from one person and transport it across the country to save another persons life?

What do you think? Has technology solved more problems than it has caused?

Elizabeth - too stubborn to do her duty?

Elizabeth I knew her duty was to be loyal to England, marry and bear children to become heirs to the throne and provide security for England for generations to come. Elizabeth was a bright, educated young woman who knew the trouble that had been caused by her fathers struggles to produce a solid heir, her brothers early death without an heir and her sisters phantom pregnancy. While she is often praised for her defiance against convention and her selfless act of not marrying in order to maintain religious stability in England, was she actually more selfish by not fulfilling her duty?

Instead of accepting that she may need to marry a man who was not to her entire liking and bear his children she chose her own, controversial lifestyle.

Was it wrong of Elizabeth to back away from a marital decision? Should she have chosen either a French or Spanish suitor and born his children? Or a wealthy Englishman? Neither choice would have been loved by all but once a solid heir was produced any concern about the future may have eased their worry of the suitability of her husband.

What do you think....selfless act of defiance against convention or too selfish to do her duty?

Is there ever a good reason to go to war?

Baldrick becomes unsure in Blackadder's rendition of World War 1 of how the war started and believes that World War 1 was started because a bloke called Archie Duke was hungry so he shot an Ostrich. Which is obviously not a good reason to go to war, however, was World War 1 a justified conflict?
Is the assassination of a member of your countries Royal Family a good enough reason to threaten another country? Should you always support your allies in a time of conflict even if you don't agree with them?

The causes of World War 1 are complicated and varied in importance. But is war ever justified?

Should America have entered World War 1 earlier in order to prevent loss of life?

So, some people would argue that America was too slow to enter World War 1 and that had WW1 started a few years earlier then Roosevelt or Taft would have entered almost immediately. Roosevelt and his successor Taft were both active interventionists who changed American Foreign Policy greatly during their time in office where as Wilson was far more of a pacifist who was supported by Jennings Bryan, again a very passionate pacifists.
While America actually entered the war on April 6th 1917 they did not mobilise their troops unti the Spring of 1918, with the war ending in November of 1918 you could argue that America's influence actually ended World War 1. Therefore leading to the question, if they had entered the war a few years earlier, for example when German Torpedoes attacked the civilian liner the RMS Lusitania in 1915, then the loss of life would not have reached the 37 million lives that it did by the end of World War 1.

Was it America's infuence that ended the war or was it due to end soon anyway? Some would say it was due to end as the new tanks and planes that were being used in the war was making the difference to break trench warfare and the naval blockade on Germany was having the desired effect. This naval blockade was driving Germany to poverty, starvation and desperation and made their eventual demise a certainty however long it took.
But the fresh soldiers coming from America with different tactics, better supplies, health and financial support surely had an impact both on creating actual results and an improvement in morale among allied troops.
If you were to compare the reaction to America's involvement in modern conflicts and how many people feel they are too quick to involve themselves in foreign conflicts, has America learnt its lesson in moving too slowly to enter a war for which they are inevitably going to be involved. Better to enter a conflict early on and end it quickly than wait for death and destruction to act?

Was it America's duty to support Europe based on their financial capabilities and for moral reasons?