Editing Treaty of Versailles (section)

===United States===
[[File:Refusing to give the lady a seat - Rollin Kirby Trim.jpg|thumb|upright|Senators [[William Edgar Borah|Borah]], [[Henry Cabot Lodge|Lodge]] and [[Hiram Johnson|Johnson]] refuse Lady Peace a seat, referring to efforts by Republican isolationists to block ratification of the Treaty of Versailles establishing the [[League of Nations]].]]

After the Versailles conference, Democratic President Woodrow Wilson claimed that "at last the world knows America as the savior of the world!"{{efn-lr|President Woodrow Wilson speaking on the League of Nations to a luncheon audience in Portland OR. 66th Cong., 1st sess. Senate Documents: Addresses of President Wilson (May–November 1919), vol. 11, no. 120, p. 206.}} However, Wilson had refused to bring any leading members of the Republican party, led by [[Henry Cabot Lodge]], into the talks. The Republicans controlled the [[United States Senate]] after the election of 1918, and were outraged by Wilson's refusal to discuss the war with them. The senators were divided into multiple positions on the Versailles question. It proved possible to build a majority coalition, but impossible to build a two-thirds coalition that was needed to pass a treaty.{{sfn|Bailey|1945}}

A discontent bloc of 12–18 "[[Irreconcilables]]", mostly Republicans but also representatives of the Irish and German Democrats, fiercely opposed the treaty. One bloc of Democrats strongly supported the Versailles Treaty, even with reservations added by Lodge. A second group of Democrats supported the treaty but followed Wilson in opposing any amendments or reservations. The largest bloc, led by Senator Lodge,{{sfn|Widenor|1980}} comprised a majority of the Republicans. They wanted a treaty with "reservations", especially on Article 10, so that the League of Nations could not draw the US into war without the consent of the US Congress.{{sfn|Stone|1973}} All of the Irreconcilables were bitter enemies of President Wilson, and he launched a nationwide speaking tour in the summer of 1919 to refute them. But Wilson collapsed midway with a serious stroke that effectively ruined his leadership skills.{{sfn|Cooper|2011|loc=ch 22–23}}

The closest the treaty came to passage was on 19 November 1919, as Lodge and his Republicans formed a coalition with the pro-treaty Democrats, and were close to a two-thirds majority for a Treaty with reservations, but Wilson rejected this compromise and enough Democrats followed his lead to end the chances of ratification permanently. Among the American public as a whole, the Irish Catholics and the [[German Americans]] were intensely opposed to the treaty, saying it favored the British.{{sfn|Duff|1968|pp=582–598}}

After Wilson's presidency, his successor Republican President [[Warren G. Harding]] continued American opposition to the formation of the League of Nations. Congress subsequently passed the [[Knox–Porter Resolution]] bringing a formal end to hostilities between the United States and the [[Central Powers]]. It was signed into law by President Harding on 2 July 1921.{{sfn|Wimer|Wimer|1967|pp=13–24}}{{sfn|''The New York Times''|1921}} Soon after, the [[U.S.–German Peace Treaty (1921)|US–German Peace Treaty of 1921]] was signed in Berlin on 25 August 1921. Article 1 of this treaty obliged the German government to grant to the U.S. government all rights and privileges that were enjoyed by the other Allies that had ratified the Versailles treaty. Two similar treaties were signed with [[U.S.–Austrian Peace Treaty (1921)|Austria]] and [[U.S.–Hungarian Peace Treaty (1921)|Hungary]] on 24 and 29 August 1921, in Vienna and Budapest respectively.

====Edward House's views====
Wilson's former friend [[Edward Mandell House]], present at the negotiations, wrote in his diary on 29 June 1919:

<blockquote>I am leaving Paris, after eight fateful months, with conflicting emotions. Looking at the conference in retrospect, there is much to approve and yet much to regret. It is easy to say what should have been done, but more difficult to have found a way of doing it. To those who are saying that the treaty is bad and should never have been made and that it will involve Europe in infinite difficulties in its enforcement, I feel like admitting it. But I would also say in reply that empires cannot be shattered, and new states raised upon their ruins without disturbance. To create new boundaries is to create new troubles. The one follows the other. While I should have preferred a different peace, I doubt very much whether it could have been made, for the ingredients required for such a peace as I would have were lacking at Paris.{{sfn|Schiff|1996}}</blockquote>