Isolationism vs. Interventionism

1835 Words8 Pages
Since Washington’s Farewell Address, the US has always had a tendency to recede back to an isolationist stance in regards to foreign affairs. However, in the 20th century, the US began to take a more interventionist approach to foreign policy. After both World Wars, America took an interventionist stance, although after the First World War, America was predominantly isolationist. The post-Second World War era of the US arguably experienced a much stronger and wider form of interventionism. But nonetheless, this shift in foreign policy from isolationism to interventionism after both World Wars is significant because it marks the gradual change in US foreign policy that would continue for the rest of the 20th century and onwards. There were many distinctions and few similarities between U.S. foreign policy in the periods that extended after World War I and World War II. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the United States' foreign policy was for the most part isolationist. President Woodrow Wilson came up with a plan for long-lasting peace at the conclusion of the war called the Fourteen Points. One of these points was the League of Nations, which was Wilson's favorite thing. This part of Wilson's plan stated, "A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike." Its task was simple- make sure war never broke out again by handling international disputes, a very interventionist plan. America did not want to be sucked into another European conflict. This plan was part of the Treaty of Versailles, a document that was supposed to end the war. However, many Americans wanted to return to their former policy of isolationism and were deeply opposed to the League of Nations because it morally bound the United States to aid any
Open Document