It was often the cases of self interest that these two nations resorted too. In Manchuria, Britain and France were unwilling to send their armies nor fleets, in Abyssinia, they did not close the Suez Canal , which could have stopped Mussolini's invasion and they did not ban important war materials such as coal, oil and steel. The USSR was the only country powerful enough to send troops to force the aggressors into accepting the League's wishes, but they weren't in the League. Without the USA, the League was permanently weakened. Had the USA been in the league, Japan wouldn't have conquered Manchuria and Mussolini would have backed off Abyssinia.
Although it involved many positive aspects, it was strongly rejected by America, both the government and the citizens. The Congress found it to be an attachment of war for our countries, spend more money and slowly destroy our economy, and it pulled us into European affairs. This war without country seemed at that time very dim. Coming out of a war and feeling unstoppable, maybe Wilson was only wise enough to see that war is not something to be used unless absolutely needed. To protect the right of mankind, and lives of American and allied lives.
Berman is unrelenting in his blame for Nixon and his administration with their lack of “Peace with Honor” in Vietnam. In my opinion, this excerpt from Professor Berman’s No Peace, No Honor: Nixon and Kissinger, and Betrayal in Vietnam provides strong supportive evidence as to why there was no honor with America’s withdrawal from the Vietnam conflict. Nixon and Kissinger were ceaseless in saying that Congress cost them victory in Vietnam. They use Congress as a scapegoat basically. They both reinforced their beliefs in the Paris Peace Accords time and time again.
However some historians would say that Britain was too complacent when it came to foreign policy, and as soon as they believed they had reached satisfactory targets, they wouldn’t go any further, and so risk harming British interests. Yet other historians would also suggest that at the time, Britain had no choice but to be sometimes complacent due to economic factors, and at the time, their policy making decisions were not ultimately harmful to interests, but best suited to the current international climate. British Foreign policy in the 1920’s was dominated by the France and German tensions. Britain and France disagreed on most issues. French leaders were particularly concerned about Germany’s efforts to undo the treaty of Versailles.
Hamilton created his Federalist party to help promote his goals for the United States. Jefferson’s opposition party, the Republicans, “opposed Hamilton's urban, financial, industrial goals for the United States, and his promotion of extensive trade and friendly relations with Britain.” Their interpretation of the Constitution also was very different. Hamilton interpreted it very loosely and used the elastic clause to get what he wanted out of it, while Jefferson read and followed if very strictly. This is a reason Jefferson was against Hamilton’s plans. Thomas Jefferson didn’t like the idea of building a National Bank in the United States.
Americans did not want to enter the war because they thought they had enough to deal with on their own such as the Great Depression. Americans supported isolationism or staying out of the way of warring nations even though America’s Allies were at war. In World War One America had fought to make the world safe for
The Colonists were use to having a government with not that much power having little affected over their lives. So they thought a good government was one that left them alone. The real Whigs, they stressed the idea that it would be really dangerous if there was a powerful government. Especially a monarch. Some wanted republicanism gone so that would get rid of the monarch.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson explained how governments should not be overthrown for petty reasons, but he believed the King of Great Britain had taken the situation too far. The New England economy was growing, and the colonist gradually began to think and act independently from England. Therefore, England initiated Parliament
The attack didn’t make sense to Americans because they knew that Japan believed that the U.S. was stronger, but to the Japanese, Adkison 5 the Pearl Harbor attack probably seemed like their best option at the time. Not only would the attack diminish the American defenses on the West Coast, but it would force the U.S. into a twofront war, one in the Pacific and the other in Europe. Logically, a nation whose military is split between two fronts would be weaker than if its military only needed to worry about fighting on one front. Maybe Japan thought that between its alliance within the Axis powers and the U.S. fighting on two fronts, there was a distinct chance at victory and moving up in the world as a powerful nation. A surprise attack on the fleet could weaken Americans and give the Japanese the power that they craved.
Revolutionary Americans resented the economic restrictions, finding them exploitative. They claimed the policy restricted colonial trade and industry and raised the cost of many consumer goods. In his 1774 pamphlet, "A Summary View of the Rights of British America, " Thomas Jefferson asserted the Navigation Acts had infringed upon the colonists' freedom in preventing the "exercise of free trade with all parts of the world, possessed by the American colonists, as of natural right." Yet, as O. M. Dickerson points out, it is difficult to find opposition to the mercantile system among the colonists when the measures were purely regulatory and did not levy a tax on them. The British mercantile system did after all allow for colonial monopoly over certain markets such as tobacco, and not only encouraged, but with its 1660 regulation was instrumental in, the development of colonial shipbuilding.