I'm taking a poll for my history class. I will present you with some options and you tell me which one you would choose and why.
It is over the conflict between Henry Cabot Lodge and Woodrow Wilson over the League of Nations.

~ agree with Lodge that the league would improperly control the United States
~ agree with Wilson that the united force of the world’s nations is the best hope for peace
~ agree with Lodge that the United States is more powerful when it acts alone
~ agree with Wilson that weakening the treaty would threaten world peace

Question

I'm taking a poll for my history class. I will present you with some options and you tell me which one you would choose and why.
It is over the conflict between Henry Cabot Lodge and Woodrow Wilson over the League of Nations.

~ agree with Lodge that the league would improperly control the United States
~ agree with Wilson that the united force of the world’s nations is the best hope for peace
~ agree with Lodge that the United States is more powerful when it acts alone
~ agree with Wilson that weakening the treaty would threaten world peace

anonymous · Answer

Here is a little background of the two men if it helps any.

anonymous · Answer

I agree with wilson that the united force of the world's nations is the best hope for peace because it would give immediate peace other than waiting for the other's answer.

anonymous · Answer

I personally agree with you. To have all the nations coming together and be able to openly discuss their concerns would allow them all to effectively communicate and work with one another.
Though obviously the League of Nations wasn't really a great set up (esp compared to today's United Nations) it was still at least attempting to bring everyone together to reach peace and compromise.