When the Great World War ended in 1918, it was thought to be "The war to end all wars." Toward that end, the treaty of Versailles, which officially ended the war, was hoped to be the treaty to end all war. The Treaty not only set the rules and conditions for the cessation of hostilities, but it created a new, world-governing body, constituted by all of the nations of the world, where international disputes were to be resolved peacefully. American President Woodrow Wilson was one of the primary creators of this new "League of Nations" and so was anxious for the United States Congress to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and thus enter the country into the League of Nations. In fact, he worked tirelessly for that to happen, lecturing audiences throughout the country and all around the world -- at a time when international travel was unheard of for an American president. But in the end the result did not turn out as he had wished. The United States did not sign the treaty because the Democrat Wilson did not have the support of enough of the Senate. The Constitution required a two-thirds majority vote for ratification of international treaties. Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and Indiana Senator Alfred Beveridge were strongly against the treaty. Lodge was the Republican Senate majority leader and Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, a very powerful and respected figure in Congress. The refusal of the United States Senate to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and eventually join the League of Nations is a story of conflict. Personal conflict between President Wilson and Senator Lodge, political conflict between Republicans and Democrats, and conflicting philosophies regarding the nation's role in the postwar world order. However, no matter where the conflicts focused – personalities, political parties and branches of government, or ideas and institutions, President Wilson himself certainly did lie at the heart of the problem. It was his overweening confidence in the view that he held of the nation's role in the world, which formed the basis of the failure of the very tool, that he had helped to devise in order to spare the world from future wars. The failure of ratification of the Treaty of Versailles was due to personal failures of President Woodrow Wilson. President Wilson was a man of great ideals and convictions. As a result, he also had a tendency to be very "preachy" in dealing with those who did not share his ideas. This tendency was one of the major gripes that the Republicans and many others had with him. French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau once said bitterly: “Talk with Wilson? How can I talk to a fellow who thinks himself the first man in two thousand years to know anything about peace on earth?” To presidential advisor Colonel Edward House, Clemenceau said, “I get on with you. You are practical. I understand you, but talking to Wilson is something like talking to Jesus Christ.” Woodrow Wilson returned from treaty negotiations in Paris to Washington on July 8th. Within two days he had already presented the full treaty to the Senate, a testament to the personal priority it held for him. The President “spoke before an audience such as is seldom seen in the Senate and received a most enthusiastic greeting except by the Republicans” . Wilson made the establishment of the League of Nations his greatest quest. He saw the peace conference as an opportunity to create a new world order by which international disputes would be adjudicated on the basis of morality and justice, instead of competition and power. While others wanted to punish Germany harshly, making them pay for the death and destruction they had caused, Wilson wished to dispense with the old system where the loser in war paid reparations and stiff penalties to the victors. Wilson envisioned a new world order which would not treat Germany like a defeated enemy; instead he wanted to her to be a healthy, though demilitarized partner in a new, permanent peace. In contrast, Clemenceau did not wish to end the old system but rather to make it stronger to build peace, and this meant that the conquerors would divide the spoils to come up with a reimbursement as satisfactory as possible to their respective nation’s requirements. In considering these contrasting views, it is critical to consider the different perspectives from which they came. The war cost the Europeans much more dearly in terms of both lives and treasure than it did the United States. France lost 1.4 million soldiers, essentially an entire generation of young men, while Russia lost 1.7 million and Great Britain 750,000 while the U. S. lost only 116,000 lives. That is not to mention the French cities, towns, factories and farms that were destroyed under the feet of the armies. The bitterness of the French and British negotiators was much more profound than that of their American counterparts. Furthermore, the domestic pressure on the Europeans to extr