• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

The League of Nations managed to keep a lot of items going and introduced co-operation between countries in the 1920’s.

Extracts from this document...


The League of Nations managed to keep a lot of items going and introduced co-operation between countries in the 1920's In my opinion the League of Nations was a success I will discuss my reasons in this essay.The aims of the League of Nations were to discourage aggression, to encourage co-operation, disarmament and to improve working conditions for everyone in the world. The League of Nations was set up because after the First World War everyone wanted to avoid war happening again, they all agreed that an organisation which could sort every countries problems out would be a good idea. Countries looked to the league to bring stability. ...read more.


Most countries thought that America were going to join, but they didn't leaving people shocked. They felt that America would keep it together. Another problem that the league often had to face was border disputes where countries would send troops into their neighbouring country and try to take it over. It was especially hard when they had to settle a problem between two countries and they were both in the league because someone was bound to get upset. For example the Vilna incident in 1920. Lithuania was mainly a polish population. A private polish army was sent in by Poland and took control of it. In the end France didn't want to upset them because they could be an ally for a future war and Britain didn't want to act alone so the poles kept Vilna. ...read more.


They also did great work for refugees by sending 400,000 prisoners home. However a lot of people were housed in refugee camps and diseases quickly formed. The league tackled them and acted quickly to stamp out diseases such as smallpox, cholera and dysentery. The last thing the league promised to do was disarm countries. It failed. However countries like Britain France America and Italy did lower their forces. Since World War One Germany had been forced to disarm and was only allowed a very small army but they didn't want to be the only country that was to disarm. In conclusion I think that the league was quite successful. It failed on disarmament and wasn't very good at settling border disputes but it did do well considering the U.S.A wasn't part of it and did have a big effect on the refugees and prisoners. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. While surfing the channels on TV you might hear a lot of news about ...

    One of the most spectacular terrorist episodes in U.S. history was the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City in 1993 by Islamic radicals. This incident aroused anxiety about the threat posed by foreign residents from nations hostile to the United States.

  2. How Successful Was the League in The 1920's and 1930's? The League of ...

    Even their Force section was heavily flawed, as countries could not afford to support a war and were not willing to give up men whilst they had problems of their own. Because of this, countries were most likely to get away with aggression and invade.

  1. United Nations: The Wounded Dove

    With the cease fire the UN organized the first democratic national elections (Cooper). Another area of success was in Cambodia. There the UN helped end hostilities between government forces and the Khmer Rouge Guerrillas. This war was one of the bloodiest civil wars today.

  2. Did The League of Nations Have any chance of long Term Success?

    Therefore, it could not carry out any threats and any country defying its authority would have been very aware of this weakness. The only two countries in the League that could have provided any military might were Britain and France and both had been severely depleted strength-wise in World War

  1. The league of nations - How successful was The League in the 1920's?

    It would have meant huge economic problems and the outbreak of another war. It was also a failure in the ruling because of the influence Italy had over the Conference Of Ambassadors to make it change its decision. France was more concerned with its own relations and so blocked any action form the League against Italy.

  2. How Successful Was the League of Nations In the 1920’S?

    President Wilson, the brainchild of the league, would seem the most appropriate leader as America was not economically or physically damaged from the war but surprisingly America never joined, nor took on any role. Britain and France were the most powerful members of the League.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work