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

How Far Do You Agree That It Was Clear From The Beginning That The League of Nations Would Fail?

Extracts from this document...


How Far Do You Agree That It Was Clear From The Beginning That The League of Nations Would Fail? The League of Nations was always a rather idealistic idea. The idea of keeping peace around the world obviously had good intentions but there would always be conflicting issues between member states of the League. When founded on January 10th 1920, The League of Nations was made up of 24 nations including Britain and France who were the economic haves from the First World War, this meant they had benefited through gaining in land and reparations money in the wake of the First World War. This gave the League strength in numbers and they were seen as more authoritative as many nations agreed with the idea of the League and joined, giving it power. Although many of these nations were based in Europe, notable absentees were USA and Russia, Britain and France were not happy with Russian for leaving the War before the end so would not have Russia in the League, this caused tensions around the world that which League should have been trying to eliminate, it was not a good start, this also applied to the fact that Germany were not allowed to join until 1926, by rejecting about some nations, it created an 'us vs. them' mentality which was not good for a peaceful world. ...read more.


proved that Britain and France were not as strong as they used to be, this was clear from the outset of the League as there was no official army that the League could control it was up to individual states to provide their own army, there was no large army made up of different states troops that the League could control. This was a flaw in the design of the League as instead of concentrating the Leagues power into one force it separated it into little ones, which is less effective in fighting. The League's integrity worsened in 1923 when three of its most important member states invaded countries without the League's backing. Italy invaded Corfu after a small skirmish occurred on Greek territory. Mussolini (Italy's leader) rejected a role for The League of Nations to settle the dispute. In January 1923 Germany could not pay France's reparations instalment so France and Belgian forces invaded an area of Germany called the Ruhr and demanded payment through goods like coal and steel as the Ruhr was a very important industrial area for Germany. The French remained in the Ruhr for two years until Germany was lent money by USA. It was not clear from the outset that the League would not uphold what it promised to do. This was a weakness in the League that could have been suspected but the League had vowed that it would uphold peace for all countries whether they be members or not, and would be strict with all invasions. ...read more.


The League was not destined to be a failure from the outset, but the factors it had to work against outweighed the things it had going for it. In reality all the support, enthusiasm and co-operation was mainly happening between a number or small nations who would affect very little in the big picture. Italy, Japan, Germany, Russia, USA, Austria-Hungary, Britain and France played the largest roles in the World War and they were the most powerful nations. Only Britain, France, Italy and Japan were in the League but Italy and Japan as mentioned earlier were discontent, which only left two loyal big powers in the League, which limited their capabilities. The fact the League had no army was a big part as it was up to the member states to deploy troops and if they didn't the force would be weakened. The League could put economic sanctions on countries, but by doing that many member states lost trade with them so the sanctions were not beneficial to the League so in some cases just disintegrated and were not upheld, e.g. sanctions on Italy in reaction to invasion of Ethiopia in 1935. The League was a good idea and probably did delay major conflicts for about 10 years as the World was not ready for peace after the bloodshed of the First World War and many conflicts had not been resolved which meant the League had very little chance of functioning properly as it faced a very uphill task which not enough countries were dedicated too achieving. Leo ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE International relations 1900-1939 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 GCSE International relations 1900-1939 essays

  1. Why was the Abyssinian crisis a death blow to the league when the Manchurian ...

    left in the league were seen to have secret meetings with Italy. This greatly undermined the belief in the league. Also, people in Europe thought that Japan was so far away from them that they didn't need to worry too much about what occurred somewhere on the other side of the world.

  2. Why did the League of Nations fail to keep peace in the 1930's?

    The Depression hit Japan badly. Both china and USA put up tariffs against Japanese goods. The collapse of the American market put the Japanese economy at crisis. Without this trade Japan couldn't feed its people. The Japanese leaders had a solution to this problem-they wanted to build up Japans Empire.

  1. Was the League of Nations too idealistic for it's own good

    The League would have wanted to sort it by either cutting of trade routes to that country, or would of sent a person to try and get them out by negotiate The League also thought that if a member country broke the rules the other members would

  2. Why did the League of Nations fail in the 1930's?

    disputes were much smaller and with smaller countries so could actually make a difference to them with economic sanctions, they needed help from leading countries in helping or stopping them from whatever it maybe. Also if they were smaller, it may make France or Britain more likely to put forward troops to fight.

  1. The failure of the League of Nations

    and influential country in the world, and therefore the League would probably be unwilling to make a decision which would go against the USA, and it would also mean that a country that was a league member, who had economic sanctions placed upon them would still be free to trade with the USA.

  2. The League of Nations: Its achievements and its failures

    Yet, the League delayed the decision on whether or not to ban oil exports to Italy for two months, fearing the Americans would not support the sanctions, and that its? members economic interest would not be further damaged. In Britain, the Cabinet was informed that 30,000 British coal miners were

  1. Which factor contributed more to the weakness of the League of Nations, its membership ...

    Even the Permanent Court of Justice which was supposed to settle disputes could not impose decisions on the disputing nations and countries had to appeal to the Court instead of the Court calling upon the disputing countries. Therefore aggressors could simply ignore the League, which was exactly what Poland, Japan

  2. The most important reason why the League of Nations failed was because it had ...

    Every country (even large or small) had a vote in the assembly. The voting was unanimous. Lastly, if one country said no to the decision it would be rejected. This organization was not one that a League wanted to solve problems.

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