It was through the leagues actions or lack there of that rulers like Hitler and Mussolini had no fear of the league and in fact gained in confidence and so held no fear when they did go to war.
League of Nations - Good or Bad?
Many of us wish that we could create world peace, but most of us know that this is not a one man task. When I think of Woodrow Wilson I am reminded of a common quote, “The road to hell is often paid with good intentions!” Woodrow Wilson had good intentions and put a lot of effort into them when he proposed the League of Nations. However, his efforts drew short and the League was destined for failure. In my opinion, it needed all of the world powers in order for it to have been successful, and in order for this to happen each and every one of the members would have to be satisfied with the requirements. Unfortunately, the U.S. was a world power and they were not willing to give up any of their rights for peace, hence the failure of the League of Nations.
One must understand the history behind the League of Nations before judging it. In November of 1918 an armistice was declared in Europe. Wilson was more of an idealist than a war villain, and viewed this event as an opportunity for international peace. He did not believe that the war should end in a new balance of power, but rather in an organized common peace. In other words, he wanted “peace without victory”. His biggest step towards this ultimate goal was the Treaty of Versailles containing fourteen points, of which the fourteenth consisted of a League of Nations to settle international disputes. The Senate supported much of the treaty, however, they did not support the League of Nations as it would make the US too involved in foreign affairs. Despite Wilson’s efforts to sway public opinion, support of the League in America weakened and the result of his hard work was a formation of the League without the US as a member. As ridiculously unfair as this may seem, it is human nature to look out for one self and this greed was the major down fall for the League of Nations
Again I point out that greed is a major reason for the failure of the League of Nations, because it is hard for one to give up anything for protection if they believe they are perfectly capable of protecting themselves without sacrifice. Greed also plays an important role in who gets to take charge of this so called League of Nations. Unfortunately, the U.S.’s idea of civilization consisted of all nations being governed in the same way as America. We all know that the world is made up of many different cultures and beliefs and to be able to satisfy them all, let alone force them to believe the way that we do would be ultimately impossible and probably immoral, thus the failure of the League of Nations.
Why Did the League Fail in the 1930s?
The Manchurian crisis was a failure for the League for several reasons. One of these was that the League was slow to make decisions. In this particular crisis, the Lytton committee took a year to present a report to the League about the situation in Manchuria. In this time, Japan had got a better hold in Manchuria and had even set up a puppet government. If they hadn’t have been given this time to settle in then they would have been easier to get out of Manchuria. Unanimous voting also meant that decisions were slow to reach; every member country had to agree to action against Italy in the Manchurian crisis, including Italy. Obviously Italy didn’t agree to this and soon after walked out of the League.
Another weakness of the League that affected the Manchurian crisis was the self-interest of its leading members. Britain and France didn’t want to take any major action against Italy as they wanted to keep them on side against the threat of Soviet Russia. This meant that steps Britain and France could have taken for the League as leading members (such as sending troops, etc) were not taken and it was made even easier for Japan to get away with its blatant show of aggression.
As briefly mentioned in the previous paragraph, troops were never sent to Japan to solve the Manchurian crisis. One of the League’s failings was that it didn’t have an army. This meant that any decisions that the League did manage to come to couldn’t really be enforced. In the Manchurian crisis, Japan wasn’t worried about the League’s ruling against it as it knew that the decision wouldn’t be enforced. If the League had had an army, Japan might have paid it more attention and even if she didn’t, the army could have been sent in to make things a lot more difficult for Japan. As it was, member countries weren’t prepared to send troops to sort out a problem that wasn’t anything to do with them.
The non-membership of several powerful countries in the League was a severe weakness which affected the Manchurian crisis. Most noticeably, America wasn’t a member. If she had been, the League would’ve had more authority and power as the USA was a wealthy, powerful nation. Aggressive nations would have paid more attention to the League as they would not have wanted the disapproval of such an influential nation. Japan especially would have paid more attention to the League as the USA was her main trading partner and she would not have wanted to fall out of favour with them as it could ruin her economy. Country’s such as Soviet Russia not being a member of the League would have also caused weaknesses for the League in this situation. Russia had lots of resources and people that it could have donated to help the League in this crisis. It was also nearer to where the crisis was taking place and so could have done a lot to help.
The non-membership of important countries also affected the failure of disarmament. Because not everybody would be disarming, just members of the League, no-one felt safe in doing so. Countries such as soviet Russia posed a threat to some of the League’s member countries so if they weren’t disarming as well, they could quite easily take over an unarmed country. People were obviously not comfortable with this. Also, countries such as the USA not being involved in the disarmament process worried people. The USA was pro-disarmament and peace but without their power and re-assurance in the League, no-one was prepared to make themselves vulnerable by re-arming.
The League’s slow decisions also affected the failure of disarmament. In this case, plans for a disarmament conference were only made in 1926; 7 years after Wilson came up with the idea in his 14 points. It took a further 5 years to even agree on a draft convention for the conference and in 1933 it was rejected by a Nazi Germany who were secretly re-arming anyway.
The Treaty of Versailles that the League had to uphold was seen as unfair by a lot of people; this was another of the League’s failings. In the Treaty of Versailles, Germany had been forced to disarm but no-body else had. Germany was quite annoyed about this and so was keen to gain equality. They wanted everyone to disarm to their level or for them to be able to re-arm to everybody else’s level again. Obviously the member countries didn’t want either of these options but as treaty was seen as unfair something had to be done to try and rectify it. In the end nothing decisive was done and Germany pulled out of the conference and re-armed anyway.
The self-interest of leading members of the League is also a weakness which has affected this failure. For instance, the League’s first attempt at a disarmament treaty was accepted by several nations but Britain rejected it because it would tie it to protecting other countries. This is an obvious example of Britain’s self-interest which was apparent through the whole disarmament conference. Member countries weren’t really prepared to put themselves out for the greater good. They were more worried about their own well-being.
In this crisis, again, the absence of important members from the League was a weakness which affected the League’s failure in dealing with it. Without the power and authority of America, Italy wasn’t afraid of the League’s ruling. As well as this, trade sanctions that were imposed were ineffective because America was still trading with Italy and giving her oil to run her tanks, etc on.
The League not having an army of its own was also a weakness. The League couldn’t stop Italy as it didn’t have troops to enforce its decision. After economic sanctions failed, the League should have used military force but without troops this was impossible. None of the member countries were prepared to send troops as it was not their problem and they certainly didn’t want to get on the wrong side of Italy; this is also an example of the member countries’ self-interest.
As mentioned above, economic sanctions did not work which was a weakness in the League which affected this crisis badly. Oil sanctions imposed on Italy were useless because America was still trading with Italy, making the League’s sanctions ineffective.
Finally, the self-interest of leading members of the League was a huge weakness in the League and was a major factor in the failure of the League to deal with the Abyssinian crisis. France and Britain did not want to be too harsh with Italy over the crisis because they wanted to keep Italy on side against the growing threat of Nazi Germany. The crisis could have been easily stopped by Britain and France as they had the power to shut the Suez Canal, the canal through Egypt which Italy was sending its supplies through to get to Abyssinia. Also, the Hoare-Laval pact was a blatantly obvious show of Britain and France’s self-interest. They were so keen to keep Italy on side that they were making secret treaties behind the League’s back.
2) I have been asked to explain whether I agree or disagree with the statement “The League failed in the 1930s simply because it faced greater challenges than it had faced in the 1920s.” One possible argument here is that the challenges of the 1930s were much greater than those of the 1920s.
In the 1930s, the League faced other challenges unsuccessfully such as Manchuria, the failure of disarmament and Abyssinia. The causes for the league’s failure in these crises were highlighted in the previous question. The failure of disarmament meant the failure of one of the League’s objectives, “To encourage nations to disarm.” It was seen as more serious than the League’s other failures in the 1920s because it showed that the League couldn’t even be successful in achieving one of its core objectives. The Manchurian crisis was a major crisis for the League to deal with. Japan had marched into Manchuria to gain extra resources during the depression and refused to move. At this point, the League should have started issuing sanctioning but Britain and France didn’t want to do anything to offend Japan as they wanted to keep them on side against the threat of communist Russia. A vote in the assembly was ordered (voting had to be unanimous) but there was one vote against taking action on Japan. Japan’s vote. No action was therefore taken and Japan left the League insulted. Finally, I will discuss the Abyssinian crisis in 1935. Some people think that the League’s failure to successfully resolve the Abyssinian crisis was the final nail in the coffin for the League. It showed that the League was ineffective at deterring blatant aggression and that it could not take any decisive action due to the self-interest of its leading members. Italy marched into Abyssinia for many reasons; Mussolini wanted to expand the Italian empire to gain more resources, he also wanted to restore Italy to its greatness during the Roman Empire. Abyssinia was also near the other Italian colonies in Africa and a strategic position for the transport of oil through the Red sea. Mussolini also wanted to gain revenge on the Abyssinians for a previous defeat in 1896. Britain and France didn’t want to take action against Italy as they wanted to keep her on side. This self-interest stopped the League from taking any decisive action; economic sanctions were useless because America was still trading with Italy. Italy got away with its invasion and the League was shown as useless.
In my view, however, the challenges of the 1930s were made more serious because of the international climate. The Wall Street Crash in 1929 had caused Depression in Europe. There was a slump in international trading due to tariffs and times were tough. While there was little world trading, any economic sanctions imposed by the League would have been ineffective, and anyway, countries that did still have a little trade going on would have been hard pushed to give it up just for the League. Countries were even less likely to obey and help out the League if they were suffering from economic troubles at home as well. The Manchurian crisis was a result of the depression; Japan relied on trade with America which had obviously been cut off by the depression so Japan marched into Manchuria to gain more resources. The depression also allowed dictatorships to arise. In hard times, dictators such as Hitler promised their country wealth and glory again and the people welcomed these ideas with open arms. These dictatorships weren’t scared of the league, however, and did exactly as they liked (e.g. Mussolini taking over Abyssinia). These factors made it harder for the League to deal with the challenges of the 1930s.
The League could have done more in the 1930s though. For example it could have made its decisions quicker so that action could have been taken sooner. For instance, in the Manchurian crisis, it took the Lytton committee one year to produce a report on the situation. In that time, Japan had got a better foothold in Manchuria and even set up a puppet government. If the report had been finished sooner, Japan wouldn’t have had the time to get so settled in and so would have been easier for the league to get them out again. As well as this, the League could have imposed sanctions properly. This was stopped however by the self-interest of leading members. For example, in the Abyssinian crisis, the members were slow to come to a decision over trade sanctions because they didn’t want to harm their own trade or economy.
Therefore, my conclusion is that I agree with the statement to an extent; one of the reasons that the League failed in the 1930s was because it faced greater challenges than it had in the 1920s. As discussed earlier, the international climate in the 1930s was more hostile than in the 1920s which made it harder for the League to deal with situations that arose and the situations were more serious. However, it was not simply this reason that the League failed in the 1930s. Many problems that had been there since the beginning of the league affected the league’s failings in the 1930s. These problems were discussed in the first question. They included the self-interest of the leading members of the League, the missing members such as America and Soviet Russia, the fact that sanctions were ineffective, the fact that the League had no army to enforce its decisions, the idea that the League had to uphold an unfair treaty and the League’s inability to make quick decisions. This shows that there were many weaknesses in the League, all which contributed to its failure in the 1930s. co
Ben Jones
