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

Authors Avatar

Was the League of Nations too idealistic for it’s own good?

I think that the League of Nations was too idealistic for it’s own good.

The League was set up after the First World War, and it was based on Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points. It’s main aim was to avoid another world war. At the beginning there were 42 member nations, although more countries joined as time went by.

To show the good intensions of the League they decided not to have an army. This was too idealistic for it’s own good. This is because they thought people would listen to them, also they thought the member nations would provide them with an army if it was needed. Of course not many countries would listen to them if they didn’t have an army to back them up. Furthermore the member nations were very reluctant to send some of their army in to deal with the situation because they had just had a war.

Join now!

The aims of the League were also too idealistic. They show this in the Covenant; as one of the points is: the acceptance of obligations to go to war. So if another country invaded an ally you would not be to declare war on them. 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 kick the country out, however ...

This is a preview of the whole essay