What Were the Main Criticisms of the League of Nations and To What Extent Were the Criticisms Justified?

WHAT WERE THE MAIN CRITICISMS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS AND TO WHAT EXTENT WERE THE CRITICISMS JUSTIFIED?

In a time where military action was one of the greatest methods used to resolve issues and disputes between nations, it is not surprising that the idea of international cooperation was a frequently discussed concept. Prior to the League of Nations, there had been other attempts at achieving international peace such as The Hague Conferences (1899 and 1907) and the International Red Cross (est.1864). The League of Nations was established in 1920 to preserve peace and improve the living conditions of people globally. It was an organization originally promoted by US President Woodrow Wilson, which involved a total of sixty-three countries of which only twenty-eight remained in the League for its entire existence. There was great support for a World League following the First World War due to the magnitude of destruction caused by the War. Furthermore, the idea that war could be prevented through alternative measures to military action also led to the formation of the League. Over the twenty-six year lifespan of the League of Nations, there were many events which displayed the weaknesses of the League, and led to the formation of many criticisms of the organization. These criticisms included the idea that the League was too idealistic in its ambition to achieve international peace, the lack of international participation and membership in the League, and the impression that the League was quite powerless and lacked the capability to make a significant step towards the preservation of world peace.

Although the League appeared to be quite unsuccessful in achieving its goals, the organization was not a complete failure. There were many accomplishments of the League, more of which were at a social rather than political level, which justify more recognition than the organization received. For the reason that the League had several successes as well as numerous failures, the many criticisms of the League, though for the most part valid, are not entirely justified.

There are many instances which clearly illustrate the criticisms of the League of Nations. Firstly, the invasion of the Ruhr in 1923 showed a weakness within the principles of the League because it appeared somewhat hypocritical. The Treaty of Versailles had outlined that Germany was to pay reparations for damages caused by the War. In 1922, when Germany failed to pay an instalment of the reparations, France and Belgium decided they would take action. Germany stated that they did not have the capacity to pay the instalment, however in 1923 the French and Belgium’s invaded one of Germany’s most important industrial zones known as the Ruhr. France was a key member of the League, which made this event seem somewhat hypocritical of the League since France, a member of the League, was clearly breaking rules within the Covenant of the League.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Another event which led to even greater criticisms of the League occurred between 1935-1936 when Italy, led by Benito Mussolini, engaged in aggressive attacks on Abyssinia (presently Ethiopia). At the time, Mussolini wanted to create a Fascist Roman Empire, the rebirth of the ancient Roman Empire, which had possessed great amounts of territory. Mussolini saw great importance in the expansion into Africa, and already had possession of Libya, Eritrea and Italian Somaliland. Control of Abyssinia would link Eritrea and Italian Somaliland, which would be a great territorial gain for Italy. The country had made previous attempts at conquering Abyssinia in 1896, where they suffered an embarrassing defeat that added an element of vengeance to Mussolini’s plan. When Mussolini attacked Abyssinia, the League of Nations was prompt to act and, condemning Mussolini’s actions, decided to implement economic sanctions on Italy. These sanctions had little effect since Italy still had access to steel, copper and oil, all of which are valuable goods during times of military activity. Aside from the economic sanctions, the League also stopped the trade of arms to the area. In the end, the measures taken by the League had almost no effect and led to criticism of the ability of the organization to control major conflicts.

There are other events within the history of the League, which exemplify some of the successes of the organization. A dispute over the Aaland Islands in 1921 between Finland and Sweden was successfully resolved by the League of Nations. Both countries had made claim for the islands, which were situated between the two nations. The League had decided the islands were to go to Finland, and both countries willingly accepted this decision. This success of the League was settled quickly and without conflict.

The League also was responsible for many successes at a social level. They created many organizations such as the Health Commission and the International Labour Office. The Health Commission started a campaign to eliminate leprosy, which was seen successful. The League also was involved in many third world countries, with a fresh water campaign, women and child slave labour campaign and assistance in drug addiction. The League of Nations was the first organization to confront social problems, which in itself was seen as a positive result of the League, because it increased the awareness of many social issues. The League was unarguably very successful in the social concerns they challenged.

The League was greatly mocked for its lack of cooperation and participation among its member nations, and criticized for not including a few essential countries. Lack of cooperation is evident in both the Invasion of the Ruhr and Italy’s conquest of Abyssinia. It is even perceived by some that reason League involvement in Abyssinia failed, was because of the lack of ambition and collective effort of the League members. The League has been criticized since its foundation in 1920 when the United States would not join the League. The US was a powerful country, and could have added both a tone of significance and power to the organization. Other criticisms involving the membership of the League deal with the hostile attitude of particularly the British and the French towards the fascist and communist nations. The Invasion of the Ruhr demonstrates how the attitude of countries following the War led to opposition of League members against other nations. It is difficult to fully justify criticizing the League of its weak membership because it is a challenge to predict the influence the United States may have had on the League. However, because it is evident that the League of Nations failed to fully include all nations, such a criticism is somewhat valid.

Criticizing the League as being an ineffective, unaccomplished organization is understandable given a quick glance at the many League failures, however it is for the most part not completely justifiable. The League did have many failures at a political level such as her involvement in Abyssinia, however there were other successes of the League. One brief example is the dispute which was settled by the League over the Aaland Islands in 1921. In this incident, both Finland and Sweden respected the power of the League and thus approved the League’s decision to allocate the Islands to Finland. Although the League did have many failures at a political level, this may be explained by the timeframe in which the League was forced to operate. In such an incident like Italy’s conquest of Abyssinia, perhaps the League’s capabilities were restricted by the fear of pressing Mussolini into allying with Hitler. This may have reduced the power and ability of the League, thus it is not completely justifiable to deem the League powerless. The League of Nations was also very successful in its social campaigns and both established many organizations and brought awareness of world problems. Thus, the League was greatly successful and competent at a social level. Nevertheless, since the League had many failures within its time it is to some extent justifiable to question and criticize the strength and ability of the League of Nations.

Lastly, the criticism that the League was an organization supported by overly idealistic concepts, is perhaps one of the most justifiable criticisms of the organization. In order for the League to have functioned properly, it had to involve the majority of nations in the world, and treat them equally. The Invasion of the Ruhr in 1923 demonstrates one instance in the history of the League where the discrimination against Germany, particularly by Britain and France, had carried on from the War and the Treaty of Versailles. The League of Nations was quite idealistic in stating all countries would be treated equally, because it failed to consider that the attitudes and beliefs of nations would impact the ability to do so. A second fundamental principle of the League was that nations would have to put the interests of the organization ahead of national self-interest. During Italy’s conquest of Abyssinia, the League would only go to the extent of implementing sanctions on Italy. Had they closed the Suez Canal, they would have perhaps greatly stifled Italy’s military abilities, however because it was not in the best interests of Britain and France to close the Canal, the League could not act to the best of their ability in Abyssinia. Both of these key principles of the League are justifiably too idealistic, because it is clearly evident within the history of the institute that these views were rather impractical. Therefore, criticizing the League as having a too idealistic platform is to a great extent justifiable.

The League of Nations has been a commonly criticized organization, of which it’s membership and cooperation, its power and capacity to deal with situations, and its idealistic platform are all analyzed and judged. For the reasons above, being that the League was both somewhat triumphant and unsuccessful in the challenges it assumed throughout its existence, many of the criticisms of the League can only be justified to a certain extent. Although for the most part valid, the previously presented criticisms are not entirely justifiable.

Bibliography: