May the League of Nations be considered a complete failure? Answer this question and develop a deep analysis.

Authors Avatar

History                19/4/2011

May the League of Nations be considered a complete failure? Answer this question and develop a deep analysis.

After the defeat of the Central Powers in World War One, not only did a torn and patched up Europe assist to the signature of the rigid Treaty of Versailles, but it was also a witness to the creation of a new international body: the League of Nations. Ideated by some of the most eminent statesmen across the continent, and incorporated by the American president Woodrow Wilson in his renowned “14 Points”, it was established at a time of great economic and financial hardships, where the first global conflict in the history of mankind had left most nations unstable and on the verge of crisis. The birth of the League of Nations represented the materialization of “an expression of a widely held belief that the world was entering a new age in which international anarchy would be overcome by the creation of an effective organization that would ensure peace (Kitchen, p.47)”. Its main objectives were therefore to promote reconciliation amongst both previously existing countries and new states, and to solve all disputes through collective cooperation, in the attempt to strengthen relations and avoid the possibility of war in the future. It aimed to achieve such goals thanks to a combined action of all its participating members, which were expected to intervene together in the case of any dispute or the unreasonable violation of peaceful coexistence, through economic sanctions and military mobilization -if necessary. It is extremely difficult to determine to what extent did the organization succeed. Although during its first years the League did work within its possibilities to fulfill its mission and appeared to have reached a general consensus, not a long time was needed for its weaknesses to become more and more evident. Even if the principles upon which it was developed brought along a great surge of optimism, its strong lack of overall support and incapability to handle such a widespread situation left it powerless and inefficient. Due to a variety of factors, the League of Nations was fatally destined to failure, and in 1946 ceased to exist.

As the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations were devised and generated almost contemporarily, it is not surprising that these were strongly linked. The most logical consequence of such overlapping was that the League was bound to benefit only those victorious nations which had won the war. At the same time, it was obliged to defend the peace treaty even if by many it was considered unjust or exaggerated, and even if the terms of the settlement did not satisfy the promises which had been previously made to some nations, for example those on which Italy relied to gain new territory. On the other hand though, even if the international organization was mainly a product of what had once been American beliefs and politics, the United States refused to join the League and also rejected the agreements which had been made at Versailles, choosing to revert to a policy of isolation and preserve their own affairs. Similarly, Russia was not invited to join as it had previously retreated from the war in 1917, whereas Germany would only join later in 1926. The absence of America deprived the League of Nations of military support and of psychological motivation, in addition to causing a tangible financial loss. Russia, whose internal tension and government acted against the capitalist system in Europe, would still have been a powerful and useful ally in the case of any threat. Therefore without the support of the two countries and without the third on its side, the League would have found itself helpless if the “ambitions of an economically and militarily revived Germany were to be frustrated (Kitchen, p. 52)”. Their absence also signified that the initial aim of collective security was bound to remain unaccomplished, as it was impossible for the organization to possess an armed military force of its own. There was no possibility for a united intervention if the League of Nations was to be challenged.

Join now!

The League of Nations was also founded upon the idea that the League Covenant, or its very set of rules and regulations, should be included in the peace treaties signed. In such manner, the actual existence of the League itself would not only be consolidated and operate properly, but its decisions could neither be ignored or avoided. Complications were bound to arise as the Covenant was “necessarily vague (Kitchen, p.48)” and requested the support of troops from all nations- many of which had however undergone four years of fighting and whose army had fallen apart, in addition to ...

This is a preview of the whole essay