CriticismCrisisEvidence For Evidence Against

there was no mention of a delay and the league of nations proceeded to act and condemned Greece to pay compensation. Although Greece argued it did comply with the rules.  ACTING IN THEIR OWN INTEREST, NOT THEE LEAGUE’SVilna 1920 Britain or France, in the end, did not want to send their troops to force Poland out of Vilna because of personal problems (France did not want a potential war enemy or sway Poland as Germany’s ally and Britain didn’t want to go alone). They attempted to punish the aggressor, Poland, and afterwards attempted to enforce the decision.Upper Silesia 1921There seems to be no obvious evidence that the members acted in their own interest. However, when they created a watched safeguard between Poland and Germany it is possible for them to exploit the information they may gather from there. We can see much evidence of the league acting righteously. Firstly, they created a democratic plebiscite to decide the new border, so that it is what the people want. They also wanted to sustain this new peace agreed by both sides by building safeguards and trade links.Most importantly, we can see that France and Britain committed to the leagues ruling entirely and sent their own troops to make sure order was kept at the polling booths.  (learnt mistake from Vilna)Aaland Islands 1921There seems to be no obvious evidence that the members acted in their own interest.We know that the league’s members acted in the league’s interest as a potential war was avoided. They studied the issue between Sweden and Finland closely until they decided to give the islands to Finland. Sweden accepted the ruling.  Corfu 1923(most useful for exam)Suggested Greece to pay compensation, but to the league. Furthermore, it was evident that not a lot of effort was put into reinforcing their ruling, possibly a lack of care?The league rightly condemned Mussolini’s actions and Mussolini officially agreed. The Geneva Protocol 1924First of all, there is evidence from the Corfu incident that the league of nations could undermine its own members (meaning they are not complying to the equality law fully). Also, we know that Britain didn’t always put their membership in the league of nations first as when they had a general election, the conservative government refused to sign the protocol, as they were worried Britain would be forced into something that wasn’t in its own interests. On the other hand, members such as Britain and France wanted to create this protocol to help the progress within the league of nations, showing they cared. It was also in the league and members’ interest to diffuse two members’ disputes effectively. Bulgaria 1925(most useful for exam)The Greeks complained. They said that there seemed to be one rule for the large states (i.e. Italy) and another for the smaller (i.e. themselves).The league of nations did respond to the Bulgarian plea and succeeded in preventing a war between the two countries.WITHOUT USA THEY ARE POWERLESSVilna 1920 Poland felt it had a good chance (no threat) when they refused. Then, the league wouldn’t enforce their ruling by troops because of issue of allies and selfishness that would have been overcome if they had the backing of USA. It is appalling that in the end, nothing happened and the Poland kept Vilna. This was the leagues first case so were inexperienced. They did make the right ruling but had problems in enforcing however it is also probable the league thought it was better to appease Poland to accomplish their main aim- no war. Upper Silesia 1921There is no evidence showing that if USA was a member it would have helped the situation and solved it any better. We know that predominantly Britain and France were doing well without USA in this crisis as the rapidly put into affect a democratic plebiscite, supervised it and laid down strategies to prevent present and future wars. All was agreed without a fuss. Aaland Islands 1921The only possible evidence for this criticism is that it may be argued that the league did not come to the correct decision. Because they accepted the ruling shows that the league are doing well without USA.Also, war was prevented. Corfu 1923(most useful for exam)Mussolini disobeyed the decision by asking the Conference of Ambassadors for a second opinion, the ruling was changed and the Greek had to apologise. It shows that possibly the Conference of Ambassadors were more powerful. The act of Greece appealing to the League of Nations shows that it felt that they would be able to help therefore there must have been some level of respect and sense of power for the league internationally. Evidently, a war was successfully prevented- the main aim. The Geneva Protocol 1924Because from the Corfu incident the league admitted that members can be undermined. It is probable with USA it would never have got this way. Furthermore, as Britain didn’t sign it, it actually weakened the league instead of wanting to strengthen it. Because we know that Britain and France were trying to make progress within the league and thinking ahead. It is just unfortunate the conservative government wouldn’t sign it- plus, even if USA were a member it doesn’t mean Britain would have signed it then.Bulgaria 1925(most useful for exam)Greece complained and disagreed with the orders (although obeyed) and it is possible to say that if USA was a member Greece might have conformed more easily and silently. The Greeks obeyed, ultimately, to the response of the league and did all that was asked without force. Furthermore, the Bulgarians trusted the league with the matter as they only sent a military warning, not a plan of attack/defence. Page