How did collective security develop, in particular between WWI and WWII?

By Diederik ten Brink, IS11

The United Nations is a major organization build on the principle of collective security. In this essay it will be discussed how collective security developed, in particular between WWI and WWII. To understand collective security, one must first understand tradition alliances.

Traditional alliances were alliances between nations with similar interests, mostly as protection against other nations. These alliances contained terms, terms about what nations needed to do and what their obligations to the other nations involved in the alliance were. Nations acted in their own national interest, meaning that they allied with nations to benefit themselves solely.

Collective security is a system in which states try to prevent wars by collective decisions. (“collective security”) Collective security is not based on national interest, it is based on the aim to try to prevent a conflict, and thus maintaining peace. The main principle of collective security is that nations in collective security system have to act in behalf of the system and peace instead of their national interest. However, for collective security, nations need to give up some sovereignty, since the countries involved collectively decide what to do or support. In collective security, selfish national interests are trumped by the “greater good” of peace. In order to maintain peace, nations in a collective security system are expected to stand firm against aggression.C

However, as perfect as it may sound, there are problems with collective security, as it is difficult for countries to stand up for the system, while they have no interest in the case. Governments might have difficulties explaining to population why they are doing things, if its not in their interest.

Richelieu, a French adviser of the king in the 17th century, first described collective security. ("What Happened to the Head of Cardinal Richelieu, after His Death?") However, at that time it was less focused internationally. In 18th century, a number of attempts were made to promote collective security, however, they were not very successful.

Later, in the 19th century, after the Napoleon conquest of Europe, European powers sought for ways to keep peace in Europe. The main outcome was the Concert of Europe. (“Concert of Europe”) The Concert of Europe was a system to prevent wars in Europe. It wasn’t a system in which countries were obliged to keep to certain rules and always support each other in order to maintain peace. However, it was a series of congresses at which the powers would discuss European matters in order to maintain peace and to keep talking instead of making war, solving disputes through diplomacy. If disputes occurred the nations/countries would together decide which side they would support. For the first half of the 19th century, the congress system worked very well, and little disputes occurred. However, as rivalry among the nations increased through the 19th century, the nations shared less and less common interest and were busy with domestic problems due to revolutions, enabling Prussia to be able to attack other countries in the German wars of unification(1848-71). This showed a major flaw in the system; that national interest may differ per nation, which may drive the nations apart and dividing them effectively. When the map of Europe was once again altered at the congress of Berlin, the old balance of power had changed and the congress system was replaced by alliances leading up to and partially causing the First World War.

This is a preview of the whole essay

When armistice was signed, the US president Wilson wanted a permanent peace in Europe, to give meaning to the deaths of so many people. He wanted to use the principle of collective security to achieve this aim; therefore most of the ideas were based on collective security. ("Wilson - A Portrait | League of Nations.") The idea was to establish an organization that could prevent wars through “disarmament, international coorperation, open diplomacy, restrictions on right to wage wars and penalties for making war.” (Cannon, Martin 52) The key article of the League of Nations was article X, it stated: “all members undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and political independence of all members of the League.” Article X stated that the powers in the League should assist in handling aggression by other nations, even if it is not in their national interest. Not only was the League to prevent conflict, it also had to deal with humanitarian and economic issues. As such, the League of Nations would have mandates, which it would administer until the countries could stand on their own feet. The League would have its own headquarters, with civil servants to administer departments of the League. The League of Nations written in the Treaty of Versailles, so the signing countries would automatically become members.

It seemed as a good plan, but very idealistic and unpractical. There have been centuries of traditional diplomacy, in which countries had acted in the interest of the country; therefore it is difficult for politicians to explain why their country should intervene somewhere while the country has no benefit. Another major problem with the League was that the defeated countries of WWI were not invited into the League. The main idea of the League was to become an international community, not inviting the countries defeated in WWI meant that a large number of countries was already excluded. The USSR was also excluded from the League, because it was feared by the other European nations and America. Though not excluded from the League, the US didn’t join the League of Nations. Though it was President Wilson’s idea to setup the League, the US could not join because the senate rejected it. The absence of the US was catastrophic, as it was the most powerful and wealthy nation. As other major powers that in the League were severely weakened, it was hard for the League to enforce its decisions.

A fundamental problem of the absence of three Great Powers (USSR, US, Germany) was that the League was based on collective action, however with many great powers not involved, it was hard to both put pressure on countries and enforce its decisions. For example, if economic sanctions were to be put on a country, the country could still trade with the other 3 major powers. The exclusion of Germany and the USSR became especially visible in 1922, when they signed their Treaty of Rapallo, in which they agreed to extend their diplomatic recognition, cooperate economically and militarily, and both denounced reparations. Germany was able to develop weapons forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles and produce weapons that were forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles. Not only did the absence of 3 Great Powers limit the League’s enforcement, it also harmed their prestige. (“League of Nations”) The League was supposed to be a fair organization promoting peace talks and its members to take collective decisions, however its validity and legitimacy was questionable because 3 Great powers were not involved. The League seemed more as an agency to enforce the Treaty of Versailles than an impartial arbiter. Its association with the unpopular and unjust Treaty of Versailles caused its decisions not to be seen as impartial, but rather pro-French or pro-British, since they were the nations to benefit from the Treaty of Versailles.

The withdrawal from the US had another effect; it made the British uncertain of whether to support the League, since they didn’t have the US to back them up. This made the British more cautious and less willingly to enforce the League’s policies. There was a major difference in attitude towards the League, the French saw the League as an enforcer to enforce the Treaty of Versailles, while the UK saw the League more as a peacekeeper.

Another major flaw of the League was that countries could join and quit when they wanted, so as soon as they didn’t agree or wanted to go to war, they could simply leave the league. There were no sanctions for leaving the League, therefore a lot of important countries left the league, diminishing its power to enforce its decisions even further. The map below shows which countries were in the League, or temporarily in the League. It shows that a lot of countries quit the league when things became difficult.

From the its establishment, the League of nations had major problems. The main problem was that the countries in the League didn’t agree on which side to support when conflicts arose. Between 1920 and 1923, in a conflict between Turkey and Greece, France and Britain took opposite sides. Politicians of countries in the League continued to follow their national interest rather than trying to maintain peace.

“The Dutch refused to relinquish the Kaiser, and Germany did no surrender alleged war criminals. Nor did she disarm on schedule or meet reparation quotas. Austria could not and did not pay reparations. Poland did not accept her frontiers; Italian troops did not evacuate Fiume; and Turkey did not accept the Treaty of Sèvres. Nothing much happened. The will to enforce the treaties was lacking or at best divided.”

(Traynor, J.)

The historian Traynor, J. acknowledges that countries within the League were divided and didn’t even respect treaties. The League was meant for countries to collectively decide on which position to take in case of disputes, however, it failed at this due to countries within the League following their own national interest. At some points, the League was successful; when the two sides were willing to talk, the League was often successful at bringing the two sides together and resolve the matter through diplomacy (for example; The Greco-Bulgarian War of 1925). However, at matters which involved sides that were non willing towards cooperating, the League of Nations didn’t have enough power to enforce anything. The League had some successes and failures, however, when the world was heading towards another war again in the 1930s, countries could simply quit the league without any consequences. The League didn’t have enough power and willingness of the countries in the League to prevent WWII. The League of Nations was finally dissolved in 1946.

After WWII, it was widely believed that the world couldn’t afford a third world war, therefore the United Nations was established. The United nations was based on the principles of the League of Nations and Wilson’s ideas, however this time all big powers cooperated (France, the Republic of China, the USSR, the UK and US), making it much more effective. It quickly grew and now 191 countries are members of the United Nations. The United Nations seems successful at preventing large scale wars, since no world war has occurred since its establishment. However, it is questionable if this is because of the UN, or because countries have prioritized peace.

As weapons became more powerful, countries have been seeking for ways to prevent wars in order to prevent destruction. Collective security has played a large role in the prevention of wars. The development of collective security has taken a long time and by learning from mistakes in the past, mankind has learned to prevent wars. However, wars still occur and the system isn’t complete yet.

Sources

"Concert of Europe." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 22 Feb. 2012. <>.

Cannon, Martin. 20th Century World History: Course Companion. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. 52-59. Print.

File:League of Nations Anachronous Map.PNG. Photograph. Wikipedia. By Allard Postman. Wikimedia Foundations, 26 Jan. 2007. Web. 22 Feb. 2012. <File:League of Nations Anachronous Map.PNG>.

Traynor, J. 1991. Challenging History: Europe 1890-1990, London, UK. Nelson. P. 123

"What Happened to the Head of Cardinal Richelieu, after His Death?" Aarticles: Thematic Catalog of Articles. Aarticles.net, 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2012. <http://aarticles.net/culture-art-history/11635-chto-stalos-s-golovoj-kardinala-rishele-posle-ego-smerti.html>.

"collective security." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 22 Feb. 2012. <>.

"Wilson - A Portrait | League of Nations." PBS. American Experience and PBS, 2001. Web. 22 Feb. 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/portrait/wp_league.html>.

"League of Nations." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 22 Feb. 2012. <>.

How did collective security develop, in particular between WWI and WWII?

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

Causes of WWI and WWII

Why did collective security fail to keep the peace between 1920 and 1935?

Why did the policy of Collective Security established by the League of Nati...

Causes of WWII