These dramatic events were only the culmination of a number of significant events throughout the 30´s, which clearly demonstrated the League of Nation´s inability to uphold international stability and peace, the core of the League´s purpose, as emphasised in it’s theories of Collective Security and Disarmament . Such events included the Manchurian Crisis, in which Japan, affected by the depression and the lack of export, felt obliged to expand it’s territory to provide greater resources and living space to it’s population. As this meant going against the League of Nations, an opposition took place, resulting in Japan leaving the LON, allowing such nation to succeed in it’s operation with no consequences whatsoever. This event underlines once again the lack of authority the LON suffered in it’s attempt to provide world wide peace. A second example providing proof of the League’s powerlessness is the failure of the Disarmament conference, which, similarly to the League, was too ambitious and incapable of satisfying such great amount of members. The German refusal to be part of an organisation which emerged from the Treaty of Versailles also heavily affected the LON’s credibility and authority, as such nation was held responsible for the first world war. Further proof can be found in the Abyssinian crisis and the Munich Pact, which once again delineate the LON’s restricted authority.
Finally, with the Munich Pact, France and the United Kingdom conceded the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany in a direct violation of their military alliance with Czechoslovakia. Here two Nation-States were rigorously pursuing their own national interests to damaging another Country, ally even. This unilateral pursuit of security interests by individual nations is in stark
contrast to the ideas and intentions of Collective Security proposed by the League of Nations, which by this time was incapable of any action.
Equally, the above key examples of individual Nation-States aggressively pursuing their own interests throughout the 1930´s is in contrast to the rampant optimism and clear willingness to collaborate internationally that seemed to prevail throughout much of the 1920´s. Perhaps under the impression of the still fresh horrors of WWI, a conviction that only through working closely together on numerous fronts could Collective Security be effectively achieved. This general atmosphere of positive willingness to collaborate lead to a number of highly ambitious proposals and initiatives, including the International Court of Law, the disarmament conference, itself hopelessly over ambitious hoping to succeed in the coordination of the wishes of 59 countries.
Perhaps this, initially well intended, over ambitiousness of the League of Nations was the most detrimental factor leading to its ultimate failure. The change in atmosphere between the 20´s and the 30´s is truly remarkable. It begs the question: why? How could, within the time frame of little more than a decade, the willingness to collaborate internationally diminish into the aggressive attitude countries developed in the attempt of satisfying their own individual goals, leading ultimately to the Second World War?
The following key reasons stand to show the reason for the failure of the LON and the strategy of Collective Security: the sanctions didn’t work as the league had no army to gain authority, the nation who actually created the league never joined (USA) and Britain + France weren't strong enough to impose peace, the organisation of the league was too elaborated making simple operations require years to be put into practice, the depression made countries desire more land and more power as they were more worried about their own problems than the international issues, as the league kept failing nations ended up ignoring it, the main members let the league down as Italy and Japan were more interested in satisfying their own needs and France and Britain betrayed it,.
Ultimately, a contract, or covenant is only as good as the true intention and willingness of those that make part of it. If the partners, and especially the major players, continuously undermine and counteract the agreement, it must ultimately fail. This was the fate of the LON covenant. It was so ambitious and far-reaching, it wanted too much from too many too fast. Even the key proponents of the covenant were not able keep their promise once their National interests were seen as even potentially threatening. In the end, national sovereignty was of great importance and overcame internationalism and the League of Nations.