League of Nations Failures and Successes League of

League of Nations Failures and Successes

League of Nations LON was a permanent organization that met to discuss and settle disputes through diplomatic means. Collective security: a revolutionary concept (in 1918) where all members had to help protect a member nation from aggression whether or not the incident related to their interests. Money and troops would have to be used regardless of a nation’s stake in the outcome. This was a defense of a principle, rather than protection of vital interests.

Departments Within the League • • • Mandate Commission Drugs Department Slavery Commission Refugee Department International Court of Justice in The Hague International Labor Organization The biggest challenge and factor contributing to the overall effectiveness was the fact that the USSR, US and Germany were - outlaw states that couldn’t (or wouldn’t) join - non-members that had no interest in upholding League or its principles - LON became a protector of the “status quo”, not a defender or arbiter of justice

Greatest loss to the UN (diplomatically, psychologically) Had the most potential to intervene/ keep peace Undermined the credibility of the LON Didn’t accept terms of T. O. V. Exclusion from LON caused resentment and hostility (believed there was a conspiracy)

Consequence of Absence Limited effectiveness of LON reaction to a crisis (depended on collective action and lacked force without the US) Russia and Germany began rearmament and created a defensive alliance (Treaty of Rapallo) – this didn’t offer hope to new E. European nations) Absence diminished the prestige of the LON (many major moves toward peace were resolved without any help from LON (Washington Conference, Locarno Treaty)

Consequence of Absence Without membership of US, there was very little desire (esp. by UK and France) to enforce the TOV in any way that would cause conflict Absence of defeated or banned nations (like SU) meant that it was a league of “victors” – wanted to maintain “status quo” but challenges from other nations made war inevitable Because of absence of US and lack of enthusiasm by the remaining powers – many nations dropped out between 1919 -1939 (there was no penalty for leaving)

Traditional Alliance v. Collective Security Traditional Alliance Made between nations with mutual interests Designed to protect against specific threats or nations Clear terms/obligations Goal of all nations was to protect their vital interests Goals were wellunderstood by all parties Collective Security Abstract No specific threats and doesn’t clarify what response will be used Assumes all nations are equally prepared to defend themselves, share a similar outlook and agree on course of action Unrealistic, idealistic in many ways

Failure of Collective Security Collective security failed because it ignored the realities of situations and circumstances – and required extreme levels of human altruism. Nations needed to: - surrender freedom of action - enforce policies with which they did not necessarily agree - intervene in affairs of nations with which they may have otherwise had a positive relationship Britain and France (the 2 most powerful members) had increasingly differing opinions on how to deal with treaty enforcement and German rearmament.

Lack of Enforcement Few members were willing to take on open-ended commitments involved with collective security An act of armed aggression would not have been publicly supported Most nations saw a military reduction following WWI and there was widespread opposition to using military force to resolve other nations’ disputes (Corfu 1923 - Mussolini – this foreshadowed major problems for the LON)

Early Attempts at Peacekeeping Aaland Islands Upper Silesia Greco-Bulgarian War Failures Successes Ruhr Invasion Fiume Vilna Russo-Polish War Corfu

Contributing Factors for Success Reasons for Failure Antagonists were small/medsized powers Antagonists were major powers that refused to submit to the LON Unwilling to resort to violence/military aggression They were countries determined to resort to violence LON was willing to negotiate and enforce a settlement Major powers in LON couldn’t agree on a course of action