Why did the league of nations fail?
Just want to compare some others peoples ideas to my own, so that i can get a better background for my essay 
Scroll to see replies
They did dumb stuff, hope that helps.
Here is a list of reasons:
USA in splendid isolationism, undermined any trade sanctions because it obviously did not observe them. (Russia's lack-of membership to some extent was the same). Also a great deal of income was lost due to the lac-of membership of these two Nations. Conceptually as well, the Nation that proposed the LON model was not a member (Woodrow Wilson proposed the creation of the LON), undermining its founding from the start.
Undermining of the League by its own members, specifically the Axis Powers (Germany Italy and Japan), this can be shown by:
Corfu Incident (Italy)
Abyssinian Invasion (Italy)
Re-militarisation of the Rhineland (Germany)
Refusal to pay reparations as well as build-up of Military (Germany disobeying TOV, the LON's responsibility to make sure that G observed and adhered to it)
The Anschluss (Germany)
Invasion and annexation of Manchuria (Japan)
Leaving the LON (Germany Italy and Japan)
These acts in themselves did not cause the decline of the LON rather it showed the weakness of the league: causing a loss of faith within the international community as regards to the League's capability of protecting the weaker and smaller states. Essentially the League boiled down to only B & F who also relied only marginally in its capabilities.
Furthermore the League was undermined by the only two members that really supported it (B & F), during the Abyssinian crisis the respective foreign ministers of B & F (I forget their names) secretly drew-up a contract that circumvented the LON entirely, this undermined the influence and power of the LON.
No military to back-up any warnings or threats issued by the LON
Trade sanctions were frequently ignored by members (Including by B & F) for economic and financial reasons
There were no consequences to disobeying the League, thus the dictators of the Axis powers simply did as they pleased, B & F followed a policy of appeasement which further weakened the League. It became absolutely irrelevant once the Axis Powers simply ignored it.
That is as much as I remember from my IGCSE days.
USA in splendid isolationism, undermined any trade sanctions because it obviously did not observe them. (Russia's lack-of membership to some extent was the same). Also a great deal of income was lost due to the lac-of membership of these two Nations. Conceptually as well, the Nation that proposed the LON model was not a member (Woodrow Wilson proposed the creation of the LON), undermining its founding from the start.
Undermining of the League by its own members, specifically the Axis Powers (Germany Italy and Japan), this can be shown by:
Corfu Incident (Italy)
Abyssinian Invasion (Italy)
Re-militarisation of the Rhineland (Germany)
Refusal to pay reparations as well as build-up of Military (Germany disobeying TOV, the LON's responsibility to make sure that G observed and adhered to it)
The Anschluss (Germany)
Invasion and annexation of Manchuria (Japan)
Leaving the LON (Germany Italy and Japan)
These acts in themselves did not cause the decline of the LON rather it showed the weakness of the league: causing a loss of faith within the international community as regards to the League's capability of protecting the weaker and smaller states. Essentially the League boiled down to only B & F who also relied only marginally in its capabilities.
Furthermore the League was undermined by the only two members that really supported it (B & F), during the Abyssinian crisis the respective foreign ministers of B & F (I forget their names) secretly drew-up a contract that circumvented the LON entirely, this undermined the influence and power of the LON.
No military to back-up any warnings or threats issued by the LON
Trade sanctions were frequently ignored by members (Including by B & F) for economic and financial reasons
There were no consequences to disobeying the League, thus the dictators of the Axis powers simply did as they pleased, B & F followed a policy of appeasement which further weakened the League. It became absolutely irrelevant once the Axis Powers simply ignored it.
That is as much as I remember from my IGCSE days.
(edited 13 years ago)
Post above is very good.
Basically the small nations had no power to protect themselves cos the league were total pussies when it came to dealing with larger countries such as Italy and Germany.
You get man points if you include the word "pussies" in your essay.
Basically the small nations had no power to protect themselves cos the league were total pussies when it came to dealing with larger countries such as Italy and Germany.
You get man points if you include the word "pussies" in your essay.
Basically everyone agreed to stick together in one massive... gang? And if anyone got attacked, EVERYONE would wade in and back up the victim. Almost immediately, every country decided it didn't want to be as generous after all. So the covenant of the League of Nations was a big promise which nobody ever wanted to fulfill. If you think about it, foreign policy is almost always concerned with that nation's own interests - so why should, for example, Britain and France help Manchuria? Or Abyssinia? (Those are your two essay-busting examples!)
Original post by Afrikaans Boytjie
Furthermore the League was undermined by the only two members that really supported it (B & F), during the Abyssinian crisis the respective foreign ministers of B & F (I forget their names) secretly drew-up a contract that circumvented the LON entirely, this undermined the influence and power of the LON.
They were Hoare and Laval - the Hoare-Laval Pact.
It could be argued that Britain and France didn't really support the League because they wouldn't commit militarily.
Perhaps most important is the absence of the USA, even though Woodrow Wilson came up with the idea in the first place. Because the USA wasn't in, economic sanctions like oil embargos failed - American oil would still get to Japan or Italy in the examples I mentioned
Original post by Clumsy_Chemist
Basically everyone agreed to stick together in one massive... gang? And if anyone got attacked, EVERYONE would wade in and back up the victim. Almost immediately, every country decided it didn't want to be as generous after all. So the covenant of the League of Nations was a big promise which nobody ever wanted to fulfill. If you think about it, foreign policy is almost always concerned with that nation's own interests - so why should, for example, Britain and France help Manchuria? Or Abyssinia? (Those are your two essay-busting examples!)
Or Poland?
Wait..
This is about the failure of the league, I accept that Britain and France manned up when it came to Poland, even if it was too late by then
Original post by gladders
I'd argue it was in the absence of a power like the United States with the capability to cower the rest of the world - that and nukes.
What nukes?
In my opinion it was due to the League's dependence on its greatest powers, the UK and France. When they refused to support the League in the fact of aggression (Manchuria) the League was undermined, then definitively killed with the Abyssinian Crisis: British and French politicians Hoare and Laval made a secret deal to divide Abyssinia between the UK/France/Italy, which leaked to the public in the UK and France. This showed the world that the UK and France didn't really care about collective security and the League. With no support from its two biggest powers the League died.
Original post by OllieS
In my opinion it was due to the League's dependence on its greatest powers, the UK and France. When they refused to support the League in the fact of aggression (Manchuria) the League was undermined, then definitively killed with the Abyssinian Crisis: British and French politicians Hoare and Laval made a secret deal to divide Abyssinia between the UK/France/Italy, which leaked to the public in the UK and France. This showed the world that the UK and France didn't really care about collective security and the League. With no support from its two biggest powers the League died.
Here is your answer really
We had a nice acronym that we used last year for this. FAILURE.
French and British self-interest
Absent powers (USA+USSR)
Ineffectiveness of sanctions
Lack of armed forces
Unfair treaty (Versailles)
REaching decisions too slowly
French and British self-interest
Absent powers (USA+USSR)
Ineffectiveness of sanctions
Lack of armed forces
Unfair treaty (Versailles)
REaching decisions too slowly
It should have prevented WW2 really
Original post by garethDT
You know what the simple answer to this question is?
It didn't fail at all.
We now have the UN.
It didn't fail at all.
We now have the UN.
Technically the UN is proof of the League's failure. If the League hadn't failed then it would still exist and not have been replaced by the UN.
Because people hate each other.
Original post by spottyslope
Technically the UN is proof of the League's failure. If the League hadn't failed then it would still exist and not have been replaced by the UN.
But the UN is a lot stronger than the league of nations ever was, you could even argue that WW2 meant that the league in its new form, the UN, much more powerful, and another step towards a one world government.
It was meant to protect the status-quo after the War, so despite all those wonderful ideas propagated before the Versailles conferences and all the efforts smaller and then, dependent countries/colonies made during the War, it basically was an instrument of oppression. It failed because everyone could right see through the scheme and like a self fullfilling prophecy eventually broke apart.
Original post by JetLeechan
It was meant to protect the status-quo after the War, so despite all those wonderful ideas propagated before the Versailles conferences and all the efforts smaller and then, dependent countries/colonies made during the War, it basically was an instrument of oppression. It failed because everyone could right see through the scheme and like a self fullfilling prophecy eventually broke apart.
Self-fulfilling prophecy or broke by design? Could it not be plausible that there were some sinister individuals involved in the Versailles treaty who stood to gain from another war? The real winners in any war are the arms dealers and banks, could it not be that they had some influence?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- gcse history qa paper 1 exam
- Hi can anyone give me a mark for this history essay out of 12 pls? Thanks
- Disparity between national and international league tables?
- Is Bukayo Saka the face of the Premier League?
- A-Level History Coursework
- Help me pick out my Igcses, Please - A homeschool person
- Interested In Playing Sport at University?
- So much disdain for King's College London on student forums?
- btec national diploma in early years
- Which university is better for job placement in business analytics
- Accounting and Finance personal statement
- PPE Activities?
- Will Everton get relegated in 2022/23?
- studying dentistry in france
- I failed my national 5 prelims. What now?
- Need urgent advice and help please
- Dismissed in Final year medical school over 0.1%
- Civil Service pre-employment checks failed
- I NEED HELP!! (US university’s)
- Rugby at Exeter
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
