Back
to top
GCSE history AQA - league of nations (usa) question- help
Watch this thread
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
bobbytimpson
Badges:
5
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
‘The main reason why the League of Nations could not stop aggression in the 1930s was because the USA was not a member.’
0
reply
bobbytimpson
Badges:
5
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
(Original post by bobbytimpson)
‘The main reason why the League of Nations could not stop aggression in the 1930s was because the USA was not a member.’
‘The main reason why the League of Nations could not stop aggression in the 1930s was because the USA was not a member.’
0
reply
savya
Badges:
11
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report
#3
(Original post by bobbytimpson)
‘The main reason why the League of Nations could not stop aggression in the 1930s was because the USA was not a member.’
‘The main reason why the League of Nations could not stop aggression in the 1930s was because the USA was not a member.’
‘The main reason why the League of Nations could not stop aggression in the 1930s was because the USA was not a member.’ how far do you agree with this statement? explain your answer. [10 marks]
intro- LON found on the 10th jan 1920, it faced numerous difficulties as the league had no army, the council was far too euro-centric, the great depression mad the world of the league difficult and also, because the USA, the world-s superpower at that time, was not involved in the league.
para 1 yes- USA was very powerful and could've prevented disputes as it was rich and had a strong army
para 2 yes- as the league was Woodrow Wilson's idea (USA president), his own country not joining was a sort of embarrassment and humiliation
para 3 no- league had no army, it was only relying on simply the countries' good intentions. if there had been an army, the disputes would've been easily resolved
para 4 no- the structure of the league was cumbersome, council co sisted of UK Italy France and japan which were the permanent members. obviously, 3/4 of the council was euro-centric and that meant 'less developed' nations won't be heard and would be ignored.
conclusion- agree or not, why and how far
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
