Which reasons explain the failure of the League of Nations select two options

While the League of Nations could celebrate its successes, the League had every reason to examine its failures and where it went wrong. These failures, especially in the 1930’s, cruelly exposed the weaknesses of the League of Nations and played a part in the outbreak of World War Two in 1939. During the 1920’s the failures of the League of Nations were essentially small-scale and did not threaten world peace. However they did set a marker – that the League of Nations could not solve problems if the protagonists did not ‘play the game’.

Article 11 of the League’s Covenant stated: “Any war or threat of war is a matter of concern to the whole League and the League shall take action that may safeguard peace.”

Therefore, any conflict between nations, which ended in war and the victory of one state over another, had to be viewed as a failure by the League.

The first crisis the League had to face was in north Italy In 1919, Italian nationalists, angered that the “Big Three” had, in their opinion, broken promises to Italy at the Treaty of Versailles, captured the small port of Fiume. The Treaty of Versailles had given this port to Yugoslavia. For 15 months, an Italian nationalist called d’Annunzio governed Fiume. The newly created League did nothing. The situation was solved by the Italian government who could not accept that d’Annunzio was seemingly more popular than they were – so they bombarded the port of Fiume and enforced a surrender. In all this the League played no part despite the fact that it had just been set up with the specific task of maintaining peace.

The next crisis the League faced was at Teschen, which was a small town between Poland and Czechoslovakia. Its main importance was that it had valuable coalmines there, which both the Poles and the Czechs wanted. As both were newly created nations, both wanted to make their respective economies as strong as possible and the acquisition of rich coal mines would certainly help in this respect.

In January 1919, Polish and Czech troops fought in the streets of Teschen. Many died. The League was called on to help and decided that the bulk of the town should go to Poland while Czechoslovakia should have one of Teschen’s suburbs. This suburb contained the most valuable coalmines and the Poles refused to accept this decision. Though no more wholesale violence took place, the two countries continued to argue over the issue for the next twenty years.

Many years before 1920, Vilna had been taken over by Russia. Historically, Vilna had been the capital of Lithuania when the state had existed in the Middle Ages. After World War One, Lithuania had been re-established and Vilna seemed the natural choice for its capital.

However, by 1920, 30% of the population was from Poland with Lithuanians only making up 2% of the city’s population. In 1920, the Poles seized Vilna. Lithuania asked for League help but the Poles could not be persuaded to leave the city. Vilna stayed in Polish hands until the outbreak of World War Two. The use of force by the Poles had won.

In 1920, Poland invaded land held by the Russians. The Poles quickly overwhelmed the Russian army and made a swift advance into Russia. By 1921, the Russians had no choice but to sign the Treaty of Riga, which handed over to Poland nearly 80,000 square kilometres of Russian land. This one treaty all but doubled the size of Poland.

What did the League do about this violation of another country by Poland?

The answer is simple – nothing. Russia by 1919 was communist and this “plague from the East” was greatly feared by the West. In fact, Britain, France and America sent troops to attack Russia after the League had been set up. Winston Churchill, the British War Minister, stated openly that the plan was to strangle Communist Russia at birth. Once again, to outsiders, it seemed as if League members were selecting which countries were acceptable and ones that were not. The Allied invasion of Russia was a failure and it only served to make Communist Russia even more antagonistic to the West.

The Treaty of Versailles had ordered Weimar Germany to pay reparations for war damages. These could either be paid in money or in kind (goods to the value of a set amount). In 1922, the Germans failed to pay an instalment. They claimed that they simply could not rather than did not want to. The Allies refused to accept this and the anti-German feeling at this time was still strong. Both France and Belgium believed that some form of strong action was needed to ‘teach Germany a lesson’.

In 1923, contrary to League rules, French and Belgian troops invaded the Ruhr – Germany’s most important industrial zone. Within Europe, France was seen as a senior League member – like Britain – and the anti-German feeling that was felt throughout Europe allowed both France and Belgium to break their own rules as were introduced by the League. Here were two League members clearly breaking League rules and nothing was done about it.

For the League to enforce its will, it needed the support of its major backers in Europe, Britain and France. Yet France was one of the invaders and Britain was a major supporter of her. To other nations, it seemed that if you wanted to break League rules, you could. Few countries criticised what France and Belgium did. But the example they set for others in future years was obvious. The League clearly failed on this occasion, primarily because it was seen to be involved in breaking its own rules.

The border between Italy and Albania was far from clear and the Treaty of Versailles had never really addressed this issue. It was a constant source of irritation between both nations.

In 1923, a mixed nationality survey team was sent out to settle the issue. Whilst travelling to the disputed area, the Italian section of the survey team became separated from the main party. The five Italians were shot by gunmen who had been in hiding.

Italy accused Greece of planning the whole incident and demanded payment of a large fine. Greece refused to pay up. In response, the Italians sent its navy to the Greek island of Corfu and bombarded the coastline. Greece appealed to the League for help but Italy, led by Benito Mussolini, persuaded the League via the Conference of Ambassadors, to fine Greece 50 million lire.

To follow up this success, Mussolini invited the Yugoslavian government to discuss ownership of Fiume. The Treaty of Versailles had given Fiume to Yugoslavia but with the evidence of a bombarded Corfu, the Yugoslavs handed over the port to Italy with little problem.

All of these failures were secondary to the two major ones in the 1930’s. What they did show the world was that the League could not enforce a settlement if it did not have the ability to do so and dictators were keen to exploit this where they could. Prior to the troubles experienced in Western Europe in the 1930’s, the League had to deal with two major problems and it fell down on both – Manchuria and Abyssinia.

Related Posts

• League of Nations Successes

Question

Which reasons explain the failure of the League of Nations? Select two options. The League of Nations was not authorized by the Treaty of Versailles. President Wilson did not support the creation of the League of Nations. The League of Nations was created by the unpopular Treaty of Versailles. The United States was unable to convince any other nations to join the league. The US Senate did not allow the US to become involved in the League of Nations.

i need the right answers

Answer #1

Answer:

The US Senate did not allow the US to become involved in the League of Nations.

The League of Nations was created by the unpopular Treaty of Versailles.

Answer #2

Answer:

the 2 last ones

Explanation:

2020 marked the 75th anniversary of the foundation of the United Nations. Created in the aftermath of the Second World War, the UN was established to preserve international peace and security, and to prevent any future conflict.

The United Nations was not the first global organisation to be formed with the intention of maintaining peace. It has now been over century since the League of Nations, a similar body established to resolve international disputes, was founded following the Paris Peace Conference and the Treaty of Versailles.

In hindsight, we know that peace in Europe only lasted for roughly two decades after the Treaty of Versailles was signed. This occurred despite the creation of the League, which had been designed for the sole purpose of preserving unity.

So, what went wrong for the League, and why did it fail to prevent a second world war?

Was the League of Nations too utopian and doomed to fail and what is its legacy?

Background

In January 1918, the president of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, detailed his ‘Fourteen Points‘. Within his speech, Wilson outlined his vision for ending the Great War and proposed ways in which such a disastrous and deadly conflict could be avoided in the future.

Key to this vision was the establishment of “a general association of nations” – Wilson’s 14th point. The President blamed secret alliances between nations as the cause of the First World War and thought that in order to maintain peace, all states should commit to fewer armaments, reducing trade barriers, and encouraging self-determination.

Woodrow Wilson 28th President of the United States. (Image Credit: Public Domain).

This would be achieved with the creation of a ‘League of Nations’, where a universal rule of law would exist, encouraging member states to function as a collective. The League would be comprised of an Assembly, Council, Permanent Secretariat, and an International Court of Justice. The principal idea was that nations in a dispute could approach the League and the Court for arbitration and a collective ruling.

It soon became apparent, however, that the League was unable to resolve international disputes. Barring a few exceptions, the organisation ultimately failed in its goal to prevent a global conflict. It is important to understand the several factors that contributed to this reality.

Structural and functional weakness

The League, with its headquarters in Geneva, consisted of a few large powers and several smaller nation states. A country’s power and influence on the global stage, however, did not reflect its relative authority within the organisation.

All states were equal and could cast a vote on Assembly matters. The League of Nations operated on a system of universal consent, rather than majority rule. This meant that in order for a decision or ruling to be made, all members had to vote unanimously in favour of it.

League of Nations Commission. (Image Credit: Public Domain).

As progressive as this process was on paper, it was founded upon the false assumption that internationalism had replaced nationalism as the principal force shaping the policies of member states. In reality, all nations maintained their own vested interests and were often not prepared to sacrifice or compromise in order to resolve disputes.

The impractical system of unanimous voting soon came to undermine the League as it was quickly realised that little could be accomplished if each nation possessed the power to jeopardise an otherwise unified call for action through a single veto.

Absence of the United States

The absence of the United States as a League member has often been attributed as a main cause of its failure. Having proposed its creation, Wilson toured America to gain public support for the international project. Unfortunately, he was fiercely opposed in Congress.

Reservationists, led by Henry Cabot Lodge, supported the idea of the League, but wanted the United States to have greater autonomy within the organisation. It was claimed that America would be burdened by obligations that might force them to declare war.

Lodge achieved a Senate majority when Wilson refused to compromise, denying the United States’ entry into the organisation it had founded.

The Gap in the Bridge. Cartoon from Punch magazine, December 10, 1920, satirizing the gap left by the U.S. not joining the League. (Image Credit: Public Domain).

The United States’ non-membership damaged the League’s reputation and its ability to function effectively. Their absence undermined the League’s message of universal solidarity and cooperation. Here was a prime example of a nation acting in its own interest, something Wilson had strongly condemned.

The United States’ absence would have practical consequences too. France and Britain, the two remaining Allied ‘powerhouses’ in the League, had been crippled economically by the war, and they lacked the strength to enforce discipline and diplomacy.

The Great Depression

The Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the resulting global economic depression led many countries to adopt isolationist policies to protect their internal economies. Isolationism contributed to a growing disinterest in the League, consequently damaging the organisation’s reputation. The Great Depression demonstrated that a policy of international cooperation was often abandoned in times of crises.

When share prices on the New York Stock Exchange collapsed, it was the most devastating stock market crash in the history of the United States, signaling the beginning of the Great Depression. To find out more about this iconic event in 20th century history, Rob Weinberg spoke to Dr. Noam Maggor, Lecturer in American History at Queen Mary University.

Many governments reverted to nationalism to sustain their national pride. This occurred in countries such as Germany, Italy and Japan, where economic strife facilitated the rise of dictatorships and aggressive foreign policies.

Lack of military strength

Countries within the League were actively encouraged to disarm, supposedly secure in the knowledge that any disputes could be resolved diplomatically in Geneva.

Ultimately, the League relied on good faith between member states. After such a disastrous war, most governments were reluctant to offer any military support. Moreover, the League had urged them to reduce the capacity of their armed forces.

Should diplomacy fail, however, the League possessed no backstop. Without its own military force and a guarantee that member states would offer support, it lacked any power to prevent aggression. This would soon be exploited by nations such as Japan and Italy.

Toothless response to crises

When an international crisis loomed, the inherent weaknesses of the League were cruelly exposed. In 1931, Japanese troops invaded Manchuria. China appealed to the League, which deemed the invasion to be an unprovoked and immoral act of aggression. Japan’s intentions were clear, yet the League could hardly retaliate.

The League’s response was to establish a Commission of Enquiry lead by Lord Lytton. The culminating report took over a year to produce and condemned Japan’s actions. It concluded that Japan should leave Manchuria, but that Manchuria itself should be run as a semi-independent country.

An information film produced the US Army Signals Corps about the Battle of China. This motion picture film explores Japanese aggression.

Japan did not accept these proposals. Instead of leaving Manchuria, they simply resigned from the League in 1933. This unearthed the League’s impotence to resolve conflicts, and exposed a critical flaw in its functionality – there was no obligation to remain in the organisation. As Japan had demonstrated, if a nation did not agree with the ruling of the Court of International Justice, it could simply exit the League.

It was not long before other member states exited the League. After the Italian invasion of Abyssinia (1834), Mussolini removed Italy from the League despite British and French to appease the dictator, which contradicted the organisation’s principles in itself. Germany also resigned in 1935 as Hitler’s desire for conquest and annexation steadily grew.

Italian Artillery Corps in Abyssinia, 1936. (Image Credit: Public Domain).

Britain shortly abandoned the idea that stability within Europe and Asia could be achieved through the League of Nations. Neville Chamberlain’s adoption of an appeasement policy in the 1930s confirmed Britain’s desire to seek peace through independent mediation, rather than international collaboration. Unfortunately, neither approach successfully prevented what would become the deadliest global conflict in history.

Tim Bouverie has a look at the old questions about appeasement. Was it right to appease Hitler in order to buy time to re-arm? Why did Chamberlain and Halifax not take action when the Rhineland was re-occupied, or during the Anschluss of 1938, or during the occupation of the Sudetenland?