League of Nations - Doomed To Fail.
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009
by Connor Davidson
In my opinion the League of Nations was from the start doomed to fail.
<
/div>
More comments
<
The League of Nations was set up with the primary goal of keeping world peace. I don't know about you, but World War Two does not sound all that peaceful. One then must think League of Nations was a failure, and in may respects it was. This article deals with how it failed and why.
The League of Nations started flawed. It was too pedantic about the countries that could get in for a start. The Russians were not allowed to join because they were communist. The Germans were not allowed in because the victors of World War One were snobs. "Ah, Germany is a defeated nation it can not get into our "club"." Does anyone know why not allowing one of the most industrialized countries in the world in an organization to keep peace is a good idea? In addition to, two of the most powerful countries in the world not being allowed in the most powerful - America - would not even join the club they themselves set up. So what does this leave... Britain and France - the most powerful... eh, BANKRUPT nation. Has anyone spotted a pattern yet?
To further illustrate the weakness of the League of Nations, their sanctions were no good either. Their sanctions consisted of first gathering nations together to discuss their problems. If one country disagreed they may declare war on the nation they disagreed with. The League of Nations would come down on them... take them round the back and give them a good kicking? No, they sent them a letter. I'm sorry but when was the last time Mr Hitler felt threated by a stern letter - I think not too often.
They would then go onto impose "economic sanctions". This was ment to result in no country trading with the aggressor. However, not may countries would lose up to a few billion pounds worth of trade because the League of Nations told them too. There for, the league failed yet again.
The final sanction was that the League of Nations would declare war on the aggressor - hypocrites. The aggressor would then probably say "and with what army?" The League of Nations did not even have an army. Now how do you declare war with out an army? The members did not want to go to war over what does not concern them so they remain neutral.
So the League of Nations was bound to fail on its main goal of keeping world peace. However they did have some success against small countries like Greece who were scared of the League of Nations. They did also do a lot of humanitarian work and set up The World Health Organization. But really they did overall fail. Do you not agree?
Connor Davidson is a UK based writer. He writes on wide variety of topics with his main interest being science, maths and engineering.
Feel free to reprint these articles on your website by using the reprint button. If you have any questions or comments please post them below - I read all comments.
You can keep up to date with his writings by following him on twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/Connor_Davidson.
Feel free to reprint these articles on your website by using the reprint button. If you have any questions or comments please post them below - I read all comments.
You can keep up to date with his writings by following him on twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/Connor_Davidson.
This Article has been viewed 3,992 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsgreat writing i think
Great research into your subject matter and a great effort in trying to make it passionate.
Hi - yes! there are many failures and yet it was the first global dialogue of this nature - and the WHO made it all worth it.Your points are well taken. Can the United Nations do any better? Perhaps - but non-the-less it's what we've got - and it is a discussion...first comes the "dream or ideal" and then ways of implementing and bringing it to life....this may be the process - a slow - painful birth!Look on the bright side...it can't really get much worse - so perhaps it will get the support it takes to make it better. That's not just each country's commitment - but individual commitment to find a solution and dialogue - and means of living in peace - for all. Politicians come and go - but once the people have their heart set on a destination of Global peace - there's nothing that can keep a good idea whose time has come - from happening!Good Fortune to you - thanks so much for taking the time to detail this for us! CherylThank you for your comments. I think the UN will do better as they can learn form the League of Nations mistakes. Well at least I hope so.
Your too smart...it gets annoying...btw...who is angelina jolie??? lolI found out! She is in films.
This article was quite humourous.Definately well written. Keep it up!
Hi Connor, I love your topics. I always learn. Unfortunately, I was a terrible history student, but since then, I have come to love it, so I enjoy your writing. It is easily understood and flows nicely. Keep it up. Blessings to you! TeresaThank you for your kind comments.I have just written another called "Tsar Ivan – The Man Behind the Monster" it will be online soon if you are interested.
Great article it just shows how corrupt our goverment is. They thrive off of conflictAn interesting comment. Thanks for your comments, they are appreciated.
i think that the way you wrote this essay was incredible, not too antagonising. but still interesting i was going to take parts out of it until i realised the common use of sheer sarcarsm.Thanks for the comment.
interesting read but the league of nations actually sorted out problems such as :RefugeesWorking hoursHealthTransportI do agree with many of your points but you've got to consider that there were some positive things about it.But why were America with drawn, i no their president died, Woodrow Wilson but why wasn't the new president interested in joining The League of Nations??America did not want to take part in Europe's problems as they had just recently got brought into a war.I should have included the other things you mentioned but I wanted to keep it short and interesting - I did put in some positives at the end. Also note the aim of the article was to explore why it failed.Thanks for the comment.
i agree with you.everything youve said is true,which just shows how corrupt England and France were.you are a great writer ;-)
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.
Copyright 2012 IcoLogic, Inc.
Viewed from Cache.
Load time: 0.000 seconds.
Load time: 0.000 seconds.