Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Instructions
1. Choose a question to which you want to respond. Each question is attached as a post. Your post of 250-300 words goes as a "comment" to that post.
2. For your comment of 100-150 words, in the title put your name and to which student's post you are responding. For example, "Valerie commenting on Zlatka's Post". Put it in the section labeled "Comments to Question #__ ". Do NOT put your comments in the same section where you put your original posts.
ALSO... do NOT go back to previous questions. I will no longer look at those.
2. For your comment of 100-150 words, in the title put your name and to which student's post you are responding. For example, "Valerie commenting on Zlatka's Post". Put it in the section labeled "Comments to Question #__ ". Do NOT put your comments in the same section where you put your original posts.
ALSO... do NOT go back to previous questions. I will no longer look at those.
Grading Periods
6th six weeks...last set!
Choose ONE question (#13-15) to answer in a 250-300 work post. Due Friday May 24.
Choose ONE question (#13-15) to answer in a 250-300 work post. Due Friday May 24.
I agree with Hadrien's point of how the League of Nations could have been successful had there been a unified military force, but his point could be approached from a more general perspective which is that the League of Nations could have been successful had they been more organized and better at enforcing policies.
ReplyDeleteGranted, their inability of effectively enforcing policy can be connected with Hadrien's point of there not being a unified military force since lack of organization leads to a non-unified military, but there's more. For example, the Treaty of Versailles created the League of Nations to enforce the blame of World War I onto Germany. It emphasized on Germany to pay reparations and for total disarmament. With the limited power and structure of the League of Nations, they were unable to enforce Germany's disarmament, allowing them loopholes (as can be seen with Germany's team-up with Russia).
Word Count: 149
In reply to Hadrien's comment.
DeleteJ. Emily commenting on Marre's post
ReplyDeleteI agree with Marre’s statement – that the major flaw of the League of Nations and its eventual downfall was its inability to enforce regulations and policies. I also agree that the differences in interests of the great powers involved in the League of Nations were also an important block to progress. What I don’t understand is how accepting Germany into the League of Nations would have made the whole process easier. The League of Nations was formed as part of the deals of the Treaty of Versailles; the Treaty of Versailles was drafted at the end of world war one. As Germany was on the losing side of that war, they would be angry and resentful – rather sullen at their loss, one would think. I doubt that they would really be willing to cooperate with the countries that just, essentially, handed defeat to them.
Word Count: 144
I agree with DanThi's post.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the league of nations would have not worked out. there are several reason as to why it wouldnt have worked out. I agree with you that the League had no army to enforce and that the League was supposed to implement and up hold the decisions that were made in the Treaty of Versailles. But I only agree up to an extend with your reason that decisions were rarely made because members disagreed with one another. Having Germany and US in would of played a major role and would of later helped. I would also add that since the Treaty of Versailles created the League the treaty and the league were hated. so it would of still fallen apart anyways. I believe that the biggest reason why it didnt work out and it would of fallen apart anyways was the inability to enforce the policies aswell as the regulations/
Word count: 157
Delete