Could the League of Nations have worked? Other than the US joining the League, what are three other conditions that could have helped the League be more effective? Choose one to explain.
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.
The League of Nations would not have worked even if the US had joined the League. One reason is because the League had no army to enforce and decisions it made. The League was supposed to implement and up hold the decisions that were made in the Treaty of Versailles, but because the League did not have an army or any way of enforcing agreements, countries like Germany could slide by without having any real implication. Another reason why the League would've still failed is because the Assembly could only make a decision by a unanimous vote, so therefore decisions were rarely made because members disagreed with one another. A third reason why is because any member that disagreed with whatever the League did could simply just leave – France and Italy left the League because they disagreed with it, and the League wasn't strong enough to stop them or do anything against it. Furthermore, Germany and Russia were not allowed to join the League right away – Germany as punishment for starting WWI, and Russia couldn't join because it was still a communist state at the time and therefore the League couldn't associate itself with it. With these two countries along with the US, the League was lacking three great powers that played a major role in WWI which later helped lead to the issues the League had in concern to not being able to enforce rules properly or have the ability to control big countries like Italy. In addition, the Treaty of Versailles created the League, and since the treaty was hated, the League was loathed as well. Due to these reasons, had the US joined, the League would've still fallen apart, but just at a slower rate.
ReplyDeleteWord count: 288
Other than the U.S. joining the League of Nations, three conditions that could’ve helped the League be more effective would be: to have an enforcement force, admit Germany, and a difficult process to leave the League.
ReplyDeleteAlthough an enforcement force would’ve been extremely helpful for the various situations that had occurred during this time period (Vilna in 1920), it wasn’t the most pertinent condition that would’ve benefitted the League. Eventually there would’ve been an issue amongst the Great Powers on which country would be in control of the enforcement force. Even if one was chosen, a possibility of bias opinions against certain countries could exist. The same can be said about a policy making it more difficult for individuals to leave the League as the lacking of an enforcement army would make it difficult to enforce the policies revolved around membership.
The League would’ve benefitted the most with the immediate admittance and inclusion of Germany. One of the main reasons Hitler was able to come into power was because of the bitterness Germans had towards conditions within the Treaty of Versailles. By being admitted into the League, it would’ve provided an opportunity for Germany to attempt to get their points across, and provide a greater chance for a country to actually support them.
Eventually, the League would’ve collapsed due to the differing foreign policies and interests of World Powers. For example, Japan wanted to have a larger naval force, but the U.S. and Britain wouldn’t allow it. A great comparison would be to Bismarck’s Alliance System. At the time of its conception, it was a great idea that brought a period of peace within Europe, but the personal interests of individual states (Prussia, Russia) eventually caused the System to fail and wars resulted, such as the Russo-Turkish War.
Word Count: 298
The League of Nations could never have worked because other than the United States not joining it, it lacked military enforcement, Germany and America joining the League, and the success that it needed to be seen as something that is not completely useless.
ReplyDeleteWithout military enforcement of its decisions the arms race continued because there was no one to actually go in and enforce the Versailles treaty, and urging a country through words would not really convince them to discontinue an action. Also the whole idea of the League of Nations was that all countries would have to work together to come to a solution on issues which is something that had been a problem in the past.
With Germany irritated by the amount of reparations they had been required to give because of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany did not get involved with the League of Nations and Hitler came to power. Without German involvement in the League of Nations, Germany had no way to easily express doubt and concerns they had internationally. America never got involved with the League either and as one of the strongest nations in the world they could help the lack of influence Britain and France had that could have been imposed in the League.
The more the League of Nations failed to do what it sought out to do (prevent war such as the one between Greece and Bulgaria in 1925) people began to doubt in the League’s capabilities. Eventually as the lack of success increased the League of Nations began to be completely ignored as an important international organization.
Word Count: 267
The League of Nations was an organization that was created in order to ensure that war would no longer occur and that world peace would reign in its place. There are some fundamental issues with the league that caused for it to fail. Other than the United States joining the league, Germany joining, effective means to carry out their suggestions and no supporting Collective Security are three other conditions that could have helped the League of Nations.
ReplyDeleteThe League proclaimed that they were the promoters of peace and greatly supported the idea of collective security which said that an attack on one was an attack on all. In theory it was a good idea, one that would intimidate the nations of the world into not provoking conflict and fighting, however the idea had no teeth, should a nation choose to go against it and start conflict with another nation, there were no serious ramifications, other than the disapproval of the league which was not very threatening.
By creating and supporting this idea of collective security the league made itself weak, they had proclaimed that they would protect all those that were under attack, however when a nation did begin conflict, collective security backfired.
An example, in which collective security backfired, was when Japan invaded Manchuria and created Manchukuo. Afterwards Chine protested and the League decided to issue the Lytton report which demanded that Manchuria be returned to China. Japan refused, and left the league.- Which showed the entire international community that the league had no power and that this idea that was supposed to be intimidating, and was supposed to limit conflict, in all actuality did nothing at all, and that served to further discredit any of the league’s ideas.
Word Count:290
The League of Nations was an organization that was created in order to ensure that war would no longer occur and that world peace would reign in its place. There are some fundamental issues with the league that caused for it to fail. Other than the United States joining the league, Germany joining, effective means to carry out their suggestions and no supporting Collective Security are three other conditions that could have helped the League of Nations.
ReplyDeleteThe League proclaimed that they were the promoters of peace and greatly supported the idea of collective security which said that an attack on one was an attack on all. In theory it was a good idea, one that would intimidate the nations of the world into not provoking conflict and fighting, however the idea had no teeth, should a nation choose to go against it and start conflict with another nation, there were no serious ramifications, other than the disapproval of the league which was not very threatening.
By creating and supporting this idea of collective security the league made itself weak, they had proclaimed that they would protect all those that were under attack, however when a nation did begin conflict, collective security backfired.
An example, in which collective security backfired, was when Japan invaded Manchuria and created Manchukuo. Afterwards Chine protested and the League decided to issue the Lytton report which demanded that Manchuria be returned to China. Japan refused, and left the league.- Which showed the entire international community that the league had no power and that this idea that was supposed to be intimidating, and was supposed to limit conflict, in all actuality did nothing at all, and that served to further discredit any of the league’s ideas.
Word Count:290
*not supporting
DeleteCould the League of Nations have worked? The answer is simple, yes, if it had included an enforcement method, a solid disarmament clause, and had allowed more nations to join. The main weakness or the League was it’s lack of enforcement power, when a problem arose, the League could do nothing but suggest it’s policies be used. The group could talk all they wished, but as Mussolini proved when he took Ethiopia, they could not make any nation follow their suggestions. The lack of a formal enforcement group kept the League on the sidelines in global conflicts, giving aid to refugees and providing homes for those who were driven out. With an enforcement group, the League could have upheld the treaty that founded it, instead of allowing many nations, including Germany, whom the treaty focused on, to find loopholes and occasionally ignore the terms. This lack of respect for the Treaty of Versailles is shown on many occasions by Germany, as well as across many nations in regard to the disarmament clause. This talk is not meant to say that the League of Nations did nothing productive over it’s existence, there were many victories that the League achieved over the years. It’s problem solving, when heeded, provided peace and settled disputes amongst many countries. There could have, however, been a larger number of countries aided by the League if a method of enforcement was in place to carry out Leage decisions. Events in which attacking nations ignored the warnings of the League could have been dealt with, and Europe might have kept that system, rather than evolving it into the United Nations.
ReplyDeleteM. Barry: 278
The League of Nations was a sick dog that could not be really be helped. As seen with legislation that it passed, there really was no way to enforce their decisions, causing for some bad situations in between mega powers in Europe.
ReplyDeleteSomething that should be addressed would be the way the treaties were taken by Germany. Germany hated everything the league did. This would lead to some major resentment by to the league. Even though the league didn’t enforce the laws themselves, France had a watchful eye on Germany, which made Germany follow them, but nothing could stop the attacks that Germany would inevitably make. France was a policing power, but as for the League of Nations as a whole, there was no enforcement that could be made. An army should have been put into place like the peacemakers.
In a treaty of Rapallo DBQ, there was certain areas where the legislation passed by the League of Nations were challenged and the question was asked whether or not the progress that the league made was actual progress as people believed that the league “Sidestepped the real issues” such as addressing the atrocious situation in Germany where the post-war depression was hitting Germany hard. The League of Nations should have realized the country would want to strike back after being put into the situation it was put into and SHOULD have sent aid. Britain eventually tried to compensate for the harshness by giving the when Hitler tried to seize Czechoslovakia, but it was too little too late.
With that, it can be seen that the League of Nations was effectively useless when it came to addressing the real issues and being able to enforce the legislation it passed with force.
290 Words
Eli Diaz
The League of Nations would have never worked even if the US had joined the League. It wouldnt have worked because of various reasons : because the League had no army,there was no military enforcement so there was no way of enforcing agreements.Another reason why the League would've still failed is because the Versailles treaty wasnt enforced. The lack of respect for the Treaty of Versailles shows that the League of Nations didn't accomplish a lot. Another reason is that anyone could leave just like that if they disagreed they could leave,the league wasnt strong enough. The League would’ve benefitted the most with Germany. By being admitted into the League, it would’ve provided an opportunity for Germany to attempt to get their points across about how they had international concerns and doubts.
ReplyDeleteThe League of Nations was missing three great powers that were really important during WWI which then later they helped. US nevertheless got involved and since they were one of strongest nations they could of helped. The league of nations would have not worked because of foreign policies, Even if the US had joined it would of fallen apart still.
Word count 254
Daniela Cedillo
I do not believe your statement is necessarily true. In the first sentence you stated that the League o Nations would have never worked even if the US had joined, and I strongly disagree, I believe the US could have changed the outcome of the League of Nations majorly. Though I do agree that that it did not work due to the fact there was no military enforcement, and thus the League of Nations rulings were not respected. But I do believe if there was a way of enforcing agreements such as the Treaty of Versailles, the outcome would have been better. You also said that anyone could leave the League of Nations at any time but in the United Nations as well you can do that; being in the League of Nations gave the country benefits and connections, and if they chose to leave, it would ultimately be their loss.
DeleteWord Count: 150
While the League of Nations was founded on many theoretically successful ideas, these ideas were, as implied, only successful theoretically. The League of Nations actually lacked the ability to both establish and enforce the different regulations and ruling that it came up with if one or more of the parties affected with the regulation or ruling didn't want to comply, especially if one or more of said parties involved were a world or European power. On top of that, considering the differences between the different nations and countries that made up the League of nations, it proved extremely difficult for the League of Nations to stay together as the interests and goals/policies of the major powers drifted apart over time. Had the League of Nations accepted Germany, things would have been a lot easier; the Germans were unhappy with the treatment they received from things such as the Treaty of Versailles and things would have been much easier for the League of Nations to handle had they accepted Germany. Had America been able to join as well, it would have greatly strengthened the League of Nation's ability to both make and enforce different policies and regulations. The League of Nation's inability to enforce or keep members led to conflict -- and its eventual dissolving -- when powers such as France and Italy simply left after disagreeing with some of the decisions made. The League of Nation's inability to enforce anything, combined with the difference of interests between each of the countries involved, is one of the main reasons it would not have been successful even if other countries such as Germany and America had joined.
ReplyDeleteWord count: 275
There is no doubt that the League of Nations, established as a result of World War 1 to enforce the Treaty of Versailles and facilitate international diplomacy, was a respectable effort, as was once the Concert of Europe, to avoid international conflicts through compromise and diplomacy. However, this unprecedented organization was restricted by various crucial shortcomings: the lack of military strength to back up its decisions or intents, the lack of required commitments forced upon member parties, and its failure to enforce the Treaty of Versailles from the very beginning.
ReplyDeleteIn theory, the ideas brought forward by the league were a great step in the direction towards world peace, and became an essential part of international politics as we know them today. Unfortunately, no matter what the league put down on paper, they were unable to truly enforce their rulings. No unified forces were put together, meaning that military involvement depended on the voluntary actions of individual members. Hence, members had no true incentive to send troops under the League of Nations unless they had a certain interest in the specific event or conflict. So basically the end result was the same as the times before the league; besides the fact that the backing of an international force could help a certain country that is hesitant to engage in a conflict take that extra step. This was definitively their key failure, and led to their inability to enforce the Treaty of Versailles as well as their inability to truly deal with key issues.