2007-02-16 19:10:19 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
The League of Nations failed because it had no authority. The modern United Nations has some authority. The Korean conflict was a U.N. war, but the U.N.'s strength relies on how many countries decide to participate.
2007-02-16 19:35:08 · answer #1 · answered by ripcurt 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The League of Nations was worth while in the sense that for the first time in history an attempt was made to try to resolve international conflicts without recourse to war. It failed miserably in that. However, some of the organisations it set up, such as the WHO survive under the auspices of the UN today. It might have worked if the nations of the world had been more committed to furthering international well being rather then own nationalist agendas. The League was set up in a time when totalitarian ideologies, such as Nazism, Fascism and Stalinism were on the rise. Against such ideologies the Leagues moralist, idealistic approach to international relations stood little chance. The ideals on which the League was founded are still valid. In that sense the League was before its time.
2007-02-17 04:36:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The League of Nations did work for a wile but When the big test came it didn't work. The League was able to calm the Balkans down but Japan, Italy, and Germany had more power then the League had. Without the US it just couldn't control the high powers of the world.
The Idea was good it was to make it powerful. If it could call in troops then the League could control a rouge nation.
2007-02-22 08:35:33 · answer #3 · answered by MG 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The league of Nations had many successes, but it didn't have an Army to enforce any of it's resolutions, so it relied on the Great Powers to enforce its mandates. This was a useless idea because a country could always vote to apply sanctions but refuse to enforce them. The League's two most important members, Britain and France, were reluctant to use sanctions and even more reluctant to resort to military action on behalf of the League. Even though US President Woodrow Wilson had been a driving force behind the League's formation, the United States Senate voted on November 19, 1919 not to join the League.
The League also further weakened when some of the main powers left in the 1930s. Japan began as a permanent member of the Council, but withdrew in 1933 after the League voiced opposition to its invasion of the Chinese territory of Manchuria. Italy also began as a permanent member of the Council but withdrew in 1937. The League had accepted Germany as a member in 1926, deeming it a "peace-loving country," but Adolf Hitler pulled Germany out when he came to power in 1933.
Another major power, the Bolshevik Soviet Union, was a member only from 1934, when it joined to antagonise Germany (which had left the year before), to December 14, 1939, when it was expelled for aggression against Finland. When expelling the Soviet Union the League broke its own norms.
Another important weakness of the League was that it tried to represent all nations, but most members protected their own national interests and were not committed to the League or its goals. The reluctance of all League members to use the option of military action showed this to the full.
2007-02-16 20:49:02 · answer #4 · answered by dpanic27 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well,the League of nations failed but it was successful in bringing a new and powerful organisation called the UN.The United Nations is very powerful today.It has many branches in the entire world and has succeded in bringing about co-operation
in the world up to a certain extent.
The success of UN conveys the success of The League of nations indirectly.So as far as I am concerned,the league of nations has succeded in its aim.
The Leaue of nations and United Nations are not so different.The UN has 191 countries as its members which means all the countries in the world except one.I am not sure about the one but I think its the VETICAN CITY.
2007-02-16 19:44:26 · answer #5 · answered by Ana C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The biggest problem when it was set up was the voting system to start with. The powers where given votes dependant on how many countries, size of land it ruled as an Empire.
Also, as the majority of people in the world had not concerns on Global matters, more on close borders, or power struggles between Empires over trade etc, it really had no chance of working.
2007-02-21 23:42:36 · answer #6 · answered by Kevan M 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Japanese walked out of the League of Nations in the 1930s and from that point on it went into decline.
2007-02-16 19:58:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just like it's replacement - the UN. Too many countries thinking they can impose their way of thinking on the rest of the world and trying to hide the fact that they're feathering their own nest at the same time.
2007-02-16 20:55:06 · answer #8 · answered by cymry3jones 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Like the United Nations, it had no real power. It had no teeth behind any of its decisions.
2007-02-16 19:19:59 · answer #9 · answered by IAmDamon1 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not to mention that a growing major power, the USA, never joined.
2007-02-16 20:52:48 · answer #10 · answered by iansand 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋