League of Nations: Wrap-Up and Review
Aims of the League
“I can predict with absolute certainty that within another generation there will be another world war if the nations of the world do not work together to prevent it.”
from a statement by the American President, Woodrow Wilson,
made during the peace discussions in 1919.
Describe the aims and work of the League in the 1920s.
The League's Aims
The League of Nations was set up because President Wilson wanted this more than anything else.
He wanted the League to be a kind of ‘world parliament’, where nations would sort out their arguments. He hoped this would stop wars. But Wilson wanted to do more than just stop war; he wanted to make the world a better place. He wanted the League to do things to improve people’s lives and jobs. He wanted to improve public health, and to end slavery.
Wilson also hoped that the League would persuade the nations to agree to disarmament – to put down their weapons. That would make war impossible.
Finally, Wilson thought that the League of Nations could enforce the Treaty of Versailles, and persuade countries to keep the promises they had made.
Describe the aims and the work of the league in the 1920s:
The League of Nations had four main aims:
Firstly, it aimed to stop war. It aimed to discourage aggression and deal with disputes by negotiation. The League planned to provide collective security by a community of power. In Article 10 of the Covenant of the League, members promised to defend the territory and independence of League members and to take action ‘in case of danger’. The League had mixed success in doing this, but during the 1920s, it worked to stop wars – examples are:
-
Silesia, (where the League settled a dispute between Germany and Poland in 1921 by holding a plebiscite),
-
the Aaland Islands (where a League investigation settled a dispute between Sweden and Finland in 1921),
-
Mosul (where the League arbitrated in favour of British Iraq and against Turkey in 1924) and
-
Bulgaria (where Greece stopped its invasion when condemned by the League in 1925),
-
and, even though it was unsuccessful, it also tried to stop a war in Corfu (but Italy refused a League order to leave in 1923).
The second aim of the League was to improve the life and jobs of people around the world – both by direct action to improve health and welfare, and also by encouraging trade and business – and it also worked to do this during the 1920s:
-
it repatriated 400,000 World War One prisoners of war;
-
it helped refugees in Turkish camps (1922);
-
it worked to prevent leprosy, and took steps to kill mosquitoes to prevent malaria;
-
it closed down four Swiss companies which were selling illegal drugs;
-
it attacked slave owners in Sierra Leone and Burma at set free 200,000 slaves;
-
its economics experts helped Austria (1922) and Hungary (1923).
-
Another League agency trying to improve people’s lives was the International Labour Organisation, but it could not persuade member countries to accept a 48-hour week.
A third aim of the League was disarmament and, although it failed in this, it organised one disarmament conference in 1923 (which failed because Britain objected) and another in 1931 (which was wrecked by Germany). However, in 1928, the League did arrange the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which was an Act of the League Assembly, signed by 23 nations and supported by 65, and which outlawed war.
Finally, the fourth aim of the League was to uphold and enforce the Treaty of Versailles, although it was not very successful in this. Over Vilna, the League ordered the Poles to leave in 1920, but was ignored and over Memel, the League tried unsuccessfully to make the Lithuanians leave in 1923.
Source A
The League of Nations has its roots in a popular support far deeper and firmer than shifting governments. To the peasant in France, with the horror of the war seared in his memory, it represents the symbol of a new hope. To the worker, the League's labor office, under the leadership of Albert Thomas, is the promise of a better fortune. The League stands for disarmament, for peace, for international justice, for the protection of backward peoples, for a better standard of living, for the relief of suffering, for the fight against disease, and for all the other forward-looking policies bound up in the longings of mankind for a better world-policies which the people everywhere in Europe, as distinguished from their governments and leaders, are unwaveringly supporting. The people understand the League; at least they know what it aims to accomplish.
Raymond Fosdick, writing in the Atlantic Monthly (Oct 1920)
Fosdick was a wealthy American lawyer who was a lifelong supporter and disciple of Woodrow Wilson. He held a number of government posts where his task was to root out corruption in the government, business and police. He also served on the Education Board of New York, and between the wars he supported Prohibition.
Fosdick believed passionately in the League of Nations.
Source C
Why did the League fail? I can tell you in a word: Wilson. Head in the clouds, so high-minded that he was no earthly use - it failed while it was still in his mind. Its aims were dreams - stop wars, make the world a better place... They were beyond God, never mind the League.
Written by a modern historian (2004).
Source B
Summary
Firstly, the League of Nations aimed to stop war. In Article 10 of the Covenant, members promised to defend other League members. For example the League stopped the invasion of Bulgaria by Greece (1925), and it tried to stop the Italian invasion of Corfu (1923).
The second aim of the League was to improve the life and jobs of people around the world – for instance, it repatriated 400,000 World War One prisoners of war, it worked to prevent leprosy, it closed down four Swiss drug companies, and it attacked slave owners. Also, the International Labour Organisation tried to bring in a 48-hour week.
A third aim of the League was disarmament. It organised disarmament conferences in 1923 (which failed because Britain objected) and in 1931 (because Germany walked out). However, in 1928, the League did arrange the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which outlawed war.
Finally, the fourth aim of the League was to uphold and enforce the Treaty of Versailles, although it was not very successful in this (e.g., the Poles captured Vilna in 1920, and Lithuania seized Memel in 1923).
How Strong was the League?
The League had no means of enforcing its decisions other than the effect of world opinion. If a power chose to be defiant, there was nothing effective that the League could do.
S Reed Brett, European History 1900-1960 (1967).
Describe the organisation of the League of Nations.
What were the strengths and weaknesses of the League of Nations in the 1920s?
Strengths and Weaknesses
The main strength of the League was that it had been set up by the Treaty of Versailles, and agreed by everybody at the conference. When, later, many people started to criticise and attack the Treaty, this was also a major weakness.
1. Organization
One of the biggest weaknesses was that the Organisation of the League was a muddle. The different parts of the League were supposed to act together; but in a crisis, no-one could agree.
2. Membership
Forty-two countries joined the League at the start. In the 1930s about 60 countries were members . This made the League seem strong.
Britain and France were the main members, helped by Italy and Japan; they were quite powerful countries.
A critical weakness was that the most powerful countries in the world were not members. The USA did not want to join. The Russians refused to join – they were Communists and hated Britain and France. Germany was not allowed to join. Without these three big powers, the League was weak.
3. How the League kept peace
The League hoped that it could influence countries to 'do the right thing' by:
-
Community of Power
-
Moral Persuasion
The 'moral power' of the League lay in the League's Covenant, especially Articles 10-17, in which members promised to keep the peace. Many writers have pointed out that this is hardly a very effective deterrent against a powerful country which was determined to disobey the League.
If these moral influences failed, the League had three powers it could use to make countries do as it wanted. Theoretically, the League was able to use military force, but the League did not have an army of its own – so if a country ignored it, in the end, there was nothing the League could do.
The Three Powers of the League
1. Condemnation (the League could tell a country it was doing wrong).
2. Arbitration (the League could offer to decide between two countries).
3. Sanctions (stopping trade).
Source A
If any member of the League goes to war, all the other members will behave as if that member country had declared war on them. They will stop trading with that country. They will advise the Council of the League about any armed action that should be taken.
adapted from the Covenant of the League of Nations (1919).
Source B
One basic weakness of the League was that it was tied in people's minds to the Versailles settlement, and criticism thrown at Versailles fell on the League. The refusal of the USA to join the League and the fact that Britain and France were the only major nations of Europe who remained full members, severely handicapped its efforts.
Written by PJ Larkin, European History for Certificate Classes (1965).
PJ Larkin was a teacher of secondary school pupils, and this is a revision book.
Extra:
1. Does Source C suggest that the League of Nations was powerful when it came into existence?
2. Did the League of Nations have any chance of success?
Links
Organisation Diagram
Podcast:
- Giles Hill on the establishment of the League
A Community Of Power
. . . Mere agreements may not make peace secure. It will be absolutely necessary that a force be created as a guarantor of the permanency of the settlement so much greater than the force of any nation now engaged or any alliance hitherto formed or projected that no nation, no probable combination of nations could face or withstand it. If the peace presently to be made is to endure, it must be a peace secure by the organized major force of mankind.
. . . Only a tranquil Europe can be a stable Europe. There must be, not a balance of power, but a community of power; not organized rivalries, but an organized common peace. . .
from a speech of 1919
The Pact of Paris (1928) and the Relationship of the United States to the World Community (Moral Persuasion)
The development of a community of nations solemnly binding themselves to settle their disputes by pacific means is necessarily a slow and painful process. Some times the moral light of the Pact of Paris seems to grow dim, but I have faith that in the end the principles represented by that treaty will prevail. But this much we know-over 50 nations representing practically the entire population of the world regard war not only as a moral issue but as an economic catastrophe, and its elimination the supreme task of their generation. It is inevitable that this be so. Each generation seems to have its tasks of human advancement. Each generation that is worth while penetrates a new frontier of human advancement. Our world, shrunk by means of travel and communication to a very small area, can go no farther in this development until the scourge of war has been eliminated. All efforts a human betterment are held in abeyance until our generation can answer the question: "Can war be finally eliminated and the habit of peace be the means for the settlement of disputes?" Despite all of the dangers of the hour, I believe that in the last 15 years, through the Pact of Paris, the League of Nations Covenant, the various systems of arbitration and conciliation and the education of the people, the world has made more progress in the elimination of war than in all the previous centuries.
An Address Delivered over the Columbia Broadcasting System, October 30, 1935 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/kbpact/kb1935.htm)
