1. Failures and Successes
League of Nations
Failures and Successes

2. League of Nations
LON was a permanent organization that met to discuss and settle disputes through diplomatic means. Money and troops would have to be used regardless of a nation’s stake in the outcome. This was a defense of a principle, rather than protection of vital interests.
Collective security: a revolutionary concept (in 1918) where all members had to help protect a member nation from aggression whether or not the incident related to their interests.

3. Departments Within the League
The biggest challenge and factor contributing to the overall effectiveness was the fact that the USSR, US and Germany were - outlaw states that couldn’t (or wouldn’t) join - non-members that had no interest in upholding League or its principles - LON became a protector of the “status quo”, not a defender or arbiter of justice
Mandate Commission
Drugs Department
Slavery Commission
Refugee Department
International Court of Justice in The Hague
International Labor Organization

4. Didn’t accept terms of T.O.V.
Greatest loss to the LON (diplomatically, psychologically)
Had the most potential to intervene/ keep peace
Undermined the credibility of the LON
Didn’t accept terms of T.O.V.
Exclusion from LON caused resentment and hostility (believed there was a conspiracy)

5. Consequence of Absence
Limited effectiveness of LON reaction to a crisis (depended on collective action and lacked force without the US)
Russia and Germany began rearmament and created a defensive alliance (Treaty of Rapallo) – this didn’t offer hope to new E. European nations)
Absence diminished the prestige of the LON (many major moves toward peace were resolved without any help from LON (Washington Conference, Locarno Treaty)

6. Consequence of Absence
Without membership of US, there was very little desire (esp. by UK and France) to enforce the TOV in any way that would cause conflict
Absence of defeated or banned nations (like SU) meant that it was a league of “victors” – wanted to maintain “status quo” but challenges from other nations made war inevitable
Because of absence of US and lack of enthusiasm by the remaining powers – many nations dropped out between (there was no penalty for leaving)

7. Traditional Alliance v. Collective Security
Made between nations with mutual interests
Designed to protect against specific threats or nations
Clear terms/obligations
Goal of all nations was to protect their vital interests
Goals were well-understood by all parties
Abstract
No specific threats and doesn’t clarify what response will be used
Assumes all nations are equally prepared to defend themselves, share a similar outlook and agree on course of action
Unrealistic, idealistic in many ways

8. Failure of Collective Security
Collective security failed because it ignored the realities of situations and circumstances – and required extreme levels of human altruism. Nations needed to: - surrender freedom of action - enforce policies with which they did not necessarily agree - intervene in affairs of nations with which they may have otherwise had a positive relationship Britain and France (the 2 most powerful members) had increasingly differing opinions on how to deal with treaty enforcement and German rearmament.

9. Lack of Enforcement
Few members were willing to take on open-ended commitments involved with collective security
An act of armed aggression would not have been publicly supported
Most nations saw a military reduction following WWI and there was widespread opposition to using military force to resolve other nations’ disputes
(Corfu Mussolini – this foreshadowed major problems for the LON)

10. Early Attempts at Peacekeeping
Failures
Fiume
Corfu
Ruhr Invasion
Vilna
Russo-Polish War
Successes
Aaland Islands
Upper Silesia
Greco-Bulgarian War

11. Contributing Factors Factors for Success Reasons for Failure
Antagonists were small/med-sized powers
Unwilling to resort to violence/military aggression
LON was willing to negotiate and enforce a settlement
Reasons for Failure
Antagonists were major powers that refused to submit to the LON
They were countries determined to resort to violence
Major powers in LON couldn’t agree on a course of action