Why was the league weak when it was set up?


The structural and membership weaknesses of the League?
Point
Evidence
Explanation – this made the League weak because…
Type of weakness – structural/
membership/
other
The League relied on collective security – every country acting together to defend the lands and interests of all nations.
Not needed here.
If you were a member you were guaranteed security from the other members, this relies on a lot of trust from the other countries. An army is required so the countries relied on others for security rather than having their own army
 structural
Membership
The USA did not join.
Congress didn’t allow the US to join the league of nations because they didn’t want to get involved in European politics



 Britain and France were then the most powerful leading countries but they did not have the resources after the war to fill the gap that the USA left. So the league was not as powerful and they felt that trade sanctions would only work If America applied them.
Without America the economic sanctions are not that frightening.
The fact that America didn’t joins gives off a negative image - people will think that because Wilson doesn’t want to join it won't work
 membership
Public opinion
Britain and France were poorly placed to lead the League.
Both countries had a lot of work to do towards rebuilding their own countries and so the league was not their main priority
They did not have the right resources that the us had as they were weakened from the war and there was conflict within the league because France and Britain had different views.
They were both part of the council but their opposing views meant that progress was slow and inefficient
 membership
Structural
Decisions made in the Assembly had to be unanimous.
Not needed here.
This made the league weak because it meant that it was very difficult to pass new laws as everyone had to agree and as there were many countries they often had different aims. this made it very difficult for the council to take action. This made the league less effective because they didn’t act as much as they could and made it harder to get things done
 structural
The Assembly met once a year (at least).
Not needed here.
 This made the League  inefficient as the members only had one  chance in a year to get into action. And also because decisions made by the Assembly had to be unanimous, this made it much harder to act on something, with so little time and so many disagreements.
 structural
The permanent members of the Council were too powerful.
The permanent countries (Britain, France, Italy and Japan) had a range of powers like moral condemnation, economic and financial sanctions and military force which they could impose on any country. Anything that happened in the league of nations had to have France and Britain's support. 
 France and Britain had complete control over the League of Nations as they were the most powerful countries in the LoN as America was not in it. This means that nothing could happen without the support of these countries. However both of these countries were weak after the war and neither had the resources to fill the gap left by the USA, they couldn’t properly fulfil what they needed to do 

 Each of the permanent members were able to stop the Council acting even if the others disagreed. If the disputes couldn't be prevented then they resulted in using a range of different powers. These included moral condemning (deciding which country was the addresser to chose who to blame), economic and financial sanctions (members of LON could refuse to trade with any aggressors) and Military force where the armed forces of member countries were able to be used against the aggressors.
 structural and membership
Sanctions were not guaranteed to be effective.
If the league exposed sanctions it might be American trade and business that suffered. The USA promised to solve all international problems regardless of the cost.   
  This is a weakness in the league because if they economic cost of joining the league was too high then, not many people would be able to join it and it would just be useless. Business leaders also thought that the US should stay out of European affairs and mind their own business. As the USA promised to solve international problems regardless of the cost, this would have been a weakness in the league because of how uncertain it would be regarding the cost of the problem. This would possibly make the USA's economy wary 
 structural and membership
The League was seen as a European club.
Non-Europeans were unhappy with how the treaty was run by Britain, France and Italy and only mainly had European countries
This made the League weak because nom-European countries criticized the League and some voted for a democratic League that was rejected. Other countries were worried that the League would be only white people and argued that the League should oppose racial discrimination. This made the League weak as many non-European countries disliked it as it was seen as a European only club,
 membership
Many states were not members at first, especially the defeated countries in WW1.
 Forty-five states were founder-members of the League of Nations. These were all either victorious or neutral in the First World War. The defeated nations were not allowed to join immediately.
It made the League weak as it had the unfortunate effect of making the League look like a club for the victorious powers (enemies) closely associated with the Treaty of Versailles to Germany, Austria and Hungary.
Lacking American, German and Russian membership, the League could not really claim to be the voice of world opinion.
 Membership as there was a majority of European countries in the League
The concept of the League took the power of world public opinion for granted and assumed it would help create lasting peace.
Not needed here.
 In places such  France the opinions  of what should happen after the war were very different from the USA for example so there was not one clear voice. Different countries had different levels of democracy so someplace felt they could speak against their government and could express opinions that opposed the government and other countries did not have public opinion. Democratic countries had to pay attention to their countries opinion of different things compared to other countries with no democracy. 
membership and people's opinions 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How satisfied were the big 3 by the treaty of Versailles?

How satisfied were the big 3 by the treaty of Versailles? Clemenceau was largely satisfied by the terms of the treaty of Versailles as he achieved most of his aims such as making Germany too weak to attack again. Germany was forced to pay huge reparations of £6.6 billion and was forced to limit its army to 100,000 soldiers. These pleased Clemenceau as it meant that Germany's economy was significantly weakened and France was being given the money they need to repair the country and the limited army mean they were not able to fight back and so the country was easier to control from the outside.  However, France was hoping to gain more; and from Germany to increase its own empire and although they did not gain the land it was still taken away from Germany which weakened the country.  Overall Clemenceau achieved most of his aims at the treaty of Versailles and was mostly satisfied by the terms. David Lloyd George was greatly satisfied by the treaty of Versailles as he man...
Read more

Successes and failures of the league in the 1920's

Successes and failures of the league in the 1920's Area of dispute What the League of Nations did… 1919 Teschen - a small on the border between Poland and Czechoslovakia, which both countries wanted for its valuable coal mines. In January 1919, polish and Czech soldiers fought for a week in Teschen, killing many people. In 1920 the League arbitrated on the dispute, splitting the area between the two countries. Although neither country was happy about the decision, they accepted it and stopped the fighting. 1919 Fiume – a port on the Adriatic Coast. Italy had hoped that she would be given it in the Paris Peace Treaties, as a reward for WWI. Instead it was given to the new country of Yugoslavia. A group of Italian nationalists weren’t willing to accept this, and occupied the town. The league did not intervene 1920 Vilna - in 1919 Lithuania had regained its in...
Read more

Why did the aims of the big three at Versailles differ?

Why did the aims of the big three at Versailles differ? (6 Marks)  The aims of the big three at Versailles was different because each of them had a different experience of the war and so hopes to achieve different things from Germany. France very heavily wanted Germany to pay for the damage they had caused to the country, as over 8000 miles of farmland was ruined and over 1 million lives lost. France hoped to achieve revenge and to weaken Germany. They had this strongest view as they were closest to the action and therefore experienced the worst damage as a result. Whereas America was more focused on achieving peace, they may have had a different mindset as they were more distant from the action and did not experience anywhere near that much destruction. As well as this the distance meant that the population of the country was not as involved and did not have as strong of an opinion as those who suffered more during the war. Britain  ...
Read more