Diplomacy: Examine the reasons for the failure of collective security to keep the peace in the 1920s and 30s Flashcards
Introduction
- The League was not inherently flawed but failed due to the impact of the Great Depression and the self-interested actions of key member states and expansionist states. This was coupled with the appeasement of aggressor states that encouraged this aggression.
- Inability to maintain collective security was initially due to the inherent weaknesses and the international crises that brought them out but later on, it was due to the inaction of the League because this gave confidence to aggressor states and encouraged them.
Paragraphs
P1: Structural and membership weaknesses of the League
P2: Failures in 1920s (Ruhr & Corfu)
P3: The impact of the Great Depression
P4: International crises that undermined the League & principle of collective security (and how the Depression impacted this)
Weaknesses of the League- examples
-The USA was the most important absent major power in the LoN.
-The USSR was excluded from the League because the new Bolshevik government was seen as a threat to Europe and Asia
-The League didn’t have its own armed forces. This limited the threat of military actions. Use of weapons was ineffective because of unwillinness of members to use them (the League didn’t have a military so it needed its member states to use theirs). E.g. Corfu Incident – the Conference of Ambassadors managed to force Italians to withdraw from Corfu after Mussolini bombed the Greek Island.
Weaknesses of the League- explanations
-The USA’s absence seriously weakened the League’s ability to use ‘collective security’ against aggression as the world’s most powerful economy would have given the League’s sanctions real weight, but without it, these were undermined.
-Without the USA, the permanent members (except Japan) were European and this meant that the League lacked the appearance of a genuinely ‘worldwide’ organization.
-The absence of the USSR meant that it could be claimed by the USSR that it was merely ‘a club for capitalists’- whose real aim was to protect and promote business interests and empires. This undermined the League and its reputation.
Weaknesses of the League- historiography
The historian E.H. Carr believes that the League was flawed from the outset and that the very idea of an international body to maintain peace was flawed.
However, although the League’s inherent structural and membership problems did contribute to its eventual downfall, this was not until the crises in the 1930s that exposed these problems and prevented the League from acting effectively, as demonstrated through the Leauge’s many diplomatic successes in the 1920s.
Impact of the Great Depression- examples
-World trade decreased by 70%
-In Britain, the Labor Party believed that military build-up increased the likelihood of war. Economic pressures restricted funds to invest in military programs. The National Government acted to limit armaments in the early 1930s.
-In France, the GD led to great political instability and it had 11 coalition governments between 1932 and 35.
Impact of the Great Depression- explanations
- Impact on countries’ willingness to enforce the principle- self-interest. Members of the League were more concerned with their domestic problems than with international disputes.
- How it led to the Manchurian crisis: Due to the Depression, luxury items such as silk were no longer purchased internationally → exports decreased → people turned to the military to conquer new lands to access natural resources → Manchuria rich in natural resources.
Impact of the Great Depression- historiography
The historian Hugh Brogan argued that the League depended on the goodwill of the nations to make it work.
International crises- examples
E.g. Manchurian Crisis of 1931: Sanctions were not used. A Special Assembly voted that Japan should withdraw from Manchuria. When the Japanese refused and left the League of Nations, the League responded by doing nothing.
E.g. Abyssinian Crisis of 1934: Britain choosing not to close the Suez Canal to Italy in response to the Abyssinian Crisis + the League choosing not to impose an oil embargo.
E.g. Hitler saw the political turmoil from the Abyssinian Crisis as an opportunity to act in the Rhineland
International crises- explanations
-It was also the League’s response to these crises that determined their outcomes.
-This demonstrated that the League did not have either the capacity or the willingness to enforce punishments on countries taking aggressive actions.
-This also encouraged more aggressive actions, e.g. encouraging Mussolini and later Hitler as they didn’t think they would face much opposition (and they were right).
International crises- historiography
The historian Ruth Henig believes that the organization of the League was not what led to its failure, rather it was the international context that undermined it.
(Use this as a contrast to E.H. Carr)
Appeasement & lack of action- examples (put this?)
The Munich conference was the agreement that permitted Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland (an area of Czechoslovakia with a substantial German population) and was signed on September 29th, 1938.
Neither the British nor the French saw good reason for a war to preserve Czechoslovakia, which had only been created in 1918.
Appeasement & lack of action- explanations (put this?)
-This gave Hitler confidence because by having his demands agreed to, Hitler took this as assurance that British French intervention would not be an obstacle to his expansionist endeavors.
-Appeasement meant that Hitler gambled on that policy continuing when he invaded Poland – the trigger for war.
Appeasement & lack of action- historiography (put this?)
The historian AJP Taylor argued that Hitler did not have a clear plan on how to carry out his foreign policy aims and was simply reacting to the actions of other European leaders.
Ultimately, he believes that it was Britain and France’s actions that encouraged the Fascist dictators to go to war as they would not have done so if they didn’t think they stood a chance at winning.
Appeasement & lack of action- counterargument (put this?)
The alternative to this would have been going to war when Br and Fr were not strong enough economically or militarily, which could have also been catastrophic. Nevertheless, this encouraged Hitler and gave him the confidence to challenge the Treaty of Versailles.
