Diplomacy: The League of Nations was inherently weak and therefore could not maintain peace’ To what extent do you agree with this statement? Flashcards
Introduction
-The League was inherently flawed but ultimately failed due to the impact of the Great Depression and the self-interested actions of key member states and expansionist states.
-The League never thought it would be Japan and Italy that would cause it to fail- thought it was going to be external
Paragraphs
P1: Was weak because of membership
P2: Was weak because of inability (and unwillingness) to exercise authority
P3: Was weak but not inherently- examination of strengths in 1920s
P4: Was weak but not inherently- factors in 1930s that caused weakness
Was weak because of membership- 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 collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire at the end of WW1 led to the establishment of a number of smaller states that struggled politically and economically to achieve stability.
Was weak because of membership- 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.
-The absence of these strong powers was exacerbated by the weakness of the states that were part of the League.
-This meant that the League had to deal with smaller states that required more support, particularly in terms of economic development and territorial security. These states could not offer the League much support in return.
Was weak because of inability (and unwillingness) to exercise authority- examples
-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.
-E.g. 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.
Was weak because of inability (and unwillingness) to exercise authority- explanations
-Countries feared that they would suffer from contributing to sanctioning the aggressor.
-The League was asked to investigate the Abyssinian crisis but Mussolini refused to cooperate with the League. This undermined it and demonstrated its inability to discipline aggressor states (especially one of its own members)
Was weak because of inability (and unwillingness) to exercise authority- 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 League’s many diplomatic successes in the 1920s.
Weakness not inherent (successes in 1920s)- examples
-Aaland Islands dispute in 1920- these islands were populated mainly by Swedes, but, following the collapse of the Russian Empire, Finland had claimed sovereignty over them.
-This conflict was taken to the League and Sweden accepted the League’s decision to give the islands to Finland.
Weakness not inherent (successes in 1920s)- explanation
This demonstrated the League’s ability to act in an efficient manner. Sweden’s peaceful acceptance of the League’s decision also conveys the respect that countries had for the League in the 1920s.
Weakness not inherent (successes in 1920s)- historiography
The historian Ruth Henig believes that the organisation of the League was not what led to its failure, rather it was the international context that undermined it.
Weakness not inherent (successes in 1920s)- counterarguments
-Ruhr Crisis in January 1923- When Germany failed to make reparations payments, the French and Belgians took military action outside of the League and occupied the Ruhr in order to seize payments and goods.
-However, the real weaknesses e.g. Manchuria and Abyssinia that had more of an impact only began in the 1930s.
Weakness not inherent (1930s)- examples
-The impact of the Great Depression: World trade decreased by 70% and in Britain, iron and steel production fell by 50% and politics shifted to right-wing parties.
-The 1931 Manchurian Crisis: in which Japan invaded Manchuria, a region of northern China. China appealed to the League for assistance against an aggressor. The League took action by appointing a commission to investigate the crisis and ordering Japan to withdraw its troops. However, the Japanese army refused to do so.
Weakness not inherent (1930s)- explanations
-The Depression made the work of the League impossible as the economic situation encouraged both extremism and also made democracies less willing and able to focus on international events.
-The Manchurian Crisis weakened the League as it was seen that Japan, the aggressor, had ‘gotten away with it’ and it was seen that the League lacked the will to follow through on its principle of collective security.
-However, the impact of the Great Depression meant that many of the member states were too preoccupied dealing with domestic issues to worry about the crisis in Asia.
Weakness not inherent (1930s)- historiography
The historian Richard Overy argued in his book “The Road to War” that the Depression led to nations becoming economically nationalistic and beginning to prioritize this over the interest of other countries and world affairs.
