Was the League of Nations a Failure

603 Words3 Pages
Was the League of Nations a failure? The League of Nations is thought to be a failure by many, because of hard irony and limitation on military might. The League accomplished very little in stopping wars and conflicts while having very little power. Often they just shook fists at ruthless, evil dictators such as Germany’s Adolf Hitler and his conquests, without intervening. Another Major flaw was that “the country, whose president, Woodrow Wilson, had dreamt up the idea of the League - America -, refused to join it.” The league’s most powerful militaries Britain and France not only suffered casualties, but also economically as they were greatly in debt to the United States. Because of this neither country was enthusiastic to get involved in disputes that did not affect Western Europe. Therefore the League had no military might and could only enforce economic sanctions in hope that they worked against aggressive nations. All these flaws point to signs that the League of Nations was a failure. However, even though there were a few setbacks, the league was a success in many ways. The League of Nations had one important goal which was to stop war. In the league a success was defined when “war was avoided and peaceful settlement formulated after a crisis between two nations”. There were many instances where the League could do nothing to help, but there were also many successes. For example the league solved important conflicts such as the Greece and Bulgaria conflict. When the Greek army invaded Bulgaria, the Bulgarians asked the League for help. The league ordered both armies to stop fighting and made Greece pull out of Bulgaria. “The League then sent experts to the area and decided that Greece was to blame and fined [The country] £45,000. Both nations accepted the decision.” They went on to stop conflicts in The Aland Islands, Upper Silensil, and Memel. However
Open Document