.....it wasn't. The League of Nations was President Woodrow Wilson's brainchild to avert another international catastrophe in the form of another world war. He said that the "world must be made safe for democracy", but because the U.S. did not join the League, much to Wilson's lament, he claimed that the scourge of war would be visited upon the next generation of the world's citizens. He was correct, and WWII cost the world 50 million lives.
many people are extremely harsh about the league of nations and say it was completly unsuccessful and they have reason to think that because the league had failed to prevent WW2 and the leagues main criteria was to prevent war and obviously seeing as the highest power in the world who even set up the league of nations and knew how it was supposed to work wasnt involved. however if you think about it, it also did some pretty amazing things which make me believe that it was not a complete failure seeing as this new idea of helping other people for the sake of helping was a completly radical idea in those days and saddly still is these days. there were many things it did correctly for example:
- Border disputes: a good example of this is the Aaland islands that sweden and finnland were fighting over. the league prevented a war in this and it had a very good outcome. (obviously it also did some things badly in border disputes but this is just an example of something it did right.)
- refugees: this is in my opinion one of the most impressive things the league did. it didnt manage to stop the war in turkey however it did do incredible work with the refugees left behind after the war. it spent millions of pounds on providing shelter, food, water, work and avoiding the spread of disease through out the refugee camps. this was incredible at the time considering no one had really ever set out to simply help others without any econimical gain before. this act of kindness really did put the league of nations in a good light.
- the health committee: this was a big success for the league of nations. it worked hard to defeat leprosy and started a global campaign to exterminate mosquitoes which obviously reduced the cases of malaria and yellow fever. this was a success for the league of nations because it was lots of countries working together to help impprove the lifes of many others and improve the health of the general public which was something that had been a problem around the world for decades.
- working conditions: this is not exactly the best example of the things the league did well simply because not many of the other countries followed the leagues example due to fear that it would raise industrtial costs. however, the league did help out here by trying to limit child labour, it introduced a 48hr per week (8hr per day) work resolution that some countries did agree to abide by (however not many.)
- transport: the league made recommendations on marking shipping lanes and produced an international highway code for road users which made trade and transport a lot more safer to use and widely available.
there are others things the league did well and there are many other things the league did badly as well. this is just a general summery of things so please go research these bullet points for more information and specific details. hope this helps people for essays and stuff :)
No
Yes, the League of Nations was successful at discouraging aggression in the 1920's. An example is the successful arbitration between Finland and Sweden in their dispute over the Aland Islands.
the league was important because it failed and led to ww2 which prompted the United nations which has been "successful"
Italy's successful invasion of Ethiopia demonstrated the weakness of the League of Nations, which had no power to prevent war, despite its noble ideals.
It wasn't successful and it was successful in different ways; for successful you could mention that they could apply sanctions and for not being successful you could say they didn't have enough power to prevent war, and then sum it up with a conclusion. Anyway, the League of Nations tried to promote international peace and cooperation. It was demolished in the year 1946 because the league didn't have enough power to prevent a war.
it is beause you are so silly
The United Nations (UN) is similar to the League of Nations as both were intergovernmental organizations aimed at promoting peace and cooperation among countries. Both were established after major world wars with the intention of preventing future conflicts. However, the UN has been more successful in terms of membership and global influence compared to the League of Nations.
The League of Nations.
They formed treaties and pacts.In addition many formed the League of Nations and the United Nations, neither of which were very successful.
The League of Nations was viewed by the world as "the league of the victors of World War 1" rather than a fair league for all nations. Most nations ignored the League and their goals therefore the League did little to prevent World War 2. The Treaty of Versailles was also connected to the League of Nations and many nations resented that Treaty. This was a major contributing factor of the reasons for World War 2 being started and fought.
The precursor to the Current United Nations was called the League of Nations. The League of Nations was founded in 1919. When the United Nations was formed in 1945, the League of Nations basically ceased to exist.
Nothing. The League of Nations was the predecessor to the United Nations. (: