League of Nations
As the WWI came to an end and the Big Four established the Peace Conference, one of the ideas to surface from it was the League of Nations. The original intentions of the League was to create a group of nations, from which they’d rely on one another and be given the task of bringing about world peace. Through the use of mostly collective security, these nations would create a trust or interdependencey that essentially would be the foundations for world unity. The importance of this failed organization, is the understanding that leaders are able to take now, from the previous mistakes made that are what didn’t allow for the League to live up to it’s full potential. Such as the establishment of some sort of military dependence in times of confusion or tension, to legitimize the capability of the League. Although, in today’s context it is commonly referred to as something that brought some sort of change, as it is the misinterpretation of today’s society that the League of Nations was simply an earlier model of the UN. Implying that it was in fact successful to some extent, yet that is not the case. For further understanding, refer to this link, as it provides even more context and insight on this topic.
Nardos,
Good explanation of the League’s original intentions as well as what actually ended up happening. You mention collective security but you do not necessarily explain how it contributed to the failure of the League, and how it was difficult to enforce without the US, who decided not to join, and without an army. It would be interesting to talk about the Spanish Civil War as an example of the League not being as effective as people originally thought. I like how you mentioned the UN as a newer and more effective version, and how the League contributed to this. Good post overall.
— Tidiane D.
Hi Nardos,
This post really helps understanding what the goals of the League of Nations were but you should explain with more details what the weaknesses of LN were since you don’t really explain why it was a failed organisation. You could have talked about the fact that the collective security lies on the good will of the members of the League, it wasn’t therefore a real defense mechanism since every country has its own agenda and would not pay for an expensive war in a country far far away. But it was a good post overall.
Charles M.
Hi Nardos,
I like how you compared the U.N. to the League of Nations, I think you could have talked about the failure of the Collective Security, because it shows why the League of Nations didn’t work the way it was supposed to. But your post was really interesting to read.
Hi Nardos,
The post makes a solid attempt addressing modern implications of the failed League of Nations, yet only one claim is presented as evidence. For more convincing and effective analysis, consider addressing multiple mistakes and lessons learned, perhaps those aspects that were changed and subsequently incorporated in the “new” United Nations. So, only one effect of World War One was addressed, and I’m wondering where the second one is?