I am debating in class whether Wilson was a good president or not. I know the League of Nations will be brought up, and how it was a brilliant success in paving way for the UN. I have been on here trying to read why it didn't work, but Mises's writing on it, as well as other essays on it, are very complicated, detailed, and rather long. I have this tomorrow and it is already 11:00 Pm and my school starts at 7:00 AM. I need a simple, quick explanation why it didn't work... I have learned that it partially has to do with them excluding some nations, and really being about holding onto boundaries already held by countries from previous wars. The Treaty of Versailles for example, and Germany's exclusion, clearly were not to prevent peace with them in the future, as it would clearly stir anger in Germany and a desire for Germany to get more back, but rather an attempt at other nations to prevent losing what they had. Still, my understanding of it is weak, any help on some main reasons in quick, simple terms? I would really appreciate any answers I could get as soon as possible.
Anyone? Sorry to be impatient but I'm kind of in a hurry... don't you want me to make Wilson look bad?
The League of Nations enforced huge sanctions and penalties on Germany as punishment for WWI. This caused major resentment among the Germans, and as they could not achieve a semblance of economic success under the punitive measures, the Germans embraced ideologies that harnessed that resentment and turned it into nationalist elitism. Cue Hitler. Without the actions of the League of Nations, WWII might never have happened.
Besides that, Wilson couldn't even get the US to join the League. The stipulations classifying a presidency as "good" or "bad" are whether he was good for HIS country. If the League of Nations was so good, then he was a bad president for not being able to pull the US into it. If it wasn't so good, then he was a failure in that respect. You win the argument either way.
Let's factor out Germany then... in general, how are Leagues unaffective ways of getting "peace". For example, how is the UN bad today?
The League was totally incapable of enforcing peace. It had no power to do anything other than make grand statements and administer the punitive measures against Germany. Its explicit goal was to prevent another major war from breaking out, and so it was obviously a failure.
Government is immoral and somewhat inefficient, but it works because of its monopoly on coercion. The League of Nations, a global government structure, had all of the aims of government. It did not, however, have that monopoly on coercion that makes the government's aims possible. It failed at being a government because it wasn't a government. The U.N., similarly, does nothing more than provide a stage for international political theatre. Its actions are actions that would have been taken by groups of states even without the U.N.'s existence. It has no power of enforcement. Insofar as it provides a forum for basic diplomacy, it is successful... but only between parties who consent to appear and whose appearance is consented to by the U.N. members. Any rogue state attempting to cause major war will likely not fall into one of those two categories.
The League of Nations had four permanent members in its Council: France, Great Britain, Japan and Italy. Contrary to popular belief the US never joined the League of Nations: Woodrow Wilson tried very hard but he always faced fierce opposition from Congress. Other members were elected on yearly basis.
The big issue is these four members immediately made abundantly clear they expected "exceptional" treatment. In 1923, just four year after the League of Nations was born, France invaded the Ruhr and Italy attacked Greek strongholds in the Aegean. Under present rules both France and Italy should have first sent a stern warning and should they refuse to comply with the League's orders they would have been hit by economical sanctions. Italy and France joined forces and together threatened to abandon the League: having half of the permanent Council members leave the organization would have dealt a crippling blow. So the Leagues refused to take action against Italy and France despite the desperate pleas of Germany and Greece. To further highlight this "exceptionalism" the League resorted to its usual bullying tactics to defuse crisis between Bulgaria and Greece (1925), Iraq and Turkey (1926) and Poland and Lithuania (1927). These successes are often presented as proof that the League did indeed work. Problem is bullying Iraq or Bulgaria was one thing, threatening a permanent Council member was another matter completely.
In 1931 Japan invaded Manchuria. The Chinese government pleaded with the League to intervene and embarassment followed. When finally, following external pressure from the US, the League decided to act, Japan simply left the League. This a serious blow since a couple years earlier Brazil, another important member (though not permanent Council member) had left the League.
Following the exit of Japan, Soviet influence began to grow. The Soviet Union, enthusiastically backed by British (though Finnish-born) Labor big shot Konni Zilliacus, proposed to form an "inner circle" comprising the Soviet Union, France and Britain to oppose the three states which were felt to be the greatest threat to peace in the world: Germany, Japan and Italy. This proposal was sternly opposed by Tory Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin who rightly felt this move would only make the volatile situation in Germany worse. He was proven right and following Hitler's victory in the 1933 elections Germany promptly left the League and immediately recognized the puppet government of Manchuria (called Manchukuo).
The League ceased to be anything of importance following the Italian invasion of Ethiopia. Again a permanent Council member started a war and again embarassment followed. When the League finally imposed sanctions on Italy, Mussolini simply withdrew his representitives. To all purposes the League was dead and buried.
When Hitler threatened to invade the Sudetenland in 1938, the League was a no-show. Mussolini suggested to Hitler to leave out the League of Nations (to avoid interference from the Soviet Union) and to deal with France and Britain directly. He offered his services as a mediator. France and Britain balked in a most shameful manner and Hitler got his Sudetenland without firing a shot. This was a triumph for both Hitler and the Italian strongman and a colossal shame for France and Britain. The League of Nations remained silent.
The final chapter came in 1939 when Stalin invaded Finland on a ridiculous pretest. Public opinion in both France and Britain was extremely sympathetic with Finland and demanded action. Chamberlain and Daladier, their popularity in a steep decline, decided to act: the Soviet Union was expelled from the League of Nations. Stalin at the moment was more concerned about the poor showing of his Red Army and simply let it pass: he knew the League had become nothing more than an empty shell.
Do you want the historical or theoretical answer?
Historically it was because the League of Nations was in fact a puppet of the Allies intended to establish once and for all Anglo-American hegemony in Europe and, if possible, the entire planet. Obviously, such an institution is not well calculated to avoid a conflict of international interests.
Theoretically there are two reasons. First, Mises points out, so long as international trade barriers exist the incentive for forcible 'opening of markets' still remains. Second, the LoN was a Statist agency and, as Hans Hoppe has argued, such an attempt at international government does not only fail to forclose war it actually fosters conflict.