The main peace treaties between 1919-23 were:

Treaty of Versailles: the main treaty which was used against Germany and to make Germany pay
reparations. It also created the League of Nations which acted as an 'international police force' to stop
disputes and encourage international cooperation for trade and business.

Treaty of St. Germain: This treaty dealt with Austria after the way. Austria was restricted to an army with
only 30,000 soldiers. Austria faced severe economic impact because major industrial areas were given to
Czechoslovakia. Austria was forbidden to unite with Germany

Treaty of Neuilly: This treaty dealt with Bulgaria in 1919, Bulgaria was restricted to an army with only
20,000 soldiers and had to pay £100 million in repayments. Land and territories were given from
Bulgaria to Greece, Romania and Yugoslavia.

Treaty of Trianon: This treaty dealt with Hungary in 1920, land and territory was given to other
countries. Hungary was supposed to pay reparations but its economy was so weak that it never did.
Hungary lost a substantial amount of population and territories. Industries suffered from lack of
population and raw materials.

Treaty of Sevres: Dealt with Turkey. The army was reduced to 50,000 soldiers while its original empire
was broken. Parts of Turkey were classified as zones of influence of Britain, France and Italy. Their navy
was limited while the air force was banned.
However, the treaty of Sevres had many consequences. Turkish Nationalists stopped the government
form signing the treaty and actually reversed the terms. Wilson was unable to make Armenia
independent so Armenia simply joined the Soviet Union.
Italy, France and Britain were acting on self-interest. Italy wanted Turkish territories as a reward for
supporting the allies in WW1, France and Britain wanted to extend their empires. Italy, France and
Britain signed a secret agreement where they could protect their commercial interests called the
Tripartite Agreement.
The Treaty of Lausanne was created in 1923 which included the changes that the Turks brought.
Woodrow Wilson:
- As you mentioned, Wilson was an idealist who aimed to achieve peace through his Fourteen Points. He
advocated for principles such as self-determination, open diplomacy, and the creation of a League of
Nations.
- While Wilson's idealistic vision played a significant role in shaping the peace negotiations, many of his
Fourteen Points were indeed compromised or overlooked during the actual treaty discussions.
- Wilson's emphasis on self-determination was met with skepticism by some European leaders who had
concerns about potential instability and the dismantling of empires.
- Despite his push for a more lenient treatment of Germany, Wilson faced opposition from Clemenceau
and Lloyd George, who sought to impose stricter terms.

David Lloyd George:

- Lloyd George's primary concern was to protect and promote British interests, both economically and
strategically.
- He believed that excessively harsh terms imposed on Germany could lead to future conflict and
destabilize the European economy, which would ultimately impact British trade and employment.
- Lloyd George faced pressure from the British public, who sought retribution against Germany for the
devastation caused by the war. He had to balance their demands with the need for a sustainable and
stable post-war order.
- Restricting Germany's military capabilities also aligned with Britain's strategic objectives, as Germany
had historically been seen as a rival in terms of naval power.

Georges Clemenceau:
- Clemenceau's primary concern was the security and protection of France. He had witnessed the
devastation caused by Germany during both World Wars and sought to prevent any future aggression.
- Clemenceau wanted to cripple Germany militarily and economically to ensure its inability to pose a
threat to France in the future.
- He emphasized the need for substantial reparations from Germany to compensate for the damage
inflicted on France during the war.
- Clemenceau's desire for revenge and security led to a more punitive approach compared to Wilson and
Lloyd George, resulting in tensions and disagreements during the negotiations.

Each leader had their own goals and interests, which influenced their positions and contributed to the
complex dynamics during the creation of the peace treaties.
1. What were the main peace treaties negotiated between 1919 and 1923?
- The main peace treaties negotiated during this period were:
a) Treaty of Versailles (1919)
b) Treaty of St. Germain (1919)
c) Treaty of Neuilly (1919)
d) Treaty of Trianon (1920)
e) Treaty of Sevres (1920) [later replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923)]

2. What were the major goals and objectives of the victorious Allied powers in the peace negotiations?
- The major goals and objectives of the victorious Allied powers were to:
a) Hold Germany accountable for the war and impose reparations.
b) Redraw national boundaries and dismantle empires.
c) Promote self-determination and establish new nation-states.
d) Weaken Germany militarily and limit its ability to wage war.
e) Create a new international organization for maintaining peace, the League of Nations.

3. What were the key provisions and conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, signed in 1919?
- The key provisions and conditions of the Treaty of Versailles included:
a) War Guilt Clause, holding Germany responsible for the war.
b) Reparations, requiring Germany to pay for war damages.
c) Territorial losses, including Alsace-Lorraine, parts of Poland, and overseas colonies.
d) Demilitarization of the Rhineland and limitations on Germany's military.
e) Creation of the League of Nations.

4. How did the Treaty of Versailles attempt to address the issue of responsibility for World War I?
- The Treaty of Versailles addressed the issue of responsibility for World War I by assigning full blame
to Germany through the War Guilt Clause. Germany was held accountable for starting the war and was
expected to pay reparations as a result.

5. What were the consequences of the peace treaties for Germany, both politically and economically?
- The peace treaties had significant consequences for Germany. Politically, Germany experienced a loss
of territory, a decrease in its military capabilities, and restrictions on its sovereignty. Economically, the
burden of reparations, territorial losses, and the dismantling of industries caused severe economic
hardships and contributed to social and political instability in Germany.

6. How did the peace treaties affect the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the creation of new nation-states
in Europe?
- The peace treaties led to the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The empire was divided
into separate nation-states, including Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. New national
boundaries were drawn, reflecting the principles of self-determination and the aspirations of different
ethnic groups.

7. What role did the principle of self-determination play in the peace treaties and the redrawing of
national borders?
- The principle of self-determination played a significant role in the peace treaties and the redrawing of
national borders. It aimed to allow people to determine their own political future based on their ethnic,
linguistic, or cultural identity. The treaties sought to create new nation-states based on this principle,
although it was not always fully realized due to competing interests and historical complexities.
The Treaty of Sevres, signed in 1920, did face challenges and ultimately failed to be fully implemented.
While the League of Nations was established in 1920 with the aim of promoting peace and preventing
conflicts, its effectiveness in preventing the outrage of Turkish Nationalists and ensuring the
implementation of the treaty was limited in this particular case.

The Turkish Nationalists, led by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, vehemently opposed the terms of the Treaty of
Sevres, which sought to dismantle the Ottoman Empire and impose significant territorial losses and
restrictions on Turkey. The Nationalists saw the treaty as a violation of their sovereignty and launched a
resistance movement against its implementation.

Despite the existence of the League of Nations, it lacked the necessary authority and enforcement
mechanisms to effectively address the situation in Turkey. Moreover, the major powers involved in the
peace negotiations, such as Britain, France, and Italy, had their own geopolitical interests and were not
fully united or committed to enforcing the terms of the treaty.

As a result, the Turkish Nationalists successfully resisted the implementation of the Treaty of Sevres. In
1923, a new treaty, the Treaty of Lausanne, was negotiated and replaced the Treaty of Sevres. The
Treaty of Lausanne recognized the Republic of Turkey and its borders, essentially reversing many of the
provisions of the earlier treaty.

The failure of the League of Nations to prevent the outrage of Turkish Nationalists and ensure the
implementation of the Treaty of Sevres was a significant setback for the League's authority and
effectiveness. It highlighted the limitations of the League in enforcing its decisions and resolving conflicts
when major powers were not fully committed to its principles or when local resistance movements
emerged.
The League of Nations had a structure consisting of several key components, designed to facilitate
international cooperation and maintain peace and security. Here are the main elements of the League's
structure:

1. Assembly: The Assembly was the League's main deliberative body and consisted of representatives
from all member states. Each member had one vote, and decisions required a two-thirds majority. The
Assembly met annually and discussed various issues, including international disputes, disarmament, and
economic cooperation.

2. Council: The Council was responsible for the League's executive functions and had the authority to
make decisions on behalf of the League. It consisted of permanent and non-permanent members. The
permanent members included the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Japan, and later the Soviet Union. The
non-permanent members were elected by the Assembly and served for a fixed term. Unanimous
decisions of the Council were binding on all members, and the permanent members had the power to
veto resolutions.

3. Secretariat: The Secretariat provided administrative support to the League and was headed by the
Secretary-General. The Secretary-General oversaw the daily operations of the League and served as a
mediator in international disputes. The Secretariat also prepared reports, collected information, and
assisted with various League activities.

4. Permanent Court of International Justice: The Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) was the
League's judicial arm. It was based in The Hague, Netherlands, and was responsible for settling legal
disputes between member states. The PCIJ's decisions were binding, and member states could bring
cases before the court voluntarily or by special agreement.

5. Specialized Agencies: The League established several specialized agencies to address specific issues
such as health, labor, and refugees. Notable agencies included the International Labor Organization
(ILO), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the International Health Organization (predecessor to
the World Health Organization).

6. Mandates: The League administered various territories called mandates on behalf of former colonial
powers. These territories were assigned to the League under the principle of "mandate" with the goal of
guiding their development and eventual self-government.

It's important to note that the League of Nations' structure and decision-making processes evolved over
time, and some changes were made in response to the challenges and limitations faced by the
organization.
The structural weaknesses of the League of Nations played a significant role in limiting its effectiveness
during the 1920s. These weaknesses, coupled with other factors such as the absence of major powers
and economic crises, contributed to the League's inability to prevent or resolve several international
conflicts. Here are some ways in which the structural weaknesses hindered the League's success:

1. Lack of major powers: The absence of major powers like the United States, Soviet Union (until 1934),
and Germany (until 1926) weakened the League's ability to enforce decisions. These nations held
considerable influence and resources, and their non-membership reduced the League's effectiveness in
addressing global issues.

2. Limited membership and representation: While the League had a broad membership, there were
notable exclusions, which reduced its global legitimacy and representation. For example, some
prominent nations in Latin America, such as Brazil and Argentina, did not join until the late 1920s. The
League's composition did not fully reflect the diversity of the international community, affecting its
credibility and influence.

3. Lack of enforcement mechanisms: The League lacked strong enforcement mechanisms to ensure
compliance with its decisions. Economic sanctions and military actions were often ineffective due to the
reluctance of member states to take strong actions against aggressors, fearing escalation or economic
consequences.

4. Complex decision-making processes: The requirement of unanimity among permanent members of

the Council, coupled with the diverse interests and priorities of member states, made it challenging to
reach consensus on critical issues. This slow decision-making process hindered the League's ability to
respond quickly and effectively to crises.

5. Ineffective disarmament efforts: The League's efforts to promote disarmament faced significant
challenges. Disagreements among major powers, including France's concerns about security, impeded
meaningful progress in reducing armaments. The League's inability to achieve significant disarmament
undermined its credibility and effectiveness in preventing conflicts.

6. Limited economic resources: The League's financial resources were limited, making it difficult to carry
out its programs effectively. Member states' contributions were often insufficient, and reliance on
voluntary funding hampered the League's ability to undertake substantial initiatives.

These structural weaknesses collectively undermined the League's ability to prevent conflicts, mediate
disputes, and maintain peace during the 1920s. While the League had some successes in areas like
health, labor, and refugees, its inability to effectively address major international crises and prevent the
outbreak of World War II demonstrated the limitations imposed by these weaknesses.
The organization of the League of Nations had several weaknesses that undermined its effectiveness.
Here are some key weaknesses in its organization:

1. Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: The League of Nations had limited means to enforce its decisions.
It relied heavily on moral persuasion, economic sanctions, and the use of collective military action by
member states. However, these measures were often ineffective or not implemented, weakening the
League's ability to ensure compliance with its resolutions.

2. Limited Authority and Sovereignty: Member states of the League retained their full sovereignty and
had the power to disregard or reject decisions made by the League. This meant that the League had no
authority to override the decisions of its member states, making it difficult to enforce international law
and resolve disputes.

3. Dominance of Great Powers: The League of Nations was dominated by major powers, particularly
Britain and France. This resulted in an imbalance of power and influence, with these nations often
shaping the League's agenda and decisions to serve their own interests. The dominance of a few
powerful nations undermined the equitable representation and effectiveness of the League.

4. Absence of Key Nations: The League lacked the participation of key nations, including the United
States, which never became a member. The absence of major powers weakened the League's influence
and ability to address global issues comprehensively.

5. Ineffectiveness in Preventing Aggression: The League of Nations proved ineffective in preventing acts
of aggression by member states. The League's inability to take decisive action and effectively deter
aggression, as seen in cases such as the invasion of Manchuria by Japan and the Italian invasion of
Abyssinia, undermined its credibility and purpose.

6. Slow Decision-Making Process: The decision-making process within the League was often slow and
cumbersome. Unanimous consent was required for major decisions, giving each member nation a veto
power. This made it difficult to reach timely decisions, especially in situations requiring immediate
action.

7. Lack of Popular Support: The League of Nations faced challenges in garnering widespread popular
support and legitimacy. Nationalist sentiments, domestic political considerations, and skepticism about
the League's effectiveness hindered its ability to mobilize public opinion and maintain sustained support.

These weaknesses in the organization of the League of Nations limited its effectiveness in maintaining
peace, preventing conflicts, and addressing global challenges. Ultimately, these shortcomings
contributed to the League's decline and its inability to prevent the outbreak of World War II.

Here are the questions rephrased in a format suitable for CIE GCSE and their respective total marks:
1. Analyze the border disputes encountered by the League of Nations in the 1920s and evaluate its
attempts to resolve them. (Total Marks: 10)

2. To what extent was the League of Nations successful in addressing the border dispute between
Poland and Lithuania in the 1920s? Support your answer with relevant evidence. (Total Marks: 8)

3. Discuss the League of Nations' response to the border dispute between Greece and Bulgaria in the
1920s. Assess the effectiveness of the League's actions in mediating the conflict. (Total Marks: 8)

4. Evaluate the role of the League of Nations in resolving the border dispute between Finland and
Sweden in the 1920s. To what extent did the League succeed in finding a satisfactory resolution? (Total
Marks: 8)

10. Analyze the League of Nations' efforts to mediate the border dispute between Albania and Greece in
the 1920s. Assess the effectiveness of the League's actions and their impact on the resolution of the
conflict. (Total Marks: 8)
The Corfu Incident of 1923 involved an international crisis that unfolded on the Greek island of Corfu
and had implications for the League of Nations. Here is a summary of the incident:

1. Background: In August 1923, an Italian general, Enrico Tellini, and his team were sent to Greece to
demarcate the Greek-Albanian border. However, they were tragically killed in an ambush near the town
of Kakavia, for which Greece held Albanian bandits responsible.

2. Italian Response: Italy, led by Prime Minister Benito Mussolini, was outraged by the incident and
demanded compensation and an official apology from Greece. Italy also sought to occupy the Greek
island of Corfu until its demands were met.

3. Occupation of Corfu: In response to Greece's perceived failure to comply with its demands, Italy
bombarded and occupied the island of Corfu in August 1923. Italy argued that the occupation aimed to
secure its interests and protect its citizens.

4. League of Nations' Involvement: Greece appealed to the League of Nations, seeking assistance and
intervention to resolve the crisis. The League condemned Italy's actions and demanded that it withdraw
from Corfu.

5. Mediation and Resolution: The League appointed a commission, led by Lord Curzon of Britain, to
mediate between Italy and Greece. After weeks of negotiations, an agreement was reached, known as
the Corfu Protocol. According to the protocol, Greece would pay reparations for the incident, and Italy
would evacuate Corfu.

6. League's Relevance: The Corfu Incident highlighted both the strengths and weaknesses of the League
of Nations. On one hand, the League successfully mediated the dispute and resolved the crisis peacefully
through negotiations. On the other hand, Italy's occupation of Corfu demonstrated the limitations of the
League's enforcement mechanisms.

Overall, the Corfu Incident of 1923 involved Italy's occupation of the Greek island of Corfu in response to
the killing of an Italian general. The League of Nations played a crucial role in mediating the crisis and
reaching a resolution, showcasing both the effectiveness and challenges faced by the League in
maintaining international peace and security.
The Manchurian Crisis of 1931 was a significant event that occurred in Northeast China (Manchuria) and
had far-reaching consequences for international relations. Here is a summary of the Manchurian Crisis:

1. Background: Manchuria, a resource-rich region, was under the control of the warlord Zhang Xueliang.
The South Manchuria Railway, owned by the Japanese, had significant economic interests in the region.

2. Mukden Incident: On September 18, 1931, an explosion occurred near a section of the South
Manchuria Railway in the city of Mukden (now Shenyang). The incident was allegedly carried out by
Japanese military officers as a pretext to justify their actions.

3. Japanese Invasion: Using the Mukden Incident as a justification, Japan launched a full-scale invasion of
Manchuria, swiftly occupying key cities and strategic areas. The Japanese established a puppet state
called Manchukuo under the rule of Henry Pu Yi, the last emperor of China.

4. League of Nations' Response: China appealed to the League of Nations, which launched an
investigation led by a commission headed by Lord Lytton. The Lytton Commission concluded that Japan
had acted aggressively and recommended the restoration of Chinese sovereignty in Manchuria.

5. League's Failure: Despite the findings of the Lytton Commission, the League of Nations failed to take
effective action against Japan due to various factors, including the absence of major powers' support
and the economic interests of some member states. Japan withdrew from the League in 1933.

6. Consequences: The Manchurian Crisis had significant consequences for international relations. It
exposed the weaknesses of the League of Nations in preventing aggression and enforcing collective
security. The crisis also marked a significant step towards the escalation of Japanese militarism, as Japan
continued to expand its influence in East Asia.

Overall, the Manchurian Crisis of 1931 highlighted Japan's aggressive expansionism and the League of
Nations' inability to effectively address and resolve the situation. The crisis had profound implications
for regional stability and the erosion of trust in international institutions, setting the stage for further
conflicts in the years to come.
During the Manchurian Crisis of 1931, the League of Nations faced several weaknesses and challenges
that hindered its ability to effectively address the situation. Here are some of the weaknesses of the
League during the Manchurian Crisis:

1. Lack of Major Power Support: The League heavily relied on the support and participation of major
powers, such as Britain and France, to enforce its decisions and maintain collective security. However,
these powers were hesitant to take strong actions against Japan due to their own political and economic
interests in the region. The lack of unified major power support weakened the League's ability to exert
meaningful pressure on Japan.

2. Ineffectiveness of Economic Sanctions: The League imposed economic sanctions on Japan to condemn
its aggression in Manchuria. However, these sanctions were not comprehensive and lacked widespread
international participation. Key trading partners, including the United States and other major powers,
continued to trade with Japan, undermining the effectiveness of the sanctions and weakening the
League's leverage.

3. Slow Decision-Making Process: The League's decision-making process was often slow and
bureaucratic. While the League appointed the Lytton Commission to investigate the Manchurian Crisis,
the time it took to gather information and reach conclusions allowed Japan to consolidate its control
over Manchuria. The delay in taking decisive action undermined the League's credibility and ability to
resolve the crisis promptly.

4. Limited Military Capabilities: The League had no standing military force of its own and relied on
member states to contribute troops in times of conflict. However, during the Manchurian Crisis, no
significant military action was taken against Japan to enforce the League's recommendations. The
absence of a strong military capacity weakened the League's ability to deter aggression and protect its
member states.

5. Withdrawal of Japan: Japan's decision to withdraw from the League in 1933 further undermined the
League's authority and effectiveness. With one of the major powers involved in the crisis leaving the
organization, the League's ability to influence Japanese actions and find a peaceful resolution was
significantly diminished.

Overall, the weaknesses of the League of Nations during the Manchurian Crisis, including the lack of
major power support, limited military capabilities, and slow decision-making process, collectively
weakened its ability to address Japanese aggression effectively. The crisis exposed the vulnerabilities of
the League and highlighted the need for stronger mechanisms for collective security and more robust
international cooperation.
Here's a possible answer for the first question on the causes, consequences, and the League of Nations'
success in resolving the Manchurian Crisis:

The Manchurian Crisis, which unfolded in the early 1930s, had various causes and far-reaching
consequences. One of the primary causes was Japan's imperialistic ambitions and its desire to expand its
influence in East Asia. The Mukden Incident served as a pretext for Japan's invasion of Manchuria,
allowing them to establish control over the region and create the puppet state of Manchukuo.

The consequences of the Manchurian Crisis were significant. Japan's aggressive actions violated the
principles of international law and territorial integrity. It destabilized the region and raised concerns
among other nations about Japan's expansionist agenda. The League of Nations, tasked with
maintaining international peace and security, faced a crucial test in resolving the crisis.

However, the League of Nations was largely unsuccessful in addressing the Manchurian Crisis. Despite
the efforts of the Lytton Commission, which investigated the situation and recommended the
restoration of Chinese sovereignty in Manchuria, the League lacked the power and unity to enforce its
decisions. Japan's withdrawal from the League in 1933 further undermined its effectiveness.

The League's failure to resolve the crisis revealed several weaknesses. First, major powers like Britain
and France were hesitant to take strong action against Japan due to their own political and economic
interests in the region. Second, the League's lack of an effective military force limited its ability to
enforce its recommendations. Third, the absence of unanimous international support weakened the
League's credibility as a collective security organization.

In conclusion, the Manchurian Crisis had significant causes and consequences. Despite the League of
Nations' efforts, it failed to resolve the crisis effectively, highlighting its weaknesses and the limitations
of collective security mechanisms. The crisis contributed to the erosion of international stability and set
the stage for further conflicts in East Asia.
Disarmament efforts in the 1930s faced numerous challenges and ultimately failed due to several key
reasons:

1. National Self-Interest: Many nations prioritized their own security and national interests over the
collective goal of disarmament. Countries were reluctant to reduce their military capabilities, fearing
vulnerability to potential adversaries. The lingering effects of World War I and the rise of aggressive
ideologies like fascism and militarism further fueled the desire for self-preservation through military
strength.

2. Lack of Trust and Cooperation: The absence of trust among nations hindered disarmament efforts.
Historical rivalries, territorial disputes, and ideological differences created deep-rooted suspicions and
animosities. The lack of cooperation and mutual understanding made it difficult to reach consensus on
disarmament measures and verification mechanisms.

3. Economic Considerations: The Great Depression of the 1930s exacerbated economic hardships
worldwide. Nations struggled to recover and rebuild their economies, and military spending was seen as
a means of stimulating employment and economic growth. Consequently, reducing military
expenditures and disarming seemed counterproductive to countries focused on internal economic
stability.

4. Failure to Enforce Treaties: Previous disarmament treaties, such as the Washington Naval Treaty of
1922 and the Treaty of Versailles, had not been effectively enforced or universally adhered to. Violations
of these agreements by various nations eroded trust and undermined the credibility of disarmament
efforts. The League of Nations, responsible for overseeing disarmament, lacked the means and authority
to enforce compliance.

5. Rising Tensions and Rearmament: The aggressive actions of revisionist powers, such as Germany,
Italy, and Japan, escalated international tensions. These countries openly pursued rearmament
programs, defying disarmament agreements and heightening fears among other nations. The failure to
curtail their rearmament efforts contributed to a sense of insecurity and further undermined
disarmament initiatives.

6. Weaknesses of the League of Nations: The League, tasked with promoting disarmament, faced several
structural and operational weaknesses. Its lack of enforcement mechanisms, limited resources, and the
absence of major powers like the United States weakened its ability to effectively drive disarmament
efforts and garner widespread compliance.

In conclusion, disarmament efforts in the 1930s failed due to national self-interest, lack of trust and
cooperation, economic considerations, failure to enforce previous treaties, rising tensions and
rearmament, as well as the weaknesses of the League of Nations. These factors collectively contributed
to the breakdown of disarmament initiatives and the subsequent escalation of armaments, ultimately
leading to the outbreak of World War II.
The League of Nations did have a Council consisting of permanent and non-permanent members, and
the permanent members had the power to veto decisions. The permanent members were the United
Kingdom, France, Italy, Japan, and later the Soviet Union.

While the veto power was not as formalized or structured as the one in the United Nations Security
Council, the permanent members could effectively block any decisions that required unanimous
approval. This power could be seen as a form of misuse or manipulation in certain instances. Here are a
few examples:

1. Corfu Incident (1923): After an Italian general was killed in Greece, Italy demanded compensation. The
Council condemned Greece and recommended that it pay reparations. However, Italy vetoed the
resolution, leading to a lack of enforcement of the decision.

2. Disarmament efforts: The League of Nations sought to promote disarmament and reduce the
likelihood of future conflicts. However, the major powers, including Britain and France, often disagreed
on the extent of disarmament and used their veto power to block significant disarmament proposals.

3. Failure to take action against aggression: As mentioned earlier, Japan's invasion of Manchuria and
Italy's invasion of Ethiopia were condemned by the League, but no strong actions were taken due to the
lack of consensus among the major powers, some of whom had economic or political interests at stake.

It is important to note that the League of Nations' structure and decision-making processes differed
from those of the United Nations, and the use of veto power was not as explicit or formalized. However,
certain instances where major powers blocked or undermined decisions do reflect a misuse or
manipulation of their influence within the League.

During the 1930s, the League of Nations (LON) faced specific weaknesses that exacerbated its challenges
and contributed to its declining effectiveness. These weaknesses can be summarized as follows:

1. Failure to Address Major Conflicts (2 marks):

The League failed to effectively address major conflicts that emerged during the 1930s. For example, in
response to Japan's invasion of Manchuria in 1931, the League's efforts to mediate and resolve the
conflict were largely ineffective. The League's lack of a strong response and its failure to halt Japan's
aggression undermined its credibility as a peacemaking institution.

2. Inability to Enforce Decisions (3 marks):

The League struggled to enforce its decisions due to its lack of military power and the absence of major
powers' support. When Italy invaded Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 1935, the League's economic sanctions
proved ineffective due to inconsistent enforcement by member states, including Britain and France. The
League's inability to enforce its decisions weakened its authority and emboldened aggressor nations.

3. Erosion of Collective Security (3 marks):

The principle of collective security, upon which the League was founded, suffered significant erosion
during the 1930s. Member states increasingly prioritized their national interests over collective action,
leading to a lack of solidarity. The failure to respond effectively to aggressor nations like Italy and
Germany demonstrated the breakdown of collective security and undermined the League's ability to
deter future acts of aggression.

4. Rise of Power Politics (2 marks):

The 1930s witnessed a growing tendency among powerful nations to pursue their interests through
power politics rather than adhering to the principles of collective security. This shift was evident in
Germany's remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, which violated the Treaty of Versailles and the
Locarno Treaties. The League's inability to respond effectively to this act of aggression further weakened
its standing and highlighted its powerlessness against countries pursuing aggressive policies.

5. Lack of Support from Major Powers (2 marks):

The absence of major powers, including the United States and the Soviet Union, limited the League's
influence and resources. The United States, in particular, never joined the League and pursued a policy
of isolationism during the 1930s. Without the support of these influential nations, the League lacked the
necessary political clout and resources to address major global conflicts effectively.

In summary, the weaknesses of the League of Nations in the 1930s included its failure to address major
conflicts, inability to enforce decisions, erosion of collective security, the rise of power politics, and the
lack of support from major powers. These weaknesses contributed to the League's diminished
effectiveness during the decade, ultimately undermining its ability to maintain peace and security on the
international stage.

Note: during the Abyssinian crisis, BR and FR were more worried about starting a war against Italy. Italy
was their strongest ally against Germany and they needed support against the aggressor. This was why
even though BR and FR had the chance to close the Suez Canal, which would close off Italy’s main supply
route to Abyssinia, they chose not to since they were afraid that closing the Canal would result In a war
against Italy.
To be in Italy’s favour, the foreign prime ministers of Britain and France hatched up a plan that would
give Italy 2/3 of Abyssinia after which Italy would have to withdraw their troops. The plan was shown to
Italy before the LON was informed about it, Laval threatened to stop supporting sanctions against Italy if
Britain didn’t support the plan. The Hoare-Laval pact.
The Hoare-Laval Pact had a significant impact on the League of Nations during the Abyssinian Crisis. The
pact was a secret proposal made by British Foreign Secretary Samuel Hoare and French Prime Minister
Pierre Laval in December 1935, aiming to resolve the conflict between Italy and Ethiopia. However, its
content and implications had a detrimental effect on the League's credibility and undermined its ability
to address the crisis. Here's how the Hoare-Laval Pact affected the League during the Abyssinian Crisis:

1. Betrayal of Ethiopia (3 marks):

The Hoare-Laval Pact proposed a partition of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) that would have given Italy a
substantial portion of the country. This secret agreement was seen as a betrayal of the League's
principles and its commitment to upholding the sovereignty and territorial integrity of member states. It
contradicted the League's stance of supporting Ethiopia against Italy's aggression. The revelation of this
pact damaged the League's reputation and exposed the internal divisions among its member states.

2. Undermining League Unity (3 marks):

The Hoare-Laval Pact further undermined the unity and coherence of the League. It revealed that key
League members, Britain and France, were willing to compromise with Italy at the expense of Ethiopia's
interests. This weakened the League's ability to present a united front against Italy's aggression and
created a perception of a lack of commitment to collective security. It eroded trust among member
states and diminished their willingness to cooperate in future crises.

3. Public Outrage and Resignations (4 marks):

The Hoare-Laval Pact caused widespread public outrage and condemnation. When the details of the
agreement were leaked to the press, there was a public outcry against the betrayal of Ethiopia. The
public's disillusionment with the League grew, as it became evident that powerful member states were
willing to sacrifice principles for their own interests. The scandal led to political upheaval and
resignations within the British and French governments. This further weakened the League's ability to
respond effectively to the Abyssinian Crisis and damaged its standing on the international stage.

In summary, the Hoare-Laval Pact severely damaged the League of Nations' credibility and unity during
the Abyssinian Crisis. It betrayed Ethiopia's interests and undermined the League's principles of
collective security and the defense of member states. The public outrage and political fallout that
followed contributed to the erosion of trust in the League and its ability to address international
conflicts. The Hoare-Laval Pact stands as a notable example of the League's failure in the face of Italian
aggression and the subsequent weakening of its role in maintaining peace and security.
Conclusion: To what extent was the League of Nations a success?

The League of Nations was not an entire failure and had great intentions; however, the limitations of the
LoN (no control over non-members, lack of security force and inability to control actions of members or
prevent actions of members) led to countries being able to take advantage of these weaknesses and
eventually led to the end of the League of Nations and an improved United Nations! So, all in all, the
League of Nations was not a failure because it led to peace in some instances and paved the way for the
UN. However, its limitations was enough to keep it from being effective as a permanent organization.