Weaknesses of the League of Nations (AQA GCSE History)
Revision Note
Written by: Zoe Wade
Reviewed by: Bridgette Barrett
Was the League of Nations weak from the outset? - Summary
One major issue was that not all countries joined the League of Nations. Even though President Woodrow Wilson had the idea for the League, the USA never became a member. This is because the US Senate did not approve it. This was a significant setback because the USA was one of the most powerful countries in the world. Its absence made the League less influential.
Another reason the League of Nations seemed weak from the start was that it did not have its own army. This meant that if a country decided to ignore the League's decisions or start a conflict, the League had no real way to enforce its rules. It had to rely on member countries to provide military support, which they were often reluctant to do. Without a strong way to enforce its resolutions, the League found it challenging to maintain peace.
The League's decision-making process required unanimous agreement for important decisions. This meant that all the major powers had to agree on a course of action, which was very difficult to achieve. Different countries often had conflicting interests and opinions, making it hard for the League to act decisively and quickly. This slow and ineffective decision-making process made the League appear weak and unable to handle international crises effectively.
The issues of membership
In 1919, 42 countries joined the League of Nations
By the 1930s, the League had 59 members
The League of Nations went against Wilson’s vision
Wilson wanted all nations to become members of the League
He wanted the League to work together to improve the world
Who could become members of the League of Nations?
Why was the League’s membership a problem?
The US Senate’s refusal to join the League of Nations meant the League lacked real power
The USA was one of the most powerful nations in the world by 1919
It had a large army that the League could have utilised
The USA’s presence in the League would have brought more legitimacy to its decisions
The exclusion of Germany and the USSR created enemies of the League
The decision isolated Germany, leading its citizens towards extremism
The Soviet Union was not allowed to participate in diplomacy due to its communist beliefs
The USSR was a large and powerful nation that already felt shunned by the Western powers after the First World War
This could prove damaging to protecting world peace
The structure of the League of Nations
Contemporary critics argued that the structure of the League was its biggest weakness
Strengths and Weaknesses of the League’s Structure
Body | Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|
Assembly | All members had one vote. This avoided the issue of one country dominating the assembly | Only met once a year All members had to agree on actions, making decision-making slow |
Council | Met five times a year They had three options for response:
Made quicker decisions than the Assembly | As permanent members, Britain, France, Japan and Italy used their veto powers Powerful members blocked the actions of other members Without the power of the USA, the Council’s decisions were weak |
Secretariat | Talented experts in multiple fields worked together in the Secretariat | Expensive Grew too large as the League expanded its role. This made it difficult to organise |
Permanent Court of International Justice | Well-respected in multiple countries Member states contributed legal experts to this body | Could not enforce its judgements |
Why was the League's failure inevitable?
The absence of the USA weakened the League
The League did not have one of the most powerful countries in the world as a member
The USA could ignore any economic sanctions or military decisions made by the Council
World leaders had different ideas about what the role of the League was
Wilson believed that the League:
Would work like an international parliament
Should prioritise solving world issues rather than national issues
Lloyd George (British Prime Minister) believed that the League:
Should only meet in emergencies
Could help Britain build its empire using mandates
Clemenceau (French Prime Minister) believed that the League:
Should protect France from invasion
Should have a large army
Worked Example
How useful are sources B and C to a historian studying the weaknesses of the League of Nations?
[12 marks]
Source B: A print created by Winsor Mccay in c.1920.
It shows Uncle Sam (a symbol of the USA) and John Bull (a symbol of the UK)
Source C: An extract from a book entitled ‘The Geneva Racket, 1920–1939’, published in 1941 by a British socialist and anti-fascist journalist called Robert Dell Dell lived in Geneva and reported on the League in the 1920s and 1930s “It was almost impossible to follow the proceedings of the League at Geneva without becoming cynical about it. The delegates acted in what they believed to be the interests of their own countries without the smallest regard for the general interests of the world. The journalists in Geneva were nearly all opposed to the weak behaviour of the League and the British and French governments. This was particularly true of the Americans. The British government was one of the most shortsighted. What foolishness its persistent opposition to any form of collective security is now seen to have been” |
Partial answer:
Source C is very useful for an historian studying the weaknesses of the League because it shows the different motivations of member countries. Bell writes “The delegates acted in what they believed to be the interests of their own countries without the smallest regard for the general interests of the world.” Leading members such as Britain and France had little interest in making decisions that benefitted the world. Britain wanted to protect its empire whilst France needed to defend itself from Germany. Therefore, the source is useful for showing how the actions of leading members weakened the League of Nations. It is more useful as the source was created by a person who witnessed the League’s decision-making in action.
Examiner Tips and Tricks
You may have seen this style of question in your thematic study for Paper 2A. However, the difference between that question and the “How Useful” question for Conflict & Tension: The Inter-War Years, 1918–1939 is that you require a conclusion in this version (for Paper 1B).
Therefore, to complete this answer, you need to write:
One paragraph analysing how useful Source B is for an historian studying the weakness of the League of Nations
A conclusion stating how both sources are more useful when used together and what they both show about the weakness of the League of Nations
For further guidance on this question, you can read this revision note on how to answer the 12-mark “How Useful” question.
Last updated:
You've read 0 of your 5 free revision notes this week
Sign up now. It’s free!
Did this page help you?
