Also, the League of Nations did not help refugees. This was done instead unilaterally by governments or private foundations. As they mentioned, there was no peace keeping force. But most important of all, there was no international tribunal for war crimes. War crimes did take place during World War I, such as Belgium, Serbia, and the Ottoman Empire. If there was an international tribunal for war crimes, the atrocities of Word War II could have been prevented.
humans have to dominate, its human instinct to dominate one another. human peace is impossible because there has to be a dominant 'alpha male' and all men want to be that dominant 'alpha male' (not sexist...men=everyone). society needs to be controlled so that laws can be enforced, without law there comes mayhem. therefor the league of nations was bound to fail because humans need to dispute. domination is one characteristic that humans cannot loose from the modern hyper adaptation we see today
Woodrow Wilson was an early hippie. He thought that universal peace was possible. It was his naive attitude towards the effects of the war , coupled with other factors, that caused this mess.
You have to decide for yourself whether it was a success or failure; there's no clear answer as historians disagree. You just have to back up your conclusion and you'll get the marks either way.
In the United States, it was not the "Congress" or the "Parliament" that refused to support the League of Nations. The United States Senate declined to give its advice and consent to the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. The failure was the result of the stubborn attitude of Woodrow Wilson.
i guess to some people this is a success, but you forgot to mention them raping african nations and colonizing people, so that countries like britian wouldnt get benefit the most from free trade, instead other super powers took on the same role and called them selves hte league of nations, everything is ok, as long as a some black people suffer the aftermath
how can you even consider this to be a success? It was a failure because it should prevent the war but it never did. usa never joined , soviet union quit after 6 years same with germany and italy and japan they also quit. USA was busy with being isolated and in europe the war was about to start. and nothing has stopped it.
This video skimmed through the successes and failures of the League of Nations. I was more looking for why they didn't stop aggression in the period before WWII... so that's why I found this vid.
There were deeper repercussions made by the League of Nations....
Though i mostly remember the ones by the United Nations, like combining different religious people into one country (Yugoslavia) or giving the Hutus and the Tutsis identity cards, as if they really were different from each other...
it depends on the way you look at it, something i've learned from history is that there is not only 1 answer for it, you can have your own answer, it all depends on how you support it. :)
Very good
TheOriginalSaviour 1 month ago
Also, the League of Nations did not help refugees. This was done instead unilaterally by governments or private foundations. As they mentioned, there was no peace keeping force. But most important of all, there was no international tribunal for war crimes. War crimes did take place during World War I, such as Belgium, Serbia, and the Ottoman Empire. If there was an international tribunal for war crimes, the atrocities of Word War II could have been prevented.
uphamtimothy 2 months ago
Even if the USA had joined the League, it was as corrupt and ineffective as any other country.
TheLegoman991 3 months ago
thank you so much! you saved my life if it wasn't for you i would have never got this, i tried reading articles but that doest work.
codyrhodescute 4 months ago
Am I the only one on here who came to this video because I like the background music?
And before I start getting lectured, I know all about the LoN, and I know how the song relates. Awesome song :)
IssaaayRomana 4 months ago
the entire league was a failure
hoare-laval plan
sonyrast 9 months ago
humans have to dominate, its human instinct to dominate one another. human peace is impossible because there has to be a dominant 'alpha male' and all men want to be that dominant 'alpha male' (not sexist...men=everyone). society needs to be controlled so that laws can be enforced, without law there comes mayhem. therefor the league of nations was bound to fail because humans need to dispute. domination is one characteristic that humans cannot loose from the modern hyper adaptation we see today
nickclugston96 9 months ago
Woodrow Wilson was an early hippie. He thought that universal peace was possible. It was his naive attitude towards the effects of the war , coupled with other factors, that caused this mess.
eliotraincloud 11 months ago
they weren't able to use force when required.
i think they werre way too soft
wowspare 1 year ago
The League was made up of powerhungry morons.
Lightforspirit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DONT BELIEVE IT
bebo635 1 year ago
DONT FORGET THEY TOOK LAND FROM THE ARABIC PEOPLE.
TheAgentOfDeath 1 year ago
You have to decide for yourself whether it was a success or failure; there's no clear answer as historians disagree. You just have to back up your conclusion and you'll get the marks either way.
olive345 1 year ago
if the USA had joined the League of Nation, it might have persisted to this day as a success.
ireternalexistence 1 year ago 9
@ireternalexistence no, they wouldn't have sent troops halfway round the world the whole time.
jackarugby 1 year ago
In the United States, it was not the "Congress" or the "Parliament" that refused to support the League of Nations. The United States Senate declined to give its advice and consent to the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. The failure was the result of the stubborn attitude of Woodrow Wilson.
mindspring57 1 year ago
i guess to some people this is a success, but you forgot to mention them raping african nations and colonizing people, so that countries like britian wouldnt get benefit the most from free trade, instead other super powers took on the same role and called them selves hte league of nations, everything is ok, as long as a some black people suffer the aftermath
Ambushofblacks 1 year ago
It didn't achieve the main aim to attain peace. Failure.
imnuts0o0 2 years ago 11
how can you even consider this to be a success? It was a failure because it should prevent the war but it never did. usa never joined , soviet union quit after 6 years same with germany and italy and japan they also quit. USA was busy with being isolated and in europe the war was about to start. and nothing has stopped it.
gieemce 2 years ago
it was a success to certain extent. In some countries it did end up confrontations and issues, but overwall it was a failure.
Pollehann 2 years ago
I just watched this yesterday in class. Very cool!
veravallejo 2 years ago
Was This A Success Or FAilure
chipy518 2 years ago
a failure
clinicsheets 2 years ago
so, is it more of a success or a failure? Unsure about tis.
1cyw1zzy 3 years ago
This video skimmed through the successes and failures of the League of Nations. I was more looking for why they didn't stop aggression in the period before WWII... so that's why I found this vid.
There were deeper repercussions made by the League of Nations....
Though i mostly remember the ones by the United Nations, like combining different religious people into one country (Yugoslavia) or giving the Hutus and the Tutsis identity cards, as if they really were different from each other...
EllenRussell54 2 years ago
it depends on the way you look at it, something i've learned from history is that there is not only 1 answer for it, you can have your own answer, it all depends on how you support it. :)
Pollehann 2 years ago
thank you, this was really helpful for revision! and the choice of music made me laugh..
anonymousthefourth 3 years ago