Not happy here--apparantly blogger did not publish my beastly post, so I apologize to everyone that was watching the clock. So here we go again:
During the time period after World War I, Italian expansion was increasing rapidly. Fascist Italy (under Mussolini) was continuing to evolve toward greater authoritarian controls, and therefore becoming more aggressive in its expansion. Both Italy and Nazi Germany were increasing their severity of expansion. In late 1935, Italy attacked Ethiopia, and consequently conquered the helpless nation. The League of Nations provided no resistance to Italy's actions: the league inposed only halfhearted and short-lived economic sanctions on Italy. Why was this? Was the league afraid that Italy woud instead turn on the imposing nations? Or did the league simply think that this issue would resolve itself? Either way, Mussolini was just getting started. The combined Fascist and Nazi efforts in Spain aided Franco in his efforts to win the civil war there. It was then that Hitler and Mussolini witnessed the inability of Great Britain and France to check their actions. Not long after, Italy continued on its path and annexed Albania. Italy was easily able to expand in these ways, aided by the reluctance of Great Britain, France, and the United States to take measures to check aggression. Was this what caused WWII? Had Italy's expansion been interferred with, what would have changed? Would the aggression have been crushed, and the world have returned to relative peace? Or would Italy and Germany have marched more quickly against new opposition from the League of Nations?
Again, I am sorry for the time delay. I tried to write a new post as fast as I possibly could.
I think that if Great Britain, France or the US would have gone to war directly after the mentioned incidents then they would have only caused the war to start soon and then lose it. As you can see later in history that France was very weak at that time, weak consisting of Germany swiftly defeating them. I feel that going to war with Italy or Germany at that time would not have been a smart move but ignoring then was not that wise either. I think that the countries at that time should have known that war was emanating from the belligerents.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the LoN goes, I think they didn't have the power to do anything. I'm not saying that they COULDN'T do anything, but since this was the first organization of its kind, it had no precident to follow, and I'm not sure that in that time period anyone was bold enough to say that the LoN should do more. And maybe not many people wanted an organization with that much power.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I think that as far as Italy goes, the US, UK, and France couldn't really do much. None were ready for war at the time, militarily and socialy. In England, Chamberlien still had enourmous support, and Churchill was still the "bumbling reactionary" MP with few followers. There was no support for agression.
I have mentioned before how the League of Nations at this time was simply a weak organization who had the concept but no back bone. I think they didn't get involved because they knew they couldn't do much, other than shake a finger at them and say stop. There was nothing to enforce it. And as far as us and Europe getting involved, I could see how no one was ready for war, especially after such decimation. But why didn't they at least come together to discuss what was going on? To figure out any other option besides starting a war to steer Italy in the right direction? At least then if it failed, they would have made some intent. Which for me, is better than nothing.
ReplyDeleteI honestly think the League of Nations was a joke. They ignored alot of stuff that probably should have been dealt with right away, I mean they were letting Italy get away with a lot of stuff. The League of Nations like Lauren said were also weak. And realistically if your a League that going to try to enforce some things you need some power. If I had been trying to rule the world back then the league would not have had me shaking in my boots one bit.
ReplyDeleteIt was the failure of the League of Nations to check both of Italy and German military expansion that caused WWII. If Italy's expansion been interfered with it wouldn't have stopped WWII they most likely would have had to stopped German's expansion too. However in the weak state that the League of Nations was in I doubt they could have done anything. Germany and Italy would have pressed on regardless even if the League of Nations did anything. However that might would have been different if the United States was part of the League of Nations but hey you can't go and change the past can you.
ReplyDeleteWel as far as the cause of WW2, I mean it was not really one nations fault. I think no one wanted a World War again and was in such disarray that they could not handle starting any issues. No country wanted to stand against one another because that could risk international outbreak! And absoiutley no one wanted that. As far as the league of nations, I just dont think they were strong enough to actually do anything! I mean it kind of as we said was a fail, it had no real power nor support. So really I just dont think that anything it tried to do would've been followed.
ReplyDeleteI think we've discussed enough how the League of Nations was ineffective at being the worlds policeman, but was that the original intent of Wilson? Wasn't the League of Nations supposed to be a neutral place of using dipolomacy for resolving the worlds conflicts? Was it designed to have it's own standing army? In that sense and in this case obviously it did fail. The countries that were supposed to be helping clean up the world after this disaster decided appeasement was the best option because it bought time, maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. We'll never know for sure.
ReplyDeleteI think it's safe to say that the League of Nations just did not want another war. The pain caused by WWI paralyzed Britain, France, and the League's other members. They would do anything to avoid war even if it meant giving in to the demands of Germany and in this case Italy.
ReplyDeleteIf the Allies could have stopped or slowed Mussolini's expansion, Hitler would have had less backup. This could have meant that WWII wouldn't have happened. On the other hand, it also means that there is a possibility that Hitler could have quietly exterminated the Jews without the rest of the world knowing, or caring enough to do something about it.
ReplyDeleteTo Kaylan's last question - I don't really think Italy and Germany would have changed their plans at all if the League of Nations had interfered. The LoN was kind of a joke,I would imagine, in the eyes of these expanding Fascist leaders like Hitler and Mussolini. Unless the League of Nations could spur a more powerful country than either the weak France or Britain to interfere, Germany and Italy had little to fear. That's my personal viewpoint anyway
ReplyDeleteI don't know that taking an imperialistic Italy out of the equation would have helped the war effort. Assuming the League of Nations could have stopped Italy from expanding, they were still clearly a force to be reckoned with. So were Germany to start WWII and Italy still joined, but without certain colonies, I think they still would have been a reasonable force.
ReplyDeleteWasn't it the goal of the League of Nations to promote peace? In that case, it wouldn't have been in the League's best interest to start interfering with Italy and Germany's military process. In the state of the global economy, growth was what the world needed, and there is a lot of economic value in military. No one at this time was really ready for war, but making the totalitarian governments upset wouldn't do any good.
ReplyDeleteI think that the League had basically good intentions but no real way of carrying them out. They had very little power at the time and no one really believed they could do anything. Also, Britain and France had economic trouble at the time. While they did try to send some aid to countries like Ethiopia, their support was only half-hearted because they were preoccupied with their own internal problems.
ReplyDelete