Collective Security's Failure

     Why did collective security fail to keep the peace between 1920 and 1935?

Thesis: Collective Security failed to keep the peace between 1920 and 1935 due to its unwillingness to effectively punish the aggressor, its lack of force, and its fear of acting against nations within the League if necessary.

Supporting Claims:
1. The League's lack of will to effectively step in and punish the aggressor in times of crisis, such as the Manchuria Crisis of 1931, showed the League's weakness during a time of need and ultimately made them less credible and feared. By not stepping in and stopping the aggressor, like the League said they would, showed the selectivity of the League and lack of coherence as a group; thus, making it hard to respect their word.
2. The League of Nation's decision to use economic embargo instead of military force when trying to stop an aggressor ultimately led to its failure when its main economic backer, the U.S., faced the Great Depression and the League's only backbone was lost. Without a military force at its ready the League was only feared based on its word, which later proved to hold no weight. Also, the lack of the participating nations to want to risk any of their military also shows how committed they truly were to the success of the League; every participating nation put their own nation's safety and well being above all. In having a military force the League would at least of had tangible proof to back its word, even if it never used its military force, the image of all the nations' militaries coming after a nation could scare that nation into behaving.
3. The League of Nation's major downfall was its fear of acting against a member nation if it were to become the aggressor. In the case of the Manchuria Crisis the other member nations feared Japan and its power so much so that it made them only suggest to Japan that they give the land back to China rather than apply force to get it back. The League's rules did not apply the same for all nations; this is best seen with the way the League let Japan get away with taking advantage of China's weakness because it, too, feared Japan's power.

Concrete Details:

• Absence of Major Powers in the League of Nations: Without the US the League of Nations lacked military force and economic control. The League was a good idea in theory but without its creator it was nothing. Also, after Germany and Japan left the League by the early 1930s the it lacked major countries' power, and thus credibility. With only France, Italy, and Britain left as major world powers the League was void of the necessary resources to stop an aggressor. Plus with Germany and Japan on the outside Britain and France were now afraid to act out against either of them if they were to become the aggressor because it would put their own nation and limited resources at risk. 
• The Depression: The economic downfall of 1929 in the US and how greatly it affected the League of Nations shows how dependent the League was on the US economy for its success. As the US could not provide resources to other countries they became weak. Their focus shifted to sustaining their own nation, rather than doing what was best for the League. Due to this economic upheaval, the main use of force for the League, countries within the League became unwilling to risk their own limited resources for another country, ruining the spirit of the League. 
• Manchurian Crisis (1931): The League's lack of support of China and willingness to punish Japan was the first sign that the League was not ready to handle crisis when dealing with a major power. The League was great in theory, but when reality struck and the League was forced to act none of the participating nations wanted to do anything to reprimand Japan out of fear of what Japan, a world power, might do to them in return. 

What was the League of nations intended to do?

• The League of Nations intended to spread peace throughout Europe by forming a group of allied nations that would work together in protecting each other and in protecting other nations from an aggressor. 

To what extent do you believe the League of Nations was able to accomplish this based on its structure according to the League of Nations Covenant? (See Student Study Section pg. 89)

• Based on the Covenant the League of Nations should have been able to accomplish this because its system is set up similarly to that of the U.S. government. There are different departments and branches with different functions that also work together to ensure that the goal is being reached. However, the checks and balances in this system were lacking, as the large countries held more power and say than the smaller ones. Also, in the League the member nations always acted with their nation's best intentions and safety first most in mind when deciding for the League, rather than for the good of all, which is how it should have worked if checks and balances were in place.

Why, according to the packet, did collective security fail in 1930's?

•  Collective security failed in the 1930s mainly because of the U.S.'s economic crisis, which in turn revealed the weaknesses of the League. It showed that the member nations were more concerned with their own nation's economic problems than the League's involvement in acting against an aggressor. It limited the League's resources and made them unable to successfully act against the aggressor when the time came; it had no power to back its word without the U.S.'s economic support.