After the First World War, the world's leaders wanted to stop such a disaster ever happening again. Their answer was the League of Nations, set up in 1920 as part of the Paris Peace settlement.
Its aims were simple but ambitious: preserve peace through collective security, encourage disarmament, and improve social and economic conditions worldwide.
- Assembly — all member states met once a year; each had one vote, and decisions needed unanimity.
- Council — the real decision-making body; permanent members (Britain, France, Italy, Japan) plus rotating members met more often to handle crises.
- Secretariat — the League's civil service, based in Geneva, which ran its day-to-day administration.
- Special agencies — bodies like the International Labour Organization tackled health, refugees and working conditions.
The League's built-in weaknesses: The USA never joined (the Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles), so the League's biggest potential power was absent from day one. Germany and the USSR were excluded at first. The League also had no army of its own — it could only ask member states to supply troops or impose sanctions, and unanimous votes made fast action almost impossible.
So from the start, historians debate whether the League was ever truly capable of keeping the peace, or whether it was designed with fatal flaws that guaranteed failure once a determined aggressor came along.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it free for 7 days:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
In the 1920s, the League handled several small disputes reasonably well, especially when great powers weren't directly involved.
| Dispute | Year | What happened | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Åland Islands | 1921 | Sweden and Finland both claimed these islands in the Baltic Sea | League awarded them to Finland, with guarantees for the Swedish-speaking population — both sides accepted it peacefully |
| Vilna (Vilnius) | 1920–23 | Poland seized the city from Lithuania | League condemned the seizure but could not force Poland out — Poland kept Vilna, showing the League's limits even in the 1920s |
| Corfu | 1923 | Italy bombarded and occupied the Greek island after an Italian general was murdered on the Greek-Albanian border | League tried to mediate, but Mussolini bypassed it via the Conference of Ambassadors — Greece paid compensation and Italy withdrew, but on Italy's terms |
A mixed record, even early on: Åland shows the League working exactly as intended: small states, a fair ruling, both sides comply. Vilna and Corfu already reveal the pattern that would doom it later — when a determined state (Poland, Italy) simply refused to comply, the League had no way to make them.
The League also pushed for disarmament through the 1920s and into the World Disarmament Conference (1932–34), but this collapsed once Germany walked out in 1933 after Hitler came to power.
The 1930s brought crises the League simply could not handle. Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931; the League's Lytton Report condemned Japan, but Japan just left the League in 1933 and kept the territory.
Abyssinia, 1935 — the fatal test: When Mussolini's Italy invaded Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in October 1935, the League imposed economic sanctions — but deliberately left out oil, coal and steel, and never closed the Suez Canal to Italian troopships. Britain and France even negotiated the secret Hoare-Laval Pact (1935) to give Mussolini much of Abyssinia, hoping to keep him as an ally against Hitler. The plan leaked, causing public outrage, but the damage was done: Italy conquered Abyssinia by May 1936, and the League's credibility was destroyed.
Why did Britain and France hold back on real sanctions? Both feared pushing Mussolini toward Hitler, and both were more worried about German rearmament than an African war. This is the central debate: was the League doomed by its own structure, or was it betrayed by great powers who prioritised their own diplomacy over collective security?
Never wonder what to study next
Get a personalized daily plan based on your exam date, progress, and weak areas. We'll tell you exactly what to review each day.
While the League struggled, Italy and Germany pursued increasingly aggressive foreign policies. Mussolini wanted to rebuild a 'new Roman Empire' — Corfu (1923), Abyssinia (1935), and Albania (1939) were all steps toward it.
Hitler's aims were bigger still: overturn the Treaty of Versailles, unite all German-speakers (Anschluss), and win Lebensraum by expanding into Eastern Europe.
1935–36: Testing the water
Hitler reintroduced conscription and announced rearmament (1935), then remilitarised the Rhineland (March 1936) — a treaty-breaking gamble that Britain and France let pass unopposed.
1936–38: Building the Axis
Italy and Germany formed the Rome-Berlin Axis (1936); both intervened in the Spanish Civil War, testing weapons and tactics while forging their alliance.
1938: Anschluss and Sudetenland
Germany annexed Austria in March 1938 (Anschluss), then demanded the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia, home to ethnic Germans.
September 1938: Munich Agreement
Britain, France, Germany and Italy met at Munich — without Czechoslovakia present. Chamberlain, Daladier and Mussolini let Hitler take the Sudetenland in exchange for a promise of no further demands.
March 1939: Munich broken
Hitler seized the rest of Czechoslovakia, proving appeasement had failed to satisfy him — Britain and France now guaranteed Poland's independence.
Rhineland → Axis → Anschluss → Munich → Czechoslovakia broken → Poland guaranteed.
Neville Chamberlain, Britain's prime minister, believed appeasement was reasonable: Versailles had been unfair to Germany, war had to be avoided after the horrors of 1914–18, and Britain wasn't militarily ready. France largely followed Britain's lead, partly because its own defensive strategy (the Maginot Line) discouraged bold action.
Case FOR appeasement
- Bought Britain and France time to rearm (radar, fighter aircraft) before war came in 1939.
- Reflected genuine, widespread public horror at repeating WWI's slaughter.
- Some Versailles terms genuinely were harsh — revising them wasn't unreasonable in principle.
- The Soviet Union was distrusted, so a grand anti-Hitler alliance seemed unrealistic to British leaders.
Case AGAINST appeasement
- It convinced Hitler the Western powers would always back down, encouraging further aggression.
- It abandoned Czechoslovakia — a democratic ally with a strong army — without consulting it.
- It let Germany rearm and annex resource-rich territory largely unchallenged.
- It pushed Stalin to conclude Britain and France weren't serious partners, driving him toward Hitler instead.
Bring in Soviet policy too: Don't treat this as only a British/French story. The USSR had proposed collective security against Hitler through the 1930s but was excluded from Munich — a major reason Stalin later turned to Germany instead.
On 23 August 1939, Germany and the USSR signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact): a non-aggression treaty with a secret protocol dividing Poland and Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres. It freed Hitler from the fear of a two-front war.
On 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland. Britain and France, honouring their guarantee, declared war on 3 September 1939 — the Second World War in Europe had begun.