How successful was the LON at resolving conflicts/ border disputes in the 1920's

Unsuccessful

1. league descions were ignored

   1. polish, lithuanian dispute

      1. ignored because the league didn’t have enough power (they ordered for the polish army to withdraw from the region)

2. the league was powerless without a standing army to enforce their decisions

   1. corfu crisis

   2. lithuanian dispute - didn’t have an army to get poland out of vilna

3. B+F (permanent members of the council) acted in their own interests

   1. corfu crisis- britain wanted to send warships but france wanted to back the italians (most of there army was in the ruhr)

4. Permanent members of the council were treated differently from the other league members, the permanent members could commit acts of aggression without harsh consequences

   1. mussolini (leader of Italy) invaded corfu but Greece was forced to pay compensation to Italy. Italy was a permanent member of the leagues council and B+F didn’t want to anger Italy→ compared to the Bulgaria crisis- greece invaded Bulgaria and was forced to pay £45,000 to bulgaria. greece was not a permanent member of the council.

success

1. League decisions were accepted and countries obeyed the league

   1. 1921 aaland islands dispute- Finland and sweden accepted the league’s decision without question.

   2. In bulgaria, greece agreed to league’s decision

2. War was avoided

   1. though the leagues handling of conflicts was sometimes better than others, the league was able to prevent war→ even in the corfu crisis, Mussolini withdrew his troops from corfu after he was paid compensation

3. league members were mostly united in their decisions

   1. Britain and France were united in the decisions over the Bulgarian crisis, the vilna crisis and the aalands islands dispute

BLANK

BLANK