5 ms·

The League of Nations failed because it was structurally somewhat broken, and the nations that championed its creation failed to use it to effectively wield pow

by Aloha 7y ago

The League of Nations failed because it was structurally somewhat broken, and the nations that championed its creation failed to use it to effectively wield power to prevent the next war (See Wilsons failure to get the treaty creating/joining the League ratified by the US Senate). The UN fixed the first part, and provided current trends continue, we continue to remember the lesson from the second part. While it is arguable that some sort of conflict was deigned to happen because of the inequities inherent to the Treat of Versailles, a worldwide war was not even the obvious conclusion from that.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
The UN and the LoN have exactly the same set of fundamental problems. Neither of those organisations had the power to do anything at all. If they don’t have the power to enforce their decisions, then they’re useless, if they do have the power to enforce their decisions, then national sovereignty ceases to exist. Which is why the UN or any organisation that succeeds it will always be irrelevant. How exactly do you think war has occurred in the post WWII world? Only in one of two ways. Either the instigator doesn’t care what the UN thinks, so they start their war, or they have to be seen to care what the UN thinks, so they ask first, the UN says no, and they start their war anyway. The security council is supposedly a mechanism for checks and balances, but all it really does it make sure that somebody is going to have an interest in vetoing any significant decision. Further cementing it’s irrelevance. The UN has demonstrably failed to prevent even a single war or genocide since its inception, yet it continues to exist. On what basis do you think failing to prevent war is eventually going to lead to its demise? The primary function the UN serves is as a forum for its 193 member states to each pitch a soapbox. It has never been a place that countries rely on to resolve disputes. The only real existential threat it faces is if the tax payers in those 193 countries get sick of paying for it.

by Aloha 7y ago

AmericanChopper 7y ago

The UN and the LoN have exactly the same set of fundamental problems. Neither of those organisations had the power to do anything at all. If they don’t have the power to enforce their decisions, then they’re useless, if they do have the power to enforce their decisions, then national sovereignty ceases to exist. Which is why the UN or any organisation that succeeds it will always be irrelevant. How exactly do you think war has occurred in the post WWII world? Only in one of two ways. Either the instigator doesn’t care what the UN thinks, so they start their war, or they have to be seen to care what the UN thinks, so they ask first, the UN says no, and they start their war anyway. The security council is supposedly a mechanism for checks and balances, but all it really does it make sure that somebody is going to have an interest in vetoing any significant decision. Further cementing it’s irrelevance. The UN has demonstrably failed to prevent even a single war or genocide since its inception, yet it continues to exist. On what basis do you think failing to prevent war is eventually going to lead to its demise? The primary function the UN serves is as a forum for its 193 member states to each pitch a soapbox. It has never been a place that countries rely on to resolve disputes. The only real existential threat it faces is if the tax payers in those 193 countries get sick of paying for it.