Failure of Collective Security

Failure of Collective Security - Cole Austin - 1B

Thesis:

• Although the League of Nations was based upon a very appropriate set of international rules in a time of prosperity and economic uprise, a sudden downturn in the economy accompanied by  increasing global tensions and failures for certain nations to act due to protecting their own beliefs, the League soon took a nose dive, leading to a separation of powers and a gateway to the start of a new world war. 

Topic Sentences: 

• Combination of European states failure to deal with international crises 
• The league of Nations had all the right intentions, but failure to cooperate forces was a major downfall
• Rival nations can only be scared into friendship by the fear of a common greater enemy
• France, being a weaker nation, wanted an army capable of carrying out the League's decisions in case of resistance
• Great Britain rivaled France's opinions, being a more stable nation and not wanting to put its forces on the line 
• France was not given the money from Germany's reparation payments that its economy so desperately needed
• The Locarno Spirit gave hope to all nations during a prosperous time shortly after WWI

Concrete Details:

• Arbitration (third party judges dispute)
• Military as last resort against aggressor; economic sanction was first resort
• No League army existed - lacked real power militarily 
• In its 20 year life, never sought to use military action once
• League led by European nations that were in decline
• Lack of US in the League caused a very dramatic loss in economical power
• Great Britain and France almost always had opposite view points in the League
• Germany not admitted until 1926
• Many conflicts due to the changing of territorial agreements
• Territorial agreements over Aaland Islands, Vilna, Upper Silesia, Corfu, Mosel, and Bulgaria
• Draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance and Geneva Protocol were created by France and rejected by Great Britain 
• Germany fails to make reparation payments to France
• France, Italy and Belgium mover into the Ruhr - the Germans retaliated
• When Germany had to pay their workers for their retaliation, it caused hyper-inflation
• US enters conflict - causes Germany to continue to pay France but in lesser quantities
• Rapallo Treaty allowed German forces to be trained secretly in Russia; economic cooperation between nations
• The Young Plan: reduced payments by Germany, deadline set to 1988, further US involvement enforcing payments
• Kellogg-Briand Pact - gave ability to use war as an instrument of international relations
• The Great Depression caused economic faltering in the US and quite largely in Europe as well
• Russian influence of communism against capitalism caused worry 
• No country was comfortable using the League's sanction strategies once their economies started quivering 
• Japan framed bomb explosion as a means of invasion/expansion - was hungry to expand its power
• League ordered Japan to retreat from China and give back land that was taken - Jap gov agrees, military resists
• Japan leaves League in order to continue expanding in an aggressive manner 
• Failure to act upon Japan showed that the League was not very credible on its promises to take action
• Italy invades African nation, which in turn resides in the League for help
• Both France & Britain worked outside of the League to make agreements with Italy for personal benefits
• France and Britain refused to work through the League against Italy - Italy therefore conquered Abyssinia  

Commentary:

• One of its main reasons of failure was the absence of a very powerful nation - most were small players
• Failure of a nation to ever put forth its own forces caused a lack of military power in the League
• The absence of the US caused there to be no settlements between Great Britain and France's conflicts
• Some viewed the League as a "robbers den" simply protecting their spoils won over by the TOV
• League started out as a "victor's club" - the four nations that came out on top of WWI
• Germany's power economically and militarily was quite underestimated due to its unofficial defeat\
• The hyper-inflation of Germany's economy led to a much likelier outcome of a future war due to economical crash
• France did not mind the decrease in reparation payments that Germany owed them - happy US was involved again
• France's decision to invade the Ruhr without consulting the League questioned its credibility 
• The Locarno Spirit gave hopes of peace and cooperation between conflicting and opposing countries
• 1920s: "Europe had survived, but it was still on the sick list" 
• The economic crises caused revolt and therefore new leaders in Japan; Belgium/Poland improved border defenses 
• The refusal of the Japanese military showed the low level of control Japan had over its military
• The League failed to have any follow up actions against the Jap, highly caused by depression
• Due to location of Manchuria, military action was not very possible for any nation
• Nations weren't willing to apply the collective security idea because their motivations/position didn't match up
• Former allies had been separated, and Italy drew closer to Germany - British/Italian/French alliance had failed
• The League had officially failed and the idea of collective security had died as well

Politics In War

Politics in War

Cole Austin

1B

Sep 11, 2013

            In my opinion, war is in a sense a literal action caused by the process of politics. In other words, it is like politics in action. Politics play a big part in the reason a war is started in the first place (such as oil, terrorist threats, nuclear threats, etc) and the main structure as to the means of how they should be fought. For example the war in Iraq; the U.S. saw a threat from them along with the possibility of oil access on their soil. Politically, it was a win-win. The U.S. went to war saying that it was a necessary response for the attacks they made on the U.S. The truth though, is that at the time we had no sure evidence or claim as to who committed it against us. We simply needed to show the world that we were not going to be bullied and let something as catastrophic as that go unanswered; we needed to strike back. Therefore, as mentioned earlier, the U.S. had leads on Iraq (along with the large supply of oil) and decided to attack. It was only later on that the U.S. was informed of the oil consumption/extraction that was taking place. 

            In another sense, war is based off of politics. We always need a reason to go to war, let it be to put on a display of might for the world, or for the simple sake of taking what we want from another nation. No matter what, there is always a hidden reason behind it. Such political action is evident since it is the U.S. government that even declares war, or unofficially involves itself in it. They put the country in the wars, but its up to the citizens to fight it as they stand on the side line coaching. In a simple way of putting it, we have not necessarily needed to go to war since World War II, but rather felt that it was necessary for the benefits of the U.S. to enter these following quarrels, and that one day when they were finished we would be a better nation for doing so (although many times was not the outcome). In other words, the idea is to come out better, or with some advantage that we didn't have before.