# data[].attributes.body
Following the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the start of the most devastating wars the world had seen. WW1 was the key factor for many of the events between 1918 and 1939, starting with the Treaty of Versailles in 1919

# data[].attributes.body
Following the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the start of the most devastating wars the world had seen. WW1 was the key factor for many of the events between 1918 and 1939, starting with the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.

# data[].attributes.body
Created by Field Marshal Alfred von Schlieffen in 1905, they were the main plans for the german aggression in WW1. They planned to fight a war on both fronts, and was first used during the invasion of Belgium and France in 1914, It ultimately failed due to the underestimation of the Russian army and a shortage of German troops. A key factor of the allied win of WW1

# data[].attributes.body
He was elected as the 33rd president of the United states, his power meant that his idealist views of having a united world were presented during the Paris Peace Conferences and he was able to play a large part in the creation of League of Nations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Abdication of Tsar Nicholas II – March 1917

# data[].attributes.subject
Abdication of Tsar Nicholas II – March 1917

# data[].attributes.body
Often considered the start of the Russian Revolution, it lead Russia to a communist regime, meaning they did not join the League of Nations although their membership could’ve had a large impact on several events such as the Manchurian crisis

# data[].attributes.body
Georges Clemenceau was elected as French prime minister on 15th November 1917, his harsh views contributed to the harsher points of the Treaty of Versailles as he strived to punish Germany. This may ultimately have lead to the retaliation that Lloyd-George and Wilson feared.

# data[].attributes.body
The Armistice of Villa Giusti between Italy and Austria Hungary came into affect on the 4th November 1918.
The Armistice of Mudros was signed on the 30th of October 1918 and ended fighting between Turkey and the allied powers.
On the 24 the of September 1918 Bulgaria asked for a cease fire with the allies. It exited the war the next day with he treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine.

# data[].attributes.body
On the November 11th at 11am the armistice came into affect between the allied powers and Germany, it marked the end of world war one. The agreement was signed by German, French, and British representatives, at 5:00am on the morning of November 11th, 1918. The Armistice itself began 6 hours later at 11:00am. The Armistice was signed in Compiègne, France, approximately 37 miles from Paris, in a railway carriage. Many people in Germany thought that they should continue the war and believed that Germany hadn't been defeated in war but stabbed in the back by the 'November Criminals'.

# data[].attributes.body
The Paris Peace conference opened as an international meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to establish the terms of peace after WW1. It helped produce the Treaty of Versailles

# data[].attributes.body
Published in Britain Feb 1919, it voiced the concern that Germany would escape the consequences that come with the war due to leniency from the Big 3. The source may reflect what the public wanted to happen to Germany as the 2 police officers represent France and Britain

# data[].attributes.body
The Treaty of Versailles is signed by Lloyd George, Clemenceau, Wilson, Orlando and Muller giving Germany new boundaries to ensure peace. The treaty included a covenant creating the League of Nations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Aug 11th 1919 - The Weimar Constitution 

# data[].attributes.subject
Aug 11th 1919 - The Weimar Constitution 

# data[].attributes.body
Friedrich Ebert, member of the Social Democratic Party and the provisional president of the German Reichstag, signs a new constitution, known as the Weimar Constitution, into law. Officially creating the first parliamentary Democracy in Germany.

# data[].attributes.body
In the Source,  it displays a bridge that represents the League of nations. The source presents the League of Nations as weak, without it's capstone, the USA. This may represent one of the failures of the LoN which is the lack of US support which would later lead to failed sanctions against Italy in the Abyssinian crisis, as oil sanctions could not be supported without US support.

# data[].attributes.body
In the Source, it presents the League of Nations as a powerless rabbit against "international strife" as a snake, a predator or enemy to the rabbit. This supports the idea that the League of Nations was not equipped to combat international disagreements with the lack of any military power due to Britain and France's personal goals.

# data[].attributes.headline
1920 - League of Nations formed (January)

# data[].attributes.subject
1920 - League of Nations formed (January)

# data[].attributes.body
The LoN was the brainchild of US president Woodrow Wilson, however the global superpowers of USA, Russia and Germany did not join. 42 countries joined the league in 1920 acting around the Covenant of the league. The USA did not join due to congress holding an isolationist policy and Russia and Germany were not invited until 1934 and 1926 respectively. The 4 main powers in the LoN within the Council were Britain, France, Italy and Japan who would meet about 5 times a year or in emergencies rather than the main Assembly which only met once a year.

# data[].attributes.body
The Kapp Putsch was an attempted right-wing nationalist and miltarist coup, led by Wolfgang Kapp against the Weimar Republic in order to reinstate an autocratic government. The coup failed after a few days after a large proportion of the German population followed a general strike. Although it failed it led to the Ruhr uprising a few weeks later and showed divide within the Weimar republic.

# data[].attributes.body
Reparations set at £6.6 billion

This crippled Germany as the German economy had been completely destroyed by World war 1. The sum of £6.6 billion was an unrealistic sum for Germany to pay. Unsurprisingly Germany was unable to pay which lead to in March 1921, French and Belgian troops occupying Duisburg, Düsseldorf, and other areas which formed part of the demilitarized Rhineland as a result of  Germany not being able to pay.

# data[].attributes.body
The Vilna offensive was a campaign of the Polish–Soviet War of 1919–1921. The Polish army launched an offensive on April 16, 1919, to take Vilna from the Red Army. After three days of street fighting from April 19–21, the city was captured by Polish forces, causing the Red Army to retreat.

# data[].attributes.body
1922 was a relatively quiet year in Europe, not because anyone was being more compliant or helpful, but because most countries were waiting for other nations to slip up. This year epitomizes the tension aspect of this topic as very few countries wanted to make a move this soon after the war was beginning to settle. Germany failed to pay their reparations by the end of the year, which lead to the French/Belgian invasion of the Ruhr the following year, making it far more difficult to not fall behind on the payments, which lead to hyperinflation in 1923.

The most notable ongoing crisis at the time was the German/Polish dispute over Upper Silesia where both nations wanted to own the land and its resources and residents, with an agreement being reached where the land was split, with Germany getting the rural land and Poland getting the industrial areas, but this left both nations dissatisfied, leading to further problems in 1925.

However, the most important event in 1922 was one that went under the radar ever so slightly. A very ambitious and patriotic man by the name of Benito Mussolini seizes power in Italy, wooing the public with his attractive ideals of a “New Roman Empire”. Mussolini wasn’t afraid to go against the rest of Europe to achieve this goal, which lead to major problems for the rest of the continent, with the Abyssinia Crisis and the formation of the Axis alliance leading to the second world war both directly stemming from this Italian dictator who inspired, terrified and allied himself with Adolf Hitler.

# data[].attributes.body
By 1922 European colonies were beginning to grow restless, feeling as though they had just won a war they shouldn't have been involved with and suffered huge losses in the effort. This growing unrest led to multiple crises and a general sense of tension. In the second world war the major nations would essentially end up sacrificing their land by giving the colonies independence in exchange for their help in the efforts.

# data[].attributes.body
1923-french invasion of the Ruhr-unhappy that the league would not ensure Germany kept to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles the invaded after Germany made only a small payment in 1922.Their aim was to confiscate industrial goods as reparations payments as they didn’t believe Germany was unable to pay the second instalment. They occupied coal mines, railways, steel works and factories all things that were important to Germany’s economy.Britain and the US did not approve and the people of the Ruhr went on strike.

Hyperinflation-The Weimar government's main crisis occurred in 1923 after the Germans missed a reparations payment late in 1922. This set off a chain of events that included occupation, hyperinflation and rebellions.In order to pay the striking workers the government simply printed more money. This flood of money led to hyperinflation as the more money was printed, the more prices rose.Prices ran out of control, for example a loaf of bread, which cost 250 marks in January 1923, had risen to 200,000 million marks in November 1923.
https://l.imgt.es/resource-preview-imgs/2eae7db6-e7c7-4912-9d8b-867f9b529880%2Fhyperinflation.crop_432x324_0%2C28.preview.jpg?profile=res-img-med-legacy-v2 This source depicting a German man standing in front of a money printing machine looking confused and bewildered. The money is flying out of the machine in an uncontrolled rate this depicts the overprinting of money that led to hyperinflation. The source also shows may hands trying to grab the money this represents the many struggling German people trying to get money to survive.

https://lenpenzo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/wheelbarrow-wallet.png

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-

BGGvM4SzJCk/UyX1yycJmiI/AAAAAAAAAF0/6AkNO8RaoiA/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/reparations-treaty-of-versailles3.jpg This source depicts a large bag of money with a high amount of money written on the bag (55000000000).German marks became worthless as prices rose the government had no choice but to print more money at the same time the German government was struggling to pay back the cost of reparations meaning even more money was printed.

# data[].attributes.body
Geneva Protocol: 1924

The French who were terrified by the idea of a strong Germany tried to give military power to the League. However, Britain blocked moves in the early 1920s to improve the arrangements for the use of force. In 1923, a “draft treaty of mutual assistance” was discussed saying that the League would only ask its members to send troops to nearby conflicts. In 1924 the Geneva protocol set out clear rules for the peaceful arbitration of disputes. If a country did not follow these rules the League was entitled to use trade sanctions and force. These attempts to strengthen the military of the League of Nations came to nothing. The British leader at the time Ramsay Macdonald initially supported the protocol, but new British government rejected the protocol in 1924.

# data[].attributes.body
The Dawes Plan: 1924

Under the Dawes Plan, reparations payments were spread over a long period, and 800 million marks in loans from the USA were invested into German industry. By 1927 German industry had recovered well. 1928 Germany finally achieved the same levels of production as before the war – reparations were being paid and exports were on the increase. This helped trade and made it much less likely for Germany to go to war.

# data[].attributes.body
Upper Silesia: 1921-25 (1924 included)

Upper Silesia was on the border between Germany and Poland and by the end of WW1 both Germans and Polish were living there. Both countries wanted to claim this land as there was important iron and steel production in Upper Silesia. In 1921 a plebiscite was held to see who would get the land. Germany won 60% of the vote but Poland claimed that many of the people who voted for Germany no longer lived in the area. They complained and the League of Nations decided to split Upper Silesia into regions according to how people voted. This meant that Germany received most rural areas and Poland received most industrial areas. The Poles thought that this was unfair as they would only receive 1/3 of the land but have half the population. The Germans weren’t satisfied either as they lost ¾ of their coal mines. They had owned prior to settlement- a valuable source of income. In 1922 Germany complained and was awarded the right to import coal at a discounted rate. When the agreement was finished in 1925 relationship between Germany and Poland had worsened.

# data[].attributes.body
The year 1926 seemed a time of promise in world affairs: Germany was invited to join the League of Nations in 1926 ( which they left in 1933) as well as having just signed the Locarno Treaty late in 1925- which said they would respect borders outlined by the Treaty of Versailles- giving France a sense of greater security. Russia regarded the Locarno pact with suspicion and felt as if it was the European powers forming an alliance against them. On April 24,1926, in an effort to reassure Russia, Foreign Minister- Gustav Stresemann signed a Soviet-German treaty in Berlin to extend friendly relations with one as other.  The treaty stated that Germany and the Soviet Union would be neutral with one another in the case that either one was attacked by any third party in the five years that followed- this treaty was further extended in 1931. However, unfortunately, these good relations did not last long after Hitler came to power.

Years after Germany’s initial exclusion from the League of Nations, Germany finally joined the League on the 8thSeptember 1926. They were finally admitted as a result of Germany signing the Locarno treaty in the previous year, proving the acceptance of the terms of the treaty. Now it was a permanent member of the League of Nations, Germany was one of the most powerful nations in the League.

The improvements in international relations for Germany in this year meant that Germany was beginning to no longer be ostracised following the First World War, they were now accepted into the wider international community that were working together to avoid another war that would, as we know now, cripple these unstable relations.

# data[].attributes.headline
1927 – Costa Rica ceases to be a member of the League of Nations

# data[].attributes.subject
1927 – Costa Rica ceases to be a member of the League of Nations

# data[].attributes.body
January 1st

# data[].attributes.body
Gathering of USA, Great Britain and Japan, to discuss making joint limitations to their naval capacities. The conference was a failure as the parties didn’t reach an agreement and the naval arms race continued unabated after the conference.
June 20 - August 4

# data[].attributes.body
The molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a non-agressive pact between Nazi Germany and the  Soviet union that enabled those two powers to partition Poland between them. The pact was signed in Moscow on 23 August 1939 by German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and was officially known as the Treaty of Non-agression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialst Republics.

# data[].attributes.body
The Kellogg-Briand Pact was an international agreement between 62 countries with the overall aim for a reduced use of war to end international disputes, it was signed in Paris on August 27th. This agreement included both the United States and Germany. This could be seen significant for Germany, as they were seen as equal partners to the other countries, unlike in the Treaty of Versailles.
There were multiple issues with the treaty though, one of which was the fact that there was nothing in the pact mentioning what would happen if a country was to break any of the terms. Another issue is that the treaty didn't help the League of Nations with disarmament.
But even though the treated had these flaws, most people would have considered the world to have been a somewhat safer place than before.

# data[].attributes.body
Great depression - 1929

The great depression started in 1929 after the US economy crashed which was partially due to the crash of the stock market. This had a very severe knock-on effect to other countries who traded with the USA. Those affected included Germany, Japan and the UK. Most countries also borrowed from American banks which made them richer and reduced tensions. Due to this, when the US economy collapsed it led to poverty and misery which caused major political problems.

# data[].attributes.body
The depression hit Germany badly and the Weimar government couldn’t do anything about it because they were weak. Many businesses were forced to close and this lead to hyperinflation. This allowed others, such as Hitler to start gaining support and The Weimar Republic lose even more support.

# data[].attributes.body
Partially due to the great depression, France and the UK were not willing to help solve any problems since they were too focused on fixing their own problems. This meant they would not be willing to help with crises.
this source shows how Japan, one of the leading countries in the league, is cutting down moral authority and is critical of the league since the league is shown to be unable to stop it.

# data[].attributes.body
The depression threatened to bankrupt Japan since its main export was silk to the USA. Because the USA was buying less silk Japan had less money to buy food and materials. Japan then became desperate and, partially because its leader were army officials, decided it needed to build an empire by invading weaker countries.

This source shows how Japan felt it had to fight whatever the cost in order to survive

# data[].attributes.body
hitler grows in power as other European countries begin to recognise his status as a dictator.

# data[].attributes.body
Beginning of the depression. After the wall street crash in August 1929, unemployment in Germany rose to the millions, many businesses both large and small went bankrupt. This led to growing support for the Nazi ‘workers’ party as they saw it as a way to escape from unemployment as Hitler promised jobs for everyone.

# data[].attributes.body
Context

·         In 1929, the stock market of America crashed

·         By 1930, nearly 2000 banks collapsed as people rushed to

1931

·         Affected Europe’s economy massively as so much of their trade was with the US

·         By 1931, 2.5mil unemployed in Britain and 30mil unemployed in the industrial

·         Also, Germany had relied hugely on America to maintain the reparation payments and 6 million people became unemployed.

·         Assisted the rise of Hitler as people became more desperate for a strong government

·         France and Britain were more concerned with their own economies than upholding commitments of the League of Nations which lead to its downfall

# data[].attributes.body
·         The Depression destroyed Japanese industry, so they were looking for room to replenish their industry and gain new raw materials

·         They wanted to take Manchuria from the Chinese so staged an incident at the South Manchuria Railway which the Japanese had control of

·         They accused the Chinese of sabotage and invaded the town of Mukden

# data[].attributes.body
Manchurian Crisis

In February 1932 Japan set up a Puppet government in Manchuria which did exactly what the Japanese army told them to do it was now called Manchukuo. Later in in 1932 the Japanese bombed Shanghai. The civilian army in Japan told the Japanese army to withdraw but they did not. China appealed to the league of nations, but this was difficult for the league as Japan was a key member. In September 1932 a year after the invasion the league decided that Japan had acted unlawfully and Manchuria should be returned to the Chinese.

# data[].attributes.body
Nazi Germany

By 1932 parties committed to the destruction of the Weimar Republic held 319 seats out of a total of 608 in the Reichstag, with many workers turning to communism. By 1932 the Nazi's had 230 seats and were the largest party. By 1932 President Hindenburg had to use Article 48 to pass almost every law.   In April there was the Presidential election. Hitler came second to Hindenburg, who won 53 per cent of the vote to Hitler’s 36.8 per cent. Brüning resigned as Chancellor. Hindenburg appointed Franz Von Papen, a conservative, as his replacement. By December Von Papen resigned and Hindenburg appointed Kurt Von Schleicher, as Chancellor. Von Schleicher tried to split the Nazis by asking a leading Nazi called Gregor Strasser to be his Vice Chancellor. Hitler forced Strasser to decline.

# data[].attributes.body
February 1933
February 1933
Japan went against the League of Nation's judgement and decided to invade more of China claiming it was for self-defence. On the 24th February the League voted in favour of removing Japan from Manchuria 42 to 1. Japan was the one who voted against and resigned from the League of Nations on the 27th March. This proved that the League was easily pushed over and that it was too afraid to enforce sanctions due to fear of upsetting economic p
favorite_border
0
comment
0
1936
1936
February 1936 Mussolini had already taken over large parts of Abyssinia
favorite_border
0
comment
0
1939 - The Occupation of Czechoslovakia
1939 - The Occupation of Czechoslovakia
favorite_border
0
comment
0
1939-The invasion of Poland and the outbreak of war
1939-The invasion of Poland and the outbreak of war
On the first of September 1939 Germany
favorite_border
0
comment
0
• Gathering of USA, Great

# data[].attributes.body
Japan went against the League of Nation's judgement and decided to invade more of China claiming it was for self-defence. On the 24th February the League voted in favour of removing Japan from Manchuria 42 to 1. Japan was the one who voted against and resigned from the League of Nations on the 27th March. With Britain and France not willing to risk their navies to forcibly remove Japan, the only countries that could have done it were the USA and USSR but they were not members of the League of Nations. Also the USA was a major trading partner with Japan and would not have wanted to disrupt this connection. This proved that the League was easily pushed over and that it was too afraid to enforce sanctions due to fear of upsetting economic partners and causing war. This event could have inspired and validated Mussolini and Hitler's plans for invasion in Europe and Africa. This source is critical of the League of Nations as it depicts Japan as being allowed to easily undermine and walk over the League. This painted the League as a weak organisation that were not willing to enforce their ideals.

# data[].attributes.body
Hitler was fully established as Germany's sole ruler by this point. He began rearmament and drafted thousands of unemployed workers into the army. This reduced the issue of unemployment in Germany and allowed Hitler to carry out his plans of challenging the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. To not cause alarm and scare the other countries, he announced his rearmament plans to the League of Nations at the Disarmament Conference in Geneva. To back up his plans, he argued that none of the other countries disarmed during the 1920's. In May Hitler promised to disarm if all of the other nations disarmed in the next five years. In October Hitler withdrew Germany from the Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations. This is ordeal allowed Hitler to build up enough man power to carry out his plans with the Rhineland and Anschluss with Austria without major intervention from the League of Nations.

# data[].attributes.body
Austria had been a separate country since the Autro- Hungarian empire was broken up after the First World War. Many people wanted the return of the 'glorious Austrian Empire' with Vienna as a major European Capital city. Dollfuss became the chancellor of Austria in 1932. He was the head of the Christian Social party which held nationalist and conservative beliefs. Austria had been Austria had been suffering from harsh treaty terms and had felt the effects of The Great Depression. Violent outbreaks started to occur, leading to Dollfuss establishing a dictatorship in 1933. He outlawed all political parties (including the Nazi Socialist Party,) A Civil War developed, and in 1934 Dollfuss established a new constitution which got rid of all traces of democracy in Austria.
https://joaquinveniniz.cumbresblogs.com/files/2014/05/Anschluss.jpg - This source is critical of Anschluss with Austria as it shows Mussolini allowing Hitler to take Austria even though it is not allowed in the Treaty of Versailles.
https://delfinamiyuranga.cumbresblogs.com/files/2014/06/descarga-1.jpg - This source is also critical of Anschluss as it shows HItler stealing Austria from the other fisher. This could be interpretted as Hitler 'saving' Austria whichw as the excuse he used to take Austria.

# data[].attributes.body
Mussolini invaded Abyssinia in 1935. Italy was a leading member of the league so the League of Nations needed to deal with the situation carefully. However, the League failed to deal with this crisis effectively as they did not take the situation seriously. In phase 1, the British and the French played for time as they wanted to keep good relations with Mussolini against Hitler. However, there was a public outcry and the league were forced to take action. In phase 2, the league debated over the ideas of sanctions. However, they had no way to enforce these sanctions as America was not a member. The British and the French failed to close the Suez Canal, which allowed Mussolini’s ships to travel to and from Abyssinia, as they were afraid it would result in war. 🤬 and Laval hatched a plan to give Mussolini two thirds of Abyssinia, in exchange for calling off the invasion. However, this was leaked and they were both sacked. The League of Nations did not effectively deal with the Abyssinian crisis.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1935 the league of nations held a plebiscite for people to vote on whether their region should return to German rule. 90% of people voted yes. This was a huge success for Hitler. In 1935, Hitler openly paraded his 2,000 aircraft in the Luftwaffe.

# data[].attributes.body
February 1936 Mussolini had already taken over large parts of Abyssinia and American oil producers stepped up their exports of oil with Italy. On the 7th March this allowed Hitler to remilitarize the Rhineland, he used the excuse that Germany was under threat from a pact between France and the USSR. He also knew he had many supporters as many thought the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh. The league condemned his actions but didn't do anything as they were too focused on the Abyssinian crisis, this was important as it meant that Hitler thought he could get away with more things and it also weakened the power of the LoN.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
picture of remilitRIZATION OF RHINELAND - Bing images

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
German Rhineland Hitler Rhineland Rhineland Map Demilitarized Rhineland Occupation of the Rhineland Invasion of Rhineland Rhineland WW2 Where Is Rhineland Rhineland Germany Reoccupation of the Rhineland Rhineland France Rhineland World War 2 Rhineland Europe Map Germany during World War II Germany Occupies Rhineland Rhineland WW1 Germany Invades Rhineland Where Was

# data[].attributes.headline
Relations Between Abyssinia And Italy 1937 

# data[].attributes.subject
Relations Between Abyssinia And Italy 1937 

# data[].attributes.body
Marriages between Abyssinian and Italian citizens were banned by the Italian regime.

# data[].attributes.headline
Neville Chamberlain becomes Prime Minister 1937

# data[].attributes.subject
Neville Chamberlain becomes Prime Minister 1937

# data[].attributes.body
Neville Chamberlain becomes Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on May 28th 1937 succeeding Stanley Baldwin. Chamberlain and his policy of appeasement was a large factor in the beginning of WW2.

# data[].attributes.body
Germany wanted to try out the weapons they gained in remilitarisation so decided to get involved in the Spanish Civil War, starting in 1936 and lasting till 1939. Hitler transported 2,500 troops from Spanish Morocco to Spain to try and ensure the nationalists' success. By 1939 Germany was destroying Guernica while the League of Nations looked on and did nothing. This is a key example of appeasement and the lack of control and power the League of Nations had. The events which took place in Guernica 1937 were even painted by picasso in his piece named 'Guernica'.

# data[].attributes.body
This source is obviously against the Spanish civil war and the terror and violence which came with it.

# data[].attributes.body
Italy signed the anti-comintern pact that was already formed with Japan and Germany in 1936. Italy's signing of this pact in 1937 made it even stronger and this threatened Russia greatly.

# data[].attributes.headline
Propaganda created about the Anti-comintern pact in 1937

# data[].attributes.subject
Propaganda created about the Anti-comintern pact in 1937

# data[].attributes.body
This was part of a Japanese propaganda campaign in 1938 made to support the anti-comintern pact.

# data[].attributes.body
March 1938 - The Anschluss with Austria was forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles but Britain and France didn't intervene when 99% of Austrians voted for unity in a supposedly fair plebiscite.

September 1938 - The Sudeten Crisis was a result of Hitler wanting to take over the Sudetenland, which held many German speakers as well as most of Czechoslovakia's defenses and armaments factories. This crisis led to the Munich conference.

September 1938 - The Munich Agreement came out of the Munich conference (held by Germany, Britain, France and Italy). Although Britain and France had assured they would protect Czechoslovakia, the decision was to give Czechoslovakia to Germany. Czechs felt betrayed and the Czechoslovakian president, Edvard Benes, resigned. This was also a prime example of the appeasement policy used by the Allies, one of the main reasons war broke out.

# data[].attributes.headline
1939 - The Occupation of Czechoslovakia 15th March

# data[].attributes.subject
1939 - The Occupation of Czechoslovakia 15th March

# data[].attributes.body
With Czechoslovakia in chaos German troops invaded the rest of the country on the 15th of March. There was no resistance from the Czechs. Nor did Britain and France do anything about the invasion. Unlike the Sudeten Germans, the Czechs were not German speaking and Hitler's invasion could not be justified.

# data[].attributes.body
On the 23rd of August Hitler and Stalin signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact and agreed not to attack each other. This also included the agreement to divide Poland between them. Stalin opted to do this after he saw that the League was powerless and wanted to secure his borders against invasion.

# data[].attributes.body
In March 1939, Hitler took over the rest of Czechoslovakia when they descended into anarchy and demanded independance. Hitler persuaded Czech president to allow German troops to 'restore order'.
in April 1939, Britain and France made an agreement with Poland to support it if Hitler invaded. Chamberlain made arrangements for public safety. Hitler and Mussolini also made a pact to support each other.
Italian Army was weak and Hitler had to rescue it after a disastrous invasion of Greece in 1940. After this Mussolini became a puppet controlled by Hitler.
Britain and France wanted wanted USSR to help protect against Poland but USSR didnt trust France and couldbt understand why nobody stood up to Hitler earlier.
Stalin signed the the Nazi-Soviet pact with Hitler August 1939 and they agreed to not attack each other. They also planned to carve up Poland although Germany never intended to let USSR keep those areas

# data[].attributes.headline
1939-The invasion of Poland and the outbreak of war

# data[].attributes.subject
1939-The invasion of Poland and the outbreak of war

# data[].attributes.body
On the first of September 1939 Germany's army had invaded Poland from the west and the Soviet army had also invaded Poland from the east so Poland was destroyed.
Britain and France declared war on Germany on the 3 September.
Hitler didn't want this war to happen this soon, it was at the wrong time, against the wrong people. He had taken one gamble too many.

# data[].attributes.body
•	Gathering of USA, Great Britain and Japan, to discuss making joint limitations to their naval capacities. The conference was a failure as the parties didn’t reach an agreement and the naval arms race continued unabated after the conference.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"To-day, in the immense revolution which this war really is, the preeminent dignity of each nation must be recognized, the rights of all nations must be reaffirmed and consecrated."

AP

I.
When the League of Nations was a new phrase, those persons who welcomed it enthusiastically heard themselves dubbed fools by those who were known as skeptics and as wise men.

At that time the skeptics were, as they are always and everywhere, in the majority; for faith is a rare quality, whereas doubt is the most eminently judicious attitude-the attitude in which one runs the least risk of compromising one's self.

'A League of Nations! - Tell me, do you believe in it?' said a French statesman of light and leading to a Dutch journalist, to whom he had granted an interview. To him, the idea was a Utopia-nothing more.

The wise men adopted a less scornful tone; they replied, with sober faces and after mature reflection, 'The League of Nations is an excellent idea. But before we think of putting it in effect we must bring the war to an end and arrange the terms of peace. Then, and only then, can we give our minds to the creation of any kind of league between all nations. But if we should succeed, doubtless it will mean the entire avoidance of war in the future.'

This dictum of wisdom, which savors of hypocrisy no less than of caution, was that pronounced by Chancellor von Hertling in his reply to President Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George. And it may be that this Teutonic interpretation of the idea has brought some valuable additions to the category of fools, who have finally found themselves in most excellent and illustrious company.

Indeed, fools are sadly calumniated: elder brothers of the poets, eager to live what the latter content themselves with singing, they are the men who march in the van on the road whereon mankind progresses only by defying the unknown and believing in the future. It is the fools, the idealists, who guide the world.

One day there arrived in France a message sent by a man who had labored alone and had reflected profoundly in his White House, on the other side of the ocean: it was the noble message of President Wilson concerning the League of Nations.

From that moment the idea began to make headway. The fools have become so numerous that they are now regarded as sensible folk. Now that the heads of the governments of the United States and Great Britain have pronounced in its favor, and the principle has been accepted from the tribune of the French Chamber, by Premier Ribot, no one would venture to call the League of Nations a Utopia.

To-day no one denies the principle; but the criticisms, or reservations, relate simply to the possibility of giving it effect, to the method of applying this scheme to the difficulties of the present situation. Those who put forward these criticisms and reservations consider themselves realists, because they claim to concentrate all their attention on the practical details of a tangible and legal organization. In reality they hypnotize themselves by evoking imaginary obstacles; and we can fairly say of them that they have eyes but see not, and ears but do not hear.

The League of Nations is not yet in power; it is not strong enough; it cannot, to-day, enforce its determination to do justice and its higher law. Nevertheless, it already exists. Its origin and the origin of the present wear derive form the same sources; and it has not ceased to develop pari passu with the development of the war itself.

Let us recall the beginnings of the great conflict which for four years past has drenched with blood all the battlefields of Europe. It began with the attack of the imperialist states, Germany and Austria, upon Serbia, a small nation without adequate means of defense, which was prepared to make all reasonable concessions to preserve the peace. A few weeks later, its scope was broadened because the German army, in utter disregard of treaties, in violation of the law of nations, forced its way into Belgium. And it was because of this violation of Belgian neutrality, because Germany disavowed her own signature, that Great Britain entered the war.

Months, years pass. The war drags on, spreads out. Germany, thinking only of multiplying her means of attack and defense, constantly commits new violations of the law. In contempt of all international agreements, she inaugurates submarine warfare; and then it is that free America, across he Atlantic, rises in her turn in defense of the Right. Thus, by three stages, - because the rights of the free peoples and international law were violated, - the war broke out, and its contagion spread, as a result of the claim of the Central Empires to universal domination established at the expense of all other countries.

On the other hand, why, and in the name of what undying principles, have these Empires, in their aggression, been confronted by an opposition, by a will to fight, ever more powerful and more obstinate to persevere until victory is declared? Of course, the states directly attacked took up arms in defense of their independence; but still, in the course of that defense they have always declared that, if the destiny of arms should turn in their favor, they would use it solely to reestablish outraged Right, never to inflict upon their enemies the evils which the latter had in store for them.

On the day when France, brutally attacked by Germany, issued the decree of mobilization, on that day, when five millions of Frenchmen rushed to the colors, our claim to Alsace-Lorraine was brought to our mind anew-that is to say, the claim of the right of all French peoples to decide their own fate. This right was violated in 1871, when the people of the two conquered provinces heard themselves described as 'cheap cattle,' and were compelled to pass under foreign domination. At that time Germany appealed fraudulently to the theory of nationalities, declaring that the Alsace-Lorrainers ought to be incorporated in the German body politic, even against their will, because they were Germans in race and in language. The theory which France alleged in opposition was that of the French Revolution, so clearly and emphatically defined by Fustel de Coulanges.

That which distinguishes one nation from another is neither race nor language. Men feel in their hearts that they are of one and the same people, that they have a community of ideas, of interests, of inclinations, of memories, and hopes. This is what constitutes the country. This is why men wish to march together, to work together, to fight together, to live and die for one another. The country is the thing that we love. It may be that Alsace is German in race and language; but in the spirit of nationality, in love of country, she is French. And do you know what made her French? It was not Louis XIV, but our Revolution of 1789. Ever since that time, Alsace has shared our destiny. She has lived our life. All that we thought, she thought. All that we felt, she felt. She has shared our victories and our defeats, our glory and our errors, all our joys and all our sorrows. She has nothing in common with you. In her eyes the patrie is France. In her eyes, Germany is a foreign land.

These words may be said, at the present moment, to represent the universal thought which is the logical consequence of the whole development of our French Revolution. Just as the preeminent dignity of the human person was recognized then in our laws and our codes, so to-day, in the immense revolution which this war really is, the preeminent dignity of each nation must be recognized, the rights of all nations must be reaffirmed and consecrated.

II.

It is in obedience to this spirit of justice, to reestablish outraged Right, and to restore to the injured nations their national integrity, that great nations like Great Britain and the United States have intervened in the war although not directly attacked. Neither Great Britain nor the United States dreams of setting up its own hegemony in opposition to the hegemony of Germany. With them, as with all the members of the Entente, the essential object of this conflict, its reason for being, is not to bring about the triumph of one domination, European or other, rather than another, but to make Europe and the world, once for all, safe from such disruptions; it is to confront the Right of Might with the Might of Right.

If this spirit of justice did not inspire all the nations of the Entente, - if the United States, Great Britain, France, and Italy, entertained the same purposes as the guiding minds of the Central Empires, the same profound contempt for the rights of nations, the same trust in brute force, - it is probable that peace might very easily be made; that it might already have been made. According to the theory on which the old treaties were negotiated, it would have been easy to arrange terms of peace at the time of the Russian breakdown: the states of the Entente had but to be guided by the method adopted by Prussia, Russia, and Austria in a celebrated instance, toward the end of the eighteenth century. They would then have proposed to the Central Empires to divide with them, not a modest little Poland, but the domain, the immense booty of Russia in Europe and in Asia, which would have been practically defenseless against so powerful a combination.

But the bare suggestion of such a detestable solution is enough to disclose how absolutely opposed it would be to all that the nations of the Entente have sought and desired in their action throughout this conflict. Such a solution could be imposed only by violent means upon the peoples who would be the victims of that shameful jockeying. And even if we admit that the efforts of all the states joined and combined could triumph over their victims, how long would such a result endure? How could any twentieth-century people, subjected by force to the domination of this or that power, consent to undergo such a fate? The diplomats of an earlier time had the presumption thus to redraw the map of Europe. In 1815, by the Treaty of Vienna, they disposed arbitrarily of states and peoples. But not many years after, in Germany, in Austria, in Italy, revolutions broke out. The crime of 1815 led very speedily to the convulsions of 1848.

It would be the same to-morrow if the present-day problems should e solved summarily according to the old methods. New disputes would very soon arise-internal disputes, in which the subjugated populations would strive, by insurrections, to make their disregarded rights effective once more; disputes between the nations which had managed the partition and which would all have reasons for fighting among themselves, as do bandits when they come to a division of the spoil.

To arrive at the durable peace which is the common goal of all the nations of the Entente, we must repudiate the method of violence in nay degree whatsoever; we must abandon all idea of founding the guaranties of national security upon force. Even if we should succeed in achieving by military and diplomatic pressure the rehabilitation of the invaded countries, the object that we pursue would not be attained. The destruction of the German army, even the dismemberment of Germany, would not suffice to ensure the safety of France. The past teaches us the worthlessness of the strategic precautions of the conqueror when he is in a position to impose his will upon the vanquished.

In the triumphant hours of 1806, when Napoleon I had Prussia under his heel, eh thought to reduce the Prussian army to helplessness by limiting it to 40,000 men under arms. The Prussian generals who were forced to submit to these harsh conditions speedily caused the whole civilian population to submit to military training; and in 1813, it was a whole militarized nation that confronted the tyrant at Leipzig.
III.
Such is the lesson of history. It teaches us that the Great War, the crusade of the nations of the Entente to ensure the reign of liberty and justice throughout the world, cannot be brought to an end by a peace negotiated after the manner of the treaties of an earlier time.

What confidence could we have in a final treaty analogous to those which our enemies have treated as 'scraps of paper,' rather than allow themselves to be impeded by them in their brutal aggression? The moment their validity was put to the test, the treaties bearing the signature of Germany and purporting to guarantee the independence and neutrality of Belgium became, in the eyes of German statesmen, mere scraps of paper. And that shocking phase was not, mark you, a hasty exclamation, uttered in a moment of intense excitement by a minister whose imagination led him to partake of the savage enthusiasm of the invading troops; no, it expressed succinctly the German will and the German purpose, in their conception of the relations of the strongest nation with the weakest.

In the past four years innumerable acts have confirmed and emphasized the iniquitous remark of the German Chancellor; and German jurists have undertaken to justify it in their writings. Listen to the words of a German 'intellectual,' Joseph Köhler, Professor of International Law: -

No law is so sacred that it must not yield to necessity; and this act, performed under the pressure of necessity, does not constitute a violation of law. ... The irresistible force of war and conquest takes possession of countries and peoples; that is one of the fundamental principles of international law. ... Let us not lend an ear to the voices of those who emphasize the difficulties to which annexation would give rise in the victorious state, on the pretext that it would come in collision with alien elements which might offer resistance. That idea may terrify a weak and timid people, but a youthful and sturdy one is contest to thrust aside obstacles of this nature: the great Siegfried does not allow himself to be frightened by a recalcitrant population.

This is the sort of thing that German jurists are writing after four years of war! According to them, justice no longer preoccupies any but weak and timid nations! The great Siegfried, for his part, proposes to crush beneath his heel the liberty of those peoples who attempt to resist him! That is why, when the hour of peace shall have struck, the signature of the great Siegfried will not be enough for us. What we must have is, as President Wilson has said many a time, an international treaty, in which all questions shall be submitted to a supra-national authority which, on the one hand, will be charged with the duty of defining the rights of the nations, and on the other, will have at its disposal the means to secure the recognition of those rights by force.

Face to face with a foe who has not disarmed, who has renounced none of his schemes of domination, the only guaranty is the union of all nations, clothed with the duty and the power to which peace shall seem possible to us. This necessary solution is within our reach, since the essential mutual understanding is already achieved by the impressive union of the greatest nations of the world, leagued together in defense of liberty.

Before studying the first traces of the existence of the League of Nations in the past, and before discussing its probable future, we have thought it well to show that it does already exist. It was born of the very excess of suffering and tyranny imposed upon the world; ti has grown in the bosom of our worst distresses, as the noble prophetic verses of Victor Hugo proclaimed more than a half-century ago: -

Dès à present dans nos misères
Germe l'hymen des peoples frères;
Volant sur nos sombres rameaux,
Comme un frelon que l'aube éveille,
Le Progrès, ténébreuse Abeille,

Fait du Bonheur avec nos maux.

IV.
The experience of Rome in ancient times shows us what the Empire of the Cæsars did for the enfranchisement and peace of the universe, so long as it continued to be a league of nations. The people which made up that Empire did not depend upon an Emperor, but upon a political association, a body of senators, magistrates, and citizens; and they realized that they had at the same time a great and a smaller country.

This happy equilibrium was destroyed on the day when the Roman Empire undertook to transform itself into a single entity; when it ceased to be an organization of different nations and cities, and mingled all that it included in one confused whole, without proper differentiation.

In the Middle Ages we have the example of the Church, which exercised rights of sovereignty in each of the states under its jurisdiction. Its rôle in the termination of wars, in the conclusion of treaties, affords an example of numerous supra-national interventions which were effective down to the period when religious authority was checkmated by the coming of modern times and the development of lay elements.

More recently still, it has been impossible to disregard the scope of international conventions: for example, those which were created to abolish slavery and to establish the Universal Postal Union.

Since the meeting of the Anti-Slavery Conference at London, that is to say, from 1841 to 1910, there have been 175 inter-governmental conferences some of which have met with quasi-regularity; for instance, there have been fifteen geodesic conferences, thirteen sanitary, and eight penological.

Lastly, there have been the conferences at The Hague, where we find a significant alignment of the powers in making important decisions. When, in 1907, the nations had assembled to enter into compulsory arbitration treaties among themselves, the main principle was ratified by thirty-five votes, with only five in opposition-those of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Greece, Roumania, and Turkey. That is to say, only eleven years ago, at the time of signing the arbitration treaties, the Entente stood almost solidly on one side, with the neutrals, while on the other side were the Central Empires and their allies. In these beginnings, made in the face of oppositions, we see the first form of that League of Nations which, since the war began, has resolved itself into the present system of inter-Allied relations. In the federation of all the nations who are fighting for the Right, not one is, at this moment, acting with entire independence. They must, one and all, unite and act together, not only in what concerns their armies, but also in respect to the general conduct of all the diplomatic and political affairs of the Alliance.

In face of the unity of control of the enemy, the restrictions upon their individual sovereignty to which the Allied nations assent go constantly deeper and deeper. Every day further progress is made among them toward a closer and closer bond of union, a subordination of all alike to the common, higher interest which guides them and unites them in this conflict.

This bond of union, freely accepted, and this subordination of all to the general interest, have extended from the general conduct of the war to the domain of supplies, of finances-in a word, step by step, to the whole life of the nations.

The reciprocal oversight thus exercised does not appear in the light of an annoyance or an encroachment but, on the contrary, as a guaranty and constant assurance of the continuity and fair distribution of the efforts of each one of the nations in the common struggle.

In this closely knit bond of the Entente, the smaller nations are neither sacrificed, nor even subordinated more than the greater ones, to the general interest. But they feel that they stand on an equality as to their rights, no less than as to their duties, in the councils which decide upon the common action and upon the means of putting it in execution. It was these councils which reached an agreement to define our war-aims. They will lay down our terms of peace also, which will include no private terms for any member of the Entente.

We see, then, that it has been found to be necessary, in order to bring the war to a successful issue, to establish between the various nations of the Entente a system of international relations, more strictly defined and more restrictive of their individual sovereignty than would be possible in times of peace. And this is the decisive, peremptory argument which answers by anticipation all the objections as to practical obstacles in the way of the creation of the League of Nations. What remains to be solved is nothing in comparison with what has been solved and with the benefits we may expect to derive therefrom.

If the League of Nations had been in existence in August, 1914, Germany probably would not have declared war; but even if she had dared to do so in defiance of the conventions signed by her, all the nations which are willing to guarantee justice and the law would have found themselves compelled to enter at once into the conflict. Instead of intervening without concert and one by one, all the nations of the Entente would have come forward together, at the precise moment in August, 1914, when the crime was committed.

Such is the world-organization at which we aim and which has been proved to be practicable by the experience of four years of war. It is in process of realization; to perfect it, nothing more is needed than perseverance on the part of the governments, and the concurrence of all the free nations.

Then will come true the old dream of all the great minds which in times past have aspired to the enthronement of justice. Listen to Kant, whose thought is distinctly adverse to Germany in the Essay on Perpetual Peace: -

No treaty of peace can be considered as such if either party to it secretly reserves some ground for renewing the war. ...

No independent state (whether large or small makes no difference) can be acquired by another, whether by inheritance, exchange, purchase, or gift. ...

No state should intervene by force in the polity and government of another state. ...

No state, at war with another, should be guilty of such hostile acts as, on the return of peace, would make mutual confidence impossible: as, for example, the employment of murderers or poisoners, the violation of a capitulation, or an attempt to spread treason in the state with which it is at war. ...

The civil constitution of every state should be republican. ...

The law of nations must be based upon a federation of free states.

All the great revolutionary spirits have declared that the rights of the peoples collectively must be recognized in society, even as the rights of man have been recognized.

It was Victor Hugo who, as a Deputy in the Assembly of 1848, said: 'The French people have hewn from imperishable granite, and laid, in the centre of the old monarchical continent, the first stone of the vast edifice which will some day be known as the United States of Europe.' And it was Lamennais who, in his Words of a Believer, replied thus to the question, 'Young soldier, whither goest thou?' - 'I am going to fight for justice, for the holy cause of the nations, for the consecrated rights of the human race.'

This reply our soldiers translated into action, when, in August, 1914, all France rose to defend itself against the German aggression. All our soldiers, all the workingmen, peasants, tradesmen, merchants, and professional men of France, when they were called upon to fight for the freedom and independence of their native land, had another idea as well. When, on receipt of the order of mobilization, they joined their regiments, one and all exclaimed, 'We propose that this shall be the last war!' Since then many of them have fallen on the battlefields of the Marne, the Yser, Verdun, and the Somme. But those who remain preserve the memory and the determination of those dead heroes who saved France, and they are resolved to fulfil, over and above the salvation of their country, the noble humane dream of their varnished brothers.
V.
The fulfillment of this dream is the only clearly defined object which the proposed supra-national organization will set before itself at the beginning. Its first duty will be to eliminate, or at all events to reduce as far as possible, the chances of another war. It will succeed in that object by creating a system of rights between nations like that which the State, among civilized peoples, creates between individuals.

It is a difficult task. To progress from the anarchical condition of the world before the war to a complete organization deserving the name of a League of Nations in the fullest sense of the word-that will unquestionably be a long, long road; but we can clearly make out the first stage, which we can traverse during the war.

A court of arbitration must be set up-that is to say, a method of procedure for settling controversies between nations, analogous to that which has already been resorted to in a certain number of cases. But to avoid the repetition of an experiment which was tried in the last decades of the nineteenth century, and of which the acid test of this war has demonstrated the inadequacy, we must invest the tribunal with the function of drawing up the rules to be applied, and reinforce it with the power to execute them.

In reply to President Wilson's eloquent appeal in favor of compulsory arbitration, we saw last year the Central Empires, and even the Sultan of Turkey himself, give in a solemn adhesion to the principle. There was just one small restriction: the principle of arbitration was accepted by the representatives of our adversaries only with reservation of the 'vital interests' of either of the three Empires concerned. We know to-day, by the example of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, what those Empires mean by their 'vital interests,' and how far they carry their contempt of the most legitimate interests of other nationalities.

Of course, nations more considerate of the rights of others might refrain from such excesses; but we must recognize none the less that an attitude of distrust with respect to any given system of unconditional arbitration is altogether justifiable, even for states honestly well disposed to the principle.

The supra-national organization should therefore take for its immediate task to establish the essential rights likely to be agreed upon by the participating nations. General formulæ are not enough. Upon general formulæ the whole world may declare itself to be in accord-even Chancellor von Hertling and President Wilson; but as soon as we come to precise applications, unconquerable opposition appears.

The supra-national organization will have to study one after another, in connection with the great principles offered for its scrutiny, the formulæ and the rules capable of transforming a general platonic ideal into a workable law, susceptible of practical judicial execution.

This scheme may seem over-ambitious, and so it would be, in fact, if it were proposed to solve all questions at a single stroke; to secure at the first attempt a complete code of relations between the different states. But we consider, on the contrary, that, in this more surely than in any other matter, the questions to be solved must be divided into categories. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Let us give to this organization, to begin with, the general commission to establish and maintain between its constituents, as well as with regard to all others, the law of nations as defined by parties contracting under it.

This would relieve us from the necessity of bothering our minds immediately about a host of problems, and would also enable us to promulgate the most essential and most urgent rules looking to the conclusion of the present conflict.

But when these rules shall have been once laid down, when the law of nations shall have been formulated, there will still be left for us to face the most serious difficulty of all-the stumbling-block which has thus far caused the breakdown of all the plans of the pacifists: that is to say, the creation of an executive force at the service of this law, and of penalties to be imposed upon those who may be tempted to violate it.

Such penalties are possible; different categories have been suggested. The first, which have sometimes aroused a smile of incredulity, have nevertheless real merit. They take the form of an appeal to be made to public opinion, to the opinion of the whole world. Our adversaries, who, at the beginning of the war, defied this opinion so far as possible, have finally recognized its importance. They have put forth their utmost efforts, by means of a propaganda no less false than frantic, to reverse, not only in neutral countries, but among the Allies, the moral judgment which they saw to be altogether adverse to them. They have resorted to all possible methods to cast upon us the responsibility for the conflict, or, at least, for its continuance. And this fact demonstrates the unquestionable efficacy of moral penalties.

There are also the economic penalties, the most potent of which are the boycott, reprisals, expulsions, sequestrations, judicial isolation, the economic blockade, and the abolition or restriction of international commerce.

All these methods, which have been utilized during the war, must be retained after the war, against powers which might still claim to dominate the world; which should refuse toe recognize the rules and principles established by common action. Our adversaries attach very great importance to this species of coercion. They are tremendously anxious to find out to what extent and for how many years the 'economic weapon' will be sued against them after the cessation of hostilities.

It is certain that this economic weapon is to-day, and will remain, a most powerful one in the hands of the Allies. But in order to assure the possibility of its employment as long as may be necessary, we must be prepared to support it at need by military force.

At this point, we have to deal with the problem of creating a military force in the service of the law of nations, whose duty it shall be to compel obedience to the decisions made by the League of Nations; and we find ourselves confronted by two equally vital requirements which seem contradictory. On the one hand, we are convinced that, if this war does not result in lessening for the future the burden of an armed peace, we shall have accepted to no purpose all the sacrifices which it has already cost us. And, on the other hand, unless we are to fall asleep prematurely in the delusions from which our Russian friends have just had such a cruel awakening, we face the necessity of maintaining, in the service of the very peace that we seek to establish, a force strong enough to punish infractions of plighted faith.

But these two requirements are not so incompatible as they seem at first sight. If the limitation of armaments were imposed on every state, we can readily see that the sum of the forces of all the others exerted against an isolated state would be irresistible. It would be essential, of course, that there should be perfect coördination between these forces-a connection so intimate as to assure their immediate, simultaneous, and therefore effective employment. But there would be no need to place all the national armies under a single, absolute supra-national command; it would suffice to maintain, in times of peace, the close relation which already exists between the Allied armies.

Whatever the difficulties in the way of carrying through such a scheme, the fact remains that we cannot evade the problem. If we do not solve it, we shall fall back sooner or later into the condition of rivalry and competition in armaments with which the world was familiar before the present war.

Doubtless the compositions of this international military force will be the most delicate question for the League of Nations to settle. But other essential questions will demand settlement with equal urgency, immediately upon the advent of peace, and even before it is concluded.

Provision will have to be made for the economic life of the nations which have taken part in the conflict, and for distributing among them raw materials and the means of subsistence.

Finally, there will have to be provided a supra-national authority which will be indispensable in the matter of liquidating the finances of the various states and enabling them to return to a normal economic régime after the tremendous upheavals caused by the war in the economic life of the whole world.

Again, it will be necessary to appeal for the intervention of the supra-national authority to settle many peculiarly delicate and complex questions, as, for example, ensuring the neutrality or the freedom of the Dardanelles.

Here, then, are certain very urgent, very clearly defined tasks, which we offer for the action of the League of Nations. It alone can perform them, and reestablish order after the immense upheaval which will leave in utter disarray the men and the bodies politic of the world before the war. On all sides new problems and duties arise, and it is enough to enumerate them, to show that, beside the skeptics who do not believe in the League of Nations, beside the wise men who postpone them to a later date, if we are idealists, - in other words, fools, - we are very positive idealists.
VI.
We have not failed for an instant to base our arguments on facts. Always, in every sort of process that we have discussed, we have sought only to continue what has already ben begun during the war and for the purposes of the war, adapting it to the new necessities and to the lasting conditions of a state of peace.

Here is no question of creating, in the air, as it were, and without precedents, institutions still untested, which would justifiably arouse distrust: here is a question of stabilizing the various categories of inter-Allied institutions which are already functioning and growing ever more effective as the war goes on.

Moreover, America has heretofore exhibited a noteworthy example of an international organization in the Pan-American Union, which does not constitute a new state, for it has no supreme tribal or sovereign power; but, thanks to its periodical conferences and to its permanent bureau at Washington, it already forms a sort of administrative, scientific, and economic union, complete in every detail.

There has been a deal of discussion as to whether Germany should be admitted to the League of Nations, or be debarred therefrom. It is for her alone to furnish the reply.

It is quite evident that imperialist and militarist Germany, which assumes to impose her domination upon Europe and to hold the civilization of the twentieth century under the perpetual menace of her big guns, could find no place in a league of nations destined to establish and maintain respect for the Law. But we should commit a serious mistake if we imagined that Germany forms a single mass, inspired solely by the ideal of its General Staff, and sharing all its aspirations. However feeble the reaction in Germany may be, it exists; numerous strikes offer to the observer unmistakable signs of internal disturbances, and presage, if not a revolution, at least an evolution.

It is this evolution which the world awaits. It is this evolution which President Wilson predicts in the masterly address delivered on July 4 last, at the tomb of Washington: -

'The blinded rulers of Prussia have roused forces they knew little of-forces which, once roused, can never be crushed to earth again; for they have at their heart an inspiration and a purpose which are deathless and of the very stuff of triumph.'

Lord Grey of Fallodon, in a pamphlet recently published, declares that the Allies cannot save the world if Germany herself remembers nothing of the lessons of the war; if she does not realize that militarism is the deadly enemy of mankind.

To the same purpose Lord Curzon said in a recent speech in the House of Lords, 'It is essential that there shall be a general agreement among the nations; and to obtain a useful result, all the nations on earth must become parties to it.'

From all these solemn and impartial declarations it follows that we must not only conquer Germany, but convert her. And that will be the great, the supreme victory to which President Wilson beckoned us when he defined the principles of the League of Nations.

These same principles were put forward more than a half-century since by the philosopher Jules Barni, at the Peace Congress which he convoked at Lausanne. He made numerous and illustrious converts: Victor Hugo, Edgar Quinet, Élysée Reclus, and the great English philosopher, John Stuart Mill.

But Barni met also with a refusal to accept his ideas from a man whom no one can suspect of mental timidity, but whom we admire to-day rather for his courageous keenness of vision-the Italian revolutionary Mazzini, who argued that peace could not become the law of human society until that society had passed through a conflict which should establish life and association on the foundation of justice and liberty.

Mazzini concluded with these words: 'Duty points the way to the object we should seek: that is, the triumph of the moral law, and the suppression of whatever stands in the way of its fulfillment; the reconstitution of Europe; the sovereignty of the free and equal associated nations; aid from all to all for the emancipation of those who are oppressed, for the relief of those who suffer, and for the education, the independence, the armament of all.

'This object-why not say it?-is a last great holy crusade, a battle of Marathon in the service of Europe for the triumph of the principle of progress over the principle of inertia and reaction.'

These admirable sentences point us to the duty we are carrying out to-day. The hour has struck of the last holy crusade for the liberation and independence of all peoples. The consecrated army is forming, majestic and formidable, in the blood-drenched roads leading to the luminous heights of the future. And to bring succor to those who are engaged in the struggle, to acquit our debt to those who will never return, we must strive to instill into all minds, to infuse into all the nations, the two essential virtues, energy and faith.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"To-day, in the immense revolution which this war really is, the preeminent dignity of each nation must be recognized, the rights of all nations must be reaffirmed and consecrated." I. When the League of Nations was a new phrase, those persons who welcomed it enthusiastically heard themselves dubbed fools by those who were known as skeptics and as wise men.

# data[].attributes.body
Mussolini invaded Abyssinia in 1935. Italy was a leading member of the league so the League of Nations needed to deal with the situation carefully. However, the League failed to deal with this crisis effectively as they did not take the situation seriously. In phase 1, the British and the French played for time as they wanted to keep good relations with Mussolini against Hitler. However, there was a public outcry and the league were forced to take action. In phase 2, the league debated over the ideas of sanctions. However, they had no way to enforce these sanctions as America was not a member. The British and the French failed to close the Suez Canal, which allowed Mussolini’s ships to travel to and from Abyssinia, as they were afraid it would result in war. 🤬 and Laval hatched a plan to give Mussolini two thirds of Abyssinia, in exchange for calling off the invasion. However, this was leaked and they were both sacked. The League of Nations did not effectively deal with the Abyssinian crisis. 

# data[].attributes.body
1939 - Nazi-Soviet Pact 23rd August
1939 - Nazi-Soviet Pact

# data[].attributes.body
favorite
1
comment
0
February 1933Feb
February 1933
February 1933
Japan went against the League of Nation's judgement and decided to invade more of China claiming it was for self-defence. On the 24th February the League voted in favour of removing Japan from Manchuria 42 to 1. Japan was the one who voted against and resigned from the 