# data[].attributes.body
“The League of Nations was weak due to the post-war attitudes of major powers.” How far do you agree with this statement?  Explain your answer.

# data[].attributes.headline
Para 1 Jason, Alyaa, Alfred, Sabriel (heil Mr chong)

# data[].attributes.subject
Para 1 Jason, Alyaa, Alfred, Sabriel (heil Mr chong)

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, I agree with the statement that the League of nations was weak due to the post war attitudes of major powers ton an extent. For example, one of the key contributing factors was the lack of U.S. membership. The U.S. who was by right the founder of the LON, did not join it to observe isolation. This meant that the LON lost a great amount of manpower at its disposal, as the US at that time was one of if not the most powerful countries in the world. Another factor would be the fact that most of the countries in the LON acted on their own interests. Examples would be Britain and France, who built up their own military and economy in fear of another world war, rather than actually trying to preserve world peace.

# data[].attributes.body
While most of the blame for weakening the League of Nations undoubtedly lies with the post-war attitudes of major powers, other factors, including the absence of the U.S. and self-serving behavior on the part of the key member states, also contributed to the League's ineffectiveness. This included reluctance on the part of Britain and France to apply League decisions coupled with a desire to concentrate on national security rather than collective peacekeeping. Ultimately, these weaknesses turned the League incapable of preventing worldwide conflicts and led to its termination; it was later replaced by the United Nations after World War II.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the statement. After the war, many governments of the respective countries did not care about the economic recovery of the country and they spent more time arguing with other countries than solve their own problems. The whole purpose of the LON was to help countries resolve their disputes, but since they cannot solve their own problems, LON cannot help them. The people felt scared and unsafe as the goverments of each countries was not doing their part but instead help other countries. Many disputes were handled by the Conference of Ambassadors and not LON. Woodrow Wilsons vision of the League of Nations was for member nations to help each other in times of need. The post war attitudes of Britain and France were reluctant to disarm due to the war as many leaders of major powers wanted to protect their own territories and interests. Therefore, the LON was really weak and could not do anything even after the war and was irrelevant to the other major powers.

I disagree with this statement. The post-war attitudes of the major powers was not the only reason the LON was quite weak in terms of doing what their purpose was. Other key factors include how some disputes were not resolve and even failed to be resolve and the LON could not do anything about them. There were also other plans to keep peace within the different countries but the problem was that the governments only wanted to reach the agreement and not how it was being reached. While the LON was accepted for trying to resolve the international disputes, they were also quite irrelevant as there was already a body like theirs which is the Conference of Ambassadors. Therefore, the LON was not only weak because of the major powers but because of other factors and the little disputes they had helped.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the statement that the League of Nations was weak due to the post-war attitudes of major powers. This can be seen from the Corfu dispute where three Italian officials were killed while surveying the Greek side of the frontier, and the Italian leader blamed the Greeks, demanded compensation, even attacked and occupied the Greek island of Corfu. Greece then asked the League for help but the leader insisted that that the dispute should be solved by the Conference of Ambassadors instead. The british wanted to standup against the leader. However due to the post-war attitudes from the French, as they were involved in another dispute at the time, they thought about their own country first, not wanting another dispute with another country. This resulted in the Conference of ambassadors resolving it, making Greece pay and apologise to Italy. This shows that because of the post-war attitudes from France, the Corfu dispute was not resolved by them and handed to another organization, making them weak. They could not resolve the dispute which was what the League was set up for because France cared about its own country before the League.

I disagree with the statement that the League of Nations was weak to the post-war attitudes of major powers.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with the statement as it was the structural weaknesses that made the League of Nations weak.

The League’s structure required unanimous decisions in the Council, making it difficult to take swift action. It also lacked an army, relying on member nations to enforce its rulings, which they were often unwilling to do. Thus, they lacked authority over strong nations. When they were supposed to maintain peace, powerful countries such as Japan, Germany and Italy ignored the rules without having to face any real consequences. For example, when Hitler remilitarised the Rhinelands, the League was unable to do anything, thus further encouraging agression.

These stuctural weaknesses meant that even if major powers had been more willing to act, the League would still struggle to enforce its decisions effectively. Such as in the Corfu 1936, where due to the League's lack of military power, it was forced to rely on diplomatic pressure, which failed in resolving the disputes. Thus this suggests that the League's ineffectiveness was not just due to post-war attitudes but more so because of the flawed structural design.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that the League of Nations was weak due to the post-war attitudes of major powers because they were afraid to disarm because they will not be able to protect their territories and interests as there would not be resources for defence. By joining the League of Nations, they would not be allowed to trade with aggressor countries, which the countries are reluctant to abide by, since it would impact their economy. This was evident from the Corfu dispute which the French had the ability to solve but was involved in a dispute with Germany in the Ruhr region over reparations and did not want a dispute with Italy as well. This shows me that the French prioritise their own goals instead the League's interests.

I disagree as the League of Nations was also weak USA not wanting to join the league as they had adopted the isolationism as the policy since before war to ensure peace of the people and self rule. Since USA didnt join the war, the league would have struggles taking military actions as a last resort since they didnt have enough military resources, and USA could continue supplying weapons and goods to aggressor countries, ensuring aggressor countries would not be as badly affected.

in conclusion, I agree with the statement as the countries in the league did not prioritise the leagues interests and instead prioritises their own countries' goals first. This causes them to be unable to mediate disputes as fear of facing retaliation. Thus, this is the more important reason than USA being out of the league, and not supplying military weapons.

# data[].attributes.headline
Group 2 - Poojeet, Zenia, Jayden, Paris Peace Conference

# data[].attributes.subject
Group 2 - Poojeet, Zenia, Jayden, Paris Peace Conference

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the statement that the League of Nations was weak due to the post-war attituides of major powers. World War I has caused relationships between many major countries to be weakened. As a result they would not want to join the LON which meant they did not need to "protect" or work together with those they fought with. Most major powers wanted to focus on themselves to rebuild back their country rather than working together to solve international issues.

I disagree as the League of Nations was weak due to the structural weakness in the league. In the League of Nations, major powers and every country had different agendas and aimsIn theory, unanimous decision-making gave all countries an equal say, but in practice, smaller nations had little power. Major powers could veto anthing that went against their interests, making the League seem biased and ineffective.

Example: In the 1920 Polish-Lithuanian dispute over Vilna, the League did not act because Britain and France did not want to anger Poland, a potential ally against Germany. Thus whenever the nations came together to make one collective decision, they were very indecisive causing ineffectiveness in solving international challenges.

In conclusion, i agree with the statement the League of Nation was weak due to the post-war attitiudes of major powers as the post-war attitudes formed a basis of negative feelings for other countries which caused to cooperate in the League of Nations so difference in opinions caused the League of Nations to be weak.

# data[].attributes.headline
"The League of Nations was weak due to the post war attitudes of major powers." How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer - Rubhashree, Rayna, Yu Feng, Huan Yao

# data[].attributes.subject
"The League of Nations was weak due to the post war attitudes of major powers." How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer - Rubhashree, Rayna, Yu Feng, Huan Yao

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that the League of Nations was weak due to the post war attitudes of major powers as countries such as Britain, France and the United States each have their own agendas on how to rebuild Europe and views on what measures are necessary and unnecessary. Hence, disagreements on what decisions usually go through a long and hard debate that the decision would barely make any impact upon implementation.

I disagree that the League of Nations was weak due to post war attitudes of major powers as it lacked a military enforcement mechanism due to United States not joining, relying on member states who were often hesitant to act. Those involved in the League of Nations still lacked many resources such as money and weapons as the World War 1 had significantly weakened them. Hence, the League of Nations was weak as they lacked many important resources needed to improve their countries.

Hence, I think that the League of Nations was mainly weak due to their lack of resources rather than their attitudes. Even if they did have the right attitude, without the basic resources to show their power so that other nations would obey them and their rules, they were bound to fail.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the statement that the LON was weak because of the post-war attitudes of major powers. This is due to the fact that the major powers after the war was selfish and wanted to solve their own problems instead of committing to the LON which was to spread peace among the nations. Their resources were depleted after WW1 and they needed to use their leftover resources to rebuilt their own economy instead of using them to deal with other nation's problems. In addition, the victors of WW1, USA, France and Britain had difference experiences with Germany. They all had different aims to deal with Germany and hence that led to them having little to no chemistry or discussion with regard to other nation's problems. France were still mourning with the losses from the war against Germany, hence all they cared was to just rebuilt back its infrastructure and its economy. Nobody wanted to work with one another and were indecisive. They needed at least two third of the LON for there to be action, which led to them being unsuccessful most of the time. They had no trust and effective communication which led them to not seeing eye to eye with each of their opinions.

I disagree with the statement as the LON was weak due to the limited membership. The major powers who had the most influence and manpower were not part of the LON. The league was extremely weakened without the support and membership of the USA, Soviet Union ad Germany as they had the ability to enforce sanctions effectively. Without them, it led the LON to struggle to solve disputes around the world. Hence, that led to the LON to having not much of an influence to the world.

In conclusion, the LON was weak due to the post-war attitudes of major powers. If they coordinate with one another. It could have

# data[].attributes.headline
Essay-Group 7 (Savankham, Phet, Zahran & Madeline)

# data[].attributes.subject
Essay-Group 7 (Savankham, Phet, Zahran & Madeline)

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that the post-war attitude was the main factor behind the weakening of the League of Nations because after the World War 1, most nations prioritized national recovery over international cooperation. The devastation of World War I left countries economically drained and politically unstable, making them to be reluctant to engage in conflicts that did not directly affect them. This was evident in the Corfu Incident of 1923, when Italy occupied the Greek island of Corfu after the assassination of an Italian general. Although Greece appealed to the League, major powers which is Britain and France, fearing the diplomatic tensions with the opposing countries and economic loss, avoided direct confrontation with Italy. Instead, the matter was settled through the Conference of Ambassadors, forcing Greece to pay compensation despite a lack of clear evidence. his showed that major powers prioritised their own interests over enforcing League principles, ultimately weakening its authority and effectiveness.

I disagree that the post-war attitude weakened the League of Nations because, while the aftermath of World War I certainly created challenges, the League was not inherently doomed by the attitudes of the time. It was due to the structural weakness. The organization was built on a foundation of competing national interests, with countries pursuing their own goals rather than prioritizing collective security. One of the examples is the inability to prevent Germany's reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936. France and Britain were reluctant to take military action, as they were focused on their own political and economic concerns. This led to indecisiveness and lack of unified action when crisis arose. This lack of cohesion within the League’s structure made it difficult to respond decisively to aggression, and without the ability to enforce its decisions.

In conclusion, I stand firmly with the statement that the post-war attitude was the significant factor behind the weakening of the League of Nations. While structural weaknesses played a role, the reluctance of nations to engage in international conflicts due to economic struggles and political instability significantly undermined the League’s authority. As for instance, The Corfu Incident demonstrated how major powers prioritised their own interests over collective security, setting a precedent for future inaction. Without the willingness of member states to uphold its principles, the League ultimately failed to maintain peace and prevent aggression.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that the League of Nations was weak due to the post-war attitudes of the major powers. The major powers were focused on self-interest especially when considering the economic sanctions the League members attempted to enforce. Britain and France who were leaders of the League took little to no action in the League when they felt it did not serve their interests. They failed to impose meaningful sanctions on Italy when Italy attacked Abyssinia as imposing sanctions would have affected their own trade and economy. This made the League weak as the major powers only took part in the League of Nations as and when it serves them. This made the League ineffective in achieving its goals and to uphold peace in the world. Therefore, since the major powers were interested only in ensuring their own strength, the League lost its assertiveness in ensuring that peace is kept.

However, I disagree with the statement as the League of Nations was also weak due to the limited membership of the League.

Initially, 42 countries joined the League with Britain, France, Italy and Japan as permanent members. However, the League failed to include strong countries such as USA and Russia. While the League was the idea of the US, the American government eventually preferred to engage in foreign affairs on their own terms at their own pace rather than commit themselves to the League of Nations. This made the League of Nations weak as the League lost credibility, resources and authority with major powers like the USA being absent. As a result, its ability to enforce sanctions and decisions became less effective. Hence, the limited membership caused the Leak to be ineffective in stopping aggression as it failed to be a strong deterrent, making the League weak.

In conclusion, I believe that the post-war attitudes of major powers were the most significant factor in the weakness of the League of Nations. The reluctance of powerful nations, particularly the United States, to commit to the League undermined its authority from the start. Furthermore, Britain and France, the League’s main leaders, prioritized their own national interests over collective security, leading to inconsistent enforcement of its policies. While structural weaknesses and a lack of military power also contributed to its failures, these issues could have been mitigated if major powers had shown stronger commitment and cooperation. Ultimately, the League’s inability to function effectively stemmed from the unwillingness of its most influential members to uphold its principles, making this the primary reason for its weakness.

# data[].attributes.body
i agree with the statement. The league of nations was weak due to the post-war attitudes of major powers. This is due to the ability to achieve disarmament.By joining the league, members were expected to disarm. However, member countries feared that they will not be able to protect their territories and interests if they were to disarm.