The League of Nations and Its Reputation

The League of Nations and Its Reputation

The League of Nations was an organization established to maintain peace in our world by resolving disputes. However, did it really achieve its aim? Was it successful? According to historical records, the League of Nations achieved six major successes in dispute resolution, known as SAMBOK; the Bulgaria event was one of these successes. On the other hand, there were six main failures, collectively referred to as VIMCOD, which included the Corfu incident. But was this truly the case? Was Bulgaria really a success, or was Corfu truly a failure? Did resolving these problems enhance the League's reputation or diminish it? Personally, I believe that the two events both enhanced and diminished the League's reputation, largely depending on whose perspective you consider. Each country had a different opinion about the way the League resolved the problem. The country that gained the most advantages would obviously favor the League of Nations more and would contribute to its reputation, whereas, conversely, the country that was not favored would be less inclined to enhance the League's reputation.

The League's Successes and Failures

The most successful period for the League of Nations was during the 1920s. The actions in Bulgaria and Corfu did improve the League's reputation, which at the time, was not particularly impressive. They demonstrated that it is possible to create a peaceful world and that there are always alternative ways to solve problems without resorting to fighting. This is why I believe that the actions in Corfu and Bulgaria contributed more to the League's reputation than they diminished it.

The Corfu Incident

During the Corfu incident in 1923, an Italian general was killed in Greece. In response, the Italians, in anger, invaded Greece. This posed a problem because one of the League's fundamental ideas was to create a peaceful world. When Mussolini sent his army to Greece, he violated this essential principle. The League lacked the military capability to force Italy to withdraw from Greece and thus risked undermining its reputation for promoting peace. The League convened a conference, resulting in a decision that Greece had to apologize to Italy and pay reparations. When Greece complied with the League's decision, Italy withdrew. This decision was obviously unfair to Greece because Italy should have been punished, but at least, there was no war between the League's members. The problem was resolved peacefully, which significantly enhanced the League's reputation. They demonstrated to other countries that problems could be solved without resorting to war (Mazower, 1998; Northedge, 1986).

The factors that led to the dispute in Corfu were complex. In 1923, an Italian general named Tellini was murdered in Greece while on a mission for the League of Nations. This incited Mussolini, the leader of Italy, to invade Greece and occupy Corfu, a small island in Greece. The Greeks appealed to the League of Nations for assistance. Initially, the League condemned Mussolini and ordered him to leave Corfu. However, the Greeks were also required to pay the League a sum of money. Mussolini ignored the League's order and did not leave Corfu. The decision was altered by the Conference of Ambassadors, which overruled the League. Ultimately, the Greeks had to apologize to the Italians and pay reparations for Italy to leave. The Greeks complied with the League's directive, and Mussolini withdrew, returning Corfu to Greek control. The resolution of the problem was considered acceptable because the Greeks were believed to have initiated the conflict by allegedly murdering Tellini. Although the Ambassadors may have favored the Italians over the Greeks, another consideration was that the general who was killed was on a mission for the League of Nations, implying that the League should bear some responsibility for his death. Nevertheless, the Italians exploited the situation, using the excuse of their general's murder to justify occupying Corfu (Ginneken, 2006; Walters, 1952).

Although the League's resolution of the dispute seemed unfair to the Greeks, if the problem hadn't been resolved that way, Mussolini might have declared war on Greece and seized more territory. Historical accounts consider this event a failure, which diminished the League's reputation. There was no alternative solution to compel Mussolini to leave Corfu unless the Greeks apologized and compensated for their general's death. Although the resolution seemed fair, many people believed the League's treatment of the Greeks was unkind. In 1925, the Greeks complained that there was one set of rules for smaller countries like themselves and another for more powerful countries like Italy. The main issue was Mussolini's disregard for the League's order, culminating in the Greeks apologizing to him. This situation led other countries to believe that the League would always side with stronger nations and disregard smaller ones. It was a significant factor that diminished the League's reputation (Henig, 1973; Northedge, 1986).

The Bulgaria Incident

Later in 1925, the Bulgaria incident occurred. The action in Bulgaria in 1925 was also a success for the League. On the border of Greece and Bulgaria, some Greek soldiers were killed. As a result, Greece invaded Bulgaria. When Bulgaria appealed to the League for help, the League required Greece to withdraw from Bulgaria. Additionally, the Bulgarian government was instructed not to retaliate against the Greeks to minimize the conflict. Greece complied with the League's demands and eventually withdrew from Bulgaria. This event, which also concluded peacefully, led more countries to trust the League of Nations. They genuinely believed that the League could build a world full of peace (Carr, 1940; Scott, 1973).

The problem stemmed from the killing of one Greek captain and two soldiers on the border between Greece and Bulgaria during an inter-frontier conflict. This enraged the Greeks, and Theodoros Pangalos ordered an invasion of Bulgarian territory. Greek-Bulgarian relations had been particularly strained since the early 20th century. Following their invasion, the Bulgarians refrained from retaliating and instead sought the League's assistance. A thorough investigation revealed that Bulgaria had limited military capabilities. The League condemned the Greeks and ordered them to withdraw from Bulgaria. The Bulgarian government instructed their army not to fight back, as they did not want further conflict with the Greeks. The incident was resolved peacefully and was considered one of the League of Nations' successes, particularly in Bulgaria. The League's reputation improved following the resolution of this problem, and many countries began to trust the League and join. The number of countries in the League continued to rise (Clavin, 2013; Henig, 1973).

Conclusion

Overall, the League of Nations gained popularity and enhanced its reputation. The incidents in Corfu and Bulgaria were both resolved peacefully, preventing war. This is why so many countries joined the League in subsequent years. The League's reputation continued to grow, and as of today, there are 205 countries in the League (Scott, 1973; Walters, 1952).

These are the reasons that lead me to believe that the actions in Corfu and Bulgaria during the 1920s contributed to the League's reputation. During the Corfu incident, they demonstrated that even though they could not use force to compel Italy to leave Greece due to a lack of an army, they still found another way to make Italy eventually withdraw. Although it was unfair to Greece, the most important takeaway was that they showed that solving a problem does not always require fighting. The action in Bulgaria was quite similar. They asked Greece to leave Bulgaria, and ultimately, they did, without resorting to war. They proved that they could create a peaceful world, which led countries to trust them, and this is why I believe that the actions during the 1920s enhanced the League's reputation.

References:

• Clavin, P. (2013). Securing the World Economy: The Reinvention of the League of Nations, 1920-1946. Oxford University Press.
• Carr, E. H. (1940). The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. Macmillan.
• Ginneken, A. (2006). Historical Dictionary of the League of Nations. Scarecrow Press.
• Henig, R. (1973). The League of Nations. Oliver & Boyd.
• Mazower, M. (1998). Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century. Vintage.
• Northedge, F. S. (1986). The League of Nations: Its Life and Times, 1920–1946. Holmes & Meier.
• Scott, G. (1973). The Rise and Fall of the League of Nations. Hutchinson.
• Walters, F. P. (1952). A History of the League of Nations. Oxford University Press.