The League of Nations and Its Reputation

The League of Nations was an organization there to maintain the peace in our world by solving disputes. However, have they really achieved their aim? Were they successful? According to historical facts, the League of Nation has achieved six major successes in compromises of disputes, known as the SAMBOK; the Bulgaria event was one of the successes. On the other hand, there were six main failures, the VIMCOD that included Corfu. But was this really the case? Was Bulgaria really a success or was Corfu truly a failure? Having solved these problems increased the League's reputation or diminishes it? Personally, I believe the two events have both gained and diminished the League's reputation, mostly depending on whose eyes you are looking through. Each country has a different opinion about the way the League solved the problem. The one who had earned the most advantages will obviously favor the League of Nations more and will add to their reputations, wise visa the country that were not being favored will not be keen on the adding the Leagues reputation.

The most successful time for the League of Nations was during the 1920's. The actions in Bulgaria and Corfu did improve the reputation of the League, which in these times, was not really impressive. They proved that it is possible to create a peaceful world and that there is always another way to solve a problem, not only fighting. And this is why I believe that the actions in Corfu and Bulgaria did add the League's reputation more than diminish it.

During the action in Corfu in 1923, the Italian general has been killed in Greece. The Italians, in anger, did invade Greece. The problem was that one of the ideas of the League was to create a peaceful world. So when Mussolini sent his army to Greece, he broke the most important rule. The League had no chance to fight with Italy, because it didn't have its own army that could force Italy to leave Greece and also, they would break its reputation about creating the peaceful world. The League made a conference and the result of it was that Greece had to apologize Italy, and also pay them. When Greece followed the League's decision, Italy left. This decision of, obviously, not fair for Greece because Italy is the one that should be punished, but at least, there was no war between the members of the League, they solved the problem very peacefully and it did add a lot to its reputation. They showed to the other countries that they do can solve every problem without having wars.

What factors have caused the dispute in Corfu? In 1923, there was a dispute between Italians and Greeks. Beginning with an Italian general named Tellini was murdered in Greece while doing a job for the league of nation, this caused Mussolini (the leader of Italy) to be furious, he invaded Greece and took over Corfu (a small island in Greece). The Greeks turned to the League of Nations for help. The decision was first made, having condemned Mussolini, and ordered him to leave Corfu. Greeks were made to pay the league some money. Mussolini ignored the Leagues order, and did not leave Corfu. There was a change in decision because of the Conference of Ambassadors who over ruled the League. The problem ended up being the Greeks having to pay the Italians and apologize for them to leave. The Greeks did what they were told by the League, so Mussolini left. Corfu was being returned to Greek. The way the problem was solved is fairly acceptable because the Greeks were the ones who started this conflict. (Murdering Tellini). Though, the Ambassadors probably have favored the Italians over Greeks. Another fact was the general who was killed, was there to do a job for the League of Nations, which means the League should be partly responsible for his death. Nevertheless, the Italian were too ambitious, using the excuse of having one of their general being murdered extended to occupying over Corfu.

Even though, the way the League solved the dispute seemed unfair to the Greeks. However if the problem wasn't solved that way, Mussolini might even command a war to the Greeks and take over more land. According to historical facts, this event was considered as a failure and has diminished the reputation of the League. There wouldn't be another way to make Mussolini leave Corfu, unless the Greeks apologize and pay for the death of their general. The way the problem was solved seemed to be fair. However many people thought the way the League treated the Greeks was very unkind. In 1925, the Greeks complained that there is a set of rules for small countries like them, and another for tougher countries such as Italians. The main problem was the way Mussolini ignored the leagues order, but ended by having the Greeks apologize to him. This will make other countries think the League will always stand up for the stronger countries and ignore the small ones. It was a major reason, which reduced the reputation of the League.

Later in 1925, the Bulgaria incident occurred. The action in Bulgaria in 1925 was also a success of the League. On the border of Greece and Bulgaria some of the Greek soldiers were killed. Because of that, Greece invaded Bulgaria. When Bulgaria asked the League for help, the League required Greece to leave Bulgaria. And also the Bulgarian government required to not fight back to the Greeks, to lessen the conflict between them. Greece did do what the League ask them to do, finally they left Bulgaria. And after this event, which also finished peacefully, more and more countries started to trust the League of Nations. They really did believe them that they really might build a world full of peace.

The problem was one Greek captain and two soldiers were killed on the border between Greek and Bulgaria during an inter-frontier war. This angered the Greeks, and Theodoros Pangalos instructed invasion to Bulgarian territory. The relations between Greece-Bulgaria were particularly strained ever since the 20th century. After their invasion the Bulgarians did not fight back but turned the league for help. After a thorough research finding that Bulgaria only had a limit of military supply. The league condemned the Greeks, and ordered them to leave Bulgaria. The Bulgarian government commanded their army to not fight back, because they did not want any further conflict with the Greeks. The incident settled in peace. It was considered as one of the success lead by the league of nation, a big success in Bulgaria. The reputation of the League increased after the resolution of this problem. Many countries started to trust the League and joined. The number of the countries in the league rose continually, ever since.

Over all the League of Nations had been gaining its popularity and increasing it reputation. The Corfu and Bulgaria incidents were both settle in peace causing no war. This is why there were so many countries joined the league in the future years. The reputation of the league has been increasing day by day, until today there are 205 countries in the league today.

This were the reasons that made me believe that the actions in Corfu and Bulgaria during the 1920s did add to the Leagues reputation. During the Corfu's action they showed that even though they could force Italy to move out from Greece using force- lack of army, they still had another way to made Italy finally leave Greece. Even though it was not very unfair for Greece, but the most important reason was that they showed that to solve a problem, you don't need to fight. The action in Bulgaria was pretty much the same. They did ask Greece to leave Bulgaria, and after all they did leave, without having a war. They did prove that they can make a peaceful world so countries started to trust them and this is why I think that the actions during the 1920s did add to the League's reputation.