United Nations & The League of Nations?

Question

Why was the UN more successful than the LON?

It is optional for members to send troops to fight for the UN, and more countries sent troops compared to the LON during the Cold War period. Why is that so? Why did they support the UN more than the LON? I mean, they are all peace keeping bodies after all. In what sense was the UN a failure?

Answer 1

The main differences were:

1. The League of Nations did not have many of the world powers as members. USA were never a member, Japan left in 1931, Germany were not allowed in until 1926 and then left in 1933, Soviet Union did not join until 1934. And, of course, these were the days of the European empires, so the colonies did not enjoy much representation.

2. The League lacked teeth. There was no military body. Japan was condemned for invading Manchuria in 1931 but that was it! When Italy was criticised for invading Ethiopia in 1936, the League pulled back from any meaningful sanctions.

The League was led by the imperial western powers keen to preserve the status quo and keep Germany in her place - hence the rejection of President Wilson's 14 points.

The United Nations had a better beginning. It had representations from the major powers, all keen to avoid war, including, crucially, the USA, who welcomed the forthcoming decolonisation. The UN also set up a military arm including peacekeeping troops - which the League did not have, and welfare/social organisation such as UNESCO.

The UN exisits as a chamber of neutral ground for organisations to have discussions - although it is still esentially toothless (e.g. the failure to stop US/UK invasion of Iraq 2003)  and still unpredictable (as we have seen from Zimbabwe).

Above all, we have not had another world war - and the UN has existed through many smaller wars.