Talk:League of Nations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is undergoing a featured article review to ensure that it meets the standards of a featured article. Please add a comment to assist the process and/or be bold and improve the article directly. If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal. When the review is complete, a bot will update the article talk page.
Featured article star League of Nations is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 11, 2005.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
League of Nations was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on December 26, 2004.

For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] Failure

In League of Nations#Reasons for perceiving the League as a failure, the point

* A non-permanent council and assembly made for slow decisions.

doesn't qualify as a reason in the absence of further explanation. (How often did they rotate? Did the new guys not know ahead who they were going to be, so they could get together with the perms for brandy and cigars and high-class hookers ahead of time and feel each other out?)
Hmm, is the point that the two had to respond in succession?

And

The exclusion of the Japanese-proposed Racial Equality Clause from the League's Covenant crippled the League's moral authority in the view of most historians.

is incoherant: i doubt the historians' views made it look like a failure. Moral authority over the great powers? These were colonial superpowers, and they would only listen to an organization with the brass to tell them racism was bad?

On second thot, who the hell are these historians? I'm moving the bullet point here, in hopes someone can turn it into something credible (and bcz at worst that clause deserves mention in other articles). --Jerzy(t) 18:00, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC) (& 17:34, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC))


The section just discussed should also decide whether it is about perceptions or failure to keep the peace or both, and be unamibiguously named, or split into two lists, accordingly. --Jerzy(t) 18:05, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

The Japanese-proposed Racial Equality Clause incident should at least be mentioned. Woodrow Wilson, an outspoken white supremacist who segregated the US federal government and the US navy, personally vetoed this clause. Perhaps we do not know what effects this had on the continuance of the League, but it is definitely noteworthy. 69.23.106.111 (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USSR expulsion

From [1]:

LEAGUE OF NATIONS' EXPULSION OF THE U.S.S.R., DECEMBER 14, 1939 [League of Nations, Official Journal 1939, p. 506 (Council Resolution); p. 540 (Assembly Resolution.)]

RESOLUTION Adopted by the Council of the League of Nations, December 14, 1939

The Council,

Having taken cognisance of the resolution adopted by the Assembly on December 14th, 1939, regarding the appeal of the Finnish Government;

1. Associates itself with the condemnation by the Assembly of the action of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics against the Finnish State; and

2. For the reasons set forth in the resolution of the Assembly, in virtue of Article 16, paragraph 4, of the Covenant, finds that, by its act, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has placed itself outside the League of Nations. It follows that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is no longer a Member of the League.

[edit] Intentions

Lead 'graph is basically very good:

The League of Nations was an international organization founded after the First World War with the intention of reducing armaments, settling disputes between countries and maintaining living conditions. The League proved incapable of preventing aggression by the Fascist powers, and was replaced by the United Nations after the Second World War.

The explicitly stated "intention" is general enough to be verifiable, even though things like "preserving the British Empire" were surely intentions some of the founders had for supporting its creation. I'm replacing "intention" with "goals", tho, to reflect the long-range relevance of those hopes.

(BTW, "reducing arms" was an agenda of the time, but not clear how LoN was to further that or that it was more than a means to other ends like delaying big wars or shifting gun/butter balance.)

(BTW, what is "maintaining living conditions"? WHO-style work, e.g.? Kick-start development projects? Keeping economies running smoothly?)

The "and" in the last sentence reads like "and for that reason", which is too clearcut for this short 'graph. Could make an interesting longer discussion below: Obviously there was disappointment. Why a new org? UN during war meant the Allies! So replacement was not 1-1; UN changed its nature and LoN ceded its responsibilities to UN, i think, so there were intentions of two separate orgs (with different memberships), to the extent that an org'n (even a state!) ever has an intention except thru the intentions of its members. So i'm reducing the implication of clear intention, in favor of a more nuanced discussion to be added in the body of the article.
--Jerzy(t) 15:41, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

An absolutely useless international organization created by the Allies after the end of World War I. It did nothing when Germany took Sudentenland and Rhineland, and Japan simply renounced its seat when it invaded Manchuria. It was originally created by Woodrow Wilson, whose Fourteen Points were met with general approval in Europe. If the United States joined the league, everything just might have worked out. But extremely strong isolationist elements in Congress rejected the resolution. Without the United States there, the League of Nations has practically no military power (at that time, European wars would probably all fight to stalemate, and the countries are unwilling to commit troops).

The Versailles Treaty was a serious injustice to Germany and it was mainly pushed by the idiotic French attempting to supress Germany. The League did nothing to stop it as it was controlled by the Allies. No wonder the Germans were so effective with their blitzreig. Damn cheese-eating surrender monkeys!

Anyways, the result is effectively a international political forum where stuff is discussed but shit happens. Its uselessness resulted in appeasement. That turned out to be a very bad idea (see World War II).

[edit] Wikisource

The LoN covenant [2], [3] can be added to Wikisource, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I added logo since it is fair use. Unfortunately I can't find other photos we can use [4] is 1938. It would be great if sb could find some older photos - or make new ones. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Let's talk about its success.

From american's point of view, yes. The league might be a failure. Actually no one even talk about its success.

Someone have to add some more informations on its success too.

-mireka[at]gmail.com

[edit] US Involvement

Well, there was not much success with the League of Nations. The sole reason is that one of the major powers at the time, namely the United States, did not join the league. Specifically, I think it was a majority senate leader from the US who was particularly against Wilson who blocked the signing of treaty and the joining of the League of Nations. Even though Wilson pushed for this particular idea, the Senate was not very happy that they weren't included in the discussion of how the treaty was to be constructed. (One of the supposed reasons why it was blocked.)

The League of Nations did not necessarily fail because it did not stop Germany. It failed because it lacked the support needed and, I suspect, was not as strong as the United Nations. Even though we could say that the League of Nations is the predessassor of the UN, the LN was not at all the same as the UN. The LN was a different type of 'animal' than the UN. Since this was formed after WWI, Japan is not considered 'bad' at this time. Mostly WWI was a consideration of bad on Germany. The treaty requirements were very biased against Germany, requiring Germany to pay a lot of money to the victors.

The only country that seemed to make out of WWI fine was the US, while the other countries were pretty war-torn. One of the reasons why the US stood as the primary power after WWI. War never touched US soil after WWI, and the US gained the most by selling its technology and weapons to its allies.

The US not being part of the League of Nations basically sealed the fate on the League of Nations, really. Being that the US was the powerhouse of the world at time, without the help the US, the League of Nations really could not do anything. The primary powers who were involved were really too busy reconstructing their nations.

Plus, I think it's worth mentioning the whole US wave of an isolationist movement somewhere. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An additional set of factors include: a global recession, which severely limited the financial resources nations were willing to provide the LN; the expulsion of the USSR, leaving only France and the U.K. as major powers with membership.
U.S. lack of involvement was not that large a factor, since the country was only a recent power in world politics (relatively speaking.) At the same time, lacking U.S. financial clout (due to war debt) was initially a major weakness for the LN (there were no international financial treaties, or funds), though this was eventually moderated with the depth of the U.S. banking scandal/recession. The global web of financial treaties which dominated the end of the 20th century world economy and gives strength to the United Nations did not exist for the League of Nations. - Amgine 02:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Does anyone have any good pictures of the Palais des nations which was the hq especially built for the League (finished in the mid 1930s)? 22:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I got a fair use photo from United Nations Office at Geneva. If you don't think it's fair use, say so.

I'd say it's fair use. There's another picture here from the same site without that pesky UN flag :) AndyL 05:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jonathan Pagel made an interesting song that raps out the history of the League of Nations in around 6 minutes
The link is http://www.pagel.clara.co.uk/rr/index.htm . appleboy 17:03, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

I've added it. Thanks! AndyL 17:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidate

I've nominated this article to be a featured article. Please see the template at the top of the page or go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/League of Nations to add a comment. AndyL 08:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From CoTW to FAC, that's how it should be done :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Originator

The section "1.1 Origins of the League" starts out attributing the idea to Edward Grey, but I'm not seeing where that's coming from. Grey's Wiki page makes no allusion to it so far as I could see--you would think it would be worth mentioning :-). It does say that he liked birds.

Teddy Roosevelt talked about "a species of world federation" in his Nobel lecture (1910), and his words imply the idea had been around for a while. Various American progressive groups had Wilson's ear, and he was clearly the driver. Even the phrase "League of Nations" is said to be from a Cambridge classical scholar named Lowes Dickinson.

In fact, my guess would be that the basic idea had been around forever--how about giving the nod to Charlemagne of Holy Roman Empire fame? :-)

Anybody got a citation for Grey or anybody else?

DanielVonEhren 01:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What about Jan Smuts, in his link he is credited with the Leauges formation but ther is no mention of him in the his article?

[edit] FAC?

The last nomiantion to WP:FAC failed, and was arguably a bit early, but the page looks to have filled out a bit and seems excellent to me. Should I nominate it? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't yet. I think the Agencies and commissions section still needs to look nicer. I made a start a little while ago at representing it in a table - see User:Smoddy/LoN table. If anyone would like to continue this, feel free. I guess the alternative is to do it with a list. The current formatting looks ugly. But it deserves a FA. Smoddy (t) (e) (c) 17:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think a table would be overkill - I've had a go with the "definition" format ("; xxx : yyy") - better? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ten times. The article is ready now, methinks. Smoddy (t) (e) (c) 21:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed may I be so blunt to ask whether the author is sure of Sir Edward Grey's part in the plans for the League of Nations? All I can find (after a brief search) is that he was Chair of The League of Nations Union, not that he was the actual brain behind it..?

[edit] Global economy

I think the overall failure of the League of Nations must be factored in with the state of the global economy. I believe, in part, Britain and France were heavily relying on Germany's reparations just to rebuild their own countries. Also this sentence, During the war, neither the League's Assembly nor Council was able or willing to meet and its secretariat in Geneva was reduced to a skeleton staff, with many offices moving to North America. needs to be corrected. It seems like a run on to me. Also, the article could stand a bit of restructuring. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - I have moved the furniture around a bit -previously, "Origins", "Successes, "Weaknesses and failures" and "Demise" were all part of "History", with "Mandates" and "Structure" separate, and "Symbols" at the end. I have moved "Structure" and "Symbols" up, and separated "General weaknesses" from "Specific failures": hopefully it all flows a bit better now. Comments?
Please copyedit or expand away :) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] organization versus organisation

There is an inconsistency with the usage of the term, specifically in the naming of the health and labour bodies of the League of Nations. In my opinion the word organization ought to be used because League of Nations is more closely tied to Europe rather than U.S.

Sorry, I'm a casual user and don't yet have an account. If LoN is more closely tied to Europe, shouldn't it be organisation that's used? The z is the American preferred spelling AFAIK. ShimmeryPhil 11 Mar 2005 [Edited] - now have an account --ShimmeryPhil 08:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Isn't it an US / Oxford dictionary versus everyone else point? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland we say 'organisation' and (mostly) 'defence'. In my opinion, the whole UK/US English differential is a minefield, and I would prefer it if Wikipedia explicitly allowed for a mixture of both on a single page. I think that 'ShimmeryPhil' is a superb user name. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why thank you. Also a Brit and still stand by "organisation" as the U.K preferred spelling. --ShimmeryPhil 13:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to the msn dictionary (I use it most often), organization is a U.K. word while organisation is a U.S. word. The different dictionaries seem to not correspond with the word. I didn't know that. I guess organisation can be used in this setting, but I still think there should be a consistency with the words - either-or. Here's a link to the msn dictionary: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/organisation.html

Well, i think the OED is a more authoritative source than msn encarta (something i've suspected for some time...) but in any case, this probably isn't the place to argue about wheter to use UK or US english. However, I agree that this is something that should be resolved. --Ondra2 (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A small suggestion

"If the League had shown more resolve initially, countries, governments and dictators may have been more wary of risking its wrath in later years. These failings were, in part, among the reasons for the outbreak of World War II." - I'm wary of these two sentences. The first sounds like one man's opinion, and the second contains the phrase "these failings were in part, among the reasons", which is an absurdly limp-wristed thing to say. The paragraph needs to read something like "Some commentators have argued that, (source, source) had the League shown more resolve initially, countries, governments and dictators may have been more wary of risking punitive action in later years. The League's lack of firm action is often also cited (source, source) as a contributing factor in the outbreak of World War II." -Ashley Pomeroy 10:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Now find (source, source) :) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My whole life has been a series of good ideas wasted by sloth. Besides, I don't want to steal anybody else's glory. Yes, that's the best way of putting it. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would go with Ashley too, but possibly a bit stronger. I am sure that with the proper research and quotes it would be established that many, or even most commentators would say that. No, I'm not going to do it, tho, either.

IceDragon64 23:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian tragedy

I have counted 27 League of Nations reports directly involving, or mostly or partly involving Armenians.

League of Nations. Armenian and Russian Refugees; Conference of Government Representatives to Consider Proposals for the Settlement of Refugees in Overseas Countries. Geneva: Imprimerie Kundig, 1927.

League of Nations: Assembly: Fifth Committee. Armenian and Russian Refugee Problems; Report... Geneva: np, 1926.

League of Nations: Assembly: Fifth Committee. Deportation of Women and Children in Turkey, Asia Minor and the Neighboring Territories; Report... Geneva: np, 1921, 1922.

League of Nations: Assembly: Fifth Committee. Protection of Women and Children in the Near East; Report... Geneva: np, 1923-1927.

League of Nations: Assembly: Fifth Committee. Settlement of Armenian Refugees; Report... Geneva: Imprimerie Kundig, 1926.

League of Nations: Assembly: Fifth Committee. Transfer of Armenian Refugees to the Caucasus and Creation of an Armenian National Home in That Region; Report... Geneva: np, 1924.

League of Nations: Assembly: Fifth Committee. Work of the High Commission for Refugees on Behalf of Near East Refugees; Report... Geneva: Imprimerie Jent, 1923.

League of Nations: Assembly: Sixth Committee. Armenia; Report... Geneva: np, 1921, 1922.

League of Nations: Assembly: Sixth Committee. Russian, Armenian, Assyrian, Assyro-Chaldean and Turkish Refugees; Report... Geneva: np, 1930-1935.

League of Nations: Assembly: Sixth Committee. Plan for the Establishment of Armenian Refugees in the Republic of Erivan; Report... Geneva: Imprimerie Jent, 1928.

League of Nations: Assembly: Sixth Committee. Settlement of Armenian Refugees in the Erivan Republic; Report... Geneva: Imprimerie Jent, 1929.

League of Nations: Commission for the Protection of Women and Children in the Near East. Report... Geneva: np, 1923-1929.

League of Nations: Commission of Enquiry on the Deportation of Women and Children in Turkey and Adjacent Countries. Work of the Commission... Geneva: np, 1921.

League of Nations: Council. Armenian Refugee Settlement Commission; Report... Geneva: np, 1926.

League of Nations: Council. Protection of Minorities in Turkey. London: np, 1920.

League of Nations: Council. Return to Turkish Armenian Refugees in Greece of their Deposits in Foreign Banks at Smyrna and Their Property Left in Asia Minor (the Essayan Petition). Geneva: np, 1925.

League of Nations: Council. Settlement of Armenian Refugees; Report... Geneva: np, 1923-1927.

League of Nations: Council. Commission for the Protection of Women and Children in the Near East; Report... Geneva: np, 1923, 1925.

League of Nations: High Commissioner for Refugees (1921-1930). Armenian and Russian Refugees. Geneva: np, 1926.

League of Nations: High Commissioner for Refugees (1921-1930). Armenian Refugees; Report by Dr. Fridtiof Nansen... Geneva: np, 1924.

League of Nations: High Commissioner for Refugees (1921-1930). Conference on Russian and Armenian Refugee Questions; Report... Geneva: Imprimerie Kundig, 1926.

League of Nations: High Commissioner for Refugees (1921-1930). Identity Certificate for Armenian Refugees; Report... Geneva: np, 1924.

League of Nations: High Commissioner for Refugees (1921-1930). Refugee Questions..Transfer of the Work for Russian and Armenian Refugees to the International Labour Organisation. Geneva: np, 1924.

League of Nations: High Commissioner for Refugees (1921-1930). Report on the Settlement of Armenian Refugees in Syria and in Lebanon. Geneva: np, 1928.

League of Nations: High Commissioner for Refugees (1921-1930). Russian and Armenian Refugees; Report... Geneva: Imprimerie Kundig, 1927.

League of Nations: High Commissioner for Refugees (1921-1930). Russian, Armenian, Assyrian, Assyro-Chaldean and Turkish Refugees; Report... Geneva: Imprimerie Kundig, 1928, 1929.

From what I have read, the Armenian issue at that time, when the League was formed, was one of their main issues, and the refugee crises even lead one of the leading figures of the League of Nations, Fridtjof Nansen, to participate in the fondation, and direct the High Commission for Refugees and extending the mendate as to include the Armenian refugees. He even wrote a book about the event. I find it weird, that there is even no one mention of the word, Armenians, in the entire article, when the Armenian question, during the Paris Peace Conferences was one of the elements that the upcoming organization that was to be formed(League of Nations) should have had mendate over. Fadix 04:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

There is mention of the Commission for Refugees, refugees in Turkey and Russia, and the Nansen passport: if you think more should be added, please be bold. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SU's expulsuion

It will be nice to put voting statistics in this section. I've heard than Finland's closest neighbours voted against expulsion. However, never seen any documents proving it.

[edit] US Senate rejection of entry into League of Nations

Hi, can someone double-check the date given for US senate rejection of entry into League? It currently reads as January 1919, but this is highly unlikely given that neither League Covenant nor Versailles Treaty were even drafted by then. I suspect it's actually 1920...

A timeline I found after Googling it supports this fact:

http://www.indiana.edu/~league/1920.htm

Anyone agree/disagree?

[edit] Mosul

Surely the Mosul dispute was not between Turkey and Iraq, but Britain and France, who were, at the time, in control of Iraq and Syria, respectively.

Changed the part on the Mosul dispute. There has been a dispute between Britain and France over Mosul, but that was during the First World War, when the Sykes-Picot treaty gave Mosul to France. Later, on the 1st december 1918 Clemenceau gave up France's claim over Mosul, in exchange of Lloyd George's continued support to acquire the Mandate over Syria. Hope the text is self-explanatory.
Have made an account, so if wanted you can contact me.Nightworker 12:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abyssinia

I removed "he conflict, along with its use in the Spanish Civil War, was one of the first times in which chemical weapons (mustard gas) were used – in this case, by the Italians against the Abyssinians." for 2 reasons: First, already in the first world war chemical weapons were used on a large scale, so the war in Abyssinia, more than 20 years after WW1 can not be called one of the first times in which it was used. Second, the link to 'chemical warfare' to which was refered, also points out that both wars were not the first where chemical weapons were used. Nightworker 23:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] change in link

Hello Intangible, you just changed a link in League of Nations, but may be the old link was better. The institution of the League of Nations was arranged in the Treaty of Versailles. May be it should be changed back to that? Nightworker 00:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the old link was to the paris convention (which produced the versailles treaty). I just reverted the anonymous changes. Intangible 00:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Was China really a permanent member of the LoN? I'm sorry but as far as I know it consisted of 4 PM until 1926... I agree with you, China was not a permanent member of the league of nations, I don't know where this idea is from.

[edit] Annexed or Unified

The word Anschluss, in German, means political union, not annexation. Annexation usually implies that you are forcefully taking something, usually against the will of the people. Ever since 1871, the Austrians had wanted to join Germany; after WW1 they petitioned to join. It was most definately NOT an annexation, the Austrians willingly joined the German State in 1936. Ameise -- chat 07:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

For this article and the League of Nations members article I made a world map of the members and the league. I think I've done a pretty nice job, if I may say so. But the map certainly isn't perfect. If anyone has any improvments to make please let me know, I'll be happy to make a new version.

User:Allard | Thurday July 13 2006 C.E.T.

[edit] Other Colors

There is a grey island off Yugoslavia, a grey dot in the Solomons; a grey island in an island group to the East of the Solomons; many grey islands in the East Pacific; some brown color for the Aleutians and an orange Lichtenstein, Vatican, Andorra, San Marino and Monaco. These colors are not on the legend.--208.102.210.163 (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about Smuts?

From the page on Jan Smuts: "One of his greatest international accomplishments was the establishment of the League of Nations, the exact design and implementation of which relied upon Smuts. He later urged the formation of a new international organisation for peace: the United Nations. Smuts wrote the preamble to the United Nations Charter, and was the only person to sign the charters of both the League of Nations and the UN. "

How can there be no mention of Smuts involvment on this page, when his own page says he was instrumental in the formation of both the League and the UN? Which is right?? Shado.za 14:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racial equality

This is a good article and has a comprehensive list of its failures and successes. But I was reading about the dispute over racial equality in the League of Nations and it seems to be an important inclusion for this article (perhaps in the section about weaknesses?). There's a bit about it in the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 article. (It says that it caused considerable anti-American sentiment in Japan.) Brutannica 06:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The Japanese-proposed Racial Equality Clause incident should at least be mentioned in some form. US president Woodrow Wilson, an outspoken white supremacist who segregated the US federal government and the US navy unlike his Republican predecessors, personally vetoed this clause. Perhaps we do not know what effects this had on the continuance of the League, but it is definitely noteworthy. 69.23.106.111 (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline.

Would love to see a timeline of when member states joined, left, re-joined etc. Anyone? tactik 10:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] racism

this article is racist against bullpeople

[edit] Multiregional international organization

The League is categorized as a Multiregional international organization but the United Nations is not? --Brz7 21:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Council

the sentance under Council which says "...this prompts for the United States..." does not make sense to me, but I can't put it right cos I don't know what it is meant to say. Maybe "This prompted the United States..." or what?

IceDragon64 23:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peru-Colombia conflict

The Colombia-Peru War was resolved through the league of nations. --F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 21:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-members of League?

I believe that, aside from the US and a few European microstates (Monaco, Liechtenstein, San Marino), Saudi Arabia and Mongolia were the only independent countries that were never members of the League--unless you consider Tibet independent. The other thing that's interesting is that India was a member, despite its colonial status.

But there were some guys, unfavorably disposed toward the British Empire, that didn't regard Canada and the other so-called British Dominions as independent and unsuccessfully tried to keep them from being members. 129.93.17.131 (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Tom129.93.17.131 (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Secretariat

Seemingly there is no appropriate link for Secretariat of League of Nations at disambiguation page of secretariat. Somebody might want to improve this point. --Ruziklan (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section headings

What do other people think about merging the sections on "Resolving territorial disputes" with "Peace and security" and then changing the name to "International relations" with the subheadings "1920s", "1930s" (with subheadings for the "Mukden Incident" and I"talian invasion of Abyssinia") and "Disarmament"? while I've been referencing the information I started adding information about activities in these periods and removing subheadings so I'm going to continue with that as it's easy to change the headings back after I've finished. --Kaly99 (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I think it's a good idea, of course, as I made the change. But I can explain my reasoning and am open to other suggestions. Meanwhile, I don't understand your final sentence here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The sources I'm using to reference the article and rewrite/expand the information tend to discuss the 1920s and the 1930s as distinctive periods. There is analysis related to these periods that I'd like to include but there is little general comment on the League's relationship with territorial disputes or peace and security as distinctive elements of it's operations. I think it also makes the actions and development of the League easier to follow when events are ordered chronologically. There is also a problem with categorisation, for example, the invasion of Abyssinia began as a territorial dispute due to an unmarked border.
Before the changes I started removing the subheadings for each incident (for example I'd already removed the one for Albania) to try and make the article flow better and make it less like a list. Do you think this is a good idea? I meant in my last sentence of the previous post that I can easily put these back if not. --Kaly99 (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, in part, that while a chronological approach may be suited to a book-long work (such as your sources), when severely reduced here on WP, it soon loses any flow. I do agree, however, that the distinctions I introduced with my section titles may be loose and hard to sustain, although I suspect that's inevitable; it'd be true, too, of a chronological division for incidents that originated in the 1920s and continued later. It was a first stab at the problem, however. Overall, whatever the solution, I'm very much in favour of making the article less like a list. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)