Why has United Nations been more successful than League of Nations Essay

Why has United Nations been more successful than League of Nations - Essay Example some(prenominal) comparison in the midst of the two international bodies as League of Nations and United Nations can be through with(p) only by tracing their origin.In order to amply answer the thesis question, one needs to crush in details the prevailing knowledge base situation when these two bodies were formed. One needs to appreciate that two the bodies were formed in the aftermath of World Wars that ravaged a large part of the developed gentlemans gentleman when nations tired of state of war were thinking of some permanent solution to banish war for ever from the boldness of the earth. The nations thought of creating some international supervisory body that would mediate and diffuse tensions that might brew between nations and ensure that such tensions never spill over into full fledged armed conflict. The bane of war was very much realized by all the combatants what with European economy in tatters after the ferociousness and mindless destruction that was unleashed during the two World Wars. It seemed that all parties concerned had come to their senses and have realized the elusive way that war can never be a solution one war needfully leads to other wars more savage and more ferocious than the previous one. The stage was set, as one would assume, for the universe of one such international body at the end of First World War. This body would, or at least those who took leading part in its formation thought so, would be an international intermediary that would diffuse the glowing embers of a potential armed confrontation before it turned into an uncontrollable the pits (Knock, 1995). Inception of League of Nations By mid-December 1918 World War I was practically over, the shooting part, that is, and USS George Washington was sexual climax French coastline with US President Woodrow Wilson on board. The President was buoyant with notions of setting up a world ord er that would usher in everlasting peace in world. The idea and mission was surely a laudable one but little did the President know of the pitfalls that lay ahead in implementing his la-di-da and eminently lofty plans that would sustain forever any war from erupting into a frenzy of genocide and destruction. This trial of his earned him the Nobel Prize for peace in 1919 but Wilson was perhaps not aware that his allies were compulsive that Germany atone for her sins by paying heavily and were in no mood to forgive and forget and stick afresh. But why blame only the European nations? Many Americans also feared that the birth of any transnational body like the League of Nations would take on the role of a global monitor and prevent member nations from pursuing their independent foreign policies. This strain of isolationism had pervaded foreign form _or_ system of government relations of United States refine from its arrival on the international scene as a power of consequence. T his trait perhaps had a direct link with its geographical location existence bound on either sides by oceans and thereof not having to share boundaries with equally powerful nations as most European countries had to. Canada on the north and Mexico on the south were so inferior in military and economic strength as compared to itself that United States had never faced the predicament of dealing with a prickly and potentially dangerous neighbor. Hence, the general feeling among American public was not favorable towards the formation of an international body. They, instead, felt their independence in charting their foreign policy course to be much more important than engaging in some sort of reason and compromise with fellow developed countries so that a World war is never repeated. League of Nations thereof started its journey amid much misgivings and mutual distrust and was doomed perhaps even before it was formally brought into being (Lerner, 2004).