UN Finds More Success than League of Nations

We can argue whether the most widely represented international organization, the United Nations (UN), provides true safety for all its member states. In my opinion, there is no clear answer. When we look into the past at the League of Nations (LN), the UN’s predecessor, what can we find? It was a multinational organization trying to maintain peace by all accessible kinds of sanctions, but it used armed intervention only in cases of crisis as the last possibility.

To begin with, both these organizations emerged as a kind of feedback to great wars. The older one, the League of the Nations, is often spoken of as the brainchild of the American president Woodrow Wilson. As a 14th point of the Versailles Treaty it was ratified by the participants of the First World War, except for America, who had finally decided not to tie itself with principally European affairs; it had rather chosen the policy of isolationism. This might be considered as one point, which is nowadays in favour of the United Nations Organization (UNO). This meant a deprivation of one militarily strong, not by war that heavily destroyed, to future prosperous and psychologically beneficial member. Thus the League could be told to be very much a Franco-British issue. From 1920s on, there were actually only two powers able to influence the ongoing local events. Additionally, after the war, all countries were preoccupied with their internal affairs - reconstruction of damaged economy and infrastructure, high unemployment rates, war debts, that shall have been re-paid especially to the United States of America - that were supporting during the first era of the conflict both the Allies as well as the Central Powers.

Furthermore, there are some other vital variations, which...

... middle of paper ...

...But this shall be left for experts; it is never possible to say certainly that this is the right time to act.

In the final analysis, despite of the mixture of successes and loses, it is objective to say, that UN has been more successful than its predecessor in many respects. On the one hand, its power is not directly proportional to the willingness of its member states to react. But on the other hand it could be considered as a kind of world hegemon ruled by the top five of permanent members who if are challenged sometimes do ignore the settlements (Russian case).No matter what, it is crucial to point out that they had a “draft”, created by its avant-garde, of what to avoid. Under no circumstances could be told, that the UN is always better in its actions, it has to be taken merely in comparison to the LN. It would be just a simple opinion, not a fact whatsoever.