Hey guys
I was wondering what is the difference between the League of Nations and UN. like I get that LON was post WW2 and UN was after but what was different in the two that made the LON unsuccesssful. Do you get what I'm tryna say? like what was the difference in how they both were operated
thank you so much!
Hey! So you're right - the League of Nations came about after WW1. In essence, it was decided upon at the Treaty of Versailles and was rushed, and not everyone was an enthusiastic member of the LON. Not every nation on Earth was in the LON - it was only the victors of WW1, and then they allowed other nations into the LON as well. The League of Nations was more a punishment to Germany than the peace-keeping tool that it was allegedly. The US didn't join the League of Nations. And there were a bunch of countries that were never invited to join, so it became quite exclusive instead of inclusive. The League of Nations also just in general was quite incompetent in the way it dealt with international issues - like the German annexation of Czech.
So, some big differences:
The UN is not simply made of the WW2 victors (although that is how the Security Council is comprised). All democratic, sovereign, nations can join the UN. There's only three countries - The Vatican, Kosovo, and Taiwan - that aren't in the UN. The UN Charter also outlines the difference ways the UN can encourage or enforce peace, so they have more of a procedure for dealing with situations like the Germany annexing Czech thing lol. SO the UN was far more inclusive than the LON, and it had documents that were drafted over time as opposed to rush through under pressure at Versailles.