Why did the UN succeed where the League of Nations failed?
Why did the UN succeed where the League of Nations failed?
Jordan Carter
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Parker Martinez
UN didn't succeed in anything, it's actually fucking useless for anything other than comedic relief in the form of 3rd world cannibal dictators giving speeches about human rights and oppression.
The thing that prevented the outbreak of WW3 were NUCLEAR WEAPONS, not fucking UN.
Daniel Rodriguez
Depends on what you mean by "success." The UN failed to prevent the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Soviet-Afghan War, the China-India War, several India-Pakistan wars, and all the various civil wars over its 70 year history. Plus, it has failed to prevent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia.
We haven't had WWIII yet, but that is probably more a product of the Cold War and two countries having the power to devastate the planet.
The League of Nations failed for a number of reasons, first being that it was a hypocritical enterprise. Germany was excluded at first for having lost WWI, and the Soviet Union wasn't included for a long time because the West didn't recognize the Bolsheviks. The US wasn't in it because Congress opposed it. It relied on collective security, in the form of troop donations, and sanctions to enforce their rules, but the European empires were still playing the colonial game and were unwilling to use their resources to enforce the rules when those same rules might then be used against them. Same goes for disarmament, a major goal; nobody was willing to disarm because they still had their huge empires on the line.
Blake Campbell
3 things:
-Everyone is a member.
-Veto power.
-Decolonization.
-Enforcement (even how minimal it is).
League of Nations
-Founders USA isn't a member.
-Too partisan (i,e, colonial powers pretty much run it),
-Maintenance of Status Quo (i,e, everyone who has colonies, keeps them).
-...which clashed with ideals of Self-Determination of Nations.
-Has 0 enforcement.
Anthony Cooper
>3 things
>lists 4
ok I'll bite
>-Everyone is a member.
Your definition of "Everyone" is pretty loose
>-Veto power.
For the only 3 members that matter
>-Decolonization.
Define "Decolonization"
>-Enforcement
Asking politely for sanctions is not enforcement, especially since not "Everyone" follows the sanctions.
Lucas Perry
>HURDURR CLETUS DA UN TROOPS WILL COME DOWN CHOPPAS AND GIT YUR GUNS.
I will never get the US hatred for what essentially is a global forum.
Michael Sanchez
UN doesn't do its job particularly well. It's more of a humanitarian figurehead/discussion board than anything else.
Since when has the UN regularly punished countries for violating the following? Not very often, largely because it has no power of its own. I think it's about time the UN gets teeth, but it'd probably be just as corrupt and lobby influenced as any other government.
Aaron Baker
>UN doesn't do its job particularly well. It's more of a humanitarian figurehead/discussion board than anything else.
I would say it does do it's job rather well, since that's basically it's job - to be a marriage counselor. It's where people come together to actually talk about their problems, instead of just chimping out, and attacking everyone in sight.
Christian Clark
Veto power for the Security Council.
The League of Nations failed because it tried to implement rules on the geopolitics while ignoring the mechanics of power which drive geopolitics. The United Nations is more in line with reality, powerful countries do what they can weak countries endure what they must. The United Nations will break down in the same way as the League of Nations if things escalate but the amount of things that will lead to this break down is much smaller than the League.
In the meantime the U.N. servers as a forum and at least of semblance of governance of a lawless process which is relatively useful and arguably a step in the right direction.
Daniel Ramirez
>The main reason why UN is useless is its advantage now
UN cannot get anything done properly, it couldn't even during Cold War, Congo Crisis being one of the most prominent examples. Veto with no way of overriding it makes UN about as useful as League of Nations in practice. There should have been a supermajority rule in place because as of now Security Council and the whole organization is laughable.
>I would say it does do it's job rather well, since that's basically it's job - to be a marriage counselor. It's where people come together to actually talk about their problems, instead of just chimping out, and attacking everyone in sight.
>In the meantime the U.N. servers as a forum and at least of semblance of governance of a lawless process which is relatively useful and arguably a step in the right direction.
That's exactly what League of Nations was. All talk, nothing done.
Sure, UN has a degree of success in humanitarian spheres but guess what, so did League of Nations.
Luke Brown
They're good at human traficking and is a decent diplomatic forum for the anglo-american establishment to impose their will on the rest of the world.
Jason Torres
>is a decent diplomatic forum for the anglo-american establishment to impose their will on the rest of the world.
You say that as if it's a bad thing
Andrew Myers
ITT: People who know literally nothing about the United Nations System beyond what they saw on CNN that one time Obama spoke at the General Assembly.
I mean, it's blatant errors, like saying three countries have veto power, when it's always been five.
Saying the Security Council or the GA isn't particularly effective is one thing, but the UN is comprised of dozens of sub-organizations many of which do a great deal, and are incredibly successful. The WFP feeds nearly 100 million people annually, UNICEF vaccinates 58% of children globally, UNHCR shelters over 30 million refugees - and that's just three organizations off the top of my head.
Ironically, the UN is least successful in its primary mission (peace among nations), but in virtually every other area it does far more and better than the founders would have expected.
Wyatt Hernandez
The UN also has more success in terms of being a diplomatic channel for countries to jockey against one another on, better than the League where countries pulled out fairly quickly when tensions started to flare.
Granted a large amount of the UN's comparative success in this matter comes from US superpower status as well so I should add that as another reason it has been more of a success.
Parker Myers
The UN is a true global organization dedicated to upholding universal ideals while the League of Nations was just a congress for white diplomats:
en.wikipedia.org
Benjamin Davis
WHO is the only good thing UN have going for
Christian Long
>and is a decent diplomatic forum for the anglo-american establishment to impose their will on the rest of the world.
they're fucking terrible at that though, Russia and China veto anything that matters
Henry Reyes
>Saying the Security Council or the GA isn't particularly effective is one thing, but the UN is comprised of dozens of sub-organizations many of which do a great deal, and are incredibly successful. The WFP feeds nearly 100 million people annually, UNICEF vaccinates 58% of children globally, UNHCR shelters over 30 million refugees - and that's just three organizations off the top of my head.
>Ironically, the UN is least successful in its primary mission (peace among nations), but in virtually every other area it does far more and better than the founders would have expected.
But that's why it's such a failure, it fails at its biggest goal: preventing war. The feeding people and sheltering refugees is nice, but NGOs do a lot of that and would immediately step in even more I'd the UN withdrew. Groups like Oxfam, ILO, Red Cross and others have been doing stuff like this even before the League of Nations. The UN is just a centralized bureaucratic body when it comes to humanitarian stuff, rather than a decentralized system of NGOs.
The recent scandal, which should have been huge, where Ban-ki Moon admitted that Saudi Arabia was removed from a list of countries harming children because SA threatened to withdraw funds shows how weak and impotent the UN is. Its bodies are far too susceptible to political motives, except for small, powerless countries who are at the mercy of more powerful ones.
Caleb Kelly
they were founded after WWII
Kayden Clark
I am confused, what makes you think the UN works? Just the fact nobody left it yet?
Nathaniel Martinez
It does effectively fuck all to maintain peace and shit like humanitarian aid only hurts developing economies.
Luke Diaz
American backing and the will to go in and fuck someone up.
Parker Brooks
>It's a Britain vetoes any action against South Africa or Rhodesia episode