Kant's philosophy of history monograph

- The League of Nations -

“THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, In order to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war, by the prescription of open, just and honorable relations between nations, by the firm establishment of the understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among Governments, and by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another, agree to this Covenant of the League of Nations.” (The Covenant of the League of Nations 1924)

When we hear the word “the League of Nations,” we will normally think of Wilson’s 14 points. I remember memorizing President Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points when I was in high school US history class but I don’t actually remember anything about Kant’s idea and the theses when I learned about the League of Nations. It was a fresh fact when I heard that the visionary underneath the proposal of President Woodrow Wilson was Immanuel Kant.

So the question arises. The question that says “so was the league of nations successful according to Kant and Woodrow Wilson’s plan or a failure that brought hardships to many countries?” According to my research, there were both success and failure of the League of Nations on specific countries.


The League experienced success in

1) The Aaland Islands (1921)

“These islands are near enough equal distant between Finland and Sweden. They had traditionally belonged to Finland but most of the islanders wanted to be governed by Sweden. Neither Sweden nor Finland could come to a decision as to who owned the islands and in 1921 they asked the League to adjudicate. The League’s decision was that they should remain with Finland but that no weapons should ever be kept there. Both countries accepted the decision and it remains in force to this day.” (Chris Trueman 2000)

2) Upper Silesia (1921)

“The Treaty of Versailles had given the people of Upper Silesia the right to have a referendum on whether they wanted to be part of Germany or part of Poland. In this referendum, 700,000 voted for Germany and 500,000 for Poland. This close result resulted in rioting between those who expected Silesia to be made part of Germany and those who wanted to be part of Poland. The League was asked to settle this dispute. After a six-week inquiry, the League decided to split Upper Silesia between Germany and Poland. The League’s decision was accepted by both countries and by the people in Upper Silesia.” (Chris Trueman 2000)

3) Memel (1923)

“Memel was/is a port in Lithuania. Most people who lived in Memel were Lithuanians and, therefore, the government of Lithuania believed that the port should be governed by it. However, the Treaty of Versailles had put Memel and the land surrounding the port under the control of the League. For three years, a French general acted as a governor of the port but in 1923 the Lithuanians invaded the port. The League intervened and gave the area surrounding Memel to Lithuania but they made the port an "international zone". Lithuania agreed to this decision. Though this can be seen as a League success ? as the issue was settled ? a counter argument is that what happened was the result of the use of force and that the League responded in a positive manner to those (the Lithuanians) who had used force.” (Chris Trueman 2000)

4) Turkey (1923)

“The League failed to stop a bloody war in Turkey (see League failures) but it did respond to the humanitarian crisis caused by this war.

1,400,000 refugees had been created by this war with 80% of them being women and children. Typhoid and cholera were rampant. The League sent doctors from the Health Organisation to check the spread of disease and it spent ￡10 million on building farms, homes etc for the refugees. Money was also invested in seeds, wells and digging tools and by 1926, work was found for 600,000 people.

A member of the League called this work "the greatest work of mercy which mankind has undertaken." (Chris Trueman 2000)

5) Greece and Bulgaria (1925)

“Both these nations have a common border. In 1925, sentries patrolling this border fired on one another and a Greek soldier was killed. The Greek army invaded Bulgaria as a result. The Bulgarians asked the League for help and the League ordered both armies to stop fighting and that the Greeks should pull out of Bulgaria. The League then sent experts to the area and decided that Greece was to blame and fined her ￡45,000. Both nations accepted the decision.” (Chris Trueman 2000)

The failures of the League of Nations

Article 11 of the League’s Covenant stated:

"Any war of threat of war is a matter of concern to the whole League and the League shall take action that may safe guard peace."

“Therefore, any conflict between nations which ended in war and the victor of one over the other must be considered a League failure.” (Chris Trueman 2000)

1) Italy (1919)

“In 1919, Italian nationalists, angered that the "Big Three" had, in their opinion, broken promises to Italy at the Treaty of Versailles, captured the small port of Fiume. This port had been given to Yugoslavia by the Treaty of Versailles. For 15 months, Fiume was governed by an Italian nationalist called d’Annunzio. The newly created League did nothing. The situation was solved by the Italian government who could not accept that d’Annunzio was seemingly more popular than they were ? so they bombarded the port of Fiume and enforced a surrender. In all this the League played no part despite the fact that it had just been set up with the specific task of maintaining peace.” (Chris Trueman 2000)

2) Teschen (1919)

“Teschen was a small town between Poland and Czechoslovakia. Its main importance was that it had valuable coal mines there which both the Poles and the Czechs wanted. As both were newly created nations, both wanted to make their respective economies as strong as possible and the acquisition of rich coal mines would certainly help in this respect.

In January 1919, Polish and Czech troops fought in the streets of Teschen. Many died. The League was called on to help and decided that the bulk of the town should go to Poland while Czechoslovakia should have one of Teschen’s suburbs. This suburb contained the most valuable coal mines and the Poles refused to accept this decision. Though no more wholesale violence took place, the two countries continued to argue over the issue for the next twenty years.” (Chris Trueman 2000)

3) Vilna (1920)

“Many years before 1920, Vilna had been taken over by Russia. Historically, Vilna had been the capital of Lithuania when the state had existed in the Middle Ages. After World War One, Lithuania had been re-established and Vilna seemed the natural choice for its capital.

However, by 1920, 30% of the population was from Poland with Lithuanians only making up 2% of the city’s population. In 1920, the Poles seized Vilna. Lithuania asked for League help but the Poles could not be persuaded to leave the city. Vilna stayed in Polish hands until the outbreak of World War Two. The use of force by the Poles had won.” (Chris Trueman 2000)


4) War between Russia and Poland (1920 to 1921)

“In 1920, Poland invaded land held by the Russians. The Poles quickly overwhelmed the Russian army and made a swift advance into Russia. By 1921, the Russians had no choice but to sign the Treaty of Riga which handed over to Poland nearly 80,000 square kilometres of Russian land. This one treaty all but doubled the size of Poland.

What did the League do about this violation of another country by Poland?

The answer is simple. nothing. Russia by 1919 was communist and this "plague from the East" was greatly feared by the West. In fact, Britain, France and America sent troops to attack Russia after the League had been set up. Winston Churchill, the British War Minister, stated openly that the plan was to strangle Communist Russia at birth. Once again, to outsiders, it seemed as if League members were selecting which countries were acceptable and ones which were not. The Allied invasion of Russia was a failure and it only served to make Communist Russia even more antagonistic to the West.” (Chris Trueman 2000)


5) The invasion of the Ruhr (1923)

“The Treaty of Versailles had ordered Weimar Germany to pay reparations for war damages. These could either be paid in money or in kind (goods to the value of a set amount) In 1922, the Germans failed to pay an installment. They claimed that they simply could not rather than did not want to. The Allies refused to accept this and the anti-German feeling at this time was still strong. Both the French and the Belgium’s believed that some form of strong action was needed to ‘teach Germany a lesson’.

In 1923, contrary to League rules, the French and the Belgium’s invaded the Ruhr? Germany’s most important industrial zone. Within Europe, France was seen as a senior League member? like Britain? and the anti-German feeling that was felt throughout Europe allowed both France and Belgium to break their own rules as were introduced by the League. Here were two League members clearly breaking League rules and nothing was done about it.

For the League to enforce its will, it needed the support of its major backers in Europe, Britain and France. Yet France was one of the invaders and Britain was a major supporter of her. To other nations, it seemed that if you wanted to break League rules, you could. Few countries criticized what France and Belgium did. But the example they set for others in future years was obvious. The League clearly failed on this occasion, primarily because it was seen to be involved in breaking its own rules.” (Chris Trueman 2000)

The critical cases like wars, famine, and struggles between two nations are in fact extremely hard problems to solve. Because they are actually dealing with millions and millions of lives. With just one wrong decision that the league makes, the entire population of one country can decline or die out. With one right decision that the league makes, the peace can be obtained between the nations and welfare will be promised to the people. But it is very hard to make the right decision all the time. And as Kant has mentioned, enhancement of a government should be done when it doesn’t work. So if the League of Nations didn’t work, then why not bother to change it so that every nation in the world in general can benefit from the league.




Michael Duffy (2000-07). The Covenant of the League of Nations 1924
Retrieved July 10, 2008
Retrieved from http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/leagueofnations.htm

Chris Trueman (2000). The League of Nations.
Retrieved July 10, 2008
Retrieved from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk