|
The
League of Nations was formed in 1919 to encourage the member countries
to co-operate in trade, improve social conditions, complete disarmament
and to protect any member country that was being threatened with
war. The League of Nations was the initial idea of Woodrow Wilson,
the president of the USA, and was formed to make sure such world
atrocities like the First World War never happened again. However,
we know that a Second World War with even greater loss of life
took place, and therefore most people conclude that the League
of Nations failed. But why did the League fail?
The League of Nations had many 'design' weaknesses; with probably
the most important and noticeable weakness was the absence of
the USA. It was a great shock and disappointment for the rest
of the world when the American people voted for a 'policy of isolation',
and despite the campaigning of Woodrow Wilson, decided not to
join the League of Nations. This can be considered a great weakness
because the USA was becoming the most powerful and influential
country in the world, and therefore the League would probably
be unwilling to make a decision which would go against the USA,
and it would also mean that a country inside the League, who had
trade sanctions placed upon them would still be free to trade
with the USA.
The League of Nations also seemed to have a weakness in not accepting
Germany in the League when it was first formed. This gave the
impression that the League was for the 'winners' of WWI, with
Britain and France part of the inner council, and kept the German
people bitter and still wanting revenge.
Another weakness of the League was that it did not have an army
of its own, and that if it wanted an army to stand up to a troublesome
country, it must raise an army from member countries. This became
ineffective, as many member countries were very unwilling to raise
an army and physically challenge a country, as they were afraid
that it would effect their own self-interests, as we'll see later
in the Manchurian and the Abyssinian crisis'.
Despite all these weaknesses, the League did have some success
in the 1920's. The League had successfully sorted out a disagreement
between Finland and Sweden over the Aaland Islands; between Germany
and Poland over Upper Silesia, and between Greece and Bulgaria.
Apart from international disputes, some of the League's greatest
successes came in its work in the 'International Labour Organisation',
in which they got member countries to agree to things such as
the '8 hour maximum working day' and that there should be 'No-one
to be in full time employment under 15 years of age'. However,
the League did have failures in the 1920's, such as Vilna and
Corfu, and failed in its aim to achieve disarmament.
The small holes in the League became gaping ones after its downright
failure to do anything significant in the two main 'crisis'' of
the early 1930's: The invasion of Manchuria by Japan in '31 and
the invasion of Abysinnia by the Italians in '35.
In 1929 the world experienced the 'Wall Street collapse', a mass
economic depression that effected many of the countries of the
world hard, especially Japan. Therefore, Japan was in desperate
need of raw materials such as coal and Iron Ore, which an area
of China, named Manchuria, was rich in. Japan already had influence
in Manchuria, and so decided to take it over. China appealed to
the League, which decided to set up a Commission of Inquiry under
Lord Lytton, who was sent to the area to make a report. During
the year it took to make the report, Japan tightened its grip
on the area. When the League finally 'morally condemned' Japan
with the report, Japan simply ignored the report and left the
League. Japan continued to make successful trade with the USA,
its biggest trading partner, and then announced the intention
to invade China itself. This incident showed that if an aggressive
dictator wanted to invade neighbouring countries, he could.
This point was underlined 4 years later, when Abysinnia appealed
for help to the League about the Italian Invasion. The League
took eight months to discuss the matter, and then concluded that
Italy could have some of Abyssinia (as Italy had roots in Abyssinia),
but Mussolini rejected this offer. The League delayed its decision
to apply trade sanctions, meaning that Italy could stockpile enough
resources. Also, in self-interest, France and Britain refused
to stop trading in oil with Italy as it could harm their own economies,
and refused to shut the Suez Canal, the route Italy used to get
things from Italy to Abyssinia, because they were afraid of war
with Italy, and they also did not want to upset Mussolini, as
they hoped he would be their ally with in increasing threat of
Hitler. So, this meant that the League did not manage to stop
Italy, and showed that the League was actually weak and quite
powerless. Hitler saw this, and was able to exploit the League's
weakness to rearm and march into the Rhineland.
So, in conclusion, and to directly answer the question "Was
the League bound to fail?" I would say that yes, the League
was bound to fail eventually, as I personally feel that the League's
Physical weakness was too great in a world that was still very
self-interested. For example, Britain and France were happy for
Italy to invade the virtually defenceless country Abyssinia, as
long as it meant that they would stay on good terms with Mussolini.
To put it simply, the League's main aim above all others was to
end world conflict, and it failed to do this, meaning that the
League must have been a failure.
Vietnam
Exam Paper 3 2000- Kayleigh Davies 2002 Homework answers
4a) How useful are Sources A and B in explaining why the USA feared
the spread of Communism in the Far East?
The sources indicate that the USA feared the “Domino Theory”,
i.e. the spread of communism in Indochina. Source A is a primary
source, spoken by the US VP Nixon, at the time of the event. It
is a primary source, and this is the Vice president of one of
the emerging superpowers after WW2. He would obviously try to
justify his actions of spending hundreds of millions of dollars
supporting the French, because otherwise people would question
his motives. He uses the neighbouring countries to Vietnam –
Malaysia, Thailand, and their importance to America – import
and export – as a reason why they should remain Capitalist
like the States and not fall to Communism and under (effectively)
Russian control. It is useful because it indicates just why the
Americans are supporting the French campaign, but it is not useful
because it doesn’t tell me that America had been involved
in Vietnam since WW2, training Ho Chi Minh and his followers guerrilla
tactics to fight the Japanese. Also it does not tell me that the
North, Communist Vietnam was being aided by Russia, and that Vietnam
was another veil for the Cold War. Source B is a secondary source,
written for a school textbook. It has the benefit of Hindsight,
written 25 years after Source A, and as it is for a text book,
it is there to present the facts in a neutral way. It does not,
however, tell me that the USA was a capitalist country that despised
communism and everyone being equal. The two ideologies would collide
and the USA desperately didn’t want to fall to Communism.
The Domino Theory was the main reason why the US feared Communism,
so I would say the sources are reliable.
b) These sources give different views of the treatment of the
South Vietnamese peasants by the Vietnamese guerrillas. Why do
you think they are different?
The sources are different because they show the two sides of an
argument. Source C shows the Vietminh code of conduct, the way
peasants should be treated etc. It is not however, an account
of how the soldiers actually did behave towards the locals, like
source D. This is a description of the kind of harsh rule the
Guerillas operated in order to keep control of the countryside.
I know that the VC were very strict with their policies of obedience
– if anyone opposed them they would be executed, often to
be made an example of. However, for the most part, the soldiers
did follow the reminders laid out in source C, and were fair and
just to the peasants whom they relied upon for shelter, food etc.
Both sources are secondary, and have the benefit of hindsight
to gain a full picture of events. Also, both sources can be justified
to be accurate, because they show flip sides of the same coin.
Mao Zedong realised that guerrillas had to be “as fish are
of the sea” in order to be successful, and one of the chief
tactics was not to alienate the local people, as their support
is vital. But also it was important to show that the VC would
not be taken for fools, and so removing any suspected opposition
was their way of dealing with this. So both sides are different,
but equally valid.
c) How reliable are sources E and F to an historian as evidence
of the effects of guerrilla tactics in the Vietnam War?
Source E, the account is written soon after the war has ended,
by someone who had experienced the atrocities of guerrilla warfare
firsthand. The soldier says that “They were ghosts”,
and that you’d never see anyone but still men would be blown
up with a mortar or land mine. Guerilla tactics were used in Vietnam
because of the huge imbalance of troops and technology that the
Vietnamese faced. They were no match for the millions of highly
equipped troops that would invade their island, and soturned to
the cover of the trees and underground tunnels to fight their
war. The Soldier describes the personal impact of the tactics,
that soldiers so often felt disheartened at trying to fight an
invisible enemy, and angered because the Generals would make them
enter dangerous situations to try and hunt an enemy they could
not find trace of. This is why many troops turned to fragging,
to try and stop countless troops from getting blown up from land
mines. It is reliable as it describes the kinds of feelings the
soldiers had with regard to the tactics blowing up their friends.
Source F is a diagram showing the kinds of tactics implemented
the VC to maim US soldiers. Its written for a school textbook
published many years after the War and as it is for educational
purposes, it would present the facts in an objective way. The
diagrams show the types of traps the VC used, and the caption
above, saying that soldiers would rarely see an enemy but many
would at least be wounded by traps, which indicates that they
were effective. To an historian both sources would be useful to
show the effects of Guerilla tactics.
d) How did events in 1972 lead to a ceasefire in the Vietnam War
in 1973?
Nixon’s policy of Vietnamisation aimed to gradually withdraw
US troops from the fighting and allow the South to fight its own
war. The talks between Le Duc Tho and Kissinger did produce an
agreement – finally the North accepted that the South had
a right to exist, but the progress after that was slow so Nixon
decided to up the pressure and bomb them around the negotiating
table once again. The Christmas bombings of Hanoi were a real
demonstration of how vicious the US was prepared to be in its
push for peace, bombing civilian towns in order to achieve results.
The north realised this and decided to re-negotiate a peace plan
in order to prevent further destruction of the North. The only
way to establish some kind of peace was to call a ceasefire, and
this is what happened, thought it was not “peace, with honour”
as Nixon claimed, more like a withdrawal from a conflict likely
to flare up again.
e) “The My Lai massacre of 1968 was the main reason why many
Americans opposed the Vietnam War by the end of the 1960’s”.
Do you agree? Explain your answer.
I would agree in part with that quote, because My Lai and other
similar acts of US atrocity did indeed encourage more anti –
war sentiment towards the end of the 1960’s. However I do
not agree that it was the main reason at all, because it was hidden
under the carpet for at least a year before the full extent of
the brutality became exposed. Also, many other factors throughout
the 60’s meant that more and more people began to doubt the
justification for war in Vietnam, or at least the US involvement
in it. The Tet Offensive was definitely a peripheral victory for
the Vietminh, even though its troops were severely weakened, never
to fully recover. The risks taken by Giap and Ho Chi Minh in invading
the towns had not only proved worthwhile, but also their initial
defeat of the US marines shocked many in the western world. While
militarily it was a US success, the increasing role of the media
in the war meant that it was portrayed as a victory for the gutsy
VC. The guerrilla tactics adopted by the Vietminh were undoubtedly
effective, though perhaps more psychologically than physically.
Soldiers hated the idea of trying to shoot at an enemy they could
not see, and so morale grew lower as more troops were blown up
by booby traps and mines. The use of chemical weapons by
the USA received harsh criticism from around the world. Defoliants
such as Agent Orange and Napalm not only destroyed thousands of
acres of forest and fertile farming land, leaving the Vietnamese
starving, but also caused many horrific human casualties, skin
being burnt to the bone, etc. The families back in the US woke
up with breakfast television scenes of bloodshed, and came home
to watch body bags with teenage soldiers being shipped back. People
began to doubt that an end was near, and questioned the excessive
resources being pumped into a country miles away. Johnson had
continuously fed millions of dollars into trying to win the war,
yet refused to see that it was all in vain. The South Vietnamese
were so poorly organised and unable to communicate properly, or
make a significant contribution to the fighting, and the US public
wondered why. They felt the lack of support for their troops in
Vietnam was wrong, and that the US should let them get on with
fighting their own war. After all, the US troops were being severely
damaged in the conflict, often bringing back heroin addictions
that lasted well after the fighting was over. People couldn’t
see any good coming from the fighting, and began to protest at
their government’s actions. My Lai was definitely a factor
in people’s opposition to the War by the end of the 60’s,
but there were other factors which also contributed.
|
