StudyDeck
Dashboard

The League of Nations Attempts at Peacekeeping in the 1920s

Exam code: 2147
Written by: Ashika|Reviewed by: Caroline Carroll|Updated 2 July 2026

Aims and Methods of Peacekeeping

Aims and Methods of Peacekeeping

  • There were several border disputes after the Versailles Settlement

    • The end of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires caused the formation of new countries like Poland

      • These new countries took land away from previously powerful countries like Germany and Austria

    • Where the Allies drew new boundaries, it caused international tensions

      • Conflicts occurred in borderlands

      • Some countries attempted to invade other countries for land 

  • The League of Nations promised to protect members from border disputes

    • Article 10 of the Covenant insisted on ‘collective security’. This meant that:

      • If an aggressive country attacked one League member, it attacked all members of the League 

      • The League of Nations could create a combined League army to defend the country from the aggressor

    • Collective security aims to:

      • Make member countries feel safer

      • Deter war

  • Other methods that the League of Nations could use for peacekeeping were:

    • Moral condemnation: Use their influence to disapprove of an action

    • Trade sanctions: Impose trade boycotts on aggressive countries

    • Compensation: Money paid to the innocent country from the aggressor as an apology for their actions

    • Use the Conference of Ambassadors: An organisation that oversaw the Versailles Settlement. It had ambassadors from Britain, France and Japan that worked with the League to resolve disputes

    • Plebiscites: The population of a contested region decides who governs it

    • Do nothing: The League did not interfere with some disputes. For example, the French invasion of the Ruhr

  • Overall, the League’s attempts to keep peace in Europe had mixed results

Vilna, 1920

 Vilna, 1920

A flow diagram explaining the Vilna dispute as a failure of the League of Nations: Top box: “Under the Versailles settlement, Lithuania and Poland became independent countries.” Second box: “Vilna was a large city in south Lithuania. The people of Vilna wanted to be a part of Poland instead.” Third box: “In response, Poland sent an army to capture Vilna. Lithuania appealed to the League of Nations for help.” Below this is an illustration of five suited men sitting at a desk with three of them raising their hands, representing the League's vote. Response of the League (pink box): A speech bubble says: “Poland, you must withdraw your troops from Vilna!” To the right: A large red stamp-style label reads “FAILURE”. Outcome (grey boxes): “Poland refused to remove their troops” “Vilna became part of Poland”
A flowchart showing the reasons for the Vilna dispute, the League’s reaction and the eventual outcome

Significance of the Vilna Dispute

  • It undermined the League’s power

    • It was the first time that an invaded country requested the help of the League

    • The League did not fulfil its pledge for collective security

  • It showed the reluctance of the permanent members to raise an army

    • France did not want to upset Poland

      • They saw Poland as a potential ally

    • Britain did not want to act without the support of other members

Aaland Islands, 1920–1921

Aaland Islands, 1920–1921

A flowchart explaining the League of Nations’ successful handling of the Aaland Islands dispute: Top box: “The Versailles Settlement changed countries’ borders in Europe.” Second box: “Both Sweden and Finland wanted to own the Aaland Islands. Historically, they were Finnish but the population wanted to be a part of Sweden.” Third box: “Both countries approached the League to investigate and come to a decision.” Below is an image of five suited men (representing the League) at a desk with three of them raising their hands. Response of the League (pink box): “The Aaland Islands should remain Finnish!” To the right is a large green stamp-style label: SUCCESS Outcome (grey box): “The League insisted that the Aaland Islands have no soldiers or weapons. Both Sweden and Finland accepted the League’s decision.”
A flowchart showing the reasons for the Aaland Islands dispute, the League’s reaction and the eventual outcome

Significance of Aaland Islands Dispute

  • One of the biggest successes of the League of Nations

  • If both members respected the League of Nations, they:

    • Would ask the League for help in their dispute

    • Accept the League’s decision

Upper Silesia, 1921

Upper Silesia, 1921

A flowchart explaining the Upper Silesia dispute and how the League of Nations responded: Top box: “Upper Silesia was an industrial region between Germany and Poland. Before the First World War, the land belonged to Germany. Many Poles were treated poorly.” Second box: “The Treaty of Versailles gave the region to Poland but many Germans still lived there.” Third box: “Both countries made claims on the region in 1921 because the region produced iron and steel.” Below this is an illustration of five suited men at a table (representing League delegates), with two raising their hands. Response of the League (pink box): “We will give Upper Silesia a plebiscite. Britain and France, ensure the vote is fair!” To the right is a bold orange label: NEITHER Outcome (grey boxes): “Germany won with 60% of the votes.” “Poland believed many German voters did not live in the region.” “The League gave Poland the industrial areas of Upper Silesia and Germany the rural areas.”
A flowchart showing the reasons for the Upper Silesia dispute, the League’s reaction and the eventual outcome

Significance of the Upper Silesia Dispute

  • Initially, the Upper Silesia dispute was a success for the League

    • Both countries accepted its ruling

  • When the League’s solution ended in 1925, relations between Poland and Germany worsened

    • Poland argued that half of the population of Upper Silesia was Polish yet they received only a third of the land

    • Germany stated that the agreement took away a quarter of its coal mines

Three men with raised weapons stand over a fallen knight in a desolate landscape. Text in Polish and German warns against letting the knight rise.
A Polish poster from the plebiscite in Upper Silesia. Workers are standing on a symbol of imperial Germany. The text is written in Polish and German and states “The Crusader is in the dust. Don’t let him rise”

Corfu, 1923

Corfu, 1923

A flowchart explaining the Corfu Crisis of 1923 and the League of Nations' response: Top box: “Corfu is an island in the Mediterranean Sea. It is a part of Greece.” Second box: “An Italian general was murdered on the border between Greece and Albania in 1923.” Third box: “The Italian dictator, Mussolini, was furious. He demanded that Greece pay Italy 50 million lira in compensation and execute the murderer. Greece refused.” Fourth box: “Mussolini invaded Corfu in retaliation. Greece appealed to the League of Nations for help.” Below this is an illustration of League delegates at a table, with some raising their hands. Response of the League (pink box): “Italy, you must leave Corfu immediately!” To the right is a bold red stamp: FAILURE Outcome (grey boxes): “Mussolini demanded that the Conference of Ambassadors should decide the outcome.” “The Conference ordered Greece to pay Italy compensation.” “Italy left Corfu.”
A flowchart showing the reasons for the Corfu Dispute, the League’s reaction and the eventual outcome

Significance of the Corfu Dispute

  • Without the USA, the League could not stand up to powerful countries like Italy

    • Britain and France preferred not to get involved in the conflict

    • Mussolini had successfully bullied the League into giving him what he wanted

    • It set the standard by which other aggressive leaders could manipulate the League

  • It demonstrated that organisations like the Conference of Ambassadors could overturn the League’s decisions

Bulgaria, 1925

Bulgaria, 1925

A flowchart explaining the League of Nations' response to the Bulgaria Crisis of 1925: Top box: “In October 1925, a shoot-out occurred on the border between Greece and Bulgaria. A Greek officer was killed in the incident.” Second box: “In retaliation, Greece invaded Bulgaria.” Third box: “The League reacted quickly to the news of the invasion. It called a meeting in Paris.” Below this is an illustration of League delegates at a table, with some raising their hands. Response of the League (pink box): “Greece, you need to leave Bulgaria and pay £45,000 in compensation.” To the right is a large orange label: NEITHER (implying the outcome was mixed or disputed). Outcome (grey boxes): “Greece complained that the League were hypocrites. The League were much kinder to Italy in the Corfu incident.” “Greece left Bulgaria.”
A flowchart showing the reasons for the Bulgaria Dispute, the League’s reaction and the eventual outcome

Significance of Bulgaria Dispute

  • It showed the inconsistencies of the League’s rulings

    • Both the Corfu and Bulgaria disputes:

      • Involved the death of a military officer

      • Resulted in an armed invasion of a country

    • The League did not punish Italy for invading Corfu, yet punished Greece for invading Bulgaria

  • The League was desperate not to antagonise certain countries that could start a war

    • As a result, the League did not rule fairly in all disputes

      • This undermined their reputation as a peacekeeping force

Was this revision note helpful?

Build on this topic

Check your understandingTry an Exam Question on this topic
Test your recallReinforce key facts and definitions with Flashcards