How Successful Was the League of Nations in the 1920s?

While the league was well meaning and in some cases could carry out its promises, on the whole it simply didn’t have the power to keep all of its idealistic promises.
The league was slow to act, with its overcomplicated structure meaning a problem had to go through many different sections of the league before it could be solved. The Council only met once every 5 years, and the assembly only met annually. An example of this is Corfu, in 1923, when Greece and Albania were willing to fight for land they believed was rightly theirs. If the council hadn’t already been in session, the two countries would probably have gone to war.
The league also had trouble when it came to dealing with larger members. The league depended financially on contributions from all the countries, and bigger countries like Italy or Japan could get away with more than smaller countries like Greece. This caused resentment throughout the weaker countries. For example, in Corfu, while there was never any proof the Greeks killed Tellini, they were still fined, while Italy, who invaded Greece after the murder, were let off with the League ‘condemning their actions’. The League didn’t want to upset Italy, who provided a lot of financial backing for the league, and members like France and Britain wanted to keep them as an ally. Greece complained that there is one set of rules for smaller countries, and a different one for larger countries.
Although the USA’s Wilson had created the league, they were not actually ever part of it. They were worried about what the league would do for trade, wanted to avoid getting involved in conflicts, and many Americans were anti-British or anti-French. Without the USA, the League missed out on financial backing, and couldn’t deal with larger countries. Many of the problems could have been solved had the USA joined, as countries wouldn’t be able to get away with using force against smaller powers than them.
The League’s members acted in their own interests, and not necessarily in the interests of the League. France wanted to ensure security from Germany, and Britain acted in a way that would be best for its empire. For example, in Vilna, 1920, Poland invaded Vilna, and though the league knew this was wrong, France saw Poland as a future ally against Germany, and Britain was not prepared to act without France. The league didn’t act and Poland got away with it, keeping Vilna.
However, the League could still deal with some problems. They could deal with disputes between two smaller countries, as they wouldn’t have anything to fear from either side if they didn’t like the decision. This meant the rulings were fair. For example, when Sweden and Finland were both willing to fight for the Aaland Islands in 1921, the League decided they should go to Finland. Sweden accepted and the League avoided a war.
The league worked for a better world, and helped the lives of many people in all countries. They helped about 400,000 prisoners of war back to their homelands after the war. For example, when hundreds of thousands of people were placed in refugee camps in Turkey, the League helped battle diseases in the camps.
The league campaigned for better working conditions everywhere. It limited how long small children were allowed to work, and banned poisonous white lead from paint, dramatically improving many workers’ health.
The health committee ran a global campaign to exterminate mosquitoes, defeat leprosy, and the USSR, even though they hated the League, had enough faith in the health committee to ask them to prevent the plague in Siberia.
I think that the League was fundamentally flawed, in that it could not enforce its rulings, was weak financially, and all the members acted in their own interests. However, the great work that it did to make the world a better place in terms of refugees, health, and working conditions outweighs the structural and monetary problems by far.