An evaluation into the League of Nations' efforts in the 1920s.

The League of Nations was set up to stop war and to bring peace among countries. It believed in discussing the problems and solving them without the usage of the military. In the invasions of Corfu and Bulgaria by Greece and Bulgaria, the League of Nations settled the disputes before the out break of war. However, their actions affected their reputation in many ways.

The incident in Corfu started because an Italian officer was killed because he was doing work for the L of N. This caused the leader of Italy, Mussolini to become very upset and so he attacked and occupied Corfu. Since Greece is part of the League they quickly turned to them for help, but the final solution that they came up with was very surprising. They first ordered Mussolini to leave, but he did not. After, they came up with the solution that Greece had to apologize and pay Italy and the Italians left when the Greeks did as the League ordered. They didn't severely punish Italy because one, they were in the Security Council, two; they were a major trading partner. Yes, the League achieved their purpose for their start; they prevented war from breaking out between Greece and Italy. If one simply just considers the outcome, then the League of Nations would have a fairly high reputation, but when the process of coming to this result is included, one may otherwise. It was Italy that had taken over Corfu without the permission of Greece, and yet they seemed to have the right reason. Greece, on the other hand, was the victim and instead, they had to apologize. Some people would see this as an act that would deeply lower the League's reputation instead of raising it. It was also deeply troubling because the League CHANGED ITS MIND.

A similar situation occurred in Bulgaria, but the League of Nations treated it the complete opposite way. The Greeks, like the Italians, found an excuse to invade Bulgaria, and Bulgaria turned to the League for help. The League condemned Greece and ordered them to leave. The Greeks did so. The Greeks were not a major trading partner and they couldn't afford to be like the Italians and have a war. This action greatly improved the reputation of the League of Nations. It also showed the world that it only respected and rewarded strong, powerful countries. Greece said that there were as a result TWO laws- one for big countries and another for small ones. Greece after all did the sameas Italy but in both case was punished. Not only did they stop a war from breaking out, they also punished the "naughty" country. In this situation the League did what was right and what was best. When one views this action if the League, their impression of them would be very high. But when compared with the Corfu incident, one may doubt the if the League if fair or not.

In both of the incidents the problems were settled, but in different ways. For Corfu, the guilty was not punished but rewarded. In Bulgaria the culprit was warned and effectively driven out. The Bulgarian incident would have boosted the reputation of the League when not compared to Corfu. The incident in Corfu would definitely lower their reputation regardless of the fact that they stopped war. Each incident would have some input on raising their reputation, but more of it lowered it.