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.

Did the actions in Corfu and Bulgaria add or diminish the League of Nations over time?

The League of Nations was created in 1920 to help countries settle down between them , become peacekeepers and solve problems overcoming the population. The major problems were drug control, Refugee work, famine relief and diseases which seemed one of its biggest successes for the League of Nations .The League of Nations was meant to help countries stay settled with each other ,instead it induced quarrels between countries. The League of Nations didn't always succeed in stopping those quarrels. Tension between countries became greater. Examples of those quarrels would be Corfu and Bulgaria. They indeed increased and a diminished the reputation of towards the League of Nations because they joined the defense towards important and bigger countries giving unfair punishments to countries less important , succeeded in adverting war in the border disputes between Bulgaria and Greece and set a dangerous example to other countries becoming not effective peacekeepers.

The League of Nations on the 31st August 1923 condemned Mussolini of its invasion of the Greek island of Corfu and gave Greece a small sanction to pay for killing the Italian general Enrico Tellini until the killers were found and prosecuted. Mussolini at first accepted the terms as he then slowly entered the Conference of Ambassadors . The league of Nations was convinced of Italy's innocence as Mussolini slowly overdrew closer and closer to the League of Nations. The League then changed its mind and made Greece apologize and made them pay the compensation , while Mussolini was able to leave Corfu with no problem. The Corfu incident shows a diminish towards the League of Nations and an unfair favored treatment towards Greece. The League of Nations not only didn't solve the conflict between Italy and Greece but it sustained the country which for them was most powerful and most useful later on. Corfu was just an island for them while Italy was part of the League of Nations, there was also the problem that other parts of Greece were taken and Corfu would have caused the other part of Greece to rebel for their freedom so the League best thought to blame Greece and let Italy go. I would also mention that it showed that the League could change its mind fromone day to the next.

In 1925 Greek soldiers were killed on the Greek-Bulgarian border which caused the Greeks to invade Bulgaria . Bulgaria than asked the League for help. Bulgaria's government told its soldiers not fight back and the League told the Greek's to leave. They obeyed and left. This shows an add of the Bulgarian actions towards the League of Nations as it succeed in adverting the war in the border disputes between Bulgaria and Greece ,though , it still showed that their power wasn't strong, as things could have gone otherwise . Bulgaria could have fought the Greek and the League would have condemned Greece once more as in the Corfu incident , going along with the stronger , more powerful and bigger state. They proved that they could succeed but that wasn't for too long.

The Corfu and Bulgarian accidents were being evaluated and watched far away from other countries as they were learning the weakness of the League of Nations. One of the main person people was Adolf Hitler which had remained quite after all the blame which fell on Germany and the huge sanctions they had to pay and couldn't afford. The League did set a dangerous example to other countries causing more deaths and pain , though the League wasn't all failure as they helped most of the population to face and solve the problems of health, labour, slavery, refugees and famine. Their mistakes and failures from stopping previous wars were fatal for allot of countries.

The League's fall as well as other influences was the immediate cause of the outbreak of WW II . It caused all their previous work to fall down again and get even worse. The ones which feel those breakdowns are the populations which are the ones most fragile and weak. The League did for sure have both an add and a diminish from the actions of those quarrels which kept the world safe from another world war for a few years , giving people the opportunity to start over building family , homes , jobs and regain health.