Amanda Graves makes a compelling observation about the League of Nations’ lack of enforcement power, and it’s critical to expand on that point by considering other interrelated weaknesses that compounded the League’s failures. The absence of a standing military force was indeed significant. Without the capability to back its resolutions with credible threats or actions, the League was rendered more of a moral authority than a pragmatic enforcer of peace. This inability to act decisively emboldened aggressive states like Japan in Manchuria, Italy in Ethiopia, and Germany as it began rebuilding its military, revealing how limited enforcement undermined collective security.

Moreover, the League suffered substantially from the absence of major powers, most notably the United States. Although President Woodrow Wilson championed the League’s creation, the U.S. Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, preventing America from joining. This exclusion robbed the League of a vital source of political influence, financial resources, and international legitimacy. Without the United States—and with other influential nations like the Soviet Union and Germany initially excluded—the League’s credibility was weakened, inhibiting its ability to unify world powers behind its mandates.

The broader geopolitical context also played a pivotal role. The interwar period was characterized by rising nationalism, economic turmoil, and political instability, fostering an environment where states prioritized their own sovereignty and interests over collective cooperation. Many members viewed League resolutions as advisory rather than compulsory. This reluctance to subordinate national agendas to an international body’s decisions reflected the tension between idealistic internationalism and realpolitik, ultimately fracturing the unity required to uphold peace.

Internal dissent within the League further diluted its strength. Disagreements among members, coupled with a consensus-based decision-making process, rendered timely and unified action difficult. The League’s structure, relying heavily on unanimous consent, meant a single power’s dissent could stymie efforts, thereby compromising effectiveness.

In sum, the League’s downfall was not caused by a single flaw but rather a constellation of weaknesses: inadequate enforcement mechanisms, critical absences among great powers, unfavorable geopolitical conditions, internal disunity, and the prioritization of national sovereignty. These factors interacted in ways that rendered the League incapable of fulfilling its primary mission, ultimately failing to prevent the outbreak of subsequent global conflicts and paving the way for the eventual establishment of the United Nations with reforms seeking to address many of these challenges.