The Instigator
iaminneedofhelp
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MolecularBird06
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The reason for WW2 was the League of Nations

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 768 times Debate No: 49301
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

iaminneedofhelp

Pro

I am arguing that the League Of Nations, set up in 1919 by Woodrow Wilson, was the main reason for the start of WW2. I am arguing for. I want an interesting debate so I have kept it to 3 rounds. This means points will have to be kept short as first round is acceptance and stating resolution. I would prefer if only a small amount of rebuttal occurred and more points were made which were relevant to keep the topic fresh!
MolecularBird06

Con

The League of Nations did not cause World War 2, Germany's invasion of Poland and the Treaty of Versailles. It is true that the League of Nations failed to do what they were supposed to, but it didn't cause the war. It just didn't stop the WW2 from taking place, therefore it is not a cause. The Invasion of Poland is a cause because when Germany attacked, Britain and France declared war, and the Treaty of Versaillies because it created a situation that allowed Hitler to come to power. Also WW2 is Britain and France's fault. If they had attacked Germany when it first broke the treaty, they would have been crushed.
Debate Round No. 1
iaminneedofhelp

Pro

True, it is not the cause of WW2 but if you look back to the debate is: 'the REASON for WW2 was the League of Nations. For this I will use the acronym LoN for League of Nations. I agree with the point about Britain's policy of appeasement in the 1930s but that doesn't mean that it caused the war. Granted Hitler grew stronger but the buck should stop with the League of Nations. In the 1920s the League was a strong power, sorting out many world problems and sorting out crises like the Bulgaria crisis 1923. The League failed to do anything in Manchuria in 1931 when it was invaded. This showed that the League was weak and ineffective and uninfluential. If the League had sorted out the Manchuria problem then it Mussolini wouldn't have tested the LoN in the Abyssinia crisis, where the League failed again, and Hitler wouldn't have started rearming in the first place. If the League had had better organisation then they would have made more countries disarm, and WW2 wouldn't have come about. The League was the largest cause of WW2 because they managed to fail so badly, that the Treaty of Versailles was not upheld at all. This was due to Britain and France with their policy of appeasement but remember that they were the LoN.
MolecularBird06

Con

"The League of Nations did not cause World War 2" Con just agreed with me. Cause and Reason are synonyms.

"he League was a strong power, sorting out many world problems and sorting out crises like the Bulgaria crisis 1923. The League failed to do anything in Manchuria in 1931 when it was invaded. This showed that the League was weak and ineffective and uninfluential. If the League had sorted out the Manchuria problem then it Mussolini wouldn't have tested the LoN in the Abyssinia crisis, where the League failed again, and Hitler wouldn't have started rearming in the first place. If the League had had better organisation then they would have made more countries disarm, and WW2 wouldn't have come about. The League was the largest cause of WW2 because they managed to fail so badly, that the Treaty of Versailles was not upheld at all. This was due to Britain and France with their policy of appeasement but remember that they were the LoN."

As I said earlier the League didn't cause the war, they just failed at stopping it. Also the LoN was set up badly as the only thing they could do was stop trade. The only met 4 times a year which slowed down the process. They couldn't do anything, but stop trade with Hitler, the people who should have attacked were Britain of France. The LoN was a complete failure, but not the reason. Failing to stop a war is different from starting a war. If a peace mission fails, do you say that the peace mission was the cause of the war? No you don't. It is the same with the LoN, they were the peace mission that failed. They didn't cause a war, just failed at stopping it.

Sources:
http://www.bing.com...
Debate Round No. 2
iaminneedofhelp

Pro

iaminneedofhelp forfeited this round.
MolecularBird06

Con

MolecularBird06 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by MolecularBird06 3 years ago
MolecularBird06
True, but one member doesn't count for the entire league of nations. The league didn't cause the war to start, they just failed at stopping it.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Molecular, the treaty was founded by league members -_-
Posted by dbestdebater 3 years ago
dbestdebater
Okay. I do see what you are saying. But from what I have learned in the past is that the Holocaust played a HUGE part in starting WW2. It cause a lot of conflict all over the world. Another big thing that caused conflict was the Treaty of Versailles. These two things were the main causes of World War 2.
No votes have been placed for this debate.