this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2026
3 points (80.0% liked)

AskHistorians

1377 readers
25 users here now

QUESTIONS

  1. Be civil.
  2. Be specific.
  3. Historical topic must be from at least 20 years ago.
  4. Post questions in the title. Elaboration is for the text box.

RESPONSES

  1. Be civil.
  2. Provide comprehensive answers.
  3. Please provide primary and secondary sources upon good faith request. Tertiary sources, like Wikipedia, are not accepted.

askhistorians is a community for academic answers to questions about history. Polls, opinions, bigotry, grammar pedantry, and personal insults will be removed.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Patnou@lemmy.world
PugJesus@piefed.social
Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca
Wrufieotnak@feddit.org
3
Was the League of Nations really that bad? If the concept was so bad then why a couple years down the road we came up with the UN? Or was it how they were presented? (lemmy.world)
submitted 21 hours ago by Patnou@lemmy.world to c/askhistorians@lemmy.world
2 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

The League Of Nations and the UN briefly existed at the same time in 1945-1946.

The League Of Nations had primarily been a European organization which the US never joined. It had also been ineffective at doing much of anything about conflicts in the 1930s, and during WW2 it continued to exist but was basically just in stasis. The UN was conceptualized during WW2 as a beefed up version of the League to accomplish the same general goal of international stability for a post-WW2 world. The UN included the US and USSR as permanent members, the two global superpowers. In the changed dynamic of the post-WW2 world, that gave it a much more global sort of reach than the League.

While the League Of Nations squabbled uselessly and failed to prevent wars and atrocities the UN on the other hand