this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2026
3 points (80.0% liked)
AskHistorians
1377 readers
26 users here now
QUESTIONS
- Be civil.
- Be specific.
- Historical topic must be from at least 20 years ago.
- Post questions in the title. Elaboration is for the text box.
RESPONSES
- Be civil.
- Provide comprehensive answers.
- 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem wasn't that the idea was bad, but that there wasn't an international order around to enforce norms.
World War I had several succession wars as empires fell apart and maps were being redrawn. Even with the end of those wars, there wasn't anyone willing to step in if a nation violated these norms. France backed down after invading Germany for reparations coal in the 20's, but Japan invaded China and wasn't going to be stopped by a toothless committee.
In contrast, the UN became important in the Cold War world order as it gave a place for the two great powers to talk and try to gain international acceptance for their actions. There was also a vested interest by nations to enforce international norms; you generally needed a veto by one of the top 5 in the Security Council if you were going to break something. Great Power conflicts still happened, but there was a greater chance that a smaller war would be intervened in.