France proposed that the League of Nations should have an armu of its own. Why did most of the people opposed this ?

World War I had devastated Europe with heavy losses of troops and materials. The mood of most people after the war was to avoid war at any cost. The League was founded on the principles of negotiation and compromise, not war. Check this site for more information.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/E/league/leaguexx.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations

Be sure to check out the External Links at the bottom of this webpage.

Most people opposed France's proposal for the League of Nations to have its own army for several reasons:

1. Sovereignty concerns: Many nations were wary of giving up their own military sovereignty to a supranational organization like the League of Nations. They feared that an independent League army could infringe on their national interests and pose a threat to their independence.

2. Loss of control: Nations were concerned that an independent League army might be controlled or influenced by a few dominant countries, potentially undermining the principles of equality and fair representation within the League.

3. Conflict escalation: Some feared that the establishment of a League army might lead to more aggressive international intervention and an escalation of conflicts rather than promoting peaceful resolution. They believed that it was more prudent to rely on diplomatic efforts and cooperation rather than military force.

4. Financial burden: Creating and maintaining a League army would require significant financial resources. Many nations were already strained economically due to the aftermath of World War I, and they were reluctant to shoulder additional financial burdens for a League army.

5. Lack of trust: Some nations had doubts about the effectiveness and impartiality of the League of Nations. They questioned whether the organization had the necessary means and capabilities to deploy a credible and unbiased military force.

For these reasons, most people opposed the idea of the League of Nations having its own army and favored maintaining national sovereignty over military matters.

The proposal put forward by France for the League of Nations to have its own army faced opposition from many people for several reasons. To understand why, we need to examine the context and considerations of the time.

1. National Sovereignty: One of the primary concerns was the fear that a League army would undermine national sovereignty. Many countries were reluctant to delegate their military power to an international organization, as they preferred maintaining control over their own armed forces.

2. Loss of Autonomy: Countries were wary of relinquishing their decision-making abilities regarding national defense. Having a separate League army could potentially limit a nation's ability to independently determine matters of war and peace.

3. Lack of Trust: Some countries, particularly the major powers, were skeptical about entrusting their security to an international organization. They perceived a potential League army as being weak and ineffective, thus compromising their national security interests.

4. Cost and Burden Sharing: Establishing and maintaining a separate League army would require financial contributions and military commitments from member states. Many countries were reluctant to shoulder the financial burden and provide troops, especially since they were already managing domestic economic challenges.

5. Compatibility with Existing Alliances: Countries that were part of pre-existing military alliances, such as bilateral defense agreements or regional alliances, may have seen the League army as redundant or conflicting with their existing commitments.

6. Fear of Dominance: Some smaller or weaker nations feared that a League army might be dominated by the major powers, potentially giving those powers undue influence over international decision-making or even using the League army for their own strategic interests.

It's important to note that while the idea of a League army was opposed, the League of Nations did establish the concept of collective security. This meant that member states were expected to cooperate in ensuring the security of all nations, although the actual implementation and effectiveness of collective security varied. Ultimately, the opposition to a separate League army reflected concerns about sovereignty, autonomy, trust, cost, and potential power dynamics.