The discrepancy between the two approaches and the reasons for this apparently polar opposite before and after approach will form the bulk of this study. However, the post 1945 research is united in condemning the League to a certain failure due to institutional inadequacy and poor response to international events, if not from its inception certainly from the early 1930’s. The pre 1940 scholarship surveyed generally exudes a reliably stable, but diminishing optimism for the success of the League and the hope that despite the crises it faced, it would adapt and cement its place in history. Virtually all commentary on the League draws focus to its problems and contradictions however, the similarities end there.

Upon researching the wealth of scholarship on this issue, it became clear that a definite contrast could be observed between academic opinions published in the interwar years during the life of the League of Nations, and subsequent research written some time after World War Two with the benefit of hindsight. The purpose of this article is to contrast a range of historical writings on the League of Nations, both during the interwar years (1919-1939) and in more contemporary times, to uncover why certain commentators accounted for the spectacular failure of the organisation with the outbreak of the Second World War.

Dawn of war 3 failed