Final answer:
The lack of an army was a significant, but not sole, factor in the League of Nations' failure in Manchuria. Other influences included member states' conflicting interests, limited effectiveness of economic sanctions, and the prevailing geopolitical context. The League's structural weaknesses were exacerbated by its inability to enforce decisions and the varied commitment levels of its members.
Step-by-step explanation:
The argument that the lack of an army was the main reason for the League of Nations' failure in Manchuria is partially valid but does not encompass all the factors involved. Indeed, without military power, the League's capacity to enforce its decisions was significantly hindered. However, other critical aspects contributed to its ineffectiveness. The League's dependency on collective action was one such issue, as member states frequently had conflicting interests, leading to inconsistent enforcement of sanctions or decisions. Moreover, the geopolitical context of the time, with significant powers like the United States not fully committed to the League's principles, compounded the situation. The case of Manchuria is particularly illustrative, where Japan simply withdrew from the League and faced no serious repercussions for its actions in China, thus undermining the League's authority.
The economic and diplomatic sanctions the League could impose were largely ineffective due to the lack of unanimous support from member nations. It was clear that economic measures alone were not enough to deter aggressive actions by expansionist powers. Furthermore, globally, there were undercurrents of discontent and nationalistic fervor post-World War I. Many countries were more preoccupied with their national interests, and the concept of collective security did not take precedence.