Ever since its foundation the League has been suffering from the circumstances of its birth. It was the offspring of a union between a utopian ideal to establish world peace and a cynical determination to enforce a military victory. This two-sided ancestry, typified in the attitude of Wilson and Clemenceau, has shown itself throughout its history. At some periods it has appeared vainly idealistic, at others hopelessly time-serving. By some the League is considered too ambitious, by others not ambitious enough. Those who believe it to be the only possible means of avoiding a general world war have not always been its best friends, while those who have been more sceptical about its possibilities of preventing war have often been the servants of peace. The reason for this is that the former base their arguments upon the idea of the League as it was designed to be, while the latter interpret the League as it is. The former have nearly wrecked their instrument, by putting it to too great a test, while the latter must content themselves with an unsatisfactory “I told you so,” while the policies of the various nations seem to be leading more and more to an ultimate disaster, and the institution, designed to bring greater reason into international politics, stands helpless and discredited. What is the reason for this political impasse? Is there no way out? Perhaps a few reflections on its past history will be helpful in the formation of a new attitude towards the League—for a new attitude must be found.