By 1945, when the United Nations Organisation first saw daylight, international organisations were part of the established landscape. The case for them hardly needed to be argued. True, the League had failed, but that, it was said, was because it never had the power to enforce peace, and this time the UN would have that power. By contrast, when the League came into existence on 10 January 1920, it faced a sceptical world and the case for it was far from universally accepted. Even in the Anglo- Saxon countries and Scandinavia, where support for the League was strongest, powerful sections of opinion were indifferent, even contemptuous. By and large, French opinion did not believe the League could prevent renewed German aggression and France's strongest allies, the new states of Eastern Europe, looked, like her, to their own armies rather than the League for their security. The Germans regarded the League as a tool for enforcing the hated treaty they had been forced to sign in 1919; in any case, the French veto prevented them joining the new body. The Bolsheviks in Russia spoke of the League as a 'band of robber nations'. Their view was reinforced in 1926, when, to the horror of the Russians, Weimar Germany was at length allowed to join the League.
Symptomatic of the hostility which faced the League all its life, and especially in its earliest years, was the stream of complaints about its alleged financial extravagance, none being more sustained than those of Britain and the British Dominions, as they were then known. From the first session of the Assembly in November-December 1920 until the League's demise, the Secretariat worked in an atmosphere of continuous carping about money, even though regular inquiries into the management of League finances invariably resulted in a clean bill of health. The