I think that this statement is fairly valid. Simply put, the League of Nations was incapable of challenging the rise of the dictator that was so prevalent in the 1930s, and in the lead up to the Second World War. On one hand, I think that the League of Nations was incapable of dealing with the rise of the leaders like Hitler or Mussolini. I don't think that the League was capable of dealing with this formidable threat of the 1930s because I think that the language articulating such a reality was not existent in the 1920s. At the time of constructing the League of Nations, the vocabulary which would enable identifying someone like Hitler or Mussolini or Stalin in the assumption of political power was absent. No one could envision something like this and because of this, the league could not and would not address this, condemning it to failure. This was one greater challenge faced by the League, helping to drive it to failure. Another intense challenge that the League faced was the growing isolationism on the part of the United States. The Great Depression as well as the intense isolationism that it would drive were significant elements that prevent full support of the League of Nations from a militaristic standpoint. Due to this, I think that the League ends up being unable to meet a greater challenge in the 1930s than the previous decade, and helping to contribute to its failure.