I agree with this statement to a great extent. I would argue that the League was based on a very good underlying idea, but that some of the ways the League tried to pursue this were not sound.
The League was based on the idea that countries can be more peaceful if given a venue in which to meet and talk. It was based on the idea that peace can be achieved through lots of diplomatic interactions between countries. This is an idea that is still very much believed by many scholars of international relations. It is a major basis for the United Nations.
However, the League tried to rely heavily on the idea of collective security. It relied on the idea that the countries of the world would collectively get up and defend (just because it was the right thing to do) other nations that were being attacked. This was certainly not a sound idea.