Public opinion played a significant role in shaping the disarmament efforts of the League of Nations. In the aftermath of World War I, there was a strong public sentiment in favour of peace and disarmament, particularly in countries that had suffered the most. This public pressure initially drove many governments to support the League's disarmament initiatives. However, as the 1930s progressed and the threat of aggressive militarism from nations like Germany became more apparent, public opinion shifted. In countries facing potential threats, there was increasing support for rearmament as a means of national defence. This change in public sentiment influenced the policies of member states, often leading to a reluctance to commit fully to disarmament.

The disarmament efforts of the League of Nations in the 1930s were markedly different from post-World War II initiatives in several key aspects. Firstly, the post-WWII efforts were backed by a stronger international structure in the form of the United Nations, which had greater authority and participation from key powers, including the USA. Secondly, the post-WWII environment was heavily influenced by the Cold War dynamics, leading to a more strategic approach to disarmament, often focusing on specific types of weapons like nuclear arms. Lastly, the experiences and lessons from the League's failures influenced post-WWII efforts, leading to more pragmatic and enforceable disarmament agreements, although these too faced significant challenges.

Success in disarmament under the League of Nations during the 1930s was limited and largely overshadowed by the broader failures. While there were minor agreements and pacts that aimed at reducing specific types of weapons or military forces, these were often limited in scope and impact. The most notable example was the Treaty of Versailles, which mandated disarmament for Germany, but this was enforced more as a punitive measure rather than a mutual agreement for peace. The lack of significant, widespread disarmament successes under the League highlights the difficulties of achieving comprehensive disarmament in a period marked by political volatility and rising militarism.

The USA's non-membership significantly impacted disarmament efforts led by the League of Nations. As one of the world's leading military powers, the USA's absence from the League meant that any disarmament agreement would be incomplete and less effective. Moreover, the USA's isolationist policies during this period contributed to a lack of global leadership in disarmament efforts. The American stance also influenced other nations, particularly those sceptical of disarmament, to question the efficacy and comprehensiveness of the League's initiatives. This absence was a major setback for the League, as it struggled to establish a universal and effective disarmament policy without the participation of such a key global player.

Arguments against disarmament within the League of Nations were primarily centred around national security concerns and economic considerations. Several member states, particularly those with significant military capabilities, argued that complete disarmament could leave them vulnerable to external threats. Additionally, in the context of the Great Depression, military spending was seen as an economic stimulant, providing jobs and boosting industrial production. Countries like France and Belgium, which had direct security concerns regarding Germany, were particularly hesitant to disarm without concrete guarantees against potential aggression. These arguments reflected the broader tensions and mistrust prevalent in international relations during this period.