Hello! I have a question which states, "To what extent should a lack of global leadership be blamed for the rise of Fascism and the Nazi Party from 1920–1933," and I was wondering what the definition of "global leadership" was in this context? Thank you!

The definition of "global leadership" in this case means a nation that is willing to enforce judgments passed by the League of Nations. The League of Nations was quite weak and doomed from its beginning. First, it had no way to punish anyone who did not agree to arbitration. Also, the main powers which were a part of it, Britain and France, were severely weakened by the war, and the civilians living in these countries wanted to avoid war at all cost. The United States lost thousands of men fighting World War I, but it emerged from the war as a major power. The war was good for its economy, and the American military was becoming recognized as a fighting force. Conservative Republicans in Congress, led by Henry Cabot Lodge, did not want to join the League of Nations because they feared that it would result in a loss of American sovereignty, and they did not want to commit troops to any force raised by the League. The United States was not truly isolationist between 1920 and 1933 because it intervened in Latin America and it hosted various peace and disarmament conferences, but it turned a blind eye to totalitarian movements growing in Japan, Italy, and Germany. The global Great Depression only furthered this inward thinking, as domestic issues became the focal point of the United States, Britain, and France. By refusing to make itself felt on the world stage, the United States did nothing to stop the rise of totalitarianism overseas. This partially explains the interventionist nature of American foreign policy today.