How would the hist of the world have been affected for the better had the LON been more effective during the interwar period ? Like say if the League had taken strong assertive action against the aggression of fascist Italy in Ethiopia in 1935, the Japs in China in 1937, and Hitler's aggressive ANSCHLUSS policy, and against the Spanish CW instead of LON representatives making relatively weak and equivocal statements unsupported by any political will to undertake decisive measures against the aggressors ? Could WWII have been avoided with a more powerful LON, just as how, as many commentators argue, the UN has despite its flaws, been able to prevent a major world conflict from arising against since 1945 ?
AH challenge: League of Nations more effective
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
Brilliantlight
Banned
Melvin Loh said:
I would start with the US joining the League. I would then have the French realize that Hitler was bluffing about Austria and then have them demand Hitler stops any idea of invading Austria or face a French invasion under LON auspices.
Getting the Americans is a given. However, you need to find some way to convince the leading nations of the world to put their trust more fully into the League, maybe through an even nastier WWI. You may also need to reform the structure of the League itself. (Wasn't there some kind of agreement that the League could only act if ALL the major powers agreed on something? Apparently, that made the League constantly deadlock.)
League of Nations with teeth
Good old Clemenceau argued at Versailles that the League of Nations should have some kind of bite (much to both Wilson’s and Lloyd George’s annoyance), so it could impose it’s will on the unwilling (aggressors and the like).
The liberal French statesman Leon Burgeois even drew up plans for an international organisation with it’s own armed forces, while the British lawyer Walter Philimore lead a committée that made recomendations regarding forced arbitration etc etc.
The American senator Henry Cabbot Lodge had more or less similar views. He leaned more towards a kind of NATO with strong membershipstates that could hold their own agaisnt agressive neighbours.
WI we have House die of influnenza, and Wilson is somehow prevented from going to Paris - several Americans politicians at the time thought Wilson broke God knows how many laws by going to Europe as President. Instead we send Lodge and the secretary of state, Lansing (Landisng was there in OTL, but acted more or less like Wilson's press secretary). With Lansing and Lodge positively involved, I'm pretty sure that the League would be joined by the US (Wilson's inept grasp of domestic politics was more or less to blame for OTL failure).
Could the League have evolved into somekind of NATO? So when Italy attacked Ethiopia real sanctions were placed immediately and Naval forces gathered under League command to blokade Italy, when Hitler marched into the Rhineland, ground troops under League command evicted him ASAP, Japan’s territorial ambitions in China were curbed sometime before it turned into a shooting match (Or would Japan had fought the League?) etc etc!
What kind of world would it have been if the Old Tiger and the other farsighted people had had their way? Better? Yes, I think so...
Best regards!
- B.
Good old Clemenceau argued at Versailles that the League of Nations should have some kind of bite (much to both Wilson’s and Lloyd George’s annoyance), so it could impose it’s will on the unwilling (aggressors and the like).
The liberal French statesman Leon Burgeois even drew up plans for an international organisation with it’s own armed forces, while the British lawyer Walter Philimore lead a committée that made recomendations regarding forced arbitration etc etc.
The American senator Henry Cabbot Lodge had more or less similar views. He leaned more towards a kind of NATO with strong membershipstates that could hold their own agaisnt agressive neighbours.
WI we have House die of influnenza, and Wilson is somehow prevented from going to Paris - several Americans politicians at the time thought Wilson broke God knows how many laws by going to Europe as President. Instead we send Lodge and the secretary of state, Lansing (Landisng was there in OTL, but acted more or less like Wilson's press secretary). With Lansing and Lodge positively involved, I'm pretty sure that the League would be joined by the US (Wilson's inept grasp of domestic politics was more or less to blame for OTL failure).
Could the League have evolved into somekind of NATO? So when Italy attacked Ethiopia real sanctions were placed immediately and Naval forces gathered under League command to blokade Italy, when Hitler marched into the Rhineland, ground troops under League command evicted him ASAP, Japan’s territorial ambitions in China were curbed sometime before it turned into a shooting match (Or would Japan had fought the League?) etc etc!
What kind of world would it have been if the Old Tiger and the other farsighted people had had their way? Better? Yes, I think so...
Best regards!
- B.
The League was betrayed by it's leading members. Ethiopia was a no-brainer for shutting down Italian aggression, but the League countries wanted to build him up as a counterweight to Russia. Which is why Russia resigned from the League.
If it had not been stabbed in the back by France and Britain, it could have functioned as a way of stopping Japan, too. No trade, and a combined navy that would have blockaded Japan with ease.
If it had not been stabbed in the back by France and Britain, it could have functioned as a way of stopping Japan, too. No trade, and a combined navy that would have blockaded Japan with ease.
Yes, but the whole institution was flawed from day one. The process that lead up to it, seemed irratic as especially Wilson threw around cliches instead of solutions. It's difficult for countries to take some vague institution like the League serious if it hasn't got som muscle, a capapilty to exert violence, if you will - Clemenceau said (translated from Danish and quoted from Paris 1919); "I like the idea, but have little faith in it!". There should have been an inbuild mechanism for handling events like the Italian aggression, not just a forum where it could be discussed.wkwillis said:
Best of regards!
- Bluenote.
Would a more effective League have required either the US to be involved or a standing force of their own?
What if the British and French, possibly joined by other smaller powers, had simply acted to support League policy by an embargo of oil sales to Italy, or some other manner? Given Italian dependency on foreign fuel, this might have worked, and given a successful precedent might Hitler or Stalin have been more wary of the League?
What if the British and French, possibly joined by other smaller powers, had simply acted to support League policy by an embargo of oil sales to Italy, or some other manner? Given Italian dependency on foreign fuel, this might have worked, and given a successful precedent might Hitler or Stalin have been more wary of the League?
Hmm, not necessarily a standing army of its own, but some assured access to military means (blokades etc etc), and/or perhaps a general staff as suggested by someone (can't remeber right now) at the time.Grimm Reaper said:
I tend to believe that the US must be involved, otherwise their insistence on the Monroe Doctrine would undermine the Leagues authority immensely. Italy was not the only problem, the Japanese aggression in China was a major problem too, and that's hard to solve without the US, I'd say.
Best regards!
- Mr.B.
Are Un so much better than the LoN was in its time? Even now there are 5 powers with a veto right, so you can forget any kind of decision against their interests, and the UN are mostly a forum for discussion.
The problem is that there is always a top dog (or a number of top dogs) unwilling to curb their own privileges. In 1948 there were the winners of WW2, in 1919 there were the winners of WW1. So it is a moot point.
In my view, the Concert of Nations of the last quarter of 19th Century was a better (and much more honest) proposition. It worked just for a time, but it was reasonably effective and defused a number of dangerous situations. Plus it gave supra-national justification to a few initiatives (I've in mind the transition of Crete from Ottoman to Greek in 1898 and the Boxer situation in China). I doubt very strongly you can go much further than that
The problem is that there is always a top dog (or a number of top dogs) unwilling to curb their own privileges. In 1948 there were the winners of WW2, in 1919 there were the winners of WW1. So it is a moot point.
In my view, the Concert of Nations of the last quarter of 19th Century was a better (and much more honest) proposition. It worked just for a time, but it was reasonably effective and defused a number of dangerous situations. Plus it gave supra-national justification to a few initiatives (I've in mind the transition of Crete from Ottoman to Greek in 1898 and the Boxer situation in China). I doubt very strongly you can go much further than that
wkwillis said:
Russia didn't resign from the League, she was expelled after invading Finland (making her the only state to be orced out of the League)
And what is this weird obbsession you seem to have with britain and france's alleged fear of Russia? They were far more interested in using Italy as a counterweight to Germany.
The POD will have to be a change in the political attitudes of France and britain, rather than tinkering with the League's structure. A Lib-Lab coalition in charge of britain in the thirties (possible if Lloyd george hadn't been unwell during the political crisis which destroyed MacDonald's government) would have been much more commited both to the League and to collective security than the Tories were, and probably would have intervened over Ethiopia at least, under the aegis of teh League. France will follow their lead; keeping in step with britain was the most powerful and consistent principal of their foreign policy..
Why is it being assumed that US involvement would have strengthened the League?
in light of American isolationism and unwillingness to take a stand against Fascist aggression surely their presence would have made concerted action by the League much less likely?
in light of American isolationism and unwillingness to take a stand against Fascist aggression surely their presence would have made concerted action by the League much less likely?
Matthew Craw said:
Lots of historians seem to think that America's failure to join the League was the beginning of US isolationism. Likewise, America's entry into the UN was the end of isolationism and the beginning of intervention policy.
Very true, Jimmy, at least regarding the League. I tend to believe that most initial US resistance was more a respons to Wilson's policies, than to the League itself! Wilson alienated Lansing, Bullit, Lodge and more or less all the Republicans just by principle it seems.JimmyJimJam said:
I'll say, however, that the end of isolationism came when FDR pushed for increased help to the British in the early war. Might even have happen during the initial Japanses attacks on China (seem to remember Shiang's wife doing a good PR-job)!
Best regards!
- Mr.B.
Redbeard
Banned
A more effective League of Nations:
1935: LoN start discussing if Germany should suffer economic sanctions
1939: France and GB are condemned for declaring war on Germany without proving in a legal court that it was the Germans who attacked Poland and not the other way around
1940: LoN finally agrees that it should be prohibited to export pianos, candy and beer to Germany. And if Germany hasn't withdrawn from Poland in two years the ban will be widened to also including paper clips and red and black dye (so they can't make swastika flags - the swastika is behind it all).
1941: While German tanks are rolling in the streets at the LoN HQ and bombers roaming ahead the chairman shouts through the noise to the other member representatives: "Can we now agree on this very serious warning?" Agreement isn't reached however, as the ultimatum in the last resolution hasn't expired yet. As one member says: "We must show firmness is sticking to our last resolution, and with that we can also give the Germans a chance to show that they will eventually abide to international law". The German respresentative is glad that he recently took the DNROTFLOLWTASN course (do not roll on the floor laughing out loud when they are so naive - course).
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
1935: LoN start discussing if Germany should suffer economic sanctions
1939: France and GB are condemned for declaring war on Germany without proving in a legal court that it was the Germans who attacked Poland and not the other way around
1940: LoN finally agrees that it should be prohibited to export pianos, candy and beer to Germany. And if Germany hasn't withdrawn from Poland in two years the ban will be widened to also including paper clips and red and black dye (so they can't make swastika flags - the swastika is behind it all).
1941: While German tanks are rolling in the streets at the LoN HQ and bombers roaming ahead the chairman shouts through the noise to the other member representatives: "Can we now agree on this very serious warning?" Agreement isn't reached however, as the ultimatum in the last resolution hasn't expired yet. As one member says: "We must show firmness is sticking to our last resolution, and with that we can also give the Germans a chance to show that they will eventually abide to international law". The German respresentative is glad that he recently took the DNROTFLOLWTASN course (do not roll on the floor laughing out loud when they are so naive - course).
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
