A UN-Equivelant in the Late Victorian Era

So, I was recently pondering about the UN, and I got around to thinking about how, at some points, the UN was basically a place for the US and USSR to fight the Cold War. Then I realized how this situation has quite a few things in common with the Europe of the Late Victorian Era. The Great Powers had an intricate system of alliances and enemies, and there were numerous small international incidents between them that underscored the looming threat of a massive, disastrous war.

So lets take that to a logical conclusion. There were in OTL several all-powers congresses to resolve the international scene. What if there is eventually a decision among the Great Powers that the threat of War could be best avoided by some kind of massive pan-European organization-by no means an EU-type attempt at semi-unification, but something like a Leauge of Nations/Congress of Berlin hybrid (indeed, a good scenario might be that Congress deciding never to go into recess) where representatives of all the powers of Europe got together to yell at each other about how their God-give rights to get tied down in endless wars in the African desert were being denied. This could happen sometime in the late 1870s/early 80s.

Is such a scenario plausible? If so, what effect would it have on history?
 
Interestingly enough, my namesake proposed a forum in which the great powers of the day could discuss issues civilly and thus prevent war.
 
Could the post-Napoleonic Congress system evolve into something workable? There were plenty of Congresses in the 1820s, although the system was somewhat useless because Britain didn't often intend/help enforce the whims of the other great powers involved, that were quite conservative. Still, the system existed until the Crimean War broke it down, and was pretty good at preventing the Great Powers from going to war...
 

Thande

Donor
Could the post-Napoleonic Congress system evolve into something workable? There were plenty of Congresses in the 1820s, although the system was somewhat useless because Britain didn't often intend/help enforce the whims of the other great powers involved, that were quite conservative. Still, the system existed until the Crimean War broke it down, and was pretty good at preventing the Great Powers from going to war...

I was thinking the same thing myself.
 
Could the post-Napoleonic Congress system evolve into something workable? There were plenty of Congresses in the 1820s, although the system was somewhat useless because Britain didn't often intend/help enforce the whims of the other great powers involved, that were quite conservative. Still, the system existed until the Crimean War broke it down, and was pretty good at preventing the Great Powers from going to war...

More or less my thought process. Probably should start with Vienna, since that was the first real congress, and once more get called that habit is going to be hard to break, and people are going to view congresses as one-off affairs. If some enterprising mind (I'm thinking Castlereagh or Metternich, given their preference of the status quo) gets it in their head to make it a more permanent (or at least periodical) institution, we've got a pretty good framework right there. Small issue, though, in the nature of Vienna itself. IIRC it was a rather haphazard, spontaneous meeting, which is both useful (it gets anybody with a vested interest in european politics involved) and problematic (no real criterion for entrance, say, which makes eventual organization hard). And, given OTL Vienna, it is going to be dominated by the major powers almost exclusively (you have to get them to make some sort of concessions for a UN equivalent to be possible), but that can be worked around and is to a degree inevitable, especially in that period.
 
More or less my thought process. Probably should start with Vienna, since that was the first real congress, and once more get called that habit is going to be hard to break, and people are going to view congresses as one-off affairs. If some enterprising mind (I'm thinking Castlereagh or Metternich, given their preference of the status quo) gets it in their head to make it a more permanent (or at least periodical) institution, we've got a pretty good framework right there. Small issue, though, in the nature of Vienna itself. IIRC it was a rather haphazard, spontaneous meeting, which is both useful (it gets anybody with a vested interest in european politics involved) and problematic (no real criterion for entrance, say, which makes eventual organization hard). And, given OTL Vienna, it is going to be dominated by the major powers almost exclusively (you have to get them to make some sort of concessions for a UN equivalent to be possible), but that can be worked around and is to a degree inevitable, especially in that period.

I agree, starting with Vienna would be a good start. I think Castlereagh and Metternich working together would be best, as Castlereagh would help ensure British participation. Metternich himself was conservative, but he was also pragmatic. He followed many policies because it was what he believed was the best course of action at the time; he was conservative but not as conservative as the Emperor of Austria himself.

It's true that the Congress were dominated by the Great Powers, but that might be best, at least at first. The Great Powers of Europe were capable of not fighting amongst themselves, and while regional conflicts did occur in the period between 1815 and 1853, the Great Powers often intervened to find an end to them. So slowly but surely the Great Powers would be able to keep the peace throughout this system. It wouldn't be as stable as our world, as regional conflicts might happen. The big problem is extending this system outside Europe, and as you said, including smaller nation states. There is also the issue of the Great Powers clashing, as they might sooner or later. You don't want it relegated to the trash heap simply because they start fighting. They might go to war, but you ultimately want it resolved through this system.
 

ninebucks

Banned
I think the problem is that prior to WW1, the diplomatic profession wasn't really... professionalised. A system like the UN requires thousands of people whose full-time job is diplomacy, and I don't think that'd be possible in the 19th century.

In that period, diplomats were, firstly, friends of those in their governments, or members of the aristocracy with connections. Diplomacy wasn't part of the growing meritocratic system of government ministries and professional civil servants, (in a way, the fact that diplomats were amateur aristocrats helped within Europe, as they all kind of belonged more to the same culture than many of them did with ordinary people back home). Secondly, for many, diplomacy was a moonlight gig, something they did for free/minimal price, while spending most of their time engaged in other business. So the Congress system, unlike the modern UN, which racks up enormous bills, was very cost effective for the nations involved. And considering diplomatic practices during the 19th century generally worked, (it was a relatively peaceful era), it seems unlikely that they'd replace it.
 
I'm just dropping by to burst a bubble.

(1) The UN was not founded with the intent of being a place to fight the Cold War.

(2) The late Victorian era was nothing like the Cold War, seeing how it was an age of constantly shifting rivalries and collaborations which even saw France and Germany working together, very different from the Cold War's division of the world into mutually hostile camps.

(3) A permanent congress of European powers would be nothing like the UN, which is meant to be as inclusive as powerful and, though it contradicts itself in the Security Council, proclaims the equality of states.

(4) Without the trauma of WWII there is unlikely to ever be the collective willpower to go through all the trouble of establishing something like the UN, and even in OTL the Soviets needed convincing.

(5) The UN has a large body of agreements and agencies which nobody in the late Victorian era would be interested in.
 
I think the problem is that prior to WW1, the diplomatic profession wasn't really... professionalised. A system like the UN requires thousands of people whose full-time job is diplomacy, and I don't think that'd be possible in the 19th century.

You mean they weren't bureaucrats.

This Victorian Congress of Nations wouldn't need thousands of people since there aren't really that many 'nations' to worry about. The Great Powers will just look after their own colonies.
 
I'd also say that the congresses could develop in something more regular. But that would resemble OTL G8 summits rather than the UN.

Another idea: could the assembly of the German Confederation develop in such a plenum? After 1815, three great powers, Denmark and the Netherlands were in it. Changing the Congress of Vienna could include the Swiss and Sweden. With time passing by, maybe the French could be included as well. Furthermore, a similar construction was thought about for Italy as well. Maybe they start joint committees?
 
I'm just dropping by to burst a bubble.

(1) The UN was not founded with the intent of being a place to fight the Cold War.

(2) The late Victorian era was nothing like the Cold War, seeing how it was an age of constantly shifting rivalries and collaborations which even saw France and Germany working together, very different from the Cold War's division of the world into mutually hostile camps.

(3) A permanent congress of European powers would be nothing like the UN, which is meant to be as inclusive as powerful and, though it contradicts itself in the Security Council, proclaims the equality of states.

(4) Without the trauma of WWII there is unlikely to ever be the collective willpower to go through all the trouble of establishing something like the UN, and even in OTL the Soviets needed convincing.

(5) The UN has a large body of agreements and agencies which nobody in the late Victorian era would be interested in.

To try and keep it whole:

1) Founded? No. It was founded for the reasons everybody wanted it founded-to form an international forum to discuss matters and prevent war. I was just saying that at several points in history it became an arena for the Cold War, and did it very well, with both sides and their supporters simultaneously trying to avoid war and pushing their own case.

2) One of the big differences between OTLs UN and this equivelant would be the multipolar/bipolar thing, but the LoN stands out as an example-and before you say "Look How that turned out"-basically the only members with real power were the former Entente and Germany, which was...rather unstable. Replace them with all the usual suspects of the Late Victorian Era, and you have a massive, sometimes inefficient vehicle for all of that backstabbing to take place.

4) Because there was obviously no pacifistic/united Europe movement at all before 1914...

3/5) Eh, you're probably right; "A LoN Equivelant in the Late Victorian Era" would probably have been a better way to get the line of thinking I had across-I used this title for familiarity (hence the use of the word "equivelant")
 
1) Founded? No. It was founded for the reasons everybody wanted it founded-to form an international forum to discuss matters and prevent war. I was just saying that at several points in history it became an arena for the Cold War, and did it very well, with both sides and their supporters simultaneously trying to avoid war and pushing their own case.

What I'm saying is that they wouldn't have founded an international forum for that purpose. Not worth the trouble, the congresses and conferences suited them well enough and their very organization was part of the diplomatic game.

4) Because there was obviously no pacifistic/united Europe movement at all before 1914...

It was marginal. The early 20th century was dominated by militarism and the late Victorian era led into it. It was certainly not something that made its way into governments.
 
It was marginal. The early 20th century was dominated by militarism and the late Victorian era led into it. It was certainly not something that made its way into governments.

Yes but one of the two main reasons of Vienna´s congress was precisely the destruction of the Napoleonic wars and the desire to avoid more wars, the fact that a century of relative peace, at least no general war in Europe gives them a bit of credit ...

The other of course it was to maintain the status quo by the great powers ...

If somehow they were a bit less elitists and give more importance to maintain peace can change the Congress to a UN alike ( not the same, of course ).

A harsher Napoleonic wars, maybe?
 
Top