What would the effects of the US Congress ratifying the Treaty of Versailes at the end of WWI? In school the Textbooks say that the LON was ineffective because of the US failure to join, but they dont talk about its lack of power and other problems. So Im wondering how different could things have been if the US joined?
America Joins the Leauge of Nations
- Thread starter rowmaster
- Start date
Max Sinister
Banned
I'd like to know how much the Americans (not only Joe Average, I'm also talking about politicians) knew about what was happening in Europe between the wars. If the US were in the LON, they'd know more and might decide to do something.
The Leauge Of Nations was ineffective for the same reason The United Nations is often ineffective, it has no military teeth to force its resolutions.
Sanctions mean little or nothing to a dictator, someone like Adolf Hitler or the Japanese military at that time (the 1930's), just as they mean little or nothing to dictators and people like that today.
Given the situation in the World in the 1930's World War II was inevitable, and The United States being a member of The Leauge Of Nations would have had no effect on that, not even if The United States had been a member since The Leauge Of Nations began in 1919.
Sanctions mean little or nothing to a dictator, someone like Adolf Hitler or the Japanese military at that time (the 1930's), just as they mean little or nothing to dictators and people like that today.
Given the situation in the World in the 1930's World War II was inevitable, and The United States being a member of The Leauge Of Nations would have had no effect on that, not even if The United States had been a member since The Leauge Of Nations began in 1919.
U.S. presence wouldn't have made the average citizen non-isolationist enough to support U.S. participations in things like military manuevers that would have prevented actions such as Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia.
The Mists Of Time said:
The other big problem was the political set-up. In the LN policies can be blocked by either a vote or a veto from one of the permanent security council members. [Hence why Russia has never walked out since 1950!]. However in the original LON action could be blocked by ANY member, including the target of such action. As such any aggressor could block any action.
Steve
if United States is a member of League of Nations possibily we could see a less isolationist politic than in OTL, also the fact of the entrance of United States in League of Nations could have interesting effects in delaying the entrance of Soviet Union in League of Nations and in world relations, because in OTL United States was not member and also had a very isolationist politics, Soviet Union benefited of this because the other great powers need open relations with Soviet Union to make a great power entering in the international system (giving that the other great power United States had decided to isolate from European questions), apart of this the fact that United States is not a "great fan" of Soviet Union makes more possible the fact that in TTL the Soviet Union will be more isolated than in OTL.
With United States in the League of Nations other effects could be possible: the possibility of being United States one potence with troops in Rhineland and also the possibility (initially thought in OTL before the decision in OTL to not enter in League of Nations of USA) of that United States could have some mandates in Turkey under his protection (Kurdistan), with this two things: troops in Rhineland and Kurdistan the United States could have a more international politics, although I think a long term although United States would be less isolationist than in OTL, it would continue to be conservative in the possible use of the force.
Other effect could be a more common politic against Japan when this nation begins his expansion in 1930´s, a common position and pressure of France, United Kingdom and United States is now possible.
Naturally the personal victory of Wilson in ratificate the treaty could have interesting effects if because this the democrats could win the elections, if this is yes the effects would be great, but if the republicans win like in OTL the effects would be far less evidents of the entrance of United States in League of Nations.
With United States in the League of Nations other effects could be possible: the possibility of being United States one potence with troops in Rhineland and also the possibility (initially thought in OTL before the decision in OTL to not enter in League of Nations of USA) of that United States could have some mandates in Turkey under his protection (Kurdistan), with this two things: troops in Rhineland and Kurdistan the United States could have a more international politics, although I think a long term although United States would be less isolationist than in OTL, it would continue to be conservative in the possible use of the force.
Other effect could be a more common politic against Japan when this nation begins his expansion in 1930´s, a common position and pressure of France, United Kingdom and United States is now possible.
Naturally the personal victory of Wilson in ratificate the treaty could have interesting effects if because this the democrats could win the elections, if this is yes the effects would be great, but if the republicans win like in OTL the effects would be far less evidents of the entrance of United States in League of Nations.
I wonder if the trick would have been for Wilson's stroke to be fatal and earlier- or perhaps a German American murders him.
dittomitto2445
Banned
but this could also have lead to an earlier usa entry into the war thus ending i sooner or even makong it longer because germany might not attack russia with the usa as a threat
Could this have been done earlier?
I wonder what Teddy Roosevelt's position on internationalism was. However, he was for the great powers to regulate themselves (and the rest of the world), and interestingly enough he was for an International Court (though I wonder if the issue about U.S. citizens being tried there ever popped up). Maybe if he won in 1912, the U.S. would be more internationalist, but in a more vigorous way where the U.S. is to take an active role in being a good guy and rubbing shoulders with the great powers?
This sort of LoN would be more like our U.N., perhaps even more strong, as long as the U.S. has very powerful powers along with the other great powers. Certainly the colonial great powers would get special Security Council-type powers.
I wonder what Teddy Roosevelt's position on internationalism was. However, he was for the great powers to regulate themselves (and the rest of the world), and interestingly enough he was for an International Court (though I wonder if the issue about U.S. citizens being tried there ever popped up). Maybe if he won in 1912, the U.S. would be more internationalist, but in a more vigorous way where the U.S. is to take an active role in being a good guy and rubbing shoulders with the great powers?
This sort of LoN would be more like our U.N., perhaps even more strong, as long as the U.S. has very powerful powers along with the other great powers. Certainly the colonial great powers would get special Security Council-type powers.
Teddy Roosevelt is Internationalism’s (and the League’s) greatest critic. I mean that literally. The UN’s modern critics, such as Bush-style Conservatives, have yet to match TR’s passion and eloquence on the faults of Internationalism.
That said, as the previous post notes, there were certain circumstances where TR felt it could do some good.
That said, as the previous post notes, there were certain circumstances where TR felt it could do some good.
Scenario where the American Entry in the League of Nations tips the balance
Back to the original topic: Yes, American entry in the League of Nations might have made a difference.
Note; I am not disagreeing with anything any of the previous posters have said, about the fundamental weakness of the League or even weakness of the concept of collective security in general.
I am simply making a plausible best case for where the Americans joining the League of Nations could of made a difference.
If Wilson was able to get the Senate to ratify the Versailles peace treaty then the US would join the League along with giving certain guarantees to France. This would have an effect of making the French inter-war foreign policy calmer and possibly more in line with Anglo-American views. The key event would have been the Corfu Affair (1923).
On August 27th 1923 the Italian General Enrico Telleni and the rest of the Italian commission settling the border between Greece and Albania is murdered in Greek Epirus. We still don’t know who is responsible or why. However Mussolini sees an opportunity and blames the Greek government and hands a 24-hour ultimatum to Greece with seven demands.
In the words of the Brit Minister Lord Curzon: “The terms demanded by Mussolini seem to me extravagant – much worse than the [Austrian] ultimatum after Sarajevo, and I can hardly see any self-respecting government acceding to them. “
Like Serbia, Greece agreed with some of the demands. But Greece has an option Serbia did not and appeals to the League of Nations to settle this dispute with Italy. Meanwhile, on August 31, the Italian fleet seizes the Island of Corfu.
In OTL France seeing no gain in alienating its former and possibly future ally Italy does nothing. The Brits first express the popular moral outrage, but the Foreign office is split and w/o French support the initial firm British position collapses by Sept 5th. The British work out and then impose a face saving compromise where the Greeks pay Mussolini 50 million lire to return Corfu. Emboldened by his victory, on September 16th, 1923 Mussolini takes over the Yugoslavian city of Fiume. These victories cement Mussolini’s position. Collective Security has failed.
However, if the American were in the League they would of taken the moralistic and to the Americans, the costless position denouncing Italy. France trying to strengthen their ties to America in order to safeguard the Versailles’ guarantees backs the Anglo-American position. Lord Curzon demands Mussolini leave Corfu at once, with full League backing. Mussolini complains bitterly about practically being handed a British ultimatum, but his military tells him he has no choice. Historians speculate to this day what would of happened if Mussolini called the British bluff. However that is speculation, humiliated and deprived of foreign adventures Mussolini falls less than 18 months later. Collective Security succeeds. This costless victory gives a shot in the arm to Internationalists everywhere.
Back to the original topic: Yes, American entry in the League of Nations might have made a difference.
Note; I am not disagreeing with anything any of the previous posters have said, about the fundamental weakness of the League or even weakness of the concept of collective security in general.
I am simply making a plausible best case for where the Americans joining the League of Nations could of made a difference.
If Wilson was able to get the Senate to ratify the Versailles peace treaty then the US would join the League along with giving certain guarantees to France. This would have an effect of making the French inter-war foreign policy calmer and possibly more in line with Anglo-American views. The key event would have been the Corfu Affair (1923).
On August 27th 1923 the Italian General Enrico Telleni and the rest of the Italian commission settling the border between Greece and Albania is murdered in Greek Epirus. We still don’t know who is responsible or why. However Mussolini sees an opportunity and blames the Greek government and hands a 24-hour ultimatum to Greece with seven demands.
In the words of the Brit Minister Lord Curzon: “The terms demanded by Mussolini seem to me extravagant – much worse than the [Austrian] ultimatum after Sarajevo, and I can hardly see any self-respecting government acceding to them. “
Like Serbia, Greece agreed with some of the demands. But Greece has an option Serbia did not and appeals to the League of Nations to settle this dispute with Italy. Meanwhile, on August 31, the Italian fleet seizes the Island of Corfu.
In OTL France seeing no gain in alienating its former and possibly future ally Italy does nothing. The Brits first express the popular moral outrage, but the Foreign office is split and w/o French support the initial firm British position collapses by Sept 5th. The British work out and then impose a face saving compromise where the Greeks pay Mussolini 50 million lire to return Corfu. Emboldened by his victory, on September 16th, 1923 Mussolini takes over the Yugoslavian city of Fiume. These victories cement Mussolini’s position. Collective Security has failed.
However, if the American were in the League they would of taken the moralistic and to the Americans, the costless position denouncing Italy. France trying to strengthen their ties to America in order to safeguard the Versailles’ guarantees backs the Anglo-American position. Lord Curzon demands Mussolini leave Corfu at once, with full League backing. Mussolini complains bitterly about practically being handed a British ultimatum, but his military tells him he has no choice. Historians speculate to this day what would of happened if Mussolini called the British bluff. However that is speculation, humiliated and deprived of foreign adventures Mussolini falls less than 18 months later. Collective Security succeeds. This costless victory gives a shot in the arm to Internationalists everywhere.
Could there be a pragmatic internationalist league created, even if it was nothing more than a Concert of Europe writ large, where the great powers and deliberate amongst each other to minimize mass war and to police themselves? I'd think he would have supported such an organization if it mean that the Americans could have had much influence and ability to protect its interests.
Edit:
Bingo!
And more.
Edit:
Bingo!
And more.
Tom_B said:
I was using Internationalism in its more modern Wilsonian context. The movement associated with collective security, The Hague, great respect for the legitimacy international bodies like the UN, and disarmament. TR was no Wilsonian.
I believe you are talking about Internationalists vs. Isolationists. TR is no isolationists and Strategos’ Risk research is on the mark.
In short we are both right
but I should of been a little clearer in what I meant.My question is whether or not if TR could have created his own school of internationalism. This would be always putting America's interests first, while recognizing the need for international efforts (but usually amongst the great, "civilized" powers rather than all parties interested) to enforce collective security.
In 1920 there were presidential elections gained by the republicans against the democrats, so although the ratification of entry in the League of Nations is before the elections, is possible that this personal victory of Wilson in the senate could have the effect to make the democrats gain the elections?.
I say this because if republicans gain the elections as in OTL the fact is that the effects of the entry in the League of Nations will be surely a far less evidents than with a democrat "wilsonian" president.
I say this because if republicans gain the elections as in OTL the fact is that the effects of the entry in the League of Nations will be surely a far less evidents than with a democrat "wilsonian" president.