Could the League of Nations stopped World War Two?

Today, the LON is often considerd a failed great dream that amounted to nothing. Created after WW1, it was suppossed to end war forever. Obviously, that didn't happen, since the LON failed to stop WW2.

But could they have stopped it? How would the LON have had to been different in order for that to happen? And what exactly would they have done?
 
I'm sure this has been discussed before on this forum, it's one of those big "woulda coulda shoulda" moments from the 20th Century.

Alotta factors played into things that made the League ineffective, it wasn't very popular, it was hampered by an overriding desire for pacifism, not to mention it was heavily tied to the Treaty of Versailles, (which emphasised pacifism and disarmament), as well as lacking any real military power, thus the League was reluctant to truly take any real action, nor had any desire to really intervene in situations (like the Spanish Civil War for example). THAT and the fact that a unanimous decision by a certain number of it's members was required, or it wouldn't really act on any resolution.

So... I dunno...

I guess if they hadn't really latched the League onto the Versailles Treaty so much, and MAYBE if the US was more involved (though it too was, at this point, still quite reluctant to involve itself in European affairs), and had been more willing to intervene and take action... they might've made a difference.

*shrugs* But again... I dunno...
 
If the US actually joined the League I could very well see WW2 being stopped. It was the major 'super power' after WW1 and could manage affairs in both the Atlantic AND Pacific. This would be important because one of the main reasons that France and Britain (the two leaders of the LoN in all but name) gave for not helping China in the Manchuria crisis was it was too far away from Europe. The US wouldn't have this problem (although whether they would actually do anything is debatable). I just don't see the US sitting idly by while Mussolini and Hitler messed around in Abyssinia and the Saar... maybe they'd be more cautious with the US looming over them? Thoughts?
 
Today, the LON is often considerd a failed great dream that amounted to nothing. Created after WW1, it was suppossed to end war forever. Obviously, that didn't happen, since the LON failed to stop WW2.

You can never end wars. Warring and killing is part of human nature.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
It couldn't. First of all; US was not a member, the greatest economic power in the world.
Second; Germany was not a member before 1926, and LoN was seemed more like a winner's club than anything else.
Third; USSR was not a member before 1934 after the Germans left. Failure to bring the Soviets into the international system allowed German rearmament.

Also; the great powers of LoN all pushed forward their own objectives; The Italians and Japanese mostly tried to make sure LoN was ineffective and weak because it suited their international interests. The French tried to form LoN to a body for French security, namely make it into a anti- German alliance. The British were not that interested in the whole project at all, and only halfhearted supported international resolutions. The great power all pursued their own national interests and international security always came second. The great test was the Abyssinian war, where Britain and France saw it as against their national interests to act against Italy. One can say that LoN then lost the little credibility it had.
 
The LON couldn't do anything to stop Italy or Japan so the idea of it stopping WWII is ludicrous. US menbership in the LON just was not in the cards. The mood in the country was too isolationist. Now preventing or at least delaying WWII in Europe at least was possible. If the French had chased the Germans out of the Rhineland in '36 I really think we would of seen the fall of Hitler's government with Georing as a possible successor.
 
Top