Does effective League prevent WW2

Suppose Japan faced serious and enforced sanctions after the invasion of Manchuria and for Italy's invasion of Abysinia.

Would that have prevented other aggessions?
 
Possiblly. As always the devil is in the details. If the actions are clumsy and heavy handed they will cause larger problems later. A seminal event in all this was the Franco Belgian occupation of the Ruhr 1923-24. The French action was one of a iron fist with no finesse. Britain, Italy, and the US failed to support the action, largely because so many voters were regarding the Versailles treaty as flawed and unfair. Had the French government been willing to renegotiate a few points, thrown the German government a few scraps of dignity, and otherwise not made a effort to enforce the letter of the treaty things might have developed differently.
 
(..)the Versailles treaty as flawed and unfair. Had the French government been willing to renegotiate a few points, thrown the German government a few scraps of dignity, and otherwise not made a effort to enforce the letter of the treaty things might have developed differently.
I have read few descriptions of the treaty more apt and concise than this.
 
Thanks, but not original to me at least in content. I remember Dr Kline-Albrandt saying the same thing in a lecture back in 1980 & have heard similar from others since.
 
Versailles was either too tough or not tough enough. It was tough enough to ensure German revanchism, and honestly unfair in many ways but not tough enough to ensure Germany could not eventually become a threat. It also relied on the willingness of the victors to enforce it in perpetuity. As far as the League of Nations went, it was fatally flawed with the USA never in it, and to some extent absent the USSR. When Italy invaded Ethiopia the League could have enforced sanctions and so forth that would have seriously put a halt to Italy's actions, but the League members who could do so refused to act. Similarly in Manchuria the Japanese just walked out and nothing happened, because the League members chose to do nothing. Like the UN the League had no army, had no real enforcement powers, and was dependent on the member states to actually act. The member states who needed to act, were the same ones that in 1938 sold the Czechs down the river, let the Anschluß happen, and did nothing about the remilitarization of the Rhineland. Even had the USA been a member, I highly doubt the USA would have done any more than they did during the 30s given isolationism and the stresses of the Depression.

IMHO the LoN, like the UN, can give "cover" for actions against bad actors, but the actions need to be carried out by member states of the LoN/UN, primarily the larger powers. If the UK and France in particular had been willing to step on Benny the Moose and Grofaz during the 30s rather than either ignore or enable their bad behavior, yes you might have avoided WWII - this was entirely independent of what the LoN did or said. Since neither the UK nor France was willing to do this...
 
Bear in mind that, for all its failures, the League of Nations paved the way for organizations such as the UN. Also bear in mind that the League didn’t have America’s involvement - America had been mostly pro-Allies and anti-Germany, and they had an ax to grind against the Japanese, but they were easily the most detached voice in the international community. That would have mattered if fired-up nations needed a voice of reason.

Also, the League has no teeth whatsoever. We think the UN today is toothless - when the League condemned Japan, the delegates simply packed their suitcases and said, “Screw you guys; we’re going home” and were never heard from again until Japan started going full-on crazy fuck.

So yes, if the League could actually do something that fucking mattered to a rogue nation, it would have stopped WWII in its tracks.
 
Suppose Japan faced serious and enforced sanctions after the invasion of Manchuria and for Italy's invasion of Abysinia.

Would that have prevented other aggessions?
If Japan actually faced earlier sanctions, then the League might have been able to prevent the Second Sino-Japanese War from happening in 1937 but there's always the possibility that the Japanese will embrace Nanshin-ron earlier. It will probably go after China in the future but the Chinese will be ready after CKS takes the time to hurriedly modernize the NRA and build up the necessary industries to tackle any Japanese invasion. Regarding the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, the Ethiopians might be able to "win" (status quo ante bellum) if the Italians are lacking in certain resources such as oil to prosecute the war effort and they could be pushed back into their colonies. Combine that with the League closing the Suez Canal to Italian shipping and the Ethiopians might be able to push into Italian Eritrea or Somaliland, especially if Haile Selassie decides to pursue a different strategy than IOTL.

As for other aggressions being prevented, maybe - Hitler would definitely be more cautious if he knows that the League isn't a total paper tiger but he may continue with whatever he has planned for Europe. The Italians will most likely invade Albania in the future where they will be more successful here and having sustained relatively low casualties similarly to OTL, perhaps the Italians focus on expansion of influence further into the Balkans (Greece and Yugoslavia) while using Albania as a launching pad. World War 2 could have been prevented or at the very least, look very different from the way it went IOTL.
 
If the League is tougher, it means that Britain and France are tougher; if they are tougher, it means Mussolini doesn't get that wink wink nudge nudge that convinced him he could go against Abyssinia with no repercussions.
 
When I first saw the title "Does effective League prevent WW2" I thought to myself "Of course it does, because that's the definition of effectiveness.." :p
 
Top