How to make the League of Nations effective

I've previously posited a couple of scenarios where I suggested that a more effective League (i.e. one with strong US support) might have prevented WWII and Japanese intervention in China. These have been, if not shot down in flames, at least limped back to base with one engine out, no rear gunner and damaged vertical stabilisers. The primary critics appear to have superior knowledge of US politics of the period after WW1 (I had naively assumed that Woodrow Wilson was the prime opponent to the League).

I've recently marked an essay entitled: 'The real watershed in British politics was not the Spanish Civil War of 1936 as is generally believed, but the invasion of Abyssinia in the previous autumn." This prompts me to try again.

Is there really no way, short of an early WWII, for the international community to stop aggression by Italy - and also Japan?
 

Deleted member 94680

I don’t know the specifics or how likely it would be, but I’ve always seen the interwar period as the “democracies” split between on the dichotomy of Fascism and Communism.

By having the ‘threat’ of International Communism prevalent in many WAllied decision maker’s minds, supporting (or at least not attacking) right-wing Powers seemed the best option.
Coupled with the ‘victor’s guilt’ in the aftermath of Versailles, often combatting expansionism by authoritarian regimes (Italy and Japan, or even Germany) was a “hard sell” back home.

If you could remove the communist threat, I believe the WAllies would be stronger in their reaction to Italian or Japanese aggression. But with the threat of international Communism hanging over them, many leaders in the West are going to be ambivalent towards right-wing aggression at best.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top