How to make the League of Nations Work?

After a cursory search of the forums it seems to me that we have had many threads about changes being made to the League of Nations, and whether or not they would have helped. But it seems to me, that no one change could have made the League function, it would, instead, require a variety of changes to its basic structure, in order to accomplish what it set out to do.

As I understand it, a reasonable compromise would have to include.

Not a standing army, but some sort of military capability, be it recommendations or what have you (although it would need to be on some sort of regional basis, to appease the American congress who were afraid that giving the League military capability would lead to violations of the Monroe Doctrine)

and,

An executive council with actual decision making capability

What else do you guys think (that would have been plausibly accepted) could be added to an ideal League of Nations?
 
Probably USA as a non isolationist member of LoN. That would go a long way toward making it more effective.
 

MSZ

Banned
Depends on what you mean by „make it work”. If you mean “Have the organization prevent wars from breaking out” then it is ASB – it CAN’T be done. To put it simply – for wars not to break out there has to be a military power to counter any potential aggression. If such a power is established, it would have to paid by someone – that someone would obviously want to be more “in control” of it than others, and wouldn’t want it to be used against itself or it’s allies. Plus, the existence of such a force would be a immense violation of state sovereignty – few countries would allow some international organization to dictate them laws and regulations, once they would get fed up with them they would exit it, no longer having to fear retaliation. You would need a Global Mutual Protection Pact, which again would not happen as there is no reason why non-western powers would want to involved in western colonial wars for example. There will never be a universal world army to enforce the laws voted in by a global organization. Period.

You could have however the LoN become more of a threat if for example the procedure of introducing sanctions would be automatic after a violation is detected by the Security Council – as in, the SC declares a violation due to some action, sanctions are placed and only later does a General Assembly Commission decide whether the act that triggered the sanctions were a de jure violation. Also, if the powers in the SC would be allowed to introduce naval blockades as a means of enforcing sanctions. The US entry would help a lot also due to it’s economic power. But any LoN Armed Forces is a dead end – it would be just as useless as present UN “peacekeepers”.
 

mowque

Banned
In my TL I broke it down and left all the organizations separate so one bit that falls doesn't bring the whole thing crashing down.
 

Cook

Banned
An executive council with actual decision making capability
They did have a Security Council, Thucydides, it required a unanimous vote to approve actions. This is not dissimilar to the UN Security Council where the permanent members have the power of veto.

The League didn’t fail because of structural flaws in its design, it failed because the major democratic countries of the period shirked the responsibility they had of confronting aggression.
 

Hoist40

Banned
How does being a democratic country mean that they have a responsibility to confront aggression? The only thing that democracy means is that the people get to decide what the countries policies should be and that includes whether or not to go around the world fighting dragons.
 
The League was doomed the moment Warren Harding was elected President because without America, the League could not have succeeded.
 
How does being a democratic country mean that they have a responsibility to confront aggression? The only thing that democracy means is that the people get to decide what the countries policies should be and that includes whether or not to go around the world fighting dragons.
I think it is implied that democratic countries don't do aggression as much. Of course, the "major democratic countries" had extensive empires of their own, and I don't think they were built on peace and love.
 
They did have a Security Council, Thucydides, it required a unanimous vote to approve actions. This is not dissimilar to the UN Security Council where the permanent members have the power of veto.

The League didn’t fail because of structural flaws in its design, it failed because the major democratic countries of the period shirked the responsibility they had of confronting aggression.

But the Council, despite working the same way as the UNSC, did not have the same responsibilities. The problem was that most decisions, including those about sanctions and military action, were handled by the assembly, which also required a unanimous vote.
 
Paris 1919

Trying to define how the League might work more effectively is a little difficult. I've been reading Paris 1919 by Margaret Macmillan, which chronicles the different aspects of the Paris Peace Conference, including the establishment of the League. Having read other work about the Peace Conference, there are some definite issues to take into account:
  • Wilson's intransigence about the Treaty of Versailles. Wilson, having negotiated for the US in Paris, was worn-out and defiantly resistant to Republicans in the Senate. If he had been willing to negotiate just a little more, he might have secured Senate ratification and US membership in the League.
  • Clemenceau and the French military were open to a military coordinating body of some sort, essentially a joint command center with the support staff for planning military operations. However (IIRC), the British were cool to the idea, preferring to maintain their position as the first-ranked sea power and their overseas Empire.
  • The requirement of unanimity in the Assembly and the Council was perhaps the biggest structural roadblock. It effectively made impossible any sort of action that might be deemed as controversial. What is interesting here is that the sort of direct control exerted by the so-called "Big Four" at the Peace Conference (US, UK, France and Italy) in redrawing borders, holding plebiscites, sending troops, etc., was never contemplated for the League itself. A little thinking about the sorts of difficult situations that might confront the League might have raised questions about unanimous voting.

To make the League "work" would involve some changes to outcomes of the Paris Peace Conference and US politics. It's a sufficiently "weighty" POD that the likely result would be a vastly changed political landscape in European diplomacy in the 1920's and 1930's. In particular, the division between various authoritarian regimes (Italy, Hungary, later Germany, Spain, Austria, etc.) vs. the so-called "democratic/socialist" governments (the latter perceived as weak and divided in the view of the former) might have been muted by a more-involved United States and activist Great Britain and France. It's really rather difficult to predict. I suspect you might do well to look at early League history for some potential "guideposts" for ATL development. Such a list might include:
  • Fiume, despite Italian resistance.
  • Saarland and the possibility of nominal independence.
  • Poland, particularly the Russo-Polish War, which might lead to...
  • ...Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, particularly the efforts towards the end on behalf of Baron Wrangel.
  • Shantung peninsula, disputed between China and Japan.

All of this suggests that the League might end up having a variety of "peacekeeping" forces ensuring local and national "self-determination" (as per Wilson's 14 points) in various locations around the world. In turn, the rivalries and tensions that would seethe under the surface as a result would potentially lead to an earlier world war, between the nominal winners of WWI and the losers and their allies.

All of this depends on the US, UK, and France all deciding that there is some urgency in retaining joint action as a necessity in the post-WWI era. That would depend on the ability to continue raising the funds necessary to maintain military deployments in various hotspots as well as the desire to continue working together in the face of domestic and foreign resistance.

This would likely be a fairly "dark" ATL, in my opinion.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Realistically, the League of Nations was probably doomed as soon as Wilson proposed it. It sounds nice on paper, but ok, assume that "works" = "works as well as the UN". The UN did not prevent major powers from starting wars with minor powers. The UN does stop some minor wars between minor powers, and provides a forum for big powers to work on issues (Cuban missile Crisis). So things to change.

1) Security council made up of all major powers, so say need USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, and Japan as permanent members to work. Also better if no one power has a Veto. The problem is that German, USSR, Italy, and Japan will all undermine the council due to war grievances. So one by one.

2) Germany: Has to be a soft peace that is seen as fair by the Germans. So, German keeps 1914 borders, adds Sudetenland and Austria in exchange for League of Nations membership and light reparations to Belgium only. Pure ASB. But if this does not happen, one of the most powerful countries in the world will be undermining the League. Or some similar "fair" ToV.

2A) Or, Just occupy German for two generations like USA and Soviets do in OTL after ww2. So Britain and France each have to agree to keep 500K troops in Germany for 50 years. Also ASB.

3) Western power immediately accept communist rise to power and recognize Lenin in November 1917. Entente also accepts Russia withdrawal from the war, and no Japanese, British or American troops on Russian soil.

3A) War ends in 1916, before the Tsar is doomed.

4) Italy - Britain/France can't backstab Italy, Italy must get the Balkan land it was promised and at least one new colonial possession. This is quite doable, except it embarrasses Wilson, so war needs again to end in 1916. Wilson needs to not issue his 14 points.

5) Japan needs to have clear limits it can live with. This is doable if Japan is treated as equal to white powers. So ASB.

6) Britain would need to maintain a standing army of 1 million men and 2 million reserves. Britain would also need to be willing to use this army to enforce League Mandates.

7) Then to be credible, the security council would have to work out the details of the post WW1 peace. Even if in early 1916, each sides armies declare a cease fire but stay in place and the blockade is lifted, there are many details that are hard to work through. Poland, Belgium, German Colonies, reparations, if/how to resume trade, the Armenian issue, etc.

The UN works to a large extend due to American Naval and Logistical power. The League failed because Britain and to a lesser extent France were unwilling to pay the cost of the standing army and navy required. Britain and France were also unwilling to do the soft peace of WW2. The USA helped rebuild German and Japan, Britain and France wanted reparations from the Kaiser. The goodwill effect of British merchant ships unloading food in German ports a few days after the cease fire would be hard to overstate. People remember who feeds them in famines, even generations later.


I would say the only realistic way would be for the "league of nations" lead by Wilson to actually negotiate a soft peace to WW1, no later than Mid-1916. This league that settle the war now has prestige, and can be finalized by post war treaties. This is also ASB.
 
They did have a Security Council, Thucydides, it required a unanimous vote to approve actions. This is not dissimilar to the UN Security Council where the permanent members have the power of veto.

The League didn’t fail because of structural flaws in its design, it failed because the major democratic countries of the period shirked the responsibility they had of confronting aggression.
They had a "security council", yes. However, every nation on the council (made up of "the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, together with Representatives of four other Members of the League") had veto power. Which necessarily made for a significantly weaker system of collective security. This was evidenced in both the Abyssinian War (in which Italy vetoed any sort of resolution stronger than economic sanctions) and the Manchurian Crisis (in which Japan simply vetoed any resolution).

The system of collective security established by the United Nations is stronger given a more robust decision-making process, but still ultimately depends on the willingness of member-states to commit peacekeepers or military force to a region. Limitations can be seen in the Falklands War or the failure of the UN to act in Rwanda. However, the first and only direct challenge to the UN's concept of collective security through the forced annexation of another country was the Gulf War. This does again depend on the willingness of the member states, in particular the United States and other permanent members of the Security Council, to work together or pass these resolutions.
 
They did have a Security Council, Thucydides, it required a unanimous vote to approve actions. This is not dissimilar to the UN Security Council where the permanent members have the power of veto.

The League didn’t fail because of structural flaws in its design, it failed because the major democratic countries of the period shirked the responsibility they had of confronting aggression.

Hell one could say the same about the modern United Nations in that regard, it's got plenty of power to get done what it needs to at least in regards to the Security Council, but if someone important doesn't want something to get done than that's pretty much the end of it.
 

Cook

Banned
How does being a democratic country mean that they have a responsibility to confront aggression? The only thing that democracy means is that the people get to decide what the countries policies should be and that includes whether or not to go around the world fighting dragons.
Because at the end of The Great War the democratic powers, the United States, Britain and France were the most powerful nations in the world. Together they negotiated the establishment of the League as a means of collective security and peaceful conflict resolution. The United States’ Congress refused even to ratify the agreements the President had negotiated, failed to join and withdrew into isolationism. Britain set about dismantling its military and both Britain and France chose appeasement as a preferred option to confronting the aggressors of the 1930s.
They had a "security council", yes. However, every nation on the council (made up of "the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, together with Representatives of four other Members of the League") had veto power. Which necessarily made for a significantly weaker system of collective security. This was evidenced in both the Abyssinian War (in which Italy vetoed any sort of resolution stronger than economic sanctions) and the Manchurian Crisis (in which Japan simply vetoed any resolution).

Italy and Japan were both members of the original Big Four and had permanent membership, if the League had been established with the same powers as the UN, they’d still have had the same power. Their veto was the same as if the Soviet Union had remained in the Security Council deliberations had vetoed armed intervention in Korea.
The system of collective security established by the United Nations is stronger given a more robust decision-making process, but still ultimately depends on the willingness of member-states to commit peacekeepers or military force to a region.
That’s the point I was making. Britain and France, even when they had the power to prevent aggression such as in Abyssinia, chose not to.

The UN’s credibility as a body to keep the peace has waxed and waned, for much of the Cold War it had very little credibility at all.
Hell one could say the same about the modern United Nations in that regard, it's got plenty of power to get done what it needs to at least in regards to the Security Council, but if someone important doesn't want something to get done than that's pretty much the end of it.
Exactly; the failure of The League was more the failure of the main member states to take action rather than any great difference between it and the UN’s structure.
 
Top