League of Nations re-established after WW2?

ninebucks

Banned
The structural problems of the League of Nations are often, unfairly in my opinion, blamed for the outbreak of the second world war, (whereas I'd say Germany and Japan were so hell-bent on war, no international organisation could have stopped them).

So how could we have it so that a stated aim of the War will be a re-establishment of the League of Nations, rather than starting from scratch with the United Nations?

This could just be in name only, or, ideally, as similar as possible to its pre-War form.

What would the Cold War be like with the UN replaced with a resurrected LoN?
 
That would simply mean not having to abolish it in the first place. The LoN was technically still operational until 18 April 1946. The major powers would have to be convinced first of all that the LoN was worth saving. For that to happen, considerable support for that should be built up during wartime at the latest.
 

ninebucks

Banned
But relative toothlessness is irrelevant in the Cold War, as with two ideologically opposed blocs, there would never be any consensus in the LoN.

Indeed, the fact that OTL's UN practised appeasement towards acts of superpower aggression kept the world further away from WW3. Perhaps more toothlessness is an advantage in this situation.
 
the old boy imperialist school of the LoN was wiped away with WWII...

No point in raising something that obviously Didn't work.

Even the UN suffers from many issues that League had. To many voices, to much bureaucracy, not enough teeth.. too polarized a world.

If the League was kept alive, Isreal would not exist, Korea would have been WWIII. The US and USSR made the UN a zoo as members.. the league would have fallen apart.
 
Gents,

I think it's worth noting that the League "willed" the several million dollars in it's treasury, it's archives, and many of it's buildings to the United Nations during the last official League meeting in 1946(?).

Two of the League's most successful organizations, the International Labor Organization and the Health Organization, were transferred to the United Nations also where they are that body's most successful organizations.

While the League's structure obviously needed to be changed, not that it's replacement has been much better, the League's name was also part of the problem by the 1940s. It had been too long synonymous with failure, fraud, and futility, something it's replacement has been dealing with for decades now too.

The League's structure could be modified, but a "re-branding" was necessary too.


Bill
 

jedipilot24

Banned
the League of Nations was worthless without the US and the UN is worthless with the US.

That should tell you something.
 
Gents,

I think it's worth noting that the League "willed" the several million dollars in it's treasury, it's archives, and many of it's buildings to the United Nations during the last official League meeting in 1946(?).

Two of the League's most successful organizations, the International Labor Organization and the Health Organization, were transferred to the United Nations also where they are that body's most successful organizations.

While the League's structure obviously needed to be changed, not that it's replacement has been much better, the League's name was also part of the problem by the 1940s. It had been too long synonymous with failure, fraud, and futility, something it's replacement has been dealing with for decades now too.

The League's structure could be modified, but a "re-branding" was necessary too.


Bill

I agree. The League, by 1945, was too linked with the appeasement of Nazi Germany before WW2. You could reform it, but it would be too linked with appeasement to be even as much use as the UN.
 

Cook

Banned
I agree. The League, by 1945, was too linked with the appeasement of Nazi Germany before WW2. You could reform it, but it would be too linked with appeasement to be even as much use as the UN.

The U.N.’s only effective purpose is as a forum for talks between the Superpowers to prevent war.

It did achieve some great things other than this but only in it’s very early days, prior to it becoming a massively bloated bureaucracy without any accountability.

These days I think we’d all be better off if 90% of the UN was disbanded. Especially when it comes to it’s so called “Peace Keeping” role. Without a lot of Blue Hats running around refugees in Africa would have the sense to keep moving instead of thinking they are safe and protected by the UN, only to be massacred by guys with machetes while the Blue Hats stand back and watch.

The UN is so ludicrous that the man in charge of Peace Keeping when 800,000 Rwandans were hacked to death over a 100 day period wasn’t fired, he was promoted to Secretary- General! (Kofi Anan)
 
However, by 1945, a great number of the former League members had left the society. The Great Powers would have to get most of South America, Japan, Europe, and the United States to join/rejoin in order for it to work.

How to have a successful LON
- Have "International Brigades," international troops provided by member countries that serve as a 50,000-strong military force for use by the LON
- Have a "World Parliament" system, where all the member states get 1 vote in the parliament (would require special consideration for Soviet Republics and colonies)
- Have an "International Council," or an international economic body that would resolve trade and tariff disputes, without the pseudo-free trade crusade mission of the WTO/IMF
- Actually use the International Brigades to enforce League mandates
- Include all/almost nations in the world, not 1/3 of them
 
Top