Plausibility Check... League of Nations becomes a world state.

My idea for a TL is that, somehow, the USA enters WW1 in 1914, butterflies lead the Entente to smash against the lines of Germany even worse than IOTl, and a worse Spanish influenza and Russian Civil War are heaped on top of that (maybe civil unrest in the USA as well?). The result is a larger, more powerful, League of Nations. It forms various EU style Unions after the war to manage trade and local matters, each providing a military.

Germany still rises to be a fascist power (as do Japan and Italy), and the USSR is still formed. Germany rises in a similar way to OTL, but eventually makes an "Anti-Internationalist Pact" with the other Axis of OTL and a few others (maybe Spain and some third world and colonial nationalist movements?). They then wage a war against a combined LoN army, with the Unions (particularly the Western European one) becoming more integrated.

After the war the USSR (betrayed as OTL) finds itself faced with an ever uniting world, and a Cold War between the USSR and an emerging world state.
 
Implausible I'm afraid. The first world war was all about nationalism crancked up to eleven, the great powers fighting to maintain the status quo of French, British, Russian and Austro-Hungarian power relations in the face of emerging German power. Non of these countries will be interested in giving up independence for an international project. The most internationalist movements at the time would be the anarchists and communists, plus a few technocratic sci-fi enthusiasts whose dreams are utterly shattered by the time of the stock market crash.
 
My idea for a TL is that, somehow, the USA enters WW1 in 1914, butterflies lead the Entente to smash against the lines of Germany even worse than IOTl, and a worse Spanish influenza and Russian Civil War are heaped on top of that (maybe civil unrest in the USA as well?). The result is a larger, more powerful, League of Nations. It forms various EU style Unions after the war to manage trade and local matters, each providing a military.

Germany still rises to be a fascist power (as do Japan and Italy), and the USSR is still formed. Germany rises in a similar way to OTL, but eventually makes an "Anti-Internationalist Pact" with the other Axis of OTL and a few others (maybe Spain and some third world and colonial nationalist movements?). They then wage a war against a combined LoN army, with the Unions (particularly the Western European one) becoming more integrated.

After the war the USSR (betrayed as OTL) finds itself faced with an ever uniting world, and a Cold War between the USSR and an emerging world state.
I don't know how likely this is. American isolationism would need to be butterflied away. One of the biggest weaknesses of the LoN was that the US wasn't involved and Germany and the USSR were only briefly. They were the three most powerful countries in the world. The likelihood of the weaker countries contributing to a war against the communists and fascists isn't very high either unless they're directly threatened.
Implausible I'm afraid. The first world war was all about nationalism crancked up to eleven, the great powers fighting to maintain the status quo of French, British, Russian and Austro-Hungarian power relations in the face of emerging German power. Non of these countries will be interested in giving up independence for an international project. The most internationalist movements at the time would be the anarchists and communists, plus a few technocratic sci-fi enthusiasts whose dreams are utterly shattered by the time of the stock market crash.
Austria wasn't fighting to hinder Germany. They were their allies.
 
Last edited:
To some extent, the League of Nations did have a few things going for it as a potential global government that the UN doesn't. Chief among these is the fact that it is a creation of the early 1900s, and there are far fewer independent nations in the world and large empires are still extant. If you can get the British Empire, French Empire, the USA, the Japanese Empire, as well as the large and populous continental states like the USSR and China on board, that's about all you need, with Latin America and a few odd Asian states and Ethiopia, along for the ride.

The UN really has no chance as a world government It was brought into existence when national self-determination and decolonialization dominated the diplomatic zeitgeist. Good luck getting a world government out of that!
 
If you can get a stronger pannational movement during the decolonization period it might be significantly easier to transition to a one world state.

Almost all of Africa was owned by Europeans in 1914 so it'd certainly be a place to start for a League of Nations.

But to become a world state seems very unlikely. What's the timeline for the UN becoming a world state, 100, 1000 years?
 
If you can get a stronger pannational movement during the decolonization period it might be significantly easier to transition to a one world state.

Almost all of Africa was owned by Europeans in 1914 so it'd certainly be a place to start for a League of Nations.

But to become a world state seems very unlikely. What's the timeline for the UN becoming a world state, 100, 1000 years?

Next week, if our friends in Texas are to be believed...

It push plausibility, but what kind of League do you see if there are armed uprisings from the left in most or all of the major powers? Not impossible (and viewed at the time as more plausible than a workers revolt in Russia) and could make for a giant, if bizarre, point of departure. for most of the 20th Century.
 
Top