The League of Nations, Could it have worked?

Geon

Donor
League of Nations

One of the big problems I have with the League and the United Nations is that both of them lack the means to enforce the displeasure of their members and clear guidelines regarding that enforcement.

For the League to do her job (and the UN) I would suggest first, the member nations should have the power to declare economic and military sanctions against the aggressor. By economic sanctions I mean what amounts to a trade embargo. The aggressor gets no trade from any member nations, no loans, nothing, until he withdraws. By military sanctions I mean a military force made up of League members enters the nation that was attacked and expels by force the aggressor. After the aggressor is expelled they must pay an amount in economic reparations part of which will go to pay for the military force that expelled them to the League before economic sanctions are lifted. If they decide they don't like this and leave the League they will still be liable for these debts.

One big caveat, the League would only have power to intervene in disputes between nations, not in internal matters. The sovereignty of the members would be carefully observed. If Italy invades Ethiopia for example the military forces of the League would remove them from Ethiopia but respect Italian sovereignty.

I know others have different ideas but I think any international peace keeping organization needs teeth to do its job or it becomes nothing more then a glorified debating society!

Geon
 

Zeldar155

Banned
One of the big problems I have with the League and the United Nations is that both of them lack the means to enforce the displeasure of their members and clear guidelines regarding that enforcement.

For the League to do her job (and the UN) I would suggest first, the member nations should have the power to declare economic and military sanctions against the aggressor. By economic sanctions I mean what amounts to a trade embargo. The aggressor gets no trade from any member nations, no loans, nothing, until he withdraws. By military sanctions I mean a military force made up of League members enters the nation that was attacked and expels by force the aggressor. After the aggressor is expelled they must pay an amount in economic reparations part of which will go to pay for the military force that expelled them to the League before economic sanctions are lifted. If they decide they don't like this and leave the League they will still be liable for these debts.

One big caveat, the League would only have power to intervene in disputes between nations, not in internal matters. The sovereignty of the members would be carefully observed. If Italy invades Ethiopia for example the military forces of the League would remove them from Ethiopia but respect Italian sovereignty.

I know others have different ideas but I think any international peace keeping organization needs teeth to do its job or it becomes nothing more then a glorified debating society!

Geon

Interesting, another thing I thought of, was the United States joining the League as a founding member, that would certainly have negative effects for the nations hit by economic sanctions by the League, especially Japan in their invasion of Manchuria in the early 30's. Military intervention could have been difficult though in Manchuria, either the troops would have to move through the Soviet Union, which I think would require a more internationalist leader than Stalin to allow that, it would also take awhile, they could have gone through China, but I doubt that aswell because of the warlords there or they would have to go through Japanese territorial waters.

Ethiopia on the other hand is a piece of cake compared to getting military intervention in Manchuria.
 
Absent the USA being an active member of the League, it was essentially dead on arrival. The other problem is, like the international court at the Hague, there is no enforcement mechanism. On the other hand, because the membership of the League was much smaller than the UN, there was at least the potential for some level of success. I mean with about 135 members (not counting observers like the Palestinians) and countries like Naaru having the same vote as the USA, China, etc getting the UN to agree the sun rises in the east and sets in the west is a major accomplishment.

In the end the problem with the League (and the UN), is that the differences in philosophies, goals, strategic imperatives etc between member nations is usually much more important than agreements between them - and this is just between the serious/important members. Add in the pissant countries whose votes can be easily obtained by threats or purchase.....

Organs like the WHO and UNICEF do/did well when they were basically non-political, but even they have been politicized and rendered less or ineffective.
 
Top