What if the League of Nations worked?

RNG

Banned
What if the League of Nations worked? What would be needed to make it work? What if it solved issues like the Abyssinian or Manchurian crisis? Would World War still happen, if so what nature would it take, would it be earlier and smaller? How would all this affect the rest of the 20th century and beyond? What you think?
 

kernals12

Banned
What if the League of Nations worked? What would be needed to make it work? What if it solved issues like the Abyssinian or Manchurian crisis? Would World War still happen, if so what nature would it take, would it be earlier and smaller? How would all this affect the rest of the 20th century and beyond? What you think?
It would require the great powers to put some effort in enforcing international laws and customs rather than hoping appeasement will work.
 
What if the League of Nations worked? What would be needed to make it work?

Basically the willingness to wage war on behalf of third parties and on matters of principle rather than national interest.

To have the public accept that, at least an earlier professionalisation of the armed forces would be required from the big players. The fiscal aspects would still be a problem, though.
 
The model is a collection of equals all in agreement but I think you need one super power standing, potentially the British or possibly the USA, and no collective opposition. I think Wilson intended the LoN to be an American show, he was hoping to create the American hegemon and simply enforce the peace, Pax Americana. America was simply not ready for the big time and leaving the peace to Britain and France merely reset Europe to its dog eat dog pattern. I think the USA learns a lesson and the UN is the next attempt at making the world ruled by Washington. If we get a more traditional Congress of Europe attempt post-war that forces the Great Powers and the lesser ones too, to hammer out a peace then one might get a collective assembly vested in the peace, using mediation and diplomacy to resolve the squabbles. Wilson framed a peace forged in war, maintained by force and stacking the deck, if it is doomed it is doomed by being foolishly too dependent upon war to beget peace, too obviously a power grab giving every player incentive to once more strive for more power.
 
It has been said that the U.S. refusing to
join the LON doomed it. But I think kernal12's post above gets to the crux of the
matter: the League's members(especially the big powers, England & France)refusal to
allow the LON to stop Fascist & Nazi aggr-
ession is what really undid the League. Plus
of course the member states' refusal then(&
of course you can see it happening now with
the UN)to surrender their sovereignty in any
meaningful way. An historian of the League
puts it best:

"The League idea withered and died when each nation remembered that its holy mission was to serve itself, and that all
agreements, oaths, treaties, and compacts
are invalid when they conflict with that sacred cause. Where patriotism is a virtue it
is hard to espouse a brotherhood that laughs
at boundaries."*

*- Elmer Bendiner, A TIME FOR ANGELS
(1975), p. 406. A well-written, excellent his-
tory of the League.
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
It could work by default, if countries like Japan, Italy and Germany have some modifications to their political history that make them not challenge the status quo so boldly.

I mean the League worked until it did not. League mediation/pressure was a thing in managing Italo-Greek disputes over Corfu.
 
It would require the great powers to put some effort in enforcing international laws and customs rather than hoping appeasement will work.
Basically the willingness to wage war on behalf of third parties and on matters of principle rather than national interest.

To have the public accept that, at least an earlier professionalisation of the armed forces would be required from the big players. The fiscal aspects would still be a problem, though.
This.

You need to have it so that the Anglo-French alliance doesn't dominate the League and the "smaller" members (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, etc.) which they pressure into relinquishing their sovereignty as a means of appeasement to countries like Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany which is only going to end badly. The Germans were able to annex/occupy Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland until the latter country forced the Anglo-French alliance to declare war on Nazi Germany - even then, they abandoned Poland to combined Nazi-Soviet aggression. Same goes for Ethiopia and Albania as Ethiopia was essentially sold out by the British and French in the leaked Hoare-Laval Pact which was practically rewarding the Italians for their unprovoked aggression and in 1939, Albania was invaded and overwhelmed by the Italians.

The US joining might help but I'm not too sure about this, I'll need to do more research. The ultimate thing is having the third parties being represented and having principle matters being more important then any national interests prevailing as Livius puts it.
 
Top