WI great powers had a veto in the League of Nations

A big difference between the League of Nations and the United Nations is that in the United Nations, the major victorious Allied powers were given vetos over organizational actions they thought contrary to their natural interests. This let countries such as the United States support the UN.

What if this had been done with the League of Nations? The USA, Britain, and France would still have gotten vetoes. Neither the Soviet Union nor China would have gotten vetoes, but Italy would have.
 
That dosen't change the fact that the League of Nations would still be a glorified sowing circle, only now there's even MORE restrictions of what its capable of doing. Unless it gets the US to sign on, basically you just get OTL's result
 

althisfan

Banned
That dosen't change the fact that the League of Nations would still be a glorified sowing circle, only now there's even MORE restrictions of what its capable of doing. Unless it gets the US to sign on, basically you just get OTL's result
That's the thing, the US would join with a veto. Henry Cabot Lodge wanted to support the LoN except he wanted to have a veto to keep the US from being forced to do things it didn't approve of. Give the US a veto, you have Lodge, you have Lodge you have passage of the Treaty of Versailles including the LofN. Now, how does having the US in, and an Italian veto as well, cause the world to be any different... it doesn't because the US won't care to get involved. We won't have an equivalent of a UN sanctioned Korean War. The League won't punish Japan, it won't enforce terms on Germany, and it sure won't stop Italy (it has a veto!). It reinforces the decision of the USSR to not participate, and with Italy running interception in the League, Germany gets away with anything it wants with it and Italy not needing to leave the League as they did in OTL. The world unfolds the same, no butterflies (except those of you who think someone twitches the wrong way and a boy is now a girl, but that's nonsense and I'll leave it be).
 
If the veto powers include Italy, with Japan as the possible fifth power (unlikely due to racism), things unfold the way althisfan says. With no Italian veto, Italy and Germany pulls out, the Soviet Union won't join without its own veto, and the League becomes a western democracies club.

Actually the latter possibility is the better possibility for the history of the twentieth century and could have effects, since the League of Nations becomes the precursor to NATO in this scenario and not the UN. The USA may wind up being involved enough in European affairs to head off what became World War 2 or shut it down quickly.

There were two main problems with the world peace organization idea. The first is that while the rest of the world could slap down minor rogue states, if great powers went rogue there was nothing to keep them from just leaving the organization and still going rogue, or even forming their own rogue organization, which is essentially what the Axis was. The USSR was at least willing to pretend to play by international rules (they actually made more of an effort than this implies) and the PRC joined the UN after its crazy period was almost over, so the UN wound up working better.

The League of Nations couldn't really "solve" the problems of Germany and Japan on a rampage without converting itself into an anti-Axis military alliance, which in a way sort of wound up happening, in a disorganized way, the Allies in World War 2 actually officially called themselves the "United Nations".

The second issue is that the real reason the USA didn't deter Hitler was the lack of an American-French treaty of alliance, not either country participating in international organizations. An American-French alliance was mooted in 1918 but the idea somehow went away when the USA did not join the League, though these really should have been separate issues. The USA was actually more involved in international affairs in the 1920s and 1930s than most people realize, though.

Italy, though, was considered for some reason to be one of the "big four" at the Paris Peace Conference and probably would have been given a veto. A fourth veto power would also make it seem less like what it really would have been, a concession to the Americans.
 
One butterfly I could think of from this is that it would become conventional wisdom that the League of Nations "failed" because of the veto powers, so no vetos in the new United Nations, which would have wound up alot like the OTL League.
 
Opponents of US entry into the League would not be mollified by a US veto power. After all, the US representative to the Council would be appointed by the POTUS, and part of the concerns of the opponents of the League was that a POTUS could lead us into war without the consent of Congress or the people.
 
That's the thing, the US would join with a veto.

No. The lack of a US veto was only one of many objections Lodge had to the League. (And the more concessions Wilson would make, the more Lodge would up his demands.)

Really, the chief objection to the League (apart from those whose real objection was that Wilson supported it...) was not the lack of a veto power but Article 10 itself. If Article 10 was meaningful at all, it required the US to use force to maintain the territorial status quo around the world. Lodge was willing to have an alliance with Great Britain and France for example to protect France against future German aggression--but not the open-ended commitment of Article 10, veto or no veto.

A veto by itself would simply give the president the right to involve the US in a war.
 
The world unfolds the same, no butterflies (except those of you who think someone twitches the wrong way and a boy is now a girl, but that's nonsense and I'll leave it be).

If Italy has veto power, then there are no sanctions applied on Italy following the invasion of Abyssinia, which is a major butterfly
 

althisfan

Banned
No. The lack of a US veto was only one of many objections Lodge had to the League. (And the more concessions Wilson would make, the more Lodge would up his demands.)

Really, the chief objection to the League (apart from those whose real objection was that Wilson supported it...) was not the lack of a veto power but Article 10 itself. If Article 10 was meaningful at all, it required the US to use force to maintain the territorial status quo around the world. Lodge was willing to have an alliance with Great Britain and France for example to protect France against future German aggression--but not the open-ended commitment of Article 10, veto or no veto.

A veto by itself would simply give the president the right to involve the US in a war.
Contemporary documents from Lodge and secondary sources by historians about Lodge disagree with your perception of Lodge. Lodge WANTED to join the League. And the veto ability was the main problem keeping him from doing it. Any other people's objections are moot and I, like those at the time, don't care. If Lodge decided the US would join the League (because a veto ability he wanted would be instituted) then it will happen.
 
Contemporary documents from Lodge and secondary sources by historians about Lodge disagree with your perception of Lodge. Lodge WANTED to join the League. And the veto ability was the main problem keeping him from doing it. Any other people's objections are moot and I, like those at the time, don't care. If Lodge decided the US would join the League (because a veto ability he wanted would be instituted) then it will happen.

Look at the Lodge reservations: the key one is "2. The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country . . . under the provisions of article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which . . . has the sole power to declare war . . . shall . . . so provide." http://inside.sfuhs.org/dept/history/US_History_reader/Chapter8/lodge reservations.htm Congress, not the President.

True, some Irreconcilables thought even that was not enough. Senator James Watson (R-Indiana) in his *As I Knew Them* recalled how he had actually raised this point with Lodge:

"Senator, suppose that the President accepts the Treaty with your reservations. Then we are in the League, and once in, our reservations become purely fiction." (Watson, like Borah and other irreconcilable opponents of the League, thought that declaring that the US was not bound by Article X unless Congress decided on the use of force would not amount to much. Once the League's Council had voted to use force, with the US delegate agreeing, Congress, he thought, would not dare refuse; to turn down a President's request under such circumstances would greatly embarrass the US before the world.)

Lodge was not worried, replying with a smile, "But my dear James, you do not take into consideration the hatred that Woodrow Wilson has for me personally. Never under any set of circumstances in this world could he be induced to accept a treaty with Lodge reservations appended to it."

"But," Watson retorted, "that seems to me to be a slender thread on which to hang so great a cause."

"A slender thread!" Lodge exclaimed. "Why, it is as strong as any cable with strands wired and twisted together."

Again, Lodge may have been sincere about accepting the Treaty if his reservations were adopted. But the key to the reservations was that Congress. not the president (acting through a US delegate on the League Council) had to consent to the US resorting to force.
 

althisfan

Banned
Look at the Lodge reservations: the key one is "2. The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country . . . under the provisions of article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which . . . has the sole power to declare war . . . shall . . . so provide." http://inside.sfuhs.org/dept/history/US_History_reader/Chapter8/lodge reservations.htm Congress, not the President.

True, some Irreconcilables thought even that was not enough. Senator James Watson (R-Indiana) in his *As I Knew Them* recalled how he had actually raised this point with Lodge:

"Senator, suppose that the President accepts the Treaty with your reservations. Then we are in the League, and once in, our reservations become purely fiction." (Watson, like Borah and other irreconcilable opponents of the League, thought that declaring that the US was not bound by Article X unless Congress decided on the use of force would not amount to much. Once the League's Council had voted to use force, with the US delegate agreeing, Congress, he thought, would not dare refuse; to turn down a President's request under such circumstances would greatly embarrass the US before the world.)

Lodge was not worried, replying with a smile, "But my dear James, you do not take into consideration the hatred that Woodrow Wilson has for me personally. Never under any set of circumstances in this world could he be induced to accept a treaty with Lodge reservations appended to it."

"But," Watson retorted, "that seems to me to be a slender thread on which to hang so great a cause."

"A slender thread!" Lodge exclaimed. "Why, it is as strong as any cable with strands wired and twisted together."

Again, Lodge may have been sincere about accepting the Treaty if his reservations were adopted. But the key to the reservations was that Congress. not the president (acting through a US delegate on the League Council) had to consent to the US resorting to force.
I think you are confusing a declaration of war with the right to resort to force. The President has always had the right to use force as he wishes, and does not have to go to Congress at all (later LAW, not the Constitution, made the President have to go to Congress and seek "permission" to CONTINUE). Lodge knew this. EVERYONE knew it. It wasn't a new concept.
 
I think you are confusing a declaration of war with the right to resort to force. The President has always had the right to use force as he wishes, and does not have to go to Congress at all (later LAW, not the Constitution, made the President have to go to Congress and seek "permission" to CONTINUE). Lodge knew this. EVERYONE knew it. It wasn't a new concept.

Once again, read his Reservation No. 2: it is specifically aimed at the possibility that the president might use League resolutions to "employ the military or naval forces of the United States" without congressional consent--and specifically forbids it.
 
BTW, the reason the UN charter had much smoother sailing in the UN than the League had is *not* simply that the UN Charter had a veto power. Rather--apart from the general discrediting of isolationism--the key difference is that the UN Charter contained nothing comparable to Article 10 which required members to guarantee the territorial integrity of every other member. "It was fully realized at the San Francisco Conference that some of the Great Powers would have refused to accept a Charter which imposed upon them a duty comparable to that contained in Article 10 of the Covenant. The battle over Article 10 was fought this time on the floor of the San Francisco Conference rather than on the floor of the Senate." https://books.google.com/books?id=7q79CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA580

One should note that the US itself undermined the Security Council veto power in the UN by allowing an appeal to the General Assembly in the "uniting for prace" resolution in 1950. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_377 I don't see why a similar thing couldn't have happened with the League if it had a veto power.
 
The League of Nations and the United Nations might be able to exist at the same time due to the Cold War. The United Nations only started as a military alliance against the axis powers during WW2. If the UN as a diplomatic forum fractures early on because the communist countries walk out over something like the Korean war and form their own organization, a few neutral countries like Sweden and Switzerland could preserve the existence of a League of Nations that's eventually revamped into a major institution of the non-aligned movement.
 
A big difference between the League of Nations and the United Nations is that in the United Nations, the major victorious Allied powers were given vetos over organizational actions they thought contrary to their natural interests. This let countries such as the United States support the UN.

What if this had been done with the League of Nations? The USA, Britain, and France would still have gotten vetoes. Neither the Soviet Union nor China would have gotten vetoes, but Italy would have.

Actually, there was a veto under the League Covenant's Article Five: "Except where otherwise expressly provided in this Covenant or by the terms of the present Treaty, decisions at any meeting of the Assembly or of the Council shall require the agreement of all the Members of the League represented at the meeting." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp Now, granted, the next sentence provides "All matters of procedure at meetings of the Assembly or of the Council, including the appointment of Committees to investigate particular matters, shall be regulated by the Assembly or by the Council and may be decided by a majority of the Members of the League represented at the meeting." But Article 15 makes it clear that the US would not be bound if it disagreed with a majority decision of the Council on a dispute between two other nations: "If a report by the Council is unanimously agreed to by the members thereof other than the Representatives of one or more of the parties to the dispute, the Members of the League agree that they will not go to war with any party to the dispute which complies with the recommendations of the report. If the Council fails to reach a report which is unanimously agreed to by the members thereof, other than the Representatives of one or more of the parties to the dispute, the Members of the League reserve to themselves the right to take such action as they shall consider necessary for the maintenance of right and justice."

In short, unless I am missing something the whole premise of the OP is wrong. "The idea of states having a veto over the actions of international organizations was not new in 1945. From the foundation of the League of Nations in 1920, each member of the League Council, whether permanent or non-permanent, had a veto on any non-procedural issue.[8] From 1920 there were 4 permanent and 4 non-permanent members, but by 1936 the number of non-permanent members had increased to 11. Thus there were in effect 15 vetoes. This was one of several defects of the League that made action on many issues impossible." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power In other words, not only was there a veto under the League, but it actualy went further than that under the Un Charter, since the veto power was also held by non-permanent members of the Council.
 
A big difference between the League of Nations and the United Nations is that in the United Nations, the major victorious Allied powers were given vetos over organizational actions they thought contrary to their natural interests. This let countries such as the United States support the UN.

What if this had been done with the League of Nations? The USA, Britain, and France would still have gotten vetoes. Neither the Soviet Union nor China would have gotten vetoes, but Italy would have.

To beat this dead horse just one more time: Not only was there a veto under the League, bur the advocates of the US joining the League constantly mentioned it. See, e.g., Irving Fisher, League or War? (1923):

"One important fact implied in this short summary of the League is that the Council's recommendations must be unanimous in order to impose even the slight obligation described (on the other members not to go to war against the United States if the United States agrees to accept the Council's recommendations). Consequently if the United States were a member of the League it would possess a veto power on the Council's action in any other country's dispute. In a dispute between Greece and Turkey or between Great Britain and France, if the United States chose to prevent an otherwise unanimous report, she could do so." https://archive.org/stream/leagueorwar012566mbp#page/n93

"We have seen that with the United States safely inside the League, we would possess a veto power in the Council. No action could be even recommended unless we, as a member, approved." https://archive.org/stream/leagueorwar012566mbp#page/n97

"The second paragraph of Article X reads ' in case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of any aggression, the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.' This all-important sentence was inserted expressly to avoid any misuse of the article, and as the vote of the Council must be unanimous to be considered at all, this sentence would give us a veto power on any suggestion for using Article X in which we did not concur." https://archive.org/stream/leagueorwar012566mbp#page/n103/

"In all important cases the United States has a veto power, i.e.: The vote of the Council or Assembly, to be effective, must be unanimous except in the few unimportant cases indicated by italics." https://archive.org/stream/leagueorwar012566mbp#page/n243
 
Top