Would the U.S. joining the League of Nations actually have done anything?

Okay, so, one thing my history classes almost always taught was that the reason the League of Nations failed, and Hitler rose to power and WWII and blah blah blah, was because the United States wasn't a member of it.

So say that the U.S. WAS a member of the League of Nations? Would that have actually managed to change anything significantly?
 
Nope. The League of Nations failed in part because it lacked the structure to actually enforce its resolutions through a big-power sub group such as the Security Council. I don't see how US membership would have helped. I think one of the reason's US non-participation is given as a reason for the Leagues failure is because it was an American (Wilson's) idea. Who really takes seriously something that it's originator doesn't follow up on?
 
Punch's take on the issue back in 1919

i2ciB.gif
 
It would not have changed anything. US membership in the League is not the same as US leadership or active involvement in collective defense.

The US had unofficial observers at the League going back to 1922. It had also cooperated with the League on various international issues. By 1925 it was regularly cooperating with the League, and by 1930 the US had attended 40 League conferences. In 1931 as a result of Japan's invasion of Manchuria, the US formally participated in the League Council. It was a member of the League in all but name.

Outside of the League, the US was actively involved in a lot of diplomacy such as the Washington Naval Treaty, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and various disarmament treaties.

The League failed to uphold the peace because the great powers - notably Britain and France - did not want to pay the cost to uphold the League's principles, fooled themselves into thinking that Hitler did not want to overturn the existing international system, and were willing to sacrifice a variety of other countries for "peace". Neither did the US for similar reasons, but with the difference that the US had traditionally not exercised a leadership role in world affairs while Britain and France did.

There was profound pacifist sentiment in all three countries. All were rather upset with each other for a variety of reasons that inhibited cooperation. The Great Depression made everyone concentrate on domestic matters rather than foreign affairs.
 
Kellog-Briand was kind of a joke, though. That being said, the WNT was some serious international cooperation that we might've seen more of if the US was a member. However to get the scenario to work, Wilson would have to concede to the demands of the Irreconcilables in Congress, which would seriously limit the US obligation to carry out League directives.
 
Kellog-Briand was kind of a joke, though. That being said, the WNT was some serious international cooperation that we might've seen more of if the US was a member. However to get the scenario to work, Wilson would have to concede to the demands of the Irreconcilables in Congress, which would seriously limit the US obligation to carry out League directives.


What "League directives" have you in mind?

If you mean sanctions against Italy in 1935, the US did observe those, albeit by the back door. FDR invoked the Neutrality Act, barring trade "with either side", but since there had never been any American trade with Abyssinia, this was for all practical purposes a sanction against Italy.

If you mean military action, afaik the League never attempted this anywhere. The powers already in it would never place their forces under foreign direction, whatever the Covenant might say, and there isn't the slightest reason to think the US would have seen matters any differently.
 
The only thing it changes is Wilson's reputation. He's written as less of a martyr. Harding and Coolidge may get slammed for "destroying the Wilsonian ideal" of the LoN.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Collective Defence would never have worked. The League was as weak as the UN in actual conflict solving.

However, a US membership in the League could have got interesting consequences. Would the US have been given a Mandate? Not impossible. It would also mean that the US would be working with the other League members on Human Right issues, instead of just copying the League resolutions. Women's Rights, the rights of workers, slavery in the third world, the rights of refugees etc. were all important topics the League tackled, and with the US there as a strong voice, who knows how much more could have been done.

Also, the US would have a permanent seat in the Council, and thus have a strong influence. Could an earlier German membership be possible?
 
Top