Tags
Diplomacy, League of Nations, Manchurian crisis, Treaty of Versailles, United Nations, Woodrow Wilson, World War І
by Mario Krastanov
After the end of the destructive World War I, the victorious Allies (the USA, France, and Great Britain) wanted to ensure that a similar tragedy would never happen again. In an attempt to achieve this, US President Woodrow Wilson proposed the creation of an international organization, called the League of Nations, the goals of which was to offer countries peaceful, diplomatic means for resolving their disputes, thus avoiding military conflicts. Although this idea was welcomed by many countries worldwide, the League of Nations did not last for long: the organization collapsed due to misunderstandings between its members and their lack of willingness to act in key moments. But what led to these misunderstandings? Could they have been avoided? Why was the League considered so important by the great powers? Moreover, why did the United States never join the League of Nation, even though it was their president, who pointed out its importance? These are the questions the author will attempt to answer in this paper.
Background of the League of Nations
“The First World War killed fewer victims than the Second World War, destroyed fewer buildings, and uprooted millions instead of tens of millions – but in many ways it left even deeper scars both on the mind and on the map of Europe. The old world never recovered from the shock.”[1] This quote by Edmond Taylor is an excellent description of one of the most terrible and bloody conflicts humanity has ever encountered. Europe was devastated and, because of the many colonies that European countries had, the war left its mark on almost every corner of the world. The economies of once powerful empires such as Russia, Germany, and Austria were exhausted, which resulted in a deep and continuous social crisis throughout the post-war world. People were therefore desperate to find a way to avoid any future conflicts that may escalate and reach similar scales.
One possible solution for achieving just that was brought up by US President Woodrow Wilson. Based on his internationalist ideas, Wilson believed that, if united towards a common goal (international peace and security), states would never again have to suffer from another destructive conflict such as the First World War: “Wilson and his idealist philosophy altered the aims of the allies […] Wilson saw the need to take definitive actions to make war obsolete.”[2]
Wilson’s foreign policy advisor, Colonel Edward House, shared the president’s conviction, and together they drafted an official resolution for the League of Nations – an international organization, the aim of which was to impose disarmament and collective security agreements, as well as to ensure that countries would join a “universal alliance, committed to something called ‘collective responsibility.’”[3] Representatives of member states were to meet on a regular basis in order to address and resolve any disputes through diplomatic means.
Creation of the League of Nations
Wilson’s draft of the League of Nations was first presented in the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, where the victorious allies were trying to rebuild the devastated post-World War I world. Many states quickly realized the importance of such an organization and on April 18, 1919, Wilson’s proposed covenant for the League of Nations was approved and included in the Treaty of Versailles. The League covenant entered into force a year later (January 10, 1920). Several months after that, the League’s headquarters were moved to Geneva.
A very interesting question might arise here: Why was the League of Nations considered so important by many states, especially such as Great Britain and France? Until the outbreak of World War I, there was an organization (known as the Old Congress System, which originated from the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna in 1815), which was supposed to ensure peace and security in Europe, guaranteed by the superpowers of the time (Prussia, Austria, Russia, and Great Britain, later joined by France). There were problems with that system, which could not have been foreseen in the early 1800’s – in 1871, Prussia ceased to exist, replaced by the German empire, which, however, suffered defeat in World War I and could, therefore, along with Austria, not take any decisions regarding the shaping of the post-war world. In addition, the Russian empire was brought down and, by 1919, the state had an entirely different governing body. In other words, three of the five superpowers of 1815 were no longer maintaining the Old Congress System, and the other two were exhausted by World War I, barely managing to ensure their own survival. It became clear that a handful of powerful states could not guarantee continuous peace – all countries had to work together in order to achieve international stability. “The spirit of the times, however […] pushed towards the creation of a more comprehensive global organization.”[4]
France and Great Britain realized this and welcomed Woodrow Wilson’s idea for collective responsibility in the name of world peace, but why was France so interested in the League of Nations? On the one hand, it was the only remaining superpower on continental Europe and therefore had to always fear attacks from multiple fronts: “France dared not stand alone.”[5] This is why the French were more than happy to sign the League of Nations covenant: It ensured that, if a member state is under attack, the League is to provide assistance in order to restore peace. On the other hand, France’s involvement in the First World War proved to cost “too dearly, and it [France] had been living off capital for nearly a century.”[6] Though no one else knew of this so far, France was in “constant danger of isolation.”[7]
Great Britain, which “for 200 years had steered clear of open-ended alliances,”[8] was perhaps one of the most unusual states, which entered an international organization such as the League of Nations. Nevertheless, “Great Britain’s determination to prevail against the immediate threat”[9] was enough for the state to accept a “doctrine of collective security.”[10] Furthermore, Great Britain’s involvement in the First World War was dictated by national interests (such as defending its territory from a possible German invasion coming from Belgium). Therefore, it was in the island state’s best interest to join an alliance, which would offer protection. Most important, the US proved to be a great military power during the war, which convinced Great Britain that, if it were attacked, the US would come to its aid as a member of the League of Nations. What the British did not know at the time was that the United States would never actually join the League themselves.
Smaller countries (especially in Europe, such as Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Denmark and others) also welcomed the idea of collective security. Hungary and Czechoslovakia, for example, have just been declared independent after the end of World War I and they were worried that, if an opportunity presented itself, the former empires might try to retake their old territories.
The Republic of China also feared its powerful oversea neighbor, Japan, which is one of the reasons for the Kuomintang’s decision to enter the League.
Organs of the League of Nations
According to Article 2 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,[11] the organization consists of an Assembly (with representatives of every member state), a Council (the four members of which are chosen by the Assembly for a period of time), and a Secretariat at each seat of the League.
Purposes of the League of Nations
As Article 11 of the Covenant of the League of Nation states, it is “the friendly right of each Member of the League to bring to the attention of the Assembly or the Council any circumstance whatever affecting international relations which threatens to disturb international peace.”[12] This article reveals one of the most important purposes of the League: solving disputes through negotiations within the organization.
In the beginning, the League of Nations had a truly remarkable influence on its members, which managed to use diplomacy instead of war in their conflicts: “A series of disputes – between Germany and Poland over Upper Silesia, between Italy and Greece, and between Greece and Bulgaria – were resolved under its [the League of Nations’ ] auspices. Though relatively minor, these were just the kind of incidents that had in the past triggered regional conflicts.”[13] This was considered a great success for the newly formed organization, as it did show the effectiveness of its core potential – the use of peaceful negotiations through diplomacy, for which the League was created.
This principle of open diplomacy addressed another important issue as well: all member states were obliged to publish all existing and future international treaties. Since one of the reasons for the outbreak of World War One was misunderstandings among allies due to secret treaties, the League of Nations sought to prevent future conflicts based on hidden understandings between countries.
Economic equality among member states was also considered important by the League of Nations member states. The covenant included (but was not limited to) laws regarding the regulation of tariffs in international trade and norms about existing and future professional arrangements between countries (including Custom Unions).[14] The primary concern here was that tense trade relations between states may result in military conflicts, the very scenario, which the League wanted to avoid at all costs.
The League of Nations also proved itself useful by helping states to rebuild after the end of World War I. For example, in 1922 the Christian Socialists came to power in the newly formed Austrian Republic, nominating Ignaz Seipel as chancellor. One of Seipel’s first actions was to ask the League for a loan, which he used to finance huge construction projects, thus creating houses for most of the Austrian population, which had lost their homes during the war.
Another objective of the League of Nations’ policy was to impose arms regulation treaties in order to limit countries’ opportunities to go to war. The desired outcome was to change the role of a state’s army, limiting its function to a domestic defensive force only. Protection and integration of minorities was also important, as revolts can sometimes escalate and thus endanger international security.
In its first five years, the League of Nations served as a true instrument of diplomacy: Nations were willing to sit down together and negotiate their way out of any crisis that threatened international security. Nevertheless, some countries (such as Italy and Japan) were able to recover more quickly from the war than others (at least presumably) and started to look for means other than diplomacy to extend their influence in the world. These countries, however, were not the only for the League and its members.
Struggles within the League of Nations
One of the League’s most vital objectives was to gain the support of as many superpowers as possible, which were to ensure and promote global peace. This, however, proved to be problematic because only a few truly powerful states remained, since Germany and Austria were severely weakened as a result of the First World War. Furthermore, Russia (i.e. the newly formed Soviet Union) refused to join the League of Nations, mainly because Germany was already in it. The United States also refused membership due to its isolationist policy. This meant that only a handful of states remained that were powerful enough to actually provide political and military might for the League of Nations and its goals: France, Great Britain, and Japan.
The British government quickly became one of the most dominant forces in the League due to the huge support of the British population. The British people were very weary of new military confrontations, which is why they saw the organization as a salvation from new conflicts. The British government itself, however, was rather skeptical about the League’s success: “Winston Churchill in 1926 lamented a naiveté of many League supporters ‘who intended it to create a heaven upon earth, provided human beings and events would allow an interval of fifty years, say, to occur in which to build this wonderful edifice’ .”[15] The fact that the League of Nations’ most zealous supporter doubted the organization’s potential probably contributed to “its subsequent hesitancy to act,”[16] and thus to its eventual demise.
The other state, which was truly interested in the League’s survival and success, was France. As the only superpower remaining on continental Europe, France constantly feared potential attacks on its territory, mainly from Germany (though it was now a weak state, Germany has proved that it can, if necessary, militarize and mobilize very quickly). Because of this, France tried to create an alliance with the Soviet Union, which would make Germany think twice before starting a war with the French. Such an alliance, however, was never made.
In other words, “The net result of this was that the League of Nations was primarily a Franco-British institution in both membership and philosophy,”[17] despite the fact that many other nations were also represented in the organization. Though the Soviet Union eventually joined the League as Germany left it (as a result of Hitler’s rise to power), Stalin was never truly committed to the League of Nations. Japan also left the organization in the mid 1930’s, which meant that Great Britain and France were basically left alone to deal with any upcoming conflict.
One of the primary causes for the League’s weakness, however, came from a different continent, North America. Although US President Woodrow Wilson proposed the creation of the League of Nations, his country never joined it.
Wilson’s ideas for world peace through collective responsibility were widely popular among the populations, both in the United States and abroad. Still, the President had to face a difficult challenge when pushing for a US membership in the League: A Republican-controlled Senate refused to approve the US involvement in the organization, believing that this would “too seriously restrain American foreign policy choices.”[18] In an official statement, the Senate made a list of reservations to the League of Nations Covenant. If these had been met, the US probably would have joined the organization. However, Article 2 of these reservations stated that “The United States assumes no obligations to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations — whether members of the League or not […], or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of any treaty for any purpose.”[19] This particular reservation could not have been implemented within in League of Nations’ Covenant, as it is in clear contradiction with some of the organization’s core principles, namely ensuring global security, or enforcing it, should peace be violated. Other reservations included the US government being allowed, if it deemed necessary, to increase its armament without the consent of the League of Nations, which was again incompatible with the organization’s rules.
Although the reasoning of the Senate was understandable in the context of United States’ foreign policy at that time, these reservations hampered (and eventually prevented) US membership in the League of Nations. Still, why did this have any consequences for the League and its success?
World War I had brought many European countries’ economies to their knees, thus weakening even the most powerful countries on the continent. The League of Nations’ strength was supposed to come namely from the United States and European countries, as they were highly developed both economically and socially. The United States in particular had the best economy of the post-war period, as they entered the war in its last year (meaning the US was not as exhausted as other countries were at the end), and the increase of US armaments improved domestic economic stability. The League, therefore, relied to a large extend on the military and economic aid that the United States could provide.
After the Senate prevented US League of Nations membership, the organization lost its most vital supporter. Consequently, it was up to the European countries alone (primarily Great Britain and France) to vouch for the League and its success. Woodrow Wilson’s promising plans for world peace suddenly did not seem as solid as the League and its creators had thought they would be. As mentioned previously, Great Britain and France were not as powerful as they were before the outbreak of World War I, which is why they saw the League of Nations as a solution to their domestic problems (in addition to the organization’s peacekeeping objectives).
While the United States did not join the League, it tried to help strengthen Europe by granting huge loans to countries in need. Germany and Austria (among others) received large amounts of money in order to combat their post-war crises. Unfortunately, this action backfired, threatening global economic stability and weakening European states even further:
The 1929 financial crisis on the US market caused a drastic change in the United State’s policy, especially in international relations. The loans, which the Americans were giving to the Germans, stopped. This action had terrible consequences: With no loans, the German government was unable to pay its war reparations to Great Britain and France. In turn, without receiving the reparations, Great Britain and France could not afford to satisfy their debts to the United States, thus weakening the US along with the European economy. US President Herbert Hoover found himself in an awkward position, both domestically and internationally. Furthermore, because of the depression in the US, Hoover decided not to attend European meetings in the early 1930’s, the goal of which was to discuss and solve the economic crisis. The President was aware that the United States could not afford to give further loans to Europe, though he also knew that this directly affected the American economy.
The lack of foreign support had an even worse impact on European countries: Because of the poor living conditions, people were desperate and were willing to try anything in order to improve their current situation. This not only strengthened already established fascist governments (such as Benito Mussolini’s regime in Italy) but also made way for emerging nationalist movements, resulting in Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in Germany. In the long run, this would prove to be perhaps the worst outcome of the 1929 depression.
The Manchuria Crisis
Aside from the weak economic situation of the time, another major issue for the League of Nations came in 1931, when the Japanese military took offensive actions against China in the region of Manchuria. As military strikes began, China appealed to the League for support, as the current government was neither strong, nor coherent enough to stop the Japanese invasion on its own.
The League was, however, hesitant in its actions. France insisted that the organization should be primarily concerned with Europe and that it did not have the necessary resources for a successful intervention in Asia. Great Britain did not want to fight the Japanese at all, as they had been allies during World War I. In addition, Britain’s interests in Asia were limited to Hong Kong and a possible British market there, and the government was, therefore, unwilling to fight for a cause that would most likely not turn out beneficial. Furthermore, Great Britain did not have sufficient resources to spare for a military mobilization, which made the state look weak in the eyes of other countries.
As the conflict escalated, the League was accused of being passive: “League members, especially Britain, were charged not only with betraying China [a member of the League of Nations], but also betraying the League’s principles themselves.”[20] The League of Nations did not impose sanctions on Japan, which made the organization look even more helpless than it actually was. Ultimately, the crisis in Manchuria turned out to be a test, which the League did not address at all.
Other conflicts, such as Italy’s invasion in Abyssinia, again did not trigger determined actions by the League, which called into question the organization’s very existence: Why was the League of Nations needed, if it could not do what it was supposed to do, namely ensuring that world peace was established and preserved?
The fact that countries could take over territories and get away with it with little to no consequences was later notoriously used by Adolf Hitler. After realizing how weak the League of Nations and its main supporters, Great Britain and France, were, the Führer decided that it was safe enough to start militarizing Germany, as well as to commence a series of expansion attempts that were against both the Treaty of Versailles and the Covenant of the League of Nations. Nevertheless, Hitler’s estimate of British and French weakness proved to be highly accurate: The number of appeasements that Great Britain and France made to Hitler’s demands is evidence of this.
Conclusion
It was actually the League of Nations’ passivity then, which actually led to the outbreak of World War II. If the League had acted sooner and in a more united way, Hitler’s expansion attempts could have been thwarted and war might have been avoided. The economic crisis of the 1930’s and the lack of willingness to act at key moments (the Manchuria and Abyssinia crises), however, undermined the League’s authority and thus the authority of its member states, which was later used against them. This was the actual spark for the Second World War, which would eventually cause the deaths of tens of millions of people.
It is debatable whether or not the United States’ isolationist policy contributed to the downfall of the League of Nations, but a US membership in the League would definitely have helped the organization achieve its goals easier, since the United Sates were the only true superpower of the post-war world.
Whatever the case may be, the League of Nations ultimately collapsed. Nevertheless, it did not disappear forever. The League was disbanded in 1945 only to make way for a new organization, the United Nations, which would last longer and achieve greater successes than its predecessor.
Using the term that referred to the victorious allies of the Second World War, “The United Nations,” the new organization was established in a treaty signed in San Francisco on June 26, 1945. Its intended purposes were very similar to those that the League of Nations had, preserving peace and security through the use of diplomatic negotiations between states. This time, however, the creators wanted to make certain that they would not repeat the League of Nations’ biggest mistake, its passivity. To avoid this, the UN Security Council was established: “The structure of the United Nations was to give a much stronger position to the traditional great powers through the UN Security Council.”[21] In addition, it is believed that “the most significant thing about its [the United Nations’] creation, perhaps, is that this time the USA did not back away.”[22] The United States emerged as the most powerful state after the end of World War II (just as it had been at the end of the previous war), although this time the US joined the organization to maintain world peace. As future conflicts would show, the United States’ determined actions were valuable in containing international conflicts (for example, the Korean War of 1950-1953) that otherwise might have escalated and led to another major catastrophe.
World peace is and always will be worth fighting for. However, there are means other than war to fight for it: diplomacy, negotiation, and compromise are some of them. In the end, “Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by men.”[23] International organizations such as the United Nations can help humanity by solving such problems. At the end of the day, it is up to all of us to find the best way to live together in a peaceful, friendly world.
Works cited
1914-1929: World War One and Wilsonian Diplomacy. Office of the Historian. U.S. Department of State
Doyle, Michael. Ways of War and Peace. W. W. Norton & Company, 1997.
Egerton, George. Great Britain and the Creation of the League of Nations. University of North Carolina Press Chapel Hill
House, Edward. Proposal for a League of Nations. Draft of Colonel House, July 16, 1918
Kennedy, John. Address by the President to the nation, 1962.
Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 1994.
Lodge, Henry. Reservations with Regard to the Treaty [of Versailles]. Record, 66 Cong., I Sess., pp. 8777-8778; 8768-8769, 8781-8784
Schulzinger, Robert. U.S. Diplomacy Since 1900. Oxford University Press, 2008.
Stiles, Kendall. Case Histories in International Politics. Sixth Edition. Longman, 2010.
Sullivan, Earl et al. Multilateral Diplomacy and the United Nations Today. Westview Press,1999.
Taylor, Edmond. The Fossil Monarchies: The Collapse of the Old Order, 1905-1922. Penguin, 1967.
The Covenant of the League of Nations. Lillian Goldman Law Library; Yale Law School. 2008
The League of Nations, 1929. Office of the Historian. U.S. Department of State
Townshend, Charles. The League of Nations. BBC History, 17.02.2011
Wilson, Woodrow. Final Address in Support of the League of Nations. Pueblo, CO. 25 Sept, 1919
Wilson, Woodrow. Policies and Proposals of the United States and the Allies. Official statement by President Wilson to the Special Representative (House)
[1]Edmond Taylor,The Fossil Monarchies: The Collapse of the Old Order, 1905-1922 (London: Penguin, 1967).
[2] Kendall Stiles. Case Histories in International Politics. Sixth Edition. (Longman, 2010). p. 25
[3] Robert Schulzinger. U.S. Diplomacy Since 1900. (Oxford University Press, 2008). p. 81
[4] Charles Townshend, The League of Nations. BBC History, February 17, 2011.
[5] 6 7Henry Kissinger. Diplomacy. ( Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 1994).
[8] 9 Henry Kissinger. Diplomacy. (Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 1994).
[10] Henry Kissinger. Diplomacy. (Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 1994). p. 223
[11] The Covenant of the League of Nations. Lillian Goldman Law Library; Yale Law School. 2008
[12] The Covenant of the League of Nations. Lillian Goldman Law Library; Yale Law School. 2008
[13] Charles Townshend. The League of Nations. BBC History, 17.02.2011
[14] Edward House. Proposal for a League of Nations. Draft of Colonel House, July 16, 1918. p. 512
[15] 16 17 18 Kendall Stiles. Case Histories in International Politics. Sixth Edition. Longman, 2010. p. 27
[19] Henry Lodge. Reservations with Regard to the Treaty [of Versailles]. Record, 66 Cong., I Sess., pp. 8777-8778; 8768-8769, 8781-8784
[21] 23 Charles Townshend. The League of Nations. BBC History, 17.02.2011
[23] John Kennedy. Address by the President to the nation, 1962.