Explore the League of Nations:

The Foundation 1919-1920

The League of Nations was a conglomerate of nations born out of the conflict. The war showed the devastation that came with global warfare steered by backroom politics, and the threat it posed to peace and prosperity. At its most basic, the League of Nations was a way to help settle future international disputes, and to try to prevent future wars. While President Woodrow Wilson is often credited with the initial idea, the idea of some kind of organization to keep the peace across various nations had been floating around in the intellectual ether for some time; Wilson was just the one to spearhead the idea.[1] There were several factors that motivated the creation of the League of Nations. One was the tangled network of secret treaties and alliances that were common in Europe during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Tangled alliances escalated what may have simply been another small regional scuffle, somewhat common in the early 20th century, into the largest war humanity had seen. Many of these treaties and alliances were drafted in secret, creating situations where a war declared on one nation could quickly escalate to involve multiple. The world also saw a growing middle class around this time. With the invention and widespread use of railways, international journalism, and telegraphs, the world population was slowly beginning to have more influence in global events and wanted to remain in the loop. Popular opinion had become a valuable thing, and peace was generally more prosperous than war.

The antiwar mindset brought on by World War One allowed the development of the League of Nations. It was one of the first topics addressed at the Paris Peace conference, and most of the nations agreed to the idea. The charter for the League was created and debated primarily by American President Woodrow Wilson, British General and South African foreign minister Jan Smuts (1870-1950), and British Lord and Lawyer Robert Cecil (1864-1958), all leaders of the Peace conferences Commission of the League of Nations. The first draft was finished on Feb 13th, 1919, an impressive feat considering their first meeting was on the 3rd. The next day the draft was presented to the conference. Editing and revisions were still needed, as well as further debate, as other nations wanted to add in their own amendments. [2] Unfortunately, the United States would not play a role in the League. Despite being the driving force, the US Senate refused to join, leaving the League in the hands of Europe and Japan.

On January 10th, 1920, the League of Nations was officially founded. The actual covenant did not go into extreme detail, as Wilson believed that as time went on, the league would be flexible and adapt to situations. [3] The League took the form of an international labor organization, tasked with the collective security of those involved and addressing issues that other nations might not independently. In doing so, it saw general public support. The organization was split into three separate branches to run its business. First was the League Assembly, which functioned as a kind of multinational parliament. Here issues would be brought up to the League, and the agenda would be set. It was a public face that met once a year in Geneva to bring up issues at hand and demonstrate the spirit of internationalism. The second branch was the League Council. Meeting four times a year, the council looked at issues and decided what would and would not be addressed. States would vie for seats on the council, as this gave them more say in the goings-on of the world and, in some cases, their own backyards. The third part of the League was the Secretariat. This group carried out whatever actions were chosen by the Council. Made up of people who had run wartime agencies, this group was known for being egalitarian, and somewhat forward-thinking, comprised of men and sometimes women of various nations all for the goal of aiding the world.[4] The League would often partner with other labor organizations, experts in specific fields, and international commissions to aid in its work. The Secretary-General oversaw the branch, but he did not have direct control over it, as the members and organizations of the Secretariat ebbed and flowed with whatever was necessary at the time.

            So, to simplify: one branch to bring up issues, one to decide what would be acted on, and one to do the action. Those actions could also broadly be split into three different categories. The first was to prevent future wars. The League armed itself with international lawyers and mediators to spur international disarmament procedures and intervene in conflicts across the globe to keep the peace. The second was dealing with issues and concerns that came from a modernizing the international world. This branch handled mundane issues such as standards for air traffic control and radio transmissions to the more serious such as child welfare, drug trafficking, refugee crises, and dealing with epidemics. The third and most common kind of issue was dealing with territorial claims in a post-WWl world. The League would be used to reinforce decisions made at the Peace conference and handle land disputes.[5] With a framework for how to handle problems as well as the kind of problems to fix established, the members of the League would step into the 1920s with the mission of creating peace in their time.

Mandates

One of the points the League is most famous, or perhaps infamous for, is its mandate system. The First World War was a war of empires, be it British, French, German, Ottoman, or Austro-Hungarian. All of these empires had colonies they brought with them into war. As the war concluded, the colonies and territories belonging to the Central Powers were eyed by nations across the world to expand their empires. Various claims and contradicting deals were made with the people living in these areas during the fighting, either to secure support in the war or mark out territory to be taken. Once the war ended, areas in Africa and the Middle East came under Allied occupation and the control of the League of Nations. Established in Article 22 of the League of Nation charter, the mandate system divided enemy colonies among the victors of World War One.[6] The powers at the peace conference debated and divided the land into those who were mandates and those who were mandators, the country overseeing them. The general layout of the rule was similar to that of a colony, a fact not lost on the inhabitants of the territories being occupied.[7] The mandates would run themselves independently to a degree, depending on their individual status, but the mandators would have an ultimate say in governing. The thing that was supposed to set them apart from a colony was the idea that the ruling nation was supposed to help the mandate “modernize.” “Western Guidance” could help these people who were not yet ready to govern themselves.[8] Behind flowery language, ultimately, it was still colonization, just that it was supposed to be a more humane and legitimate way to go about it[9] Direct annexation more than anything else, the mandate system was simultaneously appeasement and regulation of colonialism.

In 1921, the Permanent Mandate Commissions was set up as part of the League of Nations to aid in the oversight of the countries and their mandates and advise the League of Nations on any issues involving the mandates. Nations controlling a mandate would have to give reports to the League but were ultimately left to their own devices. Mandates were broken up into three different categories for how they were to be ruled. “A” mandates were middle eastern territories under the former Ottoman rule. Their areas were recognized as nations who were almost ready to run their own affairs, but the Mandators would have to provide advice and assistance. These areas include Palestine, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. “B” mandates would be run by the Mandator power directly.[10] These areas included the former German territories in Africa, such as Togo and Cameroon. “C” mandates were territories that were considered too small or remote to be a full mandate, so they simply fell under mostly direct territorial control of the country at hand. These included South West Africa and the various Pacific islands captured during the war. [11] These divisions allowed the imperial powers to uphold their authority and impose their power over the governed territories.

Peacekeeping

The League of Nations dealt with a variety of peacekeeping issues, attempting to play arbiter between disagreements across the globe. Using lawyers to intervene and stop conflicts across the globe led to varying levels of success. In 1921, the League saw their first exercise in peacekeeping when they settled a dispute between Sweden and Finland over the ownership of the Aland Islands. It was ultimately decided to keep the islands Finish, but to protect the Swedish inhabitants. That same year Poland and Germany both made a claim to Upper Silesia. It was split between the two, with the more resource-heavy areas going to Poland. In 1924 the predominantly German port city of Memel seceded to Lithuania, a territory whose fate had not been specified after the First World War. When in 1925, the Kingdom of Iraq and the Republic of Turkey had a dispute over Mosul, the League gave it to Iraq. In 1925 when Greece invaded Bulgaria over a border dispute, the League quickly stopped the Greek invasion.

The League also created, hosted, or inspired several disarmament efforts, such as the Washington Conference of 1921. The Washington conference was an international effort to limit the naval power and resources of the major powers proportionately to their relative size.[12] This put a temporary end to the competition of building battleships that had occurred during the First World War and was the first major disarmament effort like this to be implemented in history. The Kellogg-Briand Pack of 1928 was another agreement made outside of the League. Signed by a multitude of nations including India, Japan, and Ireland, this short document attempted to essentially ban war among these signatories. Removing it as an option when issues arise. Documents such as these were widespread in this era, related to the League of Nations or not, as peace was had become an international goal.

There are more instances of peacekeeping occurring through the League’s tenure. When nations quarreled, often over a border dispute in some way influenced by the fluctuating borders of the First World War, the League stepped in and attempted to come to a resolution. This was Wilson’s intention, the idea of peaceful world order .[13] Unfortunately, not all of the League's endeavors were successful. As time marched on, more and more issues began to compile, and the League of Nations would soon find themselves inept.

Relations to India, Japan, and Ireland

But how do our three nations fit into the story of the League? Each has their own level of involvement and different relations with the peacekeeping organization.

Originally, India was not going to be allowed to join the League of Nations. According to the covenant being drafted at the conference, only self-governing counties could join. However, Indian delegates made the point that India was home to about 1/5th of the world's population, and was one of the oldest civilizations. Due to these facts, India was allowed to join and was a founding member of the League of Nations, despite it falling under control of the British. The nation showed significant interest in the League at the beginning, especially as a place to further its cause for independence from Great Britain. Indian delegates often participated in a variety of international conferences and congresses throughout the early twentieth century and were regular attendees of League meetings. Similar to how Indian Nationalists and Indian Liberals disagreed on the level of British involvement in Indian politics, so too did they disagree on India’s involvement with the League. Indian Nationalists wanted to remove India from the League, believing that it would not help India gain its independence. The League was populated by Imperial powers, and the mandate system was seen as an extension of a colonial mindset. India was not always taken seriously because of its colonial status. Under such an administration, Nationalists believed that India would not be able to gain its independence. Thus, there was a general sense of apathy towards the League among nationalists.[14] However, this rejection was not universal in India as liberals supported the League. They believed that India’s cooperation could only further India’s ultimate goal, not harm it in any way. Being part of the League would help raise India’s international status, showing the world it was able to take part in solving the issues of the day. In doing so, liberals hoped to help further separate its identity from that of Great Britain, as they would not always agree on international issues. Liberals believed that the problems facing the League were not inherent to the League alone, but general problems around the world at the time. India as a whole, did want to be a part of the international community. Participating through the League served as a good political experience for Indian officials and its growing international circle. India did remain part of the League but criticized it on its misdoings. When the league was replaced by the UN, India was one of its original members, and strongly supported its anti-colonization movements after its experiences with the League.

Ireland followed a similar path to India. At the Paris Peace Conference, very little attention was given to the question of Irish independence. Wilson feared that doing so would threaten the start of the League by making Great Britain second guess its support, as Ireland was under their control. It was partially because of this reason that the United States did not join the League. The senate, which included many Irish Americans, voted against America joining. Though their delegates were ignored at the Paris Peace Conference, in Ireland, there was general optimism about joining the League of nations among Nationalists. The League had spoken much about protecting the rights of self-determination, and the people of Ireland saw it as a way to put themselves on a similar level to Great Britain. However, some felt it was simply another tool of British Imperialism. In 1923 Ireland officially joined the League of Nations, despite Wilson’s initial misgivings. Ireland felt that they could serve an important role in the League, believing that they would bring up issues that other nations would be afraid to.[15] However the fact that they were a dominion in the British Empire negatively affected them. Several nations in the League of nations were considered domains and were not treated entirely as full-fledged members; in fact, it had been expected that Great Britain would be making the majority decisions for Ireland. Ireland, in this time, took whatever opportunity it could to distance itself from Great Britain and to push for its sovereignty. It was not until 1930 that it was granted to Ireland, as well as becoming a full-fledged council member on the same level as Great Britain. Eventually, an Irishman was even elected to be the League’s secretary-general. Despite the League's faults, Ireland wanted to remain part of the international scene and believed that smaller states such as itself would help keep peace in the world, speaking up for others when necessary. The League was good for Ireland, as it helped increase its standing and influence around the world, important for a new free state. Unfortunately, as time moved on, Ireland became frustrated with the League’s growing failures and its inability to keep its promises. Ireland continued to be a member, pushing for stronger sanctions against growing fascist states and lamenting its inaction in the crises of the thirties and forties until the day it ended, and then quickly became a part of its successor organization.

Japan has a slightly shorter, but somewhat similar story with its relations to the League, as it was also a fringe nation trying to secure its position through an international body. Japan was initially skeptical of the idea of the League of Nations, as it seemed like a way for the powerful European nations to cement their global dominance. However Wilsonian internationalism, with its idealism and support of self-determination, was popular in Japan, as they were a newer power in the grand scheme of things and not a European one at that. Japan did not want to risk losing the power and position it had gained during the war, so at the Peace Conference, it somewhat reluctantly took part in the creation of the League of Nations, becoming a charter member and part of the council. Internationalism such as this also helped support the Japanese economy. At times, Japan felt a bit alienated by the League, partially because of the distance from Geneva to Japan, leading to representatives often having to take long and frequent trips across the world just to participate. In addition, the League was a bit like a European club, and issues arising in and around Japan and the Asian world, in general, were less commonly brought up. Despite these issues, which Japan was vocal about, it was still a fully-fledged member of the League and acted like one. Japan heavily involved itself in the organization, even becoming one of its largest economic backers. Japan participated especially heavily in the mandate system and world court.[16] Unfortunately, Japan’s League story comes to a rather quick end. In the late twenties, issues began to arise that would lead to Japan's eventual decision to leave. As the depression hit the world, Japan's market was hit hard, and the country began to close off economically. China was also seeing a rise in anti-Japanese propaganda, combined with the fear of Soviet ideology that was mixing into the new rhetoric. In 1931, Japan made a move to capture Manchuria for raw materials and a secure market. As members of the League of Nations are not allowed to forcibly capture territory and set up puppet governments, in 1933, the League of Nations almost unanimously voted for Japan to leave Manchuria. Japan refused and never returned to the League. There were a few in the League that had hoped that Japan would return, but in the imperial atmosphere of the 1930s, internationalism was out of the question for Japan. It was not until 1956 that Japan joined the United Nations, with a now more open viewpoint to collective security and international relations.

Downfall

The one aspect the League of Nations is arguably most well-known for was its failures of stopping the actions that lead up to the rise of fascism in the world. Indeed, the League suffered blow after figurative blow in the 1930s, resulting in a second world war. While not becoming defunct overnight, it was multiple failings that caused the demise of the League’s role as peacekeeper.

The first of the major hits was the Manchuria Invasion. In 1931 the Japanese Military, who had been a part of the League of Nations, seized control of Manchuria and created a puppet state. This hostile action did not sit well with the League of Nations, who almost unanimously opposed Japan's incursion into China, the one exception being Japan. The League of Nations had no military and relied on a type of collective security. The fact that multiple leaders of the world greeted powers would sit down and collectively agree on a course of action that should be taken was generally enough to get done whatever was needed to be done. But now, that type of problem solving was proving more and more ineffective. Japan left the League of Nations in 1933 as its government became more fascist and extreme. China would continue to ask for aid throughout the decade but receive little to nothing from the League. Around the same time, the League created the Second Disarmament Conference, similar to the previous Hague conference. The goal behind this conference was the lessening of military power across the world. However, the Conference accomplishing nothing and was one of the reasons Germany, who had been allowed to join the League in 1926, also withdrew from the League. By 1933 Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party had taken over Germany. Within the span of a year, the League would lose two powerful nations to fascist ideology, and they now stood in opposition to the League and its goals.

Between 1932 and 1934, the League tried to set up the World Disarmament Conference. At this point it was a risky move for the League, but one that was in line with its founding ideas.[17] The League was slowly losing power and influence, but hopes remained for the conference. The idea of was to limit the arms available to various countries, but talks broke down due to disagreements on Germany’s position and what should be available to them — prompting Germany to abandon the League of Nations. While all of this was occurring, there was a growing issue with the mandate system, as well.[18] Belgium created ethnic divisions in Rwanda and Burundi as a system of labor control, conflicts between South and southwest Africa were growing, and British and French actions during the war followed by the mandate system had largely destabilized the Middle East. Mandates were arbitrarily dividing and forcing together different cultures and ethnicities together, leading to the negative effect that can still somewhat be felt in the Middle East to this day.[19] The people living under mandate control, as well as those ruling over them, began to general tire of the system as well. The mandators for the League felt hampered by having to answer to the League rather than rule these areas directly, while those living in mandates hoped for more self-rule.

In 1935. the Italio-Ethiopia War began, another testament to the League’s growing incompetence. Ethiopia was the largest African state that was still Independent, and the Italians used a fake border incident to start a war in order to take over. The Ethiopians pleaded for help from the League, and while the League did side with them, the economic sanctions placed on Italy were not very effective, leading to Ethiopia’s defeat in 1936 and the creation of the Italian East African Empire.[20] The war was brutal, and the League’s inability to stop it was clear to see. What followed was the final nail in the coffin. By the late 1930s, the League grew fearful of Hitler's growing influence and power, going so far as to try to invite Germany back into the league.[21] In 1939, Hitler invaded Poland, signaling the official beginning of the second world war, forcing the League to evacuate their headquarters in Geneva, having failed to stop Hitler's rise to power. The League still existed after this point, but it had lost the majority of its power and influence. In 1946 it held its last meeting and was replaced by the United Nations, a larger, stronger collective that inherited the peacekeeping problems and mandates from the League. The League was no more, but its spirit lived on through the UN.

Conclusion

Despite being well known for its failings, the League was an extremely ambitious idea for the time. Never before had an international organization been established for the lofty idea of preventing war. In the early 20th century, the fact that this occurred at all is an extremely significant historical milestone. Despite the results, that major powers from across the world reacted to the disaster of world war, by setting up a plan to prevent future wars is a major historical milestone. The Conference was founded on the idea of bringing together a group of powerful and competent people to address international issues that would not be addressed otherwise. It was successful in many cases, solving many smaller conflicts and territorial disputes as well as handling the spread of diseases and working to establish international labor laws. Unfortunately, the League did not last and was plagued with issues from its inception. The mandate system is considered to be one of its major failings as well as contradictions by historians. The League preached Wilsonian ideals of peace and self-governance while enabling what was essentially colonialism. There are places and people that still bear the scars of the such a mindset. The League also found itself virtually powerless against the growing tide of fascism, nationalism, and imperialism of the 1930s, losing a few of its key members and ultimately becoming useless because of it. However, the League was not a totally failed experiment, as this idea has carried on in its successor system, the United Nations (UN) has continued to the present day. Though generally seeing more success than the League overall, the United Nations has been beset by many of the issues that plagued the League, such as failure to stop war and atrocities, and problems with balance and representation. But, the idealistic vision peace through international cooperation remains.

[1] The League of Nations: The Controversial History of the Failed Organization That Preceded the United Nations (Charles River Editors, 2016).

[2] Margaret Macmillan, Peacemakers: Six Months That Changed the World. (London, England: John Murry (Publishers), 2001), 105

[3] Macmillan., 96

[4] Susan Pedersen, The Guardians: The League of Nations and the Crisis of Empire (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2018), 6

[5]Pedersen., 8-9

[6] "Firstworldwar.com," First World War.com - Primary Documents - Covenant of the League of Nations, 1919-24, , https://www.firstworldwar.com/source/leagueofnations.htm.

[7] Pedersen, The Guardians: The League of Nations and the Crisis of Empire (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2018), 25

[8] Müller-Sommerfeld, H. "The League of Nations, A-Mandates and Minority Rights during the Mandate Period in Iraq (1920–1932)." In Modernity, Minority, and the Public Sphere: Jews and Christians in the Middle East, edited by Goldstein-Sabbah S.R. and Berg H.L. Murre-van Den, 260.  LEIDEN; BOSTON: Brill, 2016. 

[9] Pedersen, The Guardians: The League of Nations and the Crisis of Empire (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2018), 4

[10]  Arnold D McNair."Mandates."The Cambridge Law Journal 3, no. 2 (1928): 158.

[11] " Martin Gilbert, The First World War: A Complete History. (New York: Rosetta Books, 2014.), 509

[12] Thorson, Winston B. "Pacific Northwest Opinion on the Washington Conference of 1921-1922." The Pacific Northwest Quarterly 37, no. 2 (1946): 110

[13] The League of Nations: The Controversial History of the Failed Organization That Preceded the United Nations (Charles River Editors, 2016).

[14] T.A. Keenleyside, "The Indian Nationalist Movement and the League of Nations: Prologue to the United Nations." India Quarterly 39, no. 3 (1983): 283

[15] Patrick Keatinge. "Ireland and the League of Nations." Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review 59, no. 234 (1970): 146

[16] Thomas W. Burkham, "Japan and the League of Nations: An Asian Power Encounters the “European Club”.” World Affairs 158, no. 1 (1995): 51

[17] Allen Welsh Dulles, "The Disarmament Puzzle." Foreign Affairs 9, no. 4 (1931): 605-606

[18] Susan Pedersen, The Guardians: The League of Nations and the Crisis of Empire (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2018), 325.

[19] The Great War “Dividing Up The Middle East - The Sykes-Pico Agreement: THE GREAT WAR Week 92” YouTube video, https://youtu.be/bFTSCjn6wKI

[20] The League of Nations: The Controversial History of the Failed Organization That Preceded the United Nations (Charles River Editors, 2016).

[21] The League of Nations: The Controversial History of the Failed Organization That Preceded the United Nations (Charles River Editors, 2016).