As you all probably know the League of Nations was founded in 1919 from the Versailles Treaty as a kind of UN to outlaw war and implement sanctions (bothe economic and military) against any aggressive state. The League failed to act in key areas such as the Japanese occupation of Manchuria and the Italian invasion of Addis Ababa as well as the obvious rearmament of Germany and the retaking of the Rhineland.
Many historians have speculated that US isolationism and their subsequent refusal to join the League prevented the organisation from having any real clout. I am wondering what if the USA had been a member and/or the League had not been so fearful of commiting to armed conflict against aggressors? Could they have perhaps halted the Japanese advance into China and liberated Ethiopia? Would they have been able to box in Hitler's Germany instead of appeasing them? Or would it have brought a long war before 1939? What do you guys think?

I think the US staying out of it was just one aspect of the larger failure..

Besides the League of Nations never intended to prevent big countries from trampling all over small countries....
War obviously meant between the Allies or somewhere in Europe...

I think the US staying out of it was just one aspect of the larger failure..

Besides the League of Nations never intended to prevent big countries from trampling all over small countries....
War obviously meant between the Allies or somewhere in Europe...

I agree that the US exclusion was one aspect but I do not understand the rest of your post, the League of Nations was there for collective security and the peaceful settlement of disputes by arbitration. Any country that resorted to war would be subject to sanctions (economic or military) and not just the Allies. The League was not just European countries, Japan was a permanent member (until they left in 1933) as were many other states from outside Europe.

But Panzerking, most of the powerful countries of the world were European (France, Germany, France, Soviet Union, etc.) and they ruled most of the world between them.

But Panzerking, most of the powerful countries of the world were European (France, Germany, France, Soviet Union, etc.) and they ruled most of the world between them.

Of course you are right, in January 1923 France occupied the Ruhr and then six months later Italy bombed the Greek island of Corfu. When the League of Nations discussed these two events both Italy and Frnace threatened to resign from the League and so it was decided no further action would be taken. It was exactly this kind of weakness which was later exploited by Germany, Japan and Italy. My questions really are had the League had more of a tougher stance would it have made a difference to the outbreak of WWII? Could they have caged Hitler's Germany (who left the League in 1933)?

One crucial flaw was exactly the point that all 'winners' of WW1 could effectively do what they wanted, without having to fear any consequences. That undermined the authority to such an extent, the dictatorships in the 1930s could simply ignore it.
I do not think the fact the US didn't join was that important - but the isolationism was. IMHO the one and only chance the LoN would have even reached a status like today UN was in 1923, with successfully intervening against the French and Belgian Rhine/Ruhr occupation.
It was exactly that thing that caused the real hatred in Germany against the Western Allies (France as aggressor, and the others not stopping them). Not the loss of WW1. It was no coincidence that Hitler putsched in 1923. Or how many 'national heroes' spawned here.

After that failure, the LoN was discredited, and could have been abandoned.

I think the only post-WWI conflict the LN ever successfully solved was the one between Sweden and Finland over the Åland islands midway between the countries. The islands are Swedish-speaking, a referendum showed that the majority wanted to be Swedish, and consequently the LN awarded the islands to Finland.:lol:

The solution worked because the Swedes accepted it, which sort of is the whole problem of the LN in a nutshell — it only worked if the parties involved were actively willing to comply, since the LN had no menas by which to force anybody to do or not do anything.

Post-war international politics were set up in a fashion that would contain Germany (under political, economic and scientific blockade) — contain the Soviet Union — leave the isolationist US alone with the American continents — let Britain police things overseas (Japanese unhappy) — let the French decide about continental Europe.

I think the others have pretty much explained most of what I was trying to say in a couple of cryptic, cynical lines.

All the more reason for the US to get out of the UN now. The UN is no different.

I'm not sure that the US was perceived as militarily powerful prior to WWII. Our army was very small (heck the Dutch had more active duty troops than America) and its reputation not all that great. During the 20’s and early 30’s our navy was somewhat outdated and in need of an overhaul and the air force was almost non-existent. Even if the US was part of the League of Nations, I seriously doubt it would've stopped Japanese or German expansion and military build up. Take a look at China or Russia, like America each of these nations had a large population with a large production base yet the Axis powers felt confidence they could invade each.

If you really think that, surely you should want the US to work more closely with the UN to prevent it becoming like the League of Nations, shouldn't you?

I'm not sure that the US was perceived as militarily powerful prior to WWII. Our army was very small

That should be correct, for the 1930ies.
But the economical and political power would for sure have sufficed to stop France and Belgium in 1923...and that could have meant no 3rd Reich at all. Who knows?

The cause of failure at the LoN had nothing to do with US isolationism.

The primary cause of failure was the decision making process which required unanimous agreement by all members. Nothing would ever get done in any government if it required unanimous decision making!

The LoN also failed to adapt to changing needs, for example, it never built a military. However, this failure may be a knock-on effect of not being able to make decisions.

LoN was not a total failure. It did help to combat drugs and things like that.

The war was engineered and they saw no need for America to interfere after the first World War, the America was brought into the conflict right on cue via Japan!