The British Labour Party described the Versailles Treaty as “a capitalist, militarist and imperialist imposition. It aggravates every evil which existed before 1914.” In the United States peace leader Oswald Garrison Villard excoriated the Paris agreement as a piece of “intrigue, selfish aggression, and naked imperialism.” The terms of the treaty violated Wilson’s principles, he wrote, and left the president “discredited and condemned.” The “Versailles diktat,” as it was called, imposed extremely harsh conditions on Germany, preserved the imperial privileges of Britain and France, rejected the nationalist aspirations of colonized peoples, and exacerbated underlying economic and social tensions. In all these aspects it increased the likelihood of war. Dutch pacifist Bart de Ligt rejected not only the treaty but the League of Nations as well. He considered the organization a “false . . . Messiah,” a mechanism for preserving an imperialist system that was the fundamental cause of war.
Peace advocates were placed in a difficult situation. They rightly condemned the provisions of the Versailles Treaty, but most actively supported the creation of the League of Nations. Pacifist groups described the treaty as a betrayal of peace ideals, but they portrayed the League as “a landmark on the road to world peace,” hoping that multilateral decision making would tame great power politics. They lobbied to democratize the League’s structure and improve its peacemaking potential. They advocated a strengthening of the League’s arbitration procedures and greater efforts toward disarmament. They urged the admission of the Soviet Union and Germany as League members. They campaigned for decolonization and the admission to the League of former colonies and smaller states. The desire to strengthen the League and fulfill the principles embodied in its Covenant dominated the agenda of peace and internationalist organizations throughout the next decade and into the 1930s.
The debate over the mission of the League of Nations and the shape of the postwar world reflected the continuing divide between progressive and conservative internationalism. In the United States the progressive camp included liberal leaders within the Democratic Party but also leftists and socialists outside the political mainstream, such as Jane Addams of the Woman’s Peace Party (WPP) and Lillian Wald and Amos Pinchot of the American Union against Militarism (AUAM). The progressives supported the League but they did so in the hope of altering the existing state system to address the underlying causes of war – suppressed nationalism, inequality, and economic exploitation.41 They wanted an organization that would work for justice and help to create a more equitable international political and economic order. The conservatives sought to preserve the status quo and protect the existing system of privilege. Led in the United States by Taft and the LEP they supported international law and arbitration as means of securing the established order. They believed in the “civilizing” mission of colonial rule. They were comfortable with political leadership by enlightened elites, in whose company they placed themselves.
Advocacy on behalf of the League was strongest in Britain and had a decidedly conservative character. In 1919 prominent British internationalists formed the LNU, which was led by Lord Robert (later Viscount) Cecil, a cabinet minister and Conservative Party member who played a significant role in the interwar years advocating on behalf of international cooperation and the League. Government officials participated in the LNU leadership structure, and the prime minister was usually listed as honorary president, with cabinet officers registered as LNU vice-presidents. (Ironically the only prime minister who declined to be so listed was Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald.) The LNU was founded and led by elites but enjoyed political support throughout British society. It had branches in every part of the country and among all social groups. It was enormously influential in organizing church, women’s, and student groups. The LNU reflected. “a broad consensus of all parties and all classes,” according to Michael Howard.42 “Never before or since,” wrote Martin Ceadel, “has a peace association enjoyed such support and status.” It was by far the largest peace membership group in Britain, peaking at approximately 400,000 dues-paying members in the early 1930s. Its mission was to “secure the whole-hearted acceptance by the British people of the League of Nations as . . . the final arbiter in international differences, and the supreme instrument for removing injustices which may threaten the peace of the world.” It also sought the “progressive limitation of armaments . . . in all countries.”
Support for the League of Nations was widespread throughout Europe and beyond. An International Federation of League of Nations Societies was created in Brussels in December 1919 with representation from sixteen countries.46 In France religious groups and women’s organizations joined with traditional peace and rights groups to form associations that worked to build political support for the League. The APD carried on the internationalist tradition of the prewar years into advocacy for the League. It cooperated closely with the Union internationale des associations pour la Société des nations, with the philosopher Théodore Ruyssen serving as leader of both groups. French groups advocated a stronger and more democratic League and greater steps toward international cooperation. Some promoted the idea of a United States of Europe, which would operate as a separate entity but work in parallel with and help to strengthen the League of Nations. In Germany a reborn peace movement was sharply critical of the Versailles Treaty, for obvious reasons, but activists supported the League of Nations and campaigned for early German admission (which came in 1926). German peace groups were loosely federated within the German Peace Cartel, which in 1928 had twenty-two member groups representing some 100,000 members. Like most of their compatriots German peace advocates considered French control of the Rhineland and the onerous impositions of Versailles completely unacceptable and contrary to the spirit of peace. They pleaded for an end to sanctions and other postwar punishments. In nearly every country in Europe League of Nations Associations emerged to build public support for the new organization.
The Arbitration Revolution
