Why was the United Nations more successful than the League of Nations?

Question

I have a test I am studying for... its pretty important.

Answer 1

The purpose of both is to negotiate instead of fight

The leage of nations fell apart because of World war one.

The UN will fall apart because of qww3 - so far that hasn't happened

Lester B Pearson a Canadian was instrumental in forming the UN - Not that this means much - but Pearson was a big part of the putting together of it

Answer 2

The United States refused to join the League of Nations after WWI. The US was the deciding factor in the war and was becoming a world economic power. Isolationists in the US prevailed.

Answer 3

using fact the league of international locations consisted of a few worldwide places that theory wars might in no way be fought returned (the 'great conflict to end all wars' had only been fought) they weren't completely invested inwhat the league mandatory to do to be stable and no person become prepared to finance the failings they mandatory to do to make it artwork the UN become funded just about completely via the U. S. whilst it first shaped (and the U. S. had only gained the biggest conflict in background and had the biggest protection rigidity in the international - the main useful business base - and the main worldwide know (and maximum feared via undesirable men) what the U. S. mentioned, went. the UN have been given a good number of stuff completed whilst it become new and glossy (and paid for via the U. S.) after time wnet via, human beings only assumed the Un become there to stay and become worth having and helping, and now this is an imperative portion of international relatives - besides the reality that as US investment has dried up it has lost a number of this is potential.

Answer 4

Right now, I don't see anything that resembles success coming from the limp-wristed, panty-waisted, socialistic United Nations.