2007-10-20 12:50:07 · 6 answers · asked by michelle a 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
because it was even weaker and more worthless than the UN.
2007-10-20 12:53:44 · answer #1 · answered by Lavrenti Beria 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
There were two primary reasons:
#1 - The members of the League of Nations were limited to those countries who supported the victors in World War 1. And that included only 63 countries. Surprisingly, the USA never joined the League of Nations. The United Nations is more representative of the world since 192 countries belong.
#2 - There was no provision with the League of Nations to create and use a combined military force when sanctions did not work. The United Nations does require that its members supply armed forces personnel when it is needed.
2007-10-20 13:20:38 · answer #2 · answered by Horatio 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
With the onset of World War II, it had been clear that the League had failed in its purpose – to avoid any future world war. During the war, neither the League's Assembly nor Council had been able or willing to meet, and its secretariat in Geneva had been reduced to a skeleton staff, with many offices moving to North America. At the 1945 Yalta Conference, the Allied Powers agreed to create a new body to supplant the League's role. This body was to be the United Nations. Many League bodies, such as the International Labour Organization, continued to function and eventually became affiliated with the UN. The League's assets of $22,000,000 were then assigned to the U.N. [5].
The structure of the United Nations was intended to make it more effective than the League. The principal Allies in World War II (UK, USSR, France, U.S., and China) became permanent members of the UN Security Council, giving the new "Great Powers" significant international influence, mirroring the League Council. Decisions of the UN Security Council are binding on all members of the UN; however, unanimous decisions are not required, unlike the League Council. Permanent members of the UN Security Council were given a shield to protect their vital interests, which has prevented the UN acting decisively in many cases. Similarly, the UN does not have its own standing armed forces, but the UN has been more successful than the League in calling for its members to contribute to armed interventions, such as the Korean War, and peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia. However, the UN has in some cases been forced to rely on economic sanctions. The UN has also been more successful than the League in attracting members from the nations of the world, making it more representative.
2007-10-24 11:03:40 · answer #3 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Quite simply, and some won't like this obvious truth, it is because the United States didn't participate in the League of Nations.
2007-10-20 13:44:07 · answer #4 · answered by erduck72 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because the League of Nations proved to be completely ineffective in dealing with international issues.
Kinda like the UN.
2007-10-20 12:58:07 · answer #5 · answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Both groups , in elevating every separate government to voting position, are inherently weak because the smaller countries will combine to outvote the legitimate interests of the others.
The UN is about done.
2007-10-20 12:58:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋