CAN SOMEONE HELP ME WITH THESE 2 QUESTIONS Are there any similarities between the UN’s response to the Korean crisis and the League of Nations?
How did the military policies of the League of Nations and the United Nations differ and were these differences in any way responsible for the long-term conflict in Korea?

So the UN managed to assemble a combined military force of many different nations to hold back the North Korean army. This was possible because of the activity in the council by its member states, and because of the change of rhetoric since the beginning of the 20th century.

The League of Nations was formed as a predecessor to the UN and partly NATO, but it was wildly ineffective. None of the member states were willing to commit military forces to the council to enforce peace and it was all mostly influenced by the isolationism of the US and the appeasement and neutrality policy of the Allies. So basically the UN is a revamped version of the League of Nations because it is more effective and it is forcing member states to participate while the League of Nations did not manage to do that. And it is important to note that the North Korean crisis was stopped because of the military intervention of the UN. While the League of Nations would have done basically nothing if they still existed at that point.

a is true because it know the force.

ps maybe give us more info?

#mabyeustupid #fatboy

- "a new era of american politics began with jackson's election in 1828, but it also completed a grand social experiment begun by the american revolution. nevertheless, jacksonian democracy represented a provocative blending of the best and worst qualities of american society."

< 3