Why did the United Sates refuse to join the United Nations at first after World War I?
140342
congress did not vote to join the league of nations - Wilson was the one that put it together, but congress did not agree.\nhope that helps!
640034
Why keep the UN at all? It is a joke. For people who need help, the best they can hope for from the UN is to not be raped by their 'peacekeeper' forces.\n\nWe could set up a union of free and willing democratic states who would actually step up and fight wrongs in this world.
290987
The UN is the successor to the league of nations as it was not effective to prevent the second world war
85125
wilson's fourteen points was his ideas behind the formation of the league of nations--a world body that would be able to sustain peace through sharing of resources and cooperation---in which the US Senate wouldn't allow admittance by the US after it was created. The league of nations in the precursor to the United Nations
302131
US tried to stay neutral for a while.  The US didn't like the unrestricted sub warfare, so after attacks on American merchant ships, Wilson declared war on Germany.
937614
A lot of the reason why the United States did not intervene was because of how the situation in Somolia was handled.  The US was too scared to get involved in anothe African conflict.\n\nAlso, the US has a history of not intervening unless there is profit.  Just look at how long it took for the US to join in the war against Nazi Germany!!  And even then, it was only because we were directly attacked.
318875
United Nations is a WORLD WIDE ORGANIZATION (That is its not restricted 2 a particular CONTINENT).....whereas NATO is restricted to EUROPEON NATIONS.....it was basically started to check the RUSSIAN MENANCE in EASTERN EUROPE.....Oh yaa it does a lot of PEACE KEEPING....and the major difference is that NATO is basically a MILITARY ORGANIZATION....whereas the UN is not only MILITARY, but also has TRADE, HUMANITARIAN and other added facets to it....
57331
After WWI, the Allies decided that they were going to punish Germany for causing WWI.  The fact that Germany was no more at fault than France or England was not an issue.  Germany was severely punished, and the result was the rise of Hitler, which consequently lead to WWII.\n\nAfter WWII, the US wanted to avoid another war, and they had learned the hard way that keeping the loser down was not a good idea.  Rebuilding Japan (and Germany) was the best way to ensure future security and hopefully cooperation between the two nations.
220254
Because they say the future of what would be needed in world community.  The US, except for President Wilson, was still in the isolated mode.  Without the US support the League of Nations did not last.
337620
First things first-they need to make India a permanent UNSC member.We have the world's third largest military,a booming economy,a stable governemnt and our soldiers have laid down their lives in almost every U.N peacekeeping operation from Sierra Leone to Sri Lanka.It's about time India (one of the original members of the UN-we joined in 1945-before we were even independent) got the recognition it deserves.
241301
I believe the leaders of the countries had a pretty good idea who was going to line up with who, however as many of these treaties were secret most people did not know who was aligned with who, only the leaders had a clue.  America did not enter the war that started in 1914 until 1917 so I am not sure if anybody ever counted on our participation.  Germany tried to urge Mexico into becoming their ally to keep the U.S. out of the European Theater and have us fighting at home to gain an edge.  This failed and we fought in Europe separate from other troops that were already there.  The war ended in November of 1918.
829121
Before Germany invaded france and poland to start all out war in WW2 the league of nations ignored the threat of military buildup of troops by Geermany look what happened.\n\nLook at Sudan, Saddam didn't listen, why should the U.S.\n\nWhen there is an organisation that has member nations sitting on human rights panels but yet violate human rights makes you wonder.\n\nThe U.N. is more like a directors meeting, it is there to assist in communication and help if member nations agree to.\n\nIt is not mandatory for one nation to obey the U.N.\n\nAmerica pays the biggest fee to be a member, and yet is always shot down, yet when tragdy is in the world everybody demands the U.S. to do more.\n\nThe U.N. is a waste, N.A.T.O has bigge cajonas than the U.N.\n\nWhile Canadian, American, and British troops are fighting the Taliban for the benefit of Afghans other countries are sitting back paying lip service but not getting into the NATO supported fight for the people of Afghan.\n\nAnd the Canadian / U.S. soft lumber deal was a NAFTA issue not the U.N. it was a NAFTA panel that supported Canadas motion, and if the Liberal powers of the time were not so rude to our american cousins the soft lumber deal probably wouldn't have happened.  If the U.S. wants to put a pipeline in on their side of lake Ontario to get water that is their choice.\n\nBut When you look at world bodies it sounds like a bunch of bull than a world striving for results.\n\nIf the U.N. cared they wouldn't wait for Sudan to ask for international help, cause there is genocide going on a real leader stands up and takes the fall if it does not work, otherwise it is just another level of political bull.
1081296
The US basically started the UN!  The US pushed for other countries to join the UN during the Cold War and now must accept what it has helped implement.  Can you Neocon Conspiracy theorists get over yourselves?  The UN is not a demonic institution that was prophasized in the "Bible" or a creation of the former Soviet Bloc countries!  Geez...
174755
Well, war has always existed, it's a mean for states to expand their area of influence and to assume their security.  However, I do not understand why it is still a common occurrence.  Plenty of international mechanisms have been implemented to regulate relations between states which could resolve conflicts before they are carried on physically.  The bad faith some states constantly demonstrate put a strain on these organization (i.e. UN did not support the war in Irak but the US still carried on)\n\nBut the problem lies deeper, it's intolerance that is at the root of most wars.  States today do not carry wars for expansion (most of the time) but rather to impose their view on others that do not have the same lifestyle.  \n\nPart of the solution would be to allow every states to sit on the UN council whether it is considered democratic or not.  It would also be necessary to allow all ethnicity to use their native languages and practice their culture as long as it does not infringe others liberties.  Some regions of the world are not suited to become democracies, at least not yet, and it is something that westerners have to accept.   Maybe the common denominator should be that everyone should accept that the Western ways are not the absolute best and we should stop to impose them on unwilling populations.
33663
The United Nations is a very necessary organization on many levels.  Any place that attempts to foster communication between so many diverse member states is necessary.  Their other works like UNICEF, UNDP, UNIFEM etc. do much to improve the living of millions of people around the world.
437510
The United Nations was founded in 1945. It began to resolve WWI, and as a way nations could talk, before declaring war on each other.\n\nI believe the founding nations included Great Britain, the US and Germany and France (not sure about the last two). But anyhow, it started with lofty ideals of providing a forum where nations could meet in a neutral environment and talk problems through. And since it was founded during times of war, concerns over Human Rights were brought to the fore.\n\nCurrently, there is alot of politics going on with the UN, but the main purpose is still to provide that open communication between nations of the world.\n\nThere is tons more out there on the United Nations, and all you have to do is Google it.
106566
I’m getting too old, I can’t believe anyone would need to ask such a question.\nWorld War I, 1914–18, also known as the Great War, conflict, chiefly in Europe, among most of the great Western powers. It was the largest war the world had yet seen.Causes \nWorld War I was immediately precipitated by the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary by a Serbian nationalist in 1914. There were, however, many factors that had led toward war. Prominent causes were the imperialistic, territorial, and economic rivalries that had been intensifying from the late 19th cent., particularly among Germany, France, Great Britain, Russia, and Austria-Hungary.\nOf equal importance was the rampant spirit of nationalism, especially unsettling in the empire of Austria-Hungary and perhaps also in France. Nationalism had brought the unification of Germany by blood and iron, and France, deprived of Alsace and Lorraine by the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71, had been left with its own nationalistic cult seeking revenge against Germany. While French nationalists were hostile to Germany, which sought to maintain its gains by militarism and alliances, nationalism was creating violent tensions in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy; there the large Slavic national groups had grown increasingly restive, and Serbia as well as Russia fanned Slavic hopes for freedom and Pan-Slavism.\nImperialist rivalry had grown more intense with the new imperialism of the late 19th and early 20th cent. The great powers had come into conflict over spheres of influence in China and over territories in Africa, and the Eastern Question, created by the decline of the Ottoman Empire, had produced several disturbing controversies. Particularly unsettling was the policy of Germany. It embarked late but aggressively on colonial expansion under Emperor William II, came into conflict with France over Morocco, and seemed to threaten Great Britain by its rapid naval expansion.\nThese issues, imperialist and nationalist, resulted in a hardening of alliance systems in the Triple Alliance and Triple Entente and in a general armaments race. Nonetheless, a false optimism regarding peace prevailed almost until the onset of the war, an optimism stimulated by the long period during which major wars had been avoided, by the close dynastic ties and cultural intercourse in Europe, and by the advance of industrialization and economic prosperity. Many Europeans counted on the deterrent of war's destructiveness to preserve the peace.\nWar's Outbreak \nThe Austrian annexation (1908) of Bosnia and Hercegovina created an international crisis, but war was avoided. The Balkan Wars (1912–13) remained localized but increased Austria's concern for its territorial integrity, while the solidification of the Triple Alliance made Germany more yielding to the demands of Austria, now its one close ally. The assassination (June 28, 1914) of Archduke Francis Ferdinand at Sarajevo set in motion the diplomatic maneuvers that ended in war.\nThe Austrian military party, headed by Count Berchtold, won over the government to a punitive policy toward Serbia. On July 23, Serbia was given a nearly unacceptable ultimatum. With Russian support assured by Sergei Sazonov, Serbia accepted some of the terms but hedged on others and rejected those infringing upon its sovereignty. Austria-Hungary, supported by Germany, rejected the British proposal of Sir Edward Grey (later Lord Grey of Fallodon) and declared war (July 28) on Serbia.\nRussian mobilization precipitated a German ultimatum (July 31) that, when unanswered, was followed by a German declaration of war on Russia (Aug. 1). Convinced that France was about to attack its western frontier, Germany declared war (Aug. 3) on France and sent troops against France through Belgium and Luxembourg. Germany had hoped for British neutrality, but German violation of Belgian neutrality gave the British government the pretext and popular support necessary fo