Was the League of Nations successful in preventing future wars?
341305
No.  It was set up with good intentions.  However the only people bound to its rules were its members. So if you didn't like it you could leave.  Like Japan did. \nAlso after pushing for its creation the US refused to join.  This meant that the emergent superpower was not part of the league.  The older powers such as the UK had been bankrupt by  the war and owed, mainly the US, a lot of money.  They were in no shape to get into a real showdown over the actions of other nations.\nThat's not to say the league had no successes, however they were overshadowed by its ultimate failure.
783381
I am assuming you mean the Treaty of Versailles that ended WW1.  In that case it was ineffective because:\n\n1)  the monetary punishment of Germany and the other belligerent powers bankrupted them.  When countries and peoples have nothing left to lose, they must cast their lot with strong governments that will care for them in crisis. The Fascist governments that arose in the 20's and 30's are a result of the hopelessness of the people and their willingness to believe in omnipotent governments.\n\n2)  one of the main causes of the war was the disintegrating power of empires.  The German, Austo-Hungarian, and Ottoman empires could no longer hold together their centrifugal territories and possessions.  The war and the ToV removed these powers, but did not replace them with anything.  Peoples who had never been free suddenly were faced with having to make democratic choices, which they were unable to do, and strong forces, not necessarily just or benevolent forces, swept in to unite these groups of people that were suddenly left "empire-less."\n\n3)  Although the ToV dictated disarmament of the hostile powers, there was no method of verification and no punishments dictated for failure to comply.  As a result, when Germany began to re-arm, no one knew what to do.\n\n4)  Although this was not specifically the fault of the ToV or the signatories, the Great Depression bankrupt the victorious powers.  They could not enforce the provisions of the treaty, even if they had wanted to.  As a result, because Great Britain, the US, and France were so poor, they could not have fielded armies to stop Germany in 1933.\n\n5)  The League of Nations provided a false sense of security for the allied powers.  The belief in "peace in our time" and "the war to end all wars" was so strong that as a people, we were unwilling to admit that there was still evil and belligerence in the world, especially in conquered Europe.  We "showed them the ignorance of their ways" and put a deliberative body in place to settle disagreements before the use of force was necessary, so that strict governmental oversight was not enforced.\n\n6)  The ToV ended the war too early.  Triple Entente forces never crossed onto German soil, so it was easy for follow on governments to claim the war was never really lost.  Without an occupation and rebuilding, many Germans did not believe the war actually to be lost.
1152286
We effectively did. The Russians stayed within the boundaries that were established at the end of World War II. We could have tried to push the Russians back into their own territory, but Harry Truman didn't want another 200,000 dead Americans.\n\nAnd containment largely worked for the 40 years that the Cold War raged... We won Berlin, drew to a tie in Korea and Cuba, and lost Vietnam (but the Russians didn't win).\nAnd the arms race effectively destroyed the Soviet economy; at a terrible cost to the US, but we won the Cold War.
1069600
The US HAD an isolationist policy before we were dragged into WWII. I don't think our isolation in the 1930's bought us much happiness or kept us out of what was going on in the world.\n\nSome would say our reluctance made our eventual enemies BOLDER and created a bigger mess to eventually clean up.\n\nI think we should directly deal with threats to our security. The UN can be utilized for "policing" the other troubled spots.
1008622
It set a mutual agreement preventing nuclear war
690302
This is always kind of a tricky question, because the implication is that the US did not do enough by trying to win the war as soon as possible. And remember, the final solution did not begin until 1943, so pre-war relaxation of immigration standards would not count. I don't accept that premise but try this out.\n\nThe American and British bomber air forces could have shifted their attacks from economic targets to the transportation network supplying the camps with victims. This might have slowed the number of murders, but would also have allowed the German military to defend Germany (and thus the camp network) better and longer ending with more American casualties and a considerably later end to the war with therefor very little difference in the total number of murders.\n\nThe United States could have made a point of broadcasting the unconfirmed reports of attrocities in German occupied Poland with a propaganda effort to strengthen recruiting of people in the occupied territories for underground resistance. The result would probably have been lukewarm at best. The only successful underground movements in occupied Europe were the Communists; this was not because they were more patriotic, but before the war they were already made criminals and were the only ones used to acting clandestinely. Besides, in 1943 at the Katyn Forest in eastern Poland, the Germans discovered a pit with the bodies of 10,000 Polish officers murdered by the Red Army when they occupied in 1939; because of this, when the Russians began liberating death camps in Byelorussia in 1944 no one believed the reports.\n\nThe USA could have exchanged German prisoners for concentration inmates. This might have had some limited success. Early in the war (about 1940-41) some labor camp prisoners were allowed to go to Switzerland in exchange for the repatriation from Uruguay of the crew of the pocket battleship Graff Spee. By late 1943, the Western allies had captured some U-boat crews and the Afrika Korps in Tunisia. The end result, because these were highly trained (U-boat) and highly motivated (Afrika Korps) soldiers, they could have been returned to very successful active duty instead of using younger and less trained replacements. If the West Wall had been manned with the Afrikan veterans instead of so many Ukrainian and Silesian slave soldiers, there could have been a great difference in the end of the war.\n\nAnyways, try those on for size.
390607
By today, it would be an idependent  federation of states, with a Prime Minister of each. The Head of State would be HM Queen Elizabeth II (who, is it must be noted, non executive)\n\nIt is possible that the Civil War might have been avoided, although slavery would have been abolished, probably gradually in the mid 19th Century.\n\nThe British would have taken America into the First World War in 1914, and I doubt that the people of America would have allowed London to retain such power over foreign policy afterwards, although perhaps they would have been influenced enough by London to join World War 2 in 1939.
1087139
C.  League of Nations\n\nSee http://worldatwar.net/timeline/other/league18-46.html : 1946,April 18 - The League transfers all its assets to the United Nations. Contract signed by W. Moderow, representative of the League, and Sean Lester, the last Secretary-General of the League of Nations.
788604
It has everything to do with the Treaty of Versailles. As it's name points out, this is a treaty signed in the Hall of Mirrors in the French city of Versailles. It was the peace treaty that officially ended World War I and unofficially started World War II.\n\nOne of the terms of this treaty was the creation of the League of Nations, whose goal would be to prevent another world war. Other parts of the treaty stated that Germany was to be fully blamed for World War I and because of this, Germany was demanded to pay up all damages calculated of WWI. Also, Germany was denied having an airforce, a navy and was only allowed to have a limited land army. It's colonies were taken away and other damages were also imposed. In a nutshell, Germany was brought to it's knees and into a depression.\n\nThis helped bring about the rise of Hitler who promised to tear up the hated treaty. Of course, Germans supported him and once he arranged for virtually limitless power, it was too late. Nations part of the League of Nations were also fooled by Hitler. They allowed Hitler to take over Austria-Hungary, which belong to Germany prior to WWI. The League of Nations did not disagree much with Hitler's request to undo the Treaty of Versailles. They agreed with him that the terms were much too harsh.\n\nIt was only until Hitler marched into Poland that everyone realized what was happening. But of course, that set foot into a much bloodier World War.\n\nReally, the League of Nations failed to prevent WWII by allowing a genius psychopath to manipulate them. (This is my opinion.)\n\nHope this novel of mine answers your question.
526144
While this holds true if you preface your search of history by saying, "How many wars have there been," it unfortunately is a slanted argument that purposely ignores peace-time.  See, if you look at every recorded year that contained war, you'll otherwise have to note that during that year, not EVERY nation or EVERY group of people on Earth was at war.  While the war you would be pointing out was going on, several other locations were enjoying long, sustained, peace.  This equally holds true up until about the last two centuries when world wars and vast alliances add complexity to the comparison.\n\nSo, actually, there has been more peace than there has been war, if measured in quantitive amounts, even though war has almost constantly been taking place since the beginning of written history and most likely before hand.\n\nWith that much peace to draw from, how come we still do not have a working template for it?  Well, peace involves compromise.  As nice as compromise sounds when solving problems, there is an old adage that remarks, "You know it's a good compromise when both sides are unhappy."  Laughable though it may be, to whatever degree it holds true or to what ever degree peoples perceive it to be true, it is sometimes in a group's best interests to avoid compromise, thinking they are steering their own destinies.  There are many ways to avoid compromise.  War is one of them.\n\nHence, there are ways for peace to happen.  It is simply far more difficult make it happen.  Most peace happens on its own.  The way to MAKE peace, then, is to figure out ways to avoid going to war.
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.
131405
Well, let's say country a and country b decide to go to war with each other. Let's also pretend that coutry a has an alliance with coutries c, d, and e and that country b has an alliance with coutries f, g, and h. Since countries a and b are at war, coutries c-h have to help their respective allies to keep the alliance intact. (This is actually how WWI got started.) Does that make sense?
111209
The United Nations was the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson. The initial attempt to form a world body came with the League of Nations at the end of World War I. However, the US Senate did not ratify the League of Nations Treaty and never became a member.\n\nFDR revived the idea for a world community at the Tehran Conference in while meeting with Churchill and Stalin to discuss strategy against Germany. Roosevelt is, indeed, responsbile for naming the United Nations. Sadly, he did before he could see it come to fruition.
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!
642100
The League of Nations, was the dream of President Wilson, following up on the idea of a forum of nations to provide international security and a means of resolving conflicts peacefully.  This concept had developed from the ideas of such scholars as Grotius (one of the originators of the idea of "international law,") and the International Disarmament Movement and the International Court ( http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h989.html ) As part of his Fourteen Point Peace plan to end WWI Wilson had a League of Nations.  It was adopted by the Versailles Peace conference and headquartered in Geneva. It failed for two basic reasons:\n1) The U.S. Senate refused to ratify the treaty because of the League.  The Republican Party made anti-internationalism a major plank in the 1920 election.  Part of this was due to Wilson, and his refusal to compromise with the Senate leadership.  In any case the U.S. refused to join leaving the League weakened at birth.\n2) The league had no Security Council system.  This now seems a weakness in the U.N., but for the league it was fatal, there was no body empowered to raise an international force to act on any League resolution (for example, the League condemned Italy's invasion of Ethiopia in 1935, but there was no League "peace keeping" force to try to stop the conflict.)\nFinally with the growth of totalitarian aggression in the 1930s the League fell apart - Japan left in 1932, followed by Italy and Germany. By the time WWII broke out the League had no influence. \n(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations)\nThe U.N. was the successor organization, envisioned by Roosevelt (a strong supporter of the league.) The term United Nations comes from the Atlantic Charter, an early (1941) meeting between Roosevelt and Churchill calling for a free world after the war.  In 1945 an international conference in San Francisco worked out the basis for the U.N. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations)  It is headquartered in New York, and has a different structure from the League of Nations, which has allowed it to undertake peace-keeping duties and last (so far) for 61 years.
703108
Perhaps you're thinking of the Monroe Doctrine, issued by Monroe in 1823. The Doctrine claimed the Western Hemisphere pretty much under the control of the U.S., and that we would defend other countries in it against intrustion by European powers. \n\nThere's also the "Good Neighbor" policy under FDR, which is similar.
933075
no way it would hav happend early,becoz had good army.today also only non violence works.is there any movement in th world now which has succeeded by violence.\nit is always non violence which has worked e.g in india,america,south africa.