I interestedinhistory Guest Mar 7, 2008 #1 The UN replaced the ineffective League of Nations. Why were they successful when the League wasnt?
X X M Guest Mar 7, 2008 #2 My guess would be that every nation now (and not then) has a pseudo public/private national bank whose owners are really calling the shots. The cursed Federal Reserve System that we have. These guys can make everybody cooperate for their benefit.
My guess would be that every nation now (and not then) has a pseudo public/private national bank whose owners are really calling the shots. The cursed Federal Reserve System that we have. These guys can make everybody cooperate for their benefit.
E Emmy Guest Mar 7, 2008 #3 American membership-- despite the League being Wilson's brainchild, American senators were too isolationist to go along with it. WWII America learned its lesson.
American membership-- despite the League being Wilson's brainchild, American senators were too isolationist to go along with it. WWII America learned its lesson.
D dnldslk Guest Mar 7, 2008 #5 Oh? ?A success? News to me. Rowanda, I guess, doesn't exist. Nor Zimbabwe. Nor Darfur. Ah yes, that successful UN!
Oh? ?A success? News to me. Rowanda, I guess, doesn't exist. Nor Zimbabwe. Nor Darfur. Ah yes, that successful UN!
