What was one problem that undermined the league of nations' effectiveness? a. it had no permanent army. b. it had very limited funds. c. it had few clear goals. d. it had no powerful leader. (only answer if you know)

 D. It had no powerful leader.

Explanation:

The United States never joined the League of Nations, in spite of the fact that an organization such as the League of Nations was the signature idea of US President Woodrow Wilson.  He had laid out 14 Points for establishing and maintaining world peace following the Great War (World War I).  Point #14 was the establishment of an international peacekeeping association. The Treaty of Versailles adopted that idea, but back home in the United States, there was not support for involving America in any association that could diminish US sovereignty over its own affairs or involve the US again in wars beyond those pertinent to the United States' own national security.   The lack of involvement by the world's fastest-growing superpower, the United States, hampered the League of Nation's effectiveness.

As to the other options:

There was never an intention to give the League of Nations its own permanent military.  Member nations would provide troops when needed to intervene in an international conflict situation.  This same pattern holds true today with the United Nations.The League of Nations was limited in its funds, but I'd choose the lack of powerful leadership as the bigger factor hurting its effectiveness.  The average annual budget for the League of Nations (along with associated organizations) was around $5 million.  So that's not a huge budget, but in the 1920s that wasn't chump change either.The League had set out clear goals for what it intended to do.  The main aims of the League were disarmament across nations, preventing war through collective security of the international community, settling disputes between countries through negotiation, and improving welfare of people around the globe.  (The UN today has similar goals.)