Worth 98 points will give brainliest
c02 the league in the 1920s discussion
was the league of nations a failure or success in terms of solving foreign issues and problems in the 1920s? include three pieces of evidence to support your argument.
follow these guidelines for your discussion posts:
-at least 150-300 words in length.
-grammatically and mechanically correct. (copy and paste your response to a site like grammarly. com for immediate feedback. take the time to edit and revise.)
-address all parts of the prompt.
-provide at least one example to support your response. (example choices include an anecdote, statistic, and/or textual evidence)

the league of nations aimed to stop wars, improve people's lives and jobs, encourage disarmament and enforce the treaty of versailles. judged against these aims, the league was quite successful in the 1920s. it stopped border disputes turning into wars. it took 400,000 prisoners of war home.

explanation:

in my opinion, criticism of what the league has done is necessary and useful; but to be as useful as possible the criticism must be discriminating. we must recognize frankly and fairly what the league has accomplished and what are its assets; we must make just as frank an appraisal of the respects in which it has not fulfilled its mission so as to decide fairly what constitute its liabilities.

the league of nations had too little power on the world stage to be successful. too many nations were not part, and too many didn't participate fully. as mentioned above, the league was created to prevent another world war, which it obviously did not. the league of nations was a failure, but it was not a total loss

answer; i believe the best answer is (straight ticket); good luck

1 > george s. boutwell

2 > general ulysses s. grant

3 > james a. garfeild

4 > adolph e. borie