Question

Which statement explains why the American public reacted differently to the formation of the United Nations than it had to the formation of League of Nations?

Answer 1

The end of World War II did not result in the same isolationism in the United States that had resulted after World War I.

The United Nations was supported by all of the Allies, whereas the League of Nations had been opposed by most of the Allies.

The American public was more concerned about communism after World War II than it had been after World War I.

The United States was not expected to contribute as much money to the United Nations as it would have to the League of Nations.

Answer 2

if you can answer ANY of these that would be a great help .

Answer 3

We can step through your United Nations question above:

The League of Nations was actually supported by the Allies, but the American Senate disapproved of the Treaty of Versailles (a separate treaty was signed by the US), so the US didn't join the League. There was some concern over Communism by the public, but at the time, the Cold War didn't kick into high gear yet so the Soviets were still seen as allies. Monetary contributions was also not as much of an issue. The key problem with the US not joining the League was the fear of being entangled in another war as well as the perception that some of its power would be given up to the League's obligations. But that all changed after WW2.

So the answer I would likely go with is that the end of WW2 did not result in the same isolationism experienced after WW1. The global horrors of WW2, far worse than any in WW1, and the idea that participating in an international forum to try and keep another war like it from happening again was fresh in the minds of those who supported it in Congress. The public was ready for it and Congress was actively participating in understanding what it would be as well as assisting in drafting its charter, earning it even more support.