0
NATO, SEATO, nor the UN were utilized in the Vietnam War. The war's controversy had affected the members. However, ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, United States), even though there were some disagreements there to, did take effect. ANZUS, created in '51, called for defense to protect nations in the immediate Pacific area, thus ANZUS responded.
SEATO would've done the same thing, however the SEATO members of Britain, France, and Pakistan refused to deploy troops to Vietnam; thus, again, ANZUS had to hold the line.
What else can I help you with?
Did congress borrow from social security during World War 2?
NO
After world war ii many countries believed in the principle of collective security which means that?
nations should act together to promote peace
After World War 2 many countries believed in the principle of collective security which means what?
After World War II, the principle of collective security emerged as a belief that nations should work together to prevent aggression and maintain peace. This concept asserts that an attack against one member of a collective security arrangement is considered an attack against all, prompting a united response. It underpinned the formation of organizations like the United Nations, aimed at promoting cooperation and deterring conflict through diplomatic means and, if necessary, collective military action.
Did you need a social security number to join the military during World War 2?
no you dont.
What is the most effective response to aggression-appeasement or collective security?
In the context of World War II, including the years just prior to its outbreak in 1939, the historical record is generally quite clear: the most effective response to the aggression of nations such as Germany and Italy during the 1930s would have been collective security -- galvanized by the will to take military action when necessary. While appeasement proved effective in buying time for Allied preparations for war, it did so at the cost of territorial losses, betrayal of national sovereignty (in the case of Czechoslovakia), and a strengthening of the aggressor-nations.
How did a failure of collective security contribute to World War 2?
== ==
Following World War 1 the US foreign policy favored?
i dont know maybe collective security in my opinion.
Does the Cold War represent a struggle over the issues of collective security?
Collective security is Group security; the priority of society over the individual. Communism over free society.
Did congress borrow from social security during World War 2?
NO
After world war ii many countries believed in the principle of collective security which means that?
nations should act together to promote peace
After World War 2 many countries believed in the principle of collective security which means what?
After World War II, the principle of collective security emerged as a belief that nations should work together to prevent aggression and maintain peace. This concept asserts that an attack against one member of a collective security arrangement is considered an attack against all, prompting a united response. It underpinned the formation of organizations like the United Nations, aimed at promoting cooperation and deterring conflict through diplomatic means and, if necessary, collective military action.
Who met the evacuees during world war 2?
Customs and security officials
What was the Power center of united nations during World War 2?
Security Council
What was the Espionage and Sedition Acts of World War 1?
National security during wartime.
What impact did World War 1 have on the US' social security?
None... Social Security (the government program) did not exist during WW1.
Did you need a social security number to join the military during World War 2?
no you dont.
Was appeasement or collective security the most effective response to aggression before World War 2?
Collective security was ultimately the more effective response to aggression before World War II, as it aimed to unite nations against acts of aggression through mutual defense agreements. However, the failure of the League of Nations and the lack of commitment from major powers weakened this approach. In contrast, appeasement, particularly by Britain and France towards Nazi Germany, emboldened aggressive states and allowed them to expand unchecked, leading to the war. Thus, while both strategies were employed, collective security had the potential for effectiveness that was undermined by the failures of appeasement.
