a) The writers of the United Nations Charter hoped to save future generations from the horror of war. They hoped to achieve basic human rights and they wanted to achieve this because they did not want another war like World War 2 where millions of deaths took place. They also did not want any country to torture the peoples of the world like the Nazis did when they set up concentration camps in World War 2. They wanted to achieve an organisation that helped the peoples of the world unlike the League of Nations. The League just sat back and let countries get away with anything. The United Nations wanted to be effective.b) Source D does not agree with the comments in sources B and C. Source B explains that the United Nations provides peace and its for the unity of peace-loving peoples against future aggressors. Whereas from source D we can see that the United Nations was like a sports club containing keen members. However, there is a problem. They are all playing different sports so they cannot work as a team. The idea is fine, the wiliness is fine but they are all playing different sports. Source C explains that the United Nations is the answer, which satisfies practically everybody and that they are going to undergo a meeting where Nations must debate their differences and look for a common ground. It then explains that they have finished their job and that it has an excellent chance to save the peace of the world if America and Russia can learn to live together and if Russia learns to keep her word. However, source D shows that the USA and Russia are playing different games. The Security Council also had a veto so any member of the agency would have the power to cancel a proposal. The idea of the veto was to create unanimous decisions. However, Russia used the veto many times and was crippling the organisation because it could not do the sufficient work.c) The reasons why source E and F give different interpretations of the reasons for the United Nations involvement in the Korean conflict are because source E was a quote from Truman, the American President in 1950 and therefore would defend the US and The United Nations for their actions. He says they were just defending South Korea from the attack from North Korea. The United Nations was just trying to stick to its aims. Whereas source F is wrote by a Russian historian in 1953 so he would be against the USA and it was apart of a propaganda scheme to show Russians that the USA controlled the military of the United Nations. However, these sources will have been written at this time because the cold war was taking place at this point and there was a major conflict between the USA and Russia. They hated each other. Also at this point Russia was temporarily out of the Security Council in protest over the United Nations refusal to recognise Mao’s China and therefore Russia was not able to use the veto system. Therefore the United Nations could act because of the absence of the Russian veto. It acted and sent a United Nations army to support South Korea.d) I consider the comments in source G to be very biased. It was wrote by a Russian historian and therefore it is biased and against the USA. However, I have recognised that the provenance of the source is not completely identified. We do not know weather the source was written in 1955 or the historian took it from 1955. Therefore I had to make the assumption that the source was wrote in 1955. However, source H was wrote by an American cartoonist in 1952 and therefore this source would be biased and against Russia. Source G clashes with source H. Source G says the USA would not let China into the organisation. Whilst source H implies that the USA would have allowed China to come in but it was Russia who trying to get China in but were going about it the totally wrong way. They are providing China a door but Stalin is trying a different way of getting China in. It was just Russia’s way of trying to effect the United Nations whilst at the same time China was getting hurt.This caused Russia to temporarily remove itself from the Security Council. However, this source could mean something else. My judgement of the source may be incorrect. However, Just because source G is biased it does not mean it is unreliable. In fact you could say that the source is very reliable. It is probably in one sense more reliable than sources H, J and I. It mentions things about how the Security Council was mainly made up of capitalist allies. It mentions how Russia used the veto system many times to block out a vote. It shows that the Security Council was dominated by the west. There is nothing to say that the source is unreliable as it mentions facts, facts concerning the work of the Security Council. Sources J and I are more objective views. They agree with G. However, I have recognised the provenance of the source is not completely identified. You do not know which nationality the historians were who wrote the sources. Therefore because we do not know which nationality the historians were we do not know if the sources were biased views or if the historian was correct and was not being biased but was just writing down the truth. I am just assuming that they are objective views.e) I think that there is enough reliable evidence in the sources to explain why the United Nations failed to live up to expectations of the people who wrote the charter. Some sources relate to the structure of the United Nations and how it was mainly controlled by capitalist-allied powers. Many sources explain about the veto system and how Russia used it often. Many sources also explain about some of the work of the United Nations for example the Korean War and what it did to help there. Also how Russia could not call a veto as it was out of the Security Council for that period of time due to the United Nations refusal to recognise Mao’s China.However, even though the sources provide quite a lot of information to find the answers many of the sources contradict each other. For example source G says the United Nations would not allow Mao’s China into the United Nations whilst source H implies that China and Russia were going about the wrong way of getting into the United Nations. This could mean that this might not be a valid reason for the failure of the organisation. This brings me onto the reliability of the sources. In some cases we cannot judge weather a source is reliable or not. Many sources are biased and against another country. This would mean that they might not be very reliable. This would mean that it might not be a valid reason for the failure of the organisation. Some sources are incomplete and do not provide enough information. In one sense there is not enough evidence from countries provided. Maybe more sources from a wider range of countries would help. The sources may have helped when they were written but the world has moved on. They do not help as much in present day because there is not enough evidence to support why the organisation failed to live up to its expectation.However, even though many of the sources provide reliable evidence to why the organisation failed the sources must help in a way but there is also no mention of other factors like the amount of members in the organisation, poverty, terrorism and religious divide. These were some of the direct reasons why the organisation failed to live up to its expectation. The sources would be more sufficient if there was more information on some of the causes of the failure of the organisation. This would mean more reliable, accurate sources telling us about why the organisation failed to live up to its expectation.