The correct answer to this open question is the following.
The United States' role in the international collection of reparations after World War I was the following.
As a consequence of the destruction caused during World War 1, Germany had to pay reparations to other countries affected. Germany was forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles in Paris, France, and an international commission for reparations was created. According to the Commission, Germany had to pay 33 billion in reparations. In September 1921, Germany paid $251 million but an economic crisis impeded it to continue with the payments. Then, the United States intervened with a solution: the Dawes Plan. It was proposed by American banker and diplomat Charles Dawes to end with the Allied occupation of Germany. Dawes shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1925.
C. the World Court ordered the United States to pay reparations ... The President's role in shaping United States foreign policy was strengthened. C. The President's war powers as Commander in Chief were sharply reduced. ... After World War II, the United States was better able than its allies to adjust its economy from wartime to peacetime ...A renegotiation of treaties in 1929 after the six-year chaos following the Ruhr Crisis. Unlike the Treaty of Versailles, the United States and Great Britain purposefully stopped France from enacting vengeful reparations against Germany. Thus, Germany's debt was lowered considerably. Unfortunately, this began to fray US, England, and French relations.
<span>Assuming that this is referring to the same list of options that was posted before with this question, the best bet would be "state-imposed intimidation" since the state almost always has to enforce order through fear. </span>
They have many right. They can start war, conclude peace, make alliances, and and establish commerce meaning something like a marketplace; essentially an economy. <span />
Occasionally, a government sees itself as being justified in limiting what people say in times of emergency, since they think that free speech during such times can harm the country.
