1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
ohaa [14]
2 years ago
10

How would the result of World War II have been different if the South would have won the Civil War, dividing America into two di

fferent countries?
History
1 answer:
Snowcat [4.5K]2 years ago
3 0

Answer:

The Nazis win and a weak Nazi regime would be established.

Explanation:

The Southern Embargo on cotton led Britain and France to become less reliant on American cotton. Colonies like India and Egypt decreased Britain and France's reliance on American cotton, which was a staple of the Southern economy. The South emerged economically devastated, and had a long recovery. But if they did not return to the Union, and they could not rely on Northern industry, this recovery would be even slower. And with the division, both parts of the union would be significantly weaker. For this reason, America would have played a less significant role in WWII. The result is speculative of course, but it's possible that if America decided not to enter, or could not produce a strong army, then the Nazis would have had a much easier time with their goal. I think that the only scenario where the Nazis would have won is an instance where they developed nuclear bombs first--and used a scorched Earth strategy to eliminate the Russian threat. This would be my speculation, but past victory, it's hard to say what would have happened. The Roman Government lasted for thousands of years, and perhaps the Nazi regime could last for a while before becoming de-stabilized, but I don't think it would have been a strong centralized regime. The reason I say this is because not even Caesar or Napoleon (brilliant diplomats and military strategists) could not achieve this. But this (of course) is speculative.

(Fun question, never done "hypothetical history")

You might be interested in
Hamilton argued, “A new government, constructed on free principles, is always weak, and must stand in need of the props of a fir
Verdich [7]
I feel that Hamilton's statements has some threshold, in reflection, to today's modern society. I believe that with the many diverse opinions, it seems as if it has weakened us a little more. Lets take for example, the TPP agreement, this stirred many controversy between the rich and the middle classed folks. It was like clashing between Left and Right wing...But that depends on your stance. Another example would be Trump's idea of building a wall. That idea may still be a thought, but the idea of actually building a wall to divide America and Mexico, stirred a lot of hate, and yet a lot of support from the general public. And there were even some who were in between. But regardless, the statement really depends on how clean (or non-biased) your eye lenses are.
I hope you understood that. Have any doubts, please say so. Chur! :)<span />
4 0
3 years ago
How does the judicial branch relate to foreign policy?
DiKsa [7]
In one short, succinct statement Justice George Sutherland altered the relationship between Congress and the executive branch. “The President [operates] as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations,” he wrote in the United States Supreme Court’s decision of U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation<span>. Whereas the Constitution lays out distinct, delegated powers to Congress, such as the power to declare war and the power to ratify treaties, and to the executive, primarily the role of the president as Commander-in-Chief, Justice Sutherland’s statement altered the relationship between the two aforementioned branches. Suddenly, the executive branch had a legal precedent with which to become the leading force in foreign policy and upon which it could fall back on if actions are legally challenged.</span>
8 0
3 years ago
Changes in immigration law have contributed to the recent increase of newcomers from Africa.
dsp73
The right answer for the question that is being asked and shown above is that: "TRUE." Changes in immigration law have contributed to the recent increase of newcomers from Africa. This statement is true as far as the changes in the immigration is concerned.
8 0
3 years ago
Did Truman and Churchill intentionally deceive Stalin?
luda_lava [24]

Yes

Truman told Stalin that his diplomatic style was frank and to the point, an admission that Truman realized had visibly pleased Stalin. The US president said he hoped the Soviet Union would join the US in the war against Japan. For his part, Stalin wants to impose Soviet control over certain territories annexed by Germany and Japan at the beginning of the war.

Truman hinted that although Stalin's agenda was "dynamite" or aggressive, the US had ammunition to counteract the Soviet leader. Truman did not inform the Soviet Union head of state about the Manhattan Project that had just successfully tested the first atomic bomb, but he knew that the new weapon strengthened its deterrent power. Truman referred to this secret in his diary as "an unexploded dynamite."

3 0
3 years ago
At the nationally televised Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954, it was revealed that Group of answer choices McCarthy gloated that h
julsineya [31]

Answer:

Option: McCarthy was a bully who browbeat witnesses and made sweeping accusations with no basis in fact.

Explanation:

Senator Joseph McCarthy began the period of McCarthyism in America during the 1940s and 1950s. During this period, many Americans arrested as Communist agents without precise evidence. During the McCarthy period, hundreds of Americans accused of being communists and questioning before the government.  The fear of the Soviet Union led hundreds of Americans sent into prisons while thousands lost their positions in office. The prime targets of doubts were government employees. His hunt ended when he attacked several U.S. Army officers for having communist sentiments. Many accused him of being a tyrant who used power in a wicked way and never produced a proper document.

7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Why did tarbell hold a grudge against the standard oil company
    7·1 answer
  • What are the defining features of muslim art
    14·1 answer
  • Lincoln observed in 1864 that "we all declare for liberty but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing ." he con
    14·1 answer
  • Which of the following choices was not part of the Japanese feudal system?
    13·1 answer
  • PLEASE HELP<br> Describe two examples of how the Incans were excellent builders?
    8·1 answer
  • What is the largest natural gas producing region in Oklahoma?
    14·2 answers
  • Help
    5·1 answer
  • What 2 countries sit directly across the Iron Curtain from each other?
    10·1 answer
  • write an informative essay on a Greek mythical character. Your essay will use research to summarize the plot of the myth and exp
    13·1 answer
  • Pls help this is hardddddddd thx if u do
    7·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!