Answer:
Communism opposes everything in America
Explanation:
This may be a huge explanation I'm about to write due to how objective I have to be to answer this question. Communism is both a economic and social idea in which Marxism and Authoritarianism are combined. A lot of Americans were taught to hate communism because America is a capitalist world and is he leading business tycoon in the world, which means that even before any communist nations even existed, America still hated communism. Communism is an ideology that is always considered to be labour comprehensive and proceeds in the direction of labour rights, while America has no concern for labour interests. There are going to be nations I'm going to use in this example, The USSR and China (not Taiwan). These two Nations use Communism in a sort of autocratic way. Let's start off with China; China uses communism in an autocratic way that prevents you from being able to protest, and if they wanted to do some project or something they wouldn't give the slightest care if thousands of buildings and edifices were to be destroyed. Now we have the USSR; the USSR was under many autocratic regimes and one we could all agree on is Stalin's regime. Stalin in some sense wasn't really a communist, but just a straight up dictator that killed 10s of millions. There was the Ukrainian potato famine which was supposed to prove that collectivization worked, but instead it killed an estimate 20 million, we then have the great purge which killed 1.2 million, and then we have world war 2 which killed 27 million. This proved America that communism is hell and should never be trusted in America. What I'm trying to say here is that Communism takes away a lot of people's rights and killed millions in the past, and America wants to have these rights to give opportunity and freedom to everyone. I know the industrial revolution also killed millions too because of the upper class exploiting the workers, but that is a discussion for later.
The answer is B, good luck my dude
The answer is A)<span>Providing a navy and military support</span>
Answer:
Irrespective of its genuine strategic objectives or its complex historical consequences, the campaign in Palestine during the first world war was seen by the British government as an invaluable exercise in propaganda. Keen to capitalize on the romantic appeal of victory in the Holy Land, British propagandists repeatedly alluded to Richard Coeur de Lion's failure to win Jerusalem, thus generating the widely disseminated image of the 1917-18 Palestine campaign as the 'Last' or the 'New' Crusade. This representation, in turn, with its anti-Moslem overtones, introduced complicated problems for the British propaganda apparatus, to the point (demonstrated here through an array of official documentation, press accounts and popular works) of becoming enmeshed in a hopeless web of contradictory directives. This article argues that the ambiguity underlying the representation of the Palestine campaign in British wartime propaganda was not a coincidence, but rather an inevitable result of the complex, often incompatible, historical and religious images associated with this particular front. By exploring the cultural currency of the Crusading motif and its multiple significations, the article suggests that the almost instinctive evocation of the Crusade in this context exposed inherent faultlines and tensions which normally remained obscured within the self-assured ethos of imperial order. This applied not only to the relationship between Britain and its Moslem subjects abroad, but also to rifts within metropolitan British society, where the resonance of the Crusading theme depended on class position, thus vitiating its projected propagandistic effects even among the British soldiers themselves.
Explanation:
Answer:
di po nmn yan history ehh ayusinnn mo
