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
Ivenika [448]
2 years ago
10

Given what you know about the aftermath of World War , why do you think totalitarian governments were on the rise?

History
1 answer:
pochemuha2 years ago
7 0
Totalitarian governments typically promised more industrialization and better living environments for the people. The leaders of these totalitarian regimes, like Mussolini and Hitler were also pretty good public speakers, and helped motivate and inspire the general population.
You might be interested in
About how many times larger was the Union army than the Confederate army
Llana [10]
The Union army was about twice the size of the Confederate army. According to the National Park Service records, there were roughly 2.6 million members enlisted in the Union Army. On the other hand, there were only about 750,000-1.2 million people enlisted in the Confederate army. This shows how the Union had a significant advantage throughout the Civil War.
4 0
3 years ago
Which statement about the relationship between East, West, and South Africa with Europe is correct?
olga nikolaevna [1]

The correct answer is Some areas initially benefitted from trade with the Europeans, but eventually the contact resulted in the division of Africa into separate colonies.

The European powers, to guarantee raw material, occupied the territories contained in the African continent. Soon after, they promoted the sharing of the continent among the main European countries of the time, giving them the right to explore the share that fell to each nation.

The division of the African continent was consolidated through an agreement made in 1885. This event was attended by England, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain. This agreement was implemented at the Berlin Conference.

However, the process of exploring Africa took place even before the territory was shared, because several countries sent delegations of scientists to the continent. According to them, scientists had the purpose of carrying out scientific research, but in fact they collected data about the mineral potential, that is, the riches of the subsoil.

Years later, much of the African territory was colonized. Europeans introduced cultures that were not part of the diet of the native people. The colonizers quickly promoted the plantations, with emphasis on the production of coffee, tea, sugar cane and cocoa.

3 0
3 years ago
Was the united state correct 1945 when it became the first nation to use atomic weapons against japan to end world war 2 or was
Dominik [7]

Answer:

It was a morally wrong decision to drop the atomic bombs.

Explanation:

This is a heavily debated opinion-based question where you can go both ways. In my personal opinion, I personally argue that it was morally wrong for the US to use atomic weapons on Japan. Below is my reasoning.

1. Japan had already expressed the desire to surrender previous to the dropping of the atomic bombs, meaning that they were not a military necessity.

Prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs, Japan had already expressed the desire to surrender under the single condition that their emperor would not be harmed. (This was mainly due to cultural reasons that made the emperor a particularly important figure) Instead of accepting, the United States instead decided to fight for unconditional surrender. While they did achieve that in the end, they ended up not harming the emperor anyway, meaning that they could have just accepted Japan's surrender in my personal opinion. Moreover, this desire disproves the argument that the decision to drop the bomb was a military necessity and many contribute Japan's surrender more so to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria which meant Japan now had to fight a two-front war.

2. Atomic weapons are a form of indiscriminite killing.

Atomic weapons don't have eyes. They can't tell the difference between the military and civilians. Thousands of women and children were killed that had no involvement in the war. It is a war crime to intentionally target civilians, so why would atomic weapons be ethically acceptable? While the US did drop leaflets to warn civilians prior to the attacks, this act is not enough, and it cannot be expected for millions to flee thier homes.

3. The government may have been considering diplomatic reasons rather than solely ending the war.

If the US was really after a speedy end to the end of the war, there could have been many other ways to go about it. They could have continued to firebomb cities or accept conditional surrender. Some have argued that the diplomatic effects that came with it such as scaring the Soviets and proving US dominance were also in policymakers' minds. If the US had not been victorious in World War II, several important members of the government would have likely been tried as war criminals.

The Counter Argument:

Of course, there is also a qualified opposing view when it comes to this. It is perfectly valid to argue that the bomb was necessary for ending the war: as it is impossible to know the "what ifs" had history not happened the way it did. It is undeniable that the atomic bomb likely saved thousands of American lives if the war would have continued, and the war did ultimately come to an end a couple of days after the atomic bombs. There also is not enough evidence as to what exactly was the reason the Japanese unconditionally surrendered: it could have been Manchuria or the atomic bomb, both, or even other reasons entirely. Lastly, the general public did approve of the bombings at the time.

In recent years, the public have slowly become more critical of the bombings, although it remains a weighted moral debate.

Note: These are my personal views and this does explicitly represent the views of anyone else. Please let me know if you have any questions :)

8 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which was an effect of Nat Turner's rebellion?
erica [24]

Answer:

The long-term effect of Nat Turner's rebellion was that it set the stage for Civil War in the United States by solidifying the positions of abolitionists and slaveholders in the North and South, respectively.

Explanation:

3 0
3 years ago
What were the reasons for american expansionism at the turn of the twentieth century? what justifications did americans offer fo
polet [3.4K]
Manifest destiny
America expansion in territories in Latin America was guided by the manifest destiny. The Americans believed that they had a divine duty to civilize and bring democracy as well as spread capitalism to the Latin world.

<span />
6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which foreign country touches both montana and idaho?
    11·1 answer
  • Which statement about Native Americans in the 1960s and '70s is true? A. Native American leaders followed Gandhi's model of nonv
    10·2 answers
  • The first continental congress did not pass what resolution?
    10·2 answers
  • What does solar calendar mean
    15·2 answers
  • English military experts created the colony of _____ as a military "buffer zone" between Florida and South Carolina
    9·1 answer
  • Why did France and Britain declare<br> war on Germany?
    14·2 answers
  • Why Andalusi society so diverse?
    15·1 answer
  • What is one of the major beliefs of Confucianism?
    7·1 answer
  • Please help!!! Why did settlers begin using the trail identified in this map?
    6·2 answers
  • What is one thing that must be done after a Bill is introduced in either house?
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!