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
Nonamiya [84]
1 year ago
6

Great Britain and France avoided a take over by fascist by

History
1 answer:
maks197457 [2]1 year ago
5 0

Answer:

Great Britain and France avoid a take over by fascists' by restricting freedom of speech.

Explanation:

Fascism is a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. , and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.  

How Britain and France avoided fascist revolution inside their own country during rise of fascism in Italy and Germany?

What made Mussolini’s Fascism, and Lenin’s Communism too, was a specific and unique situation, never to be repeated in later history: namely, the presence of enormous masses of disaffected veterans, with recent experience of war at a very high technical level of skill, and angry about the condition of their country. (And of enormous amounts of weapons.) Fascism was not made by speeches or by money, but by tens of thousands of men gathering in armed bands to beat up enemies. And that being the case, what happened to the similar masses of veterans who came home to France, Britain, and America too, after 1918?

Well, France was exhausted. She had fought with her full strength from day one, whereas Britain had taken time to deploy its whole strength, and America and Italy had only entered the war much later. For five years, every man who could be spared had been at the Front. Her losses were larger in proportion than those of any other great power. And on the positive side, France, like Britain and America, was prosperous. The veterans went home to a country that was comparatively able to receive them, give them a place to be, and not foster any dangerous mass disaffection. This is of course relatively speaking. There will have been anger enough, irritation enough, even some disaffection. But the only real case of violence from below due to disaffection was the riot in Paris that followed the Stavisky affair in early 1934, and that, compared to what took place daily in other countries, was a very bad play of a riot.

ON the other hand, both America and Britain experienced situations that had more than a taste of Fascism, but that failed to develop into freedom-destroying movements. In America, Fascism could have come from above. The last few years of the Wilson administration were horrendous: the Red Scare fanaticized large strata of the population, and the hatred came from the top, from Wilson and his terrible AG Palmer. (Palmer was a Quaker. So was Richard Nixon. Is there a reason why Quakers in politics should prove particularly dangerous?) Hate and fear of “reds” was also the driving force of Italian Fascism; and Wilson and Palmer mobilized it in ways and with goals that Mussolini would have understood. Had Wilson not suffered his famous collapse, he might have been a real danger: he intended to run for a third term in office. And the nationwide spread of the new KKK, well beyond the bounds of the old South, shows that he might have found a pool of willing stormtroopers. Altogether, I think America dodged a bullet the size of a Gatling shot when Wilson collapsed in office.

Britain’s own Blackshirt moment took place in Ireland. Sociologically, culturally, psychologically, the Blacks and Tans were the Blackshirts of Britain - masses of disaffected veterans sent into the streets to harass and terrify political enemies, bullies in non-standard uniforms with a loose relationship with the authorities. Only, their relationship with public opinion developed in an exactly opposite direction. Whereas Italy’s majority, horrified by Socialist violence at home and by Communist brutality abroad, tended increasingly to excuse the Blackshirts and wink at their violence, in Britain - possibly because of the influence of the American media, which were largely against British rule in Ireland - the paramilitary force found itself increasingly isolated from the country’s mainstream, and eventually their evil reputation became an asset to their own enemies and contributed to British acceptance of Irish independence.

Thanks,
Eddie

You might be interested in
The French and Indian War was __________________.
Tasya [4]
C. All of the above :)
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Who was the field marshal of russia during the napoleonic wars?
mafiozo [28]
Mikhail Kutuzov was the field marshal of russia
8 0
3 years ago
In 1852 a famous Argentine philosopher named Juan Bautista Alberdi said, "To govern is to populate." What do you think he meant
inysia [295]

The quote to govern is to populate means that in order to have an effective government, you need to have the right persons with you.

This quote tells the reader how Mexico wanted to populate the area but in order to do so they needed the right people.

The right people here would mean the people that are Anglos and Catholic. To them these were the right people that would make them not to repeat the mistakes of the Spanish.

Although you didn't include the picture, one of the reasons why Spanish Texas almost failed was because of hostile native Americans that lived there. These would be the wrong people that Alberdi was trying to make reference to.

Read more on brainly.com/question/18293445?referrer=searchResults

4 0
1 year ago
What were the 2 problems with indentured servants?
spin [16.1K]

Answer:

Explanation:

Indentured Servants In The U.S.

Indentured servants first arrived in America in the decade following the settlement of Jamestown by the Virginia Company in 1607.

The idea of indentured servitude was born of a need for cheap labor. The earliest settlers soon realized that they had lots of land to care for, but no one to care for it. With passage to the Colonies expensive for all but the wealthy, the Virginia Company developed the system of indentured servitude to attract workers. Indentured servants became vital to the colonial economy.

The timing of the Virginia colony was ideal. The Thirty Year's War had left Europe's economy depressed, and many skilled and unskilled laborers were without work. A new life in the New World offered a glimmer of hope; this explains how one-half to two-thirds of the immigrants who came to the American colonies arrived as indentured servants.

Servants typically worked four to seven years in exchange for passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. While the life of an indentured servant was harsh and restrictive, it wasn't slavery. There were laws that protected some of their rights. But their life was not an easy one, and the punishments meted out to people who wronged were harsher than those for non-servants. An indentured servant's contract could be extended as punishment for breaking a law, such as running away, or in the case of female servants, becoming pregnant.

For those that survived the work and received their freedom package, many historians argue that they were better off than those new immigrants who came freely to the country. Their contract may have included at least 25 acres of land, a year's worth of corn, arms, a cow and new clothes. Some servants did rise to become part of the colonial elite, but for the majority of indentured servants that survived the treacherous journey by sea and the harsh conditions of life in the New World, satisfaction was a modest life as a freeman in a burgeoning colonial economy.

In 1619 the first black Africans came to Virginia. With no slave laws in place, they were initially treated as indentured servants, and given the same opportunities for freedom dues as whites. However, slave laws were soon passed – in Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia in 1661 –and any small freedoms that might have existed for blacks were taken away.

As demands for labor grew, so did the cost of indentured servants. Many landowners also felt threatened by newly freed servants demand for land. The colonial elite realized the problems of indentured servitude. Landowners turned to African slaves as a more profitable and ever-renewable source of labor and the shift from indentured servants to racial slavery had begun.

6 0
3 years ago
Help me...<br><br>solve.<br>5×4^(x+1)-6^x=64​
zhenek [66]

Answer:

<h2>5×4^(x+1)-6^x=64</h2>

Graph each side of the equation. The solution is the x-value of the point of intersection.

x≈0.8927896,7.38810359

image of graph

Explanation:

Hope it is helpful....

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What is the three best known Greek dramatists
    8·1 answer
  • Use geographic terms and tools to explain why ancient civilizations developed networks of highways, waterways, and other transpo
    11·2 answers
  • Which of the following statements is supported by the line graph above?
    10·2 answers
  • Which aspects of the Constitution were created to preclude the emergence of political parties or factions?
    10·1 answer
  • What follows Jedediah Smith’s pathways today?
    9·2 answers
  • Why did the Puritans believe in the importance of educating everyone?
    15·2 answers
  • when did earth form a. during the precambrian supereon B. during the proterozoic eon C. during the jurassic period D. during the
    9·1 answer
  • What new social class emerged as a result of the crusades? (Multiple choice)
    5·2 answers
  • In what ways did the treaty of tordesillas support spain’s mercantilist economy
    11·2 answers
  • Answer the following questions briefly: 1. What is patriotism? 2. Why is Nepal called a natural museum? 3. What is Nepal known f
    5·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!