Napoleon Bonaparte had a contradictory character. He had an unusual personality. The writer Germaine de Staël described him as being ‘neither good nor violent, neither gentle nor cruel’, which denotes that he was <em>neutral</em>, a<em> calm </em>and <em>calculated/prudent </em>person. he was considered<em> unique </em>and <em>very special </em>for the actions he took and the thinking he put into taking decisions. By the French writer Stendhal, he was seen as <em>very </em><span><em>ambitious</em> (''endowed with amazing abilities and a dangerous ambition’'). He was very <em>firm</em> when it was about facing his <span>opponents. Even more, he could get even mad when his passions had to face disputes. He was a very difficult person, but that made him more <em>powerful </em>than the others. Also, it is said that ''his diversity (<em>diverse</em>) made him <em>fascinating''</em>. He was hostile to his older brother. He had a military, legislative and <span>diplomatic talent. |He was<em> popular</em>, but his more of defects were: picky (<span>squeamish), selfish, egocentric.</span></span></span></span>
Answer:
B. nationalism.
Explanation:
The nationalism that originated in the times of the French Revolution changed over the years. By the beginning of the 20th century, most European peoples identified with a nation state and were willing to defend or go for interests of a homeland.
The nationalism fueled competition over economic, social aspects, and was best explained by the rivarly between the French and the Germans.
Prussian -French war caused the tensions to increase among the former.
The rivalry was also felt between the English and the Germans over the seas. The increased trade and foreign trade also was a important force that brought tensions in other continents.
The concept of Nationalism emerged to the most, in the military propagandas, and the racial and ethnic policies from the Central `powers.
<em>A fierce state of things promoted a national army in numbers that were unprecedent to the times- and the war effort ultimately was propeled by nationalistic groups that prevailed among societies.</em>
<span>The British didn't allow the colonists to settle the Ohio River Valley</span>
<span>
if direct democracy means (pure) democracy then it means that every
citizen would get a chance to vote on issues instead of what we have in
the US: a representative democracy where we vote in politicians to do it
for us. A pure democracy would lead to civil war most likely b/c too
many people would be able to disagree, anarchy would be a likely
result,....so i would say D is your answer </span>
