There where multiple different motives for the US to annex the Hawaii Islands, including economic, militaristic, and strategic motives.
Hawaii was a place that offered excellent conditions for production of high quality cash crops, especially sugar cane. The sugar cane was bringing in a lot of profit, so the US wanted to incorporate these islands because of the economic interest first.
The islands are located midway between North America and Asia, thus they have a good strategic location. What was going to be produced in Hawaii could have just been sold in Asia, thus lowering the expenses for transportation. Also, the islands were very useful as a place where a port can be built, and where the ships will be able to recharge.
The militaristic aspect was also important. Hawaii is located further west from the United States, so it provided nice conditions for building on a military basis which act as a first defense and warning line, or to be used for recharging and attacking.
What historians do when using the historical thinking skill of analyzing historical sources is Examine the historical context to better understand why an event happened. Option D. This is further explained below.
<h3>Who is a historian?</h3>
Generally, historians are simply defined as one who has studied or is an expert in the past, often one who specializes in the history of a certain time, place, or social phenomenon.
In conclusion, The practice of examining historical materials through the lens of historical thought entails historians doing the following: Consider the past in order to comprehend the present.
Read more about historians brainly.com/question/8426126
#SPJ1
Answer:
There sure is.
Explanation:
As Eric Hobsbawm righteous explains in <em>The Age of Extremes </em>neither the Marxist historians nor the Revionist ones are right. To start with: when Truman left the white house in 1953 the cold war hadn´t started properly. And Stalin died in the same year. Nevertheless they did partly shape the hostile environment (Truman doctrine) of the two superpowers after the war.
Anyway, Hobsbawm quite convincingly argues that it was exaggerated American fear of Russian agression that lead ultimately to the cold war. The initially Russian ideal of spreading communism over the globe was not seen as realistic any more by the Sovjet leaders, even before the second world war. And after it the Sovjet union was weaker than ever before. And Stalin knew it. So yes, in a sense individual personalities (Americans) are to blaim. But not mentioning Kennedy in this list is ignoring the fact that the main actors, like Kennedy, ¨<em>tapped their way though a dense cloud of incomprehension, confusion and paranoia.¨</em>
Eric Hobsbawm
Conspiracy to commit murder im pretty sure
Yes, it was. The Treaty of Versailles made Germany take full responsibility for World War I, even though the war was the fault of multiple countries. It also made Germany pay extensive war debts to pay for the damages of the war, which completely destroyed Germany's economy with inflation. The Treaty of Versailles also severely limited Germany's military, which was very important to them. So Germany's response to the Treaty of Versailles was legitimate due to the severe punishments inflicted on Germany which were very harsh for a war that they did help initiate, but were not completely at fault for.
