Answer:
So the UN managed to assemble a combined military force of many different nations to hold back the North Korean army. This was possible because of the activity in the council by its member states, and because of the change of rhetoric since the beginning of the 20th century.
The League of Nations was formed as a predecessor to the UN and partly NATO, but it was wildly ineffective. None of the member states were willing to commit military forces to the council to enforce peace and it was all mostly influenced by the isolationism of the US and the appeasement and neutrality policy of the Allies. So basically the UN is a revamped version of the League of Nations because it is more effective and it is forcing member states to participate while the League of Nations did not manage to do that. And it is important to note that the North Korean crisis was stopped because of the military intervention of the UN. While the League of Nations would have done basically nothing if they still existed at that point.
The answer to the question above is Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and Stokely Carmichael.
Black leaders in the 1960s included Martin Luther King Jr, an advocate of non-violent resistance; Malcolm X, who favored Black Separatism; and Stokely Carmichael, an advocate of "Black Power".
<span>The overwhelming victory of the United States over Spain in 1898 made the United States a world power. The U.S took control over the Philippine Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam and a few other places. The war was a turning point in that it caused the United States to become an imperialist power. The U.S. had to maintain a large navy to protect its overseas colonies. It put America on what became a collision course with Japan, which was on its own path to imperialism in the Pacific. So the American victory over Spain set the U.S. on a couse of imperialism. I hope that this has been a help to you.</span>
Hi your answer is When full-scale war erupted between China and Japan..., the Open-Door Policy in China and the Washington Naval Conference agreements I hope this help's
Answer:
The answer is below.
Explanation:
China operates a practically communist style of governance, which in turn limits the citizen's freedom to a certain degree.
On the other hand, India practices democracy thereby giving the citizen more freedom to pursue their individual goals.
China, being a communist country, limits the citizen's rights of expression and press.
Whereas, India, being a democratic country, gives its citizens the rights to express themselves and the press to cover and broadcast available and credible information
