Answer:
<h2>True</h2>
Explanation:
Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania were the Soviet satellite states that formed in the Eastern bloc of Europe. Those nations were part of the Warsaw Pact, signed along with the Soviet Union in 1955. The name of that pact stems from the facts that the agreement was signed in Warsaw, Poland. Albania also was an original signer of the Warsaw Pact, but split its relationship with the Soviet Union some years later.
Prior to the end of World War II, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and US President Franklin Roosevelt pushed strongly for Soviet leader Josef Stalin to allow free elections to take place in the nations of Europe after the war. Stalin had stated agreement with his fellow Allied leaders. But after the war ended, Stalin and the Soviets never did allow those free elections to occur. The Soviets felt they needed the Eastern European nations as satellites to protect their own interests. A line of countries in Eastern Europe came into line with the USSR and communism -- thus called "satellites."
A Democrat who ran in the presidential elections
Answer:
President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Common Secretary Mikhail ... “In Reagan's see, Gorbachev was a communist, and might be ... “But they required to discover a way to overcome forty a long time of Cold War philosophy. ... a teacher of history emeritus specializing in U.S. outside relations at the College of Virginia.
Explanation:
Hope this helped
The answer would most likely be D. (Was most likely limited to Malay Peninsula and the Indonesian Archipelago<span>.)</span>
Answer:
Explanation:In historiography, the term historical revisionism identifies the re-interpretation of an historical account.[1] It usually involves challenging the orthodox (established, accepted or traditional) views held by professional scholars about a historical event or time-span or phenomenon, introducing contrary evidence, or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved. The revision of the historical record can reflect new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation, which then results in revised history. In dramatic cases, revisionism involves a reversal of older moral judgments.
At a basic level, legitimate historical revisionism is a common and not especially controversial process of developing and refining the writing of histories. Much more controversial is the reversal of moral findings, whereby what mainstream historians had considered (for example) positive forces are depicted as negative. Such revisionism, if challenged (especially in heated terms) by the supporters of the previous view, can become an illegitimate form of historical revisionism known as historical negationism if it involves inappropriate methods such as:
the use of forged documents or implausible distrust of genuine documents
attributing false conclusions to books and sources
manipulating statistical data
deliberately mis-translating texts
This type of historical revisionism can present a re-interpretation of the moral meaning of the historical record.[2] Negationists use the term "revisionism" to portray their efforts as legitimate historical revisionism. This is especially the case when "revisionism" relates to Holocaust denial.
