That is because the Czar knew that fighting the Austria-Hungary empire and Germany was inevitable and war was brewing. Of course, Russians did not see the end of the war due to the Bolshevik revolution that had them retreat from the war and cease their participation and overthrowing the king.
Answer:
False
Explanation:
Its the opposite, Europe imperialized Asia and africa by taking land and killing millions. hope this helps :))
Answer:
1. He wanted to preserve Britain's trading relationship with Germany.
2. He advocated for Germany's armed forces to be dismantled.
3. He believed treating Germany harshly would lead to future conflicts.
Explanation:
Following the end of World War I that lasted between 1914 to 1918. The positions of Britain's prime minister support at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 were clear and concise.
His position can be summarily presented to be that:
1. He wanted to preserve Britain's trading relationship with Germany: one of the reasons behind this position is to ensure that Germany can pay for their reparations.
2. He advocated for Germany's armed forces to be dismantled: the reason behind this is to prevent future wars, revenge, or conflict from Germany.
3. He believed treating Germany harshly would lead to future conflicts.
These positions were evident when declared during the treaties among others that "We must not let any sense of revenge, any spirit of greed, any grasping desire override the fundamental principles of righteousness."
One way in which the people of the Tibetan kingdom and the people of the Inca Empire are similar is that they "<span>(1) developed coastal ports" among other things. </span>
It determined that only the federal government could regulate interstate commerce.
The case of Gibbons v. Ogden regarded the interstate shipping trade and whether or not the states could regulate or if it was Congress's job to regulate.
The decision from the Marshall Court stated it was the job of Congress under the Commerce Clause to regulate trade between states to include shipping. New York was not able to regulate the trade taking place in the waterways between states. One of the justices included in a supporting decision that the federal interstate laws superseded the state laws and the federal government was the ultimate power on interstate trade.
