Answer:
At the end of World War I, Europe was in complete chaos. Many were discontent, many were in financial distress, and many grew more angry at what "democracy" had come to. The German people were hit hard by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Many were impoverished, and blamed western countries for their demise. Hitler saw an opportunity to speak to the masses. He offered a strong, authoritarian style that many came to crave. Democracy under the Weimar Republic had brought the people to their knees, so Hitler was a solution to the "weakness" and "fragility" of democracy. Mussolini also had a similar experience- he was able to offer Italians a strong, no-nonsense government. It should be noted that Mussolini and Hitler were fascists. They did not support communism- in fact, they said communism and socialism were their sworn enemies!
Stalin and the Soviet Union is more unique. Stalin didn't rise to power like Hitler and Mussolini- he was already running a totalitarian government.
Explanation:
In Vertical integration, one company control the businesses that make up all phases of a product's development.
Answer:
Explanation:
The Civil War affected the North's economy in many ways. ... Most of the battles took place in the South so the North did not have to rebuild and repair huge amounts of area. This saved them a lot of money and they did not lose anything like the South losing their currency and slaves so the North prospered.
Answer:
The improvement of society was a common ideal.
Explanation:
<em>These were hard times, and everyone was done with this unfair treatment. Everyone spoke up about things that bothered them, but I think the women's right's movement created a spark in everyone else.</em>
When Jefferson died in 1826, the nation stood on the threshold of a stupendous transformation. During the ensuing quarter century it expanded enormously in space and population. Commerce flourished and so did agriculture. The age witnessed the rise of the common man with the right to vote and hold office. It was a time of overflowing optimism, of dreams of perpetual progress, moral uplift, and social betterment. Such was the climate that engendered the common school. Open freely to every child and upheld by public funds, it was to be a lay institution under the sovereignty of the state, the archetype of the present-day American public school. Bringing the common school into being was not easy. Against it bulked the doctrine that any education that excluded religious instruction—as all state-maintained schools were legally compelled to do—was godless. Nor had there been any great recession of the contention that education was not a proper governmental function and for a state to engage there was an intrusion into parental privilege. Even worse was the fact that public schooling would occasionally rise in taxes.
HOPE THIS HELPS <33333
-Silver
