I’ll give you two:
Yes: The “War” on the Indians was not a traditional war of declaration but of skirmishes. When wagon trains of people headed West Indians would commonly target them for raids and pillage, so along many routes forts where built and patrols would try and make sure they were safe. If the problem became worse the local garrison would find the tribe and come with a list of demands. Most of the time they were fired upon arrival out of fear or anger. This would lead to a small battle or skirmish which would likely cause collateral damage.
No: The wars raged in the west against the Indians were that of near genocide, and to call it anything but is misleading. To claim that the slaughter of hundreds of innocent people was a “battle” is absurd and shouldn’t be considered. Though in films that depict such events are dramatized and inaccurate, situations much like those were taking place around the west yearly.
Capital city of Azerbaijan
Answer:
The Yalta Conference essentially confirmed the accords reach in the previous Allied conference at Teheran in 1943, in regards to the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers. What was confirmed in Yalta was the commitment to create a new international organization, better equipped than the previous Society of Nations. This organization would be the United Nations.
Explanation:
The Yalta Conference was the entry point of the Cold War, that would essentially began after the Postdam Conference in 1945. What made Yalta relevant, was the commitment to install the United Nations as a heir of the former Society of Nations of the 1920's, but with the aim that this new organization would have a better way of coercing nations to respect international laws. However the conference also saw the Soviet Union using the leverage it had regarding the war, to make the US help it to force Britain to accept for example the Soviet occupation of Poland, in exchange for the Soviet war declaration over Japan.
