1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Sladkaya [172]
3 years ago
9

What was the Soviet Union's plan for Germany, which differed greatly from the United State's plans, after World War II ended? Gr

oup of answer choices reunite Germany to help Europe recover allowGermany to keep the land they conquered repair Germany's economy keep Germany divided to prevent it from waging war again
History
1 answer:
amm18123 years ago
8 0

The plan of USSR was:

TO divide Germany to prevent it from waging war again.

Explanation:

The policy of the USSR was to divide Germany into pieces so that it would never wage wars again. Obviously, that was only the surface reasons given by the soviets.

The true reason was rather self serving.

  • The part of the East that Russia eventually got was to serve as the buffer for their territory and Europe.
  • They had a foothold in mainland Europe.
  • The state was Russian in all but name. They had complete control.

These were the reasons that made Russia come to the conclusion it did.

You might be interested in
Will give brainliest plz help its due today You should now be familiar with the Gupta Empire! Your job is to create a photo stor
LiRa [457]

Answer:

made a 88%

Explanation:

Download pptx
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What was the middle class called in industrial revolution?
Pie
They were called <span>peasants</span>
5 0
3 years ago
I never understand these things no matter how many different ways they are explained to meplz help.
Talja [164]
Hello there!

Here is my OPINION/ interpretation. I may or may not be incorrect.

1). The US shouldn't sell arms (weapons) overseas because it would cause a war, and the US's goal was to stay isolated, hence the term isolationism.

Arms = weapons
Arms = body part

Selling weapons across the to Britain could cause conflicts, which could lead to war.

However, (in the first image), of they didn't sell weapons, they'd remain neutral, therefore avoiding war and its costs.

2). This cartoon MAY be trying to persuade the reader that war isn't always the solution to resolving a conflict, and that isolationism can lead to peace and unity.


Again, this is MY OPINION.

Hope this helped! :)

---------------------------------

DISCLAIMER: I am not a professional tutor or have any professional background in your subject. Please do not copy my work down, as that will only make things harder for you in the long run. Take the time to really understand this, and it'll make future problems easier. I am human, and may make mistakes, despite my best efforts. Again, I possess no professional background in your subject, so anything you do with my help will be your responsibility. Thank you for reading this, and have a wonderful day/night!

8 0
4 years ago
How did these invasions contribute to the fall of the Roman Empire
notsponge [240]

Answer:

The most straightforward theory for Western Rome’s collapse pins the fall on a string of military losses sustained against outside forces. Rome had tangled with Germanic tribes for centuries, but by the 300s “barbarian” groups like the Goths had encroached beyond the Empire’s borders. The Romans weathered a Germanic uprising in the late fourth century, but in 410 the Visigoth King Alaric successfully sacked the city of Rome. The Empire spent the next several decades under constant threat before “the Eternal City” was raided again in 455, this time by the Vandals. Finally, in 476, the Germanic leader Odoacer staged a revolt and deposed the Emperor Romulus Augustulus. From then on, no Roman emperor would ever again rule from a post in Italy, leading many to cite 476 as the year the Western Empire suffered its deathblow.

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
What Federal Communications Commission rule, enforced between 1949 and 1987, required radio and television to present controvers
elena55 [62]

Answer: Fairness Doctrine

Explanation:

The Fairness Doctrine was a U.S. communications policy established by the FCC to guarantee that controversial issues would have a fair and balanced coverage by licensed radio and television broadcasters.

The Radio Act (1927) had already established that licensed broadcasters should serve the public interest, and the Federal Communications Act (1934) created the FCC to ensure that.

By 1949, the commission´s report "In the Matter of Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees" defined the public interest provisions and demanded a basic standard of fairness in broadcasting.

7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which describes the middle passage
    12·2 answers
  • Errington and Gewertz think that Diamond misunderstood what New Guineans really wanted from Westerners when he interpreted the m
    11·1 answer
  • Andrew Johnson would declare that martial law was over in the South when
    8·1 answer
  • Why was World War I beneficial to farmers?
    5·2 answers
  • How did demographic makeup of texas population drive political movements in the united states during the mid-19th century?
    7·2 answers
  • Please help me I really need it
    5·1 answer
  • Which country’s culture had the most impact on the idea of the American cowboy?
    8·2 answers
  • What is true about details of setting and plot in historical fiction?
    15·1 answer
  • What type of interaction had the most
    5·1 answer
  • Which of the following best describes the effect of the cotton gin on slavery?
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!