<span>Non-Western
nations were in a weak state and Western powers had strong economies,
governments, and armed forces and they had superior technology.
People opposed it through wars of resistance and nationalist movements and by adopting Western technologies and economic reforms.</span>
Answer:
A. Would be theirs, as long as they stuck to the plan.
<h2>Why was the Battle of the Marne significant in history?</h2>
It's rather a case of right place, right time. The German flanking plan, known as the Schleiffen Plan, was largely misunderstood by the French in their initial maneuvers, leaving an unlocked rear door.
When it was evident that the axis of progress through Belgium was the major German effort and the German goals were known, Joffre repositioned his forces to counter this assault. Joffre made smart tactical choices as he retired to the Marne's positions. Shortening communication and supply lines while reorganizing dispersed troops are all benefits of a well-planned retreat.
In order to destroy the French army in detail, Moltke must move to fight them while simultaneously expanding his administrative lines. However, he cannot push on Paris while the French army is still in tact just off to the left.
Joffre doesn't now need to annihilate the German army; all he needs to do is keep them out of Paris and the coast of the English Channel. The point is that Joffre can't defeat the Germans in a decisive battle, but if he keeps them there or, better yet, drives them onto territory that will allow for a thorough and German-evicting counterattack, the time he buys will sap his opponent's material strength while he gains more every day from the UK and foreign Colonial forces.
Best answer among those choices: a. He was seen by some leaders as an anticommunist bulwark.
Details/context:
The other answers are not correct, so the "anticommunist bulwark" answer is the best available. There was some of that feeling in Europe's western democracies at that time. However, the bigger factor was simply that Britain wasn't ready to confront Germany and go to war.
An article by Dr. G. Bruce Strang of Brandon University, in the journal, <em>Diplomacy and Statecraft </em>(September 2008), explains:
- <em>The British government's appeasement of fascism in the 1930s derived not only from economic, political, and strategic constraints, but also from the personal ideologies of the policy makers. Widespread guilt about the terms of the Versailles Treaty and tensions with France created sympathy for German revisionism, but the Cabinet properly recognized that Nazi Germany represented the gravest threat to peace in the 1930s. Fear of war and the recognition that Britain would have to tolerate peaceful change underlay attempts to appease the dictators, culminating in the Munich agreement in September 1938. ... While most of the British elite detested communism, anti-communist views did not govern British policy; security considerations required Soviet support in Eastern Europe, and Britain and France made a determined effort to secure Soviet support for the Peace Front.</em>
It's basically calling the question of the integrity of something (most commonly known as presidents) to action. It typically ends with that president leaving office
hope this helps
I found 4 branches of Protestantism: Lutheran, Calvinist, Baptist, and Anglican.
I hope this helps.
