Answer: The end of World War II brought upon many changes in Europe, many countries were completely destroyed and were in great need of aid. This need led to the dependency of Europe on two non-European powers: America for Western Europe and the Soviet Union for Eastern Europe.
Explanation:
Answer:
What does the Europeans want from these countries? Raw Materials. Why? During that time Great Britain industrial revolution was going on. You need raw materials like Iron to create products to sell. Boost europeans economy, so they exploit other countries.
How? Most common strategy they use was Divide and Conquer. They divide the country up, make them fight each other. Then use that weakness to control both sides. Europeans believe they have a far superior govt. than other countries, so they will "parent" other countries. Another way is promising them technology, medicine and education. Once again these countries they are imperializing are far from advanced than Great Britain.
It would be "C. Akbar" who was known <span>as the “Great One,” and added more territory to the lands conquered by Babur than did any other Mughal emperor--due mostly to his superior military prowess. </span>
The Three-Fifths Compromise was created to settle a dispute between Northern and Southern delegates.
<h3>What was Three-Fifths Compromise?</h3>
At the US Constitutional Convention, representatives from the Northern and Southern states reached a compromise by agreeing that three-fifths of the slave population.
This would be taken into account when ascertaining direct taxes and House of Representatives representation. Refer the image below for the complete question.
Therefore, The Three-Fifths Compromise to solve a dispute between Northern and Southern delegates.
To learn more about the three-Fifths Compromise, refer to:
brainly.com/question/4526851
#SPJ1
The decisions they make later apply to every similar situation everywhere in the country. For example, there was a case in which students wanted to wear armbands protesting the war, but the school said that was disruptive. The Supreme Court sided with the student, and said they had a right to free speech as long as it wasn’t causing a material interruption. This case would later be the example on how to solve many cases regarding student’s freedom of speech.
