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
zheka24 [161]
3 years ago
12

During the Tang Dynasty, iron and coal industries were very successful.

History
1 answer:
Veronika [31]3 years ago
7 0

The Answer is True. China was able to improve their Iron and Coal Industries. Because of their successful economy, many Chinese were able to create inventions such as gunpowder, commercial crops and water-mechanical locks, Because of these inventions they were able to expand more on their knowledge and uses of iron and coal

You might be interested in
What force in society was the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s most trying to overcome?
jok3333 [9.3K]

Answer:

segregation and prejudice

Explanation:

5 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
List the factors which brought The first world War?​
yanalaym [24]

1. Friends don’t let friends fight alone

A tangled web of strong political alliances among nations meant that most great powers felt obliged to help their partners once war was declared.

After the murder of an Austrian Archduke by Serbian assassins, Austria-Hungary prepared for war against Serbia, which was allied with Russia.

Once Russia mobilized, Austria-Hungary’s ally, Germany, declared war on both Russia and Russia’s ally, France. Great Britain and its empire, sympathetic to France, declared war on Germany (Canada was not consulted).

Alliances originally intended as defensive pacts ended up looking threatening to outsiders. This perilous network of allegiances is an accepted part of all narratives about the First World War. German historian Andreas Hilgruber was one of many who showed how dangerous and costly all of these alliances were.

2. Armed to the teeth

Europe in 1914 was armed to the teeth. Vast fleets of warships were being constructed, conscription was implemented in most of the great powers to allow large armies to be kept in reserve, weapons and ammunition were stockpiled, and detailed war plans were made.

The impact of the proliferation of the instruments of war as a cause of the outbreak of the conflict was highlighted by David Stevenson’s Armaments and the Coming of War (1996). A large army spoiling for a fight may well seek one out.

3. Capitalist imperialism

During the First World War, Vladimir Lenin, the father of the Soviet Union, wrote an essay entitled Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), in which he laid out the foundation of his own philosophy of communism.

He believed that the war was the product of capitalist financial monopolies within states, which created national rivalries and led the great powers into a destructive conflict over access to raw materials and undeveloped markets.

Others since have blamed imperialism itself and commercial interests.

4. War on a tight schedule

A.J.P. Taylor, one of the 20th century’s great historians, argued in War by Timetable (1969) that in 1914, thanks to relatively new transportation (railroad) and communications (telegraph and telephone) technologies, every European power believed that the ability to mobilize their armies faster than their neighbours would by itself deter war.

Every power drafted elaborate mobilization timetables so that they could outrace their potential opponents. When the crisis of 1914 occurred, none of the leaders really wanted war, according to Taylor, but each felt they had to mobilize faster than the others or lose the advantage.

They became the victims of their own logistical preparations, and Europe slid unwillingly but relentlessly into war. Barbara Tuchman’s book The Guns of August (1962) similarly identified the dangers of technology in causing conflicts to escalate rapidly.

5. Blame Germany

In the Treaty of Versailles that officially ended the war, Germany was made to accept the blame for causing the conflict, and after that German governments spent decades denying their sole responsibility.

They convinced many people, but after the Second World War, German historian Fritz Fischer looked into previously-classified archives for the first time. Fischer concluded in his book German War Aims in the First World War (1961) that Imperial Germany had deliberately provoked a general war as part of a policy of conquest much like that undertaken by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany 20 years later.

Fischer’s conclusions remain controversial to this day.

6. No, blame Britain

The idea that Britain caused the war was the live grenade that firebrand historian Niall Ferguson lobbed into the debate when he wrote The Pity of War (1999), though Paul Schroeder had put forward a similar argument earlier.

Ferguson claimed that not only did British statesmen encourage France and Russia to oppose Germany, but that Britain’s own intervention turned a regional European brawl into a global war.

The British may not have directly started it, according to Ferguson, but they were liable for greatly expanding the scope of the war and making it drag on as long as it did.

7. People being people

Canadian historian Margaret Macmillan has published a major book, The War That Ended Peace (2013), which presents a synthesis of many different factors: alliances and power politics; reckless diplomacy; ethnic nationalism; and, most of all, the personal character and relationships of the almost uncountable number of historical figures who had a hand in the coming of war.

Her work helps to highlight the fact that for all the great and powerful forces that seemed to grind the world inexorably into war in 1914, everything ultimately came down to the beliefs, prejudices, rivalries, and schemes of a great array of personalities and people.

3 0
3 years ago
HELP!!!!!
Greeley [361]

Answer: b

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How did Taft’s “dollar diplomacy” differ from Roosevelt’s “big stick” policy? Was one approach more or less successful than the
Elanso [62]

The Big Stick Diplomacy was implemented by Theodore Roosevelt and was a policy of intervenience in Latin American affairs because in the American view those countries could not keep their affairs in order.

The Dollar Diplomacy adopted by President Taft that promoted the American business interests abroad by replacing military alliances with economic ties, increasing American influences and securing lasting peace.

Both Diplomacies had problems but historians say that Roosevelt’s Big Stick was more successful overall because it resulted in more benefits than failures. The other two diplomacies increased hostility in Latin America and in Asia that eventually influenced the Alliances in WWI.

3 0
3 years ago
The Atlantic coast from Newfoundland to Virginia was claimed for England by what person
enyata [817]
John Cabot is <span>The Atlantic coast from Newfoundland to Virginia was claimed for England.</span>
5 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • "How did the Industrial Revolution impact cities and living conditions in them?
    11·1 answer
  • HELP ASAP Sparta and Athens formed an alliance during the Peloponnesian War.<br><br> True Or False
    14·1 answer
  • The United Nations Environment Program regulates the environmental policy for all countries.
    11·2 answers
  • Plz help!!
    13·2 answers
  • What did Hernando de Soto do in 1514?
    11·2 answers
  • The _____ is the percentage of people who are in poverty in a calendar year.
    14·2 answers
  • In "A White Heron," having made her choice between an attraction of the heart and her bond with nature, Sylvia
    11·2 answers
  • 20. The spinning wheel shown has evenly spaced spokes. What's the size of the angle between any two adjacent spokes?
    12·1 answer
  • What is the answer??? <br> Answer ASAP
    8·2 answers
  • Income Inequality in United States
    12·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!