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
jekas [21]
3 years ago
5

Which of the following is not part of the teachings of Confucius?

History
2 answers:
tatyana61 [14]3 years ago
8 0

B. Achieving great power should be the correct answer.

svp [43]3 years ago
3 0

I think B. is right answer.


You might be interested in
The British reliance on India as a market for its
True [87]
(4) refuse to buy british textiles
he didn't like the way the british were treating the indians so he decided to rebel

hope this helps! :-)
6 0
2 years ago
What feature do all of the Central Asian countries have in common?
Dmitry [639]
They all have in common livestock
3 0
3 years ago
Help me solve this problem please ok
lubasha [3.4K]

Answer:

The Civil War.

Explanation:

The south states protested to ban slavery.

Hope this helped... had the roughly do internet research

7 0
3 years ago
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
What parts of the constitution discuss the establishment and duties of the three branches of our federal government?
Molodets [167]

Answer:

What part of the Constitution talks about the three branches of government?

A) Articles 1-3: Branches, Checks, and Balances

The first three articles of the Constitution establish three branches of government with specific powers: Executive (headed by the President), Legislative (Congress) and Judicial (Supreme Court). Power is separated and shared.

Explanation:

8 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • What types of actions must a president take to get impeached?
    7·2 answers
  • Why do you think general george
    11·2 answers
  • In 2005 how many private sector prisons were operating in the united states
    10·2 answers
  • How does the Panama Canal work
    12·2 answers
  • during the great purge, stalin sent many people to forced labor camps called a. kulaks. b. internment camps. c. gulags. d. conce
    9·1 answer
  • Do you think Jackson's approach to governing promoted democracy? Why or why not?
    10·1 answer
  • The Committee of Correspondence:
    12·2 answers
  • Which of these accurately reflects a WEAKNESS in the Articles of Confederation?
    9·1 answer
  • Tibet is the world's highest<br><br> A) Valley<br> B) Plateau<br> C) Steppe<br> D) Escarpment
    10·2 answers
  • Who took the title "The First Emperor"?
    13·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!