In moving from military general in the field to commander in chief in the White House, Dwight Eisenhower's approach to war changed. As a five-star general in the US army, serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe during World War II, his role had been to win battles on the ground. But as President of the United States during the Cold War, his goal was to prevent war from coming. He was most interested in deterring the other side from wanting to begin a war. He also faced reductions in resources allocated for national defense in the post-war days. So the most cost-efficient way to build up a strong deterrent to war was to build up America's nuclear arsenal. Keeping war from happening was preferred to fighting another horribly bloody war with conventional weapons.
Answer:
<h3>Without the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, there would have been no need for rulers in Vienna to threaten Serbia, no need for Russia to come to Serbia's defense, no need for Germany to come to Austria's defense — and no call for France and Britain to honor their treaties with Russia.</h3>
Mercantilism created competition between companies, states, and countries. My teacher once gave me the example of a tree cutter making tables. It was about who makes the most profit.
In the case of WW 1 it was mainly because all of the countries involved held colonies in other areas of the globe, thus spreading the influence of the war. For example, Britain called on her colonies like New Zealand and Australia to help, thus including Pacific nations in the war. Reason 2 for WW 1 was because at the time all nations of military significance (except the US) could be located in Europe. Europe was most certainly the powerhouse of the world, where all the greatest nations could be found. This meant that when the war kicked off, not only did it concern the European nations but many smaller Asian nations like Japan who relied on European powers for trade and supplies. If even one European power at the time was to be eliminated entirely, there would be a massive power vacuum which could prove dangerous for the rest of the world as well.
WW 2 is a slightly different story.
1) Britain was no longer the greatest, largest colonial empire in the world, but still held a lot of influence in world politics. The formation of "The league of nations" (which was a primitive form of the United Nations) after WW 1 was largely because of Britain and France, and while the LoN had peaceful intentions, they had no army to back up the treaties and clauses they put in place, thus, when push came to shove, the LoN failed to stop another great war. The League included many countries from outside of Europe, which spread the effect of the war.
3) The US was directly involved in WW 2 (it was not in WW 1, they did however provide loans to France and Britain) thus spreading the fighting to the Pacific and South-East Asia.
2) China was weak, and Japan was able to take advantage of this by taking over Manchuria (a Chinese province) in 1931 providing them with the raw resources and food production required to build a large army. This was one of many short-comings of the LoN, as they did nothing to stop Japan from invading Manchuria, which made things much more difficult in the long run.
I hope this helps :)
Answer:
What do I need to to drag???
Explanation:
You need to put the whole question next time.
Not trying to be rude or anything but it's the truth. :)
