Simply put, by coercion.
There was a very simple process that followed:
(1) the Red Army invades the countries, on the pretext of "liberating" them - this gives a plausible veneer to a treacherous end;
(2) whilst occupying, Soviet commissars would prop up the local communist party (typically, enjoying only minimal support from the country's population, unless also nationalist) - this is so as to have a puppet regime-in-waiting;
(3) under Soviet occupation, typically some sort of a "referendum" or "plebiscite" will be held, at which SUDDENLY the voters will "decide" to abolish the previous constitution and to enact one that practically gives sole powers to the local communists - this is to give the effective coup d'etat a veneer of legitimacy;
(4) once installed in power, the communist party will effectively take over the machinery of state by staffing all key posts with its members;
(5) through the use of secret police and kangaroo courts, opposition, incl. those of the original governing class who did not have the good sense to escape, will be physically eliminated, sentenced to long prison terms, exiled, otherwise incarcerated;
(6) a the takeover of the state is usually followed by a takeover, through nationalisation or outright confiscation, of the economy, giving the regime financial muscle;
<span>(7) the established position will be upheld by the same means it was acquired and with unparalleled degree of ruthlessness, with the country taken over being treated as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kremlin Holdings.</span>
On 11 April 1951, U.S. President Harry S. Truman relieved General of the Army Douglas MacArthur of his commands after MacArthur made public statements which contradicted the administration's policies. MacArthur was a popular hero of World War II who was then the commander of United Nations forces fighting in the Korean War, and his relief remains a controversial topic in the field of civil-military relations.
MacArthur led the Allied forces in the Southwest Pacific during World War II, and after the war was in charge of the occupation of Japan. When North Korea invaded South Korea in June 1950, starting the Korean War, he was designated commander of the United Nations forces defending South Korea. He conceived and executed the amphibious assault at Inchon on 15 September 1950, for which he was hailed as a military genius. However, when he followed up his victory with a full-scale invasion of North Korea on Truman's orders, China intervened in the war and inflicted a series of defeats, compelling him to withdraw from North Korea. By April 1951, the military situation had stabilized, but MacArthur's public statements became increasingly irritating to Truman, and he relieved MacArthur of his commands. The Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a joint inquiry into the military situation and the circumstances surrounding MacArthur's relief, and concluded that "the removal of General MacArthur was within the constitutional powers of the President but the circumstances were a shock to national pride."[1]
An apolitical military was an American tradition, but one that was difficult to uphold in an era when American forces were employed overseas in large numbers. The principle of civilian control of the military was also ingrained, but the rising complexity of military technology led to the creation of a professional military. This made civilian control increasingly problematic when coupled with the constitutional division of powers between the President as commander-in-chief, and the Congress with its power to raise armies, maintain a navy, and wage wars. In relieving MacArthur for failing to "respect the authority of the President" by privately communicating with Congress, Truman upheld the President's role as pre-eminent.
B, because they didn't have the same kings and queens, so they don't have the same authority as each other.
It is very much hard to answer.
It was mainly because of how the North and the South of America had different lifestyles and economy's. You would be surprised to know that the Democratic party back then supported Slavery and the republicans dint support Slavery.
Plain Answer: Because of Slavery, Way of Life and Different Economy. The Democratic Party would do anything to keep themselves supported.
I would say that the best answer here is D
