Answer:
Explanation:
St. Petersburg has a major port that is necessary to expansion for Russia.
St. Petersburg ceased being the capital in 1918 after the Russian Revolution of 1917.It became capital of the Russian Empire for more than two hundred years
Answer: Lenin was professional revolutionary (and a Marxist theorist) inspired by 19th-century Western thinkers and socialist movements. He organized and led Russian bolshevist revolution (1917) - which attracted immediately attention in all the world and soon was followed by worldwide foundations of Communist parties. So Lenin can be viewed as an international figure. Lenin also believed (because of prophetic aspect of Marxist theory) in world Communist revolution and was ready to export Bolshevist revolution to other countries. During Lenin´s rule (17-24) there was a believe in a possibility to scientifically mold human beings in more perfect humans ....so Bolshevists invited Freudians and together worked on growing more perfect generations (kindergartens, schools etc.), under Stalin all that finished. The main failure of Stalin was his incapacity to bring up a his follower (there was a big rivalry and later conflict between Stalin and Trotsky). Joseph Stalin came to power in mid-1920s (coup within the top ranks of the Communist party) and continued in power until his death 1953. During his reign USSR was even more engaged in the export of its ideology. Stalin is considered a criminal because of his "Great Purge" in 1930s (34-9) but because of "Big famine" (1932-34) especially in Ukraine and North Caucasus. He took care of his Personality Cult. Stalin´s USSR is a totalitarian regime. After his death his personality cult was revealed and criticized. During Lenin´s rule and Stalin´s rule ...there was an intense industrialization, investments in industry. Stalin won the WW II ...that is also noteworthy. During reign of both leaders USSR became very attractive for a big part of European left and also in overseas (especially South America).
Explanation:
Answer:
What he said: I write an argumentative letter in which he commented on an opinion that accused our civilization of closing in, and through which it became clear that the Islamic civilization contributed to the advancement of nations and interacted with them.
Explanation:
This is a matter of opinion. Do YOU think the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was worth it? Let's look at the factors.
What were some of the positives? Well, firstly, it ended World War II. That's kind of a big deal. In fact, it caused Japan not only to surrender, but UNCONDITIONALLY surrender. Basically, that means the US could ask Japan to do whatever it liked--which the US liked! Secondly, it was a triumph of science. The atomic bomb was a revolutionary work of science. Nothing like it had ever been made before, and it was all based on secrecy and theoretical science. The atomic bomb also <span>provided the basis for new, improved weapons, including the hydrogen bomb. </span>Thirdly, it helped establish the United States as a world power. Knowing about this super powerful weapon the US had, countries were likely to back off!
But there's a lot of negatives here, too. Keep in mind that most of these benefits were for the United States alone. Of course, there was one other BIG negative for the United States, and that's cost. The atomic bomb was worth billions of dollars! A second big one wasn't so much for the United States as for the world, especially Japan. When the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the effects on the people and city were devastating. People were vaporized. Cities and buildings were flattened, and nothing is left but carnage. People died, their skin peeling off, from cancer and radiation. It was awful! Thirdly, it caused the arms race. Knowing the US had this super weapon, ALL the countries started building their own. Now, we pretty much live in fear of all the nuclear weapons there are today--which are hundreds of times more powerful each than the first bomb!
So what do you think? Was it worth it?
