Answer:
where is the options to the question
The right answer for the question that is being asked and shown above is that: "D. Code breakers were able to warn of the planned Japanese attack." The statement that gave the Allies an advantage at the Battle of Coral Sea is that D. Code breakers were able to warn of the planned Japanese attack.<span>
</span>
Racial tensions. The Rosewood massacre was a racially motivated massacre of black people and the destruction of a black town that took place during the first week of January 1923 in rural Levy County, Florida. Racial riots were common during the early years of the 20th century in the United States, reflecting the nation's rapid social changes.
Answer:
A <u>civilian</u> is a non-military person.
The Open Door Policy is a term in foreign affairs initially used to refer to the United States policy established in the late 19th century and the early 20th century that would allow for a system of trade in China open to all countries equally. It was used mainly to mediate the competing interests of different colonial powers in China. In more recent times, Open Door policy describes the economic policy initiated by Deng Xiaoping in 1978 to open up China to foreign businesses that wanted to invest in the country. This later policy set into motion the economic transformation of modern China.[1]
The late 19th century policy was enunciated in Secretary of State John Hay's Open Door Note, dated September 6, 1899 and dispatched to the major European powers.[2] It proposed to keep China open to trade with all countries on an equal basis, keeping any one power from total control of the country, and calling upon all powers, within their spheres of influence, to refrain from interfering with any treaty port or any vested interest, to permit Chinese authorities to collect tariffs on an equal basis, and to show no favors to their own nationals in the matter of harbor dues or railroad charges. Open Door policy was rooted in the desire of U.S. businesses to trade with Chinese markets, though it also tapped the deep-seated sympathies of those who opposed imperialism, with the policy pledging to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity from partition. It had little legal standing, and served in the main the interests of competing colonial powers without much meaningful input from the Chinese, creating lingering resentment and causing it to later be seen as a symbol of national humiliation by Chinese historians.
In the 20th-century and 21st-century, scholars such as Christopher Layne in the neorealist school have generalized the use of the term to applications in 'political' open door policies and 'economic' open door policies of nations in general which interact on a global or international basis.
