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
Nookie1986 [14]
3 years ago
13

Which of the following is the BEST description of George Washington as a military leader? *

History
1 answer:
photoshop1234 [79]3 years ago
7 0

Answer:

Correct answer is D. He was an exceptional leader who somehow overcame defeats and hardships to lead the United States to victory.

Explanation:

A is not correct because it was totally different. He was a strong, competent leader, who had support of his people.

B is not correct as he did lost some battles, for example at Long Island, but nevertheless had the support of both Congress and his people.

C is not correct because he was the first choice of the Congress.

D is correct because although he had many problems, with shortage of provisions, shortage of men, hard winter in Valley Forge and many others, he led his army to victory and country to Independence.

You might be interested in
Power.
zloy xaker [14]
A the first one xxxx
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
A student measures the voltage and current between two points in an
Gennadij [26K]

The resistance of the circuit  according to Ohm's law is; A: 147 Ω

<h3>How to use Ohm's Law?</h3>

Ohm's law states that the voltage across a conductor is directly proportional to the current flowing through it, provided all physical conditions and temperatures remain constant. Thus;

V = IR

Where;

V is voltage

I is current

R is resistance

Thus;

110 =0.75R

R = 110/0.75

R ≈ 147Ω

Read more about Ohm's Law at; brainly.com/question/1220677

#SPJ1

7 0
2 years ago
What war did the Soviet Union and the United States choose time both fight in?
STatiana [176]

Answer:

World War 2

Explanation:

During World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union fought together as allies against the Axis powers.

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Great Britain and France avoided a take over by fascist by
maks197457 [2]

Answer:

Great Britain and France avoid a take over by fascists' by restricting freedom of speech.

Explanation:

Fascism is a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. , and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.  

How Britain and France avoided fascist revolution inside their own country during rise of fascism in Italy and Germany?

What made Mussolini’s Fascism, and Lenin’s Communism too, was a specific and unique situation, never to be repeated in later history: namely, the presence of enormous masses of disaffected veterans, with recent experience of war at a very high technical level of skill, and angry about the condition of their country. (And of enormous amounts of weapons.) Fascism was not made by speeches or by money, but by tens of thousands of men gathering in armed bands to beat up enemies. And that being the case, what happened to the similar masses of veterans who came home to France, Britain, and America too, after 1918?

Well, France was exhausted. She had fought with her full strength from day one, whereas Britain had taken time to deploy its whole strength, and America and Italy had only entered the war much later. For five years, every man who could be spared had been at the Front. Her losses were larger in proportion than those of any other great power. And on the positive side, France, like Britain and America, was prosperous. The veterans went home to a country that was comparatively able to receive them, give them a place to be, and not foster any dangerous mass disaffection. This is of course relatively speaking. There will have been anger enough, irritation enough, even some disaffection. But the only real case of violence from below due to disaffection was the riot in Paris that followed the Stavisky affair in early 1934, and that, compared to what took place daily in other countries, was a very bad play of a riot.

ON the other hand, both America and Britain experienced situations that had more than a taste of Fascism, but that failed to develop into freedom-destroying movements. In America, Fascism could have come from above. The last few years of the Wilson administration were horrendous: the Red Scare fanaticized large strata of the population, and the hatred came from the top, from Wilson and his terrible AG Palmer. (Palmer was a Quaker. So was Richard Nixon. Is there a reason why Quakers in politics should prove particularly dangerous?) Hate and fear of “reds” was also the driving force of Italian Fascism; and Wilson and Palmer mobilized it in ways and with goals that Mussolini would have understood. Had Wilson not suffered his famous collapse, he might have been a real danger: he intended to run for a third term in office. And the nationwide spread of the new KKK, well beyond the bounds of the old South, shows that he might have found a pool of willing stormtroopers. Altogether, I think America dodged a bullet the size of a Gatling shot when Wilson collapsed in office.

Britain’s own Blackshirt moment took place in Ireland. Sociologically, culturally, psychologically, the Blacks and Tans were the Blackshirts of Britain - masses of disaffected veterans sent into the streets to harass and terrify political enemies, bullies in non-standard uniforms with a loose relationship with the authorities. Only, their relationship with public opinion developed in an exactly opposite direction. Whereas Italy’s majority, horrified by Socialist violence at home and by Communist brutality abroad, tended increasingly to excuse the Blackshirts and wink at their violence, in Britain - possibly because of the influence of the American media, which were largely against British rule in Ireland - the paramilitary force found itself increasingly isolated from the country’s mainstream, and eventually their evil reputation became an asset to their own enemies and contributed to British acceptance of Irish independence.

Thanks,
Eddie

5 0
1 year ago
Define the following word:<br> totalitarianism –
Reika [66]

Answer:

A system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

Explanation:

3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Can anyone help me on this please?
    12·2 answers
  • In the late 1800’s, which southeast villages were bombed by the US military?
    8·1 answer
  • As secretary of the treasury, what was alexander hamilton's main job?
    11·2 answers
  • What are 3 examples of trace fossils
    8·2 answers
  • The Fourth Amendment implies privacy because it protects the right
    6·1 answer
  • I WILL REWARD BRAINLIEST !!!!!
    6·1 answer
  • How do you see the human civilization a hundred years from now?why?​
    11·1 answer
  • How did Lincoln feel about the south seceding according to his inaugural address
    12·1 answer
  • Why did most Japanese Americans accept internment?
    15·2 answers
  • Who Stated "One must serve the king with life and limb, and surrender everything except salvation. the latter is reserved for Go
    15·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!