Absolute chaos is what we would define as anarchy; it is essentially the reverse of order. What makes an anarchy worse would be the shocking lack of a robust legal system because there can be no laws in a society built on complete chaos, but if you're talking about a government based on anarchy, it would be a system where there is no state identity and no real central government. Somalia, to some extent, serves as the most prevalent illustration of why a government founded on anarchy is a horrible concept. Although there is a central government, its power over its territory varies. Certain sections are under the influence of the militant group Al Shabab, and the Somaliland region is attempting to declare its independence from the federal government. The country is rife with a milder but no less deadly type of anarchy due to the absence of a strong central leadership.
Anarchic societies where every individual is equally empowered are unsustainable. The individuals quickly cluster into tribal units, and without some overriding authority, it’s impossible to stop that from happening. The tribal units (or gangs, if you prefer) are run by warlords who keep each other in check until one of them gains a decisive advantage over the others, and then you’ve got the beginnings of a state.
This drama has played out countless times in the course of human history, and is still playing out in the criminal underworld to the extent that it can. That extent is limited by the fact that now there is an overriding authority with enforceable power, the legitimate state.
Thank you,
Eddie
The answer is b) It created resentment and often hindered negotiations in Europe.
Let's look into it one by one:
a) It established unity and peace among European countries. -This is not true.
-Nationalism has caused the civilian of nations to want to protect themselves as well as get national glory by getting land. This caused territorial conflict and hostility between each nations instead of peace and unity.
b) It created resentment and often hindered negotiations in Europe. - This is correct.
-As mentioned, nationalism has caused conflicts of territorial interest between nations. The nations were wary against one another that they might be attacked. They are also unwilling to back down in order to get national glory and show their superiority of the nation. This had indeed caused resentment and many negotiations went unsuccessful such as the disarmament conference.
c)The feelings of nationalism created a wave a optimism about peace in Europe. - This is incorrect.
- The feeling of nationalism had caused the up rise of aggression which made the nations to be suspicious towards one another causing negative impact about peace in Europe.
d) Nationalism had no impact on Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.-This is false.
-As the above mentioned, nationalism had significant impact on the development in Europe.
Therefore the answer is b) It created resentment and often hindered negotiations in Europe.
Hope it helps!
Answer:
i have he same question, we might be in the same class fr
our teacher name start with a t lol
Explanation:
Babylon, Perseoplis, and Susa.
Answer:
The Persian wars against Greece were caused because Darius, the Persian king, wanted to expand their empire. The wars took place in the early 5th century B.C. but the first attack was around 490 B.C. but the Persians lost. King Darius was humiliated and wanted to continue which caused the series of wars. Athens also sent ships to help the Ionian city-states fight the Persians
Explanation:
Darius, the Persian king, had vowed to Athens and Eretria for their support for the revolt.
