I agree. His motivations were not bad such as save China but in that time they did not have a stable government, so it was not good for them all.
When Chiang returned to China in 1911, he participated in a revolution that ended the Qing Manchu dynasty, which then reigned in the country. With that, it transformed China into a republic. However, for many years there was no stable government, as some feudal warlords, who dominated the provinces, fought for power.
After a period of study in the Soviet Union, Chiang returned to China in 1923. Two years later, he replaced Sun at the helm of the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party). At that time the Communists were part of the Nationalist Party, but in 1927 Chiang Kai-shek expelled them from it. Chiang also rose up against the warlords and, in 1928, established a new government. Warlords and Communists, however, continued to oppose him.
When Japan invaded China in 1937, Chiang made a temporary alliance with the communists to fight the invaders. This struggle became part of the larger World War II conflict. After the Japanese surrender in 1945, the Communists turned against Chiang again. In 1949 they defeated him and founded the People's Republic of China. Chiang Kai-shek transferred his nationalist government to the island of Taiwan, where he died on April 5, 1975.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
I am going to choose the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The three specific arguments in favor of why this Amendment is necessary in a democratic society are the following.
1.- One of the most important characteristics of modern democratic societies is that citizens are free. Without freedom, there is no democracy.
2.- People have their own set of belief systems and they will always have them. It is intrinsic to human nature. No matter what religion people profess, it is their right.
3.- The right to assemble in a peaceful way to exchange ideas, no matter what kind of ideas, it's part of any democratic government and society in the world.
The two arguments against why this Amendment may no longer be necessary in today's America.
1.- It is so implicit that citizens have rights that will come a day in which this value of liberty would have no need to be part of a Bill of Rights.
2.- Science and the use of logic could be a substitute for the ingraining belief that people need religion to have something to believe in. When science could be able to explain it all through the use of reason, maybe there won't be the necessity to include freedom of religion as part of the Bill of Rights.
In the United States on the East Coast- New York, Boston, Charleston, Norfolk.
I believe the answer is D. <span>It united many different European kingdoms under a shared religious culture.
When roman empire falls, the fragments of what used to be territories formed their own kingdom/Governance.
and even though the kingdoms/governance are now separated, they still held into their religious Christian traditions as some sort of guidance in their life</span>
