1. The Cold War didn’t lead to a single big conflict, rather many smaller ones.
2. The USA and USSR were both trying to spread its ideals. The USA spreading Democracy and freedom, while the USSR spread controlling and unfair communism and socialism. They would spread these ideals by influencing smaller nations. And sometimes they would influence the same nation and cause a civil war/revolution. These consist of The Korean War and Vietnam.
3. The Cold War eventually came to an end when USSR officials started loosening restrictions for the country. Until it eventually separated and became Russia followed by many others. Thus ending the Cold War.
Answer:
There
Explanation:
History is the study of life in society in the past, in all its aspect, in relation to present developments and future hopes. ... It is an inquiry into the inevitable changes in human affairs in the past and the ways these changes affect, influence or determine the patterns of life in the society.
Answer:
The correct answer is A. Delegates were working to replace the Articles of Confederation because they created a central government that was too weak.
Explanation:
The Articles of Confederation formed a weak confederation that united the Thirteen Colonies, with the capacity to govern themselves almost only in times of war and emergencies. Congress could make decisions, but did not have the power to apply them. The biggest setback was the requirement of unanimous approval of the Thirteen states to modify the articles. At the same time, the most important power that Congress lacked was the power to collect taxes: it could only request money from the States. These, for their part, did not always comply with the demands and Congress did not have the necessary funds for its operation.
After the end of the War of Independence and the beginning of new priorities, its limitations became evident. This document was replaced by the Constitution of the United States after its ratification on June 21, 1788.
First blank Roads and not sure about the second sorry.
The case <em>Miranda v. Arizona (1966)</em> was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court in which the court established that prosecutors cannot use a person's statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial, unless the person was informed of what is known as "Miranda warning," but voluntarily waived these rights.
A "Miranda warning" is an explanation given to people arrested that informs them of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning. It also informs them of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning. The court's ruling protect those accused of a crime because it prevents them from incriminating themselves. It also reminds them of the importance of an attorney for achieving a successful trial.
