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
erma4kov [3.2K]
3 years ago
5

Explain the tensions that grew between MacArthur and Truman. what was the source of the tensions and what did it lead to

History
1 answer:
frutty [35]3 years ago
7 0

Answer uwu <3:

A dispute between President Harry S. Truman and General Douglas MacArthur in 1951, during the Korean War. MacArthur, who commanded the troops of the United Nations, wanted to use American air power to attack the People's Republic of China. Truman refused, fearing that an American attack on China would bring the Soviet Union into the war. When MacArthur criticized Truman's decision publicly, Truman declared MacArthur insubordinate and removed him as commanding general. MacArthur returned to the United States, received a hero's welcome, and told Congress. “Old soldiers never die, they only fade away.”

You might be interested in
How could I start a Podcast (For History)
Alenkinab [10]

Answer: try Spotify

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Will give brainliest!<br><br><br> what does the Constitution say about the rights of U.S Citizens
Serhud [2]

It says exactly as follows:

Right to a prompt, fair trial by jury. Right to vote in elections for public officials. Right to apply for federal employment requiring U.S. citizenship. Freedom to pursue “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”


Hope it helped,


BioTeacher101

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Did the Native Americans believe that acquiring possessions was an important goal?
ohaa [14]

Answer:

Explanation:At the start of the twentieth century there were approximately 250,000 Native Americans in the USA – just 0.3 per cent of the population – most living on reservations where they exercised a limited degree of self-government. During the course of the nineteenth century they had been deprived of much of their land by forced removal westwards, by a succession of treaties (which were often not honoured by the white authorities) and by military defeat by the USA as it expanded its control over the American West.  

In 1831 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, had attempted to define their status. He declared that Indian tribes were ‘domestic dependent nations’ whose ‘relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian’. Marshall was, in effect, recognising that America’s Indians are unique in that, unlike any other minority, they are both separate nations and part of the United States. This helps to explain why relations between the federal government and the Native Americans have been so troubled. A guardian prepares his ward for adult independence, and so Marshall’s judgement implies that US policy should aim to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream US culture. But a guardian also protects and nurtures a ward until adulthood is achieved, and therefore Marshall also suggests that the federal government has a special obligation to care for its Native American population. As a result, federal policy towards Native Americans has lurched back and forth, sometimes aiming for assimilation and, at other times, recognising its responsibility for assisting Indian development.

What complicates the story further is that (again, unlike other minorities seeking recognition of their civil rights) Indians have possessed some valuable reservation land and resources over which white Americans have cast envious eyes. Much of this was subsequently lost and, as a result, the history of Native Americans is often presented as a morality tale. White Americans, headed by the federal government, were the ‘bad guys’, cheating Indians out of their land and resources. Native Americans were the ‘good guys’, attempting to maintain a traditional way of life much more in harmony with nature and the environment than the rampant capitalism of white America, but powerless to defend their interests. Only twice, according to this narrative, did the federal government redeem itself: firstly during the Indian New Deal from 1933 to 1945, and secondly in the final decades of the century when Congress belatedly attempted to redress some Native American grievances.

3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What were the Nuremberg trails?
melisa1 [442]
The answer is B. Military trials held by the allies against german leaders
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
When Virginians could help make laws, self-government began in America.<br><br><br> True or false
d1i1m1o1n [39]

Answer:

True

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Some scholars Why did the Puritans leave England for America?
    11·1 answer
  • Read the evidence for an argumentative essay. Studies have shown that capitalist countries have people living in poverty, and ca
    15·1 answer
  • Give one reason Andrew Jackson should not be on the money.
    11·1 answer
  • When Lincoln was first elected president, he hoped to prevent war by allowing (1) ___________________ in the United States.
    6·2 answers
  • Would a group of teens who own there own guns be protected under the constitution
    12·1 answer
  • What word best describes the choice Lee made in joining the south?
    15·2 answers
  • Which statement accurately compares the Byzantine emperors Justinian I and Basil I?
    8·2 answers
  • Who believed the exodus showed that their god had the power to save a whole nation
    15·2 answers
  • Who is to blame for the holocaust? Do polish citizens of bransk have any responsibility for what happened to the jews there? Why
    8·1 answer
  • Someone help me with my questions on my page
    12·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!