According to Patrick Henry, peace with England would only bring English colonists in America oppression or subjugation.
- This is evident when Patrick Henry who was then the governor of Virginia declared at the Second Virginia Convention that peace with England or the British government would only lead to more suppression with no freedom or independence.
- He was famous for stating that "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that Patrick Henry believed that peace with England would only bring English colonists in America oppression or subjugation.
Learn more here: brainly.com/question/13473943
Both Germany and Japan rose to power between WW II and both were due to nationalism. The government structures were different though - Germany had a President while Japan had an emperor as head of state. Hilter had more power as he controlled the legislature while it was the other way round in Japan.
Japan wanted more resources as the island did not have much so they wanted to invade China. Germany suffered after WW I and wanted to push back other countries. Both used nationalism as an excuse for their aggressive actions. These are the <span>similarities and differences between the two.
</span>
Answer:
The took it for themselves kind of.
Explanation:
On Aug. 19, 1953, elements inside Iran organized and funded by the Central Intelligence Agency and British intelligence services carried out a coup d’état that overthrew the government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. Historians have yet to reach a consensus on why the Eisenhower administration opted to use covert action in Iran, tending to either emphasize America’s fear of communism or its desire to control oil as the most important factor influencing the decision. Using recently declassified material, this article argues that growing fears of a “collapse” in Iran motivated the decision to remove Mossadegh. American policymakers believed that Iran could not survive without an agreement that would restart the flow of oil, something Mossadegh appeared unable to secure. There was widespread scepticism of his government’s ability to manage an “oil-less” economy, as well as fears that such a situation would lead inexorably to communist rule. A collapse narrative emerged to guide U.S. thinking, one that coalesced in early 1953 and convinced policymakers to adopt regime change as the only remaining option. Oil and communism both impacted the coup decision, but so did powerful notions of Iranian incapacity and a belief that only an intervention by the United States would save the country from a looming, though vaguely defined, calamity.
Answer:
I matched each answer by color, so its easy to understand.
Explanation:
I hope this helped!
