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
Aloiza [94]
3 years ago
9

What were the causes of World War One

History
2 answers:
Nuetrik [128]3 years ago
7 0

Treaties and Alliances: In the years preceding WWI many European nations formed alliances that would pull the other into war if one was attacked.

Imperialism: Increasing competition and desire for larger empires led to an increase in hostilities that helped push Europe into war.

Militarism: In the years before WWI began many European nations began stockpiling weapons and building new warships in an arms race.

Nationalism: Much of the origin of the war was based on the desire of the Slavic peoples in Bosnia and Herzegovina to no longer be part of Austria Hungary but instead be part of Serbia. The nationalism of the various countries throughout Europe contributed not only to the beginning but the extension of the war in Europe

romanna [79]3 years ago
5 0
World War 1 can be mainly attributed to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, however there were other underling factors, the complicated web of alliances for example, drew other countries who had no business being in the war into it. another cause of the war was that it was right after a period of high tension, with the Archduke's assassination being the point of no return.
 Hope this helps!
You might be interested in
The ____ swept across France as peasants attacked nobles and clergy
zzz [600]

Answer:

I am taking points bye ok so what's about your answer so yet

5 0
3 years ago
When did modern humans, or Homo sapiens firs appear
vitfil [10]
<span>The current thinking is around 200,000 years ago, but I would argue against this by saying that humans had not yet developed the same mental capacity that we have today, as some cognitive ability would have been needed in making art, which of course seems to have appeared around 70,000 years ago in its geometric form, where as the figurative animal paintings and carvings came to be around 40-35 thousand years ago. So, humans were physically definitely modern around 200ka, but mentally, this is unlikely. It is of course possible to argue that behavioural changes need not to be dictated by physiological or cognitive changes. Art could just be an invention</span>
4 0
2 years ago
Look at the area shown on the map. Which religion was dominant in this part of the world during the postclassical era? A. Islam
victus00 [196]
I'm going to have to go with A because I studied in all of them besides A Islam so I'm going with A
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
HELP
torisob [31]

Answer:

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.

There is a lot of truth in this summary, but it is also simplistic. There is no doubt that Native Americans suffered enormously at the hands of white Americans, but federal Indian policy was shaped as much by paternalism, however misguided, as by white greed. Nor were Indians simply passive victims of white Americans’ actions. Their responses to federal policies, white Americans’ actions and the fundamental economic, social and political changes of the twentieth century were varied and divisive. These tensions and cross-currents are clearly evident in the history of the Indian New Deal and the policy of termination that replaced it in the late 1940s and 1950s. Native American history in the mid-twentieth century was much more than a simple story of good and evil, and it raises important questions (still unanswered today) about the status of Native Americans in modern US society.

Explanation:

Plz give me brainliest worked hard

8 0
3 years ago
What was the period in Japan's history in the late 19th century when imperial rule was restored known as?
slavikrds [6]
The answer is Meiji period also known as Meiji Restoration.


This was a major event in Japanese history that restored the Imperial rule over all of Japan. It is named after the Emperor Meiji.

The <span>Meiji period is usually defined between 1868 - 1912 which also saw nation-wide social and economic reforms.</span>

The <span>Meiji period was critical in bringing advanced learning and scientific knowledge to the Japanese society.</span>



6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which of the following causes high and low tides on Earth?
    5·1 answer
  • Nineteenth-century imperialists claimed they were fulfilling a "civilizing mission" in their overseas conquests. To what extent
    11·1 answer
  • The exchange of goods and services between the Native Americans and the Europeans was called the ______________________________.
    10·2 answers
  • What French philosopher emphasized equality and advocated that titles of nobility be removed? A) John Locke B) Thomas Hobbes C)
    7·1 answer
  • Suliranin ng reynang matapat
    15·1 answer
  • HELP IM BEING TIMED
    9·2 answers
  • PLS HELP!!! I WILL MARK BRAINLIEST!!!
    13·2 answers
  • Provide for the common defense ​
    12·1 answer
  • 2. Which revolution most directly addressed the unequal distribution of
    10·1 answer
  • What is true about each culture?
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!