All categories

3 years ago

Can one nation or empire take over another nation without oppressing others?

2 answers:

s2008m [1.1K]3 years ago

5 0

This is an opinion question, but I believe that it is possible to seize political control over a country without oppressing the country's people. However, history has shown otherwise (Nazi Germany, British Empire) but we can use past mistakes to improve our future world.

belka [17]3 years ago

3 0

Answer:

Theoretically, Yes, but there are many details involved in this and it is so very unlikely to happen.

Explanation:

A Nation can take over another nation in order to free its people from a tyrannic ruler, for example. As long as, eventually, those people become part of a democracy-like system in which they can be well represented, have no rights removed, and are granted freedom, you might say that they were not oppressed, but freed.

Unfortunately, history doesn't often has examples of such a happening, since when a nation takes over another, it because a ruler seeks dominance and the increase of his or her own power.

You might be interested in

PART B: Which detail from the text best supports the answer to Part A?

lubasha [3.4K]

Answer:

Option B

Explanation:

“At that point, Mary Maloney simply walked up behind him and without any pause she swung the big frozen leg of lamb high in the air and brought it down as hard as she could on the back of his head.” (Paragraph 42) best supports the answer to Part A.

7 0

4 years ago

1) How did pictured Leo Frank exemplify antisemitism in Georgia during

crimeas [40]

Answer:

I think it's A. I could be wrong lol

Explanation:

3 0

3 years ago

The encomienda system was__________.A. a slavery system except that the enslaved could not be sold off the land].B. a noble atte

olchik [2.2K]

Answer:A

Explanation: It started as a a slavery system in Iberia

6 0

4 years ago

Read 2 more answers

When might you see a colorful streak across the sky?

Anuta_ua [19.1K]

Answer:

when there is a rainbow

Explanation:

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Which of the following is the best definition for secondary source?

Otrada [13]

<em>You didn't provide a list of options, so let me just explain the difference between primary sources and secondary sources in studying history.</em>

Primary sources are things that come from persons directly involved in the events or lives being studied. So, let's say World War II is our subject. Any diary entries or letters (like the diary of Anne Frank or a letter by a soldier) would count as primary sources. So would any official proclamations or letters or government documents -- such as the Constitution of France or a declaration of war by US Congress.

Secondary sources are written by historians or others after their study of primary sources. A biography of Napoleon, or a historical article about one of America's founding fathers, or a textbook on world history -- all of those would be secondary sources.

4 0

4 years ago