The most common answer to this is that the United States adopted a policy of isolationism in the years after World War I. However, this is not strictly correct. The true policy of isolationism did not come until the 1930s. During the 1920s, the US adopted a foreign policy that was meant to prevent war, but one which engaged with other countries in this attempt.
There were two major events that show that this was true. The first was the Washington Naval Conference and the treaties that arose from it. These treaties attempted to set the sizes of the great powers’ navies. This was meant to prevent the sort of massive arms race that helped bring WWI about. The second of these was the Kellogg-Briand Pact. This was a treaty signed in 1928 which committed the US and other signatories to renounce war. In other words, this treat outlawed war. These were efforts by the US to prevent another war, but they were not isolationist.
Isolationism only came later. This came about particularly in the 1930s. By then, it seemed clear that the efforts of the 1920s were not working. Because of this, many Americans gave up on the idea of preventing war among other countries and concentrated on keeping the US from getting dragged into any wars that occurred. This was seen most clearly in the Neutrality Acts of the 1930s.
Thus, US policy right after WWI was a policy of making treaties to prevent war. After that seemed to fail, the US turned to isolationism.
Answer:
I think its H. Its members opposed enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act in the Northeast
The British Mandate for Palestine (1918-1948) was the outcome of several factors: the British occupation of territories previously ruled by the Ottoman Empire, the peace treaties that brought the First World War to an end, and the principle of self-determination that emerged after the war.
Answer:
They thought of themselves as independent from British rule, as Americans with their own govt.
Explanation:
Answer:
Since before recorded history, environmental changes have affected things people value. In consequence, people have migrated or changed their ways of living as polar ice advanced and retreated, endured crop failures or altered their crops when temperature and rainfall patterns changed, and made numerous other adjustments in individual and collective behavior. Until very recently, people have responded to global phenomena as if they were local, have not organized their responses as government policies, and have not been able to respond by deliberately altering the course of the global changes themselves. Things are different now from what they have been for millennia.
This chapter examines the range of human consequences of, and responses to, global environmental change. We begin by developing the concept of human consequences and showing why, to understand them, it is critical to understand the variety of human responses to global change. We then offer a framework for thinking about human responses and discuss the pivotal role of conflict. The next section examines three cases that illustrate many of the major factors influencing the human consequences of global change. The following sections describe the human systems that are affected by or respond to global change, and how they interrelate. We conclude by offering some general principles for research and some research implications.
Explanation:
