After the fall of the last Dynasty in 1911 there was a long period when various groups struggled for control. The Nationalists were generally recognized by most foreign governments as the "legitimate government of China" but they only controlled a small portion of the country. Most of it was broken up and ruled by local "War Lords" who would loosely ally themselves with the Nationalists and be recognized as "Governors" of the region they controlled.
<span>The main rival to the Nationalists claim to power that could do anything about it were the Communists under Mao. The Communists and the Nationalist fought a protracted civil war before WW II, but called a truce to face the Japanese invasion in the 1930s. However, they did not prosecute that war very vigorously depending on the Americans to beat the Japanese and get them off their necks eventually. They both tended to squirrel away weapons so they could resume their civil war once Japan was out of the picture. </span>
<span>Before WW II the USSR would help first the Nationalists, then the Communists, whichever seemed to be in their best interest at the moment. They actually preferred China to be weak and divided because they were afraid a strong China might be a rival. </span>
<span>At the end of WW II Russia invaded Northern China and destroyed the Japanese Army deployed there. In the aftermath of WW II they backed the Communists in the renewed civil war and turned over large stockpiles of Japanese weapons they had captured during their invasion. </span>
<span>In the end the Communists won the civil war and the Nationalists retreated to the Island of Formosa (now known as Taiwan). So, in the end the Soviet Union did support the Communist victory in China. However, they were right...a strong China did emerge as a rival for leadership of the Communist World and demanding territory seized from China in the late 19th and through the mid-20th centuries be returned. The two nations went so far as to fight several boarder wars against each other in the mid to late 60s.</span>
The ability to speak write and read english
Answer: The comparison of Nicholas II and Vladimir Lenin
Explanation Both the leaders were hungry for power and came onto to become leaders by promising good for the people but the similarity didn't catch one's eye but how different to each historical figure was has been highlighted many a time.
- Nicholas II was czar and hence being born into a royal family made him an obvious leader whereas Lenin gained prominence in the party and came into power thus.
- Lenin had the willingness to lead Russia used the Bolshevik party to do so, however the Tsar was happy to be with his family and pets and not a bit interested in leadership.
- Nicholas II and his entire family were assassinated whereas Lenin died of natural causes way later.
- Lenin was the more brutal of the two and used his power to get what he wanted even if it meant torturing or murdering. here Nicholas made some concessions.
- The military responsibility was on Nicholas II during his regime but when Lenin took over he would delegate it.
Finally, none of them actually cared for the poor, the oppressed were further in distress when these two came to power.
1607- Jamestown was founded
1620- Mayflower docks on plymouth harbor
1639- first colonial constitution
