HELP ASAP easy points

History

1 answer:

Vesnalui [34]3 years ago

3 0

Answer:

There was no clear winner.

Explanation:

I took the test.

hsjdbdidkbsis

You might be interested in

Why did the United States change its plans to invade Japan?

lisov135 [29]

Answer:

Unified command was decided to be necessary for the invasion, interservice rivalry over who it would be was so serious it derailed planning

6 0

3 years ago

1. [Part A] Which statement is true about the Aztecs and the Spaniards? *

ololo11 [35]

Answer:

The answer is D, The Spaniards took advantage of the Aztecs.

Explanation:

The Aztecs thought that the Spaniards where their gods, who where white figures coming to take residence in the empire and if the Aztecs did not give them what they wanted they would be killed by the Spaniards. So the Spaniards took all their lavish clothes and gold. The Spaniards kept this up for a while but eventually the Spaniards attacked and destroyed the Aztecs.

4 0

3 years ago

If u help me with these 15 questions ill give brainlest every time have to be right

Softa [21]

Answer:

Explanation:

4 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Giving brainliest!!!! Please help asap!!!

alexira [117]

I’m pretty sure it’s D

7 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Compare and contrast the ways that seventeenth-century

Lina20 [59]

Answer:

<h2>Important differences - Unlike the other two, Charles I was not associated with any political Party, and had not "risen through the ranks" to become Leader. As a King, he achieved his position by heredity, and since no-one can choose their parents, this was used to justify the doctrine of "Divine Right" - God dedcides that a child shall be born into a Royal succession, and it is blasphemy to make any attempt to change this. Similarly, it was therefore the "will of God" that he should be succeeded by one of his children - the eldest son, in the English and Scottish tradition. In England, there was also the unusual situation that, as well as being Head of State, the King was also Head of a particular religious organization - the "Church of England" - which meant that he could not be expected to recognise any other form of Christianity. It was his enforcement of this which aroused resistance by such men as Cromwell, who was against any enofrced religon, and for "liberty of conscience". (This was why Cromwell subsequently also opposed Parliament when it attempted to enforce Presbyterianism,) There is perhaps case for seeing a similarity in Stalin, since "Marxist/Leninist Communism" was in fact a "religion", even though a godless one. There are virtually no comparisons with Hitler.</h2>

3 0

3 years ago