The Triple Alliance and Triple Entente are two opposing alliances that triggered in the start World War I. The formation of these two alliances heightened the tensions between European countries. The Triple Alliance which is composed of <span>Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy had a conflict with Triple Entente members - France, Russia, and Great Britain. Germany and Russia, during that time, had a great interest towards the Balkans. This is one of the reasons of the occurrence of World War I. So, the answer to the question is letter d. increasing tensions between European countries.</span>
Answer:
Germany, Italy, and Japan
Explanation:
They were the aggressor nations during the 1930's until 1943 for Italy (Italy surrendered in 1943), and 1945 for Germany/Japan (Germany surrendered in May/Japan in August/Sept). Hitler took leadership of Germany in 1933: Due to the "Armistice Agreement" that ended WWI, Germany was forbidden to build a strong Army, Navy or Air Force. He found a "loophole" around the treaty by building an army which trained on wooden rifles & machinguns, and cardboard tanks. His navy was built around submarines, a vessel not considered as important as Battleships. His Air Force was created by civilian "Flying Clubs", using GLIDERS to train his future pilots. By the end of the 1930's, Germany violated the treaty restrictions in THE OPEN, as there was no "teeth" in the enforcement of the treaty. Mussolini took leadership of Italy in 1922, and simply developed his armed forces from the position that they occupied when he took over. Mussolini attempted to "re-create a new Rome." Hirohito inherited the throne, becoming Emperor in 1926. In 1926, Japan was already a powerful war machine. Having defeated China in 1894, Russia in 1905, and was an allied power against Germany during WWI (1914-1918).
Thomas Hobbes believed that people were inherently suspicious of one another and in competition with one another. This led him to propose that government should have supreme authority over people in order to maintain security and a stable society.
John Locke argued that people were born as blank slates, open to learning all things by experience. Ultimately this meant Locke viewed human beings in a mostly positive way, and so his approach to government was to keep the people empowered to establish and regulate their own governments for the sake of building good societies.
Further explanation:
Both English philosophers believed there is a "social contract" -- that governments are formed by the will of the people. But their theories on why people want to live under governments were very different.
Thomas Hobbes published his political theory in <em>Leviathan</em> in 1651, following the chaos and destruction of the English Civil War. He saw human beings as naturally suspicious of one another, in competition with each other, and evil toward one another as a result. Forming a government meant giving up personal liberty, but gaining security against what would otherwise be a situation of every person at war with every other person.
John Locke published his <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government</em> in 1690, following the mostly peaceful transition of government power that was the Glorious Revolution in England. Locke believed people are born as blank slates--with no preexisting knowledge or moral leanings. Experience then guides them to the knowledge and the best form of life, and they choose to form governments to make life and society better.
In teaching the difference between Hobbes and Locke, I've often put it this way. If society were playground basketball, Hobbes believed you must have a referee who sets and enforces rules, or else the players will eventually get into heated arguments and bloody fights with one another, because people get nasty in competition that way. Locke believed you could have an enjoyable game of playground basketball without a referee, but a referee makes the game better because then any disputes that come up between players have a fair way of being resolved. Of course, Hobbes and Locke never actually wrote about basketball -- a game not invented until 1891 in America by James Naismith. But it's just an illustration I've used to try to show the difference of ideas between Hobbes and Locke. :-)
The message that he was trying to get across to everybody, was that they were strong enough and capable enough to break free from England all together. Also, he was making it clear to the king of England that the new people of United states were not afraid to break free. His whole goal was to persuade the people that they should break free because, for one, the king was already taxing them to death, and two, the king still had control over them and he still had their loyalty even though they left. He wanted to make them realize how important it was for them to try to break free of Europe's control and to officially make the United States of America.
I hope this helps you. :)