A.
They disagreed about who should control certain cities and regions.
Answer:
B. Natural boundary
Explanation:
Haiti and the Dominican Republic share an island. The border of the two nations that divide the island of Hispaniola, in the Caribbean, has extreme contrasts. In many places in this area, one can look to the east (the Dominican side) and see pine forests, and when we turn to the other side (the Haitian), we see only fields almost devoid of trees. Originally, the island as a whole was known for the exuberance of its forests. Today, 28% of the vegetation cover is preserved in the Dominican Republic, compared to just 1% in Haiti - and the few Haitian reserves are threatened by peasants who cut down trees to make charcoal. The reason is historical. Despite being today one of the poorest countries in the world, Haiti developed a thriving agricultural economy in the 18th century, becoming the richest colony in France. At that time, the French empire decided to invest in intensive plantations based on slave labor, while Spain did not develop its side of the island (the Dominican Republic). In addition, all ships that brought slaves returned to Europe with loads of wood. This contributed to faster deforestation and loss of soil fertility - which you can see from the sky.
Answer:
The Soviet Union's primary purpose was to prevent East Germans from escaping to West Germany.
Explanation:
The Berlin Wall was built to divide communist East Germany from democratic West Germany and to keep East Germans from escaping to West Germany. After World War II, defeated Germany was divided into four zones, each occupied by Allied forces: the United States, France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. Tension between the communist territory and the democratic territories mounted, and the Berlin Wall was built to separate them. I hope I helped, please corrected if I'm wrong!
the correct answer is that his concept was based on his idea of goverment and greed.
Answer:
United States v. Virginia
Explanation:
The case United States v. Virginia (1996) is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court established that the Virginia Military Institute could no longer continue implementing its male-only admission rule. The majority decision established that the institute could not show persuasive reasons for the existence of the policy. It also established that such a rule violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause.
