1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
pickupchik [31]
3 years ago
9

Identify a similarity or a difference between the events, ideas, or historical developments presented in documents 1 and 2.

History
1 answer:
Ostrovityanka [42]3 years ago
3 0

Hello. You have not provided the documents to which the question relates, which makes it impossible for your question to be answered.

However, for you to answer your question you will need to analyze these documents in parts, highlighting each element that makes them up and listing the similar and different elements between them.

To do this, you must start by analyzing which historical event each document is referring to, which year and the location where the event takes place.

You should also show if the authors of the document have any position on the events listed, in which case, you will analyze the ideas shown in each document and how they reinforce and justify the events.

Finally, you should analyze how these events developed, what factors made them up and what results they caused.

You might be interested in
What reason did perry give for his visit to Japan
devlian [24]

half a xan and its about 13 ours till i land

5 0
3 years ago
Malcolm X advocated black nationalism, self-determination, racial pride, self-respect, and the use of self-defense.
Sauron [17]

Answer:

O True

Explanation:

All were key principles of his ideals

8 0
3 years ago
25 POINTS! What did Mary Todd Lincoln repeatedly ask while her husband was dying?
Usimov [2.4K]

“We will visit the Holy Land, and see those places hallowed by the footsteps of the Savior. There is no city on earth I so much desire to see as Jerusalem.”

3 0
3 years ago
In one paragraph, explain why the Anti-Federalist argument that the Constitution should provide protections for individual right
OLga [1]

Explanation:

<em>In the ratification debate, the Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution. They complained that the new system threatened liberties, and failed to protect individual rights. ... One faction opposed the Constitution because they thought stronger government threatened the sovereignty of the states.</em>

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Great Britain and France avoided a take over by fascist by
maks197457 [2]

Answer:

Great Britain and France avoid a take over by fascists' by restricting freedom of speech.

Explanation:

Fascism is a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. , and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.  

How Britain and France avoided fascist revolution inside their own country during rise of fascism in Italy and Germany?

What made Mussolini’s Fascism, and Lenin’s Communism too, was a specific and unique situation, never to be repeated in later history: namely, the presence of enormous masses of disaffected veterans, with recent experience of war at a very high technical level of skill, and angry about the condition of their country. (And of enormous amounts of weapons.) Fascism was not made by speeches or by money, but by tens of thousands of men gathering in armed bands to beat up enemies. And that being the case, what happened to the similar masses of veterans who came home to France, Britain, and America too, after 1918?

Well, France was exhausted. She had fought with her full strength from day one, whereas Britain had taken time to deploy its whole strength, and America and Italy had only entered the war much later. For five years, every man who could be spared had been at the Front. Her losses were larger in proportion than those of any other great power. And on the positive side, France, like Britain and America, was prosperous. The veterans went home to a country that was comparatively able to receive them, give them a place to be, and not foster any dangerous mass disaffection. This is of course relatively speaking. There will have been anger enough, irritation enough, even some disaffection. But the only real case of violence from below due to disaffection was the riot in Paris that followed the Stavisky affair in early 1934, and that, compared to what took place daily in other countries, was a very bad play of a riot.

ON the other hand, both America and Britain experienced situations that had more than a taste of Fascism, but that failed to develop into freedom-destroying movements. In America, Fascism could have come from above. The last few years of the Wilson administration were horrendous: the Red Scare fanaticized large strata of the population, and the hatred came from the top, from Wilson and his terrible AG Palmer. (Palmer was a Quaker. So was Richard Nixon. Is there a reason why Quakers in politics should prove particularly dangerous?) Hate and fear of “reds” was also the driving force of Italian Fascism; and Wilson and Palmer mobilized it in ways and with goals that Mussolini would have understood. Had Wilson not suffered his famous collapse, he might have been a real danger: he intended to run for a third term in office. And the nationwide spread of the new KKK, well beyond the bounds of the old South, shows that he might have found a pool of willing stormtroopers. Altogether, I think America dodged a bullet the size of a Gatling shot when Wilson collapsed in office.

Britain’s own Blackshirt moment took place in Ireland. Sociologically, culturally, psychologically, the Blacks and Tans were the Blackshirts of Britain - masses of disaffected veterans sent into the streets to harass and terrify political enemies, bullies in non-standard uniforms with a loose relationship with the authorities. Only, their relationship with public opinion developed in an exactly opposite direction. Whereas Italy’s majority, horrified by Socialist violence at home and by Communist brutality abroad, tended increasingly to excuse the Blackshirts and wink at their violence, in Britain - possibly because of the influence of the American media, which were largely against British rule in Ireland - the paramilitary force found itself increasingly isolated from the country’s mainstream, and eventually their evil reputation became an asset to their own enemies and contributed to British acceptance of Irish independence.

Thanks,
Eddie

5 0
1 year ago
Other questions:
  • Which description best characterizes the North during the years leading up to the Civil War? urban, rural, and anti-slavery indu
    15·1 answer
  • How is the 1918 Flu Pandemic difference to Coronavirus 2020?
    10·1 answer
  • Collective discrimination is
    5·2 answers
  • Best defines characterization?
    11·1 answer
  • WHICH RELIGION BECAME THE STRONGEST RIVAL OF CHRISTANITY IN MEDITERRANEAN AREA DURING THE TIME OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE
    7·1 answer
  • One of the aims of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was to
    14·2 answers
  • SS or Secret Police Explain why the method of control described made is possible for Hitler and the Nazi Party to gain, consolid
    12·1 answer
  • Which best describes feudal society
    13·2 answers
  • Calling all animals "doggie" is an example of what common developmental process of language acquisition?
    5·2 answers
  • PLLLLZ HURRY 40 BP These posters show propaganda during World War I. Georgians motivated by these posters most likely conserved
    5·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!