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
almond37 [142]
3 years ago
11

What was the total cost of WWI? How much would that be adjusted for today?

History
2 answers:
lyudmila [28]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

$32 billion

Explanation:

Rockoff estimates the total cost of World War I to the United States at approximately $32 billion, or 52 percent of gross national product at the time.

soldi70 [24.7K]3 years ago
3 0
It should be around 32 billion. I’m not sure tho!
You might be interested in
How did the parva of 1942 BS help in establishing the shamsher Family's prominence in the rule of Nepal?​
hram777 [196]

Answer:

he event in which the sons of Dhir Shumsher killed their uncle Ranodip Singh and overtook the throne is called the event of 42 years. This event was called the event of 42 years because it was held in 1942 BS. After this event, the regime of Jung Bahadur's family ended and the regime of Shumsher family was started.

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
Which were provisions of the Treaty of Versailles?.
ddd [48]

Answer:

1. Established 9 new nations and shifted boundaries of others.

2. Carved 5 areas out of the Ottoman Empire and gave them to France and  Britain as mandates.

3. Barred Germany from maintaining an army of more than 100,000 men.

4. Required Germany to return region of Alsace Lorraine to France.

3 0
2 years ago
Describe the characteristics of the spartan culture
Ostrovityanka [42]

The culture of Sparta and the Spartans was pinpoint focused upon their military, they were a highly efficient unit on and off the battlefield. The only truly military state in ancient Greece, Spartans, men, women and children were born into, and lived in an existence that was ruled by regiment and organisation. It was this military regimented mentality that allowed the small Spartan population to become rulers of ancient Greece and the dominant fighting force of the time.

The Spartan society was based on the constitution and was ruled by a mixed state of government which worked using quite a complicated system, but this essentially consisted of two kings from two separate families. The kings were considered equal in power and their dual rulership was designed to ensure fairness and harmony in the state. This dual kingship was rather unique and not repeated anywhere in ancient Greece except Sparta, but this feature proved extremely popular throughout the timeline of ancient Sparta.

The Spartan elders were known as the Gerousia, and was formed from the two Spartan Kings and 30 additional elders. There were certain requirements before a Spartan could be considered for the Gerousia, they would of course have to be a Spartan citizen, be over sixty years old and the more noble your family, the more chance you had of becoming an elder.

The Geriousia themselves served an important role in the Spartan society, not only being involved in politics, but also acting as middle men between the kings and the Apella the general Spartiates. They would additionally serve as a court in the state, with the power to punish, fine and ban citizens, and even attempt to try the kings in extreme circumstances, should they do something that would require intervention.

source:

<span>http://www.legendsandchronicles.com/ancient-civilizations/ancient-sparta/spartan-culture/</span>
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Before civil war [slavery] essay
Serjik [45]

Answer:

The pre–Civil War years (1820–1860, or the “antebellum years”) were among the most chaotic in American history—a time of significant changes that took place as the United States came of age. During these years, the nation was transformed from an underdeveloped nation of farmers and frontiersmen into an urbanized economic powerhouse. As the industrialized North and the agricultural South grew further apart, five major trends dominated American economic, social, and political life during this period.

First, the Market Revolution—the shift from an agricultural economy to one based on wages and the exchange of goods and services—completely changed the northern and western economies between 1820 and 1860. After Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin and perfected manufacturing with interchangeable parts, the North experienced a manufacturing boom that continued well into the next century. Cyrus McCormick’s mechanical mower-reaper also revolutionized grain production in the West. Internal improvements such as the Erie Canal and the Cumberland Road, combined with new modes of transportation such as the steamboat and railroad, allowed goods and crops to flow easily and cheaply between the agricultural West and manufacturing North. The growth of manufacturing also spawned the wage-labor system.

Second, American society urbanized drastically during this era. The United States had been a land comprised almost entirely of farmers, but around 1820, millions of people began to move to the cities. They, along with several million Irish and German immigrants, flooded northern cities to find jobs in the new industrial economy. The advent of the wage-labor system played a large role in transforming the social fabric because it gave birth to America’s first middle class. Comprised mostly of white-collar workers and skilled laborers, this growing middle class became the driving force behind a variety of reform movements. Among these were movements to reduce consumption of alcohol, eliminate prostitution, improve prisons and insane asylums, improve education, and ban slavery. Religious revivalism, resulting from the Second Great Awakening, also had a large impact on American life in all parts of the country.

Third, the major political struggles during the antebellum period focused on states’ rights. Southern states were dominated by “states’ righters”—those who believed that the individual states should have the final say in matters of interpreting the Constitution. Inspired by the old Democratic-Republicans, John C. Calhoun argued in his “South Carolina Exposition and Protest” essay that the states had the right to nullify laws that they deemed unconstitutional because the states themselves had created the Constitution. Others, such as President Andrew Jackson and Chief Justice John Marshall, believed that the federal government had authority over the states. The debate came to a head in the Nullification Crisis of 1832–1833, which nearly touched off a civil war.

Fourth, and closely tied to the states’ rights issue, was the debate over slavery—the most divisive issue the nation had yet faced. Between 1820 and 1860, more and more northerners came to realize the horrors and injustices of slavery, while southerners grew increasingly reliant upon it to support their cotton-based economy. Northerners did not necessarily want social and political equality for blacks; they sought merely their emancipation. The debate in politics centered primarily on the westward expansion of slavery, which southern elites saw as vital to the survival of their aristocratic social and economic order. Others vehemently opposed the expansion of slavery outside the South. The debate was critical in the Missouri crisis, the annexation of Texas, and after the Mexican War.

Finally, the issue of westward expansion itself had a profound effect on American politics and society during the antebellum years. In the wake of the War of 1812, many nationalistic Americans believed that God intended for them to spread democracy and Protestantism across the entire continent. This idea of “manifest destiny” spurred over a million Americans to sell their homes in the East and set out on treacherous Oregon, Mormon, Santa Fe, and California Trails. Policymakers capitalized on public sentiment to acquire Florida and Oregon and declared war on Mexico in 1846 to seize Texas, California, and everything in between.

Ultimately, these trends irreconcilably split the North from the South. The Market Revolution, wage labor, improved transportation, social reforms, and growing middle class of the North all clashed with the deep-seated, almost feudal social hierarchies of the South. Each successive debate on slavery and westward expansion drove the regions further apart until finally, in the 1850s, the North and the South were two wildly different places, culturally, socially, and economically.

Explanation:

This is the essay. <em>Hope This Helps!</em>

5 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
The relief efforts of the early New Deal were intended to
Gwar [14]
The correct answer is this one: "E) be limited in scope and temporary in duration." <span>The relief efforts of the early New Deal were intended to </span><span>be limited in scope and temporary in duration. It has to be limited only in the scope. Meaning, this must not something that is permanent. It's just temporary.</span><span>
</span>

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What was Pol Pot's leadership role in Cambodia?
    14·2 answers
  • What challenges do you think came with governing an empire as large and diverse as roma?
    13·1 answer
  • Explain the purpose of hitlers “new order”
    15·1 answer
  • B. How did medieval farmers deal with the problem of soil exhaustion
    10·1 answer
  • Which of the following was the primary "spoil” in the spoils system?
    9·2 answers
  • 2) Sourcing: According to document C, who wrote document A and who was the intended<br> audience?
    10·2 answers
  • Which best describes a hardship faced on the Trail of Tears?
    5·1 answer
  • Write a Short Sentence on the Roman Empire please.
    5·2 answers
  • Which of these is an example of a service industry job in an urban center?
    14·1 answer
  • What did imperialism have om the united states in the late 1800s and early 1900s
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!