The hunter-gatherers and the people in the later Neolithic age had totally different lifestyles. While the hunter-gatherers were occupied with hunting animals and gathering tubers, fruits, and vegetables from the nature, the people in the later Neolithic had already built villages and minor cities, and they were performing agriculture.
By this, we can see that the hunter-gatherers didn't actually needed lots of types of tools, since they were mostly using them for hunting, slicing, and sewing of leathers to make clothes. The people in the later Neolithic needed much more tools because of the agriculture, so they had the pressure to invent and develop lots of new tools, and make them as advanced as possible in order to be able to perform the work on the agricultural land. They also needed new tools for they homes, as now the lifestyle has been changed, new things emerged that had to be done, so the diversification of tools skyrocketed.
Answer:
The sinking of the Lusitania by a German submarine was the event that pulled the US into World War I.
He is considered a genius in america
Imperial China suspected that they were unrivaled and that they had all the stuff that the Europeans as of now have. So they didn't need anything from them. China had dependably thought itself as the focal point of the world along these lines its name signifying "Focal/Middle Kingdom." But much to their dismay that Europe amidst the nineteenth century had gotten on to them and in the long run would outperform China monetarily. So China's haughtiness and thought of prevalence was a reason over the ruin of the Chinese domain. Japan then again discovered that they needed to adjust and acknowledge that Western innovation had outperformed the East to survive. Japan rapidly ended up industrialized and furthermore outperformed China. Japan at that point turned into a Great Power and figured out how to crush the Russians and colonized the greater part of East Asia and Southeast Asia.
Answer: Appeasement in an international context is a diplomatic policy of making political or material concessions to an aggressive power in order to avoid conflict.[1] The term is most often applied to the foreign policy of the UK governments of Prime Ministers Ramsay MacDonald (in office: 1929–1935), Stanley Baldwin (in office: 1935–1937), and (most notably) Neville Chamberlain (in office: 1937–1940) towards Nazi Germany (from 1933) and Fascist Italy (established in 1922)[2] between 1935 and 1939. Appeasement of Nazism and Fascism also played a role in French foreign policy of the period.[3]
At the beginning of the 1930s, appeasing concessions were widely seen as desirable - due to the anti-war reaction to the trauma of World War I (1914–1918), second thoughts about the vindictive treatment of Germany in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, and a perception that fascism was a useful form of anti-communism. However, by the time of the Munich Pact—concluded on 30 September 1938 between Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy—the policy was opposed by the Labour Party, by a few Conservative dissenters such as future Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Secretary of State for War Duff Cooper, and future Prime Minister Anthony Eden. Appeasement was strongly supported by the British upper class, including royalty, big business (based in the City of London), the House of Lords, and media such as the BBC and The Times.[4]
As alarm grew about the rise of fascism in Europe, Chamberlain resorted to news censorship to control public opinion.[5] He confidently announced after Munich that he had secured "peace for our time".[6]
Academics, politicians, and diplomats have intensely debated the 1930s appeasement policies for more than seventy years. The historians' assessments have ranged from condemnation for allowing Hitler's Germany to grow too strong, to the judgment that Germany was so strong that it might well win a war and that postponement of a showdown was in their country's best interests. Historian Andrew Roberts argued in 2019: "Indeed, it is the generally accepted view in Britain today that they were right at least to have tried... Britain would not enter hostilities for many more months, admitting unreadiness to directly oppose Germany in combat. She sat and watched the invasion of France, acting only four years later."[7] (Compare the British role in the Battle of France in 1940.)
Explanation: