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
masha68 [24]
3 years ago
15

50 points and brainliest: plz don't copy and paste other answers.

History
2 answers:
MArishka [77]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

Why do you think some countries were more successful than others with pollitcal transitions?

Some transitions where peaceful and some cause longer-term instablility because of who was leading, many of the counrties that had been colonized by other larger more powerful countries had damaged and taken away many things from smaller less powerful countries that they tried to conlonize or invade for resources and power, including younger and more smarter individuals that could've helped to bettter those countries, especially in different smaller countries.

So once you include that into the mixture it really would depend on circumstances and settings for a leader to do well with what they were given, since a lot of the more smarter individuals and minds that could've been better to lead and help smaller countries were lost during when larger more powerful countries forcefully invaded and tried to colonize and control smaller countries.  

Cause different people from smaller countries that weren't very educated and is given an already unstable country cause from others trying to either forcefully conlonize, control, or invade for resources, uneducated people who haven't had experience with those things to begin with wouldn't do well in the first place trying to handle a counrty let alone one thats already unstable, let alone handle or control a country or handle political transitions properly.

Then on the other side you have more educated leaders who have experience and knowledge with such things as well as how to control and handle a counrty properly, as well as being in control of some of the more stronger, larger, and powerful countries with the ability to take over, colonize, and invade other smaller countries for resources and power, gave them the better hand in things as well as more successful as a country and as a leader in general.

What do you think were the biggest challenges facing newly independent countries?

1. Their was already larger and more powerful countries with experienced, knowledgable, and powerful leaders sending out their own people to colonize smaller countries and lands as well as invade other smaller countries for resources.  

2. A lot of the smaller countries as well as newly made independent countries had already been colonized by other larger more powerful countries or they were invaded for resources, or they were in the process of having those things happen. This led to lots of loss of smarter and stronger people that could've helped the smaller countries, as well as loss of good resources that could also help smaller countries.

3. Some newly independent countries were countries that had split off from the larger more powerful countries because they thought that they were too controlling, in the process making enemies with the larger more powerful countries for the time being.

4. Being a smaller country surrounded by larger more powerful countries meant that the power was obviously one sided and the smaller countries didn't have much of a chance to fight back if they had to defend themselves from anything so if it did ever come to it they would have to either give up to larger counrties or be destroyed and have resources taken if a larger country with more defenses wanted to colonize or invade.

5. Being a smaller country, let alone a newly formed one meant not as many open resources available, as well as not having much on a trade market because of the size.

Would it have been possible for leaders to prevent these problems before they happened? why or why not?

Yes, although it would have to be the larger more powerful countries to do it since they were the ones that would have that control and power to prevent it.

Larger countries could've tried to offer any extra resources or supplies to smaller countries to try to build them up and make them larger, as well as make more allys in the process, as well as if any other larger countries tried to invade, control, or colonize smaller countries against their will they would have other larger more powerful countries to help defend and protect them from that threat, in exchange they could've given larger countries extra resources and supplies they needed in exchange for allying with them, instead of the larger more powerful countries just invading and taking resources and land, and having smaller countries get build up of losses in the process.

Brums [2.3K]3 years ago
3 0
I’d say some countries had an easier time with shifting independence because of who was at the helm of there leadership and what advantages they were given weather it comes to land, trade or power overall. In Africa it would’ve been much harder to obtain political stability for new countries because of the colonization that had hurt many African countries and had made them give up many young people and loose many smart individual minds that could lead there country. It honestly depends on the circumstances that many leaders were put into mamut leaders from impoverished nations couldn’t really control what they were given and couldn’t do much with what to fix because of the amount that was taken from them, while leaders in rich countries would be able to have more control and power to work with so the more resources you have the more the leader can actually begin to do activities that can either help or hurt there country depending on what there type of government is.
You might be interested in
Explain one way in which policies or monarchs and leaders withstood challenges in the period 1450 to 1750
max2010maxim [7]

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

One way in which policies or monarchs and leaders withstood challenges in the period 1450 to 1750 was because they were absolute rulers of their kingdoms. Absolutism was the factor that favored them because it gave them total and absolute power to exert their will over their territories and people. AS they demanded absolute obedience to their subjects, no act of rebellion was tolerated was heavily punished, even with death. This absolute power helped kings to withstand challenges in the period 1450 to 1750 and to have the allegiance of their kingdoms.

7 0
4 years ago
Why did southern citizens believe that the draft was unfair during the civil war
dolphi86 [110]

For this reason, both the United States and Confederate States enacted conscription in 1862. The Confederacy was the first to enact compulsory military service. A draft was necessary due to the poor planning on the part of the Confederate government.

HOPE THIS HELPED!!!! XD

4 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
When he suggested that change should be brought about “by any means necessary,” Malcolm X was stating violence would be necessar
inna [77]

Answer:

A) Violence would be necessary to achieve civil rights goals.

Explanation:

Malcolm X was a famous civil rights leader during the 1960's. In terms of inciting change, his style was much different than the nonviolent methods used by people such as Martin Luther King Jr. Instead, Malcolm X advocated for self defense and violence if necessary. Malcom X argued that if whites were going to use violence against black citizens, than these black citizens should have the right and responsibility to fight back to protect themselves.

8 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What was the basis of the watergate scandal answers?
Andru [333]
An illegal break in at the Watergate Hotel in Washington DC during the Democratic Convention. What seemingly started out as a common burglary gradually took on greater significance. Largely but not solely as a result of investigative journalism by two Washington Post reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the trail went back to the White House and indeed the Oval Office.
It reflected the paranoia of Nixon and the corrupt and illegal practices of his advisers and cronies. It eventually led to Nixon's resignation and jail sentences for some of the most powerful men surrounding him such as John Dean, Bob Haldeman and John Erlichman.
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which of the following forms of city government does NOT have a single person in charge like a mayor or city
antoniya [11.8K]

Answer:

A: Commission.

Explanation:

:) have a great day

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What contributed most to trade in the new kingdom in Egypt?
    14·1 answer
  • Why did George Pickett fail to protect Five Forks when Sheridan attacked it?
    6·2 answers
  • What was at the root of the nullification idea? The rights of the people The structure of the state government The powers of the
    8·1 answer
  • What might the navy have done differently to minimize damage from the attack on pearl harbor?
    11·1 answer
  • 4. Which statement is true?
    13·1 answer
  • What is Zinn attempting to say about historians? Do you agree or disagree? Support your answer as best as you can.
    13·1 answer
  • How do the underlined sentences develop the central
    7·2 answers
  • In what ways did the South change during reconstruction?<br><br>In the U.S. after slavery.​
    15·1 answer
  • How Did you feel the Compromise of 1850 was effective and appropriate? Explain why you feel that way.
    13·1 answer
  • Which ocean surrounds Antarctica on all sides?
    13·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!