Answer:
I would argue that militarism contributes to imperialism, not the other way around. <em>But</em> I guess that imperialism could lead to the growth of armies in that it allows them to expand their forces through the natives from the area that they're imperializing.
A good example of this would be the British East India Company. British imperialism was especially prevalent in India during the 18th/19th century, and during that time they were able to create a presidency armies which were mostly made up of Indian sepoys.
Answer:
Complicated
Explanation: The development of the Oil industry in Texas could've either reinforced the cowboy era, as cowboys are essentially land pirates, or ended it. Oil has a high value and with the way Texas was back then stealing it for profit could've been desirable. It could've ended it as it would've brought more wealth to the area therefore potentially raising the quality of life.
Answer:
I am often asked what role the Roman Emperor Constantine had in shaping the Bible. Much misinformation and rumour circulates about him. Popular books/movies such as the Da Vinci Code or Holy Blood, Holy Grail portray him as the Roman Emperor who basically made the Bible into what it is today for his own political ends. Is that true? Let us start with some easy-to-verify facts about him.
Explanation:
I hope this will help you
Firstly, the Americans received a great deal of international assistance, as another user pointed out. The British and French were historical antagonists and the French had lost great swaths of territory in North America during the Seven Years War (also known as the French and Indian War). As a result they were greatly interested in seeing the British receive a dose of their own medicine and provided both economic and military support to the Americans. Further, European military advisors like the Marquis de Lafayette, Philippe Tronson de Coudray, Baron von Steuben, chevalier de Laumoy, Thaddeus Kosciusko, Baron de Woedtke, Louis Duportail, and Johann de Kalb helped mold the Continental Army from a ragtag force into a military in the European sense.
It's also important to note that most of the American's military successes in the war, especially early on, came as a result of guerilla and irregular warfare epitomized by generals like Francis "Swamp Fox" Marion. These sort of attacks taxed British supply lines as any reinforcements and resupply had to be shipped across the Atlantic Ocean from Britain. Further, most British trops were fighting on unfamiliar terrain and, unless they were in port cities or Loyalist territory, they had no local sources of manpower or food. Also, all communications for the British forces had to be sent across the Atlantic as well, meaning it was often outdated.
Another thing going against the British was that there wasn't any center of gravity in the Colonies - after major cities like Charleston, New York, Boston, or Philadelphia were captured, the War kept on since the Americans were not centralized at that time. The size of the colonies played a role in the British defeat as well, as the British had to simultaneously fight a war and occupy the colonies to suppress the rebellion. They could easily fight the war, but not garrison troops, as doing so meant that those trops could not be readily sent into combat without allowing revolutionary sentiment to creep back into a previously occupied area. The British couldn't conduct suppression operations the same way they did in places like Ireland and Scotland, because doing so would mean that the British would lose the support of the Loyalists that they so desparately needed to maintain to ensure that they had any chance at all of winning the War, thus they were limited in how brutal they could be and whether they could employ slaves and American Indians to fight with them (keep in mind the greatest concentration of Loyalists existed in the American South) - especially after the hiring of Hessian mercenaries proved as controversial as it did.
In the end the combination of American tactics, European aid/intervention, and the limitations imposed on the British by fighting a war from across the ocean were the major reasons why the Colonies won their war for independence
Answer:
The Truman Doctrine that ruled the United States to foreign policy was based on the American diplomat George F. Kennan's strategy of containment. It was made to stop the spread of Communism in the world (communicated by Truman in March 29, 1947) during the Cold War. It's a military policy to contain the communist expansion of soviet union without a nuclear war. Truman hoped to stop the spread of communism, limiting the system to countries in which it already existed.
George F. Kennan was an American diplomat. He was an expert in Russian affairs because he lived in Russia and was knowledgeable of its culture, history, and ways of living. Kennan knew the Soviet Union hated communism because it was from their origins of not liking foreigners, along with not giving people the right to see the world how they wanted. There wasn't much freedom for them. Kennan aided in getting money to keep capitalist countries strong against communism. He helped America look like the good side of the war for helping with capitalist countries who suffered with poverty. He also highly recommended the State Department to counter-attack the effects of Communism globally because Stalin was set on disrupting and hurting capitalist countries for Communism. George F. Kennan heavily helped in influencing the Truman Doctrine.
The Soviet Union despised capitalism, George F. Kennan knew of this so it really put him at an advantage as an American Diplomat. Most of George F. Kennan's ideas heavily influenced the Truman Doctrine and aided in containment and stopping the spread of communism.
Explanation:
That's what I put, don't copy word-for-word just in case you get in trouble for copying.
