All categories

3 years ago

Which of these BEST describes why the United States became involved in what is known as the Korean War?

1 answer:

4 0

Answer: In June 1950 communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The United States came to the aid of South Korea at the head of a United Nations force composed of more than a dozen countries.

Explanation:

Communist China joined North Korea in the war in November 1950, unleashing a massive Chinese ground attack against American forces. The Soviet Union also covertly supported North Korea.

----------------------------------------------open-----------------------------------------------------------

hope this helps :)

You might be interested in

Political parties formed because _____________________. A the United States government was too weak without them b people had di

Marrrta [24]

They are ugly and stink like sheep

6 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Cynthia, a senior in high school, drove her car to pick up her friend. She noticed that when her friend got in the car, it appea

zhenek [66]

Answer:

cynthia has displayed sound judgement

7 0

3 years ago

Which of these statements would Winston Churchill most likely agree with?

pshichka [43]

The correct answer is Victory must be attained at all costs.

Churchill was arrested and sent to a prisoner-of-war camp in Pretoria, where he fled, walking 500km and insisted on staying in Africa, participating in several battles. This story made him a national hero when he returned in 1900.

He entered parliament in the same year, supported by the conservative party.

He married Clementine, and together they had 5 children.

In 1911, he took over as First Lord of the Admiralty, a highly prestigious position in the British Navy and in this post, during the First World War he was responsible for the disastrous Gallipoli and Dardanelles campaign. Received on the peninsula by well-prepared Ottomans, the offensive resulted in the death of 50,000 British and French. Churchill was fired from his position at the Admiralty.

After the Russian Communist Revolution, Churchill was an active voice against the expansion of communism in Europe.

He lived a political decline in the 1920s and 1930s, experiencing relative political isolation, dedicating himself to reading and writing. Winston is the only British prime minister to receive a Nobel Prize for literature.

From 1933, during Hitler's rise to Germany, Churchill raised his voice against what he considered a serious threat.

He was constantly going public, suggesting English rearmament and preparation for an inevitable conflict. He criticized the government for its passivity in the face of Hitler's demands.

In 1939, England declared war on Germany after the Nazis invaded Poland. At the same moment Churchill takes over the Admiralty again, in the same position he had been years before.

In 1940, in the middle of a German invasion of France, Winston Churchill was appointed Prime Minister. His inaugural speech was simple: "I have nothing to offer, other than blood, suffering, tears and sweat."

8 0

3 years ago

Why did President Carter create the Department of Energy? to overturn the 1973 oil embargo to reduce America’s dependence on for

shusha [124]

Answer:

To reduce America’s dependence on foreign energy

Explanation:

I got this answer right as to how I know it's correct.

3 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

HELP

torisob [31]

Answer:

At the start of the twentieth century there were approximately 250,000 Native Americans in the USA – just 0.3 per cent of the population – most living on reservations where they exercised a limited degree of self-government. During the course of the nineteenth century they had been deprived of much of their land by forced removal westwards, by a succession of treaties (which were often not honoured by the white authorities) and by military defeat by the USA as it expanded its control over the American West.

In 1831 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, had attempted to define their status. He declared that Indian tribes were ‘domestic dependent nations’ whose ‘relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian’. Marshall was, in effect, recognising that America’s Indians are unique in that, unlike any other minority, they are both separate nations and part of the United States. This helps to explain why relations between the federal government and the Native Americans have been so troubled. A guardian prepares his ward for adult independence, and so Marshall’s judgement implies that US policy should aim to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream US culture. But a guardian also protects and nurtures a ward until adulthood is achieved, and therefore Marshall also suggests that the federal government has a special obligation to care for its Native American population. As a result, federal policy towards Native Americans has lurched back and forth, sometimes aiming for assimilation and, at other times, recognising its responsibility for assisting Indian development.

What complicates the story further is that (again, unlike other minorities seeking recognition of their civil rights) Indians have possessed some valuable reservation land and resources over which white Americans have cast envious eyes. Much of this was subsequently lost and, as a result, the history of Native Americans is often presented as a morality tale. White Americans, headed by the federal government, were the ‘bad guys’, cheating Indians out of their land and resources. Native Americans were the ‘good guys’, attempting to maintain a traditional way of life much more in harmony with nature and the environment than the rampant capitalism of white America, but powerless to defend their interests. Only twice, according to this narrative, did the federal government redeem itself: firstly during the Indian New Deal from 1933 to 1945, and secondly in the final decades of the century when Congress belatedly attempted to redress some Native American grievances.

There is a lot of truth in this summary, but it is also simplistic. There is no doubt that Native Americans suffered enormously at the hands of white Americans, but federal Indian policy was shaped as much by paternalism, however misguided, as by white greed. Nor were Indians simply passive victims of white Americans’ actions. Their responses to federal policies, white Americans’ actions and the fundamental economic, social and political changes of the twentieth century were varied and divisive. These tensions and cross-currents are clearly evident in the history of the Indian New Deal and the policy of termination that replaced it in the late 1940s and 1950s. Native American history in the mid-twentieth century was much more than a simple story of good and evil, and it raises important questions (still unanswered today) about the status of Native Americans in modern US society.

Explanation:

Plz give me brainliest worked hard

8 0

3 years ago