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
V125BC [204]
3 years ago
10

Which of the following do not correctly describe the chareles dickens

History
1 answer:
Ivanshal [37]3 years ago
4 0
What are the options? There’s no options listed
You might be interested in
Great Britain and France avoided a take over by fascist by
maks197457 [2]

Answer:

Great Britain and France avoid a take over by fascists' by restricting freedom of speech.

Explanation:

Fascism is a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. , and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.  

How Britain and France avoided fascist revolution inside their own country during rise of fascism in Italy and Germany?

What made Mussolini’s Fascism, and Lenin’s Communism too, was a specific and unique situation, never to be repeated in later history: namely, the presence of enormous masses of disaffected veterans, with recent experience of war at a very high technical level of skill, and angry about the condition of their country. (And of enormous amounts of weapons.) Fascism was not made by speeches or by money, but by tens of thousands of men gathering in armed bands to beat up enemies. And that being the case, what happened to the similar masses of veterans who came home to France, Britain, and America too, after 1918?

Well, France was exhausted. She had fought with her full strength from day one, whereas Britain had taken time to deploy its whole strength, and America and Italy had only entered the war much later. For five years, every man who could be spared had been at the Front. Her losses were larger in proportion than those of any other great power. And on the positive side, France, like Britain and America, was prosperous. The veterans went home to a country that was comparatively able to receive them, give them a place to be, and not foster any dangerous mass disaffection. This is of course relatively speaking. There will have been anger enough, irritation enough, even some disaffection. But the only real case of violence from below due to disaffection was the riot in Paris that followed the Stavisky affair in early 1934, and that, compared to what took place daily in other countries, was a very bad play of a riot.

ON the other hand, both America and Britain experienced situations that had more than a taste of Fascism, but that failed to develop into freedom-destroying movements. In America, Fascism could have come from above. The last few years of the Wilson administration were horrendous: the Red Scare fanaticized large strata of the population, and the hatred came from the top, from Wilson and his terrible AG Palmer. (Palmer was a Quaker. So was Richard Nixon. Is there a reason why Quakers in politics should prove particularly dangerous?) Hate and fear of “reds” was also the driving force of Italian Fascism; and Wilson and Palmer mobilized it in ways and with goals that Mussolini would have understood. Had Wilson not suffered his famous collapse, he might have been a real danger: he intended to run for a third term in office. And the nationwide spread of the new KKK, well beyond the bounds of the old South, shows that he might have found a pool of willing stormtroopers. Altogether, I think America dodged a bullet the size of a Gatling shot when Wilson collapsed in office.

Britain’s own Blackshirt moment took place in Ireland. Sociologically, culturally, psychologically, the Blacks and Tans were the Blackshirts of Britain - masses of disaffected veterans sent into the streets to harass and terrify political enemies, bullies in non-standard uniforms with a loose relationship with the authorities. Only, their relationship with public opinion developed in an exactly opposite direction. Whereas Italy’s majority, horrified by Socialist violence at home and by Communist brutality abroad, tended increasingly to excuse the Blackshirts and wink at their violence, in Britain - possibly because of the influence of the American media, which were largely against British rule in Ireland - the paramilitary force found itself increasingly isolated from the country’s mainstream, and eventually their evil reputation became an asset to their own enemies and contributed to British acceptance of Irish independence.

Thanks,
Eddie

5 0
1 year ago
The rise of (individualism) or (nationalism) encouraged people to study their nation's history (PLZZ HELP)
denpristay [2]

Answer: Historiography for the Purpose of Nationalism.

Explanation:

The emergence of nationalism in a world dating back to the late eighteenth century. Get your full swing in the next two. Nationalism is reflected through all pores of political, social and scientific life. The emergence of nationalism also reflected on historiography.

Many historians have been encouraged by nationalism. Many of these works have emerged as a result of these tendencies. It is often a syndrome of lesser value because myths characterize most of these historical works. Their scientific value is also called into question. The historian must be objective when writing. The question is, where does this phenomenon come from? Nationalism in historiography seeks to portray, one national entity as larger than another. That is, to minorize another. A patriot historian can be objective, unlike a nationalist.

6 0
3 years ago
Napoleon III became emperor in.<br> 1830<br> 1848<br> 1850<br> 1852
Nikitich [7]
My guess would be the first one , 1830 , Hope it’s the correct answer ! :)
3 0
3 years ago
What is the definition of Confederation?
PilotLPTM [1.2K]
There is the answer........

3 0
3 years ago
How has the fight to vote changed since the constitution was ratified
saul85 [17]
During Jackson's time, the common white man was giving the right to vote. During reconstruction ( the period after the civil war ) voting could no longer be denied on race or color because of the 15 the amendment, but still only applied to men. Women got the right to vote with the 19th amendment in 1920.     
3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Enter the word you received when you completed The Southern Colonies online activity?<br> K12?
    15·2 answers
  • Another word used to describe market economies
    12·1 answer
  • List some events of the 1950s that increased the hostilities between the united states and soviet union.
    7·1 answer
  • What was one way that slavery in Africa differed from the institution of slavery in Europe or the United States?
    8·2 answers
  • Why did terroist use airplanes instead of bombs on 9/11 (respond fast)
    11·2 answers
  • URGENT!! SOMEONE PLS ANSWER WILL GIVE BRAINLIEST
    12·2 answers
  • Luther’s Ninety-five Theses objected primarily to the:
    5·2 answers
  • New ideas about natural rights, political equality, and representative
    11·1 answer
  • Describe how the Navajo returned home from Bosque Redondo.
    7·1 answer
  • Answer quickly please
    15·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!