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
mestny [16]
2 years ago
12

How Songhai became so wealthy.

History
1 answer:
elena-14-01-66 [18.8K]2 years ago
6 0
How did the Songhai Empire become wealthy? Songhai's leader controlled trade routes and the sources of salt and gold, which made the country rich. It's wealth and power grew when it conquered the rich trading city of Tombouc
You might be interested in
On what date did the attack on Pearl Harbor occur?
lyudmila [28]

Answer:

December 7, 1941

Explanation:

President Franklin Roosevelt called December 7, 1941, "a date which will live in infamy." On that day, Japanese planes attacked the United States Naval Base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii Territory.

3 0
2 years ago
Was the united state correct 1945 when it became the first nation to use atomic weapons against japan to end world war 2 or was
Dominik [7]

Answer:

It was a morally wrong decision to drop the atomic bombs.

Explanation:

This is a heavily debated opinion-based question where you can go both ways. In my personal opinion, I personally argue that it was morally wrong for the US to use atomic weapons on Japan. Below is my reasoning.

1. Japan had already expressed the desire to surrender previous to the dropping of the atomic bombs, meaning that they were not a military necessity.

Prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs, Japan had already expressed the desire to surrender under the single condition that their emperor would not be harmed. (This was mainly due to cultural reasons that made the emperor a particularly important figure) Instead of accepting, the United States instead decided to fight for unconditional surrender. While they did achieve that in the end, they ended up not harming the emperor anyway, meaning that they could have just accepted Japan's surrender in my personal opinion. Moreover, this desire disproves the argument that the decision to drop the bomb was a military necessity and many contribute Japan's surrender more so to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria which meant Japan now had to fight a two-front war.

2. Atomic weapons are a form of indiscriminite killing.

Atomic weapons don't have eyes. They can't tell the difference between the military and civilians. Thousands of women and children were killed that had no involvement in the war. It is a war crime to intentionally target civilians, so why would atomic weapons be ethically acceptable? While the US did drop leaflets to warn civilians prior to the attacks, this act is not enough, and it cannot be expected for millions to flee thier homes.

3. The government may have been considering diplomatic reasons rather than solely ending the war.

If the US was really after a speedy end to the end of the war, there could have been many other ways to go about it. They could have continued to firebomb cities or accept conditional surrender. Some have argued that the diplomatic effects that came with it such as scaring the Soviets and proving US dominance were also in policymakers' minds. If the US had not been victorious in World War II, several important members of the government would have likely been tried as war criminals.

The Counter Argument:

Of course, there is also a qualified opposing view when it comes to this. It is perfectly valid to argue that the bomb was necessary for ending the war: as it is impossible to know the "what ifs" had history not happened the way it did. It is undeniable that the atomic bomb likely saved thousands of American lives if the war would have continued, and the war did ultimately come to an end a couple of days after the atomic bombs. There also is not enough evidence as to what exactly was the reason the Japanese unconditionally surrendered: it could have been Manchuria or the atomic bomb, both, or even other reasons entirely. Lastly, the general public did approve of the bombings at the time.

In recent years, the public have slowly become more critical of the bombings, although it remains a weighted moral debate.

Note: These are my personal views and this does explicitly represent the views of anyone else. Please let me know if you have any questions :)

8 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What happened in Egypt directly following the fall of the Old Kingdom?
Dmitriy789 [7]

Answer:

The collapse of the Old Kingdom was followed by decades of famine and strife.

8 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Who overthrew the Sumerians?
MAXImum [283]

Answer:

The egyptians, because they wanted their land I believe

6 0
3 years ago
Which country's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce global warming brought the treaty into effect?
Sladkaya [172]
It was Russia, it should be noted though, that Iceland made it clear that the treaty would be put in effect
6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Why didnt western democraicleaders try to stop the building of the berlin wall
    15·1 answer
  • Arrange the following groups in the proper
    10·1 answer
  • Which title is most accurate for this time line?
    6·1 answer
  • How does D.O.T (department of transportation) play a role in CSX (a train company) ?? Please help I’m very confused
    8·1 answer
  • What metaphor did george harkins use to explain the government broken promise ?
    5·1 answer
  • Why did the bonus army march on washington, <br> d.<br> c.?
    5·2 answers
  • Selective incorporation was established in which supreme court case?
    8·1 answer
  • Who do members of congress help
    12·1 answer
  • Anti-slavery reformers did not always agree with other anti-slavery reformers. What are some ideas the antislavery reformers dis
    9·1 answer
  • How did geography of the Byzantine empire influence its development?
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!