There is no one way that politics can only be about the subsistence of one people.
Explanation:
The political reality of the world can be seen by the pragmatist and the neo-realist theories of our time that have taken liberal pursuits into mind.
But as of now, politics is often done at the pursuance of a policy of zero sum game.
The development of one nation can often only result in the view of the underdevelopment of another and there are fewer ways to deal with it.
This nature of politics has pervaded and is wont to pervade more often than not.
Answer:
The Nazis win and a weak Nazi regime would be established.
Explanation:
The Southern Embargo on cotton led Britain and France to become less reliant on American cotton. Colonies like India and Egypt decreased Britain and France's reliance on American cotton, which was a staple of the Southern economy. The South emerged economically devastated, and had a long recovery. But if they did not return to the Union, and they could not rely on Northern industry, this recovery would be even slower. And with the division, both parts of the union would be significantly weaker. For this reason, America would have played a less significant role in WWII. The result is speculative of course, but it's possible that if America decided not to enter, or could not produce a strong army, then the Nazis would have had a much easier time with their goal. I think that the only scenario where the Nazis would have won is an instance where they developed nuclear bombs first--and used a scorched Earth strategy to eliminate the Russian threat. This would be my speculation, but past victory, it's hard to say what would have happened. The Roman Government lasted for thousands of years, and perhaps the Nazi regime could last for a while before becoming de-stabilized, but I don't think it would have been a strong centralized regime. The reason I say this is because not even Caesar or Napoleon (brilliant diplomats and military strategists) could not achieve this. But this (of course) is speculative.
(Fun question, never done "hypothetical history")
Increasing contact between people led to many exchanges of goods, technology, and ideas. Here are some examples of how cultural exchanges affected people. In Asia, contact with Europeans led to the spread of the Christian religion. European missionaries made converts in India, China, Japan, the East Indies, and the Philippines. In Indonesia, Islam also spread as Muslims competed with the Portuguese for control of trade. At various times, both China and Japan resisted the influence of foreign traders and missionaries. As a result, Europeans had a limited impact on these countries during this period.
Im not sure about the democratic republicans.
Anti-Federalist were people who <span>opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and which later opposed the ratification of the 1787 Constitution. These Anti-Feds believed that a stronger government would take over their rights as people thus came the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was a bill of rights that was past so that the Anti-Feds would ratify the constitution.</span>
