Answer:
When Germany signed the armistice ending hostilities in the First World War on November 11, 1918, its leaders believed they were accepting a “peace without victory,” as outlined by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson in his famous Fourteen Points. But from the moment the leaders of the victorious Allied nations arrived in France for the peace conference in early 1919, the post-war reality began to diverge sharply from Wilson’s idealistic vision.
Five long months later, on June 28—exactly five years after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo—the leaders of the Allied and associated powers, as well as representatives from Germany, gathered in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles to sign the final treaty. By placing the burden of war guilt entirely on Germany, imposing harsh reparations payments and creating an increasingly unstable collection of smaller nations in Europe, the treaty would ultimately fail to resolve the underlying issues that caused war to break out in 1914, and help pave the way for another massive global conflict 20 years later.
The Paris Peace Conference: None of the defeated nations weighed in, and even the smaller Allied powers had little say.
Formal peace negotiations opened in Paris on January 18, 1919, the anniversary of the coronation of German Emperor Wilhelm I at the end of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871. World War I had brought up painful memories of that conflict—which ended in German unification and its seizure of the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine from France—and now France intended to make Germany pay.
Explanation:
Hope I helped!
with the passing of the government of India act of 1935, the history of indian nationalism underwent a subtle change . though not noticeable immediately.after the introduction of the act,the provincial elections, held under its provisions in 1937 and the results therefore,made this change more apparent and clear. the indian national Congress party secured a sweeping victory in five provinces and was in a position to form coalition ministers in two other provinces- victory which revealed the efficiency and capability of the party so far as the election machine was concerned. it proved it's claim of being a national party. the Muslim league on the other hand,did not fare well at all,especially in the Muslim majority provinces of punjab and begal . all though it did better in the non Muslim,yet that was not enough to enable the league to boast of being the sole representative organisation of the Muslims. the successful of the provincial parties like the krishak look party in begal in the unionist party in the punjab showed that the Muslim electorates still though in terms of provincial or local considerations and we're not moved all so much by all india issues what was true of the league was also true about the Congress so far as the Muslims were concerned the latter,too,was not able to capture Muslim seats in numbers adequate enough to demonstrate it's popularity among muslims
You have to specify in what country? If the answer is France, they were mad at Louis XIV because he gave them no taxation yet no representation in government. This was very common in an absolutist government like France at the time. The nobles wanted the say in government so they teamed up with the peasants (had taxation and no representation) who were also very mad and they went to war with the monarchy. The monarchy lost because of the amount of people the nobles and peasants had.
Answer:
financing
✔ disadvantage
leadership
✔ advantage
local knowledge and support
✔ advantage
number of soldiers
✔ disadvantage
Explanation:
Edg 2020
