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
QveST [7]
3 years ago
9

What happened because neither side made significant advances in Belgium and France?

History
1 answer:
WITCHER [35]3 years ago
3 0

Answer:

Both sides constructed and used trenches.

Explanation:

took the test

You might be interested in
Waht are some military disadvantages of the french revolution
TEA [102]
Not enough money was an military disadvantage of the french revolution and it seemed that the British was unbeatable..
4 0
3 years ago
PLZ HELP WILL GIVE BRAINLIEST
Svet_ta [14]

Answer:

Here's the order:

  1. French and Indian War (1754–1763)
  2. Proclamation of 1763 (1763)
  3. Stamp Act (1765)
  4. Townshend Acts (1767)
  5. Boston Tea Party (1773)
  6. Intolerable Acts (1774)
  7. First Continental Congress (Sep 5, 1774)
  8. Lexington and Concord (1775)
  9. Declaration of Independence (1776)
  10. Washington named as army commander (1776)

Hope it helps!

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Question 1 of 10
qwelly [4]
B, natural gas is energy but it’s temporary, A, C, and D are all renewable
7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Provide Specific Contributions by the following groups (Make sure to give specific examples from the lesson): o Women o Native A
Mrrafil [7]
<span>During the Revolutionary War, thousands of active women took part as an important role in both the British and American armies..... Native Americans African Americans Women Women In the military side of the war, women even participated in them. Many women found themselves in the position of having to defend their homes and families from attacks by British and Native American troops</span>
6 0
3 years ago
Why we should have bombed Auschwitz and why not?
Karolina [17]
Well bombing Auschwitz would be good because we would kill a bunch of nazis 
but on the down side we would also kill the prisoners their. but also most the world outside of germany knew about the camps so even if we could bomb it we didnt even know about them
5 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • In 1215, england's king john was forced to sign a document limiting the king's powers; it was called the
    14·1 answer
  • Which policy describes the way the US government determines to interact with other governments?
    11·1 answer
  • This country was the last of the axis powers to surrender in 1945
    12·1 answer
  • What is the name of the invention that made printing easier?
    14·1 answer
  • Which statement best describes slave trade in the United States in the beginning of the 1800s
    5·1 answer
  • Who was force to raise food for the soldiers
    10·1 answer
  • Which does not describe African participation in World War I?
    12·1 answer
  • Why do you think he allowed the Spanish to take over without a fight
    6·1 answer
  • How did Nazi Propaganda influence the people?
    15·1 answer
  • What Was the Largest Contiguous Empire in History?
    5·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!