During World War I:
(C) German submarines made unrestricted attacks on ships.
<h3 /><h3>Further explanation</h3>
During the year 1917, the underwater battles of the First World War took place most intense in the Atlantic Ocean. Since the German navy, Kaiserliche Marine was much less powerful than the British Navy, Royal Navy, the Germans had to use submarines to be invisible and to be able to sink allied ships. The problem with this tactic was that by attacking underwater, it was not possible to see which country owned the boats attacked. That's why in May 1915, the Germans sank a British ocean liner, the Lusitania, and killed 123 Americans.
The German armies had to suspend their submarine attacks for two years to prevent the United States from declaring war on them. However, as they began to suffer some defeat and also because the war lasted too long, their submarines began firing again from January 1917. This decision pushed the United States declared war on Germany, and the year 1917 was a year of total war in the Atlantic ocean.
During the World war I, the 345 German U-Boote had sunk 6394 merchant ships and nearly 100 warships. Despite their defeat in this global conflict, the Germans have been effective in this type of attack.
<h3>Learn more</h3>
- European alliances before World War I: brainly.com/question/921155
- The Blitzkrieg: brainly.com/question/10537685
- The western front: brainly.com/question/452682
<h3>Answer details</h3>
Subject: History
Chapter: World War I
Keywords: Submarines during World War I, Germany tactic during World War I, Lusitania sinking, the United States in World War I
Answer:
eli whitney
Explanation:
he was considered to be the father of mass production
for the most part, historians view Andrew Johnson as the worst possible person to have served as President at the end of the American Civil War. Because of his gross incompetence in federal office and his incredible miscalculation of the extent of public support for his policies, Johnson is judged as a great failure in making a satisfying and just peace. He is viewed to have been a rigid, dictatorial racist who was unable to compromise or to accept a political reality at odds with his own ideas. Instead of forging a compromise between Radical Republicans and moderates, his actions united the opposition against him. His bullheaded opposition to the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Fourteenth Amendment eliminated all hope of using presidential authority to affect further compromises favorable to his position. In the end, Johnson did more to extend the period of national strife than he did to heal the wounds of war.
Most importantly, Johnson's strong commitment to obstructing political and civil rights for blacks is principally responsible for the failure of Reconstruction to solve the race problem in the South and perhaps in America as well. Johnson's decision to support the return of the prewar social and economic system—except for slavery—cut short any hope of a redistribution of land to the freed people or a more far-reaching reform program in the South.
Historians naturally wonder what might have happened had Lincoln, a genius at political compromise and perhaps the most effective leader to ever serve as President, lived. Would African Americans have obtained more effective guarantees of their civil rights? Would Lincoln have better completed what one historian calls the "unfinished revolution" in racial justice and equality begun by the Civil War? Almost all historians believe that the outcome would have been far different under Lincoln's leadership.
Among historians, supporters of Johnson are few in recent years. However, from the 1870s to around the time of World War II, Johnson enjoyed high regard as a strong-willed President who took the courageous high ground in challenging Congress's unconstitutional usurpation of presidential authority. In this view, much out of vogue today, Johnson is seen to have been motivated by a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution and by a firm belief in the separation of powers. This perspective reflected a generation of historians who were critical of Republican policy and skeptical of the viability of racial equality as a national policy. Even here, however, apologists for Johnson acknowledge his inability to effectively deal with congressional challenges due to his personal limitations as a leader.
Answer:
A. Everyone must follow the law
It relied mainly on coffee trade
