<span>The Austro-Hungarian empire was endangered by feelings of nationalism because there were multiple national groups within the empire. So fulfilling nationalist goals would mean a dividing of the empire. The mere fact that the question refers to the empire as "Austro-Hungarian" is already a strong hint of the issue. Prior to 1867, it had been known as simply the Austrian Empire, but a compromise in 1867 meant that a dual monarchy was recognized (an Austrian ruler and a Hungarian ruler). The Hungarians were given self-governing authority over their own internal affairs in their portion of the empire. Other people groups within the empire would seek their own recognition as well -- Czechs, Serbs, Croats, etc. So where nationalism was a uniting factor in regions like the Italian peninsula and the German territories north of Austria, for the Austrian empire, nationalism was a dividing force.</span>
March, 29 1973. If it asks you a reason why the US left Vietnam, it's because the US signed a peace treaty in Paris.
Both cultures faced anti capitalist views while over throwing the monarchy of Britain and of Frances king
they both wanted democracy and sought for change for the freedom of people, free market which created the mix economy agenda
James polk is the answer :)
Answer:
a.
Spencer and Social Darwinists represent the evolutionary approach to social change.
Explanation:
As in nature, the stronger countries and nations prevail and dominate the weaker, which are inferior and not so smart and able as the strong ones, Social Darwinists argue.
