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
Rufina [12.5K]
2 years ago
9

What was an effect of the 1954 Vietnam treaty?

History
2 answers:
xeze [42]2 years ago
6 0
A . Vietnam was divided into two parts
Vlad1618 [11]2 years ago
4 0

Answer:

In July 1954, the Geneva Agreements were signed. As part of the agreement, the French agreed to withdraw their troops from northern Vietnam. Vietnam would be temporarily divided at the 17th parallel, pending elections within two years to choose a president and reunite the country.

You might be interested in
Which term describes a government in which the king or queen is the official head of state but power is limited by a constitutio
JulijaS [17]

Answer:

constitutional monarchy

Explanation:

7 0
2 years ago
Why did the European Americans want the American Indians to leave Florida?
Serhud [2]

Answer:

explorers were greedy and wanted the land for themselves.The forced removals included members of the Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations, as well as their African slaves. The phrase "Trail of Tears" originates from a description of the removal of many Native American tribes, including the Cherokee Nation relocation in 1838.

Explanation:

(happy to help)

3 0
3 years ago
Why did trade flourish along the silk road
brilliants [131]

Trade flourished because these progressing empires were developing new ways to produce products and utilize agriculture in their areas, such as Han with silk and Rome with olives and fishing/seafaring. These empires has never had access to goods that were from other areas before the Silk road, causing trade to become immensely popular and relied upon. 

4 0
3 years ago
Compare and contrast the changes in the government, economy, and society from the Romanov era under the tsar to the rule by the
Tresset [83]

The rulers of the Soviet Union viewed empire and imperialism in ideological terms as ‘the highest and final stage of capitalism’.1 By this Leninist definition, the Soviet Union did not identify itself as an empire, and instead, its leaders vehemently denounced imperialism that was carried out by its enemies and competitors: the capitalist states. Despite its own anguish over being identified as an empire, the Soviet Union indeed was one. While the meaning of ‘empire’ has shifted over time, for the purposes of this paper the definition of empire is in the sense of a great power, a polity, ruling over vast territories and people, leaving a significant impact on the history of world civilizations.2 As the characteristics of the Soviet Union are examined, support for viewing the USSR as an empire grows.

The Soviet Union emerged after the Russian Revolution of 1917. The Tsarist Russian Empire’s government was overthrown by the local soviets, led by the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks attempted to replace the Russian empire with a communist one, in which socialism would make nationalismobsolete and in place there would be a supra-national imperial ideology.3 Still, coming back to the issue of ‘empire’, the Soviet Union clearly maintained a commanding control over multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic societies that surpassed the extent of the preceding Imperial Russia Empire. A question thus arises: was the USSR a Russian empire? The first aspect to consider is if the USSR was a continuation of Russian imperialist power or if an intrinsic distinction can be made between the two. What is notable to address is what is meant by ‘Russian’ identity and nationality, its formation, and reshaping through time. Once this will be accounted for, this paper will move on with an answer to the question: the USSR was indeed an essentially different empire from the one preceding it, and thus, the USSR was not a Russian empire.


8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why was the lewis and clark expedition so significant?
Ahat [919]
They were the first people to cross the Western Line. The mapped and explored the West side of the country.<span />
6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • How did white Southerners get around the Reconstruction Amendments?
    10·2 answers
  • Why could Southern politicians be considered over-optimistic in accepting this deal? What might they have been hoping for in the
    14·1 answer
  • What 3 states had a substantial slave population in 1860 but in 1990 had a large african american count
    10·2 answers
  • Why was there resentment toward mexican landowners
    5·1 answer
  • What are three ways the unification of Germany was different from the unification of Italy?
    5·2 answers
  • Locations of the five world religions that have had a profound impact on culture and civilization
    13·1 answer
  • Which statement best describes the result of the election of 1824? No candidate received a majority in the election so the elect
    9·1 answer
  • Why did the US join Afghan tribes to fight Taliban?
    7·1 answer
  • Based on the information in the chart explain one economic and one social
    6·1 answer
  • The book of hebrews belongs to the section of the new testament known as.
    7·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!