1. How did the Long March enable Mao to achieve success in the civil war against the Nationalists?


The Long March led to a final battle in which the Nationalists were defeated.


The Long March became a symbol of Communist heroism and persuaded many Chinese to join Mao.


The Nationalists thought the Long March ended in failure and dismissed Mao and the Communists as non-threatening.


The Communists under the leadership of Mao lost very few people during the Long March and emerged victorious at the end.

2. What was the impact of global depression on Japan’s economy?


It caused a large decline in production and lasted more years than in Britain or the U.S.


It caused a moderate decline in production and lasted more years than in Britain or the U.S.


It caused a large decline in production and lasted fewer years than in Britain or the U.S.


It caused a moderate decline in production and lasted fewer years than in Britain or the U.S.

3. What political challenges did liberal forces face in Japan?


Young people were increasingly rejecting the idea of family authority and obedience.


Wealthy businessmen had strong influence through donations to political parties.


The Japanese diet had been dissolved, leaving significant Western influence to fill the void.


Not all adult men were able to vote by mid-century, and some classes were excluded suffrage.

4. Which statement best characterizes Emperor Hirohito’s role in achieving political change in Japan?


He was considered a god and led with absolute authority, returning Japan to traditional values.


He was a figurehead who largely approved his advisors’ recommendations.


He was a weak leader, held as a symbol of the dying empire by democratic reformers.


He was an ultranationalist who forced expansion in China, inspiring military leadership.

Answer:

Inflation is occurring

Answer:

Explanation:

The Latin American countries have never had fully democratic systems. Several key pieces are always messing. Some are highly religious (and hence not secular), many were communist or fought civil wars over communism, many were dictatorships, some still don't have full property rights, many don't have any rule of law and hence massive corruption, etc.

Final answer:

Poverty in Latin America is mainly due to historical wealth inequality, insufficient industrialization, political instability, and uneven infrastructure development that fail to provide adequate living conditions for the poor.

Explanation:

The poverty in Latin America can be attributed to a combination of historical, economic, and social factors. Unequal wealth distribution has left a significant portion of the population in a condition where about half of the country's wealth is in the hands of 10 percent of the population. The reliance on export markets for cash crops without a strong industrial sector to balance economic shocks like the Great Depression further exacerbated inequality. Additionally, Latin American countries have experienced political turmoil, corruption, and power concentrated among an elite minority, which has hindered equitable opportunities.

Infrastructure development has predominantly focused on exportation needs rather than internal national networks, which has also limited the growth of a diverse economy. Moreover, rapid urbanization has led to poor living conditions in cities with limited public services and infrastructure. The rural-to-urban shift has also concentrated poverty in the suburbs, contrary to patterns observed in North American cities, where the poor are often found in inner cities. In most Latin American cities, the poor live in far suburbs with inadequate infrastructure development.

Answer:

they should be led by the "talented tenth"

Explanation:

Answer:They have suffered but are in good spirits

Explanation:

Edu

Helen Marot was an American writer and a labor union organizer. According to Helen Marot influence of unions can foster the civic participation of labor and labor unions are a group approach towards the direction of democracy.

This implies that Helen believed that Labor unions can help workers to achieve gains and also that unions can promote democracy.

Unions holds the power to supply or restrict the supply of labor to the companies. Unions can bargain with the company in behalf of the labor to increase the wages of the labor.

Influence of unions can increase or decrease the wage supply in the economy.

Therefore the options 2 and 5 are correct.

Learn more about influence of unions, here;

https://brainly.com/question/6353202

Answer:2,5

Explanation:

The best option is Consumers were eager to spend money once wartime rationing and restrictions were lifted.

Several factors fueled the nation’s unprecedented economic strength. But the extraordinary increase in productivity stimulated by new technologies, played a big role in economic growth, giving that the restrictions and the wartime production were no longer in place. Factories and industries became increasingly “automated.” Postwar America witnessed a new phase of economic development centered on carefree consumption. The new shopping malls dotting the suburban landscape epitomized the emphasis on spending as a new form of leisure recreation.

Answer:

Consumers were eager to send money once wartime rationing and restrictions were lifted.

Explanation:

taking the test

Dwight Eisenhower had the decision in putting Patton in command of the American forces that affects the fight in North America is because Patton had made a contribution in helping to force the surrender of the German forces in the North America.

Answer:

the americans needed a tank commander to fight against the german tank forces

Explanation:

The American Revolutionary War was disastrous for the Iroquois Confederacy. The war divided the alliance and resulted in significant loss of their lands and autonomy. The British allies like the Mohawk, Cayuga, Onondaga, and Seneca faced particularly devastating losses.

The American Revolutionary War had profound effects on the Iroquois Confederacy. The Iroquois, a powerful Native American alliance, were divided during the conflict with the Mohawk, Cayuga, Onondaga, and Seneca siding with the British, while the Oneida and Tuscarora supported the revolutionaries. Native American leaders like Mohawk chief Thayendanegea allied with the British due to fears of colonial expansion into their lands.

The war resulted in devastating losses for the Native American tribes who backed the British. Their towns and crops in western New York and Pennsylvania were destroyed by revolutionary armies. At the conclusion of the war, Native American representatives were glaringly absent from negotiations, leading to significant loss of their lands and autonomy. After the war, the victorious Americans aggressively asserted control over western New York and Pennsylvania, disregarding Native American land claims.

Despite some tribes initially profiting from relationships with European colonists - such as the Iroquois, who were armed by the Dutch - the aftershock of the war led to negative consequences. For instance, the introduction of guns made Native American warfare deadlier. Moreover, the settlers' increased presence and the escalated British military presence on the frontier changed the dynamics dramatically.

In response to the aggressive American intrusion, Mohawk leader Joseph Brant helped form the Western Confederacy, pledging to resist this intrusion into what was then called the Northwest. Unfortunately, the Northwest Indian War (1785-1795) ended in defeat for the Native Americans, exacerbating their loss of land and autonomy.

https://brainly.com/question/14579359

#SPJ6

Correct answer:

Explanation:

Public outrage in the US against the Germans swept the nation following the sinking of the British ocean liner, Lusitania.  When a German U-boat (submarine) sank the Lusitania in May, 1915, over 1,000 persons were killed, including more than 100 Americans. The passenger liner was targeted by the Germans because they suspected weapons were being shipped to Britain in the cargo hold of the ship.  Germany managed to stave off American entry into the war at the time by pledging to stop submarine attacks.  

A couple years later, however, Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare.  There was also an intercepted telegram (the "Zimmerman Telegram") that showed Germany was trying to secure Mexico as an ally against the United States.  Those events in 1917 led the US to declare war on Germany in response.

Here's an an example of American feeling at the time of the Lusitania incident.  Gifford Pinchot, who had been the Chief of the US Forestry Service (from 1905 to 1910) , was quoted in the New York Times in May, 1915, after he had just recently returned from Europe. He asserted that Americans on the Lusitania (along with other passengers) were killed because an autocratic military empire was trying to dominate nations that were self-governing. His characterization of German intentions mirrored how President Woodrow Wilson later called on the USA to enter the war to "make the world safe for democracy."

Both have three branches of government and a constitution.

States were hesitant to spend money on integrating black schools. As a result, choice (C) is the best way to respond.

A group of individuals led by W. E. B. Du Bois, Moorfield Storey, Mary White Ovington, and Ida B. Wells founded the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909 as an interracial effort to establish justice for African Americans. Thurgood Marshall and Roy Wilkins were among the group's leaders.

Its goal in the twenty-first century is to guarantee the equality of rights for everyone in terms of politics, education, society, and the economy, as well as to end racial discrimination. Political lobbying, public relations campaigns, and legal team-developed lawsuit strategies are just a few of the national NAACP initiatives.

Hence, option (C) is the accurate answer.

Learn more about NAACP, from:

brainly.com/question/1125966

#SPJ5

Final answer:

The NAACP legal team's advantage in desegregating law schools lay in the fact that states did not want to incur the costs of creating and maintaining equivalent separate educational facilities for African Americans, which often led to desegregation being a more practical option.

Explanation:

The advantage to the NAACP legal team in obtaining desegregated law schools was primarily that states were unlikely to want to spend money to make black schools equal. This was a practical concern for states that had to provide equal educational facilities and opportunities under the 'separate but equal' doctrine. The NAACP had strategic legal successes, particularly with the 1938 Supreme Court ruling that gave states a choice: to either integrate institutions of higher education or establish equivalent institutions for African Americans. Southern states, reluctant to integrate, often chose to open separate institutions for black students, but the financial burden of maintaining truly equal separate schools made desegregation a more feasible option in many cases.

Final answer:

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address redefined the Civil War's purpose, aligning it with the nation's founding values of equality and democracy, and it reinforced the Union cause and morale.

Explanation:

The Gettysburg Address was a powerful and concise speech delivered by President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. It served not only as a commemoration of the Union soldiers who died at the Battle of Gettysburg but also as a redefinition of the war's purpose.

Lincoln emphasized the principles of human equality endorsed by the Declaration of Independence and reinterpreted the Civil War as not just a battle to preserve the Union, but also as a struggle for freedom and equality.

The address realigned the war's objectives with the founding values of the nation and inspired a renewed patriotism that fortified the Union morale. Its legacy helped to ensure that democracy and the principles of government 'of the people, by the people, for the people' endured well beyond the Civil War.

Answer:

1. New Netherland governor who refused to surrender to England --- Peter Stuyvesant

2. Took New Netherland without firing a shot --- Duke of York

3. Established a fur-trading post at Fort Orange --- Dutch West India Company

Explanation:

1- Peter Stuyvesant was the last Dutch general director of the colony of New Netherlands from 1647 until his provisional transfer to the English in 1664. He was a leading figure of the early history of New York City. His success as general director included a major expansion of the New Amsterdam settlement (later called New York) beyond the southern tip of Manhattan.

2- During the Second Anglo-Dutch War, which opposed England to the United Provinces, the New Netherlands was conquered by the English, led by James II, Duke of York. The general director Peter Stuyvesant surrendered New Amsterdam on September 24, 1664.

3- The Dutch West India Company was a company of the merchant marine of the Netherlands that operated between centuries XVII and XVIII.

The Scottsboro case involved nine wrongfully accused African American boys in Alabama, 1931. It received global attention for its demonstrations of racism and legal injustices in the American South. The case was pivotal in laying groundwork for the civil rights movement, with posthumous pardons granted in 2013.

The Scottsboro case involved nine African American boys, known as the Scottsboro Boys, who were falsely accused of raping two white women on a train in Alabama in 1931. Despite evidence that the women had not been raped and one of the accusers recanting her statement, the boys faced an all-White jury and were wrongfully convicted, with most sentenced to death. The case garnered international attention and highlighted the deep-seated racism in the American South. It also sparked protests and brought to light the injustices of the legal system, particularly the lack of proper legal representation and the exclusion of African Americans from juries. The case was retried multiple times, and although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the boys had been denied fair trials, it took over a decade to secure the release of many of the defendants. The ordeal revealed systemic issues in the American court system and contributed to the groundwork for the modern civil rights movement, with posthumous pardons eventually granted to the defendants in 2013.

Final answer:

Europeans might resist helping Syrian refugees due to concerns over resource strain, cultural integration, economic impact, and security risks associated with political extremism.

Explanation:

Europeans may resist helping refugees from Syria for several reasons, which mirrors a wider concern about immigration impacts. One major concern is that the influx of refugees might put a strain on European resources, as the hosting countries might not be prepared for the sudden increase in population needing access to food, water, shelter, and medical care. This strain can extend to concerns about the economic impact, as there is fear that refugees might compete for jobs and add pressure to social welfare systems.

Another issue is cultural integration. Some Europeans fear that refugees might not adopt European culture and law, leading to tensions and conflicts within communities. This concern is often linked to a perception of cultural and religious differences, particularly regarding the large numbers of refugees who follow Islam - a religion that is growing rapidly in Europe and is different from the majority Christian population.

Furthermore, there are concerns about security. Some believe that among refugees there could be individuals who embrace political extremism or support acts of terrorism, heightening fears and resistance to helping those seeking asylum.