and what was her career?
What did isabella d%26#039;este do for work?
Well, she was given a good education, and at 16, married to Francesco II Gonazga, the marguis of Mantua. She administered his lands during his absence, as noble ladies in that time were generally expected to do, while he led Venetian forces against Charles VIII in 1495 In 1509, when her husband was taken prisoner by the Venetians, Isabella ruled Mantua and held it against the threatening forces of the Venetians. her husband was released by intervention of the Pope. Isabella was very highly educated and was a patron of arts and letters, she presided with her husband over an impressive and splendid court.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Why has conquest been such a socially accepted way of making a living throughout much of human history?
And to what extent do you think current political and economic elites still have the same values?
Why has conquest been such a socially accepted way of making a living throughout much of human history?
Survival of the fittest (Darwin) , wow you must be out of this world not to know that 1, or you have not been in sixth grade, where you learn that the survival of the fittest with animals.
Why has conquest been such a socially accepted way of making a living throughout much of human history?
Probably because mankind has been fighting for his place in the world since he first emerged from the plains of Africa. It is an inborn human trait. The same conditions exist today, ... and likely always will. The weak are displaced by the strong. It%26#039;s not a pretty picture, but it%26#039;s a true one. We, as humanity, have divided ourselves into groups which must continually compete for resources and dominance. It is the only way a group can insure it%26#039;s own survival, ... good or bad, ... right or wrong, ... that%26#039;s just human nature.
Reply:I don%26#039;t think it has ever been socially acceptable like hunting , or fishing , or playing baseball . It%26#039;s more a case of necessity . If you%26#039;re starving and dieing of thirst and some one says they have food and water over there let%26#039;s go get it . Do you say no that%26#039;s not right or do you say okay let%26#039;s go . That has often been the case of conquest . One people has something another group of people needs or wants . If you think back just a few years we here in America were in an absolute frenzy to go to war with Iraq . The reasons for that invasion proofed unjustified but the frenzy was so intense war was inevitable . Those that tried to oppose it were shouted down . I think we are moving into a time when our leaders will find other ways to deal with our nations adversaries . A time when war is the last resort not the first reaction . Still as time goes by the horrors of this war will fade and sooner or later war will come again because of foolish intentions .
Reply:The victors write history. So they write about how great they are. They used to call themselves explorers, instead of pillagers. I imagine the conquered would have had much to say, if they had been allowed to. Today most of our news seems to be sanitized, which is scary. I think our leaders found out how unpopular they became when we watched the real stories from Viet Nam on TV. We weren%26#039;t even allowed to see pictures of coffins coming home from Iraq, until they were released on request through the Freedom of Information Act. It seems that for awhile reporters were allowed to investigate and report news. Now I think you have to dig to find the truth, and most people are so busy trying to make a living that they can%26#039;t use their spare time, if they have any, to investigate what is being done in their names. So we were told what to believe. But now it is in our face, where are the WMD? They don%26#039;t seem to be in Iraq or even under Bush%26#039;s desk. Thousands of young people are being killed and billions of dollars spent to no purpose. I hope that history will record what has actually happened and most of all that we will learn from it and remember this time.
Reply:It is socially acceptable that%26#039;s why. It will be until the time that it is not acceptable anymore. It%26#039;s just a matter of time.
Reply:Because it is economically efficient. Conquest has two wonderful aspects: It obtains more land/wealth if one is successful which can be taxed by the state (often the people who encouraged the campaigned) and two (importantly) regardless of outcome it decreases the number of reproductive males in a region.
Fewer males, less crime. Fewer males, less selective females for those living non injured males. In less modern times, the more females a male had -- (wives, daughters, or slaves) his wealth went up --- due to their productivity --- Women were the weavers, reapers, etc --- women did this hard skilled work.
Current political opinion is still the same --- concentrate power/wealth and make people slaves. Today it is easier to do this with taxes and restrictions on individuals. Reducing males used to keep population low (for is takes 9 month for a woman to have a child and 6 + years for it to become work worthy) --- but if you as elites encourage abortion --- and promiscuity --- women defeat their own interest. Children are why males stay around --- to see them succeed and reproduce but if a women will abort any seed planted and does not choose males for virtue but sexual prowess --- Women are both not dependent on the elite and not producing replacement people. The elites win.
Note: It was not until 1776 when Jefferson et al encouraged that rights belonged to the individual (male and female) was their any hope of progress --- Women between 1776 - 1932 in American gain more collective wealth then ever before --- Yes , there were extremely wealthy women prior to that however their wealth came from males often royality.
It was when the social programs --- of the New Deal and Fair Deal discourage families that women enslaved themselves.
Why has conquest been such a socially accepted way of making a living throughout much of human history?
Survival of the fittest (Darwin) , wow you must be out of this world not to know that 1, or you have not been in sixth grade, where you learn that the survival of the fittest with animals.
Why has conquest been such a socially accepted way of making a living throughout much of human history?
Probably because mankind has been fighting for his place in the world since he first emerged from the plains of Africa. It is an inborn human trait. The same conditions exist today, ... and likely always will. The weak are displaced by the strong. It%26#039;s not a pretty picture, but it%26#039;s a true one. We, as humanity, have divided ourselves into groups which must continually compete for resources and dominance. It is the only way a group can insure it%26#039;s own survival, ... good or bad, ... right or wrong, ... that%26#039;s just human nature.
Reply:I don%26#039;t think it has ever been socially acceptable like hunting , or fishing , or playing baseball . It%26#039;s more a case of necessity . If you%26#039;re starving and dieing of thirst and some one says they have food and water over there let%26#039;s go get it . Do you say no that%26#039;s not right or do you say okay let%26#039;s go . That has often been the case of conquest . One people has something another group of people needs or wants . If you think back just a few years we here in America were in an absolute frenzy to go to war with Iraq . The reasons for that invasion proofed unjustified but the frenzy was so intense war was inevitable . Those that tried to oppose it were shouted down . I think we are moving into a time when our leaders will find other ways to deal with our nations adversaries . A time when war is the last resort not the first reaction . Still as time goes by the horrors of this war will fade and sooner or later war will come again because of foolish intentions .
Reply:The victors write history. So they write about how great they are. They used to call themselves explorers, instead of pillagers. I imagine the conquered would have had much to say, if they had been allowed to. Today most of our news seems to be sanitized, which is scary. I think our leaders found out how unpopular they became when we watched the real stories from Viet Nam on TV. We weren%26#039;t even allowed to see pictures of coffins coming home from Iraq, until they were released on request through the Freedom of Information Act. It seems that for awhile reporters were allowed to investigate and report news. Now I think you have to dig to find the truth, and most people are so busy trying to make a living that they can%26#039;t use their spare time, if they have any, to investigate what is being done in their names. So we were told what to believe. But now it is in our face, where are the WMD? They don%26#039;t seem to be in Iraq or even under Bush%26#039;s desk. Thousands of young people are being killed and billions of dollars spent to no purpose. I hope that history will record what has actually happened and most of all that we will learn from it and remember this time.
Reply:It is socially acceptable that%26#039;s why. It will be until the time that it is not acceptable anymore. It%26#039;s just a matter of time.
Reply:Because it is economically efficient. Conquest has two wonderful aspects: It obtains more land/wealth if one is successful which can be taxed by the state (often the people who encouraged the campaigned) and two (importantly) regardless of outcome it decreases the number of reproductive males in a region.
Fewer males, less crime. Fewer males, less selective females for those living non injured males. In less modern times, the more females a male had -- (wives, daughters, or slaves) his wealth went up --- due to their productivity --- Women were the weavers, reapers, etc --- women did this hard skilled work.
Current political opinion is still the same --- concentrate power/wealth and make people slaves. Today it is easier to do this with taxes and restrictions on individuals. Reducing males used to keep population low (for is takes 9 month for a woman to have a child and 6 + years for it to become work worthy) --- but if you as elites encourage abortion --- and promiscuity --- women defeat their own interest. Children are why males stay around --- to see them succeed and reproduce but if a women will abort any seed planted and does not choose males for virtue but sexual prowess --- Women are both not dependent on the elite and not producing replacement people. The elites win.
Note: It was not until 1776 when Jefferson et al encouraged that rights belonged to the individual (male and female) was their any hope of progress --- Women between 1776 - 1932 in American gain more collective wealth then ever before --- Yes , there were extremely wealthy women prior to that however their wealth came from males often royality.
It was when the social programs --- of the New Deal and Fair Deal discourage families that women enslaved themselves.
The attacks on the pentagon and the world trade center in 2001 were a response to?
a) the presence of the united states in the middle east and its support for Israel
b) the rising cost of oil
c) the collapse of the soviet union
d) the questionable election results of 2000
The attacks on the pentagon and the world trade center in 2001 were a response to?
A i believe
The attacks on the pentagon and the world trade center in 2001 were a response to?
If I have to choose one of your four options, I%26#039;d have to say %26quot;A%26quot;. The other answers have nothing to do with 9/11.
Reply:a
Reply:A but C and D didn%26#039;t help and the whole mess led to B and, as some believe, a repeat of D four years later.
Reply:They were not a %26quot;response to%26quot;; they were an excuse for %26quot;A.%26quot;
Terrorism is never a rational reason for anything. To give it rationality by insisting it was a %26quot;response%26quot; means that we can %26quot;respond%26quot; to Iran%26#039;s hatred of Jews by killing the students at Tehran University; or %26quot;respond%26quot; to China%26#039;s treatment of Tibetans by killing the people in a market in Beijing.
If a terrorist is truely %26quot;responding,%26quot; then no reason A through ZZZ is necessary--they will do as they want, when they want, for whatever reason they want, because they can choose anything they want to, as something to %26quot;respond%26quot; to.
The correct answer is: %26quot;Muslim terrorists kill even their own kind, if their own kind do not keep strictly to the terrorists%26#039; views of the Muslim religion. The good Muslims are as terrorized by all this as we are. Look at all the good people killed in the markets and squares of Iraq. Look at how many of their policement were slaughtered, some of them just waiting in line to ENLIST in the police.
%26quot;Muslim terrorists need no reason, need no excuse, but hide behind the %26quot;idealism%26quot; of a %26quot;purified Muslim society.
%26quot;It is their own form of %26quot;ethnic cleansing,%26quot; except that the whole world is what they want to cleanse.%26quot;
Answering %26quot;A%26quot; gives legitimacy to these brutal acts of inhumanity to man. Do not give them that legitimacy.
Reply:Who are the terrorists? Lacking a legitimate political base and having no real popular support, they use terror to lash out at the strongest opponents who occupy positions of power. We have always had terrorists and they cannot be appeased or negotiated with. There is no reason guiding their actions except to create as much havoc and suffering as they can. There is no way for the terrorists to gain a position of power because they would be crushed by legitimate governments who are the true representatives of the people. It is simply a struggle of sanity and reason vs the madness and savage wrath of a frustrated foe.
Reply:INCREDIBLE ANSWER BY GENE!
I go with: GENE%26#039;s answer + a^2
Well, there you have it.
.
Reply:The Islamic extremists responsible for the attack chose these buildings as symbols of United States dominance of the world, and particularly the subjugation of Islamic countries to Western interests and ideologies. I would say that they considered the killing of thousands as regrettable %26quot;collateral damage%26quot; to their act of higher purpose. All too familiar logic these days.
Though the level of complicity is unknown, the 9/11 attacks were most probably bankrolled (and perhaps with some Saudi government knowledge) from Islamic charities in Saudi Arabia -- through Osama Bin Laden. He is a member of one of Saudi Arabia%26#039;s most powerful families (which the Bush administration thought it %26quot;controlled%26quot;). %26#039;Exiled%26#039; in Afghanistan, Bin Laden masterminded a %26quot;double-blind%26quot; network of terrorist cells -- perhaps with the tacit support of his family or government, or both. He himself probably did not know the exact nature or timing of the hijack plan. In any event, it is unlikely that anyone, including the perpetrators or Bin Laden, expected the Twin Towers to be entirely destroyed. The attack, while meant to be devastating, was primarily symbolic, and far exceeded expectations. Hence his obvious surprise and glee we see on video of him as he watched the events on television. The target scheduled for United 95, (crashed at the cost of their lives by the heroic resistance of its passengers) is not known, but it was most probably destined for The Capitol or The White House.
These buildings symbolically stood for what the terrorists (18/20 of whom were Saudis) saw as the epicenters and symbols of United States%26#039; and Western Judeo-Christian imperialism -- economic (The WTC), political (The Capitol or White House) and military (The Pentagon).
In all, 9/11 will be seen by history as one of the most significant events of our era, whose long-term effects are still in the process of resolution -- particularly, (and contrary to common belief, at least in the United States), in Iraq. Our invasion there was a response to 9/11 (directed toward the Saudis, NOT Saddam Hussein and his mythical WMD%26#039;s, nor his relatively small oil reserves), and was absolutely necessary in order to bring a significant military presence into that theater after the attack, and thereby protect our national security as well as to guarantee the safety of our enormous economic AND strategic interests in the area. In that sense the invasion, war, and occupation -- however costly, were and are justified. And again, once 9/11 occurred, immediately necessary as the only viable plan of action, short of a direct invasion of the Saudi peninsula which would most probably have provoked WWIII.
Reply:a
b) the rising cost of oil
c) the collapse of the soviet union
d) the questionable election results of 2000
The attacks on the pentagon and the world trade center in 2001 were a response to?
A i believe
The attacks on the pentagon and the world trade center in 2001 were a response to?
If I have to choose one of your four options, I%26#039;d have to say %26quot;A%26quot;. The other answers have nothing to do with 9/11.
Reply:a
Reply:A but C and D didn%26#039;t help and the whole mess led to B and, as some believe, a repeat of D four years later.
Reply:They were not a %26quot;response to%26quot;; they were an excuse for %26quot;A.%26quot;
Terrorism is never a rational reason for anything. To give it rationality by insisting it was a %26quot;response%26quot; means that we can %26quot;respond%26quot; to Iran%26#039;s hatred of Jews by killing the students at Tehran University; or %26quot;respond%26quot; to China%26#039;s treatment of Tibetans by killing the people in a market in Beijing.
If a terrorist is truely %26quot;responding,%26quot; then no reason A through ZZZ is necessary--they will do as they want, when they want, for whatever reason they want, because they can choose anything they want to, as something to %26quot;respond%26quot; to.
The correct answer is: %26quot;Muslim terrorists kill even their own kind, if their own kind do not keep strictly to the terrorists%26#039; views of the Muslim religion. The good Muslims are as terrorized by all this as we are. Look at all the good people killed in the markets and squares of Iraq. Look at how many of their policement were slaughtered, some of them just waiting in line to ENLIST in the police.
%26quot;Muslim terrorists need no reason, need no excuse, but hide behind the %26quot;idealism%26quot; of a %26quot;purified Muslim society.
%26quot;It is their own form of %26quot;ethnic cleansing,%26quot; except that the whole world is what they want to cleanse.%26quot;
Answering %26quot;A%26quot; gives legitimacy to these brutal acts of inhumanity to man. Do not give them that legitimacy.
Reply:Who are the terrorists? Lacking a legitimate political base and having no real popular support, they use terror to lash out at the strongest opponents who occupy positions of power. We have always had terrorists and they cannot be appeased or negotiated with. There is no reason guiding their actions except to create as much havoc and suffering as they can. There is no way for the terrorists to gain a position of power because they would be crushed by legitimate governments who are the true representatives of the people. It is simply a struggle of sanity and reason vs the madness and savage wrath of a frustrated foe.
Reply:INCREDIBLE ANSWER BY GENE!
I go with: GENE%26#039;s answer + a^2
Well, there you have it.
.
Reply:The Islamic extremists responsible for the attack chose these buildings as symbols of United States dominance of the world, and particularly the subjugation of Islamic countries to Western interests and ideologies. I would say that they considered the killing of thousands as regrettable %26quot;collateral damage%26quot; to their act of higher purpose. All too familiar logic these days.
Though the level of complicity is unknown, the 9/11 attacks were most probably bankrolled (and perhaps with some Saudi government knowledge) from Islamic charities in Saudi Arabia -- through Osama Bin Laden. He is a member of one of Saudi Arabia%26#039;s most powerful families (which the Bush administration thought it %26quot;controlled%26quot;). %26#039;Exiled%26#039; in Afghanistan, Bin Laden masterminded a %26quot;double-blind%26quot; network of terrorist cells -- perhaps with the tacit support of his family or government, or both. He himself probably did not know the exact nature or timing of the hijack plan. In any event, it is unlikely that anyone, including the perpetrators or Bin Laden, expected the Twin Towers to be entirely destroyed. The attack, while meant to be devastating, was primarily symbolic, and far exceeded expectations. Hence his obvious surprise and glee we see on video of him as he watched the events on television. The target scheduled for United 95, (crashed at the cost of their lives by the heroic resistance of its passengers) is not known, but it was most probably destined for The Capitol or The White House.
These buildings symbolically stood for what the terrorists (18/20 of whom were Saudis) saw as the epicenters and symbols of United States%26#039; and Western Judeo-Christian imperialism -- economic (The WTC), political (The Capitol or White House) and military (The Pentagon).
In all, 9/11 will be seen by history as one of the most significant events of our era, whose long-term effects are still in the process of resolution -- particularly, (and contrary to common belief, at least in the United States), in Iraq. Our invasion there was a response to 9/11 (directed toward the Saudis, NOT Saddam Hussein and his mythical WMD%26#039;s, nor his relatively small oil reserves), and was absolutely necessary in order to bring a significant military presence into that theater after the attack, and thereby protect our national security as well as to guarantee the safety of our enormous economic AND strategic interests in the area. In that sense the invasion, war, and occupation -- however costly, were and are justified. And again, once 9/11 occurred, immediately necessary as the only viable plan of action, short of a direct invasion of the Saudi peninsula which would most probably have provoked WWIII.
Reply:a
Coketown Hard Times?
In hard Times by Charles Dickens when he compared a machine to a human being, why did he do this? what are some compareses you can make between a person and a maching. What are the qualities in a machine that are also in a human. As many as you can think of would be very helpful for my understanding, as I was reading this book. thanks!
What happened in Poland in 1939?
September 1, 1939 got invaded by the Nazis. Got overrun in about 25 days by the Luftwaffe Airforce, and Panzer Tank divisions. World War II was underway.
What happened in Poland in 1939?
The German and Russian armies decided to vacation in Warsaw.
The invasion of Poland Sept. 1, 1939, was the start of World War II as the British and French goverments decided the only way to stop Hitler was war. Hitler invaded Poland after concluding a secret treaty with Stalin to divide Poland if the Soviet Union would stay out of the coming war.
Coming off severe purges of the officer corps in the 1930s and the disasterous Fino-Soviet War of the late 30s, Stalin knew that Russia was in no shape to fight Germany. Hitler, on the other hand, didn%26#039;t want to take on Russia until he had addressed France and Britain...
What happened in Poland in 1939?
The German and Russian armies decided to vacation in Warsaw.
The invasion of Poland Sept. 1, 1939, was the start of World War II as the British and French goverments decided the only way to stop Hitler was war. Hitler invaded Poland after concluding a secret treaty with Stalin to divide Poland if the Soviet Union would stay out of the coming war.
Coming off severe purges of the officer corps in the 1930s and the disasterous Fino-Soviet War of the late 30s, Stalin knew that Russia was in no shape to fight Germany. Hitler, on the other hand, didn%26#039;t want to take on Russia until he had addressed France and Britain...
Explain how the following influenced the development of the last West from 1850 - 1900?
Explain how the following influenced the development of the last West from 1850 - 1900: miners, cattlemen, and farmers
What factors allowed the united states to indusrialize very rapidly during the last half of the 19th century?
Western European immigrants.
What factors allowed the united states to indusrialize very rapidly during the last half of the 19th century?
Limitless and diverse natural resources unavailable in many other countries as well as an ever growing cheap labor force. Americans were also great innovators who were often on the cutting edge of the day%26#039;s technology and willingly employed it. As a so-called %26#039;new world%26#039;, the US wasn%26#039;t overly tied to the inefficiences of the old world, ... and took advantage of all the opportunities which presented themselves as science and technology progressed. Freedom and democracy also played a big role in allowing the American dream where anyone, from any background or social class could achieve greatness with hard work and dilligence.
What factors allowed the united states to indusrialize very rapidly during the last half of the 19th century?
Raw materials, including coal for energy, a good transportation network and a large population that provided workers for the factories and buyers for the products...
Reply:A trans-continental railroad system;
The development of cities around manufacturing centers and seaports;
A large urban workforce from farms and immigration;
Advances in industrial process and technology;
A new generation of capitalists willing to take full advantage of all the above.
What factors allowed the united states to indusrialize very rapidly during the last half of the 19th century?
Limitless and diverse natural resources unavailable in many other countries as well as an ever growing cheap labor force. Americans were also great innovators who were often on the cutting edge of the day%26#039;s technology and willingly employed it. As a so-called %26#039;new world%26#039;, the US wasn%26#039;t overly tied to the inefficiences of the old world, ... and took advantage of all the opportunities which presented themselves as science and technology progressed. Freedom and democracy also played a big role in allowing the American dream where anyone, from any background or social class could achieve greatness with hard work and dilligence.
What factors allowed the united states to indusrialize very rapidly during the last half of the 19th century?
Raw materials, including coal for energy, a good transportation network and a large population that provided workers for the factories and buyers for the products...
Reply:A trans-continental railroad system;
The development of cities around manufacturing centers and seaports;
A large urban workforce from farms and immigration;
Advances in industrial process and technology;
A new generation of capitalists willing to take full advantage of all the above.
How is Otto von Bismark a good example of Realpolitik?
it would be great if you could explain it simply for me. thanks
How is Otto von Bismark a good example of Realpolitik?
Try this one:
Realpolitik
Bismarck was the architect of a policy that came to be known as REALPOLITIK, which means %26quot;practical politics.%26quot; He was determined to strengthen Prussia by any means necessary. Alliances were merely convenient and could be dissolved to exploit an opportunity. Bismarck supported democracy to gain internal support, but had no true interest in liberal reform. He watched international events closely, waiting for the proper moments to advance his agenda.
The Danish king%26#039;s attempts to annex the DUCHIES OF SCHLESWIG AND HOLSTEIN provided an opportunity for Bismarck to act. He enticed Austria to declare war on Denmark to acquire these two territories. Following a brief war, Prussia assumed control of Schleswig while Austria occupied Holstein. Denmark was too weak militarily to stop either larger power. Bismarck never intended to make the joint occupation permanent. He immediately made plans to stab the Austrians in the back.
http://www.beyondbooks.com/eur12/2b.asp
This is also a very good link
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/europe...
How is Otto von Bismark a good example of Realpolitik?
Try this one:
Realpolitik
Bismarck was the architect of a policy that came to be known as REALPOLITIK, which means %26quot;practical politics.%26quot; He was determined to strengthen Prussia by any means necessary. Alliances were merely convenient and could be dissolved to exploit an opportunity. Bismarck supported democracy to gain internal support, but had no true interest in liberal reform. He watched international events closely, waiting for the proper moments to advance his agenda.
The Danish king%26#039;s attempts to annex the DUCHIES OF SCHLESWIG AND HOLSTEIN provided an opportunity for Bismarck to act. He enticed Austria to declare war on Denmark to acquire these two territories. Following a brief war, Prussia assumed control of Schleswig while Austria occupied Holstein. Denmark was too weak militarily to stop either larger power. Bismarck never intended to make the joint occupation permanent. He immediately made plans to stab the Austrians in the back.
http://www.beyondbooks.com/eur12/2b.asp
This is also a very good link
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/europe...
What happened in Yugoslavia in 1992?
Wikipedia
What happened in Yugoslavia in 1992?
Ah, I love this story.
So Yugoslavia is this giant Socialist Federal Republic that was basically made that way because of the whole Russian takeover. It began around the end of WWII.
So 1992, it finally began to give in to the democratic stuff that was going on, but mostly because it was such a diverse place with people that absolutely hated each other, and it began to split up.
The first two to go were Slovenia and Croatia. They left exactly in 1992 even though Yugoslavia still claimed that it owned it. Other countries recognized there independence.
Eventually, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia split completely into Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia, and....Kosovo which only really recognized itself as independent.
So what was happening is that the last legacies of Russia, the socialist states that it had created (of course, by this time Russia was pretty desinegrated itself), were breaking up. Yugoslavia being one of the very last.
What happened in Yugoslavia in 1992?
Ah, I love this story.
So Yugoslavia is this giant Socialist Federal Republic that was basically made that way because of the whole Russian takeover. It began around the end of WWII.
So 1992, it finally began to give in to the democratic stuff that was going on, but mostly because it was such a diverse place with people that absolutely hated each other, and it began to split up.
The first two to go were Slovenia and Croatia. They left exactly in 1992 even though Yugoslavia still claimed that it owned it. Other countries recognized there independence.
Eventually, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia split completely into Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia, and....Kosovo which only really recognized itself as independent.
So what was happening is that the last legacies of Russia, the socialist states that it had created (of course, by this time Russia was pretty desinegrated itself), were breaking up. Yugoslavia being one of the very last.
Explain causes of wwii?
i have the causes, but i need to be able to explain them; any help?
-legacy of wwi
-depression
-ethnic conflicts
-imperialism
-political/economical rivalries
i have to be able to explain the above. help!
Explain causes of wwii?
It was basically a difference of opinion. Hitler thought all of Europe belonged to him, and the people of Spain, France, Belgium, etc.etc. thought parts of it belonged to them.
Explain causes of wwii?
The legacy of WWI has to do with the peace treaty that was signed to end WWI. Germany was forced to pay a lot of money to the other countries. Hitler said, %26quot;we aren%26#039;t going to pay anymore%26quot;, which made the Germans very happy with him.
The depression hit hard everywhere, but no where did it hit harder than in Germany. They had rampant inflation. You would take a wheel barrow to work with you, and they would pay you at the end of the day, filling up your wheel barrow with money who%26#039;s value was so low, it%26#039;s not even funny, and then you would run to the store and hope what you had in your wheel barrow was enough to buy bread, before inflation drove up the price (not to mention supply and demand).
As far as Ethnic conflicts go, I%26#039;ve not seen any convincing arguments that these really played a significant part. Hitler did blame the Jews for Germany%26#039;s economic woes, and a populace eager for a scape goat went along with it (somewhat). But I don%26#039;t see that as a %26quot;cause%26quot; per see.
Imperialism. Again, I don%26#039;t see this as a cause.
Political / economic rivalries. Frankly, this was a major factor in Hitler coming to power. The communists had taken over Russia. In many a European country, the communists tried to do the same. They almost succeeded in Munich, which would have taken over the German state of Bavaria. Many people clung to Hitler, bad as he was, because he was anti-communist and they were afraid that the communists would take over.
The man who would later be Pope during WWII was the Embassidor from the Vadicant to Germany during Hitler%26#039;s rise to power. He was in Munich. He had some close calls during the communist uprisings. Let%26#039;s not forget too that a pillar of communism is that %26quot;relgion is the opiate (sp?) of the masses%26quot;. Relgion in Russia had largely been banned. The church wasn%26#039;t exactly keen on communisim either.
Classically, German schools have always had a required religion class. The curriculm was written by the Lutheran church. The vadicant wanted to write the curriculm (and thus be able to put Catholicism in a more favorable light). The Ebassidor thought this was very important and wanted it badly.
Hitler%26#039;s main obstacle to power was a very powerful political party - the Calthoic party. Remember, separation of church and state is an American idea. The Embassidor didn%26#039;t think this political party was important. He wanted the curriculm. Hitler didn%26#039;t care about the curriculm - he knew that his collition could not get power so long as the Catholic party existed. Hitler offered him a deal - disband the Catholic party and you can write the curriculm. The party disbanded, Hitler took power, the rest is history. (the remnants of the Catholic party later became the %26quot;Christian Party%26quot;, which held power for quite some time in the 60%26#039;s, 70%26#039;s and 80%26#039;s).
PS: Let me state that I believe the Embassidor (later Pope) did not understand the consequences of his actions. I do not believe that he knowingly put Hitler into power. I am not blaming the Catholic Church for Hitler.
Reply:There were Four causes of WW2: Imperialism or people taking over other nations. Militarism or use of military which meant using military wrongly. Nationalism or bragging who%26#039;s the best, and Balance of Power(stopping one nation from becoming to powerful). Also the resentment Germany had over 20 years with forced signing the Treaty of Versailles and losing military and territory and paying reparations for war. It was a big issue.
-legacy of wwi
-depression
-ethnic conflicts
-imperialism
-political/economical rivalries
i have to be able to explain the above. help!
Explain causes of wwii?
It was basically a difference of opinion. Hitler thought all of Europe belonged to him, and the people of Spain, France, Belgium, etc.etc. thought parts of it belonged to them.
Explain causes of wwii?
The legacy of WWI has to do with the peace treaty that was signed to end WWI. Germany was forced to pay a lot of money to the other countries. Hitler said, %26quot;we aren%26#039;t going to pay anymore%26quot;, which made the Germans very happy with him.
The depression hit hard everywhere, but no where did it hit harder than in Germany. They had rampant inflation. You would take a wheel barrow to work with you, and they would pay you at the end of the day, filling up your wheel barrow with money who%26#039;s value was so low, it%26#039;s not even funny, and then you would run to the store and hope what you had in your wheel barrow was enough to buy bread, before inflation drove up the price (not to mention supply and demand).
As far as Ethnic conflicts go, I%26#039;ve not seen any convincing arguments that these really played a significant part. Hitler did blame the Jews for Germany%26#039;s economic woes, and a populace eager for a scape goat went along with it (somewhat). But I don%26#039;t see that as a %26quot;cause%26quot; per see.
Imperialism. Again, I don%26#039;t see this as a cause.
Political / economic rivalries. Frankly, this was a major factor in Hitler coming to power. The communists had taken over Russia. In many a European country, the communists tried to do the same. They almost succeeded in Munich, which would have taken over the German state of Bavaria. Many people clung to Hitler, bad as he was, because he was anti-communist and they were afraid that the communists would take over.
The man who would later be Pope during WWII was the Embassidor from the Vadicant to Germany during Hitler%26#039;s rise to power. He was in Munich. He had some close calls during the communist uprisings. Let%26#039;s not forget too that a pillar of communism is that %26quot;relgion is the opiate (sp?) of the masses%26quot;. Relgion in Russia had largely been banned. The church wasn%26#039;t exactly keen on communisim either.
Classically, German schools have always had a required religion class. The curriculm was written by the Lutheran church. The vadicant wanted to write the curriculm (and thus be able to put Catholicism in a more favorable light). The Ebassidor thought this was very important and wanted it badly.
Hitler%26#039;s main obstacle to power was a very powerful political party - the Calthoic party. Remember, separation of church and state is an American idea. The Embassidor didn%26#039;t think this political party was important. He wanted the curriculm. Hitler didn%26#039;t care about the curriculm - he knew that his collition could not get power so long as the Catholic party existed. Hitler offered him a deal - disband the Catholic party and you can write the curriculm. The party disbanded, Hitler took power, the rest is history. (the remnants of the Catholic party later became the %26quot;Christian Party%26quot;, which held power for quite some time in the 60%26#039;s, 70%26#039;s and 80%26#039;s).
PS: Let me state that I believe the Embassidor (later Pope) did not understand the consequences of his actions. I do not believe that he knowingly put Hitler into power. I am not blaming the Catholic Church for Hitler.
Reply:There were Four causes of WW2: Imperialism or people taking over other nations. Militarism or use of military which meant using military wrongly. Nationalism or bragging who%26#039;s the best, and Balance of Power(stopping one nation from becoming to powerful). Also the resentment Germany had over 20 years with forced signing the Treaty of Versailles and losing military and territory and paying reparations for war. It was a big issue.
Wat was the changeofthe meaning of equality for freeblacks from post revolutionary war to the precivil war era
Basically, the issue of free blacks rose in slave states, where free blacks were considered to be opponents of slaves, although some free blacks owned slaves themselves. Slave laws were passed to regulate the movement of slaves between plantations and free blacks. In the North, blacks were not first-class citizens, but they had freedom of movement....
What kind of warriors would the viking of fought?
like knights..etc..
What kind of warriors would the viking of fought?
Mostly other Europeans Bretons and Silurians and ancient Scotts. For some idea of how they would look go through the pictures on the Museum Replicas Website by time period.
That is where I got most of my descriptions for a SciFi book I wrote. It was set in the 13th Century.
http://www.museumreplicas.com/museumrepl...
What kind of warriors would the viking of fought?
Museum replicas? are you ******* serious?!!! c%26#039;mon?!!!!!
And I think %26quot;Sci-Fi%26quot; might be a keyword here.
Reply:Murlocks?
What kind of warriors would the viking of fought?
Mostly other Europeans Bretons and Silurians and ancient Scotts. For some idea of how they would look go through the pictures on the Museum Replicas Website by time period.
That is where I got most of my descriptions for a SciFi book I wrote. It was set in the 13th Century.
http://www.museumreplicas.com/museumrepl...
What kind of warriors would the viking of fought?
Museum replicas? are you ******* serious?!!! c%26#039;mon?!!!!!
And I think %26quot;Sci-Fi%26quot; might be a keyword here.
Reply:Murlocks?
What was the Celtic culture like?
I do know they like singing with Irish accents....about %26quot;bonnie%26quot; things.
What was the Celtic culture like?
the ancient Celts were farmers and warriors, with a strongly hierarchical society with powerful chiefs. They built large hillforts to protect their communities, some of their hillforts can still be seen at places like Maiden Castle in Dorest for instance. Celtic warriors were famous for their ferocity and bravery. Chariots were used by the warriors,a nd also cavalry.
They worshipped many gods and goddesses, and apparently (according to Caesar) practiced human sacrifice. The Druids were important figures in Celtic society, they were priests and teachers, and seem to have been highly regarded. The Celts seem to have a cult of the human head, many carved stone heads have been found that were made by Celtic craftsmen. Sometimes their dead were buried, and sometimes they were cremated.
They had fine craftsmen and produced wonderful jewellerry, armour, and weapons. they also produced their own coins, often with representations of horses.
Women and men seem to have had equla rights to own and inherit property, but it seems that Celtic noblemen practiced polygamy. Caesar also wrote that women sometimes had more than one husband, which is more unusual. Noble women could sometimes rise to positions of power, as was the case with Queen Cartamunda and Queen Boudicca, for example.
What was the Celtic culture like?
the ancient Celts were farmers and warriors, with a strongly hierarchical society with powerful chiefs. They built large hillforts to protect their communities, some of their hillforts can still be seen at places like Maiden Castle in Dorest for instance. Celtic warriors were famous for their ferocity and bravery. Chariots were used by the warriors,a nd also cavalry.
They worshipped many gods and goddesses, and apparently (according to Caesar) practiced human sacrifice. The Druids were important figures in Celtic society, they were priests and teachers, and seem to have been highly regarded. The Celts seem to have a cult of the human head, many carved stone heads have been found that were made by Celtic craftsmen. Sometimes their dead were buried, and sometimes they were cremated.
They had fine craftsmen and produced wonderful jewellerry, armour, and weapons. they also produced their own coins, often with representations of horses.
Women and men seem to have had equla rights to own and inherit property, but it seems that Celtic noblemen practiced polygamy. Caesar also wrote that women sometimes had more than one husband, which is more unusual. Noble women could sometimes rise to positions of power, as was the case with Queen Cartamunda and Queen Boudicca, for example.
When did the australian federation end?
i found out that it started in 1901, if anyone knows what date that would be great
but when did it end, or hasn%26#039;t it ended?
When did the australian federation end?
nah it hasnt ended yet
but when did it end, or hasn%26#039;t it ended?
When did the australian federation end?
nah it hasnt ended yet
Why did independence movements start in India???
They didn%26#039;t... the South American wars of independence against Spain started in South America and the American Revolutionary War started in Boston, for example....
Why did independence movements start in India???
Independence movements started in India because they were being exploited by the British and being treated like second class citizens. The Indians were unhappy about their treatment and inflicting unjust laws upon the people.
Why did independence movements start in India???
Independence movements didn鈥檛 start in India. The first independence movement I鈥檓 aware of was in 1776 when American colonialists declared independence from the British Empire under King George III. India received its independence on August 15, 1947.
Why did independence movements start in India???
Independence movements started in India because they were being exploited by the British and being treated like second class citizens. The Indians were unhappy about their treatment and inflicting unjust laws upon the people.
Why did independence movements start in India???
Independence movements didn鈥檛 start in India. The first independence movement I鈥檓 aware of was in 1776 when American colonialists declared independence from the British Empire under King George III. India received its independence on August 15, 1947.
What are some of ancient China's most important inventions?
HELP
What are some of ancient China%26#039;s most important inventions?
Gunpowder
What are some of ancient China%26#039;s most important inventions?
Printing press, gun powder, silk, writing, pasta (brought to Italy by Marco Polo), rockets
Reply:rockets, paper, china, kites, compass
Reply:1. paper making
2. printing
3. compass
4. powder
What are some of ancient China%26#039;s most important inventions?
Gunpowder
What are some of ancient China%26#039;s most important inventions?
Printing press, gun powder, silk, writing, pasta (brought to Italy by Marco Polo), rockets
Reply:rockets, paper, china, kites, compass
Reply:1. paper making
2. printing
3. compass
4. powder
What important historical event affected life in the the two Koreas in 1950?
Help
What important historical event affected life in the the two Koreas in 1950?
Are you talking about the Korean War?
What important historical event affected life in the the two Koreas in 1950?
The Korean War was an escalation of border clashes between two rival Korean regimes, each of which was supported by external powers, with each trying to topple the other through political and conventional tactics. In a very narrow sense, some may refer to it as a civil war, though many other factors were at play.[17] After failing to strengthen their cause in the free elections held in South Korea during May 1950[18] and the refusal of South Korea to hold new elections per North Korean demands, the communist North Korean Army assaulted the South on June 25, 1950. The conflict was then expanded by the United States and the Soviet Union%26#039;s involvement as part of the larger Cold War. The main hostilities were during the period from June 25, 1950 until the armistice (ceasefire agreement) was signed on July 27, 1953.
Reply:A war in your own country will usually affect your life, at least to some degree anyway.
What important historical event affected life in the the two Koreas in 1950?
Are you talking about the Korean War?
What important historical event affected life in the the two Koreas in 1950?
The Korean War was an escalation of border clashes between two rival Korean regimes, each of which was supported by external powers, with each trying to topple the other through political and conventional tactics. In a very narrow sense, some may refer to it as a civil war, though many other factors were at play.[17] After failing to strengthen their cause in the free elections held in South Korea during May 1950[18] and the refusal of South Korea to hold new elections per North Korean demands, the communist North Korean Army assaulted the South on June 25, 1950. The conflict was then expanded by the United States and the Soviet Union%26#039;s involvement as part of the larger Cold War. The main hostilities were during the period from June 25, 1950 until the armistice (ceasefire agreement) was signed on July 27, 1953.
Reply:A war in your own country will usually affect your life, at least to some degree anyway.
Back in the 1920's, would someone who was half-Native American and half white be treated badly by society?
Yup. And they were.
Back in the 1920%26#039;s, would someone who was half-Native American and half white be treated badly by society?
The term back then would have been %26quot;half-breed%26quot;. In some white areas and in some tribal areas, that person could have been treated badly because of %26quot;not being pure%26quot;.
Of course in some cases the Dakota did not trust the Arapaho, or Pueblo the Apache, or the English the French or the Poles the German, etc, etc.
Back in the 1920%26#039;s, would someone who was half-Native American and half white be treated badly by society?
The term back then would have been %26quot;half-breed%26quot;. In some white areas and in some tribal areas, that person could have been treated badly because of %26quot;not being pure%26quot;.
Of course in some cases the Dakota did not trust the Arapaho, or Pueblo the Apache, or the English the French or the Poles the German, etc, etc.
History help?
Can anyone think of any terms in history from Westward Expansion to Civil Rights that are ABC terms?
What happened in France in 1789?
What came to be known as Bastille Day,There was the Tennis Court Oath, We call what happend in France in 1789 The French Revolution
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)