How did many nations prepare for World War 1?
They formed alliances. Meaning, if one needs help during war it will call on its members. There was the Triple Entente and Triple Alliance. Just google it. They also formed armies. Germany was leading in terms of naval supremacy. But since Britain wanted also to be "on top" it challenged Germany's naval army. As time went by, both sides produced great armies which then prepared them for the war. Nationalism also spread in many nations. That's one big help although it became the cause for other nations to either fight or unite. If you're asking why they would fight, FIGHT because others wanted to gain specific territories claiming for example that their ancestors have lived in that area so...I hope you get the idea. I don't know which countries are the most prepared since they were in groups.
Why cannot India learn from China to be friends with all countries including former enemies so that it can focus on economic development and infrastructure build up?
See yourselves how ‘friendly’ China is with its neighbours:Philippines President Duterte was threatened with WAR by Xi Jinping over South China Sea.Taiwan has been constantly threatened of forced "re-unification" (No source needed)Japan has been threatened over a couple of uninhabited islands when Japanese Govt bought them from their private owners.US has been threatened against Freedom Of Navigation flights in South China Sea close to illegal Chinese artificial islands.Vietnam gets threatened for its oil drilling in the "disputed" sea.China threatened to 'take revenge' against Australia after disputing its rights in the South China Sea.China imposed blockade against Mongolia when Tibetan spiritual leader Dalia Lama visited Mongolia.Bostwana gets threatened to be isolated by China if HH Dalai lama visits the country.Bostwana’s President had to remind China that they aren't China's colony.[1]India's case has been somewhat different. It has been opposing India on every front, on every forum and in every possible wayIndia gets threatened over a remote area which China sees as "Normal activity" by building roads 180 m close to a strategic area for India effectively squashing status- quo agreement.China happilyprotects known Jihadi figures in Pakistan against UN sanctions - not once, not twice, but 4 times now.Don't give a damn about their own trampling of other countries' sovereignty - be it in Tibet invasion or Mongolia blockadehappily built roads in Kashmir through Indian claimed territory against well communicated reasoning forwarded by India.Sounds Peaceful & FriendlyIsn't it?Footnotes[1] We're not your colony, Botswana tells China as Dalai Lama cancels visit
Help in history!?!?! (World War II and I) Few questions i need answering please...!?
WW1 happened because of the expanding imperialist countries. Major countries like France, Austria-Hungary, and England. They all wanted more land and resources to become even more powerful. The Nazi party is the National Socialist Party. They believed in a strong government and promised to turn Germany back into a world power. Communists believe in a form of government called communism. Communism has the idea of equality for all and ownership for all. While this idea sounds great on paper, it will never work because of people's greed. The French and British created the Treaty of Versailles. It was a harsh treaty that forced the Germans to pay reparations to Great Britain and France. Hope this helps. Good luck.
Why did the League of Nations fail?
The League of Nations was the first intergovernment organisation that was established after World War 1 in order to try and maintain the peace. Unfortunately the League failed miserably in its intended goal: to prevent another world war from happening (WW2 broke out only two decades later). The idea was for the League of Nations to prevent wars through disarmament, collective security and negotiation. It was also involved in other issues such as drug trafficking, arms trade and global health. Although the League disbanded during WW2, it was replaced with the United Nations, which is still going strong today.The League of Nations had several integral weaknesses that finally led to its demise.The League was supposed to present the world and encompass all countries, but many countries never even joined the organization, of which the U.S. was the most prevalent one. Some members only remained members for a short while, before ending their membership. Many historians believe that if America had joined the League, there would have been a lot more support in preventing conflicts. Other major powers such as Germany and the Soviet Union were not allowed to join.The international relations of member countries conflicted with the League’s requirements for collective security.The League didn’t have its own armed forces and depended on members to act, but none of the member countries were ready for another war and didn’t want to provide military support.Pacifism was a great problem: the Leagues two largest members, Britain and France, were very reluctant to resort in sanctions and military actions.Disarmament was highly advocated by the League, which meant that it deprived countries that were supposed to act with military force on its behalf when necessary from means to do so.When countries started to attack others in order to try and expand, the League didn’t have any power to stop them.
What will be effect of India -Pakistan war ?
India is likely to follow the US guide line for not wanting help. However, it will follow the UN guidelines. India could have attacked the next day after the attacks, but without the UN's permission, it didn't attack. So India may follow the US guideline, but it won't break the UN's rule. The Effect: India has A LOT of allies which include: USA, Russia, Israel, Great Britain, and MANY others. If the US comes in, then a lot of its allies will be involved (Canada, Australia, etc.). Pakistan has China, and other small countries (because of terrorism connections). China is smart enough not to mess with this situation because it will have to go against two superpowers, US and India, and other countries. And China is already trying to settle peace between the two countries. India has the 3rd largest military (includes army and airforce), and most of its allies are in the top 10. India has the technology that the US has: If any jet aircraft (or anything) comes in without permission, it will be blown in mid-air. India also trains with the US military yearly, so it has built a very strong army. India is ready for war with Pakistan, and Pakistan shows the same by getting ready its airforce. However, that is a bad step because it is messing with the country that is a million times stronger. History: India and Pakistan have had previous wars, in which India owned Pakistan. And India has gotten stronger with the technology and its allies. Conclusion: India will not use nuclear weapons unless Pakistan does so. India knows what is right for the planet and people. If India does use nuclear weapons, then it will use them at a limit. There can be an effect in Asia (a big one), because its the fight between peacemakers, UN, superpowers, military, and all against terrorism. So it will be big if the war strikes. However, US, Canada, and other countries, have fought down the Taliban and Al-Qaeda over the years. And the UN involves all countries, so it will something big. But everybody should hope that it should all settle in peace, and no war should strike. However, the terrorism should be fought down. So overall with all this support, India will kick Pakistan's butt. BIG TIME! And it's true. Everybody knows it. And with all the support India has, it's true. Hope this helps!
Assess the greatness of Lincoln and Washington making clear criteria on which you base your judgement?
I think Washington's greatness lies with the fact that he could have become king of the new nation, but he didn't. He showed restraint in not trying to take too much power and established invaluable precedents through unchartered territory in terms of building a new nation. I think Lincoln's greatness lies with the fact that he was willing to learn and to adapt his thinking over time. He was a Henry Clay-Whig who felt that abolition of slavery was not politically feasible and that it should be contained and allowed to die away, but as the Civil War went on he adapted his thinking when he realized that the country could not remain united with the institution of slavery in place. Plus, he really had little or no military training (other than a little militia experience). When the war broke out he went down to the Library of Congress, checked out a bunch of military strategy books, and read up on it...and he managed to lead us through one of the worst events in our country's history.
Who came closest to conquering Europe, Hitler, Napoleon, or the Mongols?
There’s only one right answer, and it’s none of these three.The Mongols never controlled territory outside of Eastern Europe, although their armies did inflict a crushing defeat on a combined German-Polish army inside of the Holy Roman Empire at Liegnitz. Their control over the Russian states was also not very strong as it was mainly a tributary status put in place after a few decisive victories. The Mongols were simply never numerous enough to administer a massive empire.Hitler had a rather unsustainable model of antagonizing all of Europe and trying to occupy it by force. He never had a chance against the British and Soviets, even if the territorial extent of his rule was impressive. He also had no period of peace, making his conquests less extraordinary considering that they weren’t really conquests and more of wartime occupations.Meanwhile, Napoleon didn’t quite control most of Europe, they were more of defeated empires and kingdoms that bowed down for a while. Prussia, Austria, and Russia all sat in varying states of servitude but were never part of the French Empire. Like Hitler, Napoleon never had much of a period of peace although he was closer to dominance with less tyrannical control of occupied land and a willingness to pursue diplomacy. The land in the beet colored outline was under France.No, the only nation that has ever united Europe so well, although not quite as puppet states, is the United States of America. Here is NATO, peacefully kept together for nearly 70 years, and it keeps on growing. Even many neutral countries which are not in talks to join NATO, such as Sweden, Ireland, and Austria are clearly aligned towards American interests.