0
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Did Germany ever repay debts owed as result of world war 2?
A few weeks ago (in April 2006) Britain finally repaid the very last instalment of its war-time and immediate post-war debts, with interest. Some of it was, but most of it simply disappeared. American politicians at the time were more concerned with building up Western Europe into a viable economic/military block that could withstand a Soviet onslaught, so the government was extremely forgiving with most European countries' loans (the one possible exception was West Germany, but even they were allowed to forget about a good portion of their debts).
How would the US be different if the south won the civil war?
We are still fighting the Civil War. It has and always be between liberal and conservative views on the constitution. If the south had one we would not have the Imperial federal government that invades most aspects of our lives and also steals our hard earned wages at the point of a gun only to waste and give to more dead beat liberals. The growth federal government started with the civil war and has continued with the help of liberal Democrats and activist judges until the present. A victorious south would have put the feds where the founding fathers wanted them in Washington but without the fangs they later grew.AnswerNo. Both sides would be both poorer and weaker. Probably weak enough not to beat Japan and Germany in WWII. AnswerAssuming the South would Survive... probably not. There would probably be such a great resentment, that the two nations would forever squabble and have numerous wars. Both would be weak, in relation to Europe. I pobably wouldn't be an American/Confederate. My family probably would not have come. I don't think the North American Continent could survive with two squabbling nations. AnswerThe country would definitely NOT BE better off if the South had won. Lincoln was not a liberal Democrat as someone mentioned above. (And even if he had been that wouldn't be a bad thing). He was actually a Republican and up until JFK's presidency, African Americans regarded the Republican party as their ally because it was Lincoln's party that freed them. By the way, Lincoln was not an abolitionist which is defined as someone like William Lloyd Garrison who believes in the IMMEDIATE emancipation of slaves. Lincoln was only interested in the gradual emancipation of them- for political reasons not because of moral standards. In addition, had the US been divided into two separate nations, the South would not have survived because it was too dependent on the industrial capabilities of the North. An agrarian society can only survive so long.Had the Civil War not taken place, the South would have eventually given up slavery on its own. While slavery sustained the region's agriculture, it only promoted limited economic growth since the principles of capitalism could not be fully realized by those who provided labor without compensation.Therefore, the theory that we would have been too weak to fight Germany in World War I and II is true, but assuming that the South would have abolished slavery on its own whether they won the war or not, that theory is null.AnswerBut it certainly would have been worse off for the slaves, and possibly for Central and South America. Slavery was a dying institution in most of the world, but not in the South. In 1860, there were 28 million free people in the North and South. How many African slaves were there? 4 million! That is a staggering number, but many in the South wanted more. They wanted to annex Cuba, and enslave its 1 million inhabitants. This is not obscure: pro-southern US Presidents Pierce and Buchanan both worked toward this end. And there were "filibusters" such as William Walker and Narcisso Lopez who worked to win territory for the South in Central and South America. The obvious point here was to expand the "empire for slavery." AnswerThere still IS slavery in the world. Look at Africa; look at the Muslim slave traders. In 2005 they still trade and sell slaves (mainly Christian). Slavery would have ended in the Confederacy because machines (especially the cotton gin) could do the work faster, more efficiently and with less slacking off then the slaves. Slaves have to be fed, sheltered, and generally cared for. They are not economically efficient. The Civil War was about state's rights to make their own decisions and decide what happened within their own borders. It is too complex to say whether America would be better off if the south had won but the South would be better off, I am sure. Lee Henderson AnswerAs a history teacher I find it hard to believe that people still think that the South couldn't make it without the North.The fact of history are 1)The South wanted to be on its own, and 2)the North wouldn't let the South go.If anybody is really dumb enough to think that this war wasn't fought by the North for economic reasons then you shouldn't be driving a car.First of all the federal government made huge sums of money off tarrifs(there were no income taxes yet).These tarrifs not only took money from Southern pockets, but in return most of the tax dollars were spent north of the Mason-Dixon line.Additionally quite frankly the Southerners had to pay way too heavy prices for northern manufactures due to the tarriff.We all know just about all American manufacturing was in the North.So to the Southerner a shovel that could be bought for $5 directly from Britain ended up costing $12 due to the tarrif.So the Southerner bought the Northern shovel for $9.In the Confederate constitution there was a clause banning tarrifs.Why? The South had unfairly been screwed financially for years and they knew it.With no tarrif for protection the Northern manufactures couldn't have competed with Eoropean imports.Not to mention that there would probably have been a real backlash against anything Northern following seceession.also one of the first things Lincoln did in office was pass an even higher tarrif.Also didn't Lincoln state at the onset of the war that he had no plans for ending slavery where it existed before the war.Yet we're brought up in school brainwashed that slavery was the major issue of the Civil War.The South of the mid to late 19th century would obviously have been better off with more money in their pockets.As to the North their economy would have obviously been adversely affected by the loss of the Southern market.I reaaly don't think the two sides would have fought a war again.Canada sided with England in our two wars with them but we haven't fought them since.So its no guarantee we would fight again.After all both nations would be Americans.The Great Depression would obviously have hit the south hard but it would have hurt the North toObviously slavery would have died anyway but I'm not sure what would've happened with the Civil Cights Movement.The Confederate economy today would not be still based on cotton.Manufacturing would have evolved in dixie like it did.I would say taxes would be lower in the South and you would probably be allowed to have an opinion that isn't politically correct.Prayer in school would probably still exist in the South and abortion would have never been made legal.I would think that laws would be much tougher on crime and that prisons would be like well prisons used to be.Neither the Confederacy or Union would be the military power America is now.But neither would be a France either.I also see no guarantee that they would choose opposing sides in WW1.It would be really stupid and reckless of either govt. to send troops overseas knowing their neighbor could be poised to invade them.Neither would in my opinion be so stupid.Many people talk of the large German population in the North and theorize that the North would have sided with Germany.First of all the German portion of Americans in the North weren't close to 50% and what all of the other Americans in the North with different backgrounds blindly followed their lead.I think both countries send supplies make money and avoid the war unless they join the same side.As for WW2 may never have happened as it did.Hitler may have just been a strange fanatic with not much if any following had with no US entry Germany not have been defeated so badly in world war 2.Japan would still be a titan but whose to say Hawaii or the Philippines wuold have belonged to the US or CS.Without Europe to deal with Britain could have contained them much better.Plus the Russians were old enemies of the Japaneese too.Anyway I would say that life in the South would defenitely have been better when the War of northern Aggression was fought had the Confederacy won.Life in the North would have been worse then thus the reason for the war.As for today I think the South would be a better place for me for the most part.But what about interstates and highways I'm not sure.I'm also not sure minorities would be as welcome.There would have never been affirmative action.But maybe welfare wouldn't be the same either and people would have to work to eat just like I do.Also having lived in both the North and South I would say it was my experience that there are more race problems in the North.I would also say that as a whole people in the South are more friendly and more likely to attend church(Christian that is).But I would also have to say that Southerners get involved in other people's business more than Northerners and that's not a good thing.Cooking is way better in the South if you don't include New England.As a whole the two regions are still opposed politically they just won't fight another war over it. AnswerBetter off? Certainly not. What if Lincoln hadn't been President of the United States? What if instead the President had been someone who thought it was too much trouble to fight to preserve the Union, and simply had said "Let the southern states go, who needs them?" Today we would have a third-world country south of the Mason-Dixon line. After the inevitable slave revolt, I expect that the Confederate States of America would have evolved into something a lot like Haiti is today. Instead, reconstruction saved the South from itself, and would solve our racial problems if it hadn't been discontinued by the Hayes administration in the late 1870's.Of course there are right-wing nuts ("wingnuts") who say that the Civil War ended American democracy and began the era of Federal tyranny. But without the strong Federal government of FDR, the USA would have been unable to participate effectively in World War II and, as it happened, to save Western civilization.No, if the Confederacy had won the Civil War, it would have been a disaster for the Southern states, the Northern states, and the entire world.AnswerDepends on how you define "our country". My country, the South, would have absolutely been better off. Slavery would have eventually died out peacefully, perhaps with some kind of compensated emancipation like was done in Brazil and there would have been no poisonous Reconstruction that led to Kukluxism, instituted segregation and awful race relations. The American Indians would have definitely been better off as at least five nations of Indians would have had a semi-autonomous state of Oklahoma (five civlized tribes). Southern industry, which took off wholesale during the war, would have blossomed and prospered. Northern industry would have lost a great deal of power and influence when the united states lost its protective tariff over the South and had to actually compete on the free market with European manufacturers. THere is no reason to think that the two separate republics would have needed to be antagonistic either. Canada and the US fought each other twice in the Revolution and in the war of 1812 and we are not enemies nor competitors. Southern independence would have been threat, however, to northern "manifest destiny" zealots who believed that the whole continent had to be ruled from DC. There would have been a different ending to World War I which could have possibly prevented World War II entirely..It can't be said definitively of course but I can easily see how the world would have been better off with an independent confederate states republic as a foil to the increasingly militant and aggressive united states.AnswerNo. If the South had won, the North would do what they did, and the Americas would be drenched in the blood of men and boys. The Nations would tear the contanent appart in the bloody fights, and we would be consumed by chaos. The Union's victory and total war method both repressed a violent and bloody future that would lead to the destruction of us all. AnswerIt seems that people don't know the small truths about the war. England was just waiting for a respectable win from the Southerners to prove their legitimacy. It is thought that the battle of Antietam was the "proving point" for England. If the CSA would have won the battle, England would have supported the South. In exchange, the CSA was prepared to abolish slavery all together. Many people think the war was over the north hating slavery and the south loving it. Not quite.
What year was the miroku 4800 TR-I made?
Around about 1984
How can delete a table Row in HTML?
Each row in a table starts with the <TR> tag, and the cells are started with the <TD> tags which are inside the TR tags. To remove a specific row just highlight, and delete from <TR> to</TR> for example a table with two rows might look like this: <Table> <TR> <td>first row</td> </TR> <TR> <td>second row</td> </TR> </Table> To remove the first row delete <TR> <td>first row</td> </TR> You will be left with: <Table> <TR> <td>second row</td> </TR> </Table>
When was the DSM IV TR first published?
The DSM IV TR was first published in the year of 1952. The date it was published and created was around the 1950s. It is a diagnostic and statistical Manual of Mental disorder.
How do you convert cfm to tr?
Tr = cfm/400
How tall is TR Judd?
TR Judd is 5' 9".
What is the abbreviation of TR represented in Air Conditioners?
Tr=ton
What is TR (547)-TR (543)?
Well, darling, TR (547) minus TR (543) is 4. It's as simple as that. Math doesn't have to be a headache, sugar, just a quick calculation.
How do you hide friends on your page?
<style type="text/css">.friendSpace tr td.text table tr td table tr td table tr td a { display: none; } .friendSpace tr td.text table tr td table tr td { display: none; } .friendSpace tr td.text table tr td span { display: none; }</style> or 2.0 .friendSpaceModule { display: none; } or 1.0<style type="text/css">.friendSpace { display:none; }</style> Ps Have funn
What does TR stand for in engineering terminology?
The following Web Address provides a variety of things that the letters "TR" can stand for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR The following Web Address provides a variety of things that the letters "TR" can stand for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR
What is the tr-k clc in amox tr-k clv?
clc
How do you convert TR to HP?
1 tr is equivalent to how many hp?
What color are TR Knight's eyes?
TR Knight's eyes are green.
