Best Answer


User Avatar

Wiki User

11y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Which us foreign polciy was not most directly related to the rise of big business in the late 1800?
Write your answer...
Still have questions?
magnify glass
Continue Learning about American Government
Related questions

where can i get a supplemental health insurance policy to help on mwat our polciy dosen t cover?

in ky

How much will a 1 million liability polciy pay on an auto polciy wilth liabiltiy coverage of 500000 if the loss equals 2 million?

If the ;imits of the auto polict are $500K and there is a loss of $2million the pay out would be 500k if no excess or umbrella policy existis.

Why is chris Anderson not in NBA 2k8?

becuz he wuz banned for 2 years from the nba for violating the drug polciy

What is hmo medical insurance?

There are several policies that you can purchase an hmo policy from; this is a supplemental insurance polciy that you will get to cover the entire rates.

What has the author Yasushi Iwamoto written?

Yasushi Iwamoto has written: 'Real budget deficits and fiscal polciy [i.e. policy] in Japan'

Can a spouse take you off as the beneficiary without letting the spouse know?

Many insurance companies will not let you change your beneficiary, if it is your spouse, without their knowledge. You will have to contact your insurance comapny to find out. Contact your insurance company. Your spouse won't know you've changed it. If they need to send you a new policy, ask them to let you pick it up at their local office. If they can only mail it to you, be sure to collect the mail before your spouse sees it.

Should New Zealand have a onechlid polciy?

Over-population is a real danger, but a one-child policy is just one approach. Another approach is to provide free medical care and education to the first child, education only to the second child, and no free benefits to third and subsequent children. A serious problem with a one-child policy is exemplified in modern India where; because of sex-determination before birth being available; the sex-ratio is highly biased. A recent figure was 100 boy births to only 80 girl births. This desire for a male child is strong in societies where ancient traditions hold sway, but it is very serious.

How did World War 2 affect Australia?

It affected Australia's relationships with other countries because it made Australia start to question and analyze their bonds and links with other countries. Australia wanted to become independent from Britain because John Curtain thought that success in war could not come from Britain. He wanted Australia to look to the US as they had new ideas and attitudes.

Can you get insurance for a 'significant other'?

Many large companies these days offer insurance for a "significant other" instead of a spouse. Speak to the insurance company directly for this information. This is possible, but there are some issues to consider: 1) If the employer group is purchasing their health insurance from a carrier, there will likely be state laws and carrier rules to this. Each state regulates the insurance carriers within their state. 2) If this is a large company of 300+ employees, they probably 'self-insure.' This exempts them from state insurance laws and the employer gets to make most of the decisions. 3) WARNING: IF the employer pays any portion of your premium, they are required by federal law to consider the amount of money that they (the employer) pay towards your (the significant other) insurance premiums as taxable income to your boyfriend. For example, if the employer pays 50% of the cost for dependents and the premium cost for adding you is $300 per month, then the employer pays $150 and your boyfriend will have $150 per month deducted from his pay. But he will also have the income taxes on the $150 the employer contributes deducted, too. There is a complex reasoning the fed gov't has for requiring this. It has to do with the fact that significant others are not afforded the same tax status as spouses. Yeah.

Was Germany to blame for the outbreak of World War I?

They did not bear the sole and total responsibility that was laid on them by the Versailles treaty but they had been actively planning on a war with France for some years for the purpose of gaining territory so they certainly bear the largest part of the responsibility. However, the war first started as a conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. Germany did try to prevent it from becoming a more general war by warning France and Russia not to aid Serbia. They ignored the warnings and a series of treaties requiring verious contries to help other countries in the event of war all went into effect and suddenly everybody was at war. Germany went ahead with their plans for teritorial acquisition. Michael Montagne Yes. Germany was responsible for causing WWI because of the "blank check" given on June 6th, 1914 which allowed Austria-Hungary to attack Serbia with Germany's support. They also pushed Austria to go to war. Germany was not responsible for the First World War; rather, of the initial combatants in WWI they bear equal if not lesser blame. It is fair enough to argue that Kaiser Wilhelm II harboured expansionist aims and through seeking a large navy and following a militaristic Weltpolitik, he alienated Great Britain and Russia; furthermore, his failure to resign the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia in 1894 allowed France to slink back from its diplomatic isolation that Bismarck had crafted between 1871 and 1890. Germany, though, was NOT seeking a war (even a limited one) with any of the European powers at the time. Kaiser Wilhelm, like a child playing with toy soldiers, revelled in the concept of Sabre-rattling and trying to overcompensate for his own non-martial skills; thus, his blank cheque to Austria. FRANCE, however, bears far more responsibility for scaling up the pressure and international mobilization in the weeks leading up to WWI. Kaiser Wilhelm tried to reign in Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria and Czar Nicholas II; France, however, worked feverishly behind the scenes to arrange a multi-lateral attack on Germany in retaliation for the Franco-Prussian War, and did in fact encourage Russia to mobilize BEFORE Germany. Of the four initial Great Powers involved (Germany, France, Russia, and Austria) German armies mobilized LAST. Austria and Russia are more to blame, and France, therefore, bears more responsibility. The First World War can thus be seen in this light as simply revenge (on their part at least) for the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. In all fairness, however, one must truly argue that ALL the Great Powers, caught up in nationalistic, self-aggrandizing, imperialistic and militaristic policies, slid irrevocably into a horrible morass of death and destruction. The desire to pinpoint blame and attach that to one country or another comes, it seems, not from a true attempt to legally and logically assess the causes and consequences, but rather to allow us to frame such horrific and ultimately futile wanton destruction in a morally acceptable framework: "Yes, it was a horrible and meaningless war, but WE didn't start it." Unfortunately, they ALL did. Many historians are unsure which country was most responsibla for the outbreak of war. Germany was responsible for World War one because Germany had given Austria the Blank cheque. This shows that Germany was looking forward to war. Germany had also made the Schlieffen plan whereby they had to pass through Belgium to get to France, crush them then quickly move their army up to the east front to fight Russia. This plan althouh did not work out. Germany was also provoking the British by building their own Navy. Britain disliked this idea because then Germany would get even more power ful. Germany also told Austria-Hungary that both would start a war against Serbia if they would not accept the rules given by austria-Hungary. This is why Germany and Austria-Hungary went to war against Serbi. This war could have been localised but but Serbia was allied with Russia, and Russia with France and Britain. The Schlieffen Plan was that Germany would first invade France through Belgium and then attack Russia before it had mobilised. The reason that Britain joined the war was because everyone in Europe had signed a treaty which said that Belgium would stay neutral in times of war, when France had a plea for help to Britain after Germany had taken over Belgium, Britain decided to join war to stop Germany from expansion. I think leading up to the war Britain, France and Russia were in a difficult position. On more than one occasion these allied powers sought to avoid large-scale war. Their reactions during the Moroccan Crisis, Bosnian Crisis and the Balkan Wars that followed are just a few examples. If these powers had wanted war then they had an abundance of motives. Anti-German behaviour was prevalent at the time because Germany was an aggressive power pursuing an aggressive foreign policy. Germany had planned to wage a large-scale war. The Schlieffen plan was devised in 1905 as an offensive strategy and was acted out in 1914. The Triple Entente was signed in 1907 as a reaction to Germany's dangerous behaviour. French war plans that were devised were all purely defensive alliances. Britain, France and Russia did not want war but they were prepared for war. Many people like to blame the Germans but for a matter of fact I think that the Germans even though they didn't help any of the situations neither did any of the other countries either. There were many reasons why the first world war began listed above, but the one I would like to argue with is: "Germany was responsible for the outbreak of the war as it invaded Belgium to reach France. If they had been sensible and attacked through the forest on the French-German border. But no, they went through neutral Belgium and forced Britain's hand." I think saying that the Germans would have been sensible cutting through the forest on the French-German border is silly. Yes the German's should have respected the Belgium neutrality but if the Germans had gone straight through the forest (like the French thought they were going to do) they would have all been gunned down. They were protecting there people like we would have protected hours. This was a smart move like it or not, although obviously not smart enough because we still won the war! The case for arguing that Germany (or at least the German General Staff) bears the key responsibility for unleashing World War 1 is more complicated than, for example, stating that they invaded Belgium or that Kaiser Wilhelm did or said this or that. The case is that the German General Staff did everything it could to push Austria-Hungary into being completely unreasonable and then into going to war. In other words, the (modern) argument is that Germany - or at least its General Staff - started the war in effect by proxy. Germany was the senior partner in the Triple Alliance, and Austria-Hungary would never have risked war with Russia without full and unqualified German backing. In Germany the machinery of government was not well co-ordinated at the top, and the General Staff was not under political control by 1914. Instead, the military were barking out orders to Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg and the Kaiser. From about 1920-60 most German historians would broadly have agreed with the conventional American view on this question. In 1961, however, the German historian, Fritz Fischer, after a careful study of the German and Austro-Hungarian archives, came to the conclusion that the German General Staff had indeed plunged Europe into war in 1914. In Vienna there were doves as well as hawks. Serbia accepted most of the points in the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum, and the doves argued very persuasively in favour of acceptance. The consternation of the German General Staff knew no bounds and it immediately used its considerable influence to strengthen the position of the hawks. Fischer concludes that the government of Austria-Hungary was placed under massive pressure to escalate the crisis instead of defusing it. Fritz Fischer stresses that he doesn't accept the Versailles "war guilt clause", which treated every German man, woman and child as responsible. He places the blame on the German General Staff, which wasn't under effective political control, but almost a rival government within Germany, at least in matters of defence and foreign policy. Many reputable German historians accept some version of this view, and Fritz Fischer was awarded the Bundesverdienstkreuz,1. Klasse (Federal Order of Merit, 1st Class). He is respected and not regarded as some zany outsider. Over the years one of the main criticisms to emerge is that he paid insufficient attention to underlying tensions. (It appears that popular history in the U.S. has a problem considering the possibility that Germany bears the main responsibility for starting World War 1). See the links below.