Want this question answered?
countries were confident that allies would fight with them if they declared war.
danger that some European countries might become communist
Not always. There are a few small countries on this planet that have no army and a few others who try to keep the size and expense as minimal as possible. But most countries traditionally have an army. The USA because it sees itself (up to now, at least) as the policeman of the world; many others because they face clear and present danger from insurgents, religious fanatics and/or neighboring countries; others because having an army adds to their standing among fellow countries - or provides them with a useful means of adding pressure in diplomatic conflicts with them.
U.S.S.R. {| |- | The rival was the Soviet Union. It began as the US and Soviets divided up responsibility for policing the defeated Axis countries. It escalated when the Soviets developed nuclear weapons. |}
the biggest danger toward the US troops was the disease in Mexico
countries were confident that allies would fight with them if they declared war.
countries were confident that allies would fight with them if they declared war.
countries were confident that allies would fight with them if they declared war.
lolol
they would use the red sea to trade between countries ,and this was a quick way to trade.
in some countries they can be by predators and mainly pollution
The danger zone is between 5-63 degrees centigrade
The alarm, traditionally sounded to avert danger, became the apparent cause of the avalanche is an example of?A) exaggeration B) personification C)satire D) irony
a.c is more danger than d.c
He became convinced that his life and that of his family was in danger.
During both world wars, trade between the USA and European countries were hampered by the war. The Atlantic Ocean was filled with German submarines in both wars. It was clear that cargo ships were in danger in the Atlantic Ocean. This was intensified when the USA entered both world wars.
This is an example of a post hoc fallacy, where a causal relationship is wrongly assumed between two events because of their chronological order. The sounding of the alarm and the subsequent avalanche were actually unrelated events, and the alarm did not cause the avalanche.