They joined the war effort on the side of the allies because they thought it would bring them independence after the war.” what nation or people does this sentence describe?
china and japan
australia and new zealand
communist supporters in russia
african colonies of france and britain

African colonies of France and Britain

Explanation:

The war was not just between the countries on the two opposite sides but of two opposite ideas also. While the central powers were seen to invading forces, at the same time the allies portrait themselves to be liberators. This gained them huge public support across the globe. The colonies of France and Britain also expected these ideas to be followed in their homeland.

your answer is

relations between the soviet union and the united states were driven by a complex interplay of ideological, political, and economic factors, which led to shifts between cautious cooperation and often bitter superpower rivalry over the years. the distinct differences in the political systems of the two countries often prevented them from reaching a mutual understanding on key policy issues and even, as in the case of the cuban missile crisis, brought them to the brink of war.

the united states government was initially hostile to the soviet leaders for taking russia out of world war i and was opposed to a state ideologically based on communism. although the united states embarked on a famine relief program in the soviet union in the early 1920s and american businessmen established commercial ties there during the period of the new economic policy (1921–29), the two countries did not establish diplomatic relations until 1933. by that time, the totalitarian nature of joseph stalin's regime presented an insurmountable obstacle to friendly relations with the west. although world war ii brought the two countries into alliance, based on the common aim of defeating nazi germany, the soviet union's aggressive, antidemocratic policy toward eastern europe had created tensions even before the war ended.

imperialism and colonization in 1936

part of the politics series

basic forms of government

power structure

separation

associated state dominion chiefdom

federalism

federation confederation devolution

integration

empire hegemony unitary state

administrative division

power source

democracy

power of many

direct representative liberal social demarchy others

oligarchy

power of few

anocracy aristocracy plutocracy kakistocracy kraterocracy stratocracy timocracy meritocracy technocracy geniocracy noocracy kritarchy particracy ergatocracy netocracy

autocracy

power of one

despotism dictatorship military dictatorship

others

anarchy theocracy

power ideology

monarchy vs. republic

socio-political ideologies

absolute legalist

constitutional

parliamentary directorial semi-presidential presidential

authoritarian vs. libertarian

socio-economic ideologies

tribalism despotism feudalism colonialism distributism anarchism socialism communism totalitarianism

global vs. local

geo-cultural ideologies

commune city-state national government intergovernmental organisation world government

politics portal

vte

an empire is a sovereign state functioning as an aggregate of nations or people that are ruled over by an emperor or another kind of monarch. the territory and population of an empire is commonly of greater extent than the one of a kingdom.[1]

an empire can be made solely of contiguous territories, such as the austro-hungarian empire or the russian empire, or of territories far remote from the homeland, such as a colonial empire. aside from the more formal usage, the word empire can also refer colloquially to a large-scale business enterprise (e.g. a transnational corporation), a political organisation controlled by a single individual (a political boss), or a group (political bosses).[2] the word empire is associated with such other words as imperialism, colonialism, and globalization. empire is often used to describe a displeasure to overpowering situations.[3]