Discuss whether new nations depend on strong governments to succeed. take a position on whether strong governments are necessary to ensure stability and prosperity in new governments. be sure to define what makes a government strong, and cite 2–3 examples from the lesson to defend your position.

Since this is an assignment that requires a stance and opinion, I can't directly do that for you. This is supposed to be your opinion, not mine. I hope you don't take that offensively. Instead, I have done some research and described each of the two stances you could take.

Positives:
New nations are dependent on strong governments because this stops power from being spread to other branches. In a still developing nation, there are no set boundaries or limits, which means that anyone in power could be corrupt. This stresses the fact that a new nation needs control. A strong central government could help prevent this; the regulations issued would be much more effective because of minimal opposition on the outside. As long as a reliable leader(s) is selected, issues such as inflation, lack of resources, overpopulation, and epidemics could all be kept in check. If we look at this historically, there are several examples that can be found. The Articles of Confederation, developed by the Continental Congress in 1777, lacked control. The government was weaker, and could only ask for money and soldiers. A weaker government in a still developing nation would make laws very difficult to enforce. Laws could only be passed with the consent of at least 9 states. The Federalist party, established 1791, helped to organize a system of processing the Constitution. The strong national government dealt with foreign affairs and foreign policies in a more efficient way. This system, though using a lot of authority, was still open to suggestions. In order to succeed, the government needs to have more control for the good of the many.

Negatives:
Developing nations should not have strong governments because you never know the intentions of those in charge. The new and unformed government could have candidates that hold office for more personal reasons instead of thinking of the nation as a whole. They could easily use their authority to take advantage of the governed. It is true that The Articles of Confederation limited the government's power, but this had a reason. The colonists were too wary of there being a strong central power, such as King George III. Another example of this comes from Ferdinand Marcos, the 10th president of the Philippines. When he first achieved presidency, the economy in the Philippines was very unstable because it had emerged from World War II. Marcos' influence from his services during the war helped to boost him in the election. However, he proclaimed himself as dictator in 1972 and assumed control for at least 20 years. The economy lost around 5% of its annual growth each year. In the long run, the authority of the government should be limited to protect the rights of the governed.

What does this mean ? ?

Ifound this on google”the munich conference of 1938 was prompted by d. hitler's intention to take control of part of czechoslovakia. hitler sought to unite german-speaking people in a single nation and thus turned his sights on the sudetenland, a german-speaking region of czechoslovakia.” i hope it you