The author is trying to establish the point that the food provided to the soldiers was of poor quality and in little quantity.
<h3>How can we identify this?</h3>
- The author shows how the food provided to the soldiers was compared to fodder, that is, food inappropriate for humans.
- The author shows how this food could be compared with the feeding of pigs, which highlights the poor quality of the food.
- The author reinforces how inappropriate food was consumed anyway, as it was all the soldiers had.
In the text, the author wants to draw attention to how the soldiers were neglected and fed in a precarious, unhealthy, and insufficient way, not being possible to compare it with food for humans.
This kind of food left the soldiers hungry and weak, preventing them from being able to fulfill their responsibilities as required.
In this case, the author satirizes food, trying to call attention to a change and showing the dissatisfaction of those who need to eat this way.
Learn more about satire:
brainly.com/question/20772859
#SPJ1
Those small fragments are called '<span>meteorites.'</span>
Answer:
I believe that since Germany had just lost World War 1 they had to pay off all their debts, leaving them in an economic depression. Therefore, when Hitler began to speak and present himself infront of people, they saw him as a strong power of hope. He was the only one who brought gave hope to turn their economy around in such a depressing time. As a result, most Germans just wanted their lives, jos, money, and family to turn back to normal. They we're blind-sighted by what Hitler actually meant he was doing. They supported the Nazi's because Hitler blamed the Jews for why their economy was at such a low point. Most Germans believed what Hitler said and wanted to get back at the Jews for what they alledegly did. Hitler made the Germans live in fear of "what the Jews were doing".
Explanation:
Answer:
Fascist dictators assumed power.
Explanation:
The threat of Communist movements in European countries, the effects from the Great Depression on employment and business and the failure of traditional politics to deal with economic, social and political consequences from the end of World War I made possible the rise of fascist regimes in Italy, Germany, Austria or Romania.
Answer:
Judicial review is the power of the courts to declare that acts of the other branches of government are unconstitutional, and thus unenforceable. For example if Congress were to pass a law banning newspapers from printing information about certain political matters, courts would have the authority to rule that this law violates the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional. State courts also have the power to strike down their own state’s laws based on the state or federal constitutions.
Today, we take judicial review for granted. In fact, it is one of the main characteristics of government in the United States. On an almost daily basis, court decisions come down from around the country striking down state and federal rules as being unconstitutional. Some of the topics of these laws in recent times include same sex marriage bans, voter identification laws, gun restrictions, government surveillance programs and restrictions on abortion.
Other countries have also gotten in on the concept of judicial review. A Romanian court recently ruled that a law granting immunity to lawmakers and banning certain types of speech against public officials was unconstitutional. Greek courts have ruled that certain wage cuts for public employees are unconstitutional. The legal system of the European Union specifically gives the Court of Justice of the European Union the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review is also afforded to the courts of Canada, Japan, India and other countries. Clearly, the world trend is in favor of giving courts the power to review the acts of the other branches of government.
However, it was not always so. In fact, the idea that the courts have the power to strike down laws duly passed by the legislature is not much older than is the United States. In the civil law system, judges are seen as those who apply the law, with no power to create (or destroy) legal principles. In the (British) common law system, on which American law is based, judges are seen as sources of law, capable of creating new legal principles, and also capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid. However, as Britain has no Constitution, the principle that a court could strike down a law as being unconstitutional was not relevant in Britain. Moreover, even to this day, Britain has an attachment to the idea of legislative supremacy. Therefore, judges in the United Kingdom do not have the power to strike down legislation.
Explanation:
nationalparalegal.edu /JudicialReview.aspx
