Answer:
I wouldn't say USSR was the only one concerned, both sides were suspicious about each other. The Russian thought they will be betrayed during the war, its very hard to explain but i will put it in short. USSR is communist and therefore america did not like communism and so the russians didnt trust the Americans. both sides wanted to spread there influence of ideology
Explanation:
both sides already didnt like each other since ww1 but had to throw away the hate for now to beat germany.
The presidential line of succession is a lengthy list. The start of the list reads:
- Vice President
- Speaker of the House of Representatives
- President pro tempore of the Senate
- Secretary of State
and that's the order in which the succession happens. There are many others waiting in line behind the Secretary of State. I chose not to list them because it would make this post way too lengthy.
This list makes sense because it's listing senior members in politics, and those members are part of the political process. On the other hand, members like the Speaker of the House, or president pro tempore of the senate don't really make much sense here. These members may be of a different political party of the president and could contradict the president's goals.
In my opinion, it's best to list out the cabinet members after the vice president. The secretary of state seems like a good cabinet member to start with, then secretary of defense is the next best in line. These two positions deal with foreign affairs which is a handy thing to have in time of crisis. The secretary of treasury is also a good consideration as well since many crises involve money in some way.
Wait ill brb hold up ill comment on this t tell u
Answer:
I'm not really 100% sure so correct me if I'm wrong C
The correct answers are "It grew out of work of a statesman named Solon".
Solon wanted to promote a system that pushed equality and active participation from all citizens in government. He gave Athenians the right of serving in assembly gatherings. These changes represented a significant cange of paradigm to a certain extent towards democracy in Greece.
Every citizen of Athens who owned some kind of property was able to participate in the assembly. <u>Even though you were poor, you could still own a house and be able to serve politically</u>,
<u>Athenians who were in a situation of debt, were restrained from voting but they weren't enslaved.</u> The only slaves they had at the time were foreign.
All males who owned property <u>were free to serve but not obligated</u>.
You could say Greek democracy set things up for an improvement towards political equality, but still continues to be seen as a sort of "collective tyranny".<u> Political decisions were made by majority vote, and this often led to the poor overpassing common welfare, rendering the system a false democracy. </u><u>So even though Greek democracy did push many advances, it also had plenty of crucial flaws it couldn't overcome</u>.
Hope this helps!
