<span>The Roman Empire fell for many reasons. The Roman Empire did not fall because of it's agricultural practices. The Roman Empires capacity to provide food for it's people was a true marvel of both engineering and logistics that utilized an amazing series of aquaducts, roads, and crop rotation to provide for the needs of the Empire.</span>
Answer is B. Germany was forced to pay the Allied Powers and accept blame for the war.
In the War Guilt Clause (Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles) it was stated that Germany had the responsibility of beginning WWI. This clause was added to achieve an agreement between France and Belgium so that the monetary sum the Germans would have to pay in compensation for the damage caused was reduced.
This clause was seen as a grant from the negotiators to the Germans. However, it caused a general resentment on the part of German people, since they did not accept the responsibility for the outbreak of the war.
At the Yalta Conference in February, 1945, Stalin had agreed to enter the war against Japan three months after Germany was defeated. Victory in Europe was achieved on May 8, 1945. The Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, and invaded Manchuria with over a million troops to take on the Japanese army there.
As to the dropping of the second atomic bomb, even the dropping of the first could be challenged when factoring in the USSR. An option to dropping atomic bombs was to enlist Soviet troops in a joint invasion of Japan. But the USA wanted to avoid postwar Soviet presence in Japan, and the atomic bombs were seen as a way of ending the war quickly. As to the use of a second bomb at Nagasaki after the first was dropped on Hiroshima, it was because of the Allies' requirement that Japan submit to an unconditional surrender. They did not do so in the immediate aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing, so the second bomb was used. You can consider for yourself whether some other resolution besides "unconditional surrender" was a viable option.
Sherman antitrust act was difficult to argue in court as it did not provide adequate specifics that could define who could be charged for participating in monopolies and trusts. The law made it difficult to gather hard evidence as it did not adequately define trusts or monopolies.
