Answer:
It was a tactical victory but strategic failure for the Japanese; Despite the number of battleships sunk and the number of U.S. personnel killed, the Japanese omitted destroying REPAIR SHOPS AND FUEL DEPOTS. Given superior U.S. industrial complex, this meant Pearl Harbour was still capable of logistical support, and the U.S. navy was able to recover their losses
. They WOKE a sleeping giant; it convinced the U.S. to JOIN WW2. Millions in manpower, plus a FORMIDABLE industrial complex that could outpace Axis manufacturing at the time even when it wasn’t even at FIRST GEAR.
Answer:
True
Explanation:
Immanuel Kant proposed the categorical imperative, which he deemed to be the supreme principle of morality. He believed that is morally wrong for an individual to treat others as simply a means rather than to treat them as an end. He also believed that treating people with contempt, even when not using them as a means is out-rightly wrong and against the moral norms.
An example of an individual using others as a means, is when an individual implicates another in other to win the favor of his boss or to get promoted.
,
Answer:
(D) deliberate
Explanation:
The act of not doing somethingi is called deliberate indifference since someone becomes damaged. It is the omissions of acts for the purpose of causing harm with knowledge . When applying to law systems, many judges apply the deliberate indifference standart to judge if a professional has damaged an inmate's civil rights.
<em>For example, if someone is being in a hospital, and the doctors , staff working there knowingly refuse to answer to someone's safety complaints, removing or giving medical attention may be considered indifference.</em>
<em>This is more usually often subject of law in jail with guards, and other instances like mental health hospitals where the staff rowking can ignore risks deliberately and for omitting consciously safety concerns.</em>
<em />
Soap2day you can watch anything there
I am not sure if there is a mistake in the question?
The correct answer COULD BE Austria-Hungary, or in other times just "Austria" or "Austrian Empire".
The capital of the empire was in Vienna and the most important unifying factor was the power of the Habsburgs: the Empire was composed of many ethnicities and many languages but what they had in common was the Habsburg rule.
Austria-Hungary included parts of today's Germany, Austria, Moravia, Bohemia, the Netherlands and parts of Italy, France, Poland, whole of Hungary. However, Denmark was not part of Austria- HUngary .
Another good candidate is the Holy Roman Empire. Here the whole of Switzerland was also included, as were Germany, Austria, Moravia, Bohemia, the Netherlands and parts of Italy, France, Poland, However, again, Denmark was not part of it and neither was Hungary.
So in the end, the question is confused and lists some mistakes in it.
I personally would go with Austria-Hungary, since the definition of this empire was more fluid, as in "all the lands that belong to the Habsburgs", but I feel that the question might be asking for the Holy Roman Empire (and mistakes Hungary as a part of Austria-Hungary to be a part of the Empire, which it wasn't).
