A set of legal<span> principles generally accepted </span>throughout<span> Europe.</span>
Answer: The HOLOCAUST
Context/details:
The Holocaust is a term used to describe the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews and others in Nazi concentration camps during World War II.
Holocaust" is a term that means "burning the whole thing." It comes from terms related to burnt offerings of animals in ancient religions. Essentially, the unwanted Jews and others in Germany were treated like animals to be slaughtered. You can find appearances of the term "holocaust" in use already during World War II, such as the records of Britain's House of Lords in 1943 noting that a member there had asserted that "the Nazis go on killing" and urging some relaxing of immigration rules so that "some hundreds, and possibly a few thousands, might be enabled to escape from this <u>holocaust</u>.” But the term gained its main currency as historians in the 1950s began to use the term in reference to the Nazi's campaign of genocide.
By the way, the term "genocide" is another that came into use around the same time. Raphael Lemkin, a Polish legal scholar (of Jewish ethnicity) had been studying the problem of mass killings of a people group since the 1920s, in regard to Turkish slaughter of Armenians in 1915. He coined the term "genocide" in 1944, in reference also to the Holocaust. The term uses Greek language roots and means "killing of a race" of people. Lemkin served as an advisor to Justice Robert Jackson, the lead prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials. "Crimes against humanity" was the charge used at the Nuremberg trials, since no international legal definition of "genocide" had yet been accepted. Ultimately, Lemkin was able to persuade the United Nations to accept the definition of genocide and codify it into international law.
General Ulysses S Grant wanted to wear down the Confederacy's forces, and cut the Confederate army off from supplies and food that would enable them to keep fighting.
<span>Grant knew that the Union had a superiority of numbers and supplies, while the South had no more soldiers in reserve and dwindling resources. If Grant and President Lincoln remained persistent, it was only a matter of time before the Confederacy would be placed in a position of surrender but at great cost to both sides in casualties. </span>
<span>Grant and the Army of the Potomac fought a series of battles against General Robert E Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia. Grant suffered losses of tens of thousands of men, but kept pushing Lee farther and farther south, also losing men every day. </span>
<span>One of Grant's strategies was to bring the war to the South, destroying resources and railroads and homes. Grant cut off Confederate supplies by sending forces into the Shenedoah Valley, the major food source of the Confederate armies. US General Philip Sheridan fought a series of battles against the outstanding defense of CSA General Jubal Early until Sheridan finally controlled the entire region and destroyed the South's major agricultural base. </span>
<span>Grant sent General William T Sherman on a similar mission farther south, beginning by capturing the major city of Atlanta. Sherman then marched across Georgia, destroying crops and railroads, all the way to the port of Savannah. Sherman then turned and marched north to approach Lee's army from the south. Lee's forces, depleted by casualties and desertions, were under intense pressure from all sides. Grant's forces began to win every encounter, US cavalry destroyed Lee's supply trains, and by April 9 of 1865 Lee surrendered his army to Grant. The surrender of the last Confederate army unit occurred in June of 1865.</span>
Answer:
Many people throughout time have wondered about and predicted what the future will hold. It is very interesting to think about what the future will look like, not only in the near future but also in the distant future. As time goes on, and we are able to understand more and get more adventurous when it comes to inventing, it is intriguing to imagine what will happen and how society will change once the world is faced with new circumstances.
John Wilkins, Nikola Tesla, and Isaac Asimov have made predictions about the future. John Wilkins believed that many people would be able to fly in a flying chariot/machine (John Wilkins from A Discourse Concerning a New World and Another Planet, book 1, 1640). We find this to be true because of aerodynamics which have allowed us to build airplanes. Nikola Tesla believed that we would be able to communicate with anyone around the world by using a gadget about as big as a watch (Nikola Tesla, from an interview in the New York Times, Oct. 1909). We find this to be mostly false because not only can we not communicate with people from remote areas but we also don't use anything that small. We do have things we use communicate which are that small, but it is not common. Isaac Asimov believed that we would have machines that would do jobs for us and some would make automeals (Isaac Asimov, “A Visit to the World’s Fair of 2014,” New York Times, Aug. 16, 1964). We find this to be somewhat true because we do have machines that work in factories to help build and manufacture products and goods but we do not have automeals. We may have things like microwavable food and Keurig coffee makers, but nothing as sophisticated as what he is describing.
When making a prediction about the future, it is important to not only think about what kind of things we will be able to do, but also about how we would be able to do it. It is true that we discover new things all the time that allow us to be able to accomplish more, however, it is likely that we will stay the same when it comes to the resources and things we have to make new inventions. Therefore, if someone makes a prediction that does not make logical sense, it will probably not be accomplishable.
Explanation:
I had the same question. ik this is more than 250 but it shouldn't be a problem :). hope this helped :))
Your answer is C. The Framers wanted to make sure that when parties rise, they will met the needs of the constitution.
