Answer:
The correct answer to the following question will be "Charles de Gaulle".
Explanation:
Charles de Gaulle, the leader of France, might not have been accompanied to the Yalta Conference and Stalin offered to have included France in Germany's post-war government unless France's invasion zone had been separated from either the United States and British territories.
This was agreed at the Yalta Conference that German would be separated into four occupation areas. It has also been determined that after Nazi Germany's defeat the Soviet Union would strike Japan.
Therefore, it's the right answer.
Answer:
D). Increased sectional divisions between the north and south.
Explanation:
As per the question, one of the most significant impacts of rhetoric similar to here is the 'increased sectional divisions between the north and south' as it convinces people through using an effective and persuasive language. In the given excerpt, <u>the language adopted by the speaker invokes the audience to believe that 'it is a great and dangerous error to suppose that all people are equally entitled to liberty.'</u>
The claim is logically supplemented by various rhetoric tools(in the language) that convinced the people that 'liberty is a reward to be earned, not a blessing to be gratuitously lavished... people too ignorant, degraded and vicious to be capable either of appreciating or of enjoying it.' Thus, the language like this contributed to encourage the widening of the rift between the north and south. Therefore, <u>option D</u> is the correct answer.
Because it is the government that controlled that not the sellers
“Crime” is not a phenomenon that can be defined according to any objective set of criteria. Instead, what a particular state, legal regime, ruling class or collection of dominant social forces defines as “crime” in any specific society or historical period will reflect the political, economic and cultural interests of such forces. By extension, the interests of competing political, economic or cultural forces will be relegated to the status of “crime” and subject to repression,persecution and attempted subjugation. Those activities of an economic, cultural or martial nature that are categorized as “crime” by a particular system of power and subjugation will be those which advance the interests of the subjugated and undermine the interests of dominant forces. Conventional theories of criminology typically regard crime as the product of either “moral” failing on the part of persons labeled as “criminal,” genetic or biological predispositions towards criminality possessed by such persons, “social injustice” or“abuse” to which the criminal has previously been subjected, or some combination of these. (Agnew and Cullen, 2006) All of these theories for the most part regard the “criminal as deviant” perspective offered by established interests as inherently legitimate, though they may differ in their assessments concerning the matter of how such “deviants” should be handled. The principal weakness of such theories is their failure to differentiate the problem of anti-social or predatory individual behavior<span> per se</span><span> from the matter of “crime” as a political, legal, economic and cultural construct. All human groups, from organized religions to outlaw motorcycle clubs, typically maintain norms that disallow random or unprovoked aggression by individuals against other individuals within the group, and a system of penalties for violating group norms. Even states that have practiced genocide or aggressive war have simultaneously maintained legal prohibitions against “common” crimes. Clearly, this discredits the common view of the state’s apparatus of repression and control (so-called “criminal justice systems”) as having the protection of the lives, safety and property of innocents as its primary purpose.</span>
