Answer:
Regardless, the United States remains the only nation in the world to have used a nuclear weapon on another nation. Truman stated that his decision to drop the bomb was purely military. ... Truman believed that the bombs saved Japanese lives as well. Prolonging the war was not an option for the President.
They knew that people were going to change, and that the Constitution had to change with them. In order to be a working document, it had to be changed to reflect what was going on. At the same time they wanted changes to be taken seriously so they made it difficult to change things.
True because it’s a casting on tv
He believed in 2 things which might help you. I don't really know what term you are looking for, but here are the two things he brought to the table.
1. He was very concerned about states rights believing that the states should have the balance of power shifted to them.
2. He believed that domestic policy had to be addressed rather than war and terrorism which is what Bush emphasized.
He was accused of being more of a socialist than a federalist (which might even be true). You could call him a social democrat.
It was caused by collectivization. The food was gathered and taken away from all lands of Ukrainian people by the Soviet Union and people starved. But political debates also contributed to this famine.
Explanation:
The Great Famine of 1932-1933 wasn't solely the end result<span> of </span>constitution however conjointly a crucial plan of action<span> in </span>status policy<span>, </span>an effort<span> by the Soviet Regime </span>to unravel<span> its Ukrainian </span>drawback<span> once and for all. Firstly the liquidation of the kulaks - </span>the higher<span> off peasants - was a politically </span>impelled<span> act of lunacy. The kulaks </span>weren't happier as a result of<span> they were exploiting the </span>employees<span> - </span>because the<span> Bolsheviks argued - </span>however<span>, in truth, they were </span>happier as a result of<span> they were </span>higher<span> farmers. By removing them from the land, and imposing </span>town<span> born, politically trained managers on the farms, Ukrainian agricultural output fell. </span>
<span>Secondly the peasants themselves, </span>inadvertently<span>, helped </span>to form<span> the famine worse. </span>so as to forestall<span> the collective from taking their </span>eutherian<span> and grain surpluses, they destroyed them. This meant that there was no food store </span>to examine<span> them through any worse times.</span>
