Answer:
Explanation:In historiography, the term historical revisionism identifies the re-interpretation of an historical account.[1] It usually involves challenging the orthodox (established, accepted or traditional) views held by professional scholars about a historical event or time-span or phenomenon, introducing contrary evidence, or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved. The revision of the historical record can reflect new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation, which then results in revised history. In dramatic cases, revisionism involves a reversal of older moral judgments.
At a basic level, legitimate historical revisionism is a common and not especially controversial process of developing and refining the writing of histories. Much more controversial is the reversal of moral findings, whereby what mainstream historians had considered (for example) positive forces are depicted as negative. Such revisionism, if challenged (especially in heated terms) by the supporters of the previous view, can become an illegitimate form of historical revisionism known as historical negationism if it involves inappropriate methods such as:
the use of forged documents or implausible distrust of genuine documents
attributing false conclusions to books and sources
manipulating statistical data
deliberately mis-translating texts
This type of historical revisionism can present a re-interpretation of the moral meaning of the historical record.[2] Negationists use the term "revisionism" to portray their efforts as legitimate historical revisionism. This is especially the case when "revisionism" relates to Holocaust denial.
Instituted in the hope of avoiding war, appeasement was the name given to Britain's policy in the 1930s of allowing Hitler to expand German territory unchecked.
The correct answer is <span>a) the division between democratic and communist countries.
When</span><span> he mentioned an “iron curtain” across Europe, Churchill was referring to the need for the Western democracies to unite against the Communist Soviet Union especially its expansionist tendencies. </span>
Answer:
"There is a risk, definitely. And we are very aware of that," says Brooke Isham, director of the Food for Peace program at the US Agency for International Development (USAID). "And that is why we are always looking at the impact of food aid on local markets and whether it is depressing prices in local markets."
USAID, the UN World Food Program (WFP) and others monitor markets regularly. Etienne Labonde, head of WFP's program in Haiti, says, as of March, food aid did not cause major disruptions in Haiti's economy. "Maybe it's an impression, but it's not the facts at the moment," he says.
Low prices can lead Haiti's farmers to store rice rather than sell it at a loss.
Whether impression or fact, Haitian President Rene Preval raised the issue when he came to Washington last month. He said food aid was indispensible right after the earthquake. But, "If we continue to send food and water from abroad," he said, "it will compete with national production of Haiti and with Haitian trade."
Explanation:
