World war 2

History

1 answer:

kramer3 years ago

6 0

Based on the information in the excerpt, the United States brought Nazi leaders to military tribunals in Germany AFTER the end of World War II. (a)

BUT ... To our country's lasting shame, the horrors being inflicted on racially-selected segments of Germany's civilian population were well known to the US DURING the war, but our government did little or nothing to impede this barbaric activity and preserve civilian lives.

For example, the railroad tracks that guided the cattle-cars full of Jews to their torture, starvation, and death at Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Bergen-Belsen could have been disabled with a few well-placed bombs, easily, cheaply, and with minimal military risk. But they were not.

The ovens in the concentration camps, or the camps themselves, could have been rendered operationally useless with a few well-placed bombs, easily, cheaply, and with minimal military risk. But they were not.

You might be interested in

A common trait shared by many developing nations is that they. A) have less developed infrastructure. B) are all located in Lati

cestrela7 [59]

A common trait shared by many developing nations is that they have less developed infrastructure. In most cases, their infrastructures are possibly failing, insufficient or non-existent. Inadequate infrastructure could be a barrier to economic growth.

The answer would be letter A.

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

What could be a result of a government not adhering to the rule of law? (Select all that apply.)

soldi70 [24.7K]

The correct answers are A) Laws change often and there is no standard process for deciding what will become law, C) Laws do not apply basic principles of fairness and morality, and E) Laws allow government officials to behave in any way, without adhering to the same laws as other citizens.

The results of a government NOT ADHERING to the rule of law could be the following: Laws change often and there is no standard process for deciding what will become law, Laws do not apply basic principles of fairness and morality, and Laws allow government officials to behave in any way, without adhering to the same laws as other citizens.

The rule of law means that nobody, including the government, is above the law. The rule of law is doing this right by every single member in a society. No exceptions.

So The results of a government NOT ADHERING to the rule of law could be disastrous for the civic life in a society and the security of its citizens. Laws could change and for any reason, to the convenience of the officials. There would be a tendency for corruptive practices. Laws do not apply basic principles of fairness and morality, it could become the "law of the jungle," or the survivor of the fittest. And finally, Laws allow government officials to behave in any way, without adhering to the same laws as other citizens. This means that the powerful men in power can do whatever the like, and impose their will on people.

5 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Why would an aztec recieve five rabits for fifty cocoa beans

wel

Cocoa beans were their form of money. They were what's called "bartering", or "trading".
Hope this helps~!
~Isle of flightless Duns

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

What year was the final state capital of Louisiana selected?

Gnoma [55]

The year 1916 - that city is Baton Rouge