The US alone was able to produce much more than both Germany and Japan.
Germany was not able to produce as much, as their equipment was usually more stronger and durable, but it also meant it took longer to produce. They also continue to research options for a 'stronger weapon', and so their funds were little
Japan did not have the resources to produce good technology. Instead, they relied on their human strength and their beliefs.
The US, though their equipment was only average, were much more easier to produce, and combined with large funds, resources, and the populations' willingness to work, made their output larger than almost all the countries combined
hope this helps
Answer: hey question is there a necessity but concedes that they are boosting Morale among the troops
Explanation:
Answer:
The countries will be effected in following way in two situations:
- The people will believe more about the fiscal policy of country A.
- The country B will be more effected as the output of central bank is less stable as compared to the country A.
Explanation:
- The belief of people in the fiscal policies of country A is greater as they have credible central bank as compared to country B.
- The country B will have low performance as compared to country A due to fact that the country B has not credibility in its central bank.
Talcott parsons connected the two fields psychology and
sociology by adding the concept of social forces in frustration-aggression
theory. Social forces are elements
of society which is capable of making cultural change or influences on people
which can possibly cause frustration-aggression.<span>
<span>Answer: Social forces</span></span>
Answer:
No Fallacy
Explanation:
The statement possesses great reasoning about the destruction of tropical rain forests. It is also a proven fact and if Lester Brown is justifying his statement restating the facts by appropriate source which in this case is Yearly World Report issued by the State. So there is no invalid reasoning here or we can say their is no fallacy in the statement.
