Answer:
Everyone in the world
Explanation:
He says "The first is freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world."
And, "The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world."
And " The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world."
And "The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world."
US supreme court is one, US court of appeals, and US district courts
1. Many people didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah. They scorned his teachings and thought he was crazy and blasphemous.
2. Others believed Jesus and followed his teachings, truly believing he was the Messiah. These were often poor people.
3. Public figures (such as teachers, government officials, etc.) feared Jesus because of his popularity. They did not want to be undermined by him and his teachings.
As the League of Nations crumbled, politicians turned to a new way to keep the peace - appeasement. This was the policy of giving Hitler what he wanted to stop him from going to war. It was based on the idea that what Hitler wanted was reasonable and, when his reasonable demands had been satisfied, he would stop.
Although historians recognise appeasement in the actions of Britain and France before 1938, the Sudeten Crisis of 1938 is the key example of appeasement in action. Neville Chamberlain was the British prime minister who believed in appeasement.
Answer:
Realpolitik ("politics of reality" in German) is politics or diplomacy based on practical interests and concrete actions, without attending to theory or philosophy as elements "policy makers".
Realpolitik advocates advancing the interests of a country according to the current circumstances of its environment, instead of following philosophical, theoretical or moral principles. In this regard, he shares his philosophical approach with philosophical realism and pragmatism.
