In the United States on the East Coast- New York, Boston, Charleston, Norfolk.
Answer:
Explanation:
Historians since the late 20th century have debated how women shared in the French Revolution and what long-term impact it had on French women. Women had no political rights in pre-Revolutionary France; they were considered "passive" citizens, forced to rely on men to determine what was best for them. That changed dramatically in theory as there seemingly were great advances in feminism. Feminism emerged in Paris as part of a broad demand for social and political reform. The women demanded equality to men and then moved on to a demand for the end of male domination. Their chief vehicle for agitation were pamphlets and women's clubs, especially the Society of Revolutionary Republican Women. However, the Jacobin (radical) element in power abolished all the women's clubs in October 1793 and arrested their leaders. The movement was crushed. Devance explains the decision in terms of the emphasis on masculinity in wartime, Marie Antoinette's bad reputation for feminine interference in state affairs, and traditional male supremacy.[1] A decade later the Napoleonic Code confirmed and perpetuated women's second-class status.[2]
Answer:
He believed that victory would only result from centralized planning in the industry.
Explanation:
Totalitarianism is a political concept that defines a mode of government, which prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism. Political power in totalitarian states has often involved rule by one leader and an all-encompassing propaganda campaign, which is disseminated through the state-controlled mass media and are often marked by political repression, personality cultism, control over the economyand restriction of speech, mass surveillanceand widespread use of state terrorism. Historian Robert Conquest describes "totalitarian" states as recognizing no limits to their authority in any sphere of public or private life and extending that authority wherever feasible.
The concept was first developed in the 1920s by the Weimar jurist and later Nazi academic Carl Schmitt as well as Italian fascists. Italian fascist Benito Mussolini said "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state". Schmitt used the term Totalstaat in his influential 1927 work on the legal basis of an all-powerful state, The Concept of the Political.[2] Later, the concept was used extensively to compare Nazism and Stalinism. The Economist has described China's recently developed social credit system to screen and rank its citizens based on their personal behavior as "totalitarian"
Totalitarian regimes are different from other authoritarian ones. The latter denotes a state in which the single power holder – an individual "dictator", a committee or a junta or an otherwise small group of political elite – monopolizes political power. "[The] authoritarian state [...] is only concerned with political power and as long as that is not contested it gives society a certain degree of liberty".[6] Authoritarianism "does not attempt to change the world and human nature".[6] In contrast, a totalitarian regime attempts to control virtually all aspects of the social life, including the economy, education, art, science, private life and morals of citizens. Some totalitarian governments may promote an elaborate ideology: "The officially proclaimed ideology penetrates into the deepest reaches of societal structure and the totalitarian government seeks to completely control the thoughts and actions of its citizens".[7] It also mobilizes the whole population in pursuit of its goals. Carl Joachim Friedrich writes that "a totalist ideology, a party reinforced by a secret police, and monopoly control of [...] industrial mass society" are the three features of totalitarian regimes that distinguish them from other autocracies.
Germany did totalitarian governments emerge during the Depression
The Lost Cause of the Confederacy, or simply the Lost Cause, is an American pseudo-historical,[1][2] negationist ideology that advocates the belief that the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was heroic, just, and not centered on slavery.[3] This ideology has furthered the belief that slavery was moral, because the enslaved were happy, even grateful, and it also brought economic prosperity. The notion was used to perpetuate racism and racist power structures during the Jim Crow era in the American South.[4] It emphasizes the supposed chivalric virtues of the antebellum South. It thus views the war as a struggle primarily waged to save the Southern way of life[5] and to protect "states' rights", especially the right to secede from the Union. It casts that attempt as faced with "overwhelming Northern aggression". It simultaneously minimizes or completely denies the central role of slavery and white supremacy in the build-up to, and outbreak of, the war.[4]
