It should be the second & fourth choice. the term "total war" means that countries mobilized all their national resources in order to commit to the war effort: everyone was involved. this meant that all factories were producing war materials and the government was planning production quotas and food rationing for normal civilians at home. total war required a unified effort.
Hello there and thank you for joining Brainly, first of all. :)
Coming from a perspective of society and civilians, war is always unavoidable. However, there is a fine line between what is known as war and what conflict would be. And conflict, in most terms, is defined as complications. Complications can be resolved without further action, like war. That is, through discussions and government.
Throughout history, we've heard of Crusades, and wars between these two unsettling countries. One, however, is struggling through poverty, and one.. well, lets just say is a powerful force. So, to help explain what the issue is between the two countries - both seemingly claim Jerusalem (or the holy land) as theirs. Multiple minor issues have arose between the times, but most of the conflict seems to be in a strip on Palestine's end called "Gaza". Also known as where the two meet for war. Other areas struggle as well, but to sum this all up, civilians live in places where war is going on. That, right there, is war crime. And war crime on both ends since both did not find a solution to their arguments and disputes. Considering residents of both countries live there, that is also a complete disaster.
So, moving on the question. Because the lack of accurate information has stung everyone, we don't quite know who is the right hand of this argument. Neither do we know under who's ownership the holy land is for sure, and who is sincerely belongs to.
However, we can say that the dispute is avoidable under a circumstance. That is, to either
1) Share the holy land, and unite as a state (which would be quite a difficulty considering both are of different religions)
2) Have one take it over (and that won't happen soon, in my view. Both hold is tightly and yearn for it strongly).
Since both are terribly rare solutions, we can come to the conclusion that the conflict is unavoidable. Both believe it is their right to claim it, and all we can say is: May peace be embedded soon. I really hate seeing headlines that speak of more people dying and no one is doing anything about it. It hurts me greatly.
I hope this helps you. Of course, this question is based off of a personal point of view. If this was explained it your class, and your instructor gave a direct answer to this question, you should probably trust your teacher because I'm no politician. (soon to be, though)
Please forgive me for any grammatical errors or spelling mistakes.
Thank you! :) I enjoyed answering this one.
Answer:
If the soil/ground is good for crops they'll adpat to start growing crops,
if they have a river near by humans' or "settlers" Can use the river/water to not die dehydration and possibly catch fish which is another food soruce, and the animals in their area, say deer's and birds of some sorts, they can hunt and survive by their meats
Explanation:
How you know revolutions are usually caused by a sharp social crisis, but they can never solve it. The new revolutionary power soon discovers its inability to govern society. All old problems remain and new ones are added to them. The new elite anti-crisis measures in the context of the public activity, as a rule, only deepen it and translate into a new quality-a deep systemic crisis in which the first place is not a question of how to live a society, and the problem can it Now live at all. The previous crisis that caused the revolution seems now trifle, compared to its consequences. Thus, In France, the financial crisis in 1789 has outgrown as a result of measures that change each other, revolutionary governments in the financial and economic catastrophe of the 1790-ss. Thus, the withdrawal of Russia from the First World War in six months before its end led to a civil war, the loss of population in which was almost 10 times more than in the previous conflict.
Um 330 Bc no just look it up
