Answer:
You are asking for a personal opinion, which is highly subjective and people will always have different views concerning any issue, especially one like this.
President John F. Kennedy´s handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis was correct in the sense that he acted with an absolute purpose in mind: to defend the United States´ security, his people´s safety and impide a ruthless global rival to have a huge geopolitical gain. Installing and keeping operational nuclear missiles just a 100 miles from American coasts would have given the Soviet Union a strategic military advantage over the USA.
Kennedy put the US forces on high alert and readiness and impeded the arrival of further missiles or materials by blockading Cuba. He may have ordered a bombing raid of the sites in Cuba, as hawks in his administration and in the military wanted, but he knew that would risk a nuclear conflict. He opted for diplomacy, which paid off fortunately; Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev blinked first, as it is said sometimes.
Explanation:
Not necessarily unify, but it made us open our eyes to the war and realize that we needed to get involved to defeat the Axis powers.
<span>The opposite of professional military force could be defined as civil since a civilian is by nature an opposition to a military, a person who is not a member of an army. In a general way, the civil term designates everything that refers to the non-military being in general and to the citizens in particular.</span>
Answer:
Americans greatly affected the end of WWI because they broke the stalemate. Until the entry of the U.S. in 1917, WW1 was in a stalemate. Each side literally traded yards of territory from one day to the next. There was no progress. When the U.S. joined they brought with them a large amount of soldiers. It was more a game of numbers than battles once the U.S. arrived. Germany's position quickly became untenable and well before the armistice, they were asking for peace.
Explanation:
Hope this helps :)
