Here are your matches for the events shown, listed by year:
<h2>
1948</h2>
- Yugoslavia parted ways with the Soviet Union because of political differences.
<h2>
1956</h2>
- Workers in Poland won higher wages after an uprising.
<h2>
1961</h2>
- Military forces began construction of the Berlin Wall.
<h2>
1968</h2>
- The Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia and reversed its economic reforms.
I'll provide a few more details on that last item, regarding Czechoslovakia. In January, 1968, the new leader in Czechoslovakia, Alexander Dubcek, launched the "Prague Spring" (as it became known). He sought to give communism "a human face," as he termed it, introducing many political and economic reforms. By August, the USSR responded by sending in 600,000 troops, and again those Soviet tanks. The revolution was put down.
But the Soviet Union's grip in Eastern Europe weakened over the next two decades. By 1989, a number of Eastern European nations began to upend the communist governments that had held control in their countries. The Berlin Wall was torn down during that time also.
<span>Is this a matter of constitutional, criminal, civil, or military law? How do you know? this is a constitutional matter because the reporter is saying she can write what she wants because of freedom of speech.
Is the source of the law a statute, regulation, case law, or a combination? How do you know? it is a statute law because a statute law is when a legislature makes the law.
Determine the purpose of the law related to the scenario. Is the law intended to protect people's safety or people's rights? Explain your response and thoughts on what could happen if the law did not exist. Use details from the scenario to support your answer.
I think that in this case that the law was there to ensure that the public did not get involved in matters of not only the state but of the military, I have been told many times that telling or contacting someone (when in the military) is bad because you can not give the location away it has to stay a secret.
Do you think the reporter has a valid argument? In other words, should the government change the law or make an exception? Use details from the scenario to support your answer.
I think she overstepped her boundary with this one because it is against the military law that someone from the outside world should know about the things they are doing. and if you ask why is then that is because They do not wish to give info to the public so in case there are spies from other countries they can stay a secret. so I think what the reporter did was very wrong and even if she has the right to speak what she thinks, what she thinks and what she said where wrong and went ageist the law.</span>
Whoever answers first gets brainlist During de Vaca's wandering, what type of cities did he find? ... He found the cities of gold.
Answer On September 30, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson gives a speech before Congress in support of guaranteeing women the right to vote. Although the House of Representatives had approved a 19th constitutional amendment giving women suffrage, the Senate had yet to vote on the measure.
Read up on the 19th amendent!!
Answer:
The statement about the "divine rights of kings" theory that is false is : C. it held that submission to the patriarchal authority was the key to political obligation. hope this helps.
Explanation:
Which statement about the “divine right of kings” theory is FALSE? A. Its followers viewed kings as the fathers of society. B. Its adherents believed that government was critical to the “Great Chain of Being.” C. It held that submission to the patriarchal authority was the key to political obligation. D. Its followers believed that governments should be modeled after the ancient Greek and Roman governments.