The Europeans wanted economic gain sorry that is all my brian could rake up.
Explanation:
As governance indicators have proliferated in recent years, so has their use and the controversy that surrounds them. As more and more voices are pointing out, existing indicators – many of them developed and launched in the 1990s – have a number of flaws. This is particularly disquieting at a time when governance is at the very top of the development agenda.
Many questions of crucial importance to the development community – such as issues around the relationship between governance and (inclusive) growth, or about the effectiveness of aid in different contexts – are impossible to answer with confidence as long as we do not have good enough indicators, and hence data, on governance.
The litany of problems concerning existing governance indicators has been growing:
Indicators produced by certain NGOs (e.g. the Heritage Foundation), but also by commercial risk rating agencies (such as the PRS Group), are biased towards particular types of policies, and consequently, the assessment of governance becomes mingled with the assessment of policy choices;
Many indicators rely on surveys of business people (e.g. the World Economic Forum's Executive Opinion Survey). While they have important insights into governance challenges given their interaction with government bureaucracies, the views of other stakeholders are also important and remain underrepresented, as are concerns about governance of less relevance to the business community (e.g. civil and human rights);
The other main methodology used are indicators produced by individuals or small groups of external experts – for example, the World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA), Bertelsmann’s Transformation Index, and the French Development Agency’s Institutional Profiles. This entails the risk that different experts ‘feed’ on each other’s ratings; and the depth to which external raters are able to explore the dimensions they are rating can vary.
Answer: Homosexuals, the disabled, gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Explanation:
These kinds of groups were considered by Nazis as the groups as a socio-racial problem so they didn't want any of them in their nation.
Thousand of gypsies (Sinti and Roma) were sent to concentration camps.
Those who were mentally and physically disabled are also being targeted because the Nazis always wanted powerful and healthy people.
Homosexuals were targeted because they were considering as someones who was stoping the population growth.
Jehovah’s Witnesses were considered by Nazis as easily judged groups of people and that they would be a problem because of that.
The Gestapo (Secret State Police) is the symbol and main instrument of terror in the Third Reich. The Gestapo with particular cruelty persecuted and destroyed all those whom the Nazis considered their opponents: communists and social democrats, Jews and homosexuals, people who dared to doubt the invincibility of German weapons, those who listened to “enemy radio stations” and told political jokes.
Along with the fact that the Jews were classified by the Nazis as a priority “enemy,” the Nazi ideological racial concept aimed at the persecution, imprisonment and extermination of other groups of the population, including Roma, people with mental and physical disabilities, Poles, Soviet prisoners of war and Afro-Germans. The Nazis also declared enemies and threats to the security political dissidents, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and so-called asocial personalities because they deliberately opposed the Nazi regime or because some aspects of their behavior did not fit into the Nazi understanding of social norms. Nazi sought to eliminate the dissenters in their own country and the so-called racial threats through constant internal cleansing of German society.
The Answer is A
Hopefully this helps
