The two strategies are Arrange the beaches for the Allied soldiers and ways to stop the withdrawal in Germany
<u>Explanation:
</u>
The impact of D-Day echoes in history:
- It's the biggest military attack ever. The German forces encountered cold weather as they assaulted the coast of Normandy with raging German fire. The Allies won the war, despite the difficult odds and high losses, and turned the tide of World War II towards victory over Hitler.
-
On D-Day, the strategy was to clear the beaches for entries of the allies by heavily attacking Nazi weapons on the coast and damaging the major bridges and roads to shut down the withdrawal and strengthening’s of Germany. In order to protect the coastal areas before the military invasion the parachutists would then fall down.
Nevertheless, almost none went according to plan.
Answer: Selling indulgences leads to corruption, greed, and a false hope of salvation.
New evidence is discovered & Oversights and errors are corrected
Thats what i personally think because new opinions have to be backed with evidence, while if a piece of evidence is lost or stolen, it doesn't change the arguments because even though it is lost or stolen, there ought to be copies of the original object, but im not sure about new technology being applied to evidence, but it can go either or, its a 50/50 because new technology can enhance historical discoveries, or find new ones, but applying new technology as evidence has to be backed up with facts as to why it should be applied
Preventing genocide is one of the greatest challenges facing the international community.[1]<span> Aside from the suffering and grief inflicted upon generations of people and the catastrophic social, economic and political dislocations that follow, this ‘crime of crimes’ has the potential to destabilize entire regions for decades (Bosco, 2005). The shockwaves of Rwanda’s genocide are still felt in the eastern parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo nearly 20 years later, for example. Considerable resources are now devoted to the task of preventing genocide. In 2004 the United Nations established the Office of the Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide with the purpose to ‘raise awareness of the causes and dynamics of genocide, to alert relevant actors where there is a risk of genocide, and to advocate and mobilize for appropriate action’ (UN 2012). At the 2005 World Summit governments pledged that where states were ‘manifestly failing’ to protect their populations from ‘war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity’ the international community could step in a protect those populations itself (UN, 2012). The ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) project, designed to move the concept of state sovereignty away from an absolute right of non-intervention to a moral charge of shielding the welfare of domestic populations, is now embedded in international law (Evans 2008). Just this year, the United States government has stated that ‘preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States,’ and that ‘President Obama has made the prevention of atrocities a key focus of this Administration’s foreign policy’ (Auschwitz Institute, 2012). Numerous scholars and non-government organisations have similarly made preventing genocide their primary focus (Albright and Cohen, 2008; Genocide Watch, 2012).</span>
