Answer:
The difference in the leaders involved in the two conferences was a major factor in the differentiation between Yalta and Potsdam. At Yalta, the Big Three was composed of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin. At Potsdam, Attlee replaced Churchill after his defeat in the British elections, and Truman took Roosevelt's position. The only constant figure in the conferences was Stalin, the leader of one of the most controversial nations in the world. As previously mentioned, the only issue the three countries truly saw eye-to-eye on was eradicating the Nazi presence from the world. Two capitalist nations allied with a vehemently communist one already poses some problems with communications, and the change from Roosevelt to Truman between the conferences only added to the discrepancies
Explanation:
<span>It provided them with water and fertility as an advantage and was a natural barrier for enemies who would want to attack them. On the other hand it could flood and destroy towns and villages that would have to be built anew. They saw the flooding as the will of the gods and believed that the gods were crying so that's why the Nile flooded. </span>
Answer:
The Zimmerman Telegram was a message from Germany to Mexico where Germany tried to make an alliance with Mexico in case the U.S joined the war. Germany said that they would let Mexico have their old territory back, which included Texas. This upset many Texans because they didn't want to go back to be under Mexico's control because they had taken a lot of time to gain Independence, and were happy with their lives in America.
Explanation:
SUBURBANIZATION<span> describes the general trend of city dwellers to move from the city into residential areas in ever-growing concentric circles away from the city's core.
</span><span>Postwar suburbanization was the result of a complex web of governmental and economic conditions that scholars have yet to adequately explore. One of the most important of these factors is also one of the most overlooked: the anxiety-filled onset of the Cold War.
Though frequently cited in passing as an influence on certain aspects of suburbanization, the Cold War is rarely given the serious and microscopic treatment it deserves. It is understandable why historians and urbanists would shy away from a topic as complex as the war, about which much has been written outside a suburban context. </span>
Answer:
Legalism in Chinese Philosophy
First published Wed Dec 10, 2014; substantive revision Fri Nov 16, 2018
Legalism is a popular—albeit quite inaccurate—designation of an intellectual current that gained considerable popularity in the latter half of the Warring States period (Zhanguo, 453–221 BCE). Legalists were political realists who sought to attain a “rich state and a powerful army” and to ensure domestic stability in an age marked by intense inter- and intra-state competition. They believed that human beings—commoners and elites alike—will forever remain selfish and covetous of riches and fame, and one should not expect them to behave morally. Rather, a viable sociopolitical system should allow individuals to pursue their selfish interests exclusively in ways that benefit the state, viz. agriculture and warfare. Parallel to this, a proper administrative system should allow officials to benefit from ranks and emoluments, but also prevent them from subverting the ruler’s power. Both systems are unconcerned with individual morality of the rulers and the ruled; rather they should be based on impersonal norms and standards: laws, administrative regulations, clearly defined rules of promotion and demotion, and the like.
Legalist thinkers contributed greatly to the formation of China’s empire both on the theoretical level and as political practitioners; and many of their ideas continued to be employed throughout China’s history. Yet their derisive views of moralizing discourse of their rivals, their haughty stance toward fellow intellectuals, and their pronouncedly anti-ministerial rhetoric all gained them immense dislike among the imperial literati. From China’s second imperial dynasty, the Han (206/202 BCE–220 CE) on, the prestige of Legalism declined; only a few texts associated with this current survived intact; and even in the modern period, notwithstanding sporadic outbursts of interest in Legalism, this current has not received adequate scholarly attention.
Explanation:
sana po maka tulong