Answer:
1. The Nazis created a terror-state. This was achieved through intimidation and brutality. Those living in Germany were too scared to disobey Nazi laws.
Hitler used a number of organizations to uphold and extend his control of Germany.
2. The Nazis tried to make Germany self-sufficient - that is to produce all the goods it needed without having to rely on imported supplies. They called this policy 'Autarky'. The Nazis implemented a major programme of public works, such as building and repairing roads, railways and houses
3. I cant figure out this one
4. Attempts at modifying public opinions, attitudes, and beliefs range from advertising and schooling to “brainwashing.” Their effectiveness is highly controversial. We demonstrate that Nazi indoctrination––with its singular focus on fostering racial hatred––was highly effective. Germans who grew up under the Nazi regime are much more anti-Semitic today than those born before or after that period. These findings demonstrate that beliefs can be modified massively through policy intervention. We also show that it was probably Nazi schooling that was most effective, and not radio or cinema propaganda. Where schooling could tap into preexisting prejudices, indoctrination was particularly strong. This suggests that confirmation bias may play an important role in intensifying attitudes toward minorities.
5. I dont know sorry!
Explanation:
Answer:
That new regular army developed the techniques of battle and siege that were used to achieve most of the 14th-century Ottoman conquests, but, because it was commanded by members of the Turkish notable class, it became the major vehicle for their rise to predominance over the sultans, whose direct military supporters ...
Answer:
The correct answer is gave high-level advisory posts to untrustworthy friends and acquaintances
Explanation:
The correct answer is: B. The increase in the labor unions' political power
Labor Unions were on the rise during the Progressive Era and this enabled Debs, a socialist, to come to power.
Answer:
This case involves a federal death sentence imposed on defendant-appellant Fields for conviction of a federal capital offense. Fields was sentenced to death largely on the basis of the opinion of a psychiatrist who stated that he could confidently predict Fields would be dangerous in the future. The psychiatrist testified that he did not know of any "standard psychiatric or medical procedures used in arriving at a determination or predicting future dangerousness" and that he was unaware of specific empirical data or studies. He issued his opinion without engaging in any testing or any other objective measures or use of an actuarial method. His basis for this opinion was discussions with the prosecutors and review of some records regarding the defendant. The defense attorney objected to the testimony as unreliable under the standards for expert testimony established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical (i.e., that proffered evidence must be grounded in scientific reasoning or methodology). The district court overruled the objections and allowed the expert testimony to go to the jury.
Explanation:
