I would argue that the primary difference was the introduction of nuclear weapons after WWII--meaning that the spread of communism could actually take over the world as opposed to just causing unrest in the US.
The statement about World War II that is not correct would be that "<span>c. The use of airpower did little to change the way World War II was fought," since in fact airpower played a major role. </span>
Answer:
An absolute monarchy is one in which the king is Gods representative on Earth giving him absolute power He created a state that gave him complete power over the French government
Explanation:
La respuesta correcta para esta pregunta abierta es la siguiente.
Desafortunadamente, se te olvido incluir una pregunta concreta. Lo que aquí anexas es una afirmación, pero ¿cuál es tu pregunta? ¿Qué quieres saber?
Si se tarta de una pregunta de verdadero o falso, entonces la respuesta es "verdadero."
Es cierto que la caída de Roma creó el Imperio del Este que tenía varias similitudes y diferencias con el Imperio Romano del Oeste.
Estamos hablando del también llamado Imperio Bizantino que se fundó como tal en el 395 DC, en tiempos del emperador Romano Teodosio.
Cabe recordar que fue el emperador Romano Constantino quien anteriormente había decidido cambiar la capital del imperio Romano. Originalmente estaba en Roma, y Constantino decidió moverla a Constantinopla, en lo que hoy en día es Turquía.
Constantino consideró que esa nueva ubicación era estratégica por ser un puerto marítimo que tenía muchas ventajas comerciales para el imperio.
Una vez que las tribus bárbaras germánicas se apoderaron de Roma y destruyeron el llamado Imperio Romano Occidental, el Imperio Bizantino perduró casi mil años más antes de su caída.
<span>At the core of most intractable conflicts are deeply rooted divisions affecting parties' fundamental interests, needs and values. These include irreconcilable moral values, matters of justice and human rights, high-stakes distributional issues, unmet human needs, and issues of identity. Such conflicts tend to be protracted and have very damaging effects.IntroductionIntractable conflicts are ones that remain unresolved for long periods of time and then become stuck at a high level of intensity and destructiveness. They typically involve many parties and concern an intricate set of historical, religious, cultural, political, and economic issues.[1] These matters are central to human social existence and typically resist any attempts at resolution. In fact, parties often refuse to negotiate or compromise with respect to such issues. As a result, each side views the rigid position of the other as a threat to its very existence. They may develop a mutual fear of each other and a profound desire to inflict as much physical and psychological harm on each other as possible.[2] This sense of threat and hostility often pervades the everyday lives of the parties involved and overrides their ability to recognize any shared concerns they might have.<span>
Additional insights into the underlying causes of intractable conflicts are offered by Beyond Intractability project participants.</span>As conflict escalates, any tangible issues may become embedded within a larger set of values, beliefs, identities, and cultures. Disputes about land, money, or other resources may take on increased symbolic significance.[3] Over the course of conflict, the original issues can even become irrelevant as new causes for conflict are generated by actions within the conflict itself. Those on opposing sides come to view each other as enemies and may resort to highly destructive means. Eventually, the parties become unable to separate different issues and may see no way out of the conflict other than through total victory or defeat.[4]Why do some conflicts become intractable? Many describe intractability in terms of the destructive relationship dynamics that govern the adversaries' interaction. For example, if one party resorts to inhumane treatment in waging conflict, this deepens antagonism and may lead the opposing side to seek revenge.[5] Likewise, when extremist political leaders appeal to ethno-nationalist ideology to arouse fear, this may increase support for the use of violence and contribute to intractability. Other factors that make some conflicts extremely difficult to resolve include the vast numbers of people involved, the large number of complex issues to be resolved, and a previous history of violent confrontation. But what are the underlying causes of these destructive conflict dynamics?What is common to all intractable conflicts is that they involve interests or values that the disputants regard as critical to their survival. These underlying causes include parties' moral values, identities, and fundamental human needs. Because conflicts grounded in these issues involve the basic molds for thought and action within given communities and culture, they are usually not resolvable by negotiation or compromise.[6] This is because the problem in question is one that cannot be resolved in a win-win way. If one value system is followed, another is threatened. If one nation controls a piece of land, another does not. If one group is dominant, another is subordinate.While sharing is possible in theory, contending sides usually regard compromise as a loss. This is especially true in societies where natural fear and hatred is so ingrained that opposing groups cannot imagine living with or working cooperatively with the other side. Instead, they are often willing to take whatever means necessary to ensure group survival and protect their way of life. Below are brief summaries of some of the central underlying causes of intractable conflict.</span>
