The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Churchill’s quote that accurately describes the relationship between Hitler and Chamberlain is the following: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."
Neville Chamberlain had been the British Prime Minister at the beginning of the war. Winston Churchill seriously opposed Chamberlain's policy of appeasement that grated Nazi leader, Adolph Hitler, many concessions to avoid another war. Chamberlain had accepted to grant Hitler some territories to appease Hitler's ambition and Winston Churchill found this intolerable and in the end, he was right. Hitler's troops invaded Poland on September 1m 1939, and this represented the beginning of World War II.
Answer:
Explanation:
This is a clearer rendering of the text;
"The process of introducing changes in the way work is organized and the structure of industrial production is one of the consequences of the economic changes that began at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s were changes in the structure..".
It seems the text is referring to the events emanating after the industrial revolution, thus the statement is true.
Volcanic soil has a lot of minerals that plants take in as nutrients.
Answer:
- interactions between group members
- interactions with people outside of the group
- interactions with the environment
Explanation:
The culture is the most powerful tool of any society. It is unique to each group, and it is what defines that group of people. The culture has the ability to shape up three types of interactions:
- interactions between group members
- interactions with people outside of the group
- interactions with the environment
The interactions between the group members are good in general, as they belong to the same culture and have lot of similarities. An example can be the interaction between two neighbors.
The interaction with people outside of the group can go either way though. If there are some similarities between the cultures then the people will most probably become close, but if there are big differences, it will most probably cause conflict. An example can be the interaction between a Catholic Mexican and Muslim Arab.
The interaction with the environment is crucial for any culture, and every culture has special and different interaction with it, depending on its characteristics. An example of this can be that the Celtic people considered the trees to sacred, and some trees such as the willow for forbidden for cutting as it was of highest rank.
Explanation:
Where there already is a single nation (like France or Norway for two examples) there is no need for a federal system. It is only in nation-states that have a long history of local independent states (like the German principalities that had been largely independent from medieval times until the mid 19th century) or the United States if you count the 150+ years of our colonial era) that you find the need for such a system.
to phrase it more universally, federal government structures are needed when there are many competing local sovereign powers and you need to get them all working together in a system that is more unified than a confederacy but those local sovereigns are not willing to give up enough power to be forged into a single nation. Such a system may be necessary in cases of intense tribal animosities (like Iraq and Afghanistan) or where centralized power is an alien overlay (like India where the central government was imposed by the British) but absent factors like that I can not image why someone would want a federal system.
If Nepal falls under one of these scenarios, then the things to be considered are what powers need to be left at the national level - usually international issues and many economic issues - and which can be transferred to the local level - mostly tort, contract, criminal, and social issues. When can / should the national government be able to override the local governments and when can / should the local governments be able to tell the national government to butt out? How do you adjudicate those disputes?
Let me suggest that one read up on the origins of the different federalized systems throughout history and then come up with a specific list based on the realities in Nepal today. Then start building political alliances necessary to push through the changes - and if you have less than 70% public support (not merely apathy but active support)