Stalin wanted the US and Great Britain to open a second front in France because it would divide the German military. During the time of this statement, Germany's only real military threat came from the Soviet Union. With this in mind, Hitler had the ability to put a huge number of troops on the Soviet Union/German border.
However, if the US and Great Britain planned an invasion through France, that means Hitler would have to move hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of troops to France. France, in relation to the Soviet Union, was over 1,000 miles away.
Forcing Germany to fight this two front war would decrease their chance of success.
Think about the idea here and you'll see how the idea of "cost" is inevitable in every decision. (It's true not just of governments, but of our own decisions too -- but we'll focus on governments here.)
Let's say the government decides it wants all citizens to have access to health care. Well, that's going to cost dollars to pay for that health care. Where will those dollars come from?
Let's say the government decides, in response to school shootings or other acts of gun violence, to ban certain types of guns or ammunition. That costs something to the gun dealers who were making money off those sales (and they'll object). Or let's say the government decides to do further and deeper background checks on all gun buyers. Well, that will cost something in terms of personnel and processes to accomplish all the background checks. Or let's say the government decides to increase mental health screenings and treatment because persons with mental illness issues may become violent and dangerous to society. That will cost much in order to organize and carry out better mental health intervention across the country.
I focused on just a couple issues there (health care, gun control). But the same principle holds on anything government does. You can think about your own examples that you'd want to use. Anything the government decides to do comes with some sort of costs attached. That doesn't mean it's bad to make such decisions -- it just means we need to count the cost and invest our efforts where they will have the best benefit.
Costs: Spoiled food, damaged food, suitable storage. Benefits: Better athletics, better academics, less diabetes, lower obesity.
Explanation:
A cost refers to something that is paid, invested, or gave up when an alternative is chosen. On the other hand, a benefit refers to a positive effect related to a decision or election. In this context, elements such as spoiled food, damaged food, and suitable storage are costs of including healthy food in the school lunch, considering this is the "price" for including healthy food as this needs to be stored correctly and the risk it spoils or damages is higher.
On the other hand, elements such as better athletics or academics as well as less diabetes and obesity are benefits or positive effects because these factors increase the health of students; this is explained in "schools with healthy lunch programs have lower rates of childhood obesity and diabetes.... better in academics and sports".
Answer:
a. The manifest destiny was used to expand the territory of the United States. The belief was that God had invested the power in the United States to spread democracy and their dominion across all of North America.
b. The purpose of the Manifest Destiny was to expand the United States.
