Why was there opposition to Soviet control in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968

What is the purpose of the document of undelivered speech

steposvetlana [31]

Answer: am not sure this is the answer but try it

Explanation:I seek no confrontation. I only pray and will strive for a genuine national reconciliation founded on justice.

I am prepared for the worst, and have decided against the advice of my mother, my spiritual adviser, many of my tested friends and a few of my most valued political mentors.

A death sentence awaits me. Two more subversion charges, both calling for death penalties, have been filed since I left three years ago and are now pending with the courts.

I could have opted to seek political asylum in America, but I feel it is my duty, as it is the duty of every Filipino, to suffer with his people especially in time of crisis.

I never sought nor have I been given assurances or promise of leniency by the regime. I return voluntarily armed only with a clear conscience and fortified in the faith that in the end justice will emerge triumphant.

According to Gandhi, the willing sacrifice of the innocent is the most powerful answer to insolent tyranny that has yet been conceived by God and man.

Three years ago when I left for an emergency heart bypass operation, I hoped and prayed that the rights and freedoms of our people would soon be restored, that living conditions would improve and that blood-letting would stop.

Rather than move forward, we have moved backward. The killings have increased, the economy has taken a turn for the worse and the human rights situation has deteriorated.

During the martial law period, the Supreme Court heard petitions for Habeas Corpus. It is most ironic, after martial law has allegedly been lifted, that the Supreme Court last April ruled it can no longer entertain petitions for Habeas Corpus for persons detained under a Presidential Commitment Order, which covers all so-called national security cases and which under present circumstances can cover almost anything.

The country is far advanced in her times of trouble. Economic, social and political problems bedevil the Filipino. These problems may be surmounted if we are united. But we can be united only if all the rights and freedoms enjoyed before September 21, 1972 are fully restored.

The Filipino asks for nothing more, but will surely accept nothing less, than all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the 1935 Constitution—the most sacred legacies from the Founding Fathers.

Yes, the Filipino is patient, but there is a limit to his patience. Must we wait until that patience snaps?

The nation-wide rebellion is escalating and threatens to explode into a bloody revolution. There is a growing cadre of young Filipinos who have finally come to realize that freedom is never granted, it is taken. Must we relive the agonies and the blood-letting of the past that brought forth our Republic or can we sit down as brothers and sisters and discuss our differences with reason and goodwill?

I have often wondered how many disputes could have been settled easily had the disputants only dared to define their terms.

So as to leave no room for misunderstanding, I shall define my terms:

1. Six years ago, I was sentenced to die before a firing squad by a Military Tribunal whose jurisdiction I steadfastly refused to recognize. It is now time for the regime to decide. Order my IMMEDIATE EXECUTION OR SET ME FREE.

I was sentenced to die for allegedly being the leading communist leader. I am not a communist, never was and never will be.

2. National reconciliation and unity can be achieved but only with justice, including justice for our Muslim and Ifugao brothers. There can be no deal with a Dictator. No compromise with Dictatorship.

3. In a revolution there can really be no victors, only victims. We do not have to destroy in order to build.

4. Subversion stems from economic, social and political causes and will not be solved by purely military solutions; it can be curbed not with ever increasing repression but with a more equitable distribution of wealth, more democracy and more freedom, and

5. For the economy to get going once again, the workingman must be given his just and rightful share of his labor, and to the owners and managers must be restored the hope where there is so much uncertainty if not despair.

On one of the long corridors of Harvard University are carved in granite the words of Archibald Macleish:

“How shall freedom be defended? By arms when it is attacked by arms; by truth when it is attacked by lies; by democratic faith when it is attacked by authoritarian dogma. Always, and in the final act, by determination and faith.”

I return from exile and to an uncertain future with only determination and faith to offer—faith in our people and faith in God.

Basahin sa Filipino

4 0

3 years ago

How long was north and south korea at war?

kondor19780726 [428]

Cold War1950Korean War beginsShare this:facebooktwittergoogle+PRINT CITEArmed forces from communist North Korea smash into South Korea, setting off the Korean War. The United States, acting under the auspices of the United Nations, quickly sprang to the defense of South Korea and fought a bloody and frustrating war for the next three years.Korea, a former Japanese possession, had been divided into zones of occupation following World War II. U.S. forces accepted the surrender of Japanese forces in southern Korea, while Soviet forces did the same in northern Korea. Like in Germany, however, the “temporary” division soon became permanent. The Soviets assisted in the establishment of a communist regime in North Korea, while the United States became the main source of financial and military support for South Korea.On June 25, 1950, North Korean forces surprised the South Korean army (and the small U.S. force stationed in the country), and quickly headed toward the capital city of Seoul. The United States responded by pushing a resolution through the U.N.’s Security Council calling for military assistance to South Korea. (Russia was not present to veto the action as it was boycotting the Security Council at the time.) With this resolution in hand, President Harry S. Truman rapidly dispatched U.S. land, air, and sea forces to Korea to engage in what he termed a “police action.” The American intervention turned the tide, and U.S. and South Korean forces marched into North Korea. This action, however, prompted the massive intervention of communist Chinese forces in late 1950. The war in Korea subsequently bogged down into a bloody stalemate. In 1953, the United States and North Korea signed a cease-fire that ended the conflict. The cease-fire agreement also resulted in the continued division of North and South Korea at just about the same geographical point as before the conflict.The Korean War was the first “hot” war of the Cold War. Over 55,000 American troops were killed in the conflict. Korea was the first “limited war,” one in which the U.S. aim was not the complete and total defeat of the enemy, but rather the “limited” goal of protecting South Korea. For the U.S. government, such an approach was the only rational option in order to avoid a third world war and to keep from stretching finite American resources too thinly around the globe. It proved to be a frustrating experience for the American people, who were used to the kind of total victory that had been achieved in World War II. The public found the concept of limited war difficult to understand or support and the Korean War never really gained popular support.

7 0

3 years ago

The failed Severith Crusade was led by

Marina86 [1]

Answer:

Louis IX of France from 1248 to 1254.

3 0

3 years ago

Which continents were left untouched by european explorers?

zheka24 [161]

Antarctica Australia and south america

5 0

3 years ago

HELP ME PLEASE ASAP PLASSPALSPALSPLAPSLASP SKSKSSKS~!!!!!!!!!

Levart [38]

____________________________________________________

Answer:

Your answer would be D). Regional attitudes toward slavery decided the outcome.

____________________________________________________

The statement that accurately describes the results of the presidential election of 1860 is regional attitudes toward slavery decided the outcome.

____________________________________________________

Presidential election of 1860:

The presidential election of 1860 was a presidential election between Abraham Lincoln and John C. Breckinridge.

____________________________________________________

Explanation:

The reason why "Regional attitudes toward slavery decided the outcome" is the correct answer is because the election was pretty much based on people's belief in slavery. Slavery was the main factor that made the outcome of the presidential election. Abraham Lincoln did not like slavery, though he didn't want a war to occur just to abolish slavery. Lincoln and the Northern States (The states that were free) believed in abolishing slavery. On the other hand, John C. Breckinridge was for slavery, and believed that slavery was a thing that should be kept in the United States. Him and the Southern states (non-free states) all supported slavery. During the election, it was pretty much people's belief in slavery, and that made the outcome of Lincoln winning. More people supported Lincoln, which made him win the election by more than 50% of votes. To sum all of this information up, slavery was a key issue that made the outcome of the election.

____________________________________________________

Why the other answer choices are incorrect:

The reason why answer choice "Moderate voters who wanted a compromise on slavery determined the winner" is INCORRECT because:

People that agreed on slavery didn't have the choice to decide who the winner of the presidential election would be. The result of the election all determined on the amount of votes the candidates get.

The reason why answer choice "National unity led to a landslide victory for the Republican candidate" is INCORRECT because:

The National Unity wasn't formed to determine who would be the next president. A national unity is mostly formed because of a war. His party didn't make him win the election, it was all determined by the votes, since Lincoln was part of the National Union Party.

The reason why answer choice "Regional attitudes toward slavery played a small role in the outcome" is INCORRECT because:

Slavery played a HUGE role in the 1860 election. Slavery was not a small issue during their time, it was a BIG issue. The people that were voting for who they thought should be president determined their vote if they believed slavery was right or not. They didn't vote because of other things, they voted on their beliefs on slavery.

____________________________________________________

-Julie

4 0

3 years ago