Answer:
In no way would it have been possible to prevent World War II. Western powers, especially Britain and France, attempted to carry out appeasement policies against the imperialist actions of Germany in Austria and the Czech Republic. The United States, on the other hand, was carrying out an isolationist policy, with which it hardly intervened in the moment before the war.
In any case, no alternative could have worked in the face of Adolf Hitler's imperialist impetus, who wanted to create a predominant German empire throughout Europe. Nor could the expansionist thirst of Italy, whose leader Benito Mussolini sought to control the Mediterranean and regain a position of power after World War I, could have been quenched. Furthermore, the Empire of Japan was in the same position as its two allies. All this created a warlike breeding ground, which in no way could be restrained peacefully without huge losses on the part of Western countries.
The answer is B, because the seventh man found peace when he returned to his hometown.
The correct answer is death of Queen Elizabeth.
When Queen Elizabeth died in 1603, after having ruled for 44 years, the Puritans grew even more unhappy than they were before. She was succeeded by James I, who brought many changes to the church, which obviously the Puritans weren't too happy about.
Answer:
I mean debate can encourage new laws but if you have one side wishing for laws and the other against it. It will usually slow legislation which is entirely the purpose. But it depends on what view are you taking it from because th end result can be no legislation at all or even a relaxation of legislation in fact that's happened in some states. So it depends on the view and narrative you wish to push. because it can be a semblance of all but B. If you're a centrist you'd probably say this debate will encourage new laws but the whole point of not wishing for infringements upon one's rights means no new laws. If you wanted new laws then this debate is a waste of time but you're angering a large portion of the population because you seek not to listen to the statistics and thereby information one may have that may dissuade from the legislation. And if you look at D it can be so. If 2 cannot agree then rights will not be infringed upon. Unless the side with more representatives that disagrees with the right then such laws will be enacted. Yes, they can place new restrictions and there you can make the case it's unconstitutional and etc because well there is ground and a foundation laid upon there. But as far as an actual thing it'd be A I suppose. But I'd question the teacher because it depends on how one views a division. It can be either cooperative relationships that can be mended or an all or nothing if it's not my way then we will have conflict and it shall erupt. It all depends.
Explanation:
