Answer:
A
Explanation:
because he is the killer of the kingdom
Answer:
The USA were more so ideologically driven by 1945.
Explanation:
In 1939, the USA and USSR, alongside other powers (ie. Great Britain), were united against a common enemy: Adolf Hitler. This incentivised all countries to put their differences aside and unite against Hitler, in order to end the rule of one of the largest threats of the 20th century. Thus, in 1939, the USA were largely cooperative and cordial.
By 1945, once Hitler and the Nazis’ rule was over, albeit the USA attempted to keep strong ties with countries such as the USSR (seen with US President Roosevelt’s friendship with USSR leader Joseph Stalin), ultimately, USA’s next steps were becoming increasingly dependent on the USA’s ideological differences to that of the USSR, bearing in mind the USA were capitalist and the USSR were communist/ Marxist- Leninist. This is evidenced with Truman (Roosevelt’s successor as US President)’s approach to the USSR at the Potsdam conference from the 17th July- 2nd August 1945.
Hope this helps! :)
The correct answer is <span>C) desired reconciliation and peace between the North and South and a smooth transition back into the Union.
He explains this through the example that the Union would provide help and care for both those who fought against it and for the families of the soldiers that died during the war, which included southerners. He wanted reconciliation between the two factions. </span>
The term Phillip Converse coined about how many people, when asked the same question at different times, will often change their answer, often randomly, is known as "Non-Attitudes."
Phillip Converse was known for being a Political Science Professor at the University of Michigan.
In one of his research which he documented in a book titled "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Public."
He concluded that normal people who are not political elites don't ideologically take policies but rather flow with the prevailing issues.
Therefore he described these people as "non-attitude" because they don't have the attitude of a typical politician.
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that Phillip Converse defined "non-attitudes" as many people, when asked the same question at different times, will often change their answer, often randomly.
Learn more here: brainly.com/question/1470181
