Hindu mythology believes that universe was the created by the Brahma, and destroyed by the Shiva.
<h3>Who were the creators and destroyers of the earth according to the Hindu?</h3>
Hindu mythology had the perception that the creator of the whole universe was the Brahma.
As life has two cycle life and birth, it was controlled by the Shiva. So, he was the destroyer of the universe.
The power of the Vishnu, maintained the world.
Learn more about the creators and destroyers of the world here:-
brainly.com/question/17553248
#SPJ1
The steppe and forest-steppe of Ukraine and southern Russia is good agricultural land, but it was traditionally held by pastoral nomads. Any state that could drive off the nomads and fill the land with tax-paying peasants would expand its power enormously. During the period 1500–1800, this region was taken under Russian control.
"The history of Russia is the history of a country being colonized....migration and colonization of the country have been fundamental facts of our history.." Vasily Klyuchevsky, Kurs russkoy istorii, I, 20–21.
In the absence of a good map, locations will be given as approximately so many kilometers directly south of Moscow, and then so many kilometers east or west of that line. Thus, Kiev is about 600 south and 500 west, while Perekop at the head of the Crimean peninsula is 1100s and 250w. For contrast, France is not quite 1,000 kilometers from north to south and Moscow is about 1,000 kilometers south of the White Sea. Since these numbers are estimates, they should not be cited or copied.
Answer:
One of the main arguments used to support US military involvement in Vietnam was the fear that if Vietnam fell to communism, other nations in Southeast Asia could as well.
It was <span>Andrew Carnegie.</span>
<span>Buchanan believed that slavery was wrong while also claiming that states did not have the right of succession. As the North and South adamantly debated whether slavery was illegal and immoral or legal and ethical, Buchanan admitted that there were certain grievenances that would make the succession justified, but then he condemed the act of slavery, saying that it was unconstitutional adn that the Founder Fathers never intended to endow any group of people with the right to enslave another group of people. But in a surprising turn, he said that if the succession was renamed to be called a revolution, then it would be acceptable because then, it would fail to call for the enforcement of a constituional right, and it also seperated the government from the requirement of giving the succession recognition. So in effect, Buchannan hindered the succession by declaring the right to a secession to be null and void, but failed to denouce slavery because he also defended the excuses that the sourtherns were using to threaten the secession in the first place. The postition he took angered both the people of the North and South. In the end, the Battle of Fort Sumter commenced and the South excercised their right to sucession after all.</span>
