Secretary of State George C. Marshall. It gave the European nations American aid to rebuild economies.
In many ways, Pyrrhus is a foil to Hamlet. For example, Pyrrhus is impulsive and rash, while Hamlet is contemplative and indecisive.
What is Pyrrhus?
Pyrrhus was a Hellenistic-era Greek king and statesman. He was the Aeacid royal house's king of the Greek Molossians tribe before succeeding to the throne of Epirus. He was regarded as being one of the greatest generals in ancient times and was one of early Rome's strongest adversaries. He suffered intolerably high losses in a number of his victories, giving rise to the phrase "Pyrrhic victory." 13-year-old Pyrrhus had become king of Epirus in 306 BC, but Cassander overthrew him four years later. He participated in the Diadochi Wars before being helped by Ptolemy I Soter to retake his throne in 297 BC. In the course of what became known as the Pyrrhic War,
Additionally, Pyrrhus is vengeful and driven by a desire for revenge, while Hamlet is more concerned with justice. Finally, Pyrrhus is single-minded in his pursuit of his goals, while Hamlet is easily distracted.
To learn more about Pyrrhus
brainly.com/question/5617546
#SPJ4
The reason for why is very simple: they believed it would increase their chance of wining. This is a common practice in the US politics and why the two main parties are well the only important parties in the US today. It is because they adapt and incorporate the beliefs of minor parties that appear and they address the issues raised by the new parties.
<span />
This is a matter of opinion.
If you think yes, you could argue that internment was a great PR move and/or that it protected the Japanese living in America from negative press
If you argue no (which I would) then you could argue that it was unconstitutional and/or had no strategic importance to the war itself.
