The presidential election<span> of </span>1940<span>, won by </span>Franklin D<span>. </span>Roosevelt<span> with 449 </span>electoral votes<span>.. Roosevelt, aware of strong isolationist sentiment in </span>the U.S.<span>, </span>promised<span> there would be no foreign wars if he </span>were<span> re-elected..</span>
The Wall Street had Crash on 1929 october 29th
Answer: Each country had its own agenda about the post-war world.
Context/explanation:
Churchill in particular, along with Roosevelt, pushed strongly for Stalin to allow free elections to take place in the nations of Europe after the war. At that time Stalin agreed, but there was a strong feeling by the other leaders that he might renege on that promise. The Soviets never did allow those free elections to occur. Later, Winston Churchill wrote, "Our hopeful assumptions were soon to be falsified." Stalin and the Soviets felt they needed the Eastern European nations as satellites to protect their own interests. So one key point of disagreement between Stalin and the other two was over the direction things would take in Eastern Europe after the war.
While Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were on the same page in many ways, there were also key differences between them. As noted by The Churchill Project of Hillsdale College, "FDR, ever the optimist, believed (or wanted to believe) that Stalin could be convinced that the West was not committed to destruction of the Soviet regime." Churchill had a much more skeptical view of Stalin and the Soviet Union and approached the relationship in a firmer fashion. Roosevelt had hoped to continue cooperation with the USSR. That changed under Truman, who took over the US Presidency after FDR's death. Truman was strongly anti-communist in his stance.
Another difference between Roosevelt and Churchill pertained to colonialism and imperialism. Again as noted by The Churchill Project: "Over colonialism. Roosevelt firmly believed European colonialism had been a major cause of World War I, and that it had continued to be a source of international disputes and tensions before World War II. Churchill had sworn defend the realm, which, when he took office, included the British Empire." As it happened, after World War II, colonialism's days were numbered and independence movements broke out around the world where imperial powers had dominated.
<span>C) she enforced laws favoring Catholics
Hope this helps!</span>
Answer:
The National Party was elected in 1948 on the policy of Apartheid ('separateness'). This 'separateness' put South Africans of different racial groups on their own paths in a partitioned system of development.
Explanation:
<h3>Effects of the Group Areas Act</h3>
The GAA had strange implications for governance and responsibility as it became more elaborate and amended. For example, the Coloured townships of Coronationville, Noordgesig, Newclare, Riverlea, and Western Township are administrated by Johannesburg City Council while Bosmont is the responsibility of the Department of Community Development (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1964: 216). The work of welfare organizations was made more difficult by the GAA, like Lunalegwaba House, a group home for African boys, in Johannesburg could not operate because the regulations of the GAA did not allow the White charity to own the property (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1967: 306). People attempted to use the courts to overturn the GAA, though each time they were unsuccessful (Dugard, 1978, 324). Others decided to use civil disobedience and other protests, like ‘sit-ins’ at restaurants, were experienced across South Africa in the early 60s. The 'sit-ins' were not ill-received by the average White citizen, which the South African Institute of Race Relations believed proved that they did not object to sharing restaurants with the other racial groups (1961: 183). There was also resistance from Cape Town City Council who voted before 1964 to keep District Six and the central business district not dedicated to any one racial group; they had the support of the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce on this decision (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1964: 213).
