In the Ghettos, monitored by Nazi guards
The term Woodland Indians was created in 1932 to describe a prehistoric culture that was significantly different than the nomadic Archaic Indians that roamed the eastern third of the North American Continent from 6000 B. C. to about 1000 B. C. It is the third and final general cultural description applied to native people prior to the formation of tribes, the final stage of development of these prehistoric people. Were the Woodland Indians historic<span> or </span>prehistoric<span>? Woodland Indians, as with all later Indian nations until the Cherokee, were prehistoric. The Cherokee adopted a written language in 1820, making them a historic tribe from that time on.
</span>
i hope this helps
Answer:
C
Explanation:
Did not allow people to make free choices
"<span>D. Travel became difficult and dangerous as lawlessness increased and roads fell into disrepair" is the best option from the list, although this wasn't universally true. </span>
I'm going to assume your question is about the use of atomic bombs against Japan at the conclusion of World War II. If so, here are some things to consider as you formulate your opinion:
The United States saw the use of the atomic bombs as a way to bring the war to an end in a way that would cost less American lives. A land invasion of Japan would have meant many American soldiers being killed in battle. However, the cost in Japanese lives was enormous by the use of the bombs, and that was not given equal consideration.
Another consideration was that the United States had been engaging in a fire-bombing campaign of Japanese cities prior to the use of atomic bombs. The fire-bombing campaigns were horrifically destructive also, but did not have the radiation after-effects of atomic bombings.
An option that could have been used rather than dropping atomic bombs was to enlist Soviet troops in a joint invasion of Japan. But the USA wanted to avoid postwar Soviet presence in Japan, and the atomic bombs were seen as a way of ending the war quickly. You can consider whether it would have been a more "moral" way of pursuing war to conduct a land invasion with Soviet assistance.
Finally, the escalation to the point of using atomic bombs was, in part, due to the Allies' insistence on an "unconditional surrender" by Japan. A second bomb was dropped at Nagasaki after the first was dropped on Hiroshima, because Japan did not submit to unconditional surrender in the immediate aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing. You can consider for yourself whether some other resolution besides "unconditional surrender" was a viable option for ending the war with Japan.
