Answer:
there is an expansion in abilities of the president during a wartime. the president gains many authorities that he would not have had prior. the president is commander in chief of the military first and foremost, and during a war, the focus of the president will likely shift off of other issues to focus on protection of the country.
Answer:
The speech was intended to rally the American people against the Axis threat.
Explanation:
The speech was intended to rally the American people against the Axis threat and to shift favor in support of assisting British and Allied troops. Roosevelt's words came at a time of extreme American isolationism; since World War I, many Americans sought to distance themselves from foreign entanglements, including foreign wars. Policies to curb immigration quotas and increase tariffs on imported goods were implemented, and a series of Neutrality Acts passed in the 1930s limited American arms and munitions assistance abroad.
Answer:
Supporters of Laissez faire believe that this type of system promotes more incentives to trade and economic growth, in addition to encouraging freedom among companies.
Supporters of economic intervention, on the other hand, believe that the intervention promotes fairer and more equitable trade and allows new companies to become as influential as old companies, which will promote economic growth.
Explanation:
Economic intervention allows the government of a country to impose limits and interference in trade and the productive sector. These limitations prevent economically strong companies from dominating an entire productive sector, promoting more commercial fairness and allowing new companies to emerge in addition to allowing small companies to grow in the same sector as large companies.
Laissez Faire, on the other hand, discredits any government intervention in trade and this imposes freedom on companies and industries, which will allow full production and vast economic growth.
I can't really answer your question (as I don't really know enough about 18th century France), but I just want to clear up an (understandable) misconception about Feudalism in your question.
The French revolution was adamant and explicit in its abolition of 'feudalism'. However, the 'feudalism' it was talking about had nothing at all to do with medieval 'feudalism' (which, of course, never existed). What the revolutionaries had in mind, in my own understanding of it, was the legally privileged position of the aristocracy/2nd estate. This type of 'feudalism' was a creation of early modern lawyers and, as a result, is better seen as a product of the early-modern monarchical nation-state, than as a precursor to it. It has nothing to do with the pre-nation-state medieval period, or with the Crusades.
Eighteenth-century buffs, feel free to chip in if I've misrepresented anything, as this is mostly coming from my readings about the historiographical development of feudalism, not any revolutionary France expertise, so I may well have misinterpreted things.
Answer:
The correct answer is that the countries on the map with food shortages have in common is tha they had severe supply chai management issues.
Explanation:
The countries that also tend to have food shortage they live in conflcit inside their own politics and government.
