0
When something is cut short, i.e. a holiday
Wiki User
∙ 15y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How did the dictators during world war 2 come to power?
Dictators of WW2 A dictator is one who exercises 'absolute power and authority'. Most rulers during WWII exercised at least some dictatorial power. The Axis consisted of Germany, Italy, and Japan. The leaders of those nations were: • Germany: Adolf Hitler. • Italy: Benito Mussolini. • Japan was ruled by a Emperor, whose name was Hirohito. The first two were Dictators, who ruled without question and without control by the courts or the people. They had the power of life and death over their nations. Hirohito was different. He was part of a inherited monarchy. He took over when his Father, the previous Emperor, died. He was like a King, and the country was ruled by him, but with a Parliament and a cabinet that made decisions, which he approved. He was not a Dictator in the true sense of the word. The USSR, part of the Allies, was led by a communist dictator: Joseph Stalin. Here is more input: Stalin was probably the most tyranical of all world rulers. His system outlawed all basic liberties. There was no right to own property in the Soviet system. Religion was supressed. Basic human liberties such as the right of assembly, to petition the government, of press and speech...all were surpressed. The people were regimented such as in no other world society. Minor crimes or even no crime at all was punishable by extensive prison sentences in horrific conditions or even death. In summary, Stalin answered to no one and took little advise. Hitler was a dictator but in his system, some personal liberties were allowed. Private property was to a great extent, allowed and protected. Religion, other than Judaism, was allowed. Assembly, press, speech and other civil liberties were restricted / censored. While Germany did have many concentration camps the use of them to terrorize to average citizen with arbitrary imprisonment was not exercised. Hitler did have great power over the German people but to a large extent this was due to his magnetic personality, great speaking ability and victories on the battlefield. He did take advise and had to defer to various other groups within Germany including the major industrialists, various military leaders and even some religious leaders. Mussolini was the Italian dictator and compared to the two above, was very weak in his powers. He never controlled the Italian economy or military to the extent dictators did in Russia or Germany. For example, the Italian economy was famously inefficient and stayed so throughout the war. The Italian economic leaders did little to further the war effort unless it lined their personal pockets. Japan was very regimented but did not have a central figure dictator. The emperor had the power did not weild it tyrannically. In fact, one of the major problems with Japan fighting WWII was the divisions in the country between the various sectors of army, navy, economy, religion, and civil authority. Franco ruled Spain as a medium level dictator. Churchill and Roosevelt, British and USA leaders respectively, also had some dictatorial powers. Control over the economies was fairly extensive in both countries. The press was censored but remained technically free. Freedom of assembly was greatly surpressed. Both nations drafted huge numbers of civilians into the armed forces, which is certainly a sort of dictatorial power. Compared to the Soviets, the USA and Britain continued to respect religion and private property throughout the war. In the USA, some groups, such as the Japanese Americans, suffered internment, loss of property and curtailment of all civil liberties.
Reasons against Federation for Australia?
Arguments for Federation in Australia included:Trade: There were steep tariffs imposed on the transport of goods across the borders of the states. Federation would remove these tariffs and allow for free trade between the states.Unions and labour laws: It was hoped that labour laws would be standardised across the states with Federation. The great Shearers' Strike of the 1890s had resulted in the formation of workers' unions, and the newly-formed Australian Labor Party saw that unification would allow this standardisation.Transport: There was no standard railway gauge across the country and railway lines changed at the colonial borders. It was believed Federation would see the introduction of uniform railway gauges across the states, but in reality this did not occur for another eighty years or so.Some Australians wanted a "White Australia" policy. They believed Federation would enable the development and maintenance of a "White Australia", by toughening immigration laws. There was lingering resentment over the Chinese who had come during the gold rush, made their fortune (as they were far more industrious than Australians) and then returned to their own country, taking their fortune with them. Some stayed and set up businesses in towns, but they were always looked down upon. It was hoped by some (not all) that a White Australia policy would ensure employment for Australians. Some colonies were opposed to this policy as they used foreign labour, which was often much cheaper than local labour. An example of this is Queensland, which employed Kanakas (people from the Cook Islands). Under the new constitution, not only the Kanakas, but also the much-feared Chinese, who came to Australia during the gold rush, would not be allowed into Australia. Thus Federation would eliminate unwanted foreigners, providing more employment for Australians.Independence from England: Federation was but a small step in the overall independence of Australia, allowing it to move away from the influence of Mother England and become a self-governing nation in its own right. Again, this was a process which took many decades, but Federation certainly enabled that first step.Other important laws were expected to be made uniform, such as taxes and banking. This was particularly important in the light of the recent (1892) depression, which was a time of economic instability. Many saw that Federation, in bringing unity, could only bring more stability to the country.Defence: Each of the states had its own defence force. Each individual state's defence force was not strong enough to protect Australia's vast coastline from attack. There were distinct advantages in uniting the defence under one command, an important consideration as the German and French presence in the Pacific increased.Laws: Laws could be enforced better if accused people could not escape to a neighbouring colony.As a result of the goldrushes, Australia was wealthy enough to govern independently of England.Patriotism was becoming stronger, with the rise of Australian talents like 'Banjo' Paterson advocating the idea of freedom, the bush life and tossing off authority.Sporting teams were representing "Australia", not individual states.Having a single economy big enough and robust enough to give confidence to those who want to trade in it.
Was managing the rome empire in ad117 easy or difficult?
It depended on the strength of central authority. The Roman Empire was subdivided into provinces which were administered by provincial governors. The central government's inability to control these governors was one of the reasons for the demise the Roman Republic. It had become dysfunctional and unable to cope with imperial expansion. Corruption was rampant. Tax collection in the provinces was tendered to private individuals who practiced tax farming (they lined their pockets through extortion) and the provincial governors (who were picked from among the senators) acted as if their provinces were their own domains. They could levy their own legions as the Republic did not have a centralised recruitment system. This led to a series of civil wars which brought the Republic down. Augustus, the final victor of the civil wars, became the first Roman emperor and instituted absolute rule by emperors. He created an imperial administration under his control. Tax collection came under his bureaucracy. Most of the provincial governors were his subordinates and were appointed by him. He gained control of the army. This created a strong central authority capable of controlling the empire and led to what historians have called the Pax Romana (Roman Peace), a two hundred-year period of relative political stability. As long as the provincial governors were under control, the empire was quite easy to manage. The Romans managed the conquered peoples through a policy of tolerance. They tolerated their religions and customs and allowed them to continue to follow them. They also allowed them to continue to use their customary laws at the local level, which they called mos regionis (regional traditions/laws of the land). They relied on the local ruling elites to run local affairs in the provinces. This policy fostered political and social stability. It had two advantages: it facilitated the integration of the locals in the provinces (the conquered peoples) into the ideology and the economy of the empire and it reduced the administrative load (and the associated costs) of the provincial governors. It limited the job of the governors to defence and the maintenance of the legions stationed in the provinces, tax collection, the commissioning of public works and the arbitration of disputes the locals were unable to settle themselves. A less tolerant policy would have led to rebellions and would have threatened the stability of the empire. It worked throughout the empire except for Judea, where there were a number of rebellions. The system had some flaws. Civil and military office were not separate. Most of the Roman legions were stationed in the frontier provinces of the empire. They were commanded by the provincial governors who were both civil administrators and military commanders. If central authority weakened, this could be a recipe for civil war as governors could use their troops to seize power. A warning of this came in 69 AD when with the death of Nero there was a civil war between two pretenders to the imperial title. In 193-97 there were two civil wars between three pretenders. The final victor, Septimius Severus, executed may senators on spurious charges and replaced them with his favourites, replaced the imperial guard with veterans from his legions, raised the wages of the soldiers and created what was effectively a military regime. The dynasty he created got caught up in intrigues between family members and the imperial institution lost its authority. This was followed by fifty years of military anarchy and civil wars where provincial governors/'military commanders seized power after having been proclaimed emperors by their own troops and were then challenged by other governors/commanders who were supported by their own troops. The turnover of emperors was high as many were murdered, sometimes even by their own troops who had proclaimed them because they did not want to fight a civil war. Two parts of the empire broke away (the Gallic Empire and the Palmyrene Empire). The emperor Aurelian re-established the unity of the empire. After the period of military anarchy, the emperor Diocletian took measures to strengthen imperial control. He doubled the number of provinces to reduce their size and the power of the governors, whose administrative roles was also reduced. He grouped the provinces into twelves dioceses. This was a higher tier of bureaucracy run by an appointee of the emperor, who controlled the governors, to which they were subordinate. He also separated political and military office by creating the duces as the commanders of legions. Diocletian also created four main administrative units (the praetorian prefectures) headed by two senior co-emperors and two junior co-emperors (this was the tetrarchy, rule by four). After Diocletian abdicated the tetrarchy fell apart as the co-emperors fought each other. Constantine the Great became sole emperor by winning two civil wars. There were civil wars between the sons of Constantine who were given shares of the empire. Eventually the empire stabilised with the establishment of the Valentinian dynasty. However, there were still problems. Diocletian's reforms doubled the size of the imperial bureaucracy, which became top heavy and very expensive to maintain. Similarly, repeated attempts to invade the empire by peoples who lived near it and wars with the Persians lead to continued increases in the size of the army and, in addition to this, several emperors increased the pay of the soldiers. The burden to fund the army and the bureaucracy became hardly sustainable and raising the funds for this become very difficult and a high priority for the imperial government. This led to oppressive taxation regimes and the curtailment in the freedom of the citizens of the empire aimed at reducing tax evasion, which, in turn, led to disaffection with the imperial government.
Did the British or the Americans win the war of 1812?
The Treaty of Ghent returned everything to pre-war conditions. As such, the war could be considered a draw, and there wasn't really any 'success' or 'failure' on either side, other than the lives lost.
What is mortgage principal curtailment?
A mortgage principal curtailment is an additional payment to principal.
What is curtailment of bars?
Curtailment is optimizing steel w.r.t changes in Bending moment over a section
Use curtailment in a sentence?
The company announced a curtailment of production due to reduced demand for their products.
What is method of curtailment of steel bars in RCC column in multi storeyed building?
column curtailment details
What is a Curtailment of income?
A curtailment of income is when your income has been cut short for any reason. (Example: Due to the economy, instead of being laid off we all just took a paycut. We have a curtailment of income)
What are some of the antonyms for the word curtailment?
Curtailment means "to cut short or reduce" (taken from thefreedictionary dot com). Surprisingly, no thesaurus has any antonyms for curtailment, though it is plausible that one could be found somewhere.
What are synonyms for curtailment?
Decrease, reduction, cutback, abbreviation...
What is a curtailment of a loan?
cumulative principal payment(s)
What does curtailment mean in banking?
Type your answer here... loss of income in the forelcosure process.
What is curtailment of reinforcement bars?
Curtailment is a theoretical point where some of the reinforcement is cut-off along the span of the beam where the bending moment reduces, given that the remaining reinforcement will be able to support the reduced bending moment. (A.P Nangolo)
How curtailment is done rcc beams?
in case of beam bottom most fiber taking bending stress and stress gradually decrease toward supporting members longitudinally. so that curtailment can be done by analysis cross section of the beam and can be determined steel required particular section.
Explain Why curtailment of main steel is possible close to ends of a simply supported element?
Reinforcements is provided to resist moment and shear force, in a simply supported beam maximum moment at centre and its reduces towards (zero)support. so no 100% reinforcments at support required, so curtailment is possible (max 50%) at ends.
