You will find many reasons for and against this. It is about 70 years ago and perhaps living then may give a different view point from one who was born 15-15 years ago. I for one, think it was correct.
The Nazi leaders claimed a divine right to rule over all the other races. This divine right came directly from God and is not to be questioned or challenged.
athentically you right from top to bottom and from right to left.
By attacking Pearl Harbor the Japanese .. in their own words( or nearly so ) "awoke a sleeping giant." The US chose not to be part of the war because they did chose not to but were willing to support the allies by providing much needed funds and weapons. By attacking the US it brought out a spirit and a military force that had unknown strength -which we proved was a significant force and helped turn the tide for the allies - maybe not right away, but our presence was truly felt from the beginning.
By working out
hi mom
You will find many reasons for and against this. It is about 70 years ago and perhaps living then may give a different view point from one who was born 15-15 years ago. I for one, think it was correct.
You will find many reasons for and against this. It is about 70 years ago and perhaps living then may give a different view point from one who was born 15-15 years ago. I for one, think it was correct.
MIGHT makes right/the victor WRITES the rules/he who has the gold makes the rules... Justice? Refer to the above.
No they shouldn't! Do we want people who have comitted crimes to elect our leaders?????????? Just adding to this.. Most of our leaders are criminals themselves.. They just have the contacts to keep from getting in trouble and prosecuted for their crimes.. I say yes they should depending on the crime.. They should have a number code next to your felon to indicate what it was.. People make mistakes and should still have the ability and knowledge to elect leaders. Many simple crimes are labeled as a felony and everyday people are trying to make more and more felonies.
Because they are accused of crimes it does not mean they committed those crimes.
the allies
At the beginning of the war, the Japanese were seen as liberators (remember, most of Asia was under European colonial rule). Many Indians saw the Japanese as allies in their struggle against British rulers. Leaders such as Gandhi, however, advocated peace, by taking neither side in the war. Finally some Indians. Finally, many Indians believed that it was right to fight alongside the British. Nonetheless, the Japanese attempt to invade India failed. They had more important concerns in the Pacific, China, and South East Asia. More importantly, it was clear that Britain would eventually have to relinquish its possessions; the war was making it weaker by day. To answer your question: the Japanese treated their Indians allies as "friends" fighting against imperialism. But remember that they had the same policy in other parts of Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia etc.), and then became the imperialists themselves. As a result, it is hard to tell what their true intentions were. Sameer
Both. Japanese reading is left or right when written in horizontal lines, and right to left when vertical lines.
Allies
Put it like this. A couple hundred thousand had died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the United States and her allies in the Pacific had invaded the Japanese home islands, it would've cost both sides around 1 Million Deaths each. Your call. :)
Chinmoku no ko is how you right it in English I'm not shore how you right it in Japanese.
Top Nazi officials and military leaders were convicted in the Nuremberg trials, including Hermann Göring, Rudolf Hess, and Joachim von Ribbentrop. They were found guilty of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide committed during World War II.