History, 30.10.2021 16:00, william1690

Please someone I need this essay done!! It doesn't need to be amazing, just something I can turn in. Pleaseee

Please someone I need this essay done!! It doesn't need to be amazing, just something I can turn in

Answers: 3

Show answers

Answers

answered: Guest

Republican candidate

answered: Guest

That would be a trashcan

answered: Guest

Of course it could have been avoided. a great many scholars argue it happened because of truman's use of fear to gain support. his predecessor fdr was the most popular and charismatic president ever. truman was a machine politician chosen as the least offensive choice around for vp. had henry wallace remained vp and then president, the cold war might not have happened. or had dewey been defeated in the primaries by robert taft, and then taft defeated truman in 48, the cold war also might not have happened. taft was somewhat isolationist, opposing nato and the korean war. wallace believed truman to be unnecessarily provocative in his dealings with the soviets.of course for strong anti communists, they claim the soviets would see any sign of weakness and try to take over the world. but this is a conspiracy theory not backed by evidence. most communist movements were local and not controlled by moscow. stalin had just lost over 20 million people and was exhausted and paranoid. his number one fear was a rearmed germany allied with the us, and truman made his nightmare real with the marshall plan. truman's blunders are at least half responsible for the cold war and neither wallace nor taft would have made them.on top of that, stalin was dying and in poor health. his successor khrushchev was a reformer who ended the forced labor camps, set many political prisoners free, criticized stalin, and declined to build a powerful soviet navy to confront the us. stalin actually proposed a neutral united germany. a paranoid american gov't turned him down, guaranteeing a continued cold war for decades more.

answered: Guest

the covenant that god made with abraham was a unilateral (one-sided) promise from god to abraham. apart from anything abraham did, god was promising that he was going to bring about a great nation from abraham's offspring, and that the messiah (meaning "the anointed one") would come from abraham's descendants, as one through whom the whole world would receive favor from god. as god promised abraham, "through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed" (genesis 22: 18).

the "new covenant" was announced by jesus of nazareth, who had asserted that he was the "son of david" (and descendant of abraham) that fulfilled those promises to abraham. when jesus introduced the sacred meal that we now refer to as the lord's supper, as told his disciples in reference to the wine they drank, "this cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you" (luke 22: 20). this "new covenant" through jesus was also a unilateral (one-sided) covenant. he gave himself in sacrifice for all people, without conditions attached. as his friend and apostle john later wrote, "he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 john 2: 2).

so the covenant with abraham and the "new covenant" ushered in by jesus are, in essence, connected as one covenant -- because jesus was saying he was the one promised to abraham that fulfilled that covenant and brought blessing to the world.