Who Should Be Blamed For The H :: essays research papers

During Hitler’s reign as Fuhrer of Nazi Germany from 1933-1945, millions of innocent citizens of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and those of Jewish religion and race were executed. Hitler, although masterminding the plan of the perfect human race did not kill these people, rather ordered their deaths. In the early to mid-1940s death camps such as Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, Dachau, and Birkenau were created for the eventual extermination of the inferior peoples of Europe. Hitler commanded members of the Nazi party such as commandants, and SS troopers were ordered to follow through in the execution. The question is now, who is to blame for all of these deaths?  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  It is impossible, in my opinion, to place the blame for all these deaths on one man’s shoulders. It is understandably argued that the soldiers and such were merely carrying out orders, yet they had the choice whether to follow through or not. The murderers claimed to be afraid to disobey the ever-powerful Fuhrer in fear of their own life. Yet, I still believe that no one can be ultimately forced to do something they do not want to. All humans have a choice to make decisions and follow their own path, which these men did not choose to do. For this, I believe the men should suffer.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  For example, Amon Goeth was Commandant of Plaszow, a work camp for Jews and Poles. Although, not a death camp specifically, thousands of men and women were executed within its confines. As leader of the camp, with direct orders from Hitler, he was expected to take part in the systematic elimination of the inferior peoples. Although only doing his job, he deserved punishment for his wrongdoings, as did all the other â€Å"butchers† of the camps.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Doctors were also under order of Hitler. They were used to perform experiments on the selected such as fertilization, immunization experimentation, and operations. These people were tortured and suffered blindness, immobility, among many other things. Once again, although these doctors were under order I believe that they should have suffered for what they had done to the prisoners.

Hazel Essay

Hazel who worked for Fortune 500 Company for 15 years shows her loyalty and devotion in the company. It is surprising therefore why she was one of the chosen employees to be terminated by the new CEO to downsize the company. It is a question whether Hazel tried to ask the company why she was terminated despite the fact that she has been with the company in the long period of time. It is a need for her to know to fully understand the reasons. It might be even beneficial for her in long run to improve her weaknesses, flaws and mistakes if there are any. The rejection she’s receiving from her application in finding employment must be very hard for her. But her need of survival motivated her to try another line of job. It must be very challenging since she was used to office or paper works perhaps, from the company she previously worked to. Moving lawns, weeding gardens, and trimming shrubbery are all not an easy job. It requires so much energy, effort and perspiration. But Hazel perceived it optimistically believing that it will do her good in the long run. After 15 years being used to be governed and overshadowed by the company’s superiors, rules and policies, Hazel is now taking a different path. She can be more creative in this way in managing her life in terms of time management, communication with her clients, service price and all. Now everything is not routinary. In addition to this she can be more in touch with her clients thus creating opportunities to make friends and learn more. From being an employee, she now has her own business in accordance to her interest and creativity. She can creatively fashion her neighbor’s backyard. Her business will eventually give her opportunities to apply her learning’s from her previous job. It is not bad to make some switch in career at times especially with Hazel’s case after a number of years of building experience and gaining knowledge in one particular field or profession. However switching a career can be wonderful chance to identify some careers that match well with your skill set and personality. Hazel will learn to be flexible in the long run who can both explore blue and white collar jobs.

Landslide Victory Definition in Elections

A landslide victory in politics is any election in which the victor wins by an overwhelming margin. The term became popular in the 1800s to define a resounding victory; one in which the opposition is buried in an election, according to the late New York Times political writer William Safire in his Safires Political Dictionary. While many elections are declared landslide victories, they are trickier to quantify. How big is a resounding victory? Is there a certain margin of victory that qualifies as a landslide election? How many electoral votes do you have to win to achieve a landslide? It turns out there is no consensus on the specifics of a landslide definition, but there is general agreement among political observers about historic presidential elections that qualify as such. Definition There is no legal or constitutional definition of what a landslide election is, or how wide an electoral victory margin must be in order for a candidate to have won in a landslide. But many modern-day political commentators and media pundits use the term landslide election freely to describe campaigns in which the victor was a clear favorite during the campaign and goes on to win with relative ease. It usually means exceeding expectations and being somewhat overwhelming, Gerald Hill, a political scientist and co-author of  The Facts on File Dictionary of American Politics, told The Associated Press. One generally agreed upon measure of a landslide election is when the winning candidate beats his opponent or opponents by at least 15 percentage points in a popular vote count. Under that scenario a landslide would occur when the winning candidate in a two-way election receives 58 percent of the vote, leaving his opponent with 42 percent. There are variations of the 15-point landslide definition. The online political news source Politico has defined a landslide election as being on in which the winning candidate beats his opponent by at least 10 percentage points, for example. And the well-known political blogger Nate Silver, of The New York Times, has defined a landslide district as being one in which a presidential vote margin deviated by at least 20 percentage points from the national result. Political scientists Hill and Kathleen Thompson Hill and say a landslide occurs when a candidate is able to win 60 percent of the popular vote. Electoral College Of course, the United States does not elect its presidents by popular vote. It instead uses the Electoral College system. There are 538 electoral votes up for grabs in a presidential race, so how many would a candidate have to win to achieve a landslide? Again, there is no legal or constitutional definition of a landslide in a presidential election. But political journalists have offered their own suggested guidelines for determining a landslide victory over the years. One generally agreed upon definition of an Electoral College landslide is a presidential election in which the winning candidate secures at least 375 or 70 percent of the electoral votes. Examples There are at least half a dozen presidential elections that many would consider being landslides. Among them is Franklin Delano Roosevelts 1936 win over Alf Landon. Roosevelt won 523 electoral votes to Landons eight, and 61 percent of the popular vote to his opponents 37 percent. In 1984, Ronald Reagan won 525 electoral votes to Walter Mondales 13, capturing 59 percent of the popular vote. Neither of President Barack Obamas victories, in 2008 or 2012, are considered to be landslides; nor is President Donald Trumps victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016. Trump won the electoral vote but received 1 million fewer actual votes than Clinton did,  reigniting the  debate over whether the U.S. should scrap the Electoral College.