Which Ddr Is The Best Usa/north America

Would you rather live up north, or down south in the US?

I grew up out west; didn’t realize it was all desert until I traveled east for the first time. Now, while I do enjoy my first few days of returning to visit the valleys of the Wasatch Front in Utah, I’m soon depressed by the dryness of the place, the greyness of the greens, and I get tree-hungry and long to return home to North Carolina.In Greensboro, where I live — halfway between the ocean and the mountains, halfway between DC and Atlanta — I have found the perfect climate for me. It’s far enough south that spring comes early and lasts forever, it seems, yet far enough north that we sometimes get snow and the insects die off or go into hiding during winter.It’s more than the climate and flora and fauna, however. After living in a northern industrial city for a year and a half, where racial segregation was completely unofficial but almost total in its effect, I found it refreshing to arrive in Greensboro. The South had a real and painful history of ugly race relations. But in the South, blacks and whites lived in close proximity, and when the oppression and violence were abated by changes in law and in custom, what remained was the fact that blacks and whites actually KNOW each other and talk to each other here.We noticed right away that we were seeing sights we never saw in the North: blue-collar workers arriving at a fast-food restaurant, sitting down together, talking and joking together, without regard for the fact that some were white and some were black. Not that everything is smooth and easy — far from it — but we’re actually talking and associating across racial lines in ways that never happened in the northern city where we lived before. Since we moved east for the exact purpose of making sure that our children would grow up actually knowing people of other races, as a natural part of their lives, my wife and I knew that we were home, and we have no desire to leave. Perfect climate for us, and the best-integrated society in America, where you can raise children without the ignorance that fosters suspicion.

Is the USA a part of North America or South America?

This is an interesting question in the following sense. People from the United States, Canada, and most of Europe consider the United States to be part of North America, and that United States citizens are “Americans.” However, the viewpoint of much of Latin America is very different on this subject. For example, where I currently live in South America, in primary school and secondary school, kids are taught that the SIX (not seven) continents are Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, Antarctica, and America. Here, kids learn that “America” is one continent. And this feeling carries over into adulthood in much of Latin America. Here, most people considers themselves to be “American” (in Spanish of course) because people here are from the American continent. There is even some cultural resentment among some Latin people here that United-States-ians have appropriated the name “American” for themselves. In fact, to say “American” in Latin American Spanish the absolutely correct term is “estadounidense” which literally translates into English as “United-States-ian.” Many Americans travelling in the Americas incorrectly say in Spanish that they are “Americanos.” Nope, sorry. The correct term here in Latin American is “estadounidense.”

Why did the Red Scare occur in the USA and not somewhere like West Germany?

During the 1950’s and 1960’s Germany and Western Europe really feared communist invasion. There most surely was a ‘Red Scare’ and it was on the top of te agenda for most Western European governments. Almost all European countries were NATO members and had conscription up until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.As insurance of instant mobilization and getting assistance if an invasion came. The division of Germany began in 1945 and Berlin was divided by a wall from 1961 to 1989. East Germany was the half of Germany that was a communist state. East Germany had the biggest standing army in Europe and was supported by Soviet troops. West-Berlin was known as the ‘Flashpoint’ because it would be the first place to go due to it being inside the Soviet zone and divided into two sectors East and West.There was ‘berufsverbot’ in West-Germany where anyone discovered to have socialist or communist sympathies could not work in the state sector or as a teacher. In Germany during the 1970s there were far left extremist anti-fascist terrorist groups in Germany like Baader Meinhoff Group also known as the Red Army Faction (RAF.) These groups were trained and supplied by East Germany and operating in West Germany. Communist spies infiltrated the West German government as high up as aids to the West German chancellor Willy Brandt. There was no real ‘witch hunting’ in Europe similar to ‘The House Un-American Activities Committee’ (HUAC) which was created in the USA 1938 and abolished in 1975. Where people were imprisoned or blacklisted from working. However, after WW2 the fear in the West was very real and many countries like Britain used billions to maintain a military presence against the Red Menace while a large percentage of the British population were still living in slums. At least East Germany made it a priority to give the workers decent living conditions.

If war broke out between North Korea and NATO, who would Russia back?

NATO would not go to war with the DPRK, its out of their area of operations. However, a number of NATO member and partner nations would be involved directly (e.g. NATO Members - CAN, USA, GBR and potentially FRA, NLD, BEL, GRE and TUR; NATO partners - AUS, NZL, JAP and KOR).Your question therefore should be "would Russia back the DPRK or the Allies in a conflict on the Korean Peninsula?" The answer to that is "neither initially." Russia, like all nations act in their own self interest. A collapsing DPRK would result in socio-economic upheaval on their borders (mass refugees, chaos, starvation and famine, disease, etc) and could risk a wider war including weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological and nuclear). WMD are not clean weapons, meaning the Russians would have to deal with the aftermath (fallout, contamination, disease, etc). So, its in their interest to maintain the status quo or help the DPRK to devolve peacefully like the DDR in '89. Neither is really a good long-term strategy.In any case, Russia would likely initially observe the conflict, only joining the Allies once DPRK collapse was assured; very much like they did in WWII against the Japanese. They would join the fight to protect their borders and guarantee a seat at the post conflict table of nations helping to re-unify and rebuild Korea. It is a political game they've played since the Tsars and they are good at it.If however, the DPRK appeared to be winning, the Russians would likely not join the conflict directly. A surviving DPRK would leave the status quo intact so their borders would be generally secure. They would however, likely increase military sales and aid to the DPRK for three reasons. First, increased sales or transfer of military equipment and weapons enhances their standing with the surviving government. This is geopolitically important with regard to Russian and Chinese socio-economic and political influence in the far east. Second, Russian military sales come with strings; once in place, the DPRK would have to buy from the source leaving Russian options to effectively shut their operations down by withholding supplies and parts. Finally, a post conflict DPRK military would be decimated resulting massive requirements for everything from bullets to tanks, bombs, aircraft, vessels and even infrastructure to house and maintain them. In other words, lots of money to be made.Again, its a purely political game and they (Russia) is good at it.