Although, she does admit even she was shocked when listening to the speech, as she explains “the line was not believable”. From this I can conclude that source one doesn’t wholly hold Churchill responsible for the 1945 election defeat, however the reliability of the source is questionable as it is bias towards the conservative party. Source two, an extract from Lord Butler’s memoirs, clearly shows opposition to not only Churchill but also the conservative party, Lord Butler for example describes Churchill’s speech as a “negative attack on the labour party” and believed that he should have instead focused on “post-war policies”. By describing Churchill’s use of the word “Gestapo” as a “strategic blunder” shows that Butler is blaming Churchill in having played a role in the defeat of the 1945 election. Although both members of the conservative party, Butler and Churchill were political enemies, this is evident when looking at the extract: “a poor third place to the concentrated exploitation of Churchill’s personality” – this is a personal attack on Churchill’s actions.
The Pilgrimage of grace failed for many reasons, however, I think it failed mainly due to poor leadership. This is because Robert Aske accepted the King’s pardon at the River Don and trusted that Henry was going to discuss their grievances in court. When they accepted the pardon they dispersed back to their homes, which meant that when Henry didn’t do anything about their grievances then it would be difficult for all the rebels to regroup. The rebellion was regionalised to the North of the country and was too far away from London go back after just coming back. M.L Bush said that ‘It was interconnected regional rebellions rather than one fluid movement’ because once the rebels had gone back to where they lived dotted across the North of England they would all have to meet up rather than go down to London in one group.
Why were the Germans so stupid to pin their hopes on such insanity? Simple, they weren't. In fact, the German plan looks pretty damn good compared their contemporaries: the French marching into Alsace-Lorraine as if at Waterloo and mercilessly mowed down by machine gun fire, the Austrian debacle in the Carpathians, and the Russian annihilation at Tannenberg by the Germans. It is all too easy to condone or condemn military thinkers after the fact. Their legacy lies less in their genius or imbecility than the unpredictable battles that are decided more by luck, contingency, and the incompetence of others rather than their own doing.
This did not happen. New thinking was required, enter Keynes! 2. What did Keynes argue in his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace? He argued that reparations forced on Germany by the Allies after WW1 were far too severe and would cripple the German economy to such an extent and would lead to socio-political problems in the future which would not be in the interest of the Allies.
Do you agree with the view presented in source 9 that critics of the second Boer war were wrong to say that the concentration camps were part of the deliberate methods of barbarism? Source 9 is trying to tell us a different side of the second Boer war; most views on the Boer war are very one sided with the view that the British dealt with the Boers brutally. This source tries to tell us that this wasn’t the case and although source 7 and 8 may not say the same thing it is useful to a historian to see another side to this war. In many respects the statement “critics of the second Boer war were wrong to say that the concentration camps were part of the deliberate methods of barbarism” is true which is clearly displayed in source9. We see this in the first sentence where it says “the Boers who flooded into them for food, shelter, clothing and, above all protection” which gives the implication that the Boers that went to these concentration camps went of their own accord because they were getting something back which they wanted.
The eventual collapse of the weimar Republic was brought upon by many factors and even though there is much disagreement among historians about the eventuall trigger, there is a general consencous on the factors leading to the downfall of German democracy. One of the views carried by historians is the Determinist view which basically states that the conditions under which the Republic was created far too extreme and the structure of the republic was serverely weakened, so much so that its downfall was inevitable. The other view was the Alternate view which while acknowledging the structual weaknesses of the Republic, states that the republic had the ability and reselience to recover, but instead lacked sufficient political leadership and a lack of determination to see through their troubles. One of the triggers of the collapse of the weiman republic was article 48 of the German constitution, which granted the president with emergency powers which allowed him to assume full control of the country. This trigger is held highly among determinist historians as one of the reasons the republic was doomed to fail from the start.
Running on Empty In his book, Running on Empty, Peterson recognizes that the hope for modifying the political incentives normally hinges on the changing and the selfish attitudes of voters who have self-interest on political process, hence engendering in vitriolic partnership (Peterson pg. 218). His proposal for the reformation of the budget processes, on the other hand, seems to be myopic, since the pork-barrel politics are disgraceful despite the fact that the reform for the budget processes was proved to be impossible. Peterson has placed a great weight concerning the present generation that is supposed by various obligations to posterity; he says that he is worried whether the social promises of today are binding on the future generation, and if it would be possible to
I previously stated death and suffering from malnutrition are bad, therefore if we can prevent famine without harming ourselves we ought to do it. Ought is a misleading term so I am going to replace it with “morally obliged”. The logical force driving Singer’s construction of his second premise is simply if an individual has the ability to prevent something bad from happening without causing comparable damage and loss of moral integrity, the individual has a duty as a human being living on earth to do
The loss of these lands was particularly daunting for Russia since they were of great economic importance. Thus, in comparison with the harsh terms of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, the Germans were in no position or right to complain about the consequences they had to face. The Treaty of Versailles was actually issued quite lenient punishments for the Germans when considering the damage wrought by the war. However, to charge Germany as being fully responsible for the Great War was also unfair and faulty. The assassination of the Archduke of Austria had prompted Austria-Hungary to retaliate by declaring war on Serbia, with the support of Germany.
Contrary to popular belief, although mediation was considered highly necessary in order to avoid a second 'Bosnia' within Europe, the supposedly humanitarian fulfilment by NATO has fundamentally failed due to a faulty legal system accompanied by disruptive strategic intentions as well as inconsistent performances during its war campaign. Accusations against states of strategically selecting humanitarian causes for economic and calculated benefits have been fairly common after the 1990’s. Current events in Libya as well as other interventions demonstrate that the international community acts with an inconsistent behaviour in addressing their respective intervention cases. It must be