However the way it does document this blame is in a very astute manner, as the source uses phrases such as hastily attached and it was alleged. This shows that the editor of The Illustrated London News was a supporter of Nolan and possibly wasn’t a great supporter of the higher command in the British army. Similarly source 2 appears to deflect the blame off Captain Nolan but in this source we are given a clear idea of who is thought to be at fault for the failings of the Charge of the Light Brigade. The source is clear about whom it feels is responsible as it clear as day states “Lucan was to blame”, it backs this up by saying as a senior officer Lucan should not have been influenced by Nolan’s eager spirit. Source 2 offers very little evidence to say that the disaster wasn’t Captain Nolan’s fault other than blaming Lucan for acting according to the captain’s enthusiasm.
Was the League of Nations a failure? The League of Nations is thought to be a failure by many, because of hard irony and limitation on military might. The League accomplished very little in stopping wars and conflicts while having very little power. Often they just shook fists at ruthless, evil dictators such as Germany’s Adolf Hitler and his conquests, without intervening. Another Major flaw was that “the country, whose president, Woodrow Wilson, had dreamt up the idea of the League - America -, refused to join it.” The league’s most powerful militaries Britain and France not only suffered casualties, but also economically as they were greatly in debt to the United States.
This shows a reluctance to fight another war – a reluctance that would have undoubtedly been heightened by Churchill’s speech which looked to provoke hostilities. The US secretary of Commerce, Henry Wallace, was appalled by Churchill’s speech and subsequently claimed that Russia was a “force that cannot be handled successfully by a ‘get tough with Russia’ policy” because he advocated the need for peace and
When Blair resigned, Brown was said to enjoy similar power, at least when he still enjoyed popularity. Cameron on the other hand would expect less of this as he had entered a coalition from the very beginning, which suggests that the cabinet is naturally divided. With different ideologies, it is inevitable that there will be times of disagreements, which suggests that he would not be able to dictate
His condition was so bad he was said to have not even recognized the birth of his own son, Edward, which is a very proud moment for a king in the middle ages. Henry being in this catatonic state was no fit way to rule a kingdom. This meant that being in cable to rule he would leave his kingdom in the hands of another. A good king needs to be inspirational and a strong figurehead of parliament. He is supposed to have the most control, able to keep his people in line however due to his state he was not able to accomplish any of these necessary attributions of a king, therefore this would help contribute to the civil war outbreak, as a weak character in the position of a king isn’t good.
Many historians consider Lord Palmerstone to be influential in his dealings with foreign powers, both as Foreign Secretary as well as Prime Minister and greatly favoured the controversial Liberal Interventionist policies, in which Britain helps although does not get directly involved, for example, the sending of arms to the King of Sicily in order that they could protect themselves from the Austrians. This British led policy of supporting one side or the other yet not actually doing anything, led to the British Government under Lord Palmerstone being regarded with suspicion by the major European powers except, ironically, by the Republic of France (who were Britain’s traditional enemies). He first stood for Parliament in February 1806 in the Cambridge University constituency although was easily defeated. However, he was elected to Parliament in November after winning the Horsham election, although this only lasted until January 1807 when he was unseated. His time in the political wilderness however was short-lived as he was offered the post of Junior Lord of the Admiralty thank to patronage by both Lord Chichester and Lord Malmesbury.
This is associated with Internalisation (conforming because you have accepted a group’s views and they now fit with your own beliefs). This type of conformity can occur with majority or minority influence, but it is most likely to happen when: • The right course of action is clear, there isn’t one obvious right answer • The situation is a crisis, you need to make a fast decision (both of these are evident when following a crowd who claim to be fleeing from a disaster, for example) • We believe the others to be experts; if we think the people we are conforming to “know what they are talking about” we are more likely to conform to their beliefs. Social Impact Theory This is a theory developed by Latané to explain why people conform in some situations but not others. The key principles of this explanation are: • Number – A
Since 1949 historians had never came to a same conclusion and strongly disagreed about Chamberlain’s policy to satisfy Hitler’s appeasement. There have been two main views about it. One of them was that Chamberlain was foolish and didn’t understand what Hitler actually wanted to do. They said that Chamberlain was identifying Hitler as a reasonable person and he was wrong by doing this. The other point of view stated that it was an easy Choice to criticise Chamberlain.
Changez wants the american to know the whole story but from his point of view because if he said the real things that other people may have said, he may not get his point across. How does Changez’s perception of home and america change? Changez’s perception of home changes throughout the story in that it becomes more desirable to him. As the story progresses changes finds that he starts to dislike america - not america itself but rather its symbolism Changez perceives that behind her external ‘brilliance,’ there is something ‘broken’ in Erica. What does the reveal about the relationship of these two characters, and about changez’s view of america?
The purpose of this extract is to convey the various feelings experienced by someone who has experienced war to someone who has not. These emotions are vivid, but can be very difficult to understand by someone who has not witnessed war first hand. They are also contradictory, and he wants us to see that there are two sides to it. And we are swept up as O'Brien goes into the depths of the imagery of war, not only negatively but positively as well. He approaches war in a way to allow us readers-see that war is not only a battle that is typically seen by most, but an experience in which one is completely aware of their