This was evidently a great success as shortly after Napoleon was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. This defeat, and the ending of continuous years of war, undoubtedly formed the basis of Castlereagh’s policies as his time as Foreign Minister. Castlereagh foreign policy was geared towards sustaining peace that Europe had not experienced in quite some time. Because of this, his foreign policy was largely centred on trying to appease and creating allies and alliances to ensure greater stability in Europe. Unlike Castlereagh, Canning came to office as Foreign Minister in 1822 to 1827 and was largely able to experience the stability of peacetime among Europe.
The Defeat of the Treaty of Versailles It was not the power of the opposition forces, liberal or conservative, of the U.S. that led to the final defeat of the Treaty of Versailles, but rather the political ignorance, inability and inflexibility of the President, Woodrow Wilson. With the surrender of Germany after WW1, it presented many different ways to create peace. Wilson in 1918 offered his plans for peace in the "Fourteen Points", the most important of which he believed was Article X, the League of Nations. One year later, Wilson led the Paris Peace Conference at Versailles to reach an international pact that included the points. However, the U.S. was never to sign the treaty or join the League of Nations Woodrow Wilson's ideas for peace were well rooted in thought, but in politically applying his ideas, he made unchangeable mistakes.
Palmer writes about how Wolsey successfully brought about peace between England and France in 1514, and that he engineered the universal peace of London in 1518. Wolsey also planned the Field of the Cloth of Gold in 1520 and negotiated peace between the Empire and France at Calais in 1521. Wolsey’s peaceful approach also benefitted England in that it reduced costs at a time when the country could not afford another war, and successfully made England a major ‘player’ in Europe, which was a desire of Henry’s. Another point in support of the view that the successes in foreign policy outweighed the failures is that Wolsey was sly and flexible in his diplomacy. We can see this in source 4, which shows us how Wolsey used the
Jefferson supported ideas that were beneficial to the nation even if he had to compromise with the Federalists which caused him to be seen as a political compromiser. Morton Borden thinks Jefferson was a political compromiser because he made decisions that benefited the nation even though his Republican beliefs disapproved them. Borden states Jefferson’s presidency was marked by Federalist policies which encouraged the growth of central power. More specifically, Jefferson believed the Louisiana Purchase Treaty would greatly benefit the nation, but the constitution didn’t allow such acquisition of foreign territory. Jefferson being a strict constructionist approved the purchase, even though it went against his belief of strict construction, because he knew it would increase federal power and be a giant step towards democracy.
Steven Rohan 3/6/12 AP US History Mr. Carbone Thematic on Warren Harding Under Warren Harding, the United States saw a return to policies that existed before the Great War which was called a “return to normalcy.” However, a return to the former policies of republicans may have not been the best thing for the United States, who was committed to the League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles under Woodrow Wilson. The economic, political and social policies of the Harding Administration favored big business, high tariff and no European intervention, very similar to republicans such as Roosevelt and Taft.
Furthermore, the nationalist’s opinion in Prussia and the other German states encouraged Prussia mobilisation on French border and this was a fear for France as they feared a war against 2 great powers. From the armistice, France formed a peaceful move and therefore formed a powerful but calm balance. In terms of the previous powerful European powers, Russia was already defeated from the Crimean war but Prussia, another powerful power also helped balance Austria and France as Prussia was not interested in
How stable was the Weimar Republic 1924-29 The real increase in prosperity experienced by many, and the cultural vitality of the period, gave support to the view that these years were indeed the ‘golden years’. However, historians have generally tended to question this stability because it was in fact limited in scope therefore these years could be seen as ‘deceptive stability’ also. Any disruption to the world’s trade or finance markets was bound to have a particularly damaging effect on the uncertain German economy. In reality, the middle years of the Weimar Republic were stable only in comparison with the other periods before and after. Weimar’s condition suggests that the fundamental problems inherited from war and the crisis has not been resolved.
How far do Sources 1, 2 and 3 suggest that Henry was successful in becoming Arbiter of Europe in the years 1514-1522? Both source 1 and source 2 suggest that Henry was successful in becoming Arbiter of Europe as they illustrate him giving England power and success although Source 2 highlights Wolsey’s success rather than Henry’s, however, source 3 suggests that Henry was very unsuccessful at becoming Arbiter and made conflicts between countries even worse. Source 1 suggests that Henry was completely successful in his role as Arbiter of Europe. ‘If not the equal of mighty France and Spain, at least the makeweight that could tip the balance between them.’ shows that England took a central position within the countries and had the power to keep them at peace which was the aim of Henry’s role. ‘… made provision for perpetual peace in Europe.’ suggests that there will be an on going peace in Europe which means that Henry was very successful in his role.
It was a reversal from post-World War I (WWI) isolationism and generated long-lasting relations with other nations. The Marshall Plan was founded on President Woodrow Wilson’s ideas of multilateralism1 or international cooperation in economic and diplomatic affairs. Economic prosperity keeps peace throughout the world, and a country with a good economy has little incentive to attack other nations.2 Wilson proposed that reducing tariffs would facilitate peace.3 Since multilateralism places all countries on an equal footing in trade (in contrast to bilateralism, which favors one country over others), it encourages prosperity throughout the world. Countries with strong trading relationships are unlikely to wage war against their partners because it would damage the well-being of their citizens. However, despite Wilson's efforts, Congress rejected multilateralism because Great Britain, one of the US's strongest allies, disapproved.
English Successes in Foreign Policy in the Period 1511-1525 did not outweigh the failures. However in the years 1511-1521 did not outweigh the failures however if you include the later years, including the 2nd French war and the events that followed after 1521, foreign policy was a failure for Henry and England. Despite this the early years showed promise for Henry with the successes outweighing the failures. An example of this is demonstrated in Source 4 where it describes the Treaty of London as “The Greatest Triumph” for England during Wolsey’s time in power as the King’s right hand man, where he arranged for twenty rulers to sign a treaty of perpetual peace in 1518. The source also goes on to describe Wolsey’s successes of the Field of Cloth of Gold which most pleased Henry as well as the meeting with Charles V at Sandwich and Gravelines in 1520.