S7 also highlights the importance of the conscription crisis, which can be argued to be a result of British ignorance, or the manipulation and stirring up by the revolutionary party Sinn Fein which also had a key role in the conflict. Finally it can also be argued that other factors were involved, which allowed the Irish conflict to be triggered, such as the failure of Home Rule and the breakdown of the IPP particularly during the Ulster Crisis, and after the Easter Rebellion of 1914. To an extent, it can be argued that the main cause of the Anglo-Irish conflict of 1919-21 was nationalist extremism. Hepburn asses that 'their [extremists] first opportunity' arose during the Ulster Crisis, in events such as the Larne gun-running incident April 1914, which ultimately resulted a race between extreme nationalists and Ulster Unionists to become armed . The source describes how the extremists then spiralled
Although German signed the Treaty of Versailles, much to the disgrace of many Germans, admitting they were to blame it is undeniable that aggressive German foreign policy had a lot to do with the outbreak of war in Europe in 1914, but this neglects other factors that may have additionally added to the tensions leading up to the war. Many historians debate whether it was mainly Germany to blame or whether other dominant powers led them into a no-win situation. Source V, ‘Modern Germany’ by Volker Berghahn suggests that the Kaiser no longer saw foreign policy and civil war as separate issues and that they were now seen to entwine together. The mention of the 1913 Army bill that had aggravated many within the German society due to the growing distress over money and the status quo within the German political establishment, the argument over the tax burdens grew with every bill passed. These tensions started to disrupt their dual alliance with Austria-Hungary, even with a ‘Blank Cheque’ being given to them.
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.
Additionally there were developments that occurred without war, which illustrates that involvement in war was not the only cause for change. Therefore war was an important catalyst and factor to significant changes but was not the sole cause of change. The war that caused most change was Word War One due to its role in the February revolution in 1917 and the fall of the provisional government in the October revolution. The defeats of the war dwindled support from liberals and Octobrists for the Tsarist regime, which was further worsened by criticism from organisations including the Central War Industries committee and the union of Zemstva. This formed support and reason for the Progressive Bloc.
The first one is that our rights are not well enough protected. If we had a written constitution with a proper Bill of Rights, as they have in America, we would feel safer and more sure that we would be protected from governments that wish to take too much power. We have lost many of our rights in the UK and this is because we do not have a written Bill of Rights and because government and Parliament have too much uncontrolled power. Another argument is that the people of the UK would feel more patriotic and identify more with politics if there was a written and codified constitution as they have in the USA. Every American citizen knows about their constitution and they are proud of it.
Specifically his Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs in section three is arguably one of the biggest factors that led to American support to the Revolutionary War. One of the reasons why this section of Common Sense was so influential is due to Thomas Paine’s use of varied rhetorical devices in the first few pages. Beginning in paragraphs one and two, Paine’s voice is almost condescending as he points out that so much has been written on the affairs and struggles of England and America, but none of it has been effective in promoting change. With this, he claims that only the king himself has any sort of influence. Paine adds in powerful quotations, “They will last my time,” from the king to emphasize his point that the king has all of the influence and is ready to do what he wants with it (Paragraph 3).
Although there was changed tactics and a greater push from suffrage organisations to achieve the vote, it in some cases in fact alienated politicians and the public. As source 13 states “we have been told that we cannot have the same political rights which men have won unless we convert the whole country to our side”. This source being written by Emmeline Pankhurst means it very useful as it shows how people directly involved felt about what the suffrage movement had achieved, and from the implications of this source that was very little. If the leader of the WSPU claims herself that the movement is not making ‘substantial progress’ then it is very difficult to argue against this. They were beginning to make headway however this was still a long way to go before the movement had made substantial enough progress to gain the
Although the Treaty of Versailles can be said to have has the most substantial impact on the political and economic stability of Germany, the arguments against its influence suggest that other factors were more important. For example, though the treaty can be said to have caused bad feeling in the country and hyperinflation, there were a number of problems with the constitution that meant that the Government became unpopular, sparking a number of revolts. In opposition to the sentiment expressed in the question, one factor that affected political stability of the Weimar republic was the fact that it was ruled by a coalition Government. Clauses of the constitution meant that elections were held using proportional representation. As a result, a clear majority of one party over the remaining twenty-seven was never a result, and so the country, from the time the Constitution was drawn up, was governed by coalitions.
The Federalist Papers written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay were influential in spurring the American people on to the idea of a stronger central government. The major Anti-Federalists were Patrick Henry and Sam Adams, who vehemently opposed a new Constitution being ratified until the Bill of Rights was introduced. All in all the Anti-Federalist argument was weakly put together and failed to convince the public to stick with a revised version of the Articles of Confederation. All of these various factors contributed to the new Constitution because of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation the strengths of the new Constitution and the Federalists versus Anti-Federalists debate. Though we no longer go by the Articles of Confederation in today’s government this essay shows the many ways it was a major building block in today’s
One of the numerous examples was David McCullough's biography of Harry Truman and Charles Dickens's Oliver Twist. Of course these books are two different text and you wouldn't read them the same way. The biography has text which is made for you to believe every word. If David decide to put false statements about Harry Truman, not only would his biography be invalid; it would also lose its genre as a biography. While in Dickens's Oliver Twist we know that what were reading isn't entirely true.