Ella Pope 1 Why did the 1905 Revolution fail? (25 marks) The unrest in 1905 led to some changes in Russia, for example the introduction of Dumas. However in terms of a revolution it did ultimately fail for one of the main reasons that there was little coordination between the opposition groups and there was not a significant amount of change in Russia as autocracy still remained. One reason why the 1905 revolution failed was due to the loyalty of the army. Despite the fact there was mutinies like on the battleship Potemkin there was not enough of them to have a serious effect.
Although it was included and passed by the members of the organization, the UN was conceived as a tool for peace, and most of the countries expected from the UN peacekeeping and not peacemaking. The experience of the Second World War (an experience traumatic enough as to end in the creation of the UN itself, is the consequence why countries had "a moralistic reluctance" to the use of force. A fear to intervention that was learn in the hard way by the international community after experiences like Srebrenica, "one of the darkest pages in the history of humanity" according the former UN Secretary General, Kofi Anan. The reluctance of the use of force ended officially with the UN Millennium Summit when the world recognized the responsibility to protect as a central duty of the international community. It was then when the west realized that it had, through the UN resolutions legitimate force and good reputation, the monopoly of violence.
By myself not using my chain of command I have not set a good example to the lower enlisted below myself and did not show a good example as a jr. none commissioned officer. As a team leader I am expected to to uphold a higher standerd because I have shown that I am capable of beind in charger of soldiers and to be able to lead them in traing as well as in the time of war. I expect my soldiers to use there chain of command to report any issue they may have.
If it is for selfish, self-serving motives, or to serve in an undeserved, destructive way for others, it is not justified. In the political arena and on a governmental level there is no justification to tell a white lie. When lies are told to a nation the government undermines the society. The lies that are being told by the government can’t constitute as white lies because they are dealing with matters of great magnitude. In the reading “Lies” by John Crawford we read the story of a soldier who is back to war after a leave and he is not only lying to other solders but he is lying to himself.
The other image was of the hungry, frozen, and naked men who suffered at Valley Forge. The men who jumped to action because of Paul Revere’s message were short term soldiers. These soldiers did not attach themselves to the revolutionary cause with selfless devotion. Short term soldiers, described by George Washington in Chapter 7 of our text book, had “such an unconquerable desire of returning to their respective homes.” They deserted George Washington and went back
This is one thing many military leaders wanted to forget because the P.O.W. is a negative in the eyes of the country. A soldier is supposed to look like a figure that would never fall to the enemy, but, a P.O.W. is ultimately depending on the enemy for survival. Therefore, this is a huge negative for what the U.S. stands for.
A soldier’s suggestion may be because it is the best for them. Non-commissioned Officers truly do not know enough of what a soldiers needs are. This is not to be taken as a sign of disrespect but to be taken how things can be taken by different service members reactions and express themselves should not always be taken as disrespect but as how the member conducts them self. The online dictionary defines disrespect as an expression of lack of respect and a manner that is generally disrespectful and contemptuous. I define disrespect as putting one down verbally, physical and or emotionally.
While it is true that the commander chief is able to get away with misbehaver. Military personal has been warned not to criticize the chief. In fact the various branches have been reaming troops that they can be prosecuted for publicly condemning their chief and in fact there are cases pending on this very matter. In a way, this seems unfair and there is a debate as to whether or not they should be allowed to criticize the president. But that debate is only among civilians who do not understand military life.
The personality of Nicholas II contributed to his downfall in 1917. Nicholas II did not have the personal attributes necessary to bring Russia effectively out of its problems: he was shy and quiet, and easily led. He was not charismatic and this did nothing more to endear him to the people of Russia once they had started to once again lose faith in him after the 1905 revolution. The Memoirs of Count Witte in 1912 and the diary of the Tsars sister shows these attributes to be correct, both agreeing the Tsar is ‘not unintelligent’ and ‘he means well’ however he was ‘trained as a soldier’ and seemed ‘incapable of steering the ship of state into a quiet harbour’ overall condemning Nicholas II unfit to rule; however not completely blaming him for this lack of characteristic, and rather the way he was brought up as a soldier instead of a leader. This upbringing was a
The King, however, neglected to mention this to his Parliament who became understandably confused and wary due to the carelessness of James and his lack of communication. Discussion at the Parliament then moved to domestic grievances; most importantly the issue of monopolies, which were bitterly opposed by the vast majority of Parliamentarians. Here James and the Commons worked in unison, a rare event at this time. The revival of impeachment by Coke and Cranfield to remove Bacon, who was heavily involved with monopolies, was allowed by James as he was eager to maintain the positive relations he was enjoying with his Parliament. James and the Commons