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 Profmo Affair was a political scandal that occurred in 1963 when Conservative MP, John Profumo, was accused of having an affair with Russian model, Christene Keeler. The Daily Express broke the story in an indirect way, due to the libel law preventing them from doing so directly. The newspaper published a photo of Keeler, who was missing at the time, on the front page, next to an article reporting that John Profumo had resigned as Secretary Of State For War. This was an attempt to get the people reading the newspaper to put the pieces together and come up with a conclusion. In March 1963, when rumours were being spread about Profumo’s relationship with Keeler, he was summoned to questioning by parliament.
How far do sources 2 and 3 challenge the view given in source 1 that the officers commanding the British Army in the Crimean War were unfit for the position? Sources 2 and 3 both agree with each other as they are giving a similar impression that the officers commanding the British Army were being unfairly criticised during the Crimean War. On the other hand, Source 1 suggests that the commanders of the British Army during the Crimean War were unfit for position. Source 2 was part of a judges summing case supporting the Earl of Cardigan (who had commanded the Light Brigade at Balaclava). The source states that any criticism of Cardigan should be ‘generous and sympathetic’ and gives the impression that he was a courageous officer as the judge stated ‘not one that should seek to cast a stain upon his courage and his personal honour as an officer’.
Every past event is not just the text in books, there probably would never be a completed record. Sometimes, the so called “official records” could be just a small part of the fact or fake. So history, rather than retelling story from the documents, is the act of selecting, analyzing, and drawing a relatively accurate portrayal of the fact. I guess this is the main idea that the authors are trying to make for us, and this is also the case with Silas Deane's life and death. Silas Deane was a minor American diplomat to France.
(Doc.3) Document 6 shows the view of a prime minister, Francesco Crispi, appealing to the Italian Senate. He believes that female participation in suffrage would cause social, and possibly political, disorder in society. But, his view is slightly biased because he may only be against woman’s suffrage, in this speech, because he wants to appeal to the Senate, who the majority would most likely be against women’s suffrage. (Doc.6) Document 11 also serves to be against women’s suffrage, and shows that Count Reventlow believes women are not made to make decisions; instead they should be standing by their men as support. (Doc.11) Then, the last document with similar views would be document 12, in which a French Senatorial Commission speaker comments that women are not fit for the ballots and should solely remain as the mothers and wives of society, and nothing more.
How Far do sources B and E challenge what Lord Raglan says in source G in reply to Queen Victoria’s letter? On the whole sources B and E are predominantly in disagreement with Lord Raglan’s letter addressing Queen Victoria. Lord Raglan accepts in his letter that despite being ‘occupied’ in his endeavour to ‘provide for the various wants of your majesty’s troops’ there is a level of ‘inefficiency’ amongst his staff, which he attributes to the suffering of the soldiers. Because this letter is being sent to Queen Victoria who is the most senior authority in Britain, Lord Raglan will want to deflect any blame for the soldier’s suffering by shifting the blame onto his staff and covering his tracks by claiming he has been occupied attending
Barbarian Nurseries After reading the Barbarian Nurseries I was able to pull out a few conclusions Hector Tobar wanted us to draw at the end of the book. At the end of the novel the conclusion that stood out to me the most was how people should not jump to a conclusion. I saw this as a conclusion Tobar wanted his readers to see when Araceli was wrongly accused of kidnapping. In the Barbarian Nurseries Hector Tobar argues that people should not jump to conclusions, because something bad could happen to the wrong person. Araceli was a maid for Scott and Maureen Torres-Thompson.
Soviet wanted United States to adopt their declaration on human rights. United States rejected their request after much debate. Yet once again the soviet sent another request by changing the amendment’s wording. Her purpose was to establish the declaration of human right. Paragraph 3: “The first two paragraphs of the amendment to article 3 deal with the question of minorities, which committee 3 decided required further study, and has recommended, in a separate resolution, their reference to the Economic and Social Council and the Human Rights Commission.” She uses polysendeton by using “and”.
Soon after, a man, John Dean was subpoenaed and was to testify. Dean did not approve of President Nixon’s actions and admitted that he even discussed cover-up of the scandal with him. The Senate Watergate committee had been notified by Alexander Butterfield that there were taping devices in the Oval room in the White House (U-S-history.com). The Senate finally got their lead on the real evidence of what could solve the scandal, but the President refused to hand over the
Samantha Dunbar Ms. Kitchens AP language and composition 17 November 2014 Letter from jail Lindsay, I do not deny that what I did was wrong, However, I also do not deny that it was not morally correct. If anyone was in the wrong here it was the NSA. Could you imagine if the NSA was eavesdropping in on your phone calls? I do not imagine that you would be to please to hear that. All I did was take documents, top secret documents, and make them available to the public.