“The outbreak of war in Europe in 1914 was due to an aggressive foreign policy which had been waged since c.1900”. How far do you agree with this opinion? Explain your answer using sources V, W and X and your own knowledge relating to the controversy. The implication that Germany’s use of an aggressive foreign policy led to the outbreak of the First World War is an extremely controversial topic, and has ultimately caused great debates amongst historians. Fischer, the provoker of this controversy, expresses this concept of German aggression by stating that since c.1900 Germany planned, and then was able to execute a war, due to their aggressive weltpolitik; based purely on expansionism.
Propaganda and foreign intervention helped to portray the Soviet leadership as ‘leaders of a national liberation struggle against foreign imperialists’[3] and this won them support from the masses whilst the Whites reliance on foreign aid rendered them vulnerable if such aid was to be withdrawn. Final, yet equally crucial factors in
Explain how far the views in source B differ from those in source A in relation to Stalin. (12 marks.) The views in source B differ to those in source A through many different reasons. For example, Source B is very complimentary toward Stalin, whereas source A is uncomplimentary. Source B lists a range of qualities that would be considered flattering such as ‘knowledge’ and ‘intelligence.’ Also it states that Stalin is ‘extraordinarily like Lenin.’ By comparing Stalin to Lenin – a man who was seen as ‘god like’ and was a great revolutionary hero, it suggests that influence Stalin had on people.
Both Tsars were thoroughly progressive, bringing reform to Russian bureaucracies and institutions that had slowly stagnated. In addition, both Ivan IV and Peter I succeeded in centralizing authority around the monarchy. Indeed, Peter the Great professed himself to be an admirer of Ivan’s. But the common perception of Ivan the Terrible’s rule as truly “terrible” in comparison to Peter’s is not without base. The latter half of Ivan IV’s reign would be characterized by a bloody reign of terror by the dreaded oprichnik and drawn out military failures in the Baltic.
Critics such as Bruce Grant in his book, The Captive and the Gift, claim that “captivity is willingly given” (Grant, 114), however this is only true of Russian men. Although Grant recognizes that the interaction between male and female reflects the imbalance between gendered categories, as women are rendered mere objects in the interchange between men, he fails to acknowledge the greater cultural implications of such male control. In both the romantic relationships between Pechorin and Bela and the Captive and the Circassian maiden, which is paralleled by the cultural oppression of the Russians over the Caucasians, one category forcefully oppresses the other. Each nationality appears to associate with a gender; Russia assumes a masculine identity, whereas the Caucasus adopts a feminized role. The cultural perception that male categories are justified in dominating female categories, allows the masculinized Russia to justify the domination of the feminized Caucasus.
King uses better emotional appeals so that his audience feels compelled to his cause, King also uses figurative language to create a powerful tone that provides his essay with a meaningful effect; while Thoreau uses more ethos and common logic. Martin Luther King Jr.’s essay is more effective than Thoreau’s essay because King uses better argumentative devices, shares common ground with his audience, acknowledges his opposition, and clearly states his point of view; whereas, Thoreau gives his opinion in an unclear way, and expresses himself in a rather rustic manner. In Martin Luther King, Jr.’s letter “Letter From Birmingham Jail” he clearly specifies his audience with the major point of his arguments, unlike Thoreau where in his essay his switches his main opinion throughout the whole essay. In his essay King, justifies civil disobedience and
Source 9 written by Michael Lynch adopts both prospective of USSR expansionism and also US economic interests, however Lynch also emphasises misjudgement and misperceptions which contribute to the conflict conceived at Cold War. Collectively the three sources contributed factors which explain the developments of the cold war; throughout this essay you will find that soviet expansionism was a determining factor to the escalation at the Cold War. Wolfson (S7) takes a Russian expansionist prospective, which emphasis that confrontation was caused by Russian expansionist tendencies, placing an emphasis on the USSR, labelling them as an aggressive country, which had “ambitious aims of consolidating communist control”. Morris (S8) is in accordance with this Russian expansionist prospective as the aggressive tendencies contributed to the US taking a dollar imperialist stance to “prevent the spread of communism”. From this prospective Russian expansionism was a key factor in the developments of the cold war.
The major similarity of WWI and WWII to me is that both were caused by countries trying to with the status quo in the international system. In both cases, the war came about because countries wanted more power than it had in the international system at the time. Even though WWI and WWII were two separate wars and different outcomes, because of their similarities of causes, many
Public opinion also plays a statistical importance on the outlook on the wars and is also observed from an analytical position. The informative paper is meant to compare and contrast the difference in personality’s presidents’ share during a period of war. Cases studied are meant to guide and pave a road in understanding the rational of executive leaders and the
‘The outbreak of War in 1914 was due to an aggressive German foreign policy which had been waged since 1900’ Use source on page 46. The notion that Germany played a pivotal part in the outbreak of war in Europe in 1914 is expressed by all three sources, although the belief that it was their aggressive foreign policy which carried the greatest responsibility is voiced especially in Source W. Here David Blackbourn argues that Germany’s naval expansion was highly responsible for increasing international tension. Source V also states that Germany’s foreign policy was to blame for the outbreak of war, focusing on the army’s responsibility. However whilst Source X does suggest foreign policy was involved in the creation of WW1, it challenges the argument to the greatest extent, instead arguing that the Balkans played a crucial part in emergence of war. It can be argued that whilst German foreign policy was a highly significant factor in the outbreak of war, it is important to remember there were many other vital factors, especially the roles of other nations which played a more important role in the outbreak of war.