How far di Sources X and Y challenge Source W about the effective supplying of the army? William Russell, in source W, writes about the food supplies to the army, and how the army were being sufficiently fed and that perhaps the food shortages suggestions were supposedly untrue. Its views definitely differ from those shown in sources Y and W where they people talk about the lack of supplies of both food, and clothing, which they blame mostly down to the weather conditions. Source Y, which is a letter home from a doctor at the Crimea says the last two weeks supplies have been unable to reach the army which he blames for the ‘bad weather’. Source Y comes from a journal written by an officer in the Heavy Brigade.
One of the main reasons for this opposition was the economic and social hardships Russia was going through particularly in the months after the October revolution. Food shortages plagued Russia due to problems of distribution, problems of inflation and problems of production. The railway system in Russia had virtually collapsed. This meant that food supplies or any other necessary supplies couldn’t be distributed efficiently around Russia which caused massive food shortages. Food shortages were a key problem in Russia as it meant the people were starving and desperate.
In 1605-1612, the colonists experienced the longest drought (Doc B). Because of the lack of rain, they weren’t able to grow crops (Doc B). The seasons also caused diseases to spread (Doc E). The occupations of the colonists contributed to the colonist dying. They brought gentlemen, rich men that didn’t work with their hands, and they wanted other people to build their houses and hunt for their food (Doc C).
Therefore, lack of care led to his housing policy to be unsuccessful and proving that live of the peasants under Khrushchev did not improve. Another reason was the financial cost of competing in the Cold War proved a barrier to the successful implementation of Khrushchev housing policy. So, he invested more in the Cold War than the housing programme. Stalin’s lack of care on peasants and their living conditions was very similar to Nikita Khrushchev although there was a lack of care for different reasons. Stalin was more focused on Five Year Plans
* Lost terriorty in Poland & Western Russia – PG were blamed for losses just like the Tsar was when took charge. * War made finical problems – Inflation still a problem and food shortages were high. * Russia expected these things to be stored out – PG short-lived because they were full of empty promises. Promised land reform to the peasants ( made up a large amount of the population , Bolshevik priority was to keep them on their side) no action was taken * Couldn’t guarantee food supplies as because soviet controlled the railways. * Political reform also promised political reform in an attempt to stop the revolutionaries but no action was taken.
Adversity such as starvation, disease, and conflicts with the Indians awaited them. When the colonists first arrived, their food supply ran out, and they believed that the Indians would help them. However, they did not because they were they were angered by the actions of Francis West’s actions while he was trying to trade corn with the Patawomeke Indians. (Document D) The colonists soon realized that they would need to grow their own crops in order to endure; however, they were soon faced with what the settlers called “starving time.” During the winter of 1609 through 1610, Jamestown was faced with a drought. (Document B) Without water, the crops were unable to grow which led to hunger, starvation, and death.
Source E on the other hand accuses the management of ‘neglect’ towards the soldiers which completely challenges Raglan’s claims. Lord Raglan claims he feels ‘every reason to be satisfied’ but source E illustrates an unflattering picture of the army’s management. Both sources E and B present a negative picture of the situation in Crimea, they also suggest a reason for the suffering of the British soldiers relates to a lack of supplies as source E
He remembers that the ‘beaches were full of troops’ and he just had to ‘dig in and wait’. The soldier had ‘just a few months with a rifle and no proper field training’. This tells us how ill-prepared many of the soldiers being saved from Dunkirk were, contrasting with the prepared Germans and their effective military technique, Blitzkrieg. Ivan Daunt comes to the interpretation that Dunkirk was a defeat because he believes that the B.E.F was ill equipped while the Germans had ‘equipment and organisation’. The view that the B.E.F was ill equipped and unprepared contrasts with the view of Winston Churchill in Source B7, who believes Dunkirk was a success achieved by ‘valour’, ‘perseverance’, ‘perfect discipline’, ‘faultless service’, ‘resource’ and ‘skill’.
When the United States joined the Allied fight with Europe against Germany during World War I in April 1917, American troops were inadequately prepared for battle. Morale was low because the various troops did not see a reason to fight on the ground in Europe for France and Britain’s battles against Germany. The soldiers faced personal issues such as racism and religious persecution, which lowered their morale even more. The majority of American troops drafted during World War I, were never put on active duty, due to injuries, illnesses, or illiteracy. Those that were eligible, did not receive proper training and lived in squalid camps.
Subsequently, the settlement became highly dysfunctional since the English gentleman refused to do work that was necessary to the colonies survival. This difference in social status was one of the many problems faced by the Jamestown colony. These setbacks included disease, starvation, massive death rates, and the pending relationship with the Powhatan Native Americans. The Powhatan were initially friendly to the colonists and gave them food, but drought ended the Powhatans generosity. The colonists attacked the Powhatan to procure food and relations never recovered afterwards.