Therefore I believe Lord Curzon was indeed a successful viceroy. Of the Sources, source two is intended to convey Lord Curzon’s tenure as Viceroy in the most positive manner .It lists his positive qualities that made him “India’s best ruler under the raj” . However given the nature of the British Empire in countries such as India the main priority is not always the well fair of the country. For instance many believe Britain was draining India of its wealth rather than helping develop the country, Dadabhai Naoroji's created this “drain theory”. Britain had used combination of force as well as divides and conquers to control India Up until this point.
This made his position a weak one, forcing Edward to bind himself to Godwin, as the Earl of Wessex and most powerful man in England at this time. Earl Godwin was the only member of the witan offering to support Edward. The reasons for this are unclear though it is likely Godwin felt that he could exert influence over the inexperienced King and therefore gain yet more power over England. Despite the odds being stacked against him, Edward took the English throne from the Danish royal family and established himself as a strong and wise King. Clearly his success had to be dependant on a number of weighty advantages, his growing up in Exile for example.
A major cause of WWII was the fact that both Germany and Japan felt that they did not have the amount of power that they deserved. Germany wanted to regain the power it was stripped of through The Treaty of Versailles after its loss in WWI. Japan wanted to have a large empire and to be treated as a major power. The allies resisted this because they were happy with the status quo. 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.
Asia, Europe, and the Middle East to name a few, regularly protest that America is too arrogant when talk of the USA is brought up. Europe feels the need to balance out American power, which is not a new response to the idea of America as the world's leader. In the eyes of these regions a multi-powered world is necessary to manage international affairs if only to keep America's arrogance under watchful eye. They are tired of America "speaking on behalf of the international community" because America is putting words in their mouths. A British diplomat once
What was the short term significance of the Iron Curtain speech? The iron curtain speech, made by former Great British Prime Minister Winston Churchill on the 5th March 1946, was met with both hostility and support. However it's short term impact is limited because both the USSR and the USA, the two main powers in the world at the time, already had very strong beliefs and views that would arguably require a more hard hitting event to change, after all Churchill was no longer Prime Minister so his political views carried less weight. It could be argued that the speech had more of an effect on America, who had a strong alliance with Great Britain after World War 2, and the American president, Truman, who was witness to the speech. The main effect was to crystallise Truman's desire to take a very hard line, anti-communism approach to the Soviet Union and for Stalin it symbolised an increase in opposition to the USSR.
They saw India as a country that was fit for democracy. After World War One, many Britons were uncomfortable with the existence of the Empire. They believed the idea of democracy couldn't exist in the Empire, and as such believed that giving colonies dominion would represent the progress and spread of the British ideal of democracy. However, there were others, like Churchill who disagreed with those who were in power at the time. He saw that India had been part of the British Empire since the 18th century; it was the 'Jewel in the crown of the British Empire.'
Another reason America had an advantage over Britain was that the English citizens were tired of war. The war had begun to turn into years and citizens were getting tired of paying taxes and just the war in general. In my opinion one of the biggest advantages the colonists had was how great a leader George Washington was. American soldiers were outnumbered and not as well trained as the English soldiers, but because of Washington’s brilliance and strategy it helped the colonists prevail over Britain. On the other hand Britain also had many advantages over the Americans.
Was the Labour 1945 election win a forgone conclusion. There are many different opinions as to why Labour won the nineteen fourteen five general election. A large amount of the opinion that the election was over even before it had begun however i do not think that this is true. In my opinion the main reason for Labour winning the 1945 election was not thorough the skill of the Labour and certainly not through the skill of their campaign of Atlee himself it was through the conservatives and in particular Winston Churchill shooting himself in the foot.The conservatives made many errors however the biggest of these was the comment than Winston Churchill made on the 4th of june 1945 in which he spoke about how no socialist government come survive without a Gestapo type presence, whether or not this is true this was not a quote which was thought through in anyway by the prime minister at the time or by any of his advisors the United Kingdom was just coming out of a long and hard war in which British propaganda had made the Gestapo out to be the ultimate enemy. For this reason the Gestapo was not something that the British people were very sympathetic towards and Winston Churchill by using this in is his speech made a large amount of the British people reconsider their views on him and it was around this time that the British people started to see Atlee as a serious option to lead the country.
However, England had to invest a lot of money in the improvement and modernization of India. The British “develop[ed] the territory by building roads, canals, railways”(Document 1) and “establish[ed] schools and newspapers”(Document 1) which isn’t cheap—especially if they have two countries to take care of. In addition, India was even more affected by imperialism. Changes in the Indian society due to English imperialism were necessary and significant, but not worth getting governmental power and independence stripped away from them. The British gave the Indians “the benefit of…blessings of civilization which they did not have the means of creating themselves”.
These aims were achieved to varying degrees of success. As a result of the Great War, the British Empire was extended even further, notably in Africa and the Middle East, helping to secure their power status across the globe. Their ‘great power’ status was further cemented by the post war treaties that ended some of the world’s empires notably the Ottoman Empire (under the Treaty of Sevres) and the Austro-Hungarian Empire (under the Treaty of Saint-Germain). Russia also was incapable of dominating Europe at this time as its empire had fallen and the country was consumed by civil war. But most importantly, the Treaty of Versailles weakened Germany to the point that it would not be economically or militarily able to pose a threat in Europe for some years.