This is supported also by Source 6, which specifies that it was in the ‘recruitment for the Second Boer War’ that made it clear reforms needed to be done in order to solve the gradual rise of poverty in Britain. However, although the war cannot be disregarded when discussing the cause of social reform in Britain, it is far more likely that the Second Boer War acted as a catalyst for reforms, due to the fact that it is clear reforms were on the rise previously to the war, and would have undeniably happened regardless of working class recruitment into the war, making poverty apparent. Although all three sources present varied opinions of the effect that the war had on Britain socially, there are ways in which they do agree. Sources 4,5 and 6 all mention the fact that the level of poverty within working class members of society was brought to light during the recruitment of new soldiers, and this is what ‘convinced the
The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again. The act was named after Secretary George Marshall. The Marshall Aid was so important because it was used to restrict the Soviet “sphere of influence” from expanding as European countries preferred the idea of being rich instead of having to share their wealth with others. Many countries that were unofficially owned by Stalin were more interested in joining the USA with the Marshall Aid, but Stalin managed to “persuade” them to protest against Truman’s methods. Despite this, the Marshall Aid was a success and it bolstered the armies of Europe significantly, which put Stalin in a more vulnerable position.
This was against the treaty of Versailles meaning he had abolished a term of the treaty bringing Hitler closer to achieving his aim of abolishing the whole treaty. Overall this was important for Hitler moving closer towards his aims because it broke up other countries trust with each other meaning it was easier for Hitler to complete his other aims as the countries didn’t have the same power against him. Also it was an important reason because Britain thought that when Germany signed the agreement they were showing peace so the countries would trust Germany so would be less harsh about the treaty meaning it would be easier for Hitler to fully complete the aim of abolishing the treaty. Another one of Hitler’s aims was to expand their territory as the treaty of Versailles meant many territorial
The Liberals were not very big supporters of the Monarch and wanted the Monarchy out of the political area and it just to be solely the government. The Liberals wanted reform, especially the Radicals. If you compare this to the beliefs of the Conservative party who generally believed in One-nation Conservatism/Toryism. This phrase came to light by the Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, His conservatism had proposed a society with the social classes intact but with the working class receiving support from the government. Disraeli emphasised the importance of social obligation rather than
By convincing Hindenburg that there was a large communist threat the country was put into a state of emergency and, with Hindenburg’s backing, Hitler was allowed to pass decrees to govern Germany anyway he liked, with the financial backing of krupp and bosch etc, which in this case is fortunate for the question at hand. Consequently this is why I believe it was the most important event to dictatorship because it was the “spark” that allowed any other event to happen and without it democracy may have just struggled on. One of these events was the election in 1933. Now Hitler had the power to convince Hindenburg to allow him
This is the belief that although individuals and families chase their own goals, people have a responsibility to society as a whole (not vandalising etc). Former leader Disraeli understood that Conservatives needed to appeal to all of society not just those who owned property. Thatcher encouraged the mass public to look after their area by letting people buy their council houses, by owning part of these houses then people would want to look after the area more. Cameron has rebranded one nation as the ‘Big Society’ and after the recent riots in cities across England Cameron told the press and parliament that we had to get back to the ‘Big Society’ and core family values if we did not want this to happen again. Margaret Thatcher’s policy on council housing also adhered to the ideology of property and wealth.
Notwithstanding, the phenomenon of one party dominating the government has never changed even in the 2010 coalition government. It is true that the Conservatives had compromise to a great extent in the issue of civil liberties which they agreed to introduce a Freedom Bill instead of abolishing the Human Rights Act. But does it mean that the Conservatives are no longer dominating the government? The answer to this is an absolute “No”. Since David Cameron took over the leadership of the Conservative Party in 2005, he carried out a number of reform policies to “modernise” the Conservative Party.
I believe that the Conservative party under Cameron haven't adopted many One Nation policies for these reasons; On terms of economic and the deficit the Conservative party seem more right hinting at the thatcher heyday. David Cameron is clearly in favour of rolling back the state, which is also a major point of Thatcherism. A key point is how Cameron feels about education, he favours privatisation of education and has introduced Free Schools and Finally how the Tory's have in reforming the taxation system have rejected some one nation policies. However it could be argued that the Tory party not cutting the NHS fund and International aid funds is adopting one nation policies. In terms of
The political establishment in Germany succeeded in maintaining the political status quo through a policy of moderate reform. How far do you agree with this judgement? The political establishment in Germany did succeed in maintaining its power through a policy of moderate reform; however, it can also be argued that this was also achieved by using extreme reforms as well for instance the suppression of the SPD. The moderate reforms gave a small power to the Reichstag which looked great but as a whole it was completely useless in the part of the Reichstag because of the Kaiser’s power to easily dissolve it. Bismarck who recognised the appeal to Germany's growing working classes, initiated a "carrot and stick" approach of simultaneous repression and an overt effort to acquire popular support.
To what extent did Britain achieve its foreign policy aims in the Great War and via the post war treaties? World War I was to be the ‘the war that ended all wars’ and by 1919 there was a strong British sentiment that another war should be avoided at all costs and this belief shaped British foreign policy in the following post war years. Although Britain largely wanted to withdraw from Europe its main aim was to maintain its status as a ‘great power’ across the globe. Invariably this meant Britain was linked to Europe as from this stemmed other aims; to ensure no single power would dominate Europe, to avoid getting involved in European wars, to avoid long term alliances or creating long term enemies (as this would make war more likely) and to maintain naval domination. These aims were achieved to varying degrees of success.