The nobility claimed that such drastic change could only be decided on by an Estates General (most at the Assembly of Notables accepted the principle of a land tax but not the means of bringing it about) • weaknesses and mistakes of the King and his ministers: mistakes of Calonne in thinking that an Assembly of Notables would agree to such reforms – also of appealing to the public behind the back of the assembly which lost him support. De Brienne was also weak. The King did not effectively support either minister • the May Edicts which deprived the parlements in Paris and elsewhere of their right to register and protest against royal decrees. This increased cries of ‘ministerial despotism’ and there were disturbances (Revolt of Nobles) throughout France in support of the parlements. To reach higher levels, students will need to show the inter-relationship of the reasons given, for example they might show that the Crown
Another Major flaw was that “the country, whose president, Woodrow Wilson, had dreamt up the idea of the League - America -, refused to join it.” The league’s most powerful militaries Britain and France not only suffered casualties, but also economically as they were greatly in debt to the United States. Because of this neither country was enthusiastic to get involved in disputes that did not affect Western Europe. Therefore the League had no military might and could only enforce economic sanctions in hope that they worked against aggressive nations. All these flaws point to signs that the League of Nations was a failure. However, even though there were a few setbacks, the league was a success in many ways.
This was the weakness of the league. Also Germany wasn’t a member due to the reason of creating WWI and USSR wasn’t a member too as they were communists. Other problem includes the truth that it was created as a part of Treaty of Versailles which indirectly meant that the league will be a serving favor of the big4. Due to these, member states were able to create chaos in the League where it already didn’t have any controls. Also the league wasn’t responsible enough to take care of all the problems in Europe as its powers were not so strong.
The colonists believed that they should have separate laws from Britain because they are not directly represented in parliament. When the colonists continued to disobey the new laws, Britain enforced a harsher set of laws, known as the intolerable acts, to show the colonies that Britain was angry for the Boston Tea Party. This further angered the colonists and caused them to rethink the idea of a rebellion. The colonies as well violated the rights they were fighting for, by
When looking at what happened it can be assumed this did indeed threaten the stability of the Weimar Republic as it forced the government and Ebert (for the second time) to leave the capital, once again undermining Eberts status and to some emphasising his weak position within Germany. The government had to re-position in Dresden and the only thing Ebert could do was to call for a general strike to paralyse the movement of those who supported Kapp and Luttwitz. This shows the government as an institution had no real power to deal with threats such as these and was too reliant on other institutions such as the army (during the ruhr uprising) and the people striking (during the Kapp putsch). When considering the left as the main threat to Weimar stability it is perhaps thought it really was not. When looking at the KPD it only had around 10 percent support from the electorate and wasn't making any breakthroughs of becoming mainstream.
I do not regard this as a fair treaty. A ‘fair and just’ peace settlement is when both opposing sides have a say in what should be the next steps. Unfortunately, this was not the case in the Treaty of Versailles. Firstly, it was an unsuccessful treaty because it was not able to bring sustainable peace in the region. The Treaty of Versailles was unjust and unfair because it excluded Germany from the negotiations of the treaty, asked for unfair reparations, limited its army to anemic levels and stole all of it’s colonies.
England lost. Money is another reason Charles I was having problems with Parliament. On the coast people had to pay something called ship taxes for the country to build ships etc for war. But Charles was short for money. He introduced this tax to the whole country and misused it by not using it for ship money.
The King, however, neglected to mention this to his Parliament who became understandably confused and wary due to the carelessness of James and his lack of communication. Discussion at the Parliament then moved to domestic grievances; most importantly the issue of monopolies, which were bitterly opposed by the vast majority of Parliamentarians. Here James and the Commons worked in unison, a rare event at this time. The revival of impeachment by Coke and Cranfield to remove Bacon, who was heavily involved with monopolies, was allowed by James as he was eager to maintain the positive relations he was enjoying with his Parliament. James and the Commons
He required that his subjects “loan him the equivalent of five subsidies” and although it was “opposed by significant numbers in the localities,” the taxation still occurred as the government had “employed all its powers to eliminate resistance”. Moreover, the Forced Loan only happened as a result of Charles dismissing the 1626 Parliament, forfeiting his opportunity of obtaining further grants for his wartime expenditure. Parliament had already been antagonised by Charles’ decision to dismiss them and now that Charles was forcing taxation on others in order to fund his wartime expenditure, due to disastrous foreign policy which Parliament largely disagreed with, it is clear that the Forced Loan had worsened relations greatly. In addition to this, the financing of foreign policy also affected the relationship between Crown and Parliament. As stated previously, the Forced Loan existed to fund England’s wars considering that Parliament was reluctant to grant Charles further subsidies.
Also, another issue with the court system was all the power to the King. This was an issue because a large mass of people (The 3rd Estate) had no share in the government, which meant that the likelihood that they were unhappy was high; to make it worse, Louis XVI was not a great ruler. He was famous for the line, “The thing is legal because I wish it,” which basically means, “What I say goes,” which is not a good plan because there is no planning or foresight involved. Also, he used the lettres de cachet, which is like a warrant where any critic of the government would receive a letter that