The wars that occurred did bring change but were not the only causes of change. World War One bought the most transformation as it ended Tsarist rule and contributed to the failings of the provisional government. The Crimean war and the Russo-Japanese war both bought significant changes but acted as more of a catalyst to the developments rather than being the sole cause. Furthermore the wars that were won often bought very little change to Russia such as the Russo-Turkish war. Additionally there were developments that occurred without war, which illustrates that involvement in war was not the only cause for change.
Anchors and reporters quickly became trusted, household names because the public turned to them every night for the day's information about the war. Walter Cronkite was even referred to as the "most trusted man in America" throughout the war ( Hallin, 1986, p.106). Even though the American viewers thought the images they were viewing were accurate accounts of the Vietnam War, they were actually watching, were edited thirty-minute versions of an extremely complex war. The most damaging statement came from the "most trusted man in America", Walter Cronkite. In a CBS special, Cronkite concluded, "To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past, to say we are mired in a bloody stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory conclusion" ( Hallin, 1986, p.170) This did not help increase the support for our troops in Vietnam.
This source is not reliable because it seems that Lord Lansdowne is using his opinion and his status/authority to try and get the public to agree with him wanting the war to end which suggests it is not a genuine concern of Lord Lansdowne which may affect the usefulness of this source. Source 2 also agrees to a far extent because it is a letter from Vera Brittan to her brother saying that she wanted the war to continue even though she was against war and condemned it. This source is very reliable because the letter is from Vera Brittan whose fiancé died of wounds from the war which means the British public could relate to her emotionally. In addition Source 3 also agrees to an extent because it was a reply to a letter from a common soldier which entailed the support from women to the soldiers in the war. This source may not be reliable because it is only one person’s opinion.
The two sources indicate she made a good impression on the men by helping them throughout the war with her presence and remedies. On the other hand Source 3 indicates she didn’t make a difference and source 1 partly agrees. Source 3 tells us Seacole deserved no credit and what she ran was a “bad house” of ”much drunkenness” which we can only conclude that Seacole was maybe disturbance in the Crimea. Source 2 tells us her “nourishment” which could have been alcohol was appreciated but “most soldiers strongly objected to going there”. This shows that Seacole in the Crimea may have been unnecessary.
On the other hand, source 5 suggests that imperialism was ok, but the way the Boer war was fought was not. I agree with the view that the public got swept away with the ideas of imperialism because everyone else seemed to be believing in it, but I also think that this generalisation is fairly unreliable because it shouldn’t be applied to the whole population, because there must have been some people who were against it, or saw through the press and propaganda; how they were trying desperately hard to influence people’s opinions. Firstly, Source 4 suggests that the capital of England, London, were overjoyed at the news of the relief of Mafeking, supporting the view in question that the public were enthusiastic about the Empire’s advances: “celebrated”, and words such as “fireworks” and “brass bands” give connotations of happiness and festivity. However, this Source also implies that the root of people’s merriment (imperialism) was spread and emphasised by the “new halfpenny press”. From my own knowledge, I know that there were numerous newspapers that were ‘pro-war, such as The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and The Morning Post and their
The Treaty of Versailles 1. Woodrow Wilson did not get exactly what he wanted from the treaty but his main term he wanted was the League of Nations, which he did manage to get. Wilson would be displeased with most of the terms of the Treaty because he thought they where far too harsh and thought it would cause Germany to want revenge. Wilson did not achieve many of his aims apart from starting up the League of Nations. Hardly any of Wilsons fourteen points actually happened so Wilson didn’t seem to achieve his aims.
Wilson was steadfast and stayed neutral during a 3 year period by not choosing positions on either sides, but he did help the British “secretly or out of public view” with economic and military support. With his morals of support, Wilson drove America into a war that would, and has changed everything that Americans knew. “The present German submarine warfare against commerce is a warfare against all mankind...Armed neutrality, it now appears, is impracticable.” President Wilson states in his War Message that due to the events and attacks on America from the Germans, we
Which voted to impeach him on two counts: perjury and obstruction? Some saw Starr as a fanatic invading individual's privacy. While most of Americans and some Republicans condemned the president’s behavior, they approved of the job he was doing and opposed removing him from office and agreed it did not warrant his removal from office. A number of senators did not believe that Clinton's actions constituted the high crimes and misdemeanors required by the Constitution for conviction. Starr reported insufficient evidence of illegalities related to the Whitewater land deals.
however in source 3 sergeant-majour Timothy Gowing describes the battle scene as a “ghastly site” this contradicts the picture which shows an obvious picture of the British dominating in the battle in source 1,i believe that the source 3 is more accurate as t was wrote by someone who was there and in the heart of the battle.However the drawing was posted in a British magazine may have been altered and changed to keep the public on lord Aberdeens side,who was not very popular as a prime minister. In source 2 , a poem from Alfred tennyson,,he writes “through the line they broke; Russian and Cossack” this informs us that the brits hit the russians hard in the battle killing the russians however in source 3 an opposing point which was wrote was “the brutal enemy hacking at the ounded” this shows the british in a different light,that they are being absolutely humiliated which contrasts the idea that we were beating the Russians in the attack. I believe that the 3rd source is more accurate as he is was actually there,and writing gory details like Gowing did would be seen as extremely disrespectful if it wasn't true. Furthermore source 2 was written in a british newspaper therefore they would of diluted the truth as the people reading it would not want to know
However it would have had a tremendous and awful impact on the United States society as it did represent the war as evil and criminal. The US Army always denied that the bombs they let off never hit civilian casualties; they stated that there was not many of them. The journalist's reports broadened, which was still furthering the credibility gap'. This is the state or condition of being dissimilar or unlike between the American military and government and what the American people had confidence in. The broader the gap is, not as much the people will believe.