A theme in both sources is the who won them war, source A is very clear on saying the war was won by the people, 'not by any one man', where as the conservatives campaign was largely based on Churchill and how he won the war. Source A appeals to the general public more than B as it says the war was one by ordinary people which brings a sense of unity. A is political propaganda promising all the issues that needed to be dealt with, like employment and security. Of the sources Source A is more typical and reliable as the things said are what labour stand for and is a prepared written manifesto unlike source B which is a speech. Source A is intended to be repeatedly seen across the country and appeals to the general public insisting on working together through the hard times, addressing the social issues with solutions.
Despite the undoubtable successes of the Treaty of London and Field of Cloth of Gold as clearly described in Source 4 as the “Greatest Triumph” as well as the Successes at the Battle of Spurs and Flodden, the sheer squandering of Henry XII’s Legacy and the limited wealth of England being wasted completely outweighs the successes in Foreign Policy. Overall the embarrassing and naïve Failures outweigh the Successes in English Foreign Policy in the years
We may or may not even be the same country today or at least be run by Germans or someone of the axis army. The fact that we won this battle makes me think that for the nation as a whole we are better off and not only did it help win the war but it helped the whole United States in 1944 and also in 2012. It makes me believe that I may not possibly be even alive if it wasn’t for the battle of Normandy and I may or may not have the freedoms and privileges I have today
How does Priestly present ideas about how we should treat other people in “An Inspector Calls”? “An Inspector Calls” was written at the end of the Second World War although it was set in the Edwardian Days just before the First World War. In the Edwardian era, Britain had a vast Empire, was very prosperous because of it and was full of confidence. The maiden voyage seemed to epitomise the best days of the Empire. By the time the play was written, Britain had been through the trauma of two world wars.
The colonists had built a strong national unity and identity by the beginning of the American Revolution in 1776. In the early eighteenth century, the colonies enjoyed great prosperity due to Britain’s policy of salutary neglect, which allowed the settlers various freedoms. The French and Indian War, however, ended salutary neglect and provided for the separation of an angry union of colonies. It was the French and Indian War that first forced the colonies to unite. They desperately needed the support of the Iroquois Indians to defeat the French, and in order to do so, they needed to commit an effort to a common cause.
According to the author’s interpretation, Colin Powell acknowledged and wrote about the positive changes in American history, whereas Malcolm X focused solely on racism in American history. Colin Powell mentioned in his autobiography that black GIs had more freedom in Germany during WWII than they did in the country they were serving. Colin Powell mentioned and acknowledged that America does have her faults, but he was thankful that at least America is progressing towards a more peaceful future and that was what encouraged him to love his country and all of its flaws. Malcolm X on the other hand didn’t feel like America was progressing fast enough towards a peaceful future where all American citizens are treated equally. He believed in revolution and violence to try to stop racism.
I will be arguing that the achievement of the Attlee Government were remarkable. The sources which I’ll be using show the impact that the Attlee Government had on Britain. From my own knowledge and also the sources, I can show that the achievements of Attlee Government were remarkable as it helped the people of Britain live much better lives. On the contrary it can also show that the achievements weren’t remarkable as it had created many problems for the country. Source 4 is suggesting that since the Attlee government had come into power sorted out many problems in Britain.
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 War established the U.S as one of the world’s Superpowers and marked its entry into global affairs. The war also redefined American national identity, bringing aid to problems of social divisions as well as redefining all future news reportage. Roosevelt returned home as a war hero and soon was elected governor and then vice president, as he predicted the war helped repairing relations between the American North and South by giving both sides a common enemy for the first time since the end of the Civil War. Personally I believe the International system of analysis is the most accurate in describing the Spanish American War due to the enormous changes happening on American soil and around the world between the 1870 and 1900, from economic growth to colonial expansion. Competition among nations was at its peak and The U.S no matter what needed to ensure its place in the world, what best and easier occasion than to exploit the Spanish – Cuban conflict to their favor.
Along with its imperialist history, the term “British Nation” has become fairly controversial. Whereas the colonisations have considerably enriched the United Kingdom, they also brought numerous different cultures on the British soil. That made Britain a welcoming and cheerful land, which nowadays praises its multiculturalism. At least, that is how Britain likes to be considered. Nevertheless, following the terrorist attacks perpetrated on the day after London’s victory for hosting the Games, multiculturalism faced its limits.