The main reason why, it can be argued, Bismarck brought an end to the Kulturkampf is down to the fact that instead of limiting the power of the Catholics he was only increasing it. He made a mistake. The Catholics support can be seen in the Reichstag through the centre party which gained 91 seats in the 1874 elections opposed to their 58 seats in 1871. This showed Bismarck had in fact increased disunity in the German state instead of diminishing it; he had done the complete opposite of what he had hoped to do. None the less, Bismarck was no fool; he took advantage of a situation which he hoped would never come.
Then identify how source evidences statement, perhaps quote or refer closely to source. Sources 1, 2 and 3 all support the statement to an extent, source and 1 and 2 for similar reasons. Source 1 is from a contemporary historian. Polydore Vergil is usually quite favourable towards Henry VIII, and therefore his rather critical assessment of the instability of the north and thereby the Scottish threat of invasion is all the more accurate. Therefore the source suggests that Henry’s inability to enforce the ‘newly-imposed head tax’ contributed not only to a lack of funds for wars with France, but also his failure to combat the tax boycott ‘gave [James IV] hope of undertaking something’.
A British Liberal statesman according to Lafore could have taken a clearer viewpoint, which might have saved the peace in the world. Britain was unsteady about the question if they should enter the war and fight for its allies. Germany didn’t know if Britain was going to war and therefore urged Austrian ultimatum and eventually war. If Sir Edward Grey had taken stronger point of view, Germany would have taken different action towards upcoming war. Some Germans even go beyond that and say that Sir Edward Grey was the actual cause of the war since he mislead the Germany and put them into a position of
James M. McPherson says “(Lincoln) offered a better explanation to his own people of what they were fighting for than Davis was able to offer.” As their strategy advanced, the North not only destroyed the Confederate armies, but also attacked their resources, including slavery. The South never capitalized on any success, and they did not win enough victories, especially consecutive victories. Leadership was key in the direction that the war went. The South was not as industrialized as the North, another factor against them. If there was any way they had a shot at winning, it fell on Europe’s participation and assistance.
This made it far more difficult for coalitions to form and for democracy to function in the designed fashion. On the same point, todays historians have suggested Ebert overplayed the threats from the left and was unaware the threat that the right wing Freikorps possessed. As a result, the right became far stronger
Nationalism: Nation or Self Nationalism is defined by Merriam- Webster Dictionary as, “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” Although nationalism is a great thing, it can be blown out of context and be used for ones self instead of a nation. Using nationalism during wartime can be very deceiving to citizens by depicting standing up for your country instead of the killing and horrible conditions you survive in. As seen in All Quiet on the Western Front, the war flaunts the concept of nationalism as a good thing, even though the underlying issue is power hungry leaders. To parade nationalism during war time can be destructive to a nation. In this book Kropp states, "It's queer, when one thinks about it," Kropp goes on, "we are here to protect our fatherland.
Rosalind Cresswell ‘The First World War increased rather than narrowed Germany’s political divisions’ How far do you agree with this statement? Initially the First World War narrowed the political divisions, as they all came together with the Burgfriede, which was declared on the 4th August as a political truce between all parties. However, this political unity was not to last as the military were unable to deliver on their promise of a quick victory so Germany soon became increasingly fragile by the war. Unity began to disband and the Kaiser became a politically distant figurehead who spent most of his time tucked away which created divisions as he failed to promote the image of a strong and caring leader. Furthermore, German politics suffered polarisation as the left and right became more extreme, divisions were caused by differing views over war aims and developing concern over the establishment of the ‘Silent Dictatorship’.
What actually happened: The Schlieffen Plan was a big gamble by the Germans, and it could have well resulted in defeat for France and Russia, however the plan backfired on the Germans. The first problem that the Germans encountered was that the Belgian Army had put up a resistance, which they had not expected which in turn slowed their advances. The next big problem the Germans had not anticipated was that Britain declared war on Germany because of the pledge to protect Belgium, which they had called a ‘scrap of paper.’ Their gamble had not paid off and soon, when the Russian Army was quicker to respond the Germans had to switch troops to the eastern front however the Russians had still invaded Germany 10 days later. Explain why a Stalemate
England managing to successfully pursue a policy of peace making in the years 1514-21 and how Wolsey was very sly and flexible in his diplomacy and arguments which disagree with the statement, for example it could also be seen that Henry’s chief aim, the invasion of France, was unpopular with people at the time and that Henry’s foreign policy was too costly when compared with the few benefits it brought to England. Henry’s allies often let him down and were much more interested in their own aims and not so much of England’s. A point in support of the view that the successes in foreign policy outweighed the failures is that England had successfully delivered a policy of peace making in the years 1514-21. This is seen in source 4, in which M.D. Palmer writes about how Wolsey successfully brought about peace between England and France in 1514, and that he engineered the universal peace of London in 1518.
The personalities influenced the cold war, despite not being as significant as the other factors. Stalin being manipulative and ruthless instantly suggesting that relations with other countries, so different from his and he was very cautious of this. Source 8 suggests his personality, ‘threw Stalin back into neurotic solitude’ after the A bomb of 1945. Also after the death of Roosevelt which was Stalins ‘dream partner’ there was no need ‘to forge a strong relationship’ between the new politicians. When it