These problems progressively mounted so high that they obscured Lloyd George's successes and toppled him from power, ultimately helping the Conservatives engineer his downfall. This essay will assess both internal factors, such as problems as home, centred on unemployment, coupled with external factors, including the Chanak Crisis. It will be argued that the Conservatives reaped power as a result of the combined internal and external problems, all of which amounted to a loss of confidence at home, and thereby created negative public perceptions of the Liberals. Lloyd George's post as Prime Minister was in a way doomed from the beginning. He came to power at the head of a coalition party making enemies along the way.
Luck played a big part into how Stalin defeated the left side of the party. Because of Trotsky’s illness he often missed political conventions meaning the he couldn’t get his view across to the general public. This meant that Stalin was a lot more popular than Trotsky. Also the fact that Lenin’s testament wasn’t published played a part in Stalin’s success. In his testament he heavily criticized Stalin; if it was published then it would have damaged Stalin’s popularity.
The Radical Prime Minister, Edourd Herriot, was met with a severe economic crisis caused by the mismanagement of government expenditure. A divide in the Cartel on how to solve the crisis meant Herriot stepped down in 1926. The demise of a government due to disagreements on a solution to France’s economic problems was an often occurrence during the 1920’s and 1930’s. The French people always suffered as a consequence of the
By finally giving in and devaluing the pound, Labours coherent reputation and authority was damaged. The whole issue surrounding the devaluation of the pound weakened the Labour party further by causing divides within. This weakening contributed to the election defeat in 1970. Furthermore Source 2 however does show direct evidence why labour had lost the election as it states “began for me as badly as it could of done” this tells us that the day had gone badly Roy Jenkins had done a relatively okay interview which didn’t relatively well amongst the public. However in the afternoon it became apparent that the export figures were down £45 million.
This proves the political instability of Germany in this period as they were the largest party in the Reichstag but still refused to cooperate. This need for the parties to agree cause germanys politics to become unstable yet again because they were unable to agree of unemployment benefits and foreign policy. This led the voter moving to more extremist parties like the KPD who had 10.6% of the vote in 1923. The election of president Hindenburg did not have a positive effect as he was very anti socialists, resulting in him excluding the SPD from the coalition despite their majority and including the DNVP to limit the coverage of the political spectrum in the hope his policies would pass quicker. In terms of economic development, the Dawes and the Young plan definitely helped develop and rebuild Germany’s economy, however there are other factors which counteracted them, making them less effective.
German defeat in the Great War was largely down to the incompetence and mistakes of the German Military Elite. The failure of the Schlieffen plan in 1914 can be accredited to these German leaders and also more importantly blamed for the failure in the First World War. Schlieffen, Chief of the German General Staff (1891-1906) devised what is known as the ‘Schlieffen plan’ in 1905 in response to the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale and the further negations this alliance began to have with the huge empire that was Russia. These new relations began to worry Germany and create fears of a combined attack on the country. Schlieffen’s plan aimed to counter a joint attack and then later in the Great War the Schlieffen Plan was used as a strategy to ensure a swift victory and avoid fighting two-fronted war.
Did Germany face a bigger threat from the Left or Right wing between 1919-1923? From its start, the Weimar Republic experienced problems from both the Left and Right wing. The hatred for the government of those on the Left was encouraged by the successful Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 whilst the Right wing felt betrayed by a government who had allegedly stabbed them in the back by agreeing to the armistice and signing the Treaty of Versailles. However both threats from the Left and the Right had underlying problems, which made them easier to put down by the government. After the unsuccessful attempt at a revolution, which was easily repressed, the Left never fully recovered its momentum and did not have enough support to overthrow the government whereas although the Right attempts quickly fell short, the threat from the Right wing continued to grow.
During its leadership, the PG had two leaders: Prince Lvov – whose status as a member of the nobility immediately undermined the reforming credential as did its members as they were broadly liberal Octoberists and Kadet, which again, diluted its reforming enthusiasm. The second leader being Alexander Kerensky. Although a popular SR, there was a general unease amongst the peasantry that he had ‘sold out’ by joining the liberals which he argued that he was just biding his time till the Constituent Assembly confirmed the SR’s as the largest party. In a time of widespread crisis, where Russia needed its government most, it was nowhere to be seen, no reforms passed. Nothing.
The factors responsible were both short-term and long-term including, the opposition of the political parties, economic troubles, industrialisation problems and most importantly the Bloody Sunday. The war, itself did not prompt the revolution- it was the fact that Russia lost to a much smaller and almost inferior country. Russia’s huge military defeats were caused by the Russo-Japanese war. An example of such a defeat was in January 1905 when the army had to surrender their Port Arthur naval base in Northern China, which they had possessed before the start of the war. This highlighted the weakness of the military and caused national humiliation, thus contributing to the outbreak of the 1905 Revolution.
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.