The failure of foreign policy in the years 1514-1525 can be attributed to many things. The combination of Henry's isolation from European affairs and the fact that his attempts to raise tax were ultimately unpopular failures, meant that he had no way to impose himself upon Europe. Even when he did manage to scrape together the finances needed for a strong foreign policy his reliance on his allies led to disaster. As soon as Henry took the throne in 1509, it was obvious that he was a king that wanted to fight a war. However, wars generally led to very expensive costs to the country.
Section IV - International Studies in Peace and Conflict To what extent can it be argued that by the 1960s, Diem’s rule of South Vietnam had been successful?? By the 1960s Diem’s rule of South Vietnam was not successful. His policies were deeply unpopular, his regime was corrupt and based on a system of brutality, and nearly every sector of society opposed him. However, Diem was clearly successful in consolidating his rule and providing early stability to the regime when he first came to power in 1954. Ultimately, Diem was a failure as his rule determined that either Vietnam would become communist or face another war.
There was a massive loss of resources and income after the recline of land in France, leading to the powerful men of England to take arms in aid of their lords this lead to the battle of St Albans The weakness of royal power can be pin pointed to the king. Henry was never a fit king to rule a country such as England; he was not the man his father Henry V would ever be. And this caused a sense of unrest to the people of England. This can be reflected by his counterproductive peace policy with France, that lead to the loss of royal lands that his father had once gained. Henry was supported and manipulated by William de la Pole, Edmund Beaufort and his French wife, Margaret of Anjou.
It is clear that the local rivalries among the nobility were a prominent factor in causing the outbreak of the civil war in 1455. However the evidence shows that it was in fact King Henry VI’s inadequacies that were the core cause of the conflict, as it was his inability to control these rivalries that allowed them to escalate, causing the War of the Roses. King Henry VI’s other inadequacies include his mistreatment of the nobility and his careless spending. Limiting factors to this argument include the view that the loss of France was responsible for the start of civil conflict however this is challenged by the fact some of the failures in France can be attributed to Henry’s inadequacies. Furthermore, over-mighty subjects, who presented a threat to the throne, were getting more powerful and wealthy therefore presenting a threat to Henry VI’s kingship.
The reason behind Napoleon III agreeing the armistice without consulting his piedmontese allies was because he was shocked by the lives lost during the war. This made the French public opinions turn against the war as they were loosing out on a lot of troops/people of France. Also, Austria was in a strong defending position that France would need thousands of troops to smash through them. There was also a unstable relationship between Cavour and Napoleon III as Cavour’s agents had overturned the rulers of central Italy and this resulted a demand in union with Piedmont so, therefore, this went against the agreements made in the plombieres. Furthermore, the nationalist’s opinion in Prussia and the other German states encouraged Prussia mobilisation on French border and this was a fear for France as they feared a war against 2 great powers.
The causes of the American revolution differ a lot from the causes of the French revolution. Both revolutions intended to change the actual government into a republic, but the causes that brought them in a revolution were different for many reasons. The French were used to the idea and life associated with a monarchy, and they did not have this change necessary until a nearly fatal economic depression showed them the weak points of their absolute monarchy. Before the revolution in France there were many inequalities in society. Under the Old Order with the King at the top, then the First, Second and the Third Estate there was a distinct difference between the rich people and the poor ones.
Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt were both apparent victims of being the wrong president at the wrong time. Their attempts to end the depression, although Hoover's a appeared more futile, were noble efforts on their behalf's considering the circumstances that they were enduring at the time. In many ways, both of these Presidents could not have don't much more to attempt to pull the country out of the Great Depression. Hoover was plagued with a rigid personality and a Democrat Congress that knew there was no better way of placing a Democrat in the White House than make the depression appear to be a Republican doing. FDR on the hand came in when American where willing to try just about anything to pull themselves up.
Nicholas II was the last tsar of the Romanov dynasty, and his own arrogance and incompetence was a key factor in what led him to that title. His decision to maintain an autocratic government, fight in the Russo-Japanese war, and, ultimately, drag Russia into World War I, proved he was not fit to rule, and his actions led to the destruction of his dynasty. In these ways, Nicholas II, while faced with many problems, may have survived had he not ruled the way he did. Nicholas II was an implacable autocrat, and his fear of change alienated the Russian people from their leader. When Nicholas was young, he witnessed his grandfather, Alexander II, being assassinated by terrorists.
Paper #2 The Tet offensive proved to be the turning point of the war, delivering a fatal blow to political support for the war in the United States. Even though Tet was a disappointing defeat for North Vietnam in strictly military terms, it exposed the bankruptcy of U.S. war policy and aims in Vietnam, and paved the way for America’s eventual humiliation. The most surprising aspect of the Tet offensive was that it was not really a surprise at all. Yet the episode shows how even a superior force can be taken by surprise both militarily and politically when it lacks the initiative in war. Since the North Vietnamese had the initiative instead of the U.S., it was possible for their elaborate campaign of deception to succeed in maintaining the element of surprise, even though the U.S. discovered numerous details of the attack to come.
One of the main reasons America could not defeat the North Vietnamese communists was more to the fault of the South Vietnamese government; as the government was weak and poorly managed they lacked control and representativeness. The people of the south had little faith in them and there were many anti-Diem groups spread around the South. With the people not trusting their own government the whole of South Vietnam was in a delicate state, this only caused problems for the USA as they were to protect and fight with people who were living in political chaos. The political issues of the South were only made worse by the fact that the North Vietnamese government was strong and highly popular, they were determined to win the war and so were the people of the North which meant it would be a lot more difficult for the south. As well as the political problems there were also military problems that prevented the USA from defeating Communism in South East Asia.