Firstly, I agree with the view that it is accurate to suggest that the Treaty of Versailles was mainly responsible for the political and economic instability in Germany in the years 1919-23 because of the treaty itself . For example, the Treaty of Versailles had impacts on the political and economic instability because of the terms of the treaty which were split up into territorial arrangements, war guilt, reparations, disarmament and maintaining peace. The territorial arrangements had a massive impact for the political and economic instability because Germany lost its colonies such as Alsace- Lorraine, west Prussia, Posen, Upper Silesia, Danzig, Austria, Saar and Rhineland Moreover, Moreover, 13% of territory was lost, 12% population (6.5 million), 15% agriculture production, 48% Iron ore and 15% coal was lost showed the impact this had on Germany Additionally this had an impact on political and economic instability because as they lost land they lost money because some of their colonies were used to grow essential crops which was Germany’s rich source of income which led to starvation in Germany because there
Although the Treaty of Versailles can be said to have has the most substantial impact on the political and economic stability of Germany, the arguments against its influence suggest that other factors were more important. For example, though the treaty can be said to have caused bad feeling in the country and hyperinflation, there were a number of problems with the constitution that meant that the Government became unpopular, sparking a number of revolts. In opposition to the sentiment expressed in the question, one factor that affected political stability of the Weimar republic was the fact that it was ruled by a coalition Government. Clauses of the constitution meant that elections were held using proportional representation. As a result, a clear majority of one party over the remaining twenty-seven was never a result, and so the country, from the time the Constitution was drawn up, was governed by coalitions.
Although, she does admit even she was shocked when listening to the speech, as she explains “the line was not believable”. From this I can conclude that source one doesn’t wholly hold Churchill responsible for the 1945 election defeat, however the reliability of the source is questionable as it is bias towards the conservative party. Source two, an extract from Lord Butler’s memoirs, clearly shows opposition to not only Churchill but also the conservative party, Lord Butler for example describes Churchill’s speech as a “negative attack on the labour party” and believed that he should have instead focused on “post-war policies”. By describing Churchill’s use of the word “Gestapo” as a “strategic blunder” shows that Butler is blaming Churchill in having played a role in the defeat of the 1945 election. Although both members of the conservative party, Butler and Churchill were political enemies, this is evident when looking at the extract: “a poor third place to the concentrated exploitation of Churchill’s personality” – this is a personal attack on Churchill’s actions.
Durkheim sees anomie as responsible for the world’s disorder of economics- the lack of morality and regulation resulted in overpowering the weak; thus, he feels that only norms can prevent the abuse of power and calls for regulation and equal opportunity from birth- the greater the equal opportunity the less need for restraint. Marx looked at how capitalism separated humanity by making work a simple means of individual existence. In addition he describes society in terms of class and economic conflicts. Marx saw proletariat or people of a working class as being underneath the bourgeoisie or the capitalist of a modern society. Marx looked at how alienation of production of commodities by workers also leads to alienation of social life.
Secondly it examines reason why Britain has become a ‘nation of home owners’ and how renting has come to be perceived as an ‘inferior’ tenure. Thirdly it looks at the effects of this redistribution of the housing stock what caused people to be deemed ‘socially excluded by the New Labour government. The key claim is that social exclusion is a result of two conflicting social ideologies that manifest through social and housing policy and it is not the architecture of the social housing estates that causes their demise but their social mix in terms of tenure, and the way this is perceived by the wider population. Contents Statement of Originality iii Acknowledgements iv Abstract v Introduction 2 1 – The emergence of two British housing ideologies 3 2 – Brief History of Social Housing in the UK pre-1945 6 2.1 - Giving in to Collectivism 6 2.2 - Government Involvement 9 2.3 - Slum clearance 10 3 - Post WWII Housing 11 3.1 - Post WWII 12 3.2 - Ronan point 13 3.3 - The backlash against dense social developments 14 4 - Britain’s Growing Obsession with Home Ownership 17 4.1 - Right to Buy and Buy to Let 18 4.2 - Why has Britain Become a Nation of Homeowners? 21 4.3 - The Tone Beginning of Social Exclusion 21 5 - The Homeowner Society 26 5.1 - Linking
What came along the effects of The Depression was the soaring unemployment rate as well as the poor living and working conditions that much of the population had to endure, this caused the people of Germany to look to the government for support. When the republic failed to help their people, the citizens of Germany turned away from the government and instead turned to the the Nazi party, with its nationalistic ideology which seemed promising and an appealing alternative to the Weimer
West Germans did not like this attitude as they describe East Germans as being lazy and also think that they should be grateful instead of being against them. By this time, as Peter Pulzer said 'Unification was precisely what those who welcomed it did not wish for'. And one of the problems that affected the East was precisely the abolition of its currency to the strong west German deutschmark. This made East German industry uncompetitive comparing to Western industry. There was an unfairness in the West towards
Reich believes that not only is the widening inequality gap—the absence of the middle class, that is––a threat to the economy, it is what is undermining the very core of American democracy. Reich’s intended audience is the so-called “fence-sitters” of the American public; the people who, in his mind, are not completely convinced that inequality is such a problem. He makes his argument convincing by providing examples of support for his
Rather than focus on the horrors of WWI, Renoir chose to focus on the social dynamics of WWI. The viewer is ultimately made to believe that during the time period of WWI, social class, not nationality, was the great divider, and that the artificial divides were not positive. The title of the film refers to the fallacy that war is good, that war is just, and that at the end of a war people will be better off than before the war began. A French-Jewish prisoner named Rosenthal, a nouveau riche officer whose family is involved with banking, states during a conversation with other prisoners that the better world they envision at the end of the war is “all an illusion.” The Grand Illusion is clearly and convincingly antiwar, and the futility of war is a common theme throughout the film. Renoir demonstrates this futility without using battle scenes, and instead uses prisoner of war camps as a means to show how men from very different nations can have similar experiences during war.
It would therefore seem that one must be right and one must be incorrect. Their views of capitalism were created from two divergent angles of approach, causing them to start and finish at two conflicting theories. Max Weber was born in to a bourgeois background in Germany, but died from pneumonia after a nervous breakdown in 1887, followed by spells of depressive illness. Weber’s most famous book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, is generally taken as a counter to the Marxist thesis of the primacy of base over superstructure. Weber does not believe that history had a grand pattern, like Marx does, and although there is a clear relationship between material factors and politics, belies, consciousness; the relationship is complex, multi directional, multi causal and more than that.