As Source 5 shows suggests that the Suez crisis “did not destroy the political balance at home” showing that the events did not ruin the fortunes of the Conservative party which would have destroyed the balance between the Conservative and Labour parties into Britain. Source 5 also demonstrates the idea that the Conservative party remained supported and together despite the embarrassment caused shown by the idea that there was “no internal split in the Conservative party”. This again is supported by Source 6 which states that hatred for the Labour party caused by the “spectacle of shrill glee” that they exhibited on the “withdrawal of British troops” did not
Despite these threats ultimate power remained in the hands of the Kaiser in 1914. Some would argue that this retention of power was a result of the moderate reform put in place in order to placate the parties in the government enough that they would not challenge the status quo. It cannot be denied that a small amount of moderate reform played a small role, there is evidence to suggest that other factors played a larger, more important role. The sense of nationalism and patriotism that gripped the country at the time as well as the disunity of the political parties meant that there was never any real threat to the Kaiser and his autocratic rule. Moderate reform played a small part in keeping power in the hands of the Kaiser but its limited scope together with the lack of any real success show that it may have been other factors that kept power in the hands of the Kaiser.
Also the Tsar still had the support of the Russian army and the navy which stopped any serious uprising. Some historians believe the October manifesto was important in the survival of the Tsar because of the affect it had on the liberal opposition and the peasantry. However i believe it was not so important because it did not entirely solve the problem it only weekend the threat posed. For example the October manifesto did not entirely appease the liberals, although it promised a Duma/parliament there was still a split in the party. And it was clear one group was not satisfied with what the manifesto promised.
However, unlike King and Ghandi, Henry Thoreau believed that civil disobedience could be used violently against an unjust government, once even defending a bloody attack on the federal arsenal in 1859. So while King and Gandhi's ideas did differ from Henry Thoreau's, they also had very similar ideas at the same time. They all resisted things that they felt were wrong and stood by it. While Gandhi was working on a concept of nonviolent resistance, he became impressed with Henry Thoreau's idea of disobeying what he felt was wrong after reading Civil Disobedience, while King eventually went on to adapt Gandhi's idea during the Civil Rights Movement, which meant doing it as peacefully as possible. King always paid tribute to Gandhi as one of the most important sources of his own values, while Gandhi used Thoreau’s thoughts in developing “Satyagraha” which is a term that Gandhi used to describe his policy of nonviolent resistance.
So for example if the allies in the west did not promise to rebuild Germany and try to stop every country from becoming communist when they threatened to even if it through fair vote (rare as it was). It can be argued that the cold war was an avoidable one. Firstly the Russians were very aggressive in creating a buffer zone and in fact created communist states practically all over Eastern Europe and made much more than a buffer zone and Stalin was at the heart of all these communist political movements and was trying to spread his influence to even Italy and France. This worried the west very much because they thought their very freedom was being threatened but more importantly the more states that became communist the less ttade there was. The west needed trade partners in the east and they couldn’t trade with communist states.
He also instated Constitutional reforms for instance strengthening the power of the Reichstag by letting them take control of the defence budgets. However, though they had been given this power the Kaiser still had ultimate control and was able to dissolve those reforms and the Reichstag whenever he so pleased. These reforms were not especially ground breaking but they did allow the Reichstag to be happy so they don’t cause any problems. On the other hand, Bismarck used the stick which was by passing Anti- Socialist Laws, forbidding socialist meetings, fundraising, and the banning of distribution of printed materials. Also the expansion of police power meant that they could arrest any socialist who seemed even remotely suspicious.
Machiavelli advised that power can be preserved by the judicious use of violence, through respecting personal property and the customs of his subjects, as well as encouraging material prosperity. Furthermore, he directed that political life cannot be administered by moral or religious notions, and that executing acts of hostility or fraud that generally is morally unjustifiable, may at times be excusable for a sovereign. Machiavelli determined four types of power in the novel The Prince. The first is hereditary power, which is simple to maintain since the citizens are accustomed with one family or person ruling and are not in favor of change. The second is mixed power which is difficult to maintain due to rebellion.
Despite the fact there was mutinies like on the battleship Potemkin there was not enough of them to have a serious effect. The army were questionable for their attacks on Bloody Sunday which was the catalyst for the start of the revolution(showing that the revolution was spontaneous and basically unplanned). However it could prove how they are prepared to protect the Tsar no matter what. If the Tsar is not at the location like on Bloody Sunday with the winter palace, the army will still be ruthless and take action. Nicholas II could trust his army and as a result used them for defence and to deal with opposition.
Locke stands firm in the belief that people can incite a revolution against their government when it begins to work against what is in the best interest of the populace (Locke, p. 112). He places limits on these actions - such as what a conqueror is entitled to and what would justify as tyrannical behavior - but still justifies the right to instigate a shift political power. On the other hand, Hobbes finds private discourse against one’s sovereign to a disease (p. 197). He finds contempt in the populace under the sovereign, noting that most of were incapable of understanding the inner mechanisms powering the sovereign (p. 207). By deeming the collective population incompetent and likening their anti-governmental chatter to a plague, it is not a reach to assume Hobbes would not prescribe a right to revolution.
During the beginning of colonial settlement, Britain did not enforce strict laws upon the colonies because it wanted them to prosper. Once war broke out between the French and the British in the French and Indian war, Britain began to enforce harsher laws and greater taxes on the colonies to draw revenue for the war. This in turn, angered the colonists and they began to think twice about having another country rule them. The colonists at the time also violated the same ideals of equality of rights and rule of law when they discriminated against the African Americans, Native Americans, and the poorer white settlers by forcing people into slavery with terrible conditions and taking land just because the colonist needed it. When the French and Indian War broke out between the British and the French, Britain hoped to use the colonies as an extra source of wealth to fight the war.