It did not simply have a voice, it had the organisational basis from which to grow and develop as a political force. The 1920’s saw the regrouping and consolidation of Congress and after the First World War the party became associated with Mahatma Gandhi. By the end of the 1920’s the British government were desperately striving to keep the empire and the British Raj intact while at the same time conciliation Indian opinion. The rise of Gandhi during this period is of great significance. By the early 1920’s Congress had become a political party with a mass appeal and a following of millions throughout India.
In 1945, the British viceroy handed power back to India freely. Mohandas Gandhi fought with nonviolence before the British handed over the power back to India. Gandhi describes the positive motives for a nonviolence approach to Indian independence, “Passive resistance is a method of securing rights by personal suffering…” (Doc 3) India was a huge asset to the British Empire especially during World War II. Gandhi said, “I am shaking the foundations of the British Empire.” (Doc 3) He yelled this statement during the Salt March. Jomo Kenyatta, the first president of Kenya and leader for independence, stated, “The land is ours.
I believe that the British did only make concessions to strengthen their power and control over India. However there are arguments suggesting that these concessions were made purely to benefit India and to increase Indian participation and decision making within the government. The argument that supports this statement is demonstrated through source 13. In Source 13 it tells us that ‘these concessions can be seen as a way of strengthening the Raj and their control within India’, it then continues to say that this opinion is exemplified within the Rowlatt Acts. From my own knowledge I know that these acts, passed by the Imperial Legislative Council in London on the 10th march 1919, gave authorization to imprison people for up to two years without trial, anybody living within the Raj suspected of terrorism.
By the time it was 1763 most of the white colonies would say that they are loyal British subjects. However after 1763, mostly between the time periods 1775-76, these years saw the send of the relationship with Britain. The British should take some of this blame as they did introduce some rigorous polices after 1763. This was an unwanted change for the American Colonies, As Britain left them alone for so long but now are starting to change things. But there are other courses of the break out of the armed conflict not just polices of the British Government that are the colonies as not all of the polices where unreasonable.
This backs up information we already know in that the British army learnt from its defeats at the very start of the war, for example the battle of Mons. It can be argued however that source 7 is written by a Captain within the British army, which provides the possibility of a more favourable account of the advances. This can be countered though, as Kelly was indeed a primary source. This shows that both sources 7 and 8 agree to a fair extent that ‘The Great War resulted in a revolution in the art of warfare for the British army’. In source 9, we see John Laffin, a British historian state: “The British army was not most advanced and eager in new tactical ideas” this shows that the theory of the officers can be seen to be correct, in that at the
During the creation of Constitution, each state had to approve it. During this time there were people who supported it, Federalist and who did not, Anti-Federalists. I am siding with Anti-Federalist since they were right in thinking they did not want to give all their power away to the national government. If you lived in a state separate from where government state is established, how would you get your problems in your state solved if you had a government who was telling you what to do but not really knowing what problems you had in your state. If I lived back in that time, and having just finished the war with Britain where we finally got our independence, I would remind people all the issues we had.
After The World War 1 had ended America was finally beginning to return to normalcy. The idea of Isolationism and the outlaw of War with wall nations began to shape the foreign policy for the United States. Although the world was as peace during the 1920’s it was not soon enough that Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union would spark another World War. Due to Political, social and economic changes during 1920-1941 the foreign policy of the United States would dramatically change. Isolationism , the made idea in the early 1920’s was changed after the course of World War 2, and urge to engage in world affairs made America the leading power in the world.
Franklin D. Roosevelt Report to Congress, Jan. 2, 1941 World War I (1914-1919), undoubtedly, was an event that framed universal history. Therefore is important to note that even though the conflict began in Europe, finally great nations as Japan and the United States were involved. This was one of the major wars in which participation in the affairs of others is cover under the supposed protection of democracy or the free towns. Such events are events that
Study sources 1-3 How far do the sources suggest that, despite high casualty rates, the British Public supported the continuance of the First World War? 1a. from the sources 1-3 I can see that sources 2 and 3 agree with the continuance of the war whereas source 1 disagrees. Source 1 is a letter from Lord Landsome a former minister in Acquiths wartime government, this source disagrees with the continuance of the war, “can we afford to go on paying the same price for the same sort of gain? This quote suggests that that no matter how much the British army is progressing their gains in war doesn’t mean much because of the outcome of the gains which are always the same, a more prolonged war.
With British imperial power collapsing during World War II, the United States was ready to move in. Hull said early in the war:Leadership toward a new system of international relationships in trade and other economic affairs will devolve very largely upon the United States because of our great economic strength. We should assume this leadership, and the responsibility that goes with it, primarily for reasons of pure national self-interest.” This point got my attention because it reminded me of the “white man‟s burden” that we talked about regarding imperialism, except that in this case the idea of acting out of “pure national self-interest” is plainly stated, not hidden behind a mask of good will. “The economic aid countries would need after the war was already seen in political terms: Averell Harriman, ambassador to Russia, said in early 1944: "Economic assistance is one of the most effective weapons at our disposal to influence European political events in the direction we desire,.. ."