Foster (1989) concurs that the political vacuum created by the war was to the benefit of the rebels, aided by rising nationalist frustrations that Redmond’s Home Rule victory was simply a cheque continually post-dated (MacNeill’s description). Most historians regard Redmond’s speech at Woodenbridge in September 1914, pledging Irish support to the war, as a huge misjudgement. Redmond clearly believed that fighting the war together would unite
Do you agree with the view that Carson’s leadership of Unionist opposition to Home Rule was primarily responsible for the severity of the crisis that developed in the years 1912-14? Carson became leader of the Unionist cause in Ulster. Between 1912 and 1914 a crisis developed between those who supported Home Rule, and those who were utterly opposed to it. There were many possible reasons for this crisis, including Carson’s leadership of Unionist opposition to Home Rule. Sources 4 and 5 portray different beliefs about the reasons for the severity of the crisis.
The Irish uprising of 1916 was the main reason that released Ireland from the British rule since the found rebellion as the only way to fight against home rule. The declaration exposed the aspirations and goals of the rebels. Its chief objective was to proclaim and state the independence of Ireland. It also declared that there was a new form of government. This new document was radical and controversial at the time.
“The outbreak of war in Europe in 1914 was due to an aggressive foreign policy which had been waged since c.1900”. How far do you agree with this opinion? Explain your answer using sources V, W and X and your own knowledge relating to the controversy. The implication that Germany’s use of an aggressive foreign policy led to the outbreak of the First World War is an extremely controversial topic, and has ultimately caused great debates amongst historians. Fischer, the provoker of this controversy, expresses this concept of German aggression by stating that since c.1900 Germany planned, and then was able to execute a war, due to their aggressive weltpolitik; based purely on expansionism.
There was a lot of confusion between the Commanders at the Charge of the Light Brigade, centring of the gestures of the bearer of the written order, Captain Nolan, and the verbal explanation he gave, led to Lord Lucan sending the Light Brigade up the wrong valley against the wrong guns. In Source One, the provenance states that it is written from Captain Nolan’s obituary, which means that it will be in favour of Captain Nolan; therefore we are to presume that Source One is biased. Source One is not blaming Captain Nolan, we can tell by the terminology that is used in the Source, such as “It is alleged” and “We are aware”, showing us that the writer of the Source wants us to think different, think about faults of other Generals, not Captain Nolan. Also, the date of this extract, shown in the provenance states it was written in November 25th 1854, which is just after ‘The Charge of the Light Brigade’ was taken place, which automatically tells us that there was no evidence to blame Nolan at that time, it would have had to be assessed carefully by journalists at the time of the Charge, to come to a conclusion who was to blame for the disastrous charge. At the end of the Source, it says that Captain Nolan had “an excess of enthusiasm”, and this is cross referencing into Source Two where it says that Lord Lucan was influenced by the “eager spirit of Captain Nolan”, this is showing us that he could have been very forceful towards the attack, making sure that it goes ahead, however not realising the disastrous outcome that will unfold because of his lack of organisation.
There are also arguments for the plan as a means of defence, suggested by Russian mobilisation and fear of encirclement. In source one, A.J.P. Taylor explains, ‘One essential part of the Schlieffen plan was to go through Belgium’. When this part of the plan is highlighted it suggests that the nature of the plan was highly aggressive and caused reaction from the rest of Europe. The invasion of Belgium broke the treaty of London, meaning the European powers who had signed the treaty were immediately forced in to action.
In 1918, this was all to change, with Leon Trotsky placed as the commissar for war. Trotsky moved to create a real fighting force, one that was able to challenge its aggressors and move to tackle foreign intervention, something that he greatly succeeded in doing. Whether or not his role was the single most important factor for the Red success is something that we must question alongside the other factors that contributed to both Red strength and White weakness. One key factor that contributed to the success of the Red’s during the civil war was the weaknesses that their opponents posted. The main issue with the regiments of the Whites were that they were completely independent and separate to one another; all fighting for different aims.
The factors that need considering when associating with the question include; the Disillusionment from the people towards Louis, the actions of the Political clubs, Champs de Mars massacre and the significance of War. In order to see why the republican movement emerged in France, the factors must show what aims of each of these factors led to and what impact they made. After viewing each one of these we evaluate what the most significant factor was in causing the republican movement. To a very significant extent it can be viewed that the Disillusionment from the people towards Louis can be seen as a key factor for the emergence of the republican movement. This is because Louis’ personal actions that he took betrayed people and led them to disillusionment against him as they wanted to press for a trial for the king.
Niccolò Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’ is an explanation to rulers on how to take power over other lands and how to control them, often at times advocating a disregard for all moral and ethical rules. It was this work that gave rise to the term ‘Machiavellian’, for in it he describes the sly and sometimes brutal maneuverings necessary for political success . In this essay I will examine whether Machiavelli truly promotes ‘immoral’ means in politics and war, determine if there is actually an amoral or even moral approach present in ‘The Prince’, and contrast Machiavelli’s moral and political understandings against earlier European views. In ‘The Discourses’ when speaking of the clashes between the Roman aristocracy and the plebeians Machiavelli’s sympathies are evidently on the side of the common people. He continually defends the people against the accusations of fickleness and unpredictability; stating that the custodianship of public freedom is safer in the hands of the plebeians than that of the upper class.
It has been argued that Charles I was the main reason that war broke out. I will be investigating whether this is a far accusation by looking at the long-term and the short-term causes for the English Civil War and assessing how far Charles was really to blame. Firstly, it has been argued that Charles was to blame for the long-term reasons such as wanting to make changes to religion, the power of the king and money. For example, Charles was partly to blame for money because he was trying to buy off the Scottish with £850 a day (which he could not afford) as a result from trying to make the Scottish Puritans. They rebelled and tried to attack.