The main purpose of propaganda in Australia was used to conscript soldiers to fight in the First World War At first Australia agreed to send 20,000 men and they used propaganda to put forward service as glamorous, prestigious and heroic. What propaganda failed to do was talk about the vast amount of casualties which were involved in the First World War Propaganda was expressed through three main sources: literature, media and film. Propaganda was also used to maintain public anger about German atrocities and to idealize Australian soldiers. One of
Australia automatically made war against the same enemy as Britain. It implies that Australia’s “deep affection” and “emotional loyalty” with the mother country was indeed “blind”. And by “blind”, for lack of better word, Australia through all the hardships of colonial rule was constrained to a culture that was “19,400 kilometers” away. Britain legal system and way of conducting matters, may not have necessarily complied with the needs of Australia; meaning increasing immigration. In turn this source demonstrated a strong conviction for federating the states of Australia as federation would eliminate Britain’s ineffective policies.
Patrick Henry was a colonist who believed there was a time for peace and a time for action. He was speaking from frustration at over a decade of opposition and oppression from the British. He believed he should not keep his strong opinions to himself, even at the danger of offending others, because it would be just like treason to let the colony remain under the this control. He delivered his speech because he believed there were many colonists who were not prepared to join the revolution. Patrick Henry gave his speech with the purpose of persuading the colonists to stand up and fight against the British.
Purpose: to persuade and inform people about the issue whether asylum seekers should be allowed into Australia Why not accept? Asylum seekers are internally displaced persons, returnees and those in need of temporary or humanitarian protection and so they should be allowed into Australia. For many years Asylum seekers have been trying to come into our country because people in their own country have been treating them badly, but our government does not seem to want them. The government must change their thoughts and aim more towards accepting these asylums who have been through a lot and give them a place our country. As far as I know, we currently break international law by either forcing them away from our shores or locking them in detention
Vietnam War Prior to Vietnam, the American populous held their Schools, Congressman, and official institutions in a high regard. Some Americans felt that even though the intentions of the Government were good when entering the conflict, it was a battle that could never be won and there was too great of a burden on the country economically and social to continue the war. Others felt that the United States was in Vietnam for a purpose and should stay until their task was accomplished. It’s hard to determine the long-term effects of Vietnam to the American public. Although many students were moved by the war, it also caused great changes to politics in the United States.
Conscription is a method used by many nations to ensure that the troops are replenished as needed (Granastein, Jones). In Canada however, there was some debate on whether or not we should even be involved in this war so Conscription was not a first choice by any means. The problem was that Canada was considered an ally to Great Britain and since Great Britain was in the midst of the conflict (Guay), Canada was expected to jump in. Many in Canada however didn’t believe we should even be allies of Great Britain, especially in a war taking place on another continent. These people who were against involvement were mostly Francophone.
Many American citizens in 1959 viewed the Vietnam War as a righteous battle against communism, similar to the Iraq War today however now many view this war as a necessary battle against terrorism. Looking at America's overall goal in Vietnam, it is evident that we did not come close to keeping South Vietnam from collapsing, who fell to communist rule in 1975 (Frankum 210). America's involvement in the conflicts of Vietnam and Iraq were so discordant that our government, people, and military were constricted. Yet both wars were fought with the knowledge that America may change the invaded nation, which brings a precarious question; what makes the government believe that they have the right to go into a country and change it to the way they
Americans did not want to enter the war because they thought they had enough to deal with on their own such as the Great Depression. Americans supported isolationism or staying out of the way of warring nations even though America’s Allies were at war. In World War One America had fought to make the world safe for
Strains were already in place with the depression, and this didn’t help. The game had begun to turn into politics – it was no longer a game for the motherland and the colony, but a fierce rivalry began to boil. The world was already in a crisis with World War II potentially a threat of breaking out – and Australia needed to keep secured to the motherland. The controversy of course did not stay on the field for some Australians, with the government taking part. The Government had a big role to play to keep things economically under control – with the tension between the two countries the politics came into play to ensure economically all was well, this was the job of J.H Thomas; the British Minister for
Soldiers at War were left helpless as pessimism increases. Newly appointed Prime Minister of Australia, William Morris Hughes, following his trip back from Britain, proposed a solution- conscription. However the Commonwealth Defence Act from 1903, gave the Australian government the power to enlist men for military service within Australia but not for overseas. This left Hughes a very problematic dilemma, whether or not to conscript men for military service overseas. This would need people to indicate their support for or opposition to a proposed change to the constitution, as Hughes did not gain enough support from parliament, so he directly appealed to the public.