This furthered the Indian’s desire for independence but they were still faced with the challenges of overcoming the divisions within India. Members of Congress were appalled by this high-handed action, although they also sympathized with Britain’s fight against Fascism. As shown in throughout the war. The main opposition to India’s independence from the British came from one faction of the Conservative Party which later formed itself into the Imperial Defense League. As told in source 16.
Divisions of opposing groups of the Tsar were important to the survival of Tsarist rule in 1881-1905 as the political opponents of the Tsar were clearly divided in their aims and methods. However, other factors such as the church and the power the Tsar held over it; the conservative culture of the Russian people; lack of education especially amongst the peasants and workers; the retributions from opposing the Tsar and the Okhrana were also effective in keeping the Tsar in a state of power. The different political parties all had a similar aim for change and most of wanted to remove the Tsar from power. However they all had different approaches and different plans on how to run the Russia after the Tsars removal. Firstly, the opposition groups of the Tsar were known as the Populists, the Liberals and the Marxists.
Mao criticised Khrushchev for his policies such as de-Stalinisation and his secret speech. He was also very critical of the policy of Peaceful Coexistence as he believed it was a way of being friendly with the United States (the enemy) and also Mao saw it abandoning millions of comrades struggling to free themselves of capitalist and imperialist oppression. This, therefore, made the USSR an ‘enemy’. How could two countries work together if they had such differing beliefs about how to run their countries? This problem had a big contribution to the split as they couldn’t agree on anything, and if they did, it was because their national interests were at risk.
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.
The most important factor and root for all of the problems was Charles. Due to his personality and as he ruled by Personal Monarchy, this shaped how he deployed his prerogative. His policies throughout 1625-1629 were often extreme and passed as a reaction to what he felt was a threat from parliament and an act of disloyalty on their behalf, knowingly angering them. These provocative actions were very much resented by Parliament who felt he was threatening them and provoking them, thus causing the collapse within their relationship. The next most important reason for the collapse was religion and Charles’ push toward Arminianism and absolutism.
It was not the strength of the opposing forces, both liberal and conservative, but rather the stubbornness of Wilson that led to the defeat in the Treaty of Versailles. Wilson himself was an incredibly stubborn man and was the main reason the treaty failed in his hands. His inability to compromise caused him to loose support within the Democratic Party, thus resulting in the Senate defeat of the
Another reason to why America is to blame is after the success of the atomic bomb the members of the Grand Alliance began to see changes in Truman’s behaviour as he started to control the meetings they had and Stalin refused to be bossed around so arguments between Stalin and Truman started, they started. The USSR is to blame for the breakdown of the Grand Alliance for many reasons. One reason is that the USSR wanted to impose big respirations on Germany but America and Great Britain refused as they knew how it would affect Germany and could cause another war. A second reason is that Stalin wanted most of Europe to become communist, Roosevelt and Churchill didn’t agree. After Truman became Americas new President there was a lot of tension at the Potsdam Conference.
The limited nature of the revolution was one of the main factors which weakened prospects for democracy, when Ebert was trying to form a government he still had a problem that the radical communists were still looking to turn Germany into a communist state similar to the Soviet Union and thus to put down this rebellion and get support of the army he made an agreement with Groener. The agreement was that the army would support the government if the army and civil service were left unchanged. This was the main reason that democracy was irreversibly weakened, because the civil service and army generals were all right-wing conservatives providing a powerbase for the radical right. This limited democracy because the radical right thought that democracy was weak and indecisive, the radical right though was weakened because the radical left was way more powerful initially in post war Germany, but the radical right would help democracy until the radical left was no longer a threat and would act as ticking time bomb of support. This could have acted as a powerbase for the Kapp Putsch and the eventual rise of the Nazis.
Although both Truman and Stalin helped increase tensions in Europe and East Asia in the years immediately following World War II, the Cold War itself was likely inevitable. The alliance that had formed between the United States and the USSR during World War II was not strong enough to overcome the past decades of suspicion and unease between the two nations. Moreover, as both leaders sought to achieve their postwar security objectives, which were often mutually exclusive, neither was willing to compromise. The United States and the USSR had always generally disliked and distrusted each other, despite the fact that they were allies against Germany and Japan during the war. Americans had hated and feared Communism ever since it had appeared in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and had refused to recognize the new Soviet government, especially after Bolshevik leaders promoted the destruction of capitalism.
American strategy remained torn between simply containing Communism or rolling it back by actively supporting the Soviet Union’s opponents. For historians of the Cold War, the great debate has been between traditionalists who tend to see the United States as the defensive power in the Cold War (and the Soviet Union as the aggressor) and revisionist historians who tend to see the United States and the Soviet Union as equally aggressive and equally at fault. Revisionists (those critical of American foreign policy) are usually accused of forgetting the ‘lessons of Munich’. It is argued that World War Two arose partly because too many historians thought Germany was unjustly treated after World War One by the Treaty of