This means that even if it was his responsibility to deliver the order he would not have done so because, as it also states in Source 3, he is headstrong so he is self-willed, portraying that Nolan is to blame for the disaster of the Charge of the Light Brigade by refusing to follow orders. Source 2 implies that Lucan was to blame and not Nolan, however, the man who wrote the
He recognises their efforts but speaks of their duties rather than praise or reward. Just the fact that the Queen is enquiring into the welfare of soldiers suggests there is cause for concern. Whilst source 1 and 2 speak of conditions and the tiring duties of the troops source 3 written by Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Sterling years after the end of the war describes the inefficiency due to lack of organisation from the British government. Sterling
America, despite its efforts, could not remain neutral and was forced to enter World War 1. Germany did not respect America’s decision to stay neutral and purposely sunk their ships in the British Isles. They sent the Zimmerman Telegram uniting other countries against America. Lastly, they blockaded British ports and prevented American trade with France and GB. Over 100,000 Americans died during WW1, but were rewarded with patriotism, an Allie victory and trade which once again
How Far do sources B and E challenge what Lord Raglan says in source G in reply to Queen Victoria’s letter? On the whole sources B and E are predominantly in disagreement with Lord Raglan’s letter addressing Queen Victoria. Lord Raglan accepts in his letter that despite being ‘occupied’ in his endeavour to ‘provide for the various wants of your majesty’s troops’ there is a level of ‘inefficiency’ amongst his staff, which he attributes to the suffering of the soldiers. Because this letter is being sent to Queen Victoria who is the most senior authority in Britain, Lord Raglan will want to deflect any blame for the soldier’s suffering by shifting the blame onto his staff and covering his tracks by claiming he has been occupied attending
Source A suggests Churchill had a poor relationship with his generals. Sir Alan Brooke describes the situation as difficult, saying he “finds it hard to remain civil”. He also writes “with him England has been on the verge of disaster time and time again”. These two points suggest that Churchill was little help, and was more of a hindrance rather than an aid towards the military and its tactics. However, he doesn’t say he has no respect or admiration for Churchill, writing “never have I admired and despised a man simultaneously to the same extent.
“Complacent and ultimately harmful to British Interests” How far do you agree with this opinion of GB foreign policy in years 1925-1929? Between the years 1925-1929 British concerns on foreign policy were primarily on the basis of preserving peace and easing the Franco-Germany tensions, defence of Britain, maintaining the status quo, and healing the economy. The terrible losses of the First World War made both politicians and public recoil from the prospect of another war. Thus, Britain seemed to have everything to lose and nothing to gain from a major war, therefore the emphasis on preserving peace were made quite clearly throughout foreign policy as well as compromise, conciliation and concession to prevent any aggression. However some historians would say that Britain was too complacent when it came to foreign policy, and as soon as they believed they had reached satisfactory targets, they wouldn’t go any further, and so risk harming British interests.
This is demonstrated in documents 4, 5, and 6. Henry Haskell states that “The government undertook such far-reaching responsibility in affairs that the fiber of the citizens weakened” (Document 4) This shows that the decline of the empire was due to heavy taxation that couldn’t support the government. If the taxes couldn’t sustain the government then it wouldn’t be able to control the people. According to Montanelli “The military crisis was the result of… proud old aristocracy’s… shortage of children” (Document 5) This means that many children weren’t old enough to go into the military which caused the decrease of soldiers. With the lack of soldiers, it would be easier to invade Rome, which could’ve led to the decline of the Empire.
Clemenceau resented Wilson’s generous attitude towards Germany and Lloyd George’s desire to not treat Germany too harshly. He said “if they British are so anxious to appease Germany they should look overseas and make colonial, naval or commercial concessions”. These disagreements left the big three unsatisfied and ultimately left them with a weak mere shadow of a perhaps great treaty due to their own arrogance and. It contained many faults and weaknesses. The treaty of Versailles greatly humiliated Germany forcing it to accept soul responsibility for the war.
Firstly, it only gives one side of the story of the anti war views because the source says "I WANT OUT". This shows that America is battered and bruised because it doesn't say anything about people who supported the war. The representation is also not objective because it has a emotional tone to it so the image of America would make many people feel sorry for America so it makes them pull out of the
Jake Mendala 10/17/2011 Post WW2 History Auschwitz 5 Point Essay The book Auschwitz, written by Dr. Miklos Nyiszli, takes place during the Nazi occupation of Hungry. Any “enemy” to the Third Reich was deported to one of their concentration camps. Dr. Nyiszli was one of the unlucky ones to be sent to the biggest concentration camp, or other known as death camps, of Auschwitz. There are five key points that the author makes clear through the first two thirds of the book. Dr. Nyiszli wanted to make it clear that the Nazis were willing to kill men, women, and children not only because there intense hatred for Jews but also for research that was conducted through dissecting the human corpses.