How far do the sources suggest that Captain Nolan was to blame for the disastrous charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava? Although Captain Nolan can be seen as one of the main parties to blame in the disastrous charge of the Light Brigade, he was not the commanding officer so his judgement and orders were not supreme, he was merely delivering the orders that Lord Raglan had conveyed through is scribe. This suggests that the blame may not just involve Captain Nolan. As for the evidence that supports the claim that Captain Nolan was to blame for the charge of the Light Brigade, Source A says that he didn’t follow his orders completely and that states that he had an ‘excess of enthusiasm’. This excess of ‘enthusiasm’ could be seen as the weakness that led to him misdirecting the cavalry into a frontal assault, to which they were defeated, emphatically.
Do you agree with the view that the main cause of the Anglo-Irish conflict of 1919-21 was nationalist extremism? To an extent, it can be argued that the main cause of the Anglo-Irish conflict was nationalist extremism. Hepburn (S7) particularly addresses this argument as he assesses the 'blood sacrifice' as 'rapid' and 'deliberate', supported by S9, which describes the Irish Volunteers being entitled to use 'all legitimate methods of warfare if necessary' . However it can also be argued that the fault lay with the British government's ignorance and misunderstanding of Ireland and the Irish people, as Medlicott (S8) points out that the limits of what Britain would offer was ' firm' and that Irelands armed forces were a 'dangerous weapon', which in turn, combined with their violent reprisals towards the IRA, alienated many of the Irish public, and deepened the Irish Conflict as well as being arguably, as much of a 'main cause' of the conflict as extreme nationalists. S7 also highlights the importance of the conscription crisis, which can be argued to be a result of British ignorance, or the manipulation and stirring up by the revolutionary party Sinn Fein which also had a key role in the conflict.
To what extent were Henry VI failings responsible for the outbreak of conflict in 1455? In some ways, Henry VI’s failings could be classed as wholly responsible for the outbreak of conflict in 1455. However, other factors remain and other people can be to blame for the eventual downfall of the monarchical state. Henry VI managed to fail not only in his political leadership but his military leadership as well. If it cannot be pinned on, what A.J Pollard can be quoted as calling, his overall astounding “antipathetic nature towards to the chivalric world his ancestors had adored”, it can definitely be blamed on what A.J Pollard called his “improvident, malleable, vacillating and partisan” personality.
How far do the sources suggest that Wolsey’s efforts to secure the annulment were half-hearted? (20 marks) Although sources 1, 2 and 3 make suggestions towards Wolsey’s lack of effort in gaining an annulment for Henry, they all generally agree in the fact that his ability and determination to fill Henry with the hope that he would succeed in obtaining the annulment showed that Wolsey made gaining the annulment his main priority which he did try to achieve whole heartedly. Firstly, sources 1 and 2 both agree that Wolsey was wasteful with his resources he had art his disposal and that he did not make an efficient use of not only this, but also his situation. Source 2 states that “Wolsey has marvelous contacts” and “…yet has not made use of this”. It can be implied from this that Wolsey had the ability to obtain Henry’s annulment, but failed due to his lack of effort and his half-hearted approach.
D and C provide the suggestion that whilst Disraeli was doing what he thought was right, he was giving views that were against other peoples views, especially important people. Sources A,C and D portray his irresponsibility at its best. The main way he is seen as irresponsible is that he has the constant habit of deciding, not just for himself, but for the whole of Britain. This is shown strongly in Source A when Gladstone, in 1871, tells of how “the Black Sea was always looked upon as impossible to maintain”. This was always the perception of Britain bar Disraeli as it had so many other countries wanting its ownership.
Dresden should be used as an example that although we try to do good, it is not always successfully accomplished. This book presents the world in a rather cynical and uninspired manner. The man who saves Billy's life is only doing it for the glory of it, and eventually he wants Billy to die. As compared to Black Boy, this book does not show man's strife to become more or to achieve greatness. Instead, the book shows man inability to give up.
After taking into account all of these things it’s wise to say that Ralph failed in his attempt to persuade the boys. He was successful in the beginning of the novel with his attempts but could not maintain that same success throughout the whole novel. His failure made the antagonist made almost everyone turn against him and turn into complete savages and made him
Its view is invalid, mainly because there isn’t a South Vietnamese opinion to back it up, that the South Vietnamese government had gained in credibility. This makes the source’s credibility pitiful, as he provides no proof. The only Hess provides is that of an American General, who probably wouldn’t say anything that went against his side, which would question his successfulness. And he does as I thought. He says that “with Tet, the Government of Vietnam had won a major battle for the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese” which is a statement I find to be criminally wrong, not only because of the reasons pre-mentioned but because he has hindsight.
Henry’s speech is considered judicial. Throughout the body of the speech he is stating the wrongs, and the injustice bestowed from the King onto the colonies. ”Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrance’s have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne (Henry).” Here,
For instance in Peter’s letter, in short paragraph, he questioned Alexis about who will continue what he has begun and letting his son know about his potentials but rather he is hiding his talent beneath the earth. (peter’s letter; paragraph 10). This paragraph clearly shows that Peter desire was to press his son to lead the people of Tsar and its tradition. The second reason I believe that he wrote such an angry letter to his son was, because Alexis has no interest in war and politics. He lacked in knowledge in wars and responsibility of succeeding Russia as his son and as a loyal subject.