Although there failure of completely vanquishing the warlords there can be little doubt that Chiang was fairly successful in solving this domestic problem and the effects it would have on the country as it is probably that without him stabilising the political and social unrest civil war would have broken out in the country much early than it did. The GMD was able to successfully implement new and improved transport links throughout the country. The three thousand mile railway track connected North and South which helped Chiang to begin re-unifying the country and the people. However there can be little doubt that the transport was created for sole purpose of the urban rich who were the majority of his supporters and it only aided them to become
One reason why the opponents of the Tsars were more successful than those of the Communists was the fact that, under the Tsars, opposition attained a legal status. It can be argued that the implementation of the Zemstvos under Alexander II paved the way for the full legalisation of opposition, as this allowed the spawning of political ideas. However, under Nicholas II this was more prevalent, as the October Manifesto allowed for the full legalisation of opposition through the implementation of the Dumas. Though the Dumas acted as unsuccessful opposition to the Tsar – as he declared the Fundamental Laws almost immediately after the Dumas came into existence – this was important as it allowed the opposition groups to burgeon. Unlike the regimes of both Alexander II and III, political discussion was allowed, and as such it developed more so than at any other time in the period.
All three Carolingian monarchs wanted the church to reform, wanted to reorganize the church under the pope; all this would help raise their power as the Carolingian dynasty. Charlemagne was indeed the most successful ruler of the Carolingians and he having a good relationship
However, Nicholas II had no choice to create the Duma because of the 1905 revolution; so he reluctantly did so he did not completely lose his position. The Communists were a lot more willing to reform politically. Krushchev, similar to Lenin, was keen to reform politically for example decentralisation; he transferred economic planning to more local
The high medieval period in Europe was dominated by a succession of royal governors, an elite class who controlled the political landscape. Their rule was facilitated by a number of factors; first, by the force of their armies they maintained control of their respective territories, quelling any challenge or rebellion. Second, they performed the function of delivering justice and were thus a valuable source of law and order for their populace. Third, the support of the church, which influenced much of the population, inspired the belief that kings were a representative of god and had a god given right to rule. Fourth, their use of the feudal system, as well as the administration which accompanied it enabled them to keep their kingdoms and subjects in check.
Puritan immigrants arrived in New England, during the 1600s, settling and establishing in areas like Massachusetts Bay. In contrast to the Chesapeake region’s settlers, the Puritan settlers did not only come for economic interests, but rather out of aspiration to create a more pure, Christian society based on moral living and emphasis on the family and community. The Puritans had a strong impact on the development of the New England region, based on their religious emphasis and support for a theocratic political structure. By organizing their society based on their want to create a theocracy, the Puritans ensured that their values and ideas had a great impact on the political, economic, and social development of the New England colonies from 1630s through the 1660s. In the political development of New England, the Puritans influenced the region by basing the political structure on a theocratic model that enforced firm moral obedience.
This view is largely accredited because Pitt came into office in a difficult time but events around him seemed to benefit him rather well. Britain was entering the industrial revolution at the time, industry rose up and trade would boom due to expansion of the industries at home and abroad, the advancements of technology meant that Britain was going through a natural change that arguably Pitt was able to captain through leading to better fortunes. The natural opposition from the Whig party against the king led by Charles Fox meant that Pitt naturally had the Kings support against any opposition which could be thrown at him, the king would back him up. The American Revolution and his lack of connection to it meant that he was seen as a new politician not one of the previously failed governments who’s lack of control and rule in a situation. And lastly the regency crisis of 1788 meant that Pitt could use this to gain favour with the king and gather support from his own party and draw it away from the opposition.
However it also important to note the fact that change also had a part to play in the way Russia was governed in this period. The first style of leading which the tsars and Bolsheviks had in common is the fact each of the Tsars and Bolshevik leaders regarded themselves as being God-like. This is shown to be clear in Tsar Nicholas 2nd; he believed he was Gods anointed and the church supported him in making the Russian peasants in particular believe this was true. Peasants would have paintings of the Tsar in their homes and even soldiers would have portraits of Nicholas in the war. Likewise Stalin saw himself as a God-like man in the way he was able to have total control over Russian people.
America’s successes in war generally boosted nationalism and spirit in the people. The United States were the true victors of war coming out with the most. Unlike other many other nations, America’s land, aside from Pearl Harbor, was barely touched omitting any extra time or money that would be necessary for reconstruction. Avoiding reconstruction allowed time for production. Not only was America prosperous, but they also were generous.
Assess the reasons for the Bolshevik victory in the Russian civil war Bolshevik victory in the Russian Civil War of 1918 -1920 would not have been certain without the strong, determined and intelligent leadership provided by Trotsky and Lenin. The fact that the Bolsheviks were led by two individuals, who combined had tremendous political, social and military skills had a direct result on the outcome of the war. There were other significant contributing factors that led to the Bolshevik victory, in particular their supreme political policies that completely offered the Russian people what they wanted. For me the main reason why the Bolsheviks did so well and won was due to the Whites were incompetent, disorganised and highly inefficient. The success of the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War was due to Lenin, Trotsky and their combined political, social and military capabilities as they were experts.