This is supported also by Source 6, which specifies that it was in the ‘recruitment for the Second Boer War’ that made it clear reforms needed to be done in order to solve the gradual rise of poverty in Britain. However, although the war cannot be disregarded when discussing the cause of social reform in Britain, it is far more likely that the Second Boer War acted as a catalyst for reforms, due to the fact that it is clear reforms were on the rise previously to the war, and would have undeniably happened regardless of working class recruitment into the war, making poverty apparent. Although all three sources present varied opinions of the effect that the war had on Britain socially, there are ways in which they do agree. Sources 4,5 and 6 all mention the fact that the level of poverty within working class members of society was brought to light during the recruitment of new soldiers, and this is what ‘convinced the
Agriculture in Russia was far behind other great powers and peasants were suffering greatly through the repeated famines in 1902 and 1905. Sergei Witte had done nothing to improve agriculture only focusing on the economy of Russia. This led to subsistence agriculture. Grain was being exported and there wasn’t enough for the peasants. This also meant that the land was not used to it full potential, all these factors lead to the famines and causing peasants to up rise using violence against government officials.
Do you agree with the view that the Boer war advanced the cause of social reform in Britain? The important factor of this argument is the impact that the Boer war has on social reform. Therefore there is the Boer war, social reform and how they link together. Within source 6, it shows that the “Recruitment for the Second Boer war drew attention to the problem of poverty” as even though the army was most likely desperate for volunteers “almost half the men who volunteered for the army were physically unfit for military service” this links the Boer war and social reform as the physically unfit soldiers drew the governments attention “to help the poor” which was social reform in itself, otherwise “Britain might be unable to defend her Empire adequately in the event of a major war.”. this statement, albeit made almost a century after the events actually happened – but would’ve most likely done research with hindsight added to it- does coincide with source 5, which was fresh information of the time, namely when the reforms were in action.
One of the possible factors was the genuine concern that they felt towards the poor. However, this argument cannot be ignored but it would prove too simplistic and explanation on why the Liberals introduced the social reforms. There are a number of other factors which led too the introduction of the Reforms one being the social reports of Booth and Rowntree that confirmed poverty was a big issue. Also the fact that Britain feared her place being a top industrial power was threatened by a lack of good workers, britains Empire was still extremely important to her and they had discovered when recruiting for the Boer war that many men were unable to fight due to poor health. Some even argue that the Reforms were introduced for politically selfish reasons as they believed that the Liberals felt threatened by the Labour party.
This was terribly inconsiderate of the military as the other 82% of the nation was left to starve as the military was the government’s top priority. This led to extreme cases of hunger across Russia which soon became famine. Food shortages were at their worst in the towns and cities, Petrograd suffered particularly badly due to the remoteness from the food-producing regions. Secondly, transportation was a key pre- existing war condition; it was the disruption of the transport system rather than the decline in food production that was the major cause Russia’s wartime shortages. The attempt to transport millions of troops and masses of supplies to the war fronts created unbearable pressure on the Russian transport system, and it bucked under the pressure.
The government can be seen to be doing this through the vast amount of Council house’s that were built. This new approach was revolutionary compared to the previous Conservative government with Classical Economics where if Unemployment was low the government would not intervene; for the first time action was being down to prevent Unemployment. There were problems however, inflation had started to rise and by nationalising the Coal industry, mining became inefficient as there were now too many people working after the government overmanning of the mines.
Medical knowledge was helpless in the face of pandemics like the mid-third-century plague, and Roman families could no longer populate the empire." (Sherman & Salisbury, 153) Perhaps the greatest factor that led to the population decline was the lack of offspring. " The future of Rome...depended on offspring to carry on the family and other cultural traditions. Yet throughout the empire, had a particularly hard time reproducing. (Sherman & Salisbury, 149) Lack of knowledge on children's and woman's healthcare resulted in a low birthrate. "
The life of man in the 17th century was ‘nasty, brutish and short.’ I agree with this statement because the living and working conditions for the poor were terrible for most people in the 17th century. The food was poor and was very restricted due to the seasons and the price of it. People were undernourished due to lack of food that they needed, meat was expensive in the winter because they could not preserve it when it was fresh therefore it was salted so that it could last for the winter. Also, the poor relied on their harvests in the autumn for food to last them during the winter but if their crops failed many people starved therefore resulting in many undernourished people. Therefore, because people were so undernourished they had many diseases which became epidemics.
This is very important because food is one of the most important and basic things people want, and lots of revolutions broke out because of famine. Moreover, the war had separated families, since many men were conscripted, and families often lived in fear, knowing that husbands or fathers might be dead. Moreover, in autumn, 50 percent of the enterprises closed down in important industrial centers, leading to mass unemployment, while the wost of living increased severely. Real wages of the workers were about half of what they had been in 1913, and Russia's national debt was 50 billion rubles. Russia thus faced bankruptcy.
The most important plan made was the Beveridge Report in 1942. This report highlighted the main causes of poverty in Britain as, WANT (poverty), DISEASE (bad health), SQUALOR (bad housing), IGNORANCE (poor education), and IDLENESS (unemployment). These causes were called ‘the Five Giants.’ In 1951, Labour was criticized for not keeping its promises, and many of their previous voters turned conservative. This caused Labour to lose the 1951 election, as they had focused more on peace throughout the country after the war, than building