His views fell between those of Clemenceau and those of Wilson. He was under huge pressure from the public to punish Germany. Yet at the same time he believed he should not punish Germany too harshly. He saw this action as disastrous for future peace, for Germany would seek revenge in the near future if the treaty was too harsh. “We want a peace which will be just, but not vindictive.
One problem with ideology was that the two powers openly criticised each other’s policies. Khrushchev was very critical about the Great Leap Forward, which led to the withdrawal of Soviet economic aid. Part of the reason was that Khrushchev did not agree with the ideological methodology of things such as the ‘back-yard’ furnaces. It was different to how the Soviets did it. Mao criticised Khrushchev for his policies such as de-Stalinisation and his secret speech.
The kind of people that "espouse the doctrine of reconciliation" are advocates for reconciliation. Paine's language tells me that he feels very strongly about this and he does not like it and knows he is right. Paine describes life in Boston as if it is a terrible place to be and he thinks the situtation there shows that England should not be government of the colonies because are "without hope of redemption". Paine describes those who would reconcile with Great Britian as forced and unnatural. His description of them tells me that he doesn't like them and that he doesn't trust them either.
Certainly these changes were massive, quite abrupt and differed drastically from the norm; however that does not necessarily make them bad. Except, that is how they are viewed by many historians today. The historian N.Reeves believes Akhenaten was unsuccessful, but more in his religion reforms. 'For ordinary folk, there is little doubt that Akhenaten's actions as king over time inflicted the greatest misery: the people were confused by the man's religious vision, frightened by the ruthless manner in which it was imposed and quite likely appalled by his personal behaviour.' Reeves believe that the changes would have confusing and scary for the common people.
The common people were not to be underestimated, their political awareness had grown substantially and they had formulated clear and concise thoughts. They believed the problem lay with the nobles, and how they influenced the king and his decisions. Due to these thought processes we must accept that there was huge amounts of tension between the nobility and commoners, it must have been common practice for nobles to be badmouthed in taverns and other social areas. This sense of injustice and pent up anger must have been building up within all commoners. Initially York would have been their voice but through no fault of his own he could not represent them.
The new taxes that were imposed on baptism, burial and marriage were resented by many of the commons as a great number, particularly the poorer people, could not afford to pay them and they feared that this would prevent their salvation. Source B suggests that Robert Aske led the uprising in an attempt to prevent or reduce the ‘rising entry-fines and new taxes’. Source B also states that the ‘nobles and gentry disliked… the Statute of Uses’. This was an Act of Parliament which limited the application of uses in property law and had been introduced by Henry as a way for him to rectify his financial issues, so perhaps (as Source B suggests) the nobles had helped to lead the rebellion in an attempt to revert this
This being the immediate cause of the treaty's failure shows that Wilson truly was to bullheaded to compromise and talk things out. Historian Bailey said that after Wilson decided that he wanted deadlock because he thought it would arouse public opinion, there was a tidal wave of public opinion and was given a second chance. However, his stiff-necked personality caused him to throw that opportunity away. “first by spurning compromise, and then by spurning the Lodge reservations.” Wilson just throws away opportunities to make both sides happy and cares for nothing more than himself. 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.
They feared once these principles were established they could be extended to ‘soak the rich’ and even out the unfair distribution of wealth in Edwardian Britain. The land taxes were especially controversial, as they would not actually produce a great deal of tax revenue. The Lords denounced this proposal as a ‘class war’. The Lords believed it was their duty to restrain governments from making sweeping changes the electorate had not voted on. A final less important reason was that the Lords believed that it was the fault of the poor that they were destitute in the first place.
The Repeal of the Corn Laws contributed hugely to the downfall of the Tory party as it was the issue that caused an equal divide in cabinet. It was controversial because Peel had once again gone against his party’s word to win over the Irish in a way which betrayed the ultras, essentially his most significant support. Contrastingly to Peel’s social policies, which is the least important factor, the Repeal of the Corn Laws had a much more wider and significant effect on Peel’s position as leader of his own party, he was labelled a ‘betrayer’ by the Disraeli’s and was considered no longer fit to lead the Tories. Peel’s own morality put the nation, which at the time was the starving lower class of the Irish, before party politics, however this
He is sick of the White moderate the most because he had so much hope that they would help but disappointment is what happened and it is really sad to see that. They say to wait even though by waiting more harm is being caused to the oppressed. The white moderate is more devoted to order than to justice and they prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice. They say “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct