England for a long time had been told to hate Catholics and when James came from Scotland and became king he decided to marry Henrietta Maria, a Catholic, the people became unhappy because they did not know if their heir would be Protestant or Catholic. In 1625 England became involved in expensive foreign wars - with the Austrian Empire then in 1627 a war against France. This meant that Charles was very short of money and so he forced rich people to lend it to him. In 1628 Charles asked Parliament to let him raise custom duties on wines and many other goods. The MPs were not happy with the forced loans and foreign wars so they presented Charles with the Petition of Rights which was just parliament saying that Charles cannot raise custom duties without parliaments permission.
England’s monarchy in the early seventeenth century boasted multiple problems. Kings sought to rule independently and did not want to ration their power to the nobles in Parliament. Due to the large amount of debt left behind from Elizabeth I’s rule, some English kings created new taxes or found new means by which to raise revenue without consulting Parliament. England notably started to decline beginning with the rule of James I. Succeeding James I was Charles I, and his policies propelled England to civil war.
At this time Britain was extremely frustrated because the German Empire had taken control of the sea, the strength that for a long time belonged to Britain. The naval force was something that they wanted back, and therefore entered the war. It did not look very promising for either France or Britain since Russia, the German Empire and Austria-Hungary (who were the largest nations at this time) cooperated. However, since the new German emperor Wilhelm II did not care about the alliance, things went wrong. Austria-Hungary declared war with Serbia on 28 July in 1914 after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on 28 June in 1914.
Firstly, ideological differences were responsible for splitting the two communist powers. Ideological differences were a major factor as without a collective agreement both nations would repel and fail to accept any actions by their neighbour. Mao’s was heavily critical of Khrushchev’s policy of peaceful coexistence as it sought better relations with the USA. To china, this was the natural enemy. This demonstrates how differences on both foreign policy and political ideas would cause a larger split between the two nations, Mao was adamant at this point in the 1960’s not to work with the USA; it went against the million of comrades he viewed as ‘struggling ‘ to free themselves from capitalist oppression.
So for example if the allies in the west did not promise to rebuild Germany and try to stop every country from becoming communist when they threatened to even if it through fair vote (rare as it was). It can be argued that the cold war was an avoidable one. Firstly the Russians were very aggressive in creating a buffer zone and in fact created communist states practically all over Eastern Europe and made much more than a buffer zone and Stalin was at the heart of all these communist political movements and was trying to spread his influence to even Italy and France. This worried the west very much because they thought their very freedom was being threatened but more importantly the more states that became communist the less ttade there was. The west needed trade partners in the east and they couldn’t trade with communist states.
‘Was the war main problem facing the Tsar in February 1917?’ [16 marks] In this answer I will be trying to conclude whether or not World War Two was the main problem facing the Tsar in February 1917. I will be talking about the The war was the main problem facing the Tsar because the Tsar was becoming increasing unpopular with the public because he wouldn’t end Russia’s participation in the war. This was because the Allies wanted them to continue fighting, and the Tsar had to do what they wanted because they had lent Russia money, and to continue doing so, the Tsar had to do what they wanted. The w War also links in to Russia’s food shortages. When Russia started participating in the War, factories turned to creating guns, ammunition and other products for the war effort.
The Treaty of Versailles was to blame for the outbreak of war in 1939, firstly, because its one of Hitler's main aims to destroy the treaty in his foreign policy. Many Germans, including the Nazis, felt the treaty was incredibly unfair on Germany. The treaty placed restrictions on the German military, for example, only 100,000 men in the army, 6 battleships, no airforce, submarines or tanks, and only 15,000 men in the army. This would have decreased the national pride in Germany and many extremist dictators would want to rearm to restore the German pride. This meant that tensions would increase because the Germans would have wanted revenge, thus meaning a war would be very possible.
However the real question here is, whether the United States was justified in going to war with Mexico at all. In our opinion, the U.S was not. The United States wanted to take advantage of a new nation on the verge of success, which in the end all it did was cause many causalities. The U.S for three reasons had no right to go to war. Their greed for more land, Polk as their president and the Americans interest in the expansion of slavery, were all factors on this ongoing controversial disagreement still rampant today.
England lost. Money is another reason Charles I was having problems with Parliament. On the coast people had to pay something called ship taxes for the country to build ships etc for war. But Charles was short for money. He introduced this tax to the whole country and misused it by not using it for ship money.
Amie Bradley T/R phil 3 The Future Meaning of War There are many reasons why the U.S. needs to stop military spending around the world. Focusing to the most pertinent factors we see that: Our nation is in the largest amount of debt in not only its own history, but the history of mankind. Also our system of acting as a police like force for the entire world actually creates more tension and violence. This police-like image of the U.S. creates much more conflict amongst other countries, which antagonizes and creates a type of ‘want’ for more reasons to conflict war. The last reason to reject our ‘world-wide military spread’ (which is also the most in depth and most difficult of the three reasons to understand) is: The future’s national meaning and common understanding of ‘war.’ This can also be explained as the ‘Future’s way of participating in a war.