Although the Reign of Terror did not protect the rights of man like the starters of the French Revolution wanted, it helped secure military victories for the French against external enemies, quelled the counterrevolution that was stirring in France due to nobility and clergy, and the speaking prowess of political leaders, such as Robespierre, helped convince the common peoples to join the Reign of Terror in extinguishing external and internal enemies of France. The Reign
The objectives of these reforms were to simply keep the Creoles from being superior or even on the same level as the Iberians. Of course the Spanish and the Portuguese were the ones to benefit by setting these reforms, however, in the long run, it was more beneficial to the indigenous peoples because it caused them to revolt and take back what was theirs. Spain By the 18th century, Spain was set back by foreign wars, increasing debt, declining population, internal revolts, and threats by its surrounding countries of France, England, and Holland. The Bourbon reforms of Spain were launched by the Bourbon dynasty because of increasing attacks on the Iberian empires by these foreign rivals, the need to strengthen the state and economy, and to secure its holds on the American colonies. Spanish troops were sent to New Spain to reinforce defense and military matters.
This was a more successful achievement compared to the others because there weren’t as many negatives. Some say that the amount of deaths that happened as a result of the war weren’t worth the victory that came of it however Thatcher needed to take that risk of going to war in order to restore faith in her. With the EU for example, even though there were some successes, Thatcher did cause tensions with Europe because of her disagreements (as shown in her Bruges Speech 1988) whereas with the Falklands War, the only negative consequences were the 255 deaths which was inevitable when going to war to show that a country still had influence and
The events mentioned were only a starting point, with many violent acts to come but they do provide the base of which the Nationalist feeling of unhappiness stems from. The events that lead to the immediate intervention by the British, being the riots of 1968, bloody Sunday and the Omagh bombings all helped to stem the conflict, illustrating that it was at the stage where external intervention was required, and tensions were present because of British imperialist action taken in the 17th century. Without the external intervention, the agreement which solidified the peace, the Belfast or Good Friday agreement, the peace process would have been significantly slower if present at all. Had Britain not have intervened in the Irish conflict for the final time with a true interest in ending the violence, we could well be seeing reports of terrorism on our nightly news broadcast today. To understand how actions in 1541 by the British fuelled the fire of conflict, the background of Irish history needs to be covered.
To a large extent the main threat to the stability of the Weimar Republic came from the political violence of the extreme right in the period 1919 to 1923 with incidents such as The Kapp Putsch in 1920 and the numerous assassinations. However, although the violence from the extreme right was a huge factor in creating instability, there were many other factors including threats from the Elites, economic threats, the Treaty of Versailles, threats from the Left and finally the weakness of the Weimar Constitution. This proves that the threats from the Right were some of many threats to the Weimar Republic but there is not enough evidence to suggest that they were overall the main threat. The aim of the political violence from the Right was to overthrow the new Weimar Republic in order to return it back to an autocracy and secondly to reject the Treaty of Versailles. They planned to do this through the event of the Kapp Putsch in March 1920 where General Luttwitz led his Freikorps brigade into Berlin, seized the government district of the city and Wolfgang Kapp was declared chancellor by Luttwitz.
The main threat to the stability of the Weimar Republic in the period 1919-1923 came from violence of extreme right” How far do you agree with this judgement? During the period of 1919-23, the Weimar Republic faced many problems affecting its stability such as the weakness of the Weimar Constitution itself, opposition from the Left and the Right but it’s important to understand that the Republic was created out of defeat and it was forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles. This arguably posed a bigger threat than political violence from the extreme right as it unleashed a wave of humiliation from the public and the German army felt they had been ‘stabbed in the back’. However, there are other factors to consider when discussing threats to the stability of the Weimar Republic such as economic and social instability . The threats to the Republic from the right and left forces were apparent almost immediately after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles as the reduction in army size was too much for a number of right wing nationalists who demanded the rejection of the Treaty and the Weimar state to be overthrown.
Locke stands firm in the belief that people can incite a revolution against their government when it begins to work against what is in the best interest of the populace (Locke, p. 112). He places limits on these actions - such as what a conqueror is entitled to and what would justify as tyrannical behavior - but still justifies the right to instigate a shift political power. On the other hand, Hobbes finds private discourse against one’s sovereign to a disease (p. 197). He finds contempt in the populace under the sovereign, noting that most of were incapable of understanding the inner mechanisms powering the sovereign (p. 207). By deeming the collective population incompetent and likening their anti-governmental chatter to a plague, it is not a reach to assume Hobbes would not prescribe a right to revolution.
Although the acts of popular violence did cause Nehru, Jinnah and Lord Mountbatten’s nerves to rise, movements such as the Riots of Rawal Pindi in 1947 were essentially a result of religious tension. Furthermore, it may be said that it was not popular violence that caused the partition, but Britain’s inability to continue to control government. Source 5 seems to support this notion as it claims, “government was on the verge of collapse”, indicating that the Raj no longer held an irrefutable position in India. Although we must consider that the threat of popular violence in the future did in fact worry Congress and encourage the need for partition, a more significant factor in causing Partition was Congress’ incapability to meet the demands of Jinnah and The Muslim League as seen in the Cabinet Mission of 1946. One may infer that their differing views played a fundamental role in partition, because the only viable solution to preserve peace in the sub-continent was to partition it into a Muslim-dominated area and a Hindu-dominated area in August 1947.
Richard shows a dangerous capacity for poor judgment and fascination with luxury, which deviate from the expectations of royalty. The servile followers that Richard is surrounded by also play an integral role in his incompetence. Moreover, there is mirrored imagery when Shakespeare discusses Bolingbroke’s determination to depose Richard with the Earl of Essex’s rebellion to overthrow Queen Elizabeth. However, the Earl of Essex’s rebellion was unsuccessful, as his supporters had deserted him before arriving at London whereas Bolingbroke’s uprising was successful due to the support of the nobles. Bolingbroke strives to preserve his family honour and retrieve his rightful land, thus his ambitions prove him to be a competent co-ordinator.
He required that his subjects “loan him the equivalent of five subsidies” and although it was “opposed by significant numbers in the localities,” the taxation still occurred as the government had “employed all its powers to eliminate resistance”. Moreover, the Forced Loan only happened as a result of Charles dismissing the 1626 Parliament, forfeiting his opportunity of obtaining further grants for his wartime expenditure. Parliament had already been antagonised by Charles’ decision to dismiss them and now that Charles was forcing taxation on others in order to fund his wartime expenditure, due to disastrous foreign policy which Parliament largely disagreed with, it is clear that the Forced Loan had worsened relations greatly. In addition to this, the financing of foreign policy also affected the relationship between Crown and Parliament. As stated previously, the Forced Loan existed to fund England’s wars considering that Parliament was reluctant to grant Charles further subsidies.