One of the big issues in these two eras was conflicting definitions of “freedom.” Although people had freedom to make money in the Gilded Era, only a small minority of robber barons could do so. In the Progressive Era, White immigrants and women had more rights and freedom to help improve their own working and living conditions. This ultimately made America better, more democratic, forward and progressive. The ideas of Social Darwinism, the Gospel of Wealth, and Horatio Alger success formula made the Gilded Era. Government played a minor role and cities did not offer public relief.
This meant that Germany had a long period of time to pay back the reperations, causing less harm to the economy and political stability. This evidence are reasons for recovery. I agree with this view as there were many factors, as shown above, that make me feel the recovery was affective. On the other hand, evidence shows that many people may disagree with the recovery of the Weimar Republic. Political recovery had against factors as the basic problems of the constitution remained.
This is in contrast to the optimism that Macmillan had of the period stating that people had “never had it so good.” A generalised view is that the Conservative government had missed big opportunities to increase Britain’s status in the world, however not everything can be seen as a waste as the Conservatives had a clear manifesto, which was something that the Labour government did not appear to have, and they had economic and social success throughout Britain. The reasons for Labour’s victory included Wilson’s strengths as party leader and weaknesses of the Conservative party during these somewhat “wasted years.” UK economic growth proved to be slow in the 1950’s and 60’s, especially in relation to other European countries in the EEC, which supports the argument that these may have been thirteen wasted years. Furthermore, as Hennessey stated, “a third of Britain’s wealth had melted in the heart of the world war” and pressure from the USA after the Suez crisis resulted in a run on the pound, with a rapid fall in the value of the pound in international currency markets, especially in relation to the US dollar. Britain’s world exports had fallen from 20% to 15%, compared with Germany who showed a rise from 15% to 20%. In conjunction with this, under the Conservative government, Britain’s economy grew by 40%, however France’s grew by 50%, Germany’s grew by 250%
As seen in Document J this jobs did help to greatly lower the percentage of unemployed between 1935 and 1938. Although the work of the WPA did not completely solve the enormous problem it was certainly a move in the right direction, bringing the USA closer to the complete extermination of the unemployment problem, which was finally achieved after the second world war. This New Deal, fueled by organizations such as the WPA, completely revolutionized the role of the federal government. Coxey had advocated for actions similar to the new deal decades before but his ideas were shut down because the government had such close ties with big. However now, in such drastic times, the federal government realized that it needed to help the common people directly through providing more Jobs.
One major political and military issue that he handled well was the Treaty of Ghent. The British had originally proposed unfavorable terms to the Americans in order to end the War of 1812, when America was losing severely. When most men would have accepted to end the war, Madison held out and when the Americans began to win battles the British had to agree to a more favorable treaty. This had a positive impact on America as a nation as well as the way it was viewed by foreign nations. Macon’s bill #2 also had a positive affect on the United States in the short term, as it reopened trade with France and England, and for a short time just France, which had been America’s greatest commercial sources of trade.
They had predicted a loss for the new facility within the budget but they were not able to predict the economic downturn. The new facility is located in an area where individuals have better insurance and younger population base so, the speculation is the revenue generated would be more profitable, unlike the facilities in Seattle that have a higher population on Medicare and Medicaid. (Facts and Figures,
Mckinnon emphasizes that the unification of Germany was not an unavoidable outcome of economical forces. However, he does admit that Austrian exclusion from the Zolverein consequently cut them off from German economic life, which lead to important political consequences.Merriman agrees with this and adds that Bismarck was given great support from businessmen that believed they would be given significant economic benefits due to unification. These facts illustrate that although historians such as Keynes state “the German empire was not founded on blood and iron but on coal and iron.” Historians views still differ greatly today, Keynes articulately emphasizes upon how the economic union failed to have a huge impact on the unification of Germany nevertheless he claims that all the impact that the economy did have is easily traced back to Bismarck as the driving force behind it. Perhaps the most important economic factor
Initially, during this period Stresemann made some tough decisions but they resulted in a stabilised economy. One of his policies was to withdraw the old currency and replace it with the mark which would be kept in limited supply and therefore would not suffer from inflationary pressures. Additionally he ordered people back to work including the Ruhr who were on strike. He also introduced the Dawes plan which restructured the reparations and resulted in an additional loan from the USA to ease off the payments. This enabled Germany to make regular easy payments.
Assess the view that Russia’s Communist leaders did less than the Tsars to improve the lives of the working class from 1855 to 1964. Then end of the Romanov dynasty after the October revolution in 1917 initially signalled a better quality of life for the working class due to the Bolshevik ideological basis of the proletariat, however in reality this illusion did not transcend into actuality, and the workers faced many of the same or worse hardships under the Communist governments. Of course when comparing the overall quality of life for anyone, life was better by 1964 than in 1855, however this change was mainly brought about by Khrushchev’s improvements at the end of the time period; when taking into account all of the Communist leaders, Stalin and Lenin’s rule arguably worsened the workers’ lives the most of all the rulers, Tsarist or Communist, and thus it cannot be said that Khrushchev’s reforms make up for the hardships the workers suffered under most of the Communist leaders. Thus after taking into consideration the different aspects of the working class’s lives in regards to their civil rights, living conditions and working conditions, I agree with the stated view. One aspect of the workers’ lives that needs to be considered in order to see whether the Communist leaders did less than the Tsars to improve them is their living standards.
Through examining these factors this essay intents to argue that popular policies did help the Nazis remain in power to a small extent, however the other factors also were required. The presence of force confirms that Nazi remaining in power did not rely solely on genuine support. On the one hand there is evidence that the Nazis introduced popular social and economic policies which won them support to enable them to stay in power. Most significantly was the drop in unemployment. This dropped from just below 6 million when Hitler came to power to 250,000 in 1938 and had disappeared by 1939.