On the contrary this shows that the disputes between these factions may imply that the King was weak and not in control thus significantly threatening the stability of government . However the rivalry between factions could not be seen as an significant threat to Henrys government because a more important factor jeopardised the stability of the government. Foreign Policy dominates during the last years of Henrys VIIs reign. The difficulties in Scotland contributed greatly to financial complications thus effecting the stability of the government and shadowing the rivalry between reformist and conservatives which would suggest that the threat was not major. Henry was exposed to the pull of the factions but a new aristocratic approach to the government strengthened the conservative faction however with the arrest of Duke of Norfolk (1547) and the dismissal of Gardiner from the Privy Chamber the reformists gained the much needed advantage .
It can be seen that, even after Poltava, Russian industry was still instrumental in Peter’s absolutism, as the stable economy prevented the revolt of important members of society such as merchants, who could now trade effectively with other countries. However, there were some reforms that were unconnected with foreigners, and others which were Western in origin but not designed to strengthen his rule. The abolition of the position of Patriarch was a move prompted not by any Western influence but by Peter’s desire to remove opposition, and hence maintain his absolutism. The actual date (1700) was determined by the convenient death of Patriarch Adrian, and Peter chose not to appoint a successor as the war was going badly and he was unpopular, and the Patriarch would have been a focus for disillusioned Russians. The assemblies which were held from December 1718 in St Petersburg and included the compulsory presence of women, were a complete break with the Muscovite tradition but owed more to Peter’s desire to show the extent of his Westernisation, rather than any advance in royal
Moreover, the fact that Disraeli did not consult parliament lead to him being accused by Gladstone of ‘undermining Britain's constitutional system’, due to his lack of reference or consent from Parliament. However, whilst one can easily condemn Disraeli for his action in this situation, one is ignoring the other side of the story. The Suez Canal purchase of 1875 gave Disraeli more political clout due to the fact that it was of large political important to many European countries. As
Russia also feared the growing German threat and sought to ally itself with Great Britain, France, and even Germany itself for protection. The British, for their part, tried hard to remain out of the conflict, but found that having the world's most powerful navy made that impossible. Rebellious provinces within the Austro-Hungarian Empire made central Europe extremely unstable, and the leaders of the Ottoman Empire in the Near East sought to expand their power. Historians have generally noted that the European powers had managed to avoid war for so long, that when it did
Following the Crimean war (1853-56) Austria was politically isolated and had lost some of her military might. Austria was faced with divisions in her empire and was more concerned with controlling her home front than controlling Italy. Napoleon was now willing to go to war against Austria in 1859 as the decline in Austria showed a great deal of weakness and it is debatable whether Napoleon would have taken this risk if Austria’s rule did not decline. Italy gained Lombardy at the Peace of Villafranca as France and Piedmont were able to defeat her at Magenta and Solferino due to Austria’s decline. This showed great importance as without Austria declining, it would be fair to say this would not have happened.
A few years later, a crisis arose in the Balkans, as a result of which, the Dreikaiserbund was terminated. In 1877, the Russo-Turkish war broke out with Russia defeating the Turks in 1878. After fierce resistance, the Turks surrendered and signed the Treaty of San Stefano. By signing this treaty, Russia acquired greater influence in the Balkans. Nevertheless, Austria-Hungary did not accept this settlement but on the other hand Bismarck was eager to prevent a
The creation of the European Union in 1952 was due to the fact that Europeans wanted to create a better future and for another world war to never happen again. European integration and economic prosperity were key reasons why the EU was created. There are two main views on integration-the intergovernmentalist and the neo-functionalist discussions on how the EU functions. The quote “The history of the European Union shows that, at its heart, it is a Franco-German partnership…the EU is not a supranational organization”, is one prime example of how an intergovernmentlist views the EU. Based on the theory of intergovernmentalism, the Franco-German partnership is the most vital and important in regard to power and influence in the EU, because both France and Germany are the founding members of the European Union, having strong economies and both have strong influence upon EU legislation due to these factors.
Liberal internationalism Two main bases; The first is the fear of and international ‘state of nature’ Idea that self-determination is a mixed blessing, While preserves self-government it creates a world of sovereign nation states controlling own freedoms and interests, possibly at the extent of other nations. In conditions of international anarchy, self-restraint may not be enough to ensure enduring peace. Two forms of prevention have been proposed First being international independence with the intention of promoting cooperation; (this is why liberal s support free trade between free nations) material cost would be huge in conflict, war would therefore be unthinkable. Libs also proposed a supernatural body/ bodies to bring order to otherwise lawless international structure. Seen in social contract theory; government is the solution to problem of disorder.
Druga Gymnasia- Ib Diploma program | Why did collective security fail to keep peace between 1920 and 1935? | | | | 25/5/12012 | Berina Beširović III1 IB | The League of Nation`s major aim was consisted of four optimistic elements that were planned to bring prosperity for Europe: encourage cooperation, stop aggression, disarmament and improvement of social conditions. The basis for success in these aims was maintaining collective security which was what League wanted to provide securing peace and stability in Europe. Even though League had both strengths and weaknesses it did not avert its own policy of collective security from failing which automatically meant road to new war. This essay examines the reasons why collective security failed in years 1920-1935, and reasons for the failure can be grouped in four big categories: internal issues of collective security, external issues, impact of Great Depression and final decline due to events of 1930s.
This is implying of course that the decision by Nicholas II to go to war against Germany and it’s allies in 1914 was wrong, but this is not the case. Russia actually had many reasons to risk war again; the war was weighed heavily in the allies favour as the combined forces of Great Britain, France and Russia were far stronger than that of Germany, Austria and Hungary. Russia was aware of it’s major failing though, it’s slow modernisation had left it trailing behind that of the other countries, and Russia would have to be prepared for the rapid social and economic change that a war brings. This was Russia’s best chance to modernise and not be left behind. Russia’s early hopes were soon dashed however.