This was evidently a great success as shortly after Napoleon was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. This defeat, and the ending of continuous years of war, undoubtedly formed the basis of Castlereagh’s policies as his time as Foreign Minister. Castlereagh foreign policy was geared towards sustaining peace that Europe had not experienced in quite some time. Because of this, his foreign policy was largely centred on trying to appease and creating allies and alliances to ensure greater stability in Europe. Unlike Castlereagh, Canning came to office as Foreign Minister in 1822 to 1827 and was largely able to experience the stability of peacetime among Europe.
Policymakers in the US were not interested in peace, but rather what they could get out of peace. When it came to negotiating, they blatantly denied Britain’s proposal to allow their Native American allies to stay in their Midwest territories when such a limitation would require the ever growing population of the States to sacrifice precious farmland. Also, the British conceded valuable fishing rights to the American government for the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. The treaty did not even mention the problem of impressments that the US tried to pass as justification for declaring war in the first place. The participation in this war also resulted in an explosion within the US Navy that made future overseas endeavors possible, and the United States gained serious respect from European powers that had previously noted the budding country as a cute experiment.
However some historians would say that Britain was too complacent when it came to foreign policy, and as soon as they believed they had reached satisfactory targets, they wouldn’t go any further, and so risk harming British interests. Yet other historians would also suggest that at the time, Britain had no choice but to be sometimes complacent due to economic factors, and at the time, their policy making decisions were not ultimately harmful to interests, but best suited to the current international climate. British Foreign policy in the 1920’s was dominated by the France and German tensions. Britain and France disagreed on most issues. French leaders were particularly concerned about Germany’s efforts to undo the treaty of Versailles.
“Between 1933 and 1937, the British public’s hostility to the confrontation of foreign powers left the National Government with no alternative to a policy of appeasing Hitler and Mussolini.” – How far do you agree with this judgement? Due to the aftermath of the First World War and the oncoming threat of further war, the general public opinion was to avoid war at all costs during the time between 1933 and 1937. It was in British interests to maintain peace because of similar reasons, and because of the state of the British economy. The British public were therefore not hostile to confrontation of foreign powers, but wanted to avoid the conflict, meaning there was a strong influence on the National Government to please the general public, and appeasement was a better option than to use violence. The public opinion of wanting to be peaceful was the main reason why the National Government felt as if there was no alternative to appeasing Hitler and Mussolini.
Palmer writes about how Wolsey successfully brought about peace between England and France in 1514, and that he engineered the universal peace of London in 1518. Wolsey also planned the Field of the Cloth of Gold in 1520 and negotiated peace between the Empire and France at Calais in 1521. Wolsey’s peaceful approach also benefitted England in that it reduced costs at a time when the country could not afford another war, and successfully made England a major ‘player’ in Europe, which was a desire of Henry’s. Another point in support of the view that the successes in foreign policy outweighed the failures is that Wolsey was sly and flexible in his diplomacy. We can see this in source 4, which shows us how Wolsey used the
‘The advantages of enlarging the EU after the end of the cold war were significant for its member states.’ How valid is this assessment? The enlargement of the EU was positive for both member states, the worlds trading and applicant states. The EU would work to bring prosperity, peace and a unity between countries which had been involved in conflict after World War two and the cold war. Even though there were negative aspects of enlarging the EU such as divisions over NATO, the expansion bought many positive aspects. In order for the EU to achieve bringing Europe together after World War 2 they would need to expand.
* Having been forced into peace, Charles was inclined to stay at peace because of any resumption of wat would require a resemption of Parliament to pay for it. * Charles entered the Personal Rule surrounded by ministers who had their own reasons for avoiding war and Parliaments. * Archbishop Laud and Lord Treasurer Weston were the most powerful men in the first half of the personal rule. * Laud and Portland had been prominent in advising the dissolution of Parliament in 1629, and both rightly feared they would be attacked in any new
M.L Bush said that ‘It was interconnected regional rebellions rather than one fluid movement’ because once the rebels had gone back to where they lived dotted across the North of England they would all have to meet up rather than go down to London in one group. Also the rebels outnumbered the King’s army 4:1 when they were confronted at the River Don. Instead of accepting the King’s pardon they should have risked battle once they dispersed they were no longer a threat to Henry. They were the stronger force but they tried to negotiate before they had achieved anything. This is another point towards poor leadership because there was no clear plan in how they were going to get their terms accepted only what terms they wanted.
We should measure effectiveness by whether Henry and Wolsey achieved their aim and what the country gained from the policy. Due to England being a smaller European power, war was a major drain on resources and was simply not affordable. As well as England’s economy suffering under war Henrys status could not be upheld by the victory of war alone. To avoid war being a further burden on England, Wolsey decided to create a non-aggression pact between all major European nations. France, England, The Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Burgundy and the Netherlands, all of whom agreed not to attack one another and to come to the aid of any that were under attack.
How did American influence or dictate the outcome of World War Two though its unofficial involvement as a neutral nation, through its role in Europe and through its role in the Pacific? America did not want to get involved in the second world war. America was a neutral nation at the time. Though through Cash and Carry, Lend-Lease and gaining military power America had a role in World War Two while maintaining neutrality. Americans did not want to enter the war because they thought they had enough to deal with on their own such as the Great Depression.