The United States military was used as a tool of economic diplomacy. ! Wilson: Wilson came into office with little foreign relation experience, however, was determined to base his policy on moral priciples rather than materialism to the selfish degree. He was very eager to encourage the process because he strongly believed that democracy was gaining strength throughout the world. !
This tells us that he had firm control of the country, and was allowing change in the safest of manors. On the other hand the lack of rebellions may have been due to Northumberland’s ruthless nature during previous rebellions making people afraid of repeating the same outcome. The movement to Protestantism can be attributed more to the Kings wishes, and not represent what Northumberland himself wanted. Northumberland’s social and economic ideas were primarily aiming towards getting the government’s finances back to stability. After Henry VIII’s erratic spending the crown and country were in financial crisis and this systematic and logical approach made by Northumberland towards the crisis shows his ability in this area of ruling.
Kaiser Wilhem II was an unpredictable, intelligent man with a poor judgement, hardly the kind of person you would give almost unchallenged political powers. The Kaiser's constitutional powers showed that he certainly had enough potential powers to be a authoritarian leader and i believe he fulfilled all his potential by using his power to 'ensure the constitution preserves the power of the elite' which was Bismarks main aim as the chancellor. The Kaiser could appoint and dismiss the Chancellor, dissolve the Reichstag with the consent of the Bundesrat, control Germany's foreign policy and serves as the commander of chief of the armed forces. The plethora of consitutional powers the Kaiser held clearly supports the
The removal of the opposition was also a useful fact into the Nazis staying in power. Another element that was key for keeping the Nazis in power was the economic state of Germany at this time. This helped the regime stay in power because they were the most confident that they could solve the economic depression of Germany. Each of the sources has a strong point that support or challenge the statement that the key element in keeping the regime in power was the consent of the German people. Source A is about removing opposition and the use of propaganda to control what the population thought and did this is challenging the question as the consent is not given but actually forced out of the none Arian people of Germany.
This view is largely accredited because Pitt came into office in a difficult time but events around him seemed to benefit him rather well. Britain was entering the industrial revolution at the time, industry rose up and trade would boom due to expansion of the industries at home and abroad, the advancements of technology meant that Britain was going through a natural change that arguably Pitt was able to captain through leading to better fortunes. The natural opposition from the Whig party against the king led by Charles Fox meant that Pitt naturally had the Kings support against any opposition which could be thrown at him, the king would back him up. The American Revolution and his lack of connection to it meant that he was seen as a new politician not one of the previously failed governments who’s lack of control and rule in a situation. And lastly the regency crisis of 1788 meant that Pitt could use this to gain favour with the king and gather support from his own party and draw it away from the opposition.
Although the industrial revolution had a huge positive impact on German economy, it also lead to a rise in socialism which meant the emergence of pressure groups, such as the Nationalist pressure groups and the Economic pressure groups. These groups were often focused on single issues, but they highlighted the tensions and divisions in Germany. Foreign minister and Chancellor Von Bulow played a key part in protecting the position of the Second Reich's ruling elite. He focussed on an aggressive foreign policy to
This was further elaborated by Maoz and Russett (1993) that political disputes among democratic countries are settled through compromises instead of the destruction of the opposite side. Proponents of liberalism do agree that clashes in interests among liberal democracies are common but their solutions taken will not far off from the set of boundaries that are set by each country in dealing with foreign matters. Dixon (1994) termed such behavior as “bounded competition” in which countries vowed to regulate rivalry in clashes of interest in a peaceful and nonviolent step. It is worth noticing that there are non-liberal countries like Saudi Arabia may share a diplomatic relationship with liberal democracies like America.
Roosevelt’s republican party split, Taft’s separation from the ideas of Roosevelt, and Wilson’s democratic perspective bring light to the idea that although these men shared the progressive opinion, their ideas differed in many ways. Theodore Roosevelt was the brain behind the progressive party that would eventually lead to the split of the Republican party. Roosevelt called for the “Square Deal” between business, consumers, and labor and supported the “Strenuous Life”. Unlike the others, Roosevelt wished to destroy bad trusts and regulate the good ones rather than break them all up. Roosevelt was the first president to introduce progressive ways of thinking and although each president’s ideas were similar in ways such as trust busting and conservation measures, his ideas were the framework for the U.S. William Howard Taft was the presidential candidate hand picked by Roosevelt.
I believe Adams was a great president because he managed to keep George Washington’s policy of remaining neutral and staying isolated. He also managed to create a treaty with France which helped us become neutral with them. If we weren’t cool with France or Britain, then the chances of us getting invaded by one or even both of the countries would
Having leadership skills is what makes a good leader a great leader. In the terms of Churchill his leadership skills were led by his charismatic resolutions lead to increased political focus that help lead him to war time peacemaking. In terms of being a good manager his ability to lead during a turmoil time brings his management skills to question. Having the ability to manage an entire country through the biggest world war and his ability to us his leadership skills in doing so was a