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. The source suggests that the Nazis removed the peoples basic rights like freedom of speech because they feared that the people would speak out against the laws that had been created to keep them under control. This is a strong argument against the Germans giving support towards the regime because it suggests that the Germans. Source A also suggests that after the war Germany still wasn’t ready politically so Hitler had an easy task in taking power the
Woodrow Wilson wanted a treaty based on his 14-point plan which he believed would bring peace to Europe. Georges Clemenceau wanted revenge. He wanted to be sure that Germany could never start another war again. Lloyd George personally agreed with Wilson but knew that the British public agreed with Clemenceau. He tried to find a compromise between Wilson and Clemenceau.
Churchill believed that in order to guarantee the security of Czechoslovakia, Europe should have held Germany back and Britain and France should have worked together as an alliance. George F. Kennan, an American Secretary of State during the cold war also disagreed with the Munich Agreement. Kennan thought that Chamberlain and Daladier only agreed with Germany’s proposal only because they didn’t want to participate in war. Chamberlain and Daladier wanted to maintain the peace in Europe. (Document 6) As written in The Origins of the Second World War, by A.J.P.
How far do the sources suggest that James Callaghan was a good prime minister? As sources 1 and 2 would suggest James Callaghan was indeed a good prime minister. James Callaghan is a great prime minister who had the qualities that made him capable of running Britain but daunting economic circumstances led to his downfall. By the end of his government, Britain was deemed “The sick man of Europe”. Source 3 shows a clear disagreement though, as it states Callaghan “struggled to rule effectively until a vote of no-confidence” was called upon.
How far do the sources suggest that Wolsey’s efforts to secure the annulment were half-hearted? (20 marks) Although sources 1, 2 and 3 make suggestions towards Wolsey’s lack of effort in gaining an annulment for Henry, they all generally agree in the fact that his ability and determination to fill Henry with the hope that he would succeed in obtaining the annulment showed that Wolsey made gaining the annulment his main priority which he did try to achieve whole heartedly. Firstly, sources 1 and 2 both agree that Wolsey was wasteful with his resources he had art his disposal and that he did not make an efficient use of not only this, but also his situation. Source 2 states that “Wolsey has marvelous contacts” and “…yet has not made use of this”. It can be implied from this that Wolsey had the ability to obtain Henry’s annulment, but failed due to his lack of effort and his half-hearted approach.
To avoid war in the years 1935 to 1938, Britain and France turned a blind eye to small acts of aggression and expansion, the United States went along with this policy. Even though Roosevelt knew of the threat the Fascist proposed he was still worried about the majority of the isolationist throughout the country. Testing the waters in 1937 he spoke about the democracies teaming up and trying to “quarantine” the problem. The public did not take to well on this idea, and he quickly dropped the subject. Even though that speech failed Roosevelt somehow managed to argue for neutrality but at the same time convince Congress to start building up the arms and increase the military and naval budget by nearly two-thirds in 1938.
That’s why I don’t like, hate it even though those stories were so lame. In Conclusion, I hope I never get old and greedy like a republican. People should follow the ideas of transcendentalism and use romanticism in their creative forte, it will help make the world a better place or whatever it’s cool
The view that the B.E.F was ill equipped and unprepared contrasts with the view of Winston Churchill in Source B7, who believes Dunkirk was a success achieved by ‘valour’, ‘perseverance’, ‘perfect discipline’, ‘faultless service’, ‘resource’ and ‘skill’. It also says that Germany was ‘roughly handled’ while in source B15 we get a sense that it was the B.E.F that were roughly handled by the enemy. This tells us that Winston Churchill wanted to hide the fact that Dunkirk was a quick, unprepared mission from the public so the morale of the British people was not ruined. He then goes on to say that ‘we must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations, but there was a victory inside this deliverance for
Imagine someone immediately after 9/11 who had been friends with bin Laden (when he was just a businessman) and who argued against the war in Iraq. Such a person would be judged by his friendship and would no doubt be seen as himself a terrorist; his arguments against the war would be seen as pro-al-Qaeda, and their rationale ignored. Socrates' situation was similar so that even though he was a passionate lover of Athens, and so no traitor or Spartan sympathizer, and though he saw his criticisms as arising from love of Athenian democracy and a wish to improve it, he was no doubt seen as someone whose loyalty was seriously in doubt. It isn't unusual in times of turmoil for people to mistake the criticism that stems from loving a country and wanting it to be better for
* Along the same lines as the failure of the League of Nations, the short term failure of the appeasement policy of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in the late 1930s was a contributory factor, especially after Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938/39. However, Chamberlain reflected the popular feeling within Britain and should not be judged too harshly: as Churchill said later 'to jaw, jaw is always better than war,