Such as freedom of speech, voting rights, cutting off the power of the communist party, as well as releasing dissidents like Sakharov. As during that period of time, Soviet Union and his satellites were facing many internal problems, which led to a time of great economic hardship, living standard of people declined, for example, the inefficient agriculture led to shortage of food and the serious inflation, these caused the people suffered a lot and created a discontent feeling with the leader. Since the USSR was used to be a communist state, the opposing opinions were all suppressed by the military force. Thus the reform program provided a chance for the people to express their opinions freely. As a result, people who felt very dissatisfied with the government and wanted to get rid of communist control started a series
With Liverpool gone from office the Tories had lost the only thing that was keeping the different factions together. With him gone old arguments and grudges soon came out into the open. It also meant that the Tory party was now weakened, as it had no united leadership and was unable to settle on a stable arrangement in which all members were agreed. After Liverpool, Canning became Prime Minister and although he had a good plan for improving the country he lost most of his cabinet when Peel, Wellington and five other ministers resigned because they didn’t like his foreign policy or his pro-Catholic feelings. This meant that he had to draft in Whig party members to fill the gaps, which then reduced the Tory presence in Cabinet.
Section IV - International Studies in Peace and Conflict To what extent can it be argued that by the 1960s, Diem’s rule of South Vietnam had been successful?? By the 1960s Diem’s rule of South Vietnam was not successful. His policies were deeply unpopular, his regime was corrupt and based on a system of brutality, and nearly every sector of society opposed him. However, Diem was clearly successful in consolidating his rule and providing early stability to the regime when he first came to power in 1954. Ultimately, Diem was a failure as his rule determined that either Vietnam would become communist or face another war.
However, many other factors played a role in the demise of the Parliament such as the fact that they were ill-organised, the lack of popular support and their inability to enforce decisions. Frederick William IV was partially responsible for the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament as he was unwilling to accept the ‘crown from the gutter’. William IV was aware that acceptance of the leadership may lead to war with Austria. Austria had no wish to see a united Germany and wanted to keep it weak and divided in order to dominate. Frederick William shared this view and was unwilling to potentially cause a war with such a powerful state.
In turn this would destroy Britain commercially and their industrial economy allowing Napoleon to take over Britain however did not work and left Napoleon worse off then he was before. His next mistake was the Peninsular war and as a result weakened his empire even more by the Spanish guerrillas, Germans, and Italians turning against him. Lastly his third mistake lost him most of his soldiers and the tactic used to defeat him was the scorched-earth policy, by the Russians. These mistakes greatly weakened Napoleons Empire. The empire was then declared war on by Britain, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, and Austria.
Case Study: The Russian Ruble Crisis and its Aftermath Overview The case “Russian Ruble crisis and its aftermath” gives a brief description of the crisis that the Russian currency went through after the fall of communism. The case provides a prelude which gives the background of the problem, it then delves into the actual crisis and the issues that happened at that time that shaped the aftermath of the crisis. The fall of communism had split the Soviet Union into different nations, Russia being the largest of them. The Russian government in an effort to decentralize the economy which was crumbling, introduced various programs to transform the country. One such step was to remove price controls, although price controls saw an increase in prices.
One problem with ideology was that the two powers openly criticised each other’s policies. Khrushchev was very critical about the Great Leap Forward, which led to the withdrawal of Soviet economic aid. Part of the reason was that Khrushchev did not agree with the ideological methodology of things such as the ‘back-yard’ furnaces. It was different to how the Soviets did it. Mao criticised Khrushchev for his policies such as de-Stalinisation and his secret speech.
As it was them who started the protest which turned into a revolution and also they were the ones behind the mutiny of the troops. However, the military was having many problems such as the war was going horribly wrong with many casualties, poor commanding from officers and limited military resources and equipment. The peasants were doing the fighting and the dying. So this could be a small contributing factor to the fall of the Romanov's on several different reasons. Firstly the tsar did not help the peasants personally, but instead leave the burden to the prime ministers when they cannot rule like a democracy today.
Trotsky underestimated Stalin and what he was capable of (creating a triumvirate with Zinoviev and Kamenev, using this alliance to defeat him). He lost respect by not turning up to Lenin’s funeral, allowing Stalin to act as though he was closest to Lenin. Yet, the biggest mistake which Trotsky made was when he agreed not to publish Lenin’s
To what extent was Mikhail Gorbachev responsible for the fall of the USSR? “We can’t go on living like this” this was what Mikhail Gorbachev was reported to have said in the eve of his succession. What Gorbachev was talking about was the decline in living standards in the Soviet Union due to its crumbling economic, political and social policies, and was hinting at the change in policies and diplomatic relations which he would implement once he came into power, policies that would eventually lead to the end of the cold war and the collapse of the USSR. It was historian Raymond L. Garthoff who said “…Over four decades it performed the historic function of holding Soviet power in check until the internal seeds of destruction within the Soviet Union and its empire could mature. At this point, however it was Gorbachev who bought the Cold War to an end…”.