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.
Overall I disagree with this view because, even though some parts of domestic policy were successful for Henry VIII and Wolsey, most aspects of domestic policy failed. For example Wolsey used the Courts to get revenge on old enemies as well as giving justice to all people despite their status or wealth. Source 7 suggests that Wolsey was a useless chief minister and only survived because he knew how to please Henry. Source 8 agrees with source 7 but also says that he was successful in 'centralising English politics'. Source 9 was written by George Cavendish and gives a positive view of Wolsey's contribution to domestic policy.
Through their dominance and influence not only within the military but also within the nations politics and society, Japan’s leaders who possessed military background helped to develop, protect and drive Japan’s economy to one of world-class supremacy. However, to avoid mass generalisation, not all military leaders contributed positively to the evolution of Japan. Tojo Hideki, 40th Prime Minister of Japan, elected in 1941 (Trueman, 2000), caused chaos within his nation, politically and socially, with the effects being felt not only by Japan but universally. Due to Hideki’s power and decisions he devastated, politically, socially and economically his country and people, in addition to this he also created mass tension within their foreign relations with the rest of the Western world. Tojo Hideki undeniably played an important role in Japan’s history, however it was one of destruction and devastation.
Grandpa Bobby tells his story: some people offered him a job smuggling emeralds from South America, but later double-crossed him, tried to kill him, and stole his beloved fishing boat. Ever since then, he's been trying to track them down and get back his boat. It hurt to think that everyone thought he was dead, but it was necessary. First, he didn't want the guys he was looking for to know he was still alive; second, he also knew that if his son found out, he would, true to form, drop everything and rush down to South America without another thought. Grandpa Bobby was in a bar in a small fishing village in Colombia when he saw Paine's interview on the satellite TV.
The Best and Worst of Americas Presidents Throughout U.S history there have been many good presidents and also many bad presidents. I believe that presidents should be graded on how they handle the economy, foreign policy, and equal rights. From our first president to our current president those I believe are the three most important grading points. A good economy is very important because it gives people a better living by giving them job opportunities and a way for people to make money. Foreign policy is important because it has a lot to do with the trade, technology, and communications of the United States.
Marcus Aurelius’ time as an emperor, Ancient Rome was living in harmony and the empire was very rich and big and the military forces was strong and united as well as the senate. With many nations under their command, Ancient Rome was at their top of the history during his reign. After his death, the country became destabilized because his son was not a strong leader and he was corrupted. During the time of Aurelius’s son reign, corruption started to be seem more than ever. Another event that showed the decline of Ancient Rome was when the empire was split into two nations with two emperors.
In Document 2, it shows the Mughals deep Reliance on warfare to support themselves. This large military is what helped them become a major empire in the late 1500’s and early 1600’s. In Document 3, it shows that the respected military of the Turks deeply respect their militaries power. Though this document is from a Hapsburg Ambassador, he may have say fudged a little about how respectable they were, being they were trying to be on the good side of this powerful empire. A quote from another respectable empire, or slightly less biased power like a Chinese ambassador, would help truly show if the Turks had a merit system which solely used military strength as its judgment.
(United States History, n.d.) Kennedy unlike Eisenhower, who was a great World War II commander, joined the Navy as junior officer but a bad back kept him from combat service. He was named commander of an 80-foot patrol torpedo boat whose operations were in the Solomon Island. (United States History, n.d.) After a collision with a Japanese destroyer Kennedy and other crewmen made their way to a small island where they survived on coconuts and rainwater, but were later rescued by Navy. (History.army.mil, 2006) Kennedy’s heroic actions honored him with a Purple Heart and later the Gallantry in Action medal. With his heroic servings on his side, Kennedy campaigned for a seat in the U.S.
During this voyage, partway through the night his lantern disappeared. Defying his clear orders, Drake had his stern lantern extinguished to go chaise down the Spanish “Rosario” which was carrying the Armada sailors wages.7 After the remaining Armada ships started returning to Spain, Queen Elizabeth ordered Drake to sail to the Bay of Biscay and destroy the remaining Armada ships that were taking refuge there. Once again, defying clear orders in pursuit of possible wealth, Drake charted a course for Galicia to raid merchant ship and sack the town.8 As clearly stated by Nick Charles (Author of “Sir Francis Drake: Slave Trader and Pirate”) “He could display immense courage when he saw a chance to make money. But he saw no reason to risk his own life and [losing] his ships when there was no hope of personal
As Macbeth first feels the immense guilt of killing his king, he asks himself: “Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood/ Clean from my hand?” And answering his own question he states: “No, this my hand will rather/ The multitudinous seas incarnadine,/ Making the green one red.”(2,2,57-60). The powerful image of Neptune’s vast oceans and multitudinous seas being unable to cleanse Macbeth’s blood stained hands further implies that Macbeth will never be forgiven for his gruesome deed, and that his guilt will plague him till his final day on earth. As he enjoys the spoils of the “King of Scotland”, Macbeth becomes plagued with inevitable guilt and remorse so severely that he becomes blind of the heinous acts of murder that he permits, claiming “It will have blood; they say, blood will have blood.” (3,4,121). Blood having blood serves as a continuous cycle, therefore Macbeth’s killing will become a habit and his guilt of killing shall not impede him from his goals of slaughtering possible deceitful subjects, including his close friend Banquo, of whom he finds justification for killing “with thy bloody and invisible hand/ Cancel and tear to pieces that great bond/ Which keeps me pale!”(3,2,48-50). The “great bond” that Macbeth refers to represents Banquo’s lease on life, and as he terminates that bond, Macbeth supposes his pale and bloodless face with replenish with the blood of his adversary, symbolically driving all other guilt he once felt out of his soul and gone forever