Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The positive effects of war conclusion
Positive and negative effects of World War 1
Positive and negative effects of World War 1
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The positive effects of war conclusion
One would like to think about a world war as a war for the improvement of the whole world, but history ascertains that that was not the case in the two world wars of the twentieth century. Both world wars had vast global effects, which affected almost everyone in the world. The effects had both positive and negative aspects. The positive effects, in the areas of technology, world peace and global economy, make world wars look like “wars for good” but the massive destructions of the human lives supersede them all, as Voltaire said, “No opinion is worth burning your neighbor for” (Bulliet et al. 468). One can never put the world wars into the black-and-white categories of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ into which they have often been placed. But it will be interesting to explore the positive and negative effects of the wars, which changed the world forever as shown in The Earth and Its Peoples: A global History by Richard W. Bulliet et al., historical films like History Channel’s Manhattan Project - The Century and Heritage: Jews and Civilizations -a documentary by Brian Winston.
The twentieth century began with a period of relative peace and economic growth in most parts of the world. But on June 28, 1914, “the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand triggered a chain of events” and escalated into a global war because of the competition between nationalism and imperialism as practiced by major European powers (Bulliet et al. 752-753). Britain, France and Russia formed Entente, “understanding,” against the “Triple Alliance” of Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary. In April 1917, United States declared war on Germany, mainly because of which “on November 11 of 1918 at 11 A.M., the guns on the Western Front went silent” (Bulliet et al. 762).
“On June 28, 1919, the German delegates reluctantly signed the Treaty of Versailles” (Bulliet et al. 763). The Peace Treaty of Versailles obliged the Germans to accept “responsibility for causing all the loss and damage” of the war (Bulliet et al. 763). The hostile Germany was humiliated and forced to pay for a large deal of war reparations. The open hostility and simmering feelings of revenge in German soldiers after the treaty foreshadowed the start of World War II.
Second World War – often called a continuation of First World War, started in 1939 with Germany’s invasion of Poland.
In the book, America’s Great War: World War I and the American Experience, Robert H. Zieger discusses the events between 1914 through 1920 forever defined the United States in the Twentieth Century. When conflict broke out in Europe in 1914, the President, Woodrow Wilson, along with the American people wished to remain neutral. In the beginning of the Twentieth Century United States politics was still based on the “isolationism” ideals of the previous century. The United States did not wish to be involved in European politics or world matters. The U.S. goal was to expand trade and commerce throughout the world and protect the borders of North America.
When speaking about Welfare we try to avoid it, turning welfare into an unacceptable word. In the Article “One Nation On Welfare. Living Your Life On The Dole” by Michael Grunwald, his point is to not just only show but prove to the readers that the word Welfare is not unacceptable or to avoid it but embrace it and take advantage of it. After reading this essay Americans will see the true way of effectively understanding the word welfare, by absorbing his personal experiences, Facts and Statistics, and the repetition Grunwald conveys.
...y dismiss the program and start a different program in it place. Hoover on the other hand wanted to wait and think. He wanted to make sure that the programs that he provided money for wouldn’t be a waste and would definitely work. Hoover didn’t want to spend anymore money than he had to. Hoover really didn’t want to raise the national debt no matter what. Roosevelt did whatever it took no matter what the cost. Money was no object to Hoover, as long as he thought that program or agency could have a chance of getting them through the Depression he took a gamble on it and raised the national debt. Hoover made sure that there was enough hard money to back up the paper money in America while Roosevelt played it risky and printed extra money. Hoover and Roosevelt’s policies were extremely dissimilar and they each viewed relief from the Depression very differently.
O?Beirne, Kate. ?The State of Welfare: An old and tricky question resurfaces.? National Review 54.2 (February 11, 2002): 1--2. Online. Information Access Expanded
This essay will explore one of the possible combinations of theories on personality and explain how it can be applied in practical therapy.
Herbert Hoover the president at this current time believed that the government should not directly intervene in the economy and wasn't responsible for making jobs for it's people. He and other leaders believed the crisis would simply run its course and they would all be able to return to their normal lives.11 By 1932 things had not gotten any better and Hoover was replaced in an overwhelming victory by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt took immediate action to the country’s economic problems by issuing legislation aimed at stabilizing industry and agriculture, create jobs, and stimulate recovery. He created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to protect people's accounts and the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate and prevent abuse in the stock market. He also created Tennessee Valley Authority and Works Project Administration.12 By 1939 Roosevelt's New Deal increased the GDP to $92.2 billion dollars, but unemployment was still at 17.2%. (See Table 1, U.S. GDP) (See Table 2, U.S. Unemployment Rate) But, that all changed on December 7, 1941 when Japan attacked P...
The United States is often referred to as a ‘reluctant welfare state.’ There are various reasons for this description. One of the primary reasons for this is the differences and diversity of the political parties which are the motivating forces that control government. The Liberal Party, for instance supports government safety nets and social service programs for those in need. “Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all.” ("Studentnews," 2006) They believe it is the responsibility of government to ensure that the needs of all citizens are met, and to intervene to solve problems. The responsibility of government is to alleviate social ills, to protect civil liberties and sustain individual and human rights. Liberals support most social and human service programs; such as TANF, including long-term welfare, housing programs, government regulated health care, Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and educational funding. Their goal is to create programs that promote equal opportunity regardless of gender, age, race, orientation, nationality or religion, along with many others. Liberals believe that government participation is essential and a means to bring about fairness and justice to the American way of life.
The Treaty of Versailles, initially created to keep peace in Europe and ensure that another war like World War I wouldn’t happen again, had in fact, backfired and spiraled the world down into a deeper, bloodier battle. The treaty discriminated strongly against Germany, with the loss of territories, military restrictions, economic reparations, and the War Guilt Clause. It caused humiliation and anger within Germany, and led to Hitler and the Nazi Party coming to power. World War II was not only started by Adolf Hitler and Germany, but had a lot to do with the humiliation that Germany felt when the terms for the Treaty of Versailles were laid down. The harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles may be indirectly related to the cause of World War II, but nonetheless was a huge factor in starting the war.
Many people thought that President Hoover did not take the appropriate actions to end the conditions of The Great Depression. President Hoover thought that the decreasing economy would only be temporary. Hoover decided to give advice to businesses and local government. He told businesses to not cut wages or production. This eventually led to over production then unemployment. These were two major components of The Great Depression and also why people believed that President Hoover did not take the appropriate actions to end the conditions of The Great Depression. Next, Hoover even agreed to allow more money for public works. He believed this would help provide more jobs to create bridges, parks and libraries. Later, state and local government ran out of money to support public works. Therefore, Hoover was forced to try a new remedy to end the conditions of The Great Depression. President Hoover decided to try to help with the RFC (Reconstruction Finance Corporation). This was when money was lent to businesses or programs providing help for the needy or in other words, relief. This plan was unsuccessful because directors did not want to grant risky loans and suffer the consequences. President Hoover also refused to give WWI veterans their $1,000 bonus immediately. Soldiers were promised a $1,000 bonus by 1945. Since these soldiers were coming home in the mist of The Great Depression, they wanted and needed their money in advanced. Most Veterans were out of work by the time they got home and they formed a group. The jobless veterans, who formed a group called The Bonus Army, marched to Washington D.C. to protest. Some people gave up the protest and left while others stayed. At one point the protest got so violet between the veter...
World War 2 was a war that lasted from the 1st of September 1939 to the 2nd of September 1945. That’s 2 years longer than the first war. This war was started by Nazi Germany when they invaded Poland. This was the largest conflict in history that impacted every inch of the earth, including Canada.
While many believe that social welfare in the United States began with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal plan, the first American movement towards welfare came from a different Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt. He stated in his New Nationalism address that “every wise struggle for human betterment” objectives are “to achieve in large measure equality of opportunity... destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and the commonwealth” (Roosevelt). Behind such a speech with charged language about democracy and fundamental equality, Roosevelt was instituting welfare programs such as limiting word days, setting a minimum wage for women, social insurance for the elderly and disabled, unemployed social insurance, and a National Health Service. After his proposal came Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom initiative, FDR’s aforementioned New Deal, John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier, and Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society (Historical Development). While social welfare is steeped in America’s history, there is a very contemporary debate on its effectiveness and ethicality. People argue that the reason welfare has such a long history in America is because it helps people get out of poverty, equalizes opportunities, reduces crime, and helps children; in essence, that welfare works. Many in opposition to welfare disagree, citing that the system creates a culture of dependence, is easily abused, hurts the middle class and costs the government too much on a system that isn’t wholistically addressing the needs of the American people.
"Social Welfare Policymaking Chapter Summary." Government in America People, Politics, and Policy. Pearson Longman, n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2014. .
Michael Katz of the University of Pennsylvania defines welfare in this quote “The welfare state is how a society insures against the risks inherent in human life - unemployment, poverty, sickness, and old age - that in one way or another confront everyone.” (Katz). Accordingly the United States’ citizens and government has been thought of as charitable, but unfavorably, government intervention might be altering United States’ citizens’ charita...
The prospect of the welfare state in America appears to be bleak and almost useless for many citizens who live below the poverty line. Katz’s description of the welfare state as a system that is “partly public, partly private, partly mixed; incomplete and still not universal; defeating its own objectives” whereas has demonstrates how it has become this way by outlining the history of the welfare state which is shown that it has been produced in layers. The recent outcomes that Katz writes about is the Clinton reform in 1996 where benefits are limited to a period of two years and no one is allowed to collect for more than five years in their lifetime unless they are exempted. A person may only receive an exemption on the grounds of hardship in which states are limited to granting a maximum of 20% of the recipient population. The logic behind this drastic measure was to ensure that recipients would not become dependent upon relief and would encourage them to seek out any form of employment as quickly as possible. State officials have laid claim to this innovation as a strategy that would “save millions of children from poverty.” However, state officials predict otherwise such as an increase in homelessness, a flooding of low-waged workers in the labour market, and decreased purchasing power which means less income from tax collections. The outcomes of this reform appear to be bleak for many Americans who reside below the poverty line. How does a wealthy country like America have such weak welfare system? Drawing upon Katz, I argue that the development of the semi-welfare state is a result of the state taking measures to ensure that the people do not perceive relief as a right and to avoid exploiting the shortfalls of capitalism ...
Personality is a person's characteristic pattern of behaving, thinking, and feeling. The development of reliable and valid measures of personality has been a boon to psychologists' attempts to define and explain individual differences in this important domain. Comprehensive theories of personality have been useful to these attempts as well. Psychoanalytic theories emphasizes unconscious forces, while humanistic approaches focus on individuals' attempts to better themselves and find acceptance. Each of these perspectives has been used to explain how and why variations in mental health develop.