Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Political impacts of the first world war
Political impacts of the first world war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Political impacts of the first world war
Chamberlain's Policy of Appeasement In 1938 Neville Chamberlain came up with a policy that would hopefully prevent war. This policy was to give Germany what they wanted (to rearm, remilitarise the Rhineland and unite the Germans in Austria and the Sudetenland) in the hope that it would keep them satisfied and prevent war. There are several reasons why this was the correct policy to take. The first is that there was the memory of the Great War. People had the memories of the Great War and they never wanted anything like that to happen again. For instance Stanley Baldwin, a member of the British Government said 'The bomber will always get through' showing that no matter how hard you try there will always be at least one bomber getting through and bombing the cities. There was now also the invention of gas bombs, which were even more deadly than normal bombs. Chamberlain wanted to do anything in order to make this not happen. The second reason was that there was a question about strategic positions. If Britain had have gone to war with Germany straight away they would have had a problem. Their strength was in the navy and Germany did not have a wide border with coast and was far inland. France had put all their money into the Maginot line, which was purely for defence so they also would have been useless in a war with Germany. Britain also had problems worrying about Gandhi in India, Japan in the pacific and Italy and Africa. The third reason is that there was an economic question. How could Britain afford to pay for a war like this? The only way to pay for a large army would be to print money, which could lead to depression or increase taxes massively which would make the people unhappy. Britain and France also had trouble interpreting Hitler. He made himself out to be a man of peace and said that he just wanted to restore Germany to its rightful position before the treaty of
“Where is the money to come from which will defray this enormous annual expense of three million sterling, and all those other debts.” Charles Inglis questions his audience in regards to paying for a revolution against Britain. Imagine you are a colonist one year after the revolution against Britain has begun. Would you agree or disagree with loyalist Inglis?
All of the history of the United States, foreign policy has caused many disputes over the proper role in international affairs. The views, morals and beliefs of democracy in Americans, makes them feel the need to take leadership of the world and help those countries whom are in need. The foreign policies of President Eisenhower will eventually led to the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War. President Eisenhower’s role with these policies were based on his military type strategies to safeguard a victory in the Global Cold War. President Eisenhower’s foreign policies led to an effective involvement in the Cold War and enviably the Vietnam War from an American perspective. President Eisenhower’s foreign policies when implemented would facilitate the goal of containing communism, and also
Lloyd George's Policies How did Lloyd George become an outdated asset in 1922 from a wartime hero in 1918 in the space of four years? Lloyd George’s own policies and his dependence on the conservatives did play a part in his political decline; however this alone didn’t account for his failure and fall. A range of events, issues and reactions played a pivotal part in his downfall. Before 1918 LG had long been the most dynamic Liberal minister, he injected energy into the Liberal party to show that the party wasn’t doomed to decline. During the war he was made Minister of Munitions, where he was the one undoubted success of the coalition.
The type of policy known as containment was the foreign policy that the United States of America used between the times of 1947 (two years after World War Two) until 1989 (he fall of the Berlin Wall). The definition of containment in this case is strategies whether it was diplomatically, militarily or economically to contain the forming and progression of communism and to give America an influential advantage abroad. The policy of containment all started out with what was known as the Yalta conference, which consisted of Franklin D Roosevelt, the president of the United States at the time, Winston Churchill, the prime minister of the United kingdom, and Joseph Stain, leader of the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). It was during this conference that the three men came to an agreement that these three countries would separate the world into three different parts and have their influence on those three parts. This was known as the sphere of influence and it was divided like this; The United States would have control of influence the western hemisphere meaning all of the Americ...
The Support of the Appeasement of Hitler by the British Mass Media Appeasement was the conciliatory policy adopted by Britain and France towards the aggressive foreign policy of Nazi Germany in the years preceding the Second World War. In Britain it is normally associated with the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain but was also followed by Stanley Baldwin. It has been argued by historians such as Richard Cockett that the press in Britain was manipulated by Whitehall - especially during Chamberlain’s years as Prime Minister – to publish only pro-appeasement articles and news and therefore “no alternative to the policy of appeasement was ever consistently articulated in the press. ”[1] It is indeed partly true that Chamberlain was a master of press manipulation and the BBC broadcasts were closely monitored by the Foreign Office.
got the best of him and thus he declared war on Israel and started off
made his own orders and everyone did as the old man said. When the old
Exploring the Similarities and Differences Between the Foreign Policies of Mussolini and Hitler Similarities - Both foreign policies geared to achieving great power status o Hitler: lebensraum, wanted to have living space for the expansion of the German race and control over other groups o Mussolini: wanted control over Mara nostrum, Abyssinia, …an empire - fascist states o had anti communist feelings; o both signed anti comintern pact 1937 against USSR o Spanish civil war against communism helping Franco secure power o Signed pact of steel in may 1939, a full military alliance - unhappy with status quo, wanted international prestige o national grievances on Versailles, people wanted to change Versailles o Hitler, product of WW1 who was angry at Versailles and wanted to see Germany achieve great power status o Mussolini; felt that Italy had been treated unfairly at Versailles and also waned to change the status quo o Because of this both built up armies, navies and air forces.. Italian air force to block out the sun + German luftwaffe… - both Hitler and Mussolini, used diplomacy and force as well as aggression to get what they wanted o Mussolini over Greece where it undermined the LofN, used force to take Abyssinia 1935 o Hitler used the threat of force to take Austria and diplomacy as well as force to take Czech and Saarland in 193… - by 1939 both had a common enemy; Britain and France - both were aggressive nationalists and glorified warw - both wanted empires; abysinnia and lebenstraum to distract from problems at home.. Differences - Hitler was more clear in his aims and ideals whereas Mussolini was more vague and opportunistic o Although Hitler did take advantage of opportunities such as Abyssinia crises to remilitarise Rhineland he was more structured in his aims for Lebensraum, unification of all Germans, building up the army and recovering lost territories § Illustrated by Hitler’s success after success ; Rhineland in 36,
Discuss the reasons why, in the period 1934-38, British critics of appeasement had such a limited impact on British policy towards Germany.
curious as to why he behaved in the way he did. I observed him for a
Henry Kissinger who was United States Secretary of State sent a message to Sadat’s by way off his emissary Ismail in which Kissinger offered having Israel withdraw their troops from Sinai, this returning all of Sinai to Egyptian control, minus a few strategic points. No reply to Kissinger’s offer was ever given because Sadat was unwavering in his desire to go to war. The only thing that may have prevented this would have been the United States being able to fulfill all of the demands of the Arab nations in a short period of time.
After the First World War ended in 1919 the leaders of the allied (Entente) powers began to try and initiate an everlasting world peace through The Treaty Of Versailles. This treaty was bound towards keeping Germany under supervision of allied powers and preventing Germany from ever forcing another war upon the world. This treaty ruined Germany and left them room for retaliation and want for recovery of the Nation they were. Germany were to accept blame, pay reparations, reduced army and loss of territory.
said that the promises made by God would be kept, now that He had a
" The real meaning of the New Economic policy is that we have met a
Justifying Appeasement Appeasement was the foreign policy followed by the British and French governments in the 1930s, whereby they did not attack or confront other governments, specifically that of Germany's, when international laws were breached, but rather gave into some of the demands to keep the peace. After the horror and dramatic loss of innocent lives (amassing over 3 million) in the First World War, both the French and the British governments were keen to avoid any more blood shed and their pacifist policies meant they started to take a very lenient attitude towards breached international laws. They knew that the general public, for whom the memories of war were still rife, thought the idea of another conflict unacceptable. When the Japanese invaded Manchuria in 1931, the League of Nations were unable to enforce any effective sanctions and when Mussolini invaded Abyssinia in 1936, the economic sanctions they managed to enforce had little effect. Without military threat the League of Nations had little power over countries who broke the laws and the British and French wanted to abstain from conflict, even if it meant no resolution was met.