• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Consider How Far Gladstone And Disraeli Differed In Their Policies Regarding The British Empire and Foreign Policy (Until 1880)

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Consider How Far Gladstone And Disraeli Differed In Their Policies Regarding The British Empire and Foreign Policy (Until 1880) Gladstone and Disraeli generally had very different policies regarding the British Empire and foreign policy. Disraeli tended to shape his policies in regards to what is in the best interests of Britain and her empire. Gladstone was a man who followed his principles and Christian ethics; his foreign policy was an example of his beliefs in practice, as it tended to be humanitarian, measured and showed consideration to other nations. However there were instances where the two bitter rivals overlapped with their actions. There were a number of imperial and foreign issues throughout the ministries of Gladstone and Disraeli. A foreign issue that turned into a major difference between Gladstone and Disraeli was over the Bulgarian horrors of the mid 1870's, which resided within the Eastern question. The issue of the Bulgarian horrors was one of relatively small importance but had important, wide-ranging connotations, which could affect Europe and also provided a platform for Gladstone and Disraeli to continue their rivalry. In 1875 it emerged that the Turks massacred 12,000 Christians from Bulgaria, which was part of the Ottoman Empire. This issue raised questions over how Britain intended to keep peace in Europe and allowed them to reassess their allegiances in Eastern Europe. Britain's main concern during this period was Russia. It was seen as a problem before this time and continued to be so afterwards. Britain has always been wary of Russia expanding further into Europe and becoming too dominant. ...read more.

Middle

However he pushed Bulgaria and Turkey into becoming disillusioned with Britain as they turned out to be economic have-nots. This pushed them to supporting Germany in the First World War. This is a key example of Disraeli's short-term solutions. Lee argues that in rejecting the Berlin Memorandum he developed a lack of cohesion between large European nations, which led to the First World War. Smith agrees and concludes that Disraeli "came into office in 1874 without a single concrete proposal in his head". This further promotes the idea of his short-minded ideas, which he had little time to develop or contemplate, and his opportunism. Gladstone's ideas tended to concentrate on long term solutions but it would be wrong to say he did not quickly rise to opportunities that promoted themselves as he gained small parts of West Africa and areas of Egypt and Sudan by capitalising on opportunities in 1882, it would be fair to say both men's minds were extraordinarily quick to react to situations however they focused their minds on different ways of approaching a problem. Gladstone looked at long-term solutions regardless of how it affected his popularity whereas Disraeli carried out policies that he believed would not harm his popularity, which tended to be short-term solutions. During Disraeli's ministry he also got Britain involved with a variety of other incidents although generally not as large as the Eastern question, such incidents he got involved with proved him to be active in his imperial policies as well as just foreign. He invaded Afghanistan, which led to a massacre of British troops in Kabul, which he was widely blamed for by the public. ...read more.

Conclusion

It is also interesting that none of his resignations or retirements lasted very long. Gladstone's views would certainly reflect today's views far more than Disraeli's would, at present we leave live in a time of great peace in Europe and globally if it was not for exceptional circumstances, leading us to believe Gladstone had a better way of dealing with foreign issues, views of diplomacy, international interests and ethics, all of which are embraced today. To conclude, both men were unprincipled in some aspects of their policies, favoured empire, were active in invasions at some point and both men were equal in their hatred of one another. These men have divided politicians and historians like no other two politicians, however closer analysis proves the men were not so different in their goals as some would have us believe. Both were opportunistic and tended to seek what was best for them. However they had their differences which outweighed their similarities, Gladstone concentrated on long term solutions, was internationally minded and promoted his ethical side, whereas Disraeli was the reverse of these. Both men were mavericks and had little loyalty to their parties. It would be fair to say that in opposition and when speaking about one another they were outspoken and highly critical. However once in government they both got caught in the fervour of imperial strength and might, this brings us to Lord Acton's famous saying that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", which claimed Gladstone as a victim as although he was a very principled, ethical and religious man when in power these were occasionally pushed to the side in place of the same political advantage and one-upmanship that Disraeli used. 1 Leo Matlock ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. Moon Landing: Conspiracy or Reality?

    the astronauts to remain under the belt when in Earth orbit and then pass through it quickly. In this way the astronauts were exposed to the radiation for a short time, and they did not receive a dose considered dangerous (Ster).

  2. "To what extent did the Boer War change attitudes to Empire in Britain?

    Therefore there were no wild scenes in Trafalgar Square as usually demonstrated on such occasions as victory in a war. The European rivals Germany and France had witnessed the humiliation which one historian refers to as 'Britain's Vietnam'. Britain felt dangerously isolated.

  1. Mao was essentially more successful in his domestic policies for China, then he was ...

    A large numbers of workers and members of the NRC had stayed in china Also a significant population shift had begun and Mao was hopping to get the best results through his five year plan, which meant that China would be as strong as its capitalists neighbours in Europe.

  2. The role of foreign policy on democratic transitions in Armenia and Azerbaijan

    members of the international community and play by the rules of the game. Armenia and Azerbaijan from the beginning declared that they would democratize. They would adopt rules and regulations that would promote institutions of democracy. They would have free elections, and institute liberal market economies.

  1. In reviewing the process of decolonization within the British Empire from 1890 to 1997, ...

    900 were killed on the Magersfontein Hill, using unconventional fighting methods, The loss of 22,000 lives and �222,000,000 caused the Boer War to be a humiliating experience for the British.

  2. To what extend do you consider Mao's domestic policies more successful than his foreign ...

    This is almost half of the entire Chinese budget. Most of this money supported the Korean War and helped Korean to defend itself. By 1957 this percentile had gone down, but all most every other one went up. For an example 51,4 % of the Chinese budget was being used to support the economic development.

  1. The Foreign Policy of the Lone Superpower

    According to his article: After the Second World War, when it became acceptable, in peacetime, for one government to try to influence the people of another country and to do this from an embassy, the nature of diplomacy had fundamentally changed.

  2. In the context of the period 1905-2005, how far do you agree that Khrushchev ...

    of their power.[25] Such policies were furthered by the 1954 Virgin Lands Scheme: its primary concern being the pre-occupation of uncultivated lands within the state.[26] Between 1954-60, 41.8million hectares of ?virgin land? had been ploughed.[27] Agricultural production was officially augmented by 3 per cent in 1954, with state procurement of

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work