The development of the international economy in the period 1945-2000 favoured rich countries at the expense of the poor. How far do you agree?
"The development of the international economy in the period 1945-2000 favoured rich countries at the expense of the poor". How far do you agree? The global economy faced several ups and downs after World War II from 1945 to 2000, due to transformations achieved through the development of the economy. More often than not, these changes were executed by the richer 1st world developed countries (DCs) like the USA, Western Europe (WE) and Japan. While some of their policies aimed to improve the international economy on a whole, there were others that were pro-West and discriminated against the less developed countries (LDCs), hence causing them to enter crisis or suffer losses in trade and industry. This essay seeks to evaluate the extent of the policy changes and other events which disfavoured the economies of the LDCs or only benefited the DCs, as compared to those aiming to eliminate preferential treatment or discrimination. International economic institutions such as the World Bank (WB), IMF, GATT and WTO played significant roles in regulating the global economy and implementing new rules that affected both the DCs and LDCs. To begin with, the Bretton-Woods institutions were inherently unresponsive to 3rd world interests upon establishment, as they felt the LDCs were insignificant in the global economy. The institutions were largely inclined towards accelerating the
'By 1938, Hitler had created full employment in Germany. This is proof that Nazi economic policy was a success.' How far do you agree with this statement? The Nazi's economic policy certainly benefited Germany with unemployment rates drastically reduced, big businesses significantly boosted by rearmament, propaganda further exposed through the KPD and DAF, the currency stable and a steady increase in investments, and infrastructure in place to enable economic expansion along with many other improvements. However, there were also aspects of failure in which the German people took the toll. The people's wages were no higher in 1939 in comparison with 1928 and the number of working hours increased while the worker's rights were diminished. Hitler placed more emphasis on what he believed the nation needed in the future, rather than the demands from other party members, and the present needs of the people (guns and butter debate). As Hitler chose to rearm Germany faster, the level of lifestyle for the German people decreased with luxury items and consumer goods slowly became a rarity. Goerring, the new control over trade instinctively sped up rearmament so that the import value that would have been spent on food for the people, were spent on raw materials for the army. The aim of employing the nation was a definite success, with only 0.2 million unemployed by 1938, and an
How far were Maos agricultural policies responsible for the scale of the Great Famine in China, 1958-1962?
How far were Mao's agricultural policies responsible for the scale of the Great Famine in China, 1958-1962? Mao's agricultural policies were extreme, unpopular and carelessly thought through which made them largely responsible for the scale of the Great Famine. These policies included bad agronomical theories of Lysenkoism and 'Sparrowcide', as well as Collectivisation and the agricultural policies from the Great Leap Forward. Chinese researchers were told that the Soviets 'had discovered and invented everything,' which meant that they looked up to the USSR believing that their actions and ideas i.e. Lysenkoism, a Soviet theory, would also benefit China. There were also other contributions which can be argued to have caused the huge scale of the famine such as the effects of the Anti-rightist campaigns in 1957, Party corruption, USSR grain repayments along with terrible weather conditions and the situation in Tibet. Collectivisation from 1953-57, was the first agricultural policy taken on by Mao which was unsupported by the peasants in the countryside who were the majority of the population. The whole aim for Collectivisation was to massively increase grain production at a relatively quick pace, but the difficulties of implementation only led to a 3.8% increase overall of crop production, and only a tiny 1% in the last year in 1957. These disappointing figures represent how
How far do you agree that the actions of the USSR were primarily responsible for the division of Germany in 1949?
How far do you agree that the actions of the USSR were primarily responsible for the division of Germany in 1949? After the end of World War Two there were many meetings, including the Potsdam Conference, between the leaders of England, America and the USSR. It could be argued that the actions of the USSR were primarily responsible for the division of Germany in 1949, however this could be debated. Personally I think the actions of the USSR were primarily responsible. One of the reasons why the actions of the USSR were primarily responsible is due to Stalin's determination and need for a buffer zone for the USSR. The Battle of Berlin alone had resulted in over 300,000 casualties for the USSR and they had suffered more deaths in the war than England and America and so felt they needed the security more. Taking harsh reparations from Germany would render it weak and unable to attack again, providing the security that Stalin needed. The allies disagreed as it seemed similar to the approach tried after the First World War in the Treaty of Versailles (1919) and realised Stalin's plan would not work. As well as this there was a breakdown in cooperation due to Soviet intrusions in Eastern Europe. If the allies were to agree at all, Germany must be split and so the actions of the USSR were primarily responsible. Secondly, Stalin's introduction of communist-style government in the
Using these four passages and your own knowledge, asses the view that the US policy of Marshall in 1947 was motivated mainly by the altruistic desire to help the economic recovery of Europe
Using these four passages and your own knowledge, asses the view that the US policy of Marshall in 1947 was motivated mainly by the altruistic desire to help the economic recovery of Europe. The situation in Europe after the Second World War was truly desperate; many states were in ruins due to the devastation that caused unimaginable poverty and distress. At the surface, the US's plans to help Europe through the Marshall Plan are altruistic; however, looking deeper, the benefits that the US receives are high and rewarding. So much so, that it could be construed that the US had ulterior motives within their altruistic attempt on rebuilding the European Economy and thus benefiting themselves. During the interwar period, the US had based its foreign affairs on a "policy of glorious isolationism" - a policy that would have separated the US from the affairs of the world that did not concern them. At the end of the Second World War, the US's view had changed considerably in that they now wanted to help the European Community through 'the offer of aid through Marshall's new programme...'1 it was 'made available to all European countries without distinction,'2 making it seem that the US were being all inclusive within their scheme to help. At the surface, this would have been altruistic in that Marshall was helping Europe because he saw the devastation left behind from the Second
HOW IMPORTANT WAS FOREIGN INTERVENTION IN THE UNIFICATION OF ITALY BY 1870? BY ABUBAKAR A ABUBAKAR By 1870, after years of struggle, the Italian state was finally united. Unlike German unification Italians were not to be responsible for the entire process of national unity. Other powers were to play their parts in helping Italy unite. Some nations played a greater part than others, and therefore it will be necessary to address contributions of countries like France, Britain and Prussia. French intervention and of course that of Napoleon III played enormous roles during the various stages of the Italian unification. In 1849, France dispatched its forces to topple the new republican government of Mazzini and restore the Pope. This of course destabilised nationalists' aspiration of a united Italy. In 1858, Cavour and Napoleon arrived at what is known as a gentleman's agreement held at Plombieres in which France will support Piedmont with two hundred thousand troops in the event of war between Austria and Piedmont. Both men also agreed that after this war with Austria which hopefully will oust the Austrians from Italian territories, Italy will become a federal state made up of the kingdom of north Italy, the central duchies, Rome and the south Italian kingdom with the Pope as its president. In 1859, the war was fought and Napoleon III honoured his words and supplied Piedmont
The Soviet Union developed its influence in Eastern Europe in the years 1945 1949 because it simply wanted to guarantee its security in the future. How valid is this assessment?
'The Soviet Union was aggressively expansionist and showed little enthusiasm for détente.' How valid is this statement? The Soviet Union had been known for being aggressively expansionist in the past, but in détente the Soviet Union acted more out of security reasons rather than expansionist such as in Afghanistan which was on the USSR's border and could of possibly handed the USA a geostrategic position over them, also during détente they showed real enthusiasm for détente and more so than the USA, this spawns from the USSR having a much more serious view of the meaning of détente. The statement isn't valid because firstly in the Arab-Israeli and Angola conflicts although they did get involved with aiding one side, the acted second, after the USA which shows that they were acting less out of their 'aggressive expansionist' nature and more out of a response to their rival, the USA. Within the Arab-Israeli and Angola conflicts the USSR never deployed troops and only aided one side within these conflicts compared to when they wanted to expand their sphere of influence into Eastern Europe, they installed the Red Army into the Eastern European states to occupy them. In Angola the USSR wasn't acting aggressively due to Cuba having sent troops and aid to the FNLA party within Angola as they supported communism, the Soviets felt that because they were the arbiter of
Account for Mao's rise to power. Mao Zedong and the communist party came to power in 1949, we can account for the rise by applying Stephen Lee's criteria to it. The four main factors that led to this rise were conditions of China and failure of previous governments, failure of GMD, CCP tactics and strong leadership. It is important to note that not all these factors were created solely or even at all by Mao. Mao Zedong was one of the founding members of the CCP in 1921. His appointment as leader of the most successful communist base in Kiangsi gained him respect and in return for his services to the communist party he was elected Chairman of the central soviet government in 1931. It is difficult to unscramble Mao's individual contribution to the CCP's rise but many historians believe his background and personality helped him become chairman. Jung Chang1 disagrees, instead suggesting that he became leader through manipulation. It is generally undebated that Mao was a strong unifying leader this increased the CCP's popularity amongst the general population as problems that were affecting China such as disunification were a direct consequence of weak leadership. At the start of the 1900's China was industrially underdeveloped, traditional and weak. The failure of the traditional political system in china led to the formation of the CCP (not until 1921) and GMD as an