Why did Mussolini come to Power in 1922? How did Mussolini consolidate his position by 1926?
History L6 HL Written by: Igor Knezevic Why did Mussolini come to Power in 1922? How did Mussolini consolidate his position by 1926? After the unification of Italy in 1870 the country was run by a series of liberal governments. The period between 1870 and 1922 was an era that faced major problems- poverty, unemployment, a lack of national identity and perhaps most significantly of all, the First World War. The Liberal government were extremely ineffective in solving these problems, which caused unrest within the population. There was also a severe lack of unity within the government and a lot of internal political conflict. However, the Liberal government were not only ineffective, they were unpopular. For example, the government attempted to solve the problem of the lack of natural resources and military strength by forming a triple alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary, who were traditionally Italy's greatest enemy, and the people resented this. This gave rise to unrest among the people, leading to the development of socialism, despite attempts to ban it. All the above points served only to aid Mussolini in his rise to power and the government's weaknesses provided a platform on which his popularity could grow and as editor of a socialist newspaper he was able to influence people's opinions a great deal. The single most
Was it the policies pursued by Henry VIII that caused "the mid-Tudor crisis"?
Was it the policies pursued by Henry VIII that caused "the mid-Tudor crisis"? "The mid-Tudor crisis" is a term often used by historians to describe the reigns of Edward VI (1547-1553) and Mary I (1553-1558). This period can be seen as a crisis, due to the fact that there were so many problems, financial, social, religious and constitutional, all of which led to rebellions, and placed the country in a very unstable position. It is clear that many of the origins of this 'crisis' have their roots in the reign of Henry VIII, especially in his final years, and therefore to an extent his policies were responsible for the 'mid-Tudor crisis'. He left a very difficult legacy to his successors, but it must be remembered that Somerset exacerbated the problems already in existence and Northumberland and Mary then had the difficult task of resolving them. Henry VIII on his own can not be held entirely responsible for the crisis, he was only one contributing factor. There were many underlying social and economic problems which his policies did not cause. Henry's policies relating to the constitutional difficulties can not be held to blame for the crisis. Indeed, during his reign, Cromwell's reforms had actually made the Tudor state more powerful, but "this advantage was weakened by a minority". Before he died in 1547, Henry had attempted to prevent a power struggle by setting up a
The main reason why the German revolutions of 1848 failed was because they failed to win popular support How far do you agree?
"The main reason why the German revolutions of 1848 failed was because they failed to win popular support" How far do you agree? The German revolutions of 1848 had two main goals, to unify a German nation state and moderate liberalisation and demands for political reform. The revolutions failed to unify Germany due to the weaknesses of the revolutions itself (lack of support, leadership, money, etc.), the failure of the Frankfurt parliament and the strength of the forces of continuity and forces of reaction. The main reason for failure of the revolutions came from the weakness of the revolutions itself as they failed to grasp what they needed to succeed and lost too many opportunities. Popular enthusiasm for revolution is often short lived and within a few months the desire of nationalism and liberalism dyed down. The support needed amongst peasants for a revolution to occur was not in hand, the leaders of the revolutions failed to gain mass support with the lower classes and the peasants needed a leader to control them. They were causing disturbances in the countryside by refusing to perform feudal services and attacking castles but they did not want the same as the middle class and did not understand there ideologies and aims. The loss of support was encouraged by the slow progress of the Frankfurt parliament. The Industrial code that was put forward was hope for the
Assess the successes and failures of Mussolini's domestic policy.
Assess the successes and failures of Mussolini's domestic policy. Mussolini's primary aim in 1919 when he came into power was to fascitise the Italian nation as a whole, young and old; he wanted his nation to be utterly committed and disciplined towards the new fascist state rather than being passive and going along with everyone else. To achieve this goal, Mussolini set about trying to influence and ultimately change make domestic establishments more 'fascist', that is, to follow the principles of a very right-wing, nationalist totalitarian state in which the 'Duce is always right' and in which the principles of 'Believe, Obey, Fight' are considered paramount. Mussolini attempted to alter Church-state relations, to create the perfect fascist woman, to fascitise the educational system and the youths of Italy, to change Italy's economic and political structure, and to create a nation that would be respected by other nations, by using his strategies of the 'battle for land, grain and births' and by proving the strength of the nation through sporting achievements. However, Mussolini's policies failed to unite the country and fascitise the nation as a whole; his economic polices were disastrous, Italy was fairly weak politically, and women and teenagers failed to be heavily affected by a fascist state; Mussolini did handle the Church-State relations well however but in the
Decisions made in Berlin from 1900 determined the outbreak of war in Europe in August 1914. How far do you agree with this opinion?
"Decisions made in Berlin from 1900 determined the outbreak of war in Europe in August 1914." How far do you agree with this opinion? The various decisions made in Berlin from 1900 were seen by some to determine the outbreak of war in 1914. However, some would argue that the decisions made in Berlin didn't or at least to the same extent determined the outbreak of the First World War. This is evident in the three different sources that it is apparent there are many arguments to whether this is true and how far it is true. Firstly, in Source 1 it shows to a certain extent that it agrees with the opinion despite the limitations that it was published many years after the origin of the events described. These events described lead to show how Wehler, the author- where he described Germany's intent as "aggressive intent" on the basis of Germany trying to expand their battle fleet. This caused tensions with Britain as they saw this as a huge threat as Britain was known for their navy and so saw a bigger threat in being outdone to succeed in this area of battle. This increase in tension and "collision course" with Britain could then be seen as a decision that was made that helped determine or at least increase the reasoning behind going to war in August 1914. However, this could be misinterpreted as Britain joined the war in accordance to the Triple Entente as opposed to the race
To what extent does Stalin deserve the title of Red Tsar when assessing his rule in the context of Russian government from 1855- 1964?
To what extent does Stalin deserve the title of 'Red Tsar' when assessing his rule in the context of Russian government from 1855- 1964? When Stalin rose to power in 1929 he claimed to the Russian public that he was a devote follower of Leninism; his slogan 'Lenin is always with us'1 meant that Stalin wanted to show how similar he was to Lenin. However Stalin asserted his power at the head of government much like the Tsars by employing tactics of fear and propaganda. Stalin's personal dictatorship meant he had strong elements of being 'Red Tsar' as he established unquestionable rule, this idea of being a 'Red Tsar' came from the belief that Stalin wasn't committed to communism, as his traditional ideas were reminiscent of Tsarist autocratic rule, so effectively he was a fusion between the two ruling styles. As Stalin wished to portray himself as a 'God-like' figure; this made him an isolated leader who tolerated no criticism, similar to the style of ruling under the Tsars, as both leaders dismissed ministers at their own will and chose to act on their own personal feelings, for example like the Russification policy of employed by all the Tsars, but in particular Alexander II and the nationalistic policies of Stalin. Stalin's government was 'top-down'2, and unlike Lenin and Khrushchev, Stalin was very wary of how much his fellow party members knew. Therefore he employed a
Contrast The Contribution Made By Mazzini, Cavour and Garibaldi to Italian Unification
Contrast The Contribution Made By Mazzini, Cavour The unification of Italy was a complicated process that started from the 1790s and lasted until the conquest of Rome by the Italian troops in 1871. The Napoleonic Era, however, did not forecast such an outcome of things: at the beginning of the XIX century Italy consisted of separate states that were ruled first by the French, then by the Austrians who did not think about the unity. The 1820s and 1830s signalized the urging need of Italy to change – people missed the partial freedom that Napoleon gave them and wanted to participate in governing, which was impossible as long as Austria held so much influence within the peninsula. The revolutions of 1820-1 (Piedmont) and 1831-2 (Papal States) showed the citizens that a change is possible. The revolution of 1848 and 1849 gave more hope to the Italian patriots all over the country, for they saw that Milan was able to hold back Austria for some time and for Piedmont was beginning to gain the position of a leader within the States. The shrewd policies of the Piedmontese government and the significant conquests at the South of the Peninsula led to the creation of The Kingdom of Italy in 1861 and then connection of Rome and Venetia. Three people clearly played a great role in the process of unifying the State: Giuseppe Mazzini, the ideological leader of the Italian patriots and
How far do you agree that Stalins paranoia was the main cause of the Great Terror?
How far do you agree that Stalin’s paranoia was the main cause of the Great Terror? There were many reasons as to what caused the Great Terror for example Stalin’s paranoia, terror economics, other individuals and NKVD, threats to Stalin’s leadership and lastly the purges which had developed momentum within the society. The Great Terror had been designed to increase the economic production but it turned out to be a disaster. Russia was still recovering and was attempting to industrialize itself in order to increase their power. When Stalin had begun the purges, he knew that he would be able to create a high reservoir for cheap labour and prison camps to obtain slave labour and bring in economy and production into Russia. An example of such a labour camp was gulags. This was a harsh labour camp set up in order to get raw materials and help with the industrialisation process. Stalin had introduced collectivisation for peasants in order to reintroduce serfdom in the countryside for all the peasants. However, his main aim for introducing collectivisation was to eliminate the wealthiest peasants known as the kulaks. By eliminating the kulaks, it therefore meant that more money was able to come into the Russian economy. Through the economic problems that Russia were facing, it allowed Stalin to blame them on his political enemies which would have cause Stalin’s paranoia
Assess the view that Stalins suspicions of his western allies between 1941 and 1945 were justified
Assess the view that Stalin's suspicions of his western allies between 1941 and 1945 were justified Throughout the Second World War, there were many disagreements and causes for suspicion between the USSR and its allies in the west in the period 1941-1945. The four factors that will be investigated in this coursework, which are the Second Front, Poland, The Grand Alliance and the atomic bomb, were all issues that strained relations between these allies and caused suspicion between the two. Historian Bradley Lightbody argues that the Soviet Union expected their Western allies delayed the Second Front in the hope that the Soviet and Nazi armies would destroy each other. This would lead Stalin to be suspicious of his western allies as it appears that if what Lightbody argues were to be correct, then this would help the west in eliminating there pre-war threats in Communism with Stalin, and Fascism with Hitler. In his writing, Lightbody says, "800,000 Soviet soldiers and civilians were killed in the single battle of Stalingrad, compared to 375,000 British and 405,000 American casualties for the entire Second World War."1 This evidence is useful in justifying Stalin's suspicions of the west as it appears that Lighbody's view is true. However, after evaluating all the fighting that took place in the Second World War, it is clear that actually, Britain and America were not as
Major Causes of French Revolution
The Major Causes of the French Revolution The French revolution overthrew the country's ancient monarchy, proclaimed Liberty, Equality and Fraternity and fought off a hostile Europe. It ushered in a new age, but at a terrible price in blood and human suffering. There were many causes of the Revolution. The French Revolution appears to have been the outcome of both long term and short term factors, which arose from the social and political conditions and conflicts of the ancien regime. The long standing grievances of peasants, townsmen and bourgeoisie; the frustration's of rising hopes among wealthy and 'middling' bourgeoisie and peasants; the distress and breakdown of government; a real (or at least perceived) 'feudal reaction'; the stubbornness of a privileged aristocracy; the creation of radical ideas among wide sections of the people; a sharp economic and financial crisis; and the successive triggers of state bankruptcy, aristocratic revolt and popular revolution: all these factors played a part. The middle and lower class were becoming more conscious of their increased social importance and because the peasants were becoming more independent, more literate and prosperous that the old feudal freedoms and aristocratic privileges appeared all the more burdensome and intolerable for the struggling discontents of France. For more than one hundred years before the accession
