How far do you agree that Hitler became Chancellor primarily due to political intrigue?
How far do you agree that Hitler became Chancellor primarily due to political intrigue? The Nazi party was the largest political party in the Reichstag after the July 1932 elections; their influence and foothold in Germany could not go unnoticed. Hitler was an excellent public speaker who was able to influence those he wanted to, and Nazi party member Goebbels was running a massive propaganda campaign to increase Hitler's popularity further. But, August-December 1932 was a difficult period for the Hitler's Nazi party - more radical members were becoming restless as although their party was popular throughout Germany and Hitler looked certain to be the next Chancellor, they did not have the majority vote yet and legally there was no clear path into the German government, especially as the current president did not trust him. At the time, Germany was led by President Hindenburg. The President was elderly and relied on his aides and colleagues, Chancellor Von Papen and General Schleicher, to guide him in difficult political decisions. Von Papen was unpopular in Germany and in September 1932 he lost a vote of no confidence in the Reichstag, by a massive 512 votes to 42. His response was to dissolve the Reichstag and call for yet another election. The German public was fast becoming tired of the constant elections & the restlessness of the electorate combined with the dwindling
Do you accept the view in Source V that Wolseys domestic policies were disappointing?
Question B Do you accept the view in Source V that Wolsey's domestic policies were disappointing? Wolsey was Henry VIII's chief minister and right hand man from his rise to power in 1514 after working himself up until his eventual fall from grace in 1529. During his time in power Wolsey made many changes to England's domestic policy. This essay will consider the view that these policies were disappointing. One of Wolsey's domestic policies that can be viewed as a disappointment is the way he dealt with finances. During this time in power Wolsey introduced amicable bonds. This system of taxation was designed to bring in more money to fund the Kings many European battles and invasions. Unfortunately the extra tax upset members of both the clergy and laity resulting in riots in East Anglia and Suffolk. Source T states that Wolsey's arrogant view that he could get whatever he wanted "aroused against himself the hatred of the whole country". Therefore this shows that this domestic policy was very disappointing as instead of raising much needed funds for the king it caused him great amounts of grief by displeasing so many of the common people and nobles, which also made it harder to bring about other change in his domestic policies. Contrary to this it can be argued that not all of Wolsey's financial policies were a failure such as levying tax which "favoured the people
Did Oliver Cromwell achieve his objectives from 1642 to 1658?
Did Oliver Cromwell achieve his objectives from 1642 to 1658? To look at Cromwell's aims and whether he achieved them or not is to enter "a minefield of` historical controversy and uncertainty," as modern day historian Barry Coward put it. Cromwell's aims have always been somewhat of a paradox so to answer whether he achieved them all would be impossible. Many of his goals contradicted or obstructed some of his other views. The views which he held closest to his heart were 'Liberty of Conscience' - Cromwell's belief in religious toleration, a united National Church, the 'Reformations of Manners'- his goal of a nation of Godly people, and social and legal reform. Although these were his most favoured objectives, throughout his rule as Protector he attempted to achieve what he described as 'settlement and healing'- keeping conservative support and repairing the wounds of the civil war. This meant there were a number of other policies he strived to achieve, often having to contradict the religious and social reforms he desired, these were; establishing broad support- even including royalists; keeping government as traditional as possible and maintaining social order. The whole time he also wanted to keep the army satisfied, as it was his main source of power. However the army was associated with radicalism by the propertied and gentry, again causing more compromises for
The impact of the First World War merely heightened existing social and political tensions which had divided Germany before 1914. How far do you agree with this judgement?
'The impact of the First World War merely heightened existing social and political tensions which had divided Germany before 1914.' How far do you agree with this judgement? Germany's certain tensions politically and socially before 1914 can be seen in forms of the strikes that were taking place to deter the government and the military leaders away from the war, essentially the opposition to go to war. So, this would almost keep the tensions consistent as it was already relatively high. Other political tensions prior to the 1914 mark included the Zabern Affair in 1913 which increased tensions of the Reich as it was a political crisis. However, the tensions could have seen to differ after the war especially with growing opposition. As the Second Reich had a lot of issues already so the 'tensions' themselves were already in full effect and could be seen to only get worse with events such as starting a war that was preventable. Social tensions were as the statement suggests were present before WW1 in Germany. Pressure groups highlighted the divisions and tensions in Germany despite them usually focusing on single issues yet after the economic and social changes they emerged due to these changes. Although, it is seen to be that some social effects just didn't affect the tension in Germany. The 'silent dictatorship' also stemmed tensions as in 1916 Bethmann called off
All of these factors helped to break stalemate: New Technology, The American entry into the war, the blockade of German ports and the German offensive in March 1918.How far do you agree with this statement?
All of these factors helped to break stalemate: New Technology, The American entry into the war, the blockade of German ports and the German offensive in March 1918. How far do you agree with this statement? Stalemate was on the western front for many years. It cost a lot of lives. It was finally broken however, in 1918. I will now examine each of the four factors that contributed to the breaking of stalemate to see if all of the above points did contribute to the breaking of stalemate, and see if I agree with the above statement. New Technology The tank was a main factor of new technology. The British invented the tank. When they were first invented they could travel at 6KM per hour and were armed with machine guns and cannons. It was first used at the Battle of the Somme (1916). The first time they were used they were not very manoeuvrable and very unreliable, they travelled at walking pace and it wasn't until November 1917 at Cambria when the tank achieved success. The tanks in Cambria had caterpillar tracks copied from the farm tractor and with armour plating; the tank was the answer to the machine gun, the trench and barbed wire. There were only a few tanks in the Battle of the Somme and the element of surprise was wasted but the Germans didn't copy the idea until it was too late. Attacks at Cambria with the 378 Mark IV tanks without a preliminary bombardment but
Why did Disraeli pass the 1867 Second Reform Act?
Why did Disraeli pass the 1867 Second Reform Act? The 1867 Second Reform Act was an extremely intelligent piece of politics and demonstrated how clever Disraeli was as a politician, the act itself would enable Disraeli to the gain power amongst the Commons. With the death of Palmerston in 1865 the question of Reform was immediately back on agenda. Palmerston had been such a major political figure that while he was present, reform would never be an issue in the Houses of Parliament. Within a couple of months of the Derby administration coming into power there were two days of riots in Hyde Park over the reform of Parliament, involving clashes with police and the destruction of some of the park railings. If the Conservatives wished to remain in power something needed to be done, or so Disraeli said when he made a speech to the Commons in 186 7 saying that reform needed to be passed in order to "destroy the present agitation". However, we know that this is not really the case as these riots were nothing in comparison to the riots in 1932 over the first Reform Act when the entire city of Birmingham was seized by protestors and rioters, this was merely given as a reason to help gain support of the MP's in Parliament in passing the Act. A similar reason that Disraeli presented to the Conservative Party for the need to Reform was a phrase that he coined Tory democracy, this he
Extended Essay: Bismarck and The Unification of Germany
Extended Essay To what extend does Otto Von Bismarck deserve his reputation as the man who united Germany? On the 18th of January, 1871, Bismarck proclaimed the German Empire in the Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles. Germany had been unified be Prussia, under its prime minister Otto von Bismarck. The unification involved three wars and, it has been claimed, was not created by a desire for nationalism but a struggle to determine Prussian dominance within the German states. Up until World War II, it was widely accepted that Bismarck alone was responsible for unification. However, modern historians agree that Bismarck did not begin unification from nothing and have identified other factors influencing unification and the spread of nationalist ideas from 1815. These historians argue that if it weren't for factors such as the Zollverien, cultural and political nationalism and the Strength of Prussia and decline of Austria, Bismarck would not have been nearly as successful. Before Bismarck burst onto the political scene in 1862, it is clear to see that the foundations for unification were already laid, this is shown in the economic strength of Prussia prior to 1871. The Zollverien was and important factor as it brought many German states together economically and excluded Austria.
To what extent do you accept the view that the USA and the USSR were already divided by irreconcilable differences by the end of the fighting in Europe in May 1945?
To what extent do you accept the view that the USA and the USSR were already divided by irreconcilable differences by the end of the fighting in Europe in May 1945? I agree to some extent that the USA and USSR were already divided by irreconcilable differences by 1945 due to their ideological differences which contradicted the beliefs of the other nation. The USA believed in a democratic world which would benefit the economic interests of the USA with free open markets. However the USSR with its new position in the world aimed to improve its security by spreading its communist influence in neighbouring countries. Security was an important issue due to its past experiences of being attacked by the west through Eastern Europe such as the west's intervention in the Russian civil war of 1917-18. This experience therefore led the Soviet Union to have a mutual suspicion of the motives of the USA and the west during the war. Therefore the USA and USSR were already divided by 1945. However they were not completely divided as they managed to become allies in their fight against Nazi Germany. The fact that they were able to unite to fight a common cause which was to defeat Nazi Germany illustrates that they were not divided by irreconcilable differences by 1945. The two nations were already divided due to their ideological differences as highlighted in source 1 which is from the
How did Wolsey managed to stay in power for so long?
How did Wolsey managed to stay in power for so long Wolsey managed to stay in power so long for several reasons, all of which stem from one thing, his ability to keep Henry VIII content and happy. He came to power by pleasing Henry's foreign policy aims, coordinating an attack on France. He fell from power when he was finally unable to please Henry's aims, and get him his divorce. Through out his time as Henry's "right hand man" he was able to make possible and practical Henry's desires. Where Wolsey was most successful was in foreign policy. At the time England was a comparatively small player in the "big game" of Europe, but Wolsey was able to make up for the shortcomings of England through planning, foresight, diplomacy and hard work. This brought several successes for England; the first one was the Battle of the Spurs, this was where the English routed the French and they "spurred "sway, hence the name of the battle. Although this was more of a propagandist then a militaristic success, it allowed for a large amount of glory, at least domestically for Henry. As Henry's main aim in foreign policy was to make himself appear as the "young buccaneer of Europe" and England as a country to be feared and respected, this was certainly a good start. However England at the time didn't have the men or the resources to become a great military power in Europe, which Wolsey realised,
How far was the Boer War, 1899-1902, a turning point in the history of the British Empire
How far was the Boer War, 1899-1902, a turning point in the history of the British Empire? (20) The Boer War symbolizes the climax of imperial tensions and excitement of the late 19th century, and can be viewed as a turning point in the history of the Empire, precipitating widespread changes. The first of these is a change in the attitudes towards the ideology of empire; the second is a change in terms of future administration of the empire; and the third is a change in the role of Britain as a dominant world power. The combination of these changes caused the beginnings of a series of transformations concerning the British Empire. The first significant turning point was in terms of attitudes to empire. At the end of the 19th century Britain was experiencing enormous prosperity, characterised by imperial expansion and dominance. Owing to her industrialisation and resulting wealth, Britain became a strong and influential world power, monopolising trade in Africa, India and Asia. Through her 'Open Door' policy in China, Britain controlled 70% of world trade, reaping enormous profits. Moreover, she controlled extremely profitable gold and diamond mining regions in Africa, and capitalised on trade in India which was a source of cheap materials and labour, as well as a huge and profitable market for British goods. Therefore, Britain's imperial position was strong and dominant,
