"Both Yohannis IV and Menelik II failed in the objectives they had set out to achieve." How far do you agree with this assessment?

"Both Yohannis IV and Menelik II failed in the objectives they had set out to achieve." How far do you agree with this assessment? I would say that Yohannis IV failed, but not Menelik. Yohannis IV was only put in as King of Kings after Tewodros because the British had left him a vast arsenal of arms and ammunition, and therefore pressured every other province king into electing him. His politics where weak, it seemed that he did want Ethiopia to be united, but did not do anything because he did not want to upset some provincial kings. The only thing these provincial kings had to do was to recognize him as King of Kings, and pay him an annual tribute. It was when Yohannis was in power that the first foreign Colonies came and wanted to take over Ethiopia. He had the Egyptians from the north, and the Italians on the coast line. Khedive Ismael, was the king of Egypt at this time and wanted more land. Yohannis would not let this happen so they went into war. Yohannis and his troops won the battle against the Egyptians and signed the treaty of Adowa. The Italians had taken over the port of Massawa, and where now threatening to go inland and take Ethiopia as their colony. At the same time, the Mahdist of Sudan where attacking and wanted to take over Ethiopia as well. The Mahdist launched a Jihad on Ethiopia , they invaded Ethiopia. They attacked some of the local kings and

  • Word count: 755
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

"Britain's appeasement policies in the years 1933 to 1939 were well-intentioned, but totally ineffective in preventing war." Assess the validity of this judgement.

"Britain's appeasement policies in the years 1933 to 1939 were well-intentioned, but totally ineffective in preventing war." Assess the validity of this judgement. Whether Britain's appeasement policies were effective in preventing war depends on how far one expected them to prevent war - on how temporary the policy was meant to be, and whether Britain saw appeasement as a real solution to the problems facing Europe during the 1930s. Early examples of "appeasement" were quite effective at preventing war, simply in that "appeasement" meant a lack of military action on some issue or other (for example, on Abyssinia or remilitarisation of the Rhineland), which, if it had happened, could have resulted in war; and when war did eventually happen its timing was largely because there was a limit to the extent to which Britain -would- appease Hitler, and to the extent to which Britain saw that appeasement was an appropriate policy for preserving European security. Appeasement, then, was effective at preventing war for as long as the British (and French) wanted it to be, and no longer. The fact that Hitler was convinced that Britain would not declare war when he invaded Poland meant that he, at least, was persuaded of the lengths to which the policy could be carried. One could argue further to that that it was a failure to act according to the policy which instigated general war when

  • Word count: 942
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

"Debates about party policy were more important than personalities in deciding the outcome of the struggle for power in the USSR in the years 1924 to 1929." Assess the validity of this judgement

"Debates about party policy were more important than personalities in deciding the outcome of the struggle for power in the USSR in the years 1924 to 1929." Assess the validity of this judgement. [20 marks] The incidence, expression and outcomes of debates about party policy were decided primarily by the personalities and decisions of their participants (for example, Trotsky's reluctance and refusal to take up Lenin's recommendations on the Georgian question against Stalin, which meant a missed opportunity to oppose him publicly), rather than the functional content of the debates themselves. The debates about party policy were less important in themselves than the loyalties and power relations they represented - Stalin's attacks on "Comrade Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution" were not meant to discredit the theory (much less were the attacks, for example, by Trotsky upon Zinoviev and Kamenev's record especially concerning the October Revolution, being attacks on people rather than their arguments), but were meant to discredit the person. The forming of the triumvirate, for another example, against Trotsky, was not done primarily because Trotsky's views on policy were vastly divergent from the rest of the party's or the Stalin, et al themselves, but because they (Zinoviev and Kamenev especially) considered Trotsky a "Bonaparte" figure whose personality - decried

  • Word count: 908
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

In what ways did the careers of Stalin and Trotsky differ in the years 1917 to 1924?

Ben Allmond 2nd GCSE 2004 History Coursework Question 1 Subject: In what ways did the careers of Stalin and Trotsky differ in the years 1917 to 1924? Between 1917 and 1924 there was political unrest and uprisings all over Russia. Two main figures in these conflicts were Trotsky and Stalin. Trotsky was in New York, where he wrote for a Menshevik newspaper, when the March revolution of 1917 started. Stalin had always been in Russia and he was editing a Bolshevik newspaper called "Pravda" (meaning truth in Russian). At this point both of these men did not have greatly different job, they were both working in Russian newspaper companies. When Trotsky arrived back in Russia in May 1917, he quickly assumed leadership of the independent Left Social-Democratic Interdistrict Group, and joined the Petrograd Soviet. Within weeks, he had gained great popularity as the most eloquent agitator of the Soviet left. Stalin came into the limelight on the 12 of March 1917 when the Russian Bureau of the Central Committee co-opted him as one of their members. They only gave him a consulting vote because they thought that he was a rough diamond, just as Lenin believed and wrote in his "Testament". Trotsky had also been elected into the Central Committee; however, he had received a full vote. This showed

  • Word count: 1339
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

Newspaper report - Power seized by Bolsheviks from the Provisional Government!

November 1917 Power seized by Bolsheviks from the Provisional Government! This picture shows the 21 members and 10 candidate members of the Central Committee at the time of the Revolution in 1917. In February 1917 the Bolshevik party was virtually unheard of and was small and irrelevant. As opposition rose for Tsar Nicholas II the Bolshevik party began to rise in status. In March 1917 the Tsar abdicated and Provisional Government controlled the running of Russia. This new Provisional Government were unwilling to withdraw Russian troops from World War One and on the 8th of July 1917 Lvov (A prince) resigned from the new Government and Alexander Kerensky was put in his place. Kerensky had previously been a member of the Duma and was popular with Russians. However, Kerensky, like Lvov, was unwilling to end the war. In fact, soon after taking office, he announced a new summer offensive as her still refused to end the War. Soldiers on the Eastern Front refused to go to the front line many men began to desert and soon many men had left the army. Economic and agricultural issues were also a growing problem in Russia as there were not enough men to run manual labour. People were literally starving due to this crisis. Some of these soldiers who returned to their homes used their weapons to seize land from the nobility. While all these problems were happening the Bolsheviks

  • Word count: 538
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

Soviet historians hold the view that the period ranging from 1905 to 1914 was chosen by the Bolsheviks as a time to reorganis

Discuss the reasons why the Bolsheviks had achieved so little by 1914 Despite being the main opposition to the Tsar in Russia at the time, the Bolsheviks failed to make any significant progress in their aims to overthrow the Tsarist autocracy, due to many problems throwing the party in to crisis, with their efforts to influence the proletariat to revolt against the Tsar proved to be failed attempts. In order to come out with a fair and balanced conclusion, it is necessary to look at the opinions of historians from both ends of the spectrum: from the sympathetic Soviet historians, to the more critical opinions of the Western historians, and then lastly looking at the more balanced and neutral views of revisionist historians. Soviet historians hold the view that the period ranging from 1905 to 1914 was chosen by the Bolsheviks as a time to reorganise and strengthen their party, keeping in mind that the oppressive character of the Tsarist system caused too many obstacles for them, thus making it nearly impossible for them to make much progress in achieving there goals. Along with this, this body of historian also hold the Mensheviks responsible for lack of success, arguing that their awkwardness and co-operation with the bourgeoisie was undermining key Bolshevik beliefs, inadvertently destroying any opportunity the Bolsheviks may have had to create an alliance with the working

  • Word count: 1346
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

The League of Nations was a

First of all here is a little background on the League of Nations. The League of Nations came into being after the end of World War One. Their task was to ensure that war never broke out again. After the Treaty of Versailles, many looked to the League to help them and the world. The league of Nations were seen as a "loin with no teeth" as there looked very vicious and scary with countries such as Britain and France behind them but when push came to shove and other countries would not do what the league said then they couldn't do a thing. The league did have a few successes but mainly failures some of their successes were the treaty of Locarno and the Kellogg Briand Pact. Most of it failures happened during and because of Economic Depression such as Japans invasion of Manchuria. I will now go into detail on certain points of the Discussion. Representatives from big countries such as Britain, France, Germany and Italy signed the treaty of Locarno. It was designed to stop other countries in Europe from fighting or going to war again. Its main purpose though was to keep peace between Fance and Germany (But then in the 1930s this changed because of Hitler's coming to power!) Other successes were ones such as the Kellogg Briand Pact, this was signed by about 15 nations in 1928. This Pact was designed to disarm the countries and to stop any future wars. The League failed

  • Word count: 603
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

To what extent does Chamberlain deserve the title of one of the Guilty Men?

Adrienne Stockley To what extent does Chamberlain deserve the title of one of the 'Guilty Men'? Chamberlain was in power between 1937-1940.Some people feel that Chamberlain was to blame for the second world while others disagree and feel that while he was in power he, in fact helped Britain. Chamberlain can be seen as deserving the title of 'the guilty men' because people believe that he gave into Hitler's demands too easily and that he was being fooled by Hitler. For example: in the Munich agreement, Chamberlain gave into Hitler's demands to keep peace. He appeared to believe Hitler's promise that he would not try and take over Czechoslovakia and although Czechoslovakia should have been involved greatly in the discussion, they were not even informed which of course made them angry. And, although some people feel that Chamberlain was simply fighting for time to rearm; many others feel that he was most definitely fooled by Hitler. Chamberlain was then, later made to look stupid when Hitler Invaded Czechoslovakia and took over Prague. People also felt that Chamberlain was stupid to sign the Munich agreement because of what Hitler wrote in his book 'Mein Kampf' where he said what his plans were. Some people felt that war was imminent because of Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. What Britain was

  • Word count: 893
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

was bloody sunday the prime reason for the 1905 revolution

BLOODY SUNDAY WAS THE PRIME REASON FOR THE 1905 REVOLUTION? The events of Bloody Sunday were without a doubt an important part of Russian history as it exposed the spiralling problems the tsar faced, and the hurt of the people. The events of Blood Sunday only aided in aggravating the people and opposition as well as stimulating revolution. But yet on the other hand I still do not believe this was the prime cause for the 1905 revolutin. There are various reasons as to why bloody Sunday may have not been a prime reason for the 1905 revolution; for the reason that there are a range of long and short term causes for the march such as the ill treatment of workers and oppression through serfdom, the Russiffication of Russia that eventually led up to what was the bloody Sunday march, this brings to light the question whether the 1905 revolution would have occurred without the events of bloody Sunday. However the events of bloody Sunday helped to bring publicity to what was the worsening political and social situation in Russia in addition to tarring the image of Nicholas the II. So to a certain extent bloody Sunday did play a part in the 1905 revolution however I still do not believe bloody Sunday was the prime reason for the revolution. The government's incompetence and the lack of political reforms had a part to play in the build up to the revolution; by 1905 the Tsar's powers

  • Word count: 1301
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

How did the Bolsheviks consolidate their power: 1917 - 1924?

How did the Bolsheviks consolidate their power: 917 - 1924? " The remarkable feature about November 1917 is the way the Bolshevik leader, Lenin moved to the centre stage of Russian history, a position he maintained until his death in 1924".1 By the early 1920's Russia was in the authoritarian grip of a one party dictatorship. The Communist Party as the Bolshevik's had become. It had a ruthless leadership which was ideologically motivated to hold on to power at any cost. This was a dramatic change from the Bolshevik party's position in 1917 when the party enjoyed widespread support amongst the peasants, workers and soldiers who saw in the Bolshevik's the best hope for popular revolution. By the early 1920's however this had all changed. The Bolshevik's had lost the majority of its popular support after a ferocious Civil War and several economic disasters, political failures and mismanagement. Throughout the period 1917 to 1924 the Bolshevik's tried desperately to consolidate their power and regain control of the Country. Lenin had been in hiding in Finland since July 1917, and then on 23rd October 1917 he returned to Petrograd in disguise. He was convinced the time was right for the Bolshevik's to seize power, due to the civil unrest and disillusionment over the War. After hours of discussion Lenin finally won over, Zinoviev and Kamanev and all but 2 of the 12 man

  • Word count: 2451
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay