Was the War Measures act necessary for the October Crisis
Was the War Measures Act necessary for the October Crisis? Tony Millar Ms.Shimins Words: 1,252 CHC-2DW There were many events leading to the October crisis, some may say that the decisions taken by the Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) were rational, others not. But any hostage situation when lives are being threatened should be stopped by any means necessary. The War Measures act requested by Premier of Quebec Robert Bourassa, directed by Pierre Trudeau and applied by the Governor General of Canada Roland Michener was a very necessary step to take due to the previous acts of terrorism and threats by the FLQ, prior to October 1970. The October Crisis occurred in October 1970, when two government officials were kidnapped by the FLQ in the province of Quebec. The first kidnapping occurred on October 5th. The victim was British Trade Commissioner James Richard Cross, who was taken shortly after he was leaving work on his way to his car. The second kidnapping was shortly after, on October 10th, when the FLQ kidnapped the Minister of Labour and Vice Premier of Quebec Pierre Laporte, while he was playing football with his nephew. This kidnapping occurred after a meeting with Laporte discussing the threats of the FLQ; after he denied the demands he was quickly taken. The group that took him were the Chenier Cell, a division of the FLQ who were responsible for this and
Why did the Liberals lose the 1874 election?
Why did the Liberals lose the 1874 election? The reason for the Liberal's 1874 election defeat is a common area of debate amongst historians. Historians often argue that it was the rise of the Conservative Party and Disraeli that caused the Liberals to lose support. Others argue that it was the unpopularity of the vast amount of the Liberal Party's policies that lost them the votes of the masses. In addition to the lack of popular policies, it is often put forward that the growing divisions within the Liberal Party caused its defeat. Finally, historians such as Vincent regularly argue that the election defeat was due to the external circumstances of the time. Watts argues that it was Disraeli's leadership of a more appealing Conservative Party that caused the Liberal election defeat. He emphasises the importance of Disraeli's tactics in opposition, especially his refusal to accept office after the collapse of the Liberal government in 1873. This further weakened the Liberal Party as it was forced to limp on for another eighteen months and further secured the Conservative election victory. Disraeli's numerous speeches also contributed to the loss of Liberal support such as his speech at Manchester in 1872 in which he attacked Gladstone's policies as 'endangering national institutions'. These speeches appealed to all aspects of society and played on the middle class
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
'Wolsey's foreign policy reveals that he had no other aims than to exalt his master's power and his own glory' How far do you agree with this verdict?
'Wolsey's foreign policy reveals that he had no other aims than to exalt his master's power and his own glory' How far do you agree with this verdict? Wolsey's political principles have been subject to much criticism since his death and to this day historians continue to disagree regarding its validity. The title denies that Wolsey had any 'guiding political principles'1, however traditional accounts of his foreign policy have attempted to attribute to Wolsey a coherent policy and motivation. In the eighteenth and nineteenth century the emphasis was on Wolsey as 'impresario of a European, balance of power'. A.Pollard2 considered that the motive of Wolsey's foreign policy was primarily concern for the papacy; he considered that ' as long as Wolsey pulled levers of English diplomacy Henry VIII remained the favourite son of the Roman church'. Others argued that Wolsey was first and foremost a crusader of peace, supported by his part in the treaty of London in 1518 and the Field of the Cloth of Gold meeting in 1520. This theory however must account for Wolsey's tendency to abandon his aims of peace in order to appease Henry VIII's desire to prove himself through successes on the battlefield. Henry VIII's attempts to emulate his warrior hero, Henry V, must surely have caused problems, if indeed peace was Wolsey's ultimate gain. Scarisbrick explains the discrepancy and argues that
How effectively had Japan modernized itself by 1914?
How effectively had Japan modernized itself by 1914? -- Introduction Not until the 1800's did Tokugawa realize how powerless they were. Since the early 1600's, Japan completely isolated itself from the Western countries. Due to the anti-Christianity attitudes of the Tokugawa Ieyasu, Japan prohibited itself from any contact with the Western countries, and trade was mostly done with the Dutch and Chinese. For the next 200 years, although the Japanese made contact with its trade partners, and gained information about some of the current developments, the western countries were far more advanced. Japanese fiefs such as Satsuma and Choshu noticed this when Commodore Matthew C. Perry finally succeeded in breaking down the wall of Japan's seclusion in 1864. -- What was the impact of Perry's missions on Japan? Dissatisfied about the fact that American "ship-wrecked sailors" were treated very badly by the Japanese, the United States sent Perry to negotiate a treaty with Japan. In 1853, Perry arrived in large, intimidating ships to display their strength and frightened the Japanese. Perry was then able to discuss his desire for a treaty for the shipwrecked sailors. Unable to make decisions for themselves, Tokugawa exposed their weakness by having to ask the imperial leaders whether they supported the American Treaty. A year later, the actual Treaty of Kanagawa was signed. Under
The collapse of the USSR was caused by internal problems and had nothing to do with the Cold War. Assess this view.
“The collapse of the USSR was caused by internal problems and had nothing to do with the Cold War”. Assess this view. In 1991, after over half a century of communist rule, the USSR ceased to exist as a political entity after many years of decline. This statement asserts that the cause for this cessation was only due to the effects caused by issues, policies and the framework within the USSR itself, and had absolutely no relation with regards to the external problem of the Cold War - defined by Ann Lane as a state of tension, conflict, hostility and competition which characterized US-USSR relations though not amounting to an actual war; this subscribes to the Soviet Initiative school of thought. However, this statement is unfair insofar that the collapse of the USSR was not only the result of trouble within its territorial boundaries, but rather a combination of factors both internal and external, including the foundational weakness of the Soviet economic system coupled with the long term pressure brought forth by the US policy of containment, the Reagan Doctrine as a catalyst, the turning point in USSR’s history with Gorbachev’s reforms and finally the immediate effect of the August 1991 coup d’etat that characterized the USSR’s decline. As such, this essay espouses that it was an amalgamation of both factors both within and outside the USSR that served as a
Success in the Falklands ensured Thatchers election victory of 1983 Discuss.
Success in the Falklands ensured Thatcher's election victory of 1983 From April until July, 1982, a british task force was sent to the Falkland islands, by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to reclaim the Islands from the Argentineans. At the next election, Thatcher won a landslide, taking a 144 seat majority over the second placed Labour party. Clearly, such an increase of seats had to be caused by several factors, one of which can be seen to be the a, conflict. Many who say that the Falklands conflict was a major factor in ensuring the landslide win that the Conservatives achieved was the increased sense of patriotism that was felt within the country as a result of the retaking of the Islands. This united the country behind its leader, Mrs Thatcher as it was her that was seen, as commander of the forces, to have won the conflict. This served as a powerful act of propaganda for the Conservative party as is showed that is had a strong leader. This idea of Thatcher as a strong leader was evident throughout the conflict and was a powerful tool for ensuring election victory. She was shown to be a strong leader by sending in the task force to retake the Islands without waiting for approval from either the UN or the USA, and before full negotiations for a peaceful settlement took place. This increased the idea of Britain as a great power once more, that it did not need help from
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
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
' Did Alexander II deserve the title Tsar Liberator
' Did Alexander II deserve the title Tsar Liberator? ' Justify your view. In the 19th Century, Russia had no zemstva, very little education, industry and railway building, a biased judicial system and very few freed peasants. Czar Alexander II, who succeeded Nicolas I in 1855, went some ways to remedying these deficiencies through a series of reforms. Alexander II became the great modernizer of Russia, walking a delicate line between preserving Russia's Slavic identity and enabling its people to benefit from Western advancements. For this reason he was known to some as the ' Czar Liberator'. However, indeed he was a liberator in name only. Alexander II initiated substantial reforms in education, the government, the judiciary and the military. In 1861, he proclaimed the emancipation of about 20 million privately held serfs. It has been described as "the greatest social movement since the French Revolution" and constituted a major step in the freeing of labour in Russia. Yet at the same time, it helped to undermine the already shaken economic foundations of Russia's landowning class. The Czar abolished a Russia tradition, the serfdom, which symbolizing class struggle and feudalism. This was a very great step forward in the modernisation of Russia. Reforms of local government were closely followed emancipation. Russia, for the first time, was given a judicial system that in
