How important was foreign intervention in the unification of Italy by 1870?
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
'In His Domestic Policy Between 1515 and 1529 Wolsey Promised Much But Achieved Little' - How Far Do You Agree With This Statement?
'In His Domestic Policy Between 1515 and 1529 Wolsey Promised Much But Achieved Little' - How Far Do You Agree With This Statement? Wolsey was a man of much promise. Born a butchers son in Ipswich in either 1472 or 1473, he had an undisputedly low say in the running of the country. He rose through the ranks of the English church, and excelled himself until the King, Henry VIII, appointed him Lord Chancellor in 1515. When in this positioned, he promised great amounts of modification to the Church, the people and the foreign policy. Not all of this was achieved though, and some would say that Wolsey achieved little. He did not. Wolsey made many promises, because he tried to impress people, and most importantly, Henry. He made so many promises because he wanted to keep his position in power, and the way to keep this was to promise people he would do things for them, even though he may have eventually not got round to doing them. Maybe Wolsey was greedy? Maybe he wanted to be King, but Henry just stood in his way? We do not know precisely why Wolsey promised so much; we can only assume that it was to keep his power. Wolsey had a programme for reformation of the government. He disliked anybody that came close to the King and threatened his position, and tried to get rid of them in a clever way, for example, the minions. Wolsey, when in his privy chamber, would have the Great
How important were the events at Mnster 1534-5 in causing the failure of the Radical Reformation ?
How important were the events at Münster 1534-5 in causing the failure of the Radical Reformation? Münster played a big role in causing the failure of the Radical Reformation but was not the sole reason. Münster was an example of how a town could be overridden by a few people who preached what the authorities wanted to hear. It was the actions of the few involved that truly set off the destruction of the Radical Reformation. It was, however, not the only reason as the Radical Reformation and the Anabaptists were doomed from the start. It was in the very essence of Anabaptism that caused them to be persecuted and things were only made worse with their belief in 'nachfolge' (salvation through suffering). There were so many different groups that the only reason they were called the 'Anabaptists' was that they all loosely believed in adult baptism, with the rest of their beliefs varying. Also, they seemed so much of a threat that the Catholics and Protestants thought that they should band together to fight them off. Yes, the Anabaptists never had a chance. So what happened at Münster? Well, in 1531 the Catholic Bishop had been run out of the town by Lutheran preachers who began to start reforming the town. Then in January 1534 Anabaptist missionaries visited and baptised many of the Lutheran Town Council. By February an Anabaptist council had been elected and when
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
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
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
Assess the significance of the role of individuals in reducing racial discrimination in the USA throughout the period 1877-1981.
History Coursework: Part B Assess the significance of the role of individuals in reducing racial discrimination in the USA throughout the period 1877-1981 Between the periods of 1877-1981 there were many significant figures who contributed towards reducing racial discrimination in the USA. Although without events such as the Montgomery Bus Boycott, WWII or the actions of the NACCP to change attitudes towards African Americans, these individuals would have had little effect. The likes of Booker T Washington and Du Bois set the foundation for civil rights along with the Second World War; however other individuals such as Martin Luther King help to actively progress the movement. Along with this the government and various presidents more so in the latter of the period of 1877-1981 helped to change attitudes and enforce legislation which was vital in reducing racial discrimination in the USA. Booker T Washington began to provide the foundations to the civil rights movement in his actions. Although I believe that during this early period of the movement little was achieved, Washington was still able to provide education, and show African Americans that they had a future and it was at their own mercy. This helped to relieve some who were less fortunate. On the other hand Du Bois took a route which directly campaigned for civil rights for African Americans; alike to Washington he
How successful were Nazi economic policies in the years 1933-45?
How successful were Nazi economic policies in the years 1933-45? When the Nazi Party came to power in 1933 it had two main aims - to solve unemployment, and to make Germany as strong an economic and military power as possible, so that the humiliating and devastating defeat of the First World War could never happen again. In order to do this, several areas had to be tackled. Firstly, unemployment was huge and rising steadily - in 1933 six million people were unemployed. Secondly, the party had promised better conditions for workers, and this had to be balanced with continuing the good relationship that the Nazis had with businesses. In order to build up Germany's military strength after the under-funding and downsizing that Versailles imposed, large amounts of funding were needed for the armaments industry and the armed forces. Lastly, the Nazis wanted to create autarky - making Germany self-sufficient and ready for war. The stages of the German economy - The economic recovery, the four year plan and the war economy, all reached different extents of success, to which are subjective to their strengths and failures. The 'success' can be divided between the policies aims, and the results, the results being of most importance. Germany had faced continuing economic problems since the end of the first war, those problems then worsened coinciding with the world economic depression
Why did the League of Nations fail?
Why did the League of Nations fail? By Richard Ward [email protected] The objectives of the League of Nations were to 'promote international co-operation and to achieve peace and security'. The League failed these ideals as early as 1921, when Poland occupied Vilna. It failed these objectives once more in 1923 when Mussolini held Greece ransom by occupying and bombing the island of Corfu. Yet the League was not dissolved until 1946. It continued to meet and its agencies continued their work. It was only after 1936 and the collapse of Abyssinian resistance that public opinion swung against the League on a great scale. Until the early 1930s, the League of Nations had been displayed in a favourable light as a success. The failures at Corfu and Vilna had been overshadowed by successes at the Åland Islands and in the Greek-Bulgarian war and the booming world economy. Added to that, improvements in international relations had cast a general aura of wellbeing over the world. In hindsight, it is arguable that the League had failed shortly after it had started, but at that time everyone was shocked at the realisation that the League was not everything it said it was. On October 24th 1929, the US stock market in Wall Street crashed. The value of shares plummeted as the stock market was ordered to 'sell at any price'. Herbert Hoover, US President, had advocated the
Use sources A, B and C and your own knowledge. How far was the outbreak of the war of American Independence due to the lack of willingness of the American colonies to compromise in the years 1770 to 1775?
Use sources A, B and C and your own knowledge. How far was the outbreak of the war of American Independence due to the lack of willingness of the American colonies to compromise in the years 1770 to 1775? (24 marks) The outbreak of the War of American independence was partly due to the lack of willingness of the American colonists to compromise in the years of 1770 to 1775 but there were also a variety of other reasons. Some reasons include that Britain was too harsh to the colonies, the colonies were unreliable and untrustworthy and causes such as the first continental congress in 1774 and the Boston massacre also helped build up to the War of American independence. Firstly, it could be argued that the colonies lack of willingness to compromise in the years of 1770 to 1775 was the cause of the outbreak of the War of American independence. The American colonists were not open to any of Britain's policies and they spent a majority of the 1770's resisting against Britain's solutions to the problems in Britain and America. Because of this, by 1770 relations between British authorities and the leaders of the colonial legislatures had broken down. Moreover, events such as the Gaspee incident worsened relations between the American colonies and the British and it showed that the Colonists had no respect for the British policies and were not willing to compromise with the
