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,
Explain how Ferdinand and Isabella dealt with the problems facing them before 1479.
HISTORY AS-LEVEL 2003 European History Essay Paper - Past Question Plans. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explain how Ferdinand and Isabella dealt with the problems facing them before 1479. This is an 'explain' type question - so it's asking you to do just that, but also a little more. Merely describing the measures Ferdinand and Isabella took to cope with various problems will get some marks, but more marks will be gained if you weigh up the outcomes of these policies, and register how successful they were. For example, you may say in the essay that Ferdinand and Isabella faced economic problems, and you may go on to explain what policy(ies) they introduced to solve the problem. This would be 'explaining' how they 'dealt' with the problem, but you can go further and say how well they dealt with it compared to other issues, etc. Also, refer to historians and what they said about how they dealt with problems. Always link back to the question. So - you must: a) Show what the problems were b) What measures they took to deal with them c) How successful these measures were, evaluating against other issues, historiographical interpretations, short-term/long-term instances. The essay: PARA 1 - WHAT WERE THE PROBLEMS: i) Civil War in Aragon - decline of Barcelona, civil disorder, social unrest. ii)
How successful was Wolseys Domestic policy?
Jack Stephenson How successful was Wolsey's Domestic policy During his fourteen years of chancellorship Wolsey exercised considerable influence over Henry VIII's domestic policy during the years 1515 to 1529, involving himself in economic, legal, aristocratic and church affairs. Wolsey's domestic policy was relatively successful with some failures. Wolsey was no domestic reformer in any modern political sense and he saw his prime duty as Lord Chancellor. Wolsey was either loved or hated for his wealth, position and lofty manner. Historians also differ in their views of Thomos Wolsey, Peter Gwyn sees Wolsey as a man of "enormous ability and unstoppable determination" with a huge capacity for hard work and whose reforms were limited because of the ambitions of Henry in Europe. Other historians like John Guy and David Loades acknowledge Wolsey's abilities but are less effusive in their praise and see his own deficiencies as responsible for the failure of some of the reforms he embarked on. One area in which Wolsey is seen as having a great impact on is legal reform. Wolsey was keen to make it clear that no one was above the law and that the law as applicable to all so the wealthy/powerful could not escape. In 1516 Wolsey put forward a scheme to improve the whole legal system, the power of the court of the Star Chamber was to be increased and ordinary subject were to file
To what extent was the alliance system responsible for the outbreak of World War One in 1914
To what extent was the alliance system responsible for the outbreak of World War One in 1914? In the Treaty of Versailles after World War One, the Triple Entente immediately placed blame on Germany's aggression and scheming tactics for the outbreak of war. However, over time, the causes behind the war began to become more obviously complex. One of the most commonly citied reasons is the alliance system. Prior to the war, the countries of Europe had formed complex alliances and, with their empirical statuses, this apparently created a chain that a single trigger (the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand) would set into inevitable motion. But how important was the pre-1914 alliance system in causing World War One? Firstly, we must come to understand exactly what the alliance system comprised of. Indeed, many of these 'alliances' were not really alliances at all, but mutual agreements in relation to trade or colonial territories. One of the most prominent and important alliances was that of Russia to Serbia. Russia had promised to protect the Serbian people and their rights. Austria-Hungary had control over areas where Balkan people were prominent, conflicting Russian policy and ultimately leading to war. Another vital alliance was that of Austria-Hungary and Germany. In July, 1914, Germany had given a Carte Blanche to Austria-Hungary, promising unconditional support in
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
Labour weakness was the most important reason for Conservative dominance from 1951 to 1964. How far do you agree?
Labour weakness was the most important reason for Conservative dominance from 1951 to 1964. How far do you agree? Between 1951 and 1964, the Conservative's time in power, the Labour party were providing ineffectual opposition. One of the reasons for this was their internal disputes over issues such as unilateralism. However, there were also more important reasons for Conservative dominance, such as the economy and growing prosperity in Britain, the property owning democracy and the greater availability of credit, modern conveiniences and luxury items. Prosperity during this time was growing, and people were in general wealthier than they had been before. A reason for this could have been the manipulation of the economy by the Conservatives; their stop-and-go stagflation lowered and rose taxes in accordance to the election date in order to gain more votes. Though they had no real long-term economic plan and their wily manipulation was often criticised, it did help them to gain votes. The wages also rose during this time meaning people were able to more freely afford luxury items and other things such as mortgages, which links to the property owning democracy. This prosperity heavily contrasted to Labour's post-war government, when the country was still in the grips of rationing and shortages, and the public's remembrance of this time would not be favourable. They would not
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
' 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
How far were Maos agricultural policies responsible for the scale of the Great Famine in China, 1958-1962?
How far were Mao's agricultural policies responsible for the scale of the Great Famine in China, 1958-1962? Mao's agricultural policies were extreme, unpopular and carelessly thought through which made them largely responsible for the scale of the Great Famine. These policies included bad agronomical theories of Lysenkoism and 'Sparrowcide', as well as Collectivisation and the agricultural policies from the Great Leap Forward. Chinese researchers were told that the Soviets 'had discovered and invented everything,' which meant that they looked up to the USSR believing that their actions and ideas i.e. Lysenkoism, a Soviet theory, would also benefit China. There were also other contributions which can be argued to have caused the huge scale of the famine such as the effects of the Anti-rightist campaigns in 1957, Party corruption, USSR grain repayments along with terrible weather conditions and the situation in Tibet. Collectivisation from 1953-57, was the first agricultural policy taken on by Mao which was unsupported by the peasants in the countryside who were the majority of the population. The whole aim for Collectivisation was to massively increase grain production at a relatively quick pace, but the difficulties of implementation only led to a 3.8% increase overall of crop production, and only a tiny 1% in the last year in 1957. These disappointing figures represent how
