Was the collapse of the provisional government inevitable
Was the collapse of the provisional government inevitable? By definition, a provisional government is an emergency or interim government set up when a political void has been created by the collapse of a previous administration or regime. A provisional government holds power until elections can be held or a permanent government can otherwise be established. Provisional governments often occur as the result of a revolution or in wartime when an occupied nation or territory has been liberated or when a government has been deposed by an invading army. In this case as a result of revolution and with abdication of Tsar in Feb 1917, the provisional government consisting mainly of liberals from the old Duma was set up. Until a new elected government- the constituent assembly was set up, they were to keep the country running. Alexander Kerensky, a member of the social revolutionaries became the Prime Minister after Lvov resigned. Yes, I agree that the collapse of the provisional government was inevitable to a larger extent than to it being evitable The provisional government also had one major disadvantage: its leaders - especially Kerensky - were associated with the middle class. They were not seen as having anything in common with the working class, therefore the people could not believe that they could represent them and had their best interests at heart. They had refused to
Causes of WWII
Causes of WWII The Story: Failure of Collective Security * Treaty of Versailles (1919) * Establishment of League of Nations (1920) * Washington Conference (1921-22) * Treaty of Rapallo (1922) * French occupation of Rhineland (1923) * Dawes Plan (1924) * Locarno Treaties (1925) * Germany admitted to League of Nations (1925) * Kellogg-Brian Pact (1928) * Introduction to the Young Plan (1929) * Great Depression (1929) * London Naval Conference (1930) * Japan invades Manchuria (1931) * Abyssinian Crisis (1935) Problems for the League of Nations * The League of Nations main weapon against countries was economic sanctions * The USA didn't join the League of Nation because there they didn't want to get drag into more disputes in Europe and associate with the Versailles Treaty. * No country wanted to use its own army for the League of Nation when military intervention was needed. * Without the USA two problems existed, the USA had the largest economy at the time and the Leagues main weapon was economic sanctions. Secondly, the League was mainly European instead of worldwide. * Initially Germany wasn't in the league of nations and it looked like a victors club, Germany was still powerful even after the war. * The small states in central Europe in the League of nations didn't contributed very much and required help. * Without the USSR the league of nations looked
Why did women gain the vote in 1918?
Why did women gain the vote in 1918? In 1918, women had finally gained the right to vote, after 68 long and hard years of campaigning and rebelling they finally got the vote they wanted. The women had tried everything like campaigning, getting them selves arrested, using the media and many more things were done. However, there were a couple of things that they did which really helped them get the right to vote and they were the fact that they helped the men in World War I, like loading the bombs shells with explosives and tidying the bomb shelters. Also I thought that the Suffragists played a vital role in getting the rights for women to vote because they proved to the men that they could protest and campaign without using violence or breaking the law, unlike the Suffragettes, who resorted to violence when they wanted their way or when they wanted to be heard. Before World War 1 there, were two groups of women that campaigned for votes for women and they were known as the Suffragists and the suffragettes. They called themselves the Suffragists because they were trying to mock the word Suffrage which means the right to vote. Then there were the Suffragists they were so different from the Suffragists yet they were so similar. Both groups of women were campaigning and fighting for the same thing, but the way they achieved the vote was very different. First of all the
Why was the Munich agreement signed on September 29th 1938?
Why was the Munich agreement signed on September 29th 1938? The Munich Agreement, signed on September 29th 1938, appeared to be the consequence of the Czechoslovakian Crisis. It was signed by four of the main powers in Europe - Britain (represented by Chamberlain), France (represented by Daladier), Germany (represented by Hitler) and Italy (represented by Mussolini). Each had reasons for signing the agreement! Chamberlain had seen the horrors of war and did not want to subject Britain and the people of Britain to the anguish that war brought. Therefore one of his reasons for signing the agreement was try and resolve the tension that had been building up throughout Europe by preventing the likelihood of war and to "lay the foundations" of peace between the European powers. As he was an advocate of peace, he didn't believe that the Sudetenland was worth going to war over and if Hitler could be satisfied with the agreement, then in the long term reparations could be paid to Czechoslovakia for their loss and peace could be obtained through most countries. Chamberlain may have also signed this agreement because he trusted Hitler to ask for no more. However, it is difficult to know whether Chamberlain was taken in by Hitler as his papers give conflicting evidence about the subject. Therefore, if he didn't trust Hitler then he realized that war was inevitable and signed the
Why did the Weimar Republic face political problems in the first years of its existence (1919-1923)
Why did the Weimar Republic face political problems in the first years of its existence (1919-1923) In 1920, the newly formed democratic government was the victim of a "Putsch" or minor rebellion by a right wing party led by Dr Wolfgang Kapp. Though this "Putsch" was soon stamped out, the Weimar Republic were the victims of another, in 1923, but this time by the Nazi party led by Adolf Hitler. Both marches were broken up but they turned more and more people against the Weimar Republic. Even before this, the government faced a rebellion from the newly formed Spartacus Party which they crushed with the help of the Nationalists. The reason for the Spartacist revolution was because they felt betrayed by SPD party who were in government. These two parties were one before the war but they split over the argument of war support. The members of the SPD supported military action before the war and the Spartacus members were against it. This caused problems between the two halves of the party and they split. Seeing as the SPD were the more popular party, they seized power after the war; both the Spartacists and the SPD were for a democratic government but the Spartacists felt that the SPD were not democratic enough. They felt that the SPD were just a government for the middle class and not the working class who they actually represented. They felt that the only way to achieve a
How does William Shakespeare represent different aspects of love through relationships in
Winston Churchill was a key figure in the Second World War. Britain relied on him to make the crucial decisions in war time. He was born in Blenheim Palace, Woodstock and later educated at Harrow. Before becoming Prime Minister, Churchill was part of the army and had been in battles in India. In 1904 Churchill then decided to join the Liberal party and six years later, Herbert Asquith promoted Churchill to the president of the Board of trade. In this job he had quickly made changes to the employment exchanges. In the elections that same year Churchill again promoted to Home secretary, where again he quickly made changes, to the prison system. Churchill had many ideas before getting these high jobs and knew what he wanted to change. So in 1912 he set up the Royal Naval Air service, which proved to be a success in the First World War which took place two years later. In the war David Lloyd George was Prime minister and had seen Churchill and the way he worked so he promoted him to the Minister of Munitions for the final year of the war and was responsible for the production of tanks, aero planes, guns and shells. Later after the war there had been divisions in the Liberal Party where Churchill was and because of this Churchill thought it would be a good idea to join the Conservative party which he was part of for a while before the war. However from joining this party
Critical assesement of Oberfeldwebel Beckstadt by Craig Raine
Critical Essay- Poems Oberfeldwebel Beckstadt by Craig Raine Set in the 1940's after the war 'Oberfeldwebel Beckstadt' is a poem about a Soldier returning home as the war has ended. I know this as Craig Raine states 'It is the end of the war' He reflects on the appearance of the war scene and the horrible events he has taken part in. Craig Raine has used a third person view to narrate the scenes which is an advantage as all events around him are identified and clearly described . This poem explores aspects of war . The poem reflects the negative issues throughout the poem. Craig Raine uses various techniques to express different ideas. There are a number of different scenes described in the poem. The change of scenes such as 'slop petrol from two jerry cans' to ' how the Jews were like sheep' gives us an idea of the wide range of incidents which have been caused by the war and how one event leads to the other. There is a link between the dead bodies and the treatment of the Jews as the Dead bodies are assumed as the Jews - the victims of this war. The first paragraphs are the first scene, they represent the images of destruction. 'like an injured battleship' this simile creates an image of a destroyed ship at sea, smoke and scattered debris. This is the final outcome of war, nothing good has come of it, people have suffered. 'camp is a crown of thorns' gives an image of
It might be a good idea if the various countries of the world would occasionally swap history books, just to see what other people are doing with the same set of facts.--- Bill Vaughan
Kevin Lewis 5/13/12 Reaction Paper Mod 4/5 “It might be a good idea if the various countries of the world would occasionally swap history books, just to see what other people are doing with the same set of facts.”--- Bill Vaughan The presidential elections will be taking place this November. When voting, people will have a wide variety of opinions on who they will be voting for. These opinions will be based on many different factors. This process of forming opinions does not just apply on a smaller scale like voting, but also on a global scale. Every nation has an opinion on specific events in history; however, these opinions will vary greatly based on who you ask. The American Revolution is taught to Americans as a heroic fight for freedom. However, other nations such as Britain and France have their own opinion on this event. In America students are taught about the founding fathers and their struggle for independence. Key events such as the Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party are focused on when teaching about the Revolution. Does Great Britain learn these same things or do they simply see the American Revolution as a lost opportunity to gain territory in North America? Britain had many colonies at this time, so maybe the USA’s heroic fight for freedom was simply the loss of a colony to them. Finally, the French played a key role in the American
The Russian Revolutions – 1917.
The Russian Revolutions - 1917 The Tsars government had been failing for a long time, people were changing but the Tsar wasn't. Steelworkers, women and other unhappy workers demanding bread and basic foods held strikes more frequently over the last few months of the Tsar's rule. Railways didn't have enough trains for armies and cities, so often food was left to rot at stations. The moral of the Russians was very low, the war wasn't going well for them, and in March 1917 things got worse, the Tsar was forced to abdicate. Some of the Reasons the Tsars Government went badly are: * impact of World War I * the character of the Tsar Nicholas II * the Tsarina and Rasputin * food shortages and strikes . Explain how each of the above reasons contributed to the collapse of the Tsar's government. What other reasons might there have been? The impact of World War I greatly contributed to the collapse of the Tsar's government. Russia entered the war in 1914, on the side of Britain, Belgium, France, Italy and Serbia, fighting Germany, Austria, Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria. At the beginning of Russia's involvement moral was high, the soldiers all felt they were helping their country. But by December 1914 over a million men out of 14 million had died. The army was in full retreat, the soldiers had one gun between three of them, and many had no boots. In September 1915 the Tsar decided
Why did Carthage Lose the Punic Wars?
Why did Carthage Lose the Punic Wars? The greatest naval power of the Mediterranean in the third century B.C. was the North African city of Carthage. From the earliest days of the Republic, Rome had been on friendly terms with Carthage. For centuries, the first had remained a land power and the second was a major naval power whose ships controlled the western Mediterranean; while Rome expanded for political reasons, trade and commerce motivated Carthage's foreign policy. During the centuries of their earliest contact, Rome and Carthage had lived in harmony. Heichelheim and Yeo (1962, p.115) agree that prior to 264 B.C., relations between the two powers, if not friendly, had at least been diplomatically correct. Because they had shared a common enemy in the Greeks for two and a half centuries, neither side felt threatened by the other. However, suspicions and jealousies began to grow on both sides and in 264 B.C. the friendly relations between Carthage and Rome were disrupted by a seemingly unimportant incident in north-east Sicily. For a lack of a common enemy in the Greeks and the fact that Roman power had reached southern Italy, war became inevitable (Grant, 1978, p.83). The determination of Carthage to protect her commercial and imperial interests was matched by the resolution of Rome in fighting for her honour, and so from a small incident their confrontation swelled
