"Generals win battles, resources win wars."To what extent is this true of the period 1792- 1918?
"Generals win battles, resources win wars." To what extent is this true of the period 1792- 1918? Resources and Generals assume a complex relationship during any conflict; Generalship being vital to the effective organisation and preparation of supplies, whilst often relying on them to sustain the war. A war is sustained and won by more than just resources, however; the 'War' of the Bavarian Succession being a rare example of resources deciding the outcome. Though the Austrian and Prussian armies never met in battle, they manoeuvred each other into exhaustion, lack of supplies and deadlock. This is uncommon, however. More commonly, it takes an effective General to make the sufficient preparation and planning demanded for a victory in warfare. Therefore whilst the use of resources can support and uphold a war, it is the skills of a General to combine the available resources with other factors, such as tactics and strategy, which win the battles and hence the war. A General's tactical decisions have often been the deciding factor in a battle or war, assuming a higher importance than the supply of resources, such as in World War One. German tactics such as the 'Elastic Defence' meant that the Allies never breached their lines despite having a 'superiority of 5:1.'1 The troops in tight formation, together with the firepower of muskets and artillery at close range also meant
"Geological activity is responsible for hazards which produce some extreme impacts in terms of loss of life and damage to property. If the consequences of such hazards are to be reduced, then appropriate management is necessary".
"Geological activity is responsible for hazards which produce some extreme impacts in terms of loss of life and damage to property. If the consequences of such hazards are to be reduced, then appropriate management is necessary". With reference to either volcanoes or earthquakes discuss the above statement. In your answer you should refer to examples and * briefly describe how geological activity produces such extreme impacts * show how the impacts of earthquakes and volcanic activity vary with the scale of the hazard and other factors * discuss the management strategies used to reduce the impact of volcanic eruptions or earthquakes * assess the success of such management strategies. The vast majority of earthquakes occur at plate boundaries because that is where sufficient stresses build up. The most powerful are at destructive plate boundaries where continental and oceanic plates converge e.g. the pacific and Philippine plates are being sub ducted under the Eurasian plate. They can also occur at mid plate too and are often triggered by human activity such as subsidence associated with deep underground mining or abstraction of underground water leading to sudden pressure changes. The impact depends on many factors strength of the earthquake, wealth of country ect. If the earthquake is high on the Richter scale then it has more of an impact. A shallow focus will cause
"George Eliot was committed to the idea of society as a slowly evolving organism with a shared culture and shared traditions"
Janahan T. A01D "George Eliot was committed to the idea of society as a slowly evolving organism with a shared culture and shared traditions". To what extent do you find this to be true of Silas Marner? A major aspect of George Eliot's Silas Marner is that of anthropological study. The majority of the novel is set in the village of Raveloe, described to be "in the rich central plain of what we are pleased to call Merry England", and throughout it George Eliot provides us with insights into Raveloe's life and culture. She contrasts this life and culture with that of Lantern Yard, a newly industrialised town where Silas Marner spends the early part of his life, and to which we are introduced in the first chapter. While she neither condemns Lantern Yard nor romanticizes Raveloe, she quite clearly places the later in a more positive light. She shows that it possesses a strong sense of history that has provided it with a rich and natural culture. This has led to community being strongly knitted and full of warmth. Thus the above statement is indeed very much true. The influence of the past is still present among the villagers of Raveloe. The village is first described to us as a place where many of the "old echoes lingered, undrowned by new voices." It partly thus that many of the villagers still possess pre-Christian beliefs, such as Dolly's somewhat superstitious belief that
"Germany came to see itself as a victim without actually being destroyed" How accurate is this?
"Germany came to see itself as a victim without actually being destroyed" How accurate is this? On the 16th June the German government, lead by Count Brockdorff-Rantzau, were presented with the Treaty of Versailles. They were originally given 14, and then 21 days, to agree to it. "The treaty, which included some 440 Articles, was not as vindictive as Clemenceau had wanted nor as moderate as Lloyd George would have wished. It certainly fell far short of the conciliatory features of Wilson's fourteen point proposals." (Evans and Jenkins) However, in order to decipher whether the end results were destructive to Germany or not, it is necessary to asses not only the main points of the treaty (including military provisions, territory, financial provisions, war guilt and the establishment of new nation states), but also the treaty makers themselves and their intentions towards Germany. The main three statesmen associates with Versailles are: Lloyd George of Great Britain, George Clemenceau of France, and Woodrow Wilson from the U.S.A. With regard to these statesmen Stephen Lees claims that we should "start by not being too dismissive" He claims that although they were responsible for their own people they also were also able to think on an international level. Their three main aims were "to guarantee Europe against the possibility of future German aggression; to revive the
"Germany must bear ultimate responsibility for the outbreak of the First World War." How far do you agree with this judgment?
"Germany must bear ultimate responsibility for the outbreak of the First World War." How far do you agree with this judgment? Although Germans had a great part in the outbreak of the First World War, all responsibility must not lay on her, for she was not the only country involved in the outbreak. Many will argue that "Germany must bear ultimate responsibility for the outbreak," but historical evidence proves that this is not so. First of all, it is Serbia who provoked the initiation of the First World War. This provocation came in the assassination of Austria's Archduke Ferdinand and his wife, by a Pan-Slavic nationalist. This problem would not have escalated to greater lengths if the Serbian government had warned the Austrian-Hungarian government of the intended plot to murder their Archduke, of which they had knowledge. When the Austrian government learned that the Serbian government had known of the plot to kill their Archduke, of course they felt resentment and betrayal. The only thing the Austrian government looked forward to was capturing those involved in the murder. This is where Austria became involved in the outbreak of the war. Following the discovery, Austria left Serbia with an ultimatum. This ultimatum demanded a full investigation into the assassination and went to say that the Serbian government stop supporting propaganda, etc. All the stipulations of the
"Germany should introduce a toll for use of its autobahn - not only for lorries, but for all traffic. Neighbouring transit countries such as Austria, France and Switzerland do it, too."
Felicitas Schäfer Written Communication I Löffler WS 2004/2005 2.12.04 "Germany should introduce a toll for use of its autobahn - not only for lorries, but for all traffic. Neighbouring transit countries such as Austria, France and Switzerland do it, too." The topic about introducing tolls for the German autobahn is highly discussed not only among German politicians today. France, Switzerland and Austria do all have tolls to increase their earnings, which they use to build and repair their roads. In the year 2000 there was a statistic1, where 1137 German citizens over the age of sixteen were asked whether they are in favour or against establishing autobahn tolls. In the western part of Germany, there was a forty-five percentage equally on each hand, while in the eastern part of the country fifty-nine per cent of the citizens were against tolls and 29 per cent in favour of them. This is a clear statement that the introduction of autobahn tolls is not wished by many German residents. I am against it, because German car owners already pay three times as much tax2 for the infrastructural system as it is spent for it. Additionally trains and buses would be more overcrowded. Not to think about that this idea would cost all German citizens a lot of extra money. Firstly, German inhabitants already pay three times as much tax2 as is spent for repairing the streets.
"Germany started World War One". Do you agree?
Kirsty Whalley Europe Since 1870 "Germany started World War One". Do you agree? On the 28th of June 1914, the heir to the Austrian Empire, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife were assassinated in Sarajevo in Bosnia. What should have been a localised conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia soon escalated and by the 4th of August 1914 all the great powers in Europe were at war. What followed was an unprecedented, bloody and horrific war lasting 4 years and involving up to 32 nations. When the war finally ended in 1918 and the Treaty of Versailles agreed upon, article 231 placed firm blame on Germany as the main aggressor. It is certainly arguable that had Germany not given Austria-Hungary a blank cheque and encouraged her aggression against Serbia who was supported by Russia, the conflict may not have escalated into a world war. However there are other factors that have to be taken into consideration when determining exactly what caused the war. Hobsbawn points out that "If we are interested in why a century of European peace gave way to an epoch of world wars the question of whose fault it was is trivial."1 Germany may have indeed seemed the aggressor in the immediate crisis of relations between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. However, if we look at international relations between the
"Germany was responsible for causing the 1st World War" Do you agree?
"Germany was responsible for causing the 1st World War" Do you agree? The world fell into war in 1914, due to a series of events throughout Europe. This is an essay to explore whether Germany was the cause of the 1st world war. Germany was responsible for creating a lot of the tension in Europe leading up to the 1st world war. In 1906 Kaiser Wilhelm II built the 'dreadnoughts', there was no apparent reason for the building of these ships, but to instil fear in Germany's enemies. The 'dreadnoughts' were seen as naval rivalry and a means of Germany stating that they were more powerful than any other country. The building of the 'dreadnoughts' started off a naval race between England and Germany, to see who could manufacture the largest and most impressive system of ships. In 1870 Prussia, in Germany, conquered Alsace-Lorraine, in France. Alsace-Lorraine was a highly desirable place to conquer; it had excellent coalmines and iron mines ideal for manufacturing steel. France was furious that the Germans, and Wilhelm I, had taken Alsace-Lorraine, and were eager for revenge, and to reclaim Alsace-Lorraine. This conquering of Alsace- Lorraine started of hatred between Germany and France. This added to the European tension. Germany sought coalition with Austria-Hungary and Russia forming an alliance called the 'Drei Kaiser Bund' or the 'three Emperors league'.
"Give an outline of Jewish beliefs about the qualities of God".
"Give an outline of Jewish beliefs about the qualities of God" In this essay I am going to discuss the Jewish beliefs about Hashem and what Jews think his qualities are. I will be using examples from a famous religious scholar called Maimonides and quotes from the Torah to give evidence for my answers. Jews believe that God is omnipotent, which is to have unlimited power or authority. In the 13 Principles of Maimonides, Jews believe that Point 7 shows Gods unlimited power over humans and the universe. The point explains how Moses experienced the presence of God through a burning bush and how God revealed his purpose for the Israelites to be taken to the Promised Land. This is a clear example of Gods omnipotency. We can also see an example of Gods unlimited power in Genesis 6, with the story of God creating a huge flood to kill every human being, animal, or bird on earth. We also see Gods unlimited power in the 10 commandments as God must be very powerful if he can give such restraining orders and have people follow them. We also see this in the Shema, as again God gives an order a whole race of people follow. The above reasons therefore explain why Jewish people think God is omnipotent. In Judaism, God is also seen as being omniscient, which is to have total knowledge. Jews believe this as at Yom Kippur we can see an obvious example of God being omniscient as he knows
"Government spending is the enemy of employment in two ways. First government borrowing is inflationary which destroys confidence in the private sector. Secondly, government expenditure "crowds out" private expenditure" Discuss.
"Government spending is the enemy of employment in two ways. First government borrowing is inflationary which destroys confidence in the private sector. Secondly, government expenditure "crowds out" private expenditure" Discuss. Government borrowing can be inflationary because the government borrows from banks, which increases the money supply. Banks assume that consumers will not take more than 10% of their savings out and on that basis are able to lend to the government. This increases the money supply because the government has borrowed from the bank but the consumer's savings stay the same and therefore there is more money in circulation. According to monetarist beliefs an increase in the money supply will directly increase inflation. Inflation can lead to unemployment, as people demand less due to higher prices and therefore demand for labour maybe decreased. Inflation also creates uncertainty for entrepreneurs, cost curves increase and revenue can decrease thus squeezing profits. Also when inflation is in the mind of the entrepreneur it can escalate easily as they will take inflationary actions like automatically increase prices and therefore it is imperative government spending/borrowing is controlled. Although government borrowing does increase the money supply, the monetarist view of a direct link between money supply and inflation is wrong, as proved when Britain