History Essay (Bismarck's Influence on the German Unification
History SL History Essay History Essay Discuss the following statement: “Favorable external and internal circumstances, not Bismarck’s diplomatic genius, explain the unification of Germany” William Frisch Møller History SL (2uhiS1) Bent Egaa Kristensen (BK) October 9, 2012 ________________ Table of Contents ________________ Introduction Internal Circumstances The Zollverein The Growth of Nationalism The Decline of the Austrian Empire Sub-Conclusion External Circumstances The International Situation Sub-Conclusion Otto von Bismarck The Schleswig-Holstein War The Austro-Prussian War The Franco-Prussian War Sub-Conclusion Conclusion Bibliography Introduction This essay will focus upon how the Unification of Germany was established by 1871, more specifically, a discussion of the following statement: “Favorable external and internal circumstances, not Bismarck’s diplomatic genius, explain the unification of Germany” In order to tackle this statement, it will be necessary not only to look at the significance of internal circumstances, such as the decline of Austria’s power as well as the growth of nationalism, and the external circumstances being the international situation at the time, but also to interpret
Architectural Masterpieces in England
COLEGIUL NATIONAL "I.C. BRATIANU" PITESTI ARCHITECTURAL MASTERPIECES IN ENGLAND NAME: GABRIELA COMANESCU CLASS: XII H COORDINATOR: PROF. GUTA CRISTINA 2011 Contents I. Introduction...............................................................................2 II. Short overview of the architecture in England .....................................3 III. Religious Monuments..................................................................7 III.1. Salisbury Cathedral...............................................................7 III.2. Westminster Abbey Cathedral..................................................8 III.3. St. Paul's Cathedral..............................................................9 IV. Royal residences.......................................................................10 IV.1. Hampton Court Palace.........................................................10 IV.2. The Buckingham Palace.......................................................11 IV.3. Palace of Westminster.........................................................12 V. Conclusions.............................................................................13 Bibliography............................................................................14 I. Introduction This work aims to present in an original manner one of the most representative architectural masterpieces of
Italian Unification: True Father of Italy
Italy was separated into many different states by 1815. In the 1850s, the Italian peninsula was divided into eight states: Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia, Lombardy, Venetia, Duchy of Parma, Duchy of Modena, Duchy of Tuscany, Papal States, and the Kingdom of Two Sicilies (Morris 2000, 375). Piedmont-Sardinia, one of the leading Italian states, had established an agenda that differed significantly from the usual reactionary stances of Italian rulers. This agenda included the unification of Italy. But in order to carry forward their agenda, Piedmont-Sardinia had to first be enhanced and strengthened by the modern economic and political policies which were implemented by Camillo di Cavour (Morris, 369). Taking his lead from the recent experiences of Britain and of France, Cavour belonged to a new generation of European conservatives who sought to harness industrial and commercial progress to maintain the political authority of the traditional governing classes (Morris, 369). Cavour (1810-1861) was a member of the Piedmontese aristocracy. He was an editor of a new political journal, Il Risorgimento until he joined the Piedmontese parliament in 1850 (Morris, 263). In January 1855, Cavour held all three of the main posts in the administration: Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Finance Minister. He and his Piedmont-Sardinia interacted with other foreign countries such as France and
Ethiopian History
On December fourth 2008 I embarked on a journey that was to teach me a lot about my country. The entire history class met up at Bole international airport at 5 o'clock in the morning waiting to board the plane that would take us to our first destination Lalibella through Bahir Dar and Gondar. Our rather large group of twelve students and three supervising teachers got onto the plane without a glitch in our plans. Even though I have lived in Ethiopia for the past six years I have never had the opportunity to travel to the historic city of Lalibella. Lalibella is a town in northern Ethiopia in the Semien Wollo Zone, at 2500 meters above sea level and belongs to the Amhara ethnic division. It is the second most holy place of Ethiopia and is a destination of pilgrimage for the Christian population. Initially Lalibella was intended to be a New Jerusalem as a solution to the occupation of Jerusalem by Muslims, and most of the historic buildings resemble the architecture to the buildings in Jerusalem. Lalibella was the capital of Ethiopia from the late 12th century into the 13th century. This historic town is known all over the world for its Monolithic Churches which play a significant role in the history of rock cut churches. The date for the construction of these churches has been a topic of dispute. The building of the churches started during the reign of King Lalibella in the
To what extent were the British culpable for the sinking of the Lusitania on May 7, 1915?
TO WHAT EXTENT WERE THE BRITISH CULPABLE FOR THE SINKING OF THE LUSITANIA ON MAY 7, 1915? Grace Lee February 21, 2006 IB History 2, Pd. 2 Mr. Hines To what extent were the British culpable for the sinking of the Lusitania on May 7, 1915? Part A: Plan of Investigation The Lusitania was one of a pair of huge, fast, and technologically advanced luxury liners that were created by the Cunard Line of Britain for use as passenger ships, but which could be easily converted into warships1. During World War I, the Lusitania continued its regular voyages across the Atlantic Ocean, sparking rumors that it was carrying illicit munitions from America to Great Britain. On May 7, 1915, the German submarine U-20 sank the Lusitania off the coast of Ireland, killing 1,195 people, including 123 Americans2. However, controversy surrounds the factors that led the Germans to sink the Lusitania. To what extent were the British culpable for the sinking of the Lusitania? Some historians theorize that Winston Churchill, First Lord of the British Admiralty, purposefully provoked the Germans to sink the Lusitania. For example, Churchill commissioned a report to determine how other nations would react to the German sinking of a passenger ship, and he ordered British ships to be threatening so that passengers would not be allowed to disembark before the ship was sunk3. Other historians believe
The Ku Klux Klan: Restoration of Old Southern Order During Reconstruction
The Ku Klux Klan: Restoration of Old Southern Order During Reconstruction The Ku Klux Klan, a terrorist rebel group killed hundreds and performed many acts of violence and hate throughout the years of its existence during the period of reconstruction, rife with problems and rebellion. The Ku Klux Klan succeeded in protecting and reinstituting most of the old social, economical, religious, political ways of the former Confederate states. The effect of the Ku Klux Klan in the south during reconstruction is sometimes brought into question due to the fact that the Federal government may not have accurately reporting what the effect of the Klan on southern society was during reconstruction, since the Klan was an 'invisible empire.'1 All the personalities, politics, organizations, legislation, ideas, incidents, exploitations and the power struggles that constituted reconstruction are cumulative to the total effect of the fraternal Ku Klux Klan in the glorified early days of battling reconstruction. All the transformations underwent such as the takeover by general Nathan Bedford Forest and the disbanding of the first incarnation that formed the true nature of the Klan as a fraternal terrorist organization2 in all aspects of its goals. The purpose is to be a chronicling attempt to show what happened during the constant changes and turmoil that took place during the confusing
Chechen Nationalism and Global Implications
Chechen Nationalism and Global Implications Chechnya is a small nation in the Southern region along the Caucus Mountains of Russia. The official religion is Sunni Islam. The region has a relatively low population; it is approximately 1.3 million. The official language of the region is Chechen (some argue that is Russian). The capital of the nation is Grozny and the Republic of Chechnya was “officially” established in 1991 (BBC). Throughout the years Chechnya has gone through dynamic changes. The dynamic changes that have created and are creating self-determination in Chechnya have followed the nationalist paradigm for state development, and through this several global themes have been incorporated: the rise of the global economic system, the rise of Islam, the fall of Communism, and the world has seen the methods of 21st century imperialism. Chechnya followed the J-Brown paradigm for national development. The revolution model does not fit the series of events as well. The revolution model discounts the unification process, and the revolution model discounts the importance of the identifiable people group. A revolution occurs when the people overthrow the government and they create a new government. Nationalism occurs when the identifiable people group revolts and breaks away from a parent country or nation. Nationalism is the creation of immense national pride, and
The Effect of the Khmer Rouge on the Social and Family Structures
Introduction The years of the Cold War had never been so significant were it not for the rise and revolutions of communist regimes. Promises of equal opportunities, an end to all social status, and disillusioned peace only brought forth a state of hypocrisy and endless poverty. Although Karl Marx founded the idea of a classless and stateless society, commonly known as Marxism, different leaders and groups interpreted these ideas based on their own beliefs, such as Trotskyism, Stalinism, and Maoism. Communism began to take its course among the eastern world, spreading like a disease and forced upon by powerful influences. The most significant occurrences, however, were those that transpired in south Asia, specifically Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge The Khmer Rouge began as an underground Marxist organization in Cambodia that followed the basic principles and beliefs of Marxism. However, its system was different in that it followed a more radical form of Maoism. Led by Pol Pot, the party ruled from April 17, 1975 to January 7, 1979 and was responsible for one of the most horrendous genocides of modern history which included a death toll of no more than 2 million people. Committing numerous atrocities and countless crimes against humanity, the KR's social transformation was identified as far more radical than anything attempted by the Russians, Chinese, or Vietnamese Revolutions
My research questions: did the United States of America really lose the Vietnam War and if so why did they lose it?
INTRODUCTION If we want to judge one or other nation for losing a War we must first consider the empirical background of the war itself. "War is the condition that exists when a group --generally, a recognized state or nation but often a political, social, or economic faction within a recognized political group -- feels its vital interests are at stake and seeks to impose its beliefs or control on a rival group through the use of overt force."1 From this definition we can see that a group goes to war to protect its interests. The question that is paramount in my essay is who do we consider the victors and who the vanquished? The winner might be the one who kills most people and loses the least. Also, the one who withdraws the last from war. But the overriding criterion describing the victor is the one who achieves its pursued aim in the war. Hence, I will consider this question in a particular area - The Vietnam War. My research questions: did the United States of America really lose the Vietnam War and if so why did they lose it? In my study I will enlist and afterwards analyze the goals and interests of the United States. First I will define the official goals of the Americans and analyze whether they succeeded to fulfill them. Afterwards I will discuss what unofficial aims some particular groups had linked to the Vietnam War and what they ultimately achieved. In my
The Great Depression Notes
Unit 11- The Great Depression 1.1 The Causes of the Great Depression > Trade, Money, Loan, and Internal problems > Protective tariffs (taxes on imported goods) were put in place in order to protect domestic industry, but they were not high enough to obstruct the movement of goods > WW1 changed this because all belligerents (countries participating in war) overproduce, overdevelop their industrial sectors to provide enough goods for war > After the war, to protect the new industries, all countries instilled high tariffs (to keep the industries from going out of business) > 1922 the US began increasing tariffs > 1930- Hawley Smoot Tariff raised the country's tariffs to an all time high - taxes on imported goods was 32%-40% > It became hard to restore trade because the trade links were broken (uneven distribution of currencies) > A lot of European wealth had gone to US because convertible currency (currency accepted by any country) was in short supply > To stimulate trade, US, Britain, and France loaned and invested in poor countries, like Germany > World trade shrank > Allies still owe the US $10 billion from loans from the war > Allies point out that they lost more than the US and requested that the US saw the unpaid $10 billion as a contribution to the Allies > US says no, pay back all of the money plus interest > Germany had to pay $33 billion to the Allies
