"Hero or Villain?" Evaluate the contribution of Napoleon Bonaparte to French history in terms of both domestic and foreign policy in the period 1799-1815.
Scott Sandoval AP European History Period B December 27, 2001 "Hero or Villain?" Evaluate the contribution of Napoleon Bonaparte to French history in terms of both domestic and foreign policy in the period 1799-1815. On August 15, 1769, on a small French governed, Italian cultured, Mediterranean Island, Corsica, Napoleon Bonaparte was born. Little did his upper-middle class parents know that on that day their miracle would write the history books and become one of the best military leaders for two centuries. Napoleon first joined the army when he graduated from school, age sixteen. He was quickly promoted to lieutenant colonel of Corsican National Guard, in 1791. Napoleon was patriotic to France and when the Corsican people revolted he fled to the mainly and took his family to with him. His first major combat came when we was assigned to quite a revolting naval base. He came out victorious and was promoted to brigadier general when he was only twenty-four years old. This was only the beginning of his career. Three years after marrying his wife, Joséphine de Beauharnais, was Napoleon's period of largest influence. This time period lasted for almost sixteen years and is known as the Napoleonic Era. During Napoleon's lifetime he acquired many territories, most of which were gained it the about 16 year span. Some believe that Frenchman Napoleon Bonaparte was the second
"How justified was Gladstone in his criticism of Disraeli's foreign policy as 'reckless, territorial expansionism"?
"How justified was Gladstone in his criticism of Disraeli's foreign policy as 'reckless, territorial expansionism"? Benjamin Disraeli was a divisive personality; he divided political opinion in his own time and has divided historical opinion posthumously. Some historians see him as a great statesman and father of the modern Tory Party, whereas others question the importance of him as a historical figure at all. The historical intrigue of Disraeli lies in his volatile with his opponent William Ewart Gladstone leader of the Liberal Party. The lead politicians of their day, the pair verbally sparred over many issues but none so frequently as Foreign Policy. Gladstone learnt early on in his career after the Crimean War, that his personal mantra of "Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform" didn't sit well with an imperial foreign policy, whereas for Disraeli the empire was the glittering jewel in Britain's crown as leading world power. Disraeli has been credit by many as a shrewd political thinker, and his idolization of Imperial Britain is seen by many as merely an effective device for uniting the electorate with jingoistic rhetoric. This essay will argue that Gladstone's criticism of Disraeli is misplaced, his actions were not reckless but carefully considered, and while some of his decisions were ethically debatable they were meticulously calculated to bring the Tory Party, (and
"In 1848 Europewas ablaze with revolutionary fervour affecting most countries. Germanywas affected but differently to the rest of Europe. To what extent was this the case?"
Year 11 IB History 2003 - The 1848 Revolution & Germany "In 1848 Europe was ablaze with revolutionary fervour affecting most countries. Germany was affected but differently to the rest of Europe. To what extent was this the case?" To a certain extent, Germany was affected differently to other European countries. Although many European countries were under revolution, they were affected in different ways. The Europeans wanted universal suffrage and economic improvement as well as an end to the old monarchy. The main difference was the fervent desire for unification. The causes of the revolution were similar - economic and social deterioration, but the outcomes were assorted. France had no trouble in acquiring a republic, but had difficulty in running it. Austria's racial differences caused disputes over the Diet language. The revolutions in Austria were successful in shaking the Hapsburg Empire in the beginning, however it eventually failed because of the conflicting economic goals of the middle and lower classes. Germany was after unification. There was no complication by racial differences, there was a mass of peasants to support revolts, a King that was initially willing to attempt to unite Germany, yet the revolution failed. The revolutions affected each country similarly in trying to bring down the long-standing monarchy, however outcomes of each were
"From her arrival in 1568, Mary Stuart posed a major threat to the security of Elizabeth and her government". How far do you agree with this judgement?
"From her arrival in 1568, Mary Stuart posed a major threat to the security of Elizabeth and her government". How far do you agree with this judgement? Mary's Threat Politically Religiously Internationally Self Inflicted Mary's arrival in England triggered the discontent among some Catholic sympathisers to become prevalent, as Mary provided a clear leader to focus their religious dissatisfactions with the moderately Protestant settlement imposed by Elizabeth. This is why religious motivations behind some of the laity were the most dangerous threat from Mary. Political advantages from individuals supporting Mary are contributory factors to threaten Elizabeth, without the laity's religious motivations however they cannot amount to a crucial significance. International implications from Mary's presence were potentially huge but were never anything more than potential. All these factors revolving around Mary that threatened Elizabeth were compounded by the way Elizabeth mismanaged situations. Mary can be seen as the reaction pathway in the threat towards Elizabeth, she does not do much herself to endanger Elizabeth, however she provided the discontented with the motivation to threaten Elizabeth because she was the next Catholic heir. Those who felt discontented about Elizabeth's moderate Protestant settlement now had a clear leader to focus their ambitions of a Catholic
"Khrushchev's leadership was a failure," Do you agree?
"Khrushchev's leadership was a failure," Do you agree? There is a lot of debate about Khrushchev being a good leader. There is no doubt that Khrushchev was much less ruthless than Stalin, but was he a good leader? I will look further into this statement and then come to a conclusion if Khrushchev's leadership was a failure. Khrushchev started out well; he knew he couldn't carry on Stalin's ruthless regime, so he separated himself from Stalin by making the secret speech in February 1956, "Stalin used extreme methods and mass repressions at a time when the revolution was already victorious." Even though this was a risky move by Khrushchev and he made a lot of enemies, it showed the sense of character of Khrushchev. The Virgin Land scheme was a good idea for Khrushchev, but made a big mistake, after a good first season the failure to rotate crops and use fertilisers to feed the earth which caused soil erosion. Windstorms were partly to blame for this, but rightly Khrushchev was heavily blamed. Harvests in 1963 were so bad the USSR had to buy large amounts of grain from the US and Canada. Khrushchev made big steps into the unknown which was space. A race with the US to get into space first was won by the USSR. In 1957 the USSR launched two space satellites into space, Sputnik 1 and Sputnik II. Four years later Khrushchev got the first man into space, Yuri Gorgerin.
"Ludendorff gambled on a quick victory but his offensive stood little chance of success" Do you agree or disagree?
2 / "Ludendorff gambled on a quick victory but his offensive stood little chance of success" Do you agree or disagree? In the beginning stages of the Ludendorff offensive, it did appear as though the offensive stood a chance of success. The Germans had brought across an extra million troops from the Eastern front to give the Offensive an even better chance of success, by outnumbering the allies. Source C tells us how the Germans opened with a massive attack of 6000 big guns. Some shells released mustard gas, to blind and suffocate the allies. Source C also tells us how 65 German divisions followed up the attack, quickly and efficiently, as source A shows. The allies were caught off guard by this attack and they were soon on the retreat. . This offensive became a massive problem for the allies, they were unable to hold the line and were being forced back great distances. The allies came to the conclusion that to be able to better resist the Germans better they would have to act as one unit rather than separate ones. A Frenchman Ferdinand Foch was employed to take control of all the armies, now they were acting as one, they would be able to fight and resist the Germans advance more effectively. The Germans continued to advance pushing the allies right back, by July they had advanced 65km reaching the river Marne. The attack was going very well, for the second time in the
The topic that colonial governor of Connecticut Thomas Fitch (1700-1774) wrote about in 1764
A Strong Defense By the middle of the eighteenth century, the relationship between the colonies of America and their mother country had grown thin. The Americans were financially booming like no other land on Earth. The colonies were also gaining population at a rapid rate. In many ways America was one of the most successful countries in the world. Except for one problem, they were not even a country at all. In Britain they came to be known simply as the colonies. However, life was not too bad for those living in the colonies, as earlier mentioned they were prospering as well as anyone could have imagined. Possibly best of all though, was that there was not a whole lot that they were asked for by their mother country, Great Britain. That was until Britain had defeated the French in the Seven Years War. The war left Britain in a large financial debt, and Prime Minister George Grenville was searching for ways to pay off the debt. He was lost, until he thought of an idea that would qualify as genius if he was able to convince the Americans to go through with it. The idea was to tax the Americans on stamps, which came to be known as the Stamp Act of 1765. This is precisely the topic that colonial governor of Connecticut Thomas Fitch (1700-1774) wrote about in 1764. (Bates, A.C. The Fitch Papers, 2 vol, 1918-20) I have spoken of why this made sense for Great Britain,
"Nothing can be more misleading than to apply such a concept to the discussion between Germans and Jews during the last 200 years." - Gershom Scholem. Discuss this in relation to the texts and issues that you have studied.
"I deny that there has been such a German-Jewish dialogue in any genuine sense whatsoever, i.e. as a historical phenomenon. It takes two to have a dialogue, who listen to each other, who are prepared to perceive the other as what he is and represents and to respond to him. Nothing can be more misleading than to apply such a concept to the discussion between Germans and Jews during the last 200 years." Gershom Scholem Discuss this in relation to the texts and issues that you have studied Natalie Conn 3024022 The age of emancipation in Germany began in 1871 with the famous treatise by the Prussian state councilor Christian Wilhelm Dohm. It ended only with the constitution of the German Reich of 1871, which definitively declared the equal status of the Jews of Germany before the law. The age of emancipation simultaneously marked the epoch of the rise of bourgeois society in Germany, and both processes were interwoven. Many German-Jewish theorists claim there was a Judeo-German Symbiosis, which is the illusory interaction or exchange between German and Jewish cultures once the Jews of Germany were emancipated. Underneath this image of a symbiosis, there was another much darker image surfacing on top of it. This was the picture of a growing tension between the Jews and the Germans and furthermore, a failed relationship that would merely end up in devastating conflict. Gershom
The Algerian revolution was the culmination of the Algerian War of Independence (19541962) and led to Algeria's independence from France. It was a hugely significant milestone in the decolonisation of North Africa.
Assess the significance of the Algerian Revolution The Algerian revolution was the culmination of the Algerian War of Independence (1954-1962) and led to Algeria's independence from France. It was a hugely significant milestone in the decolonisation of North Africa and remains no doubt until present times as one of the great events of the 20th century. The conflict itself consisted of a plethora of varying factors of war; guerrilla warfare as well as planned military skirmishes, alleged 'terrorism' against civilians and thus counter terrorism on behalf of the French Army and use of profuse torture on both sides. The war led to the igniting of sentiment regarding independence within Algeria on a gargantuan scale, furthermore anti-colonialist sentiment at the time was rife within the world and mass support sprouted internationally in the form of uproar and protest for the plight of the Algerians and their right to independence. The French were largely divided on the question of 'French Algeria' some were in favour of maintaining the status quo, which was a political purgatory between independence and full integration into France, whilst others supported granting full independence and being completely apart from Algeria as a nation. Ultimately the French army was victorious militarily, however an irreversible shift in the socio-political environment had taken place and Algerian
Why was Africa colonised in the years 1870-1914?
Why was Africa colonised in the years 1870-1914? The period of 1870-1914 saw the partitioning of Africa at its greatest - from only 10% of the continent under European control in 1875, to an amazing 90% under European control in 1895. The colonisers included the vast majority of the major imperial powers of Europe - Britain, France, Russia and Germany. There are various motives for colonisation during this period and include not only the economic and political state of Europe, but also less documented reasons such as religious beliefs and feelings of social supremacy. We shall examine each motive separately and then examine whether there was any interdependency within them. The Berlin West Africa Conference (1884-1885) saw the partitioning of Africa amongst the European nations after the speedy 'Scramble for Africa' during the period 1870-1914. The Portuguese colonised both Mozambique and Angola, in southern Africa, whilst South-western Africa, along with Tanganyika in East Africa were under German rule. The Congo was under King Leopold II's rule (eventually Belgian) and Senegal, Cameroon, and several other colonies in the western Sudan and Central Africa were gained by France. However it was Great Britain that colonised vast areas of Africa - Kenya, Uganda in East Africa, the Gold Coast (now known as Ghana) and present day Nigeria in West Africa were all under its rule.