Why did Anglo-French relations improve so markedly between 1898 and 1914 ?
Why did Anglo-French relations improve so markedly between 1898 and 1914 ? On 9 September 1898, Kitchener confronted Marchand at Fashoda and many feared war between Britain and France was imminent; tensions ran high but the dispute was eventually settled, however, the incident was just one example of the bitter relations between t `he two nations towards the end of the nineteenth century. By 1914 though, the differences over Africa had been ironed out and Britain and France entered the war together as allies. But how did this change in relations come about? Certainly, in 1898, few would have predicted that the two Powers would enter a war on the same side - at that time the chances of them fighting a war on opposite sides seemed far more likely. `The major grievances were in Africa and in Egypt particularly, where Britain had originally been drawn in order to defend her trade route to India. After preventing France monopolise the shares in the Suez Canal, Anglo-French control became firmly established. Then the nationalist revolt in 1881 and the French withdrawal in 1882 left Britain in unwilling, and supposedly temporary, occupation. `Occupation was a perpetual embarrassment. France remained in a state of self-pitying resentment, sore at having withdrawn and jealous of the British still being there. With France in this state of mind, cordial relations were impossible.
Drawing upon one or more case studies, examine the role played by women during a violent conflict, and compare this with their role during the post-settlement peace building process.
Drawing upon one or more case studies, examine the role played by women during a violent conflict, and compare this with their role during the post-settlement peace building process. This essay will examine the role that women have played in a violent liberation/revolutionary struggle and the role they played in peace building and in the building of a new society after the conflict. I will be using the example of Eritrean liberation as my case study. War, armed conflict, revolution and struggles for independence have often been seen as men's business. In fact women have always been centrally involved in all of these activities, playing both active and passive roles - as aggressor and victim - just as men have. Most of the history of war and peace has women and men playing out the traditional roles that most societies have ascribed to them, although there have always been exceptional men and women who have stepped outside the norms. In the vast majority of cases, however, we can analyse women's and men's involvement in war as separate and different from each other. In most cases, wherever in the world, or whatever the time, the role that women have played has been generally similar. Over the last century there have been a large number of conflicts that have been fought as liberation struggles - either to liberate a nation from colonial rule, like Zimbabwe and Algeria;
The league of nations
The League of Nations was set up in 1919 directly after the First World War, which acted as a deterrent for future conflicts of that nature happening again. The powers, which had been in war against Germany met at Paris to discuss the terms, which they would impose upon the beaten enemy1 "The seat of the League was established at Geneva"2 , Switzerland was a neutral country, which hadn't been involved in world war one. It was the idea of Americas President Woodrow Wilson. The league had 4 main aims firstly to encourage co-operation, Secondly disarmament, the idea was to disarm the world's country of weapons, thirdly to improve social conditions; control diseases and improve people's living standards and finally the leagues main aim, which was to have world peace. The League fundamentally failed in its aims because of a lack of military strength, failure of two strongest powers America and Russia to join, the internal disorganisation and the rise of dictatorships in Europe. The League was successful however in solving the problems in smaller nations like Bulgaria, Greece and Finland. This essay will look at the successes of the league, the failures and will conclude with a general argument of both. The most important factor that can be seen to limit the success of the League of Nations was the lack of military enforcement .The League of Nations did not have its own army