Why was Arab Unity so difficult to achieve? There has always existed and inherent ideological weakness in the case for Arab unity.
Why was Arab Unity so difficult to achieve? The Arab world is a loose but complex amalgamation of twenty-two countries in which a pan Arab identity is the proclaimed ideal. This philosophy was reinstated in the Arab psyche in the nineteenth century as a direct reaction to the decline of the Ottoman Empire, it "came to fill the gap made by the Ottoman Caliphate"1. However upon witnessing the break up of the Arab world into separate states, its descent into separate dictatorships, the nakba or catastrophe that is used to describe the establishment of the state of Israel can be applied to the concept of Arab unity as a whole. It has been a recurring feature of the modern history of the region. On the eve of Monday the 3rd of July 2006 Western Diplomats informed Hamas leaders of Israel's intention to work towards their assassination if the kidnapped Corporal Shalitt was not returned to Israeli forces. The world gazed upon yet another bullying and pugnacious threat from Israel, which highlighted, if only marginally, the vacuum for strong leadership to utilise the inexhaustible potential of the Arab people en masse. To the historian studying this issue the main point is not to get too wrapped up in dates, per se, but to look at the main themes affecting the successes/failings of Arab unity projects. The reasons for this failure are extensive but can be loosely grouped;
League of Nations - Good or Bad?
League of Nations - Good or Bad? Many of us wish that we could create world peace, but most of us know that this is not a one man task. When I think of Woodrow Wilson I am reminded of a common quote, "The road to hell is often paid with good intentions!" Woodrow Wilson had good intentions and put a lot of effort into them when he proposed the League of Nations. However, his efforts drew short and the League was destined for failure. In my opinion, it needed all of the world powers in order for it to have been successful, and in order for this to happen each and every one of the members would have to be satisfied with the requirements. Unfortunately, the U.S. was a world power and they were not willing to give up any of their rights for peace, hence the failure of the League of Nations. One must understand the history behind the League of Nations before judging it. In November of 1918 an armistice was declared in Europe. Wilson was more of an idealist than a war villain, and viewed this event as an opportunity for international peace. He did not believe that the war should end in a new balance of power, but rather in an organized common peace. In other words, he wanted "peace without victory"(Knock, 2000). His biggest step towards this ultimate goal was the Treaty of Versailles containing fourteen points, of which the fourteenth consisted of a League of Nations to settle
With reference to the "Boer War" of 1899-1902, explain how imperialism provided the political and cultural impetus for conflict?
Assessment 1: History Short Essay With reference to the "Boer War" of 1899-1902, explain how imperialism provided the political and cultural impetus for conflict? The Boer War of 1899-1902, or the Second Anglo-Boer War, was the result of long held tensions between British imperialists and Dutch settlers in South Africa, who had formed two independent Boers republics, the Orange Free State and the Transvaal Republic. The culmination of political and cultural divisions, which followed nearly 200 years of British imperialism in the region, escalated into a bloody and drawn-out conflict. Tensions between the Dutch settlers, the Boers - who had established a farming-based society in the Southern Cape as early as the mid-1600 - and the British emerged at the end of the 1806 Dutch-French war when the British took control of the Cape Colony. The British victory resulted in substantial migration to South Africa and the political decision to abolish slavery added to the cultural divisions between the two groups. References to the Boer War as a 'White Man's War' or a 'Capitalists' War'1 suggests that the British pursuit of political and cultural imperialism was the major impetus for the conflict. However, it is important not to discount the Boers own imperialist motivations. In fact, the Boer Ultimatum of October 1899 provided some evidence of the Boers aggression in driving the
Evaluate the differences between historians and their interpretations of the Twentieth Century.
Evaluate the differences between historians and their interpretations of the Twentieth Century. The twentieth century was a period of immense change in regards to almost every human activity. Scientific understanding was accelerating faster than ever before, communications were improving, and transportation witnessed the transition from horse and carriage to automobiles in the span of a few decades. War reached a previously unprecedented scale, with the level of sophistication becoming almost unlimited, twice causing the destruction and rebuilding of Europe. Then for almost half of the century, not an actual war, but a cold war was fought by proxy, by the two rival ideological camps of capitalism and communism. Terms such as ideology (rise of fascism, Marxism and to an extent liberalism) world war, genocide and nuclear war, entered the vocabulary. It can be argued that the twentieth century re-defined the face of the planet more than any previous century. The purpose of this essay is to examine the differences between historians and estimate the value of their interpretations of the twentieth century (such as the notions of 'the short twentieth century' which starts 1914 and ends 1991 or 'the peoples century') in the light of its truth and utility. Various historians views will fall under scrutiny throughout the course of the essay, however the main focus will be on Eric
1) In what ways are rebellions caused by the rise of new forms of collective identity? Discuss two cases.
) In what ways are rebellions caused by the rise of new forms of collective identity? Discuss two cases. The periods leading up to both the French and Russian revolutions were laced with relatively new and radical ideas which were calling for widespread social change. The most notable of ideas were those of the 'philosophes' of the Enlightenment during the late 17th and 18th centuries and the communist ideals produced by Marx and Engels in 'The Communist Manifesto' published in 1848. These ideas helped encourage and inform rising forms of collective identity in both countries. Collective identities, however, are also inspired and developed further by other factors and revolutions are often the result of the culmination of these elements. The most important factors which caused the rebellions in France and Russia include: the leadership of the political party or group which is calling for change, economic problems and social or political issues. There has been much historical debate over the extent to which collective identity itself causes rebellion and the debate will, no doubt, continue as there are viable arguments for and against. One fact, however, remains constant; as Gustav Le Bon discussed, the fact that crowds of disgruntled citizens will display a degree of 'mass madness' which certainly fuels revolution to an extent.1 Historian Alan Woods also highlighted the
History 325 - Second Term Essay
History 325 - Second Term Essay Professor Grant Reform of the Royal Navy 1880-1914 and the Anglo-German Détente as a cause of World War I JC Fraser (0031164) In the nineteenth century Great Britain's Royal Navy was the largest and most powerful navy in the world. More importantly, it was the force in which the English leaders placed their hopes for the security of the nation. At the turn of the century Great Britain's naval supremacy was being challenged by one of her continental rivals; Germany. The Anglo-German naval race, which preceded the Anglo-German détente, was one of the key developments that resulted in World War I. The naval race was a result of the technological advances that were occurring at the end of the nineteenth century. Historians have dubbed this rapid technological acceleration as "the naval revolution." Due to the advances of the naval revolution, other powers' emerging navies were put on an equal footing with the Royal Navy and when Germany began to threaten Great Britain's naval supremacy it lead to an increase in tension between the two countries. Tensions were relieved by a resulting naval détente, which gave Germany false hopes about the intentions of Great Britain. This misconception was a key factor in the approaching war. The naval revolution and the naval race had a huge impact on the affairs of Europe and one of the results was
Which leader has the best idea for peace at the Treaty of Versailes.
Which leader has the best idea for peace? If we are talking about which leader's ideas is the best for peace, I'll choose Woodrow Wilson (USA). He's an idealist. He made for peace 14 points. And all of those 14 points are really and really just for peace. There's nothing about punishment, not as same as Georges Clemenceau's, who's absolutely opposite. Woodrow Wilson wants peace, he doesn't want any war or any punishment, which will reach the revenge. He thought about the ideas for peace very carefully and there are really many very good points. For example: no secret treaties, free access to the seas, free trades and so on. But most of his points weren't successful, because Clemenceau and the citizens of France wanted to pay Germany back as what they did to France. Which leader has the worst idea for peace? Of course, when we are talking about which leader has the worst ideas for peace, it might be Georges Clemenceau. It's not just the leader's ideas. It's the citizens' feeling toward Germany too. The Germans had twice invaded his country, so he has to make sure that Germans won't do it again. French President even wanted Germany to break up into small states, but Clemenceau was sure, that Britain and USA wouldn't agree. They saw the treaty not as a peace treaty, but the chance to punish Germany. And so their ideas for peace were all very cruel and made Germans to revenge
What generates nationalism and how important a factor is it in modern history
What generates nationalism and how important a factor is it in modern History? Defining nationalism is not as simple as just by getting to its root 'nation', because this can be problematic as nationalism is defined by certain aspects such as language, culture, ethnic, religion and even nation itself. Within political milieu, nationalism is further broken down into elements such as self determination, liberalism, nation-states, to mention but a few. This essay attempts to answer questions, what generates nationalism and how important a factor is it in shaping the course of modern History?. Not only nationalism varies but also evolves throughout history, thus, its definition maybe subject to the context of time and space. For example Nationalism in the nineteenth century Europe had its own distinct features and dynamics, so had Europe in the twentieth century although the latter can be said as the extension of the former, as in the case of the rise of extreme nationalism and fascism. With the emergence of new ideas, technological revolution in the mass media and information technology, Nationalism can be said to a large degree, undergo changes and dynamicity in its course, either, in terms of loosing its significance or gaining its significance. It is worthwhile to dwell on the term "nation" as an idea that is imbedded in "nationalism". Nation is derived from a Latin word
Die Aussenpolitik ist ihnen nur das Mittel zum Zweck ihrer innenpolitischen Ziele
Die Aussenpolitik ist ihnen nur das Mittel zum Zweck ihrer innenpolitischen Ziele Kehr's essays are united by the theme of the primacy of the "Innenpolitik" in Wilhelmine Germany (as the essay collection's title suggests). The thesis put forward by Kehr was that domestic political concerns regarding the conflict of the industrialised masses, the industrial middle classes and the agrarian East Elbian landowners were the determining factor in German foreign policy. He attacked Ranke's thesis about the unofficial primacy of foreign policy for Germany and rejected the notion of a nation competing in a league of nations and the idea of the development of armies in arms races that exist purely to compete with rivals. Kehr argues that the army is a weapon of class conflict. Serving to protect the aristocracy against the lower echelons, then to protect the bourgeois against the proletariate, Kehr sees the development of the armed forces as a reaction of the two camps to agree on a compromise peace. The Russian grain mountain threatened the economic life of the agrarians, whilst the industrialised British threatened the good life itself. Equally, the Tsarist regime of Russia appalled the liberal industrialists whilst British economic muscle frightened them from allying with Great Britain. Kehr sees the xenophobia of the two parties as bringing the two together into a single
How successful was Bismarck's Foreign Policy 1873-1887
How successful was Bismarck's Foreign Policy 1873-1887 The Three Emperor's League After the Franco-Prussian war, Bismarck was hoping to achieve an understanding of Prussia's eastern neighbours, Austria-Hungry and Russia. In 1872, the leaders of these three 'Great Powers' held meetings and discussions, as a result of these an arrangement was made, which was called the Dreikaiserbund, also known as the three Emperor's League. These countries, during these meetings, identified that republicanism and socialism are common enemies, and promised to consult on matters of interest. This was ideal for Bismarck. This gave him diplomatic isolation in France. Although, after time, the League offered no guarantee of support to Bismarck's policies. Bismarck created a diplomatic crisis in 1875 by reacting to French recovery and rearmament. This led to Germany having suspicious neighbours which were not determined to allow the growth of German power in Europe. Which could lead to a war on two fronts, which would be wrong on Bismarck's behalf. This was known as the 'War in Sight' crisis. The near east crisis (1877-1878) Bismarck had always hoped to avoid the Austro-Russian conflict over the Balkans. Between 1875 and 1877 the Sultan of Turkey, whose empire covered this corner of Europe was faced with revolts in Bosnia, Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro. The Turks