"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.
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 did George Bush lose the presidency in 1992, given that he was vastly experienced in foreign policy-making and had already "won" the Cold War and the Gulf War?
Why did George Bush lose the presidency in 1992, given that he was vastly experienced in foreign policy-making and had already "won" the Cold War and the Gulf War? George Herbert Walker Bush - the foreign policy genius with experience as an ambassador to the United Nations, then as United States envoy to China, and if that was not enough as director of the CIA.1 Next, when he ran for president in 1988 and won, Bush's principal focus became foreign affairs. With all the experience he has had, why not? However, what President Bush did not expect was the constant change that would take place during his presidency: from Panama to the end of the Cold War to the win in the Gulf War. Looking at the four successful years of President Bush's foreign affairs, the math just does not add up when it comes to his loss in 1992. What exactly happened to his popularity or rather were his policies actually successful enough for a re-election? One of the basic arguments throughout George Bush's presidency was that the United States foreign policy needed a modification after the Reagan years. It mostly needed focus. However, George Bush did not seem to be the kind of president who could do it, although he had enough experience dealing with international issues. President Bush stressed stability and prudence when it came to foreign policy throughout his campaign in 1988. It even could have
How and why did America's role in the world change in the 20th century?
Michelle Winship Year 1 Themes in American History and Culture Tutor: Dr. C. Kitching Tuesday 13th May 2003 Essay: How and why did America's role in the world change in the 20th century? How and why did America's role in the world change in the 20th century? During the 20th century it can be seen that America's role in the world changed from an isolationist role to one of intervention. The main change can be seen in America's changing foreign policy. Events that happened in Asia and Europe caused the United States to remake its foreign policy and adapt is role in the world accordingly. It is impossible to assume that America's role in the world will stay how it is today; the role of the United States in global affairs is still under fire. America now appears to have abandoned its policy of isolation, and has seen its role in the world change immensely over the past century. The Monroe Doctrine had been set up by US President James Monroe in 1823. The U.S. promised to not intervene in the internal affairs of Europe and in return Europe should not intervene in American affairs. At the beginning of the 20th century it can be seen that American foreign interests were concentrated on relations with Latin America. After the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1898 America dominated Cuba until US troops left in 1902. The Platt Amendment, authorised America to establish a
BRITISH PRESS Ventspils Augstskola 999 Table of contents: Introduction ..............................................................3 History ....................................................................3 National papers...........................................................4 Two types of national papers...........................................4 Sunday press..............................................................5 Politics.....................................................................5 Scandal.....................................................................7 Weekly and periodical press............................................7 Local and regional press.................................................8 Freedom of the press.....................................................9 Conclusion ..............................................................10 Introduction. Despite the development of motion pictures early in 20th century, of radio broadcasting in the 1920s, and of television in the 1940s, newspapers remain a major source of information on matters ranging from details of important news events to human-interest stories. British people are reported to be the worlds most dedicated home-video users. But this does not mean that they have given up reading. The British buy more newspapers than any other people except the Swedes
How and why did Castro in Cuba come to power? For what purpose and with what success did Castro use the power he had won?
Tim Bell History HL 28/11/05 How and why did Castro in Cuba come to power? For what purpose and with what success did Castro use the power he had won? Born in 1926, Fidel Castro was a second generation Spanish interested in the fields of history, sociology, geography, and agriculture. For 400 years, the Spanish had control of Cuba until the 1890's when the Spanish-American War forced the Spanish to leave. From then on, the USA dominated Cuba both politically and economically. In 1933, Machando, the dictator of Cuba, was overthrown in a revolt with Batista as the new head of state. Under Batista, opposition formed such as the 'Autenticos' party which was led by Grau as well as the 'Ortodoxes' also known as the Cuban People's Party which had broken from the 'Autenticos' in 1947. Due to pressure from the opposition, Batista was forced to step down whereby the leader of the 'Autenticos', Grau, was able to take power. The popularity for the 'Ortodoxes' grew larger through the dissatisfaction of the current government - the 'Autenticos'. Castro himself, was a member of the 'Ortodoxes' but later joined the left wing split group - Accion Radical Ortodox. When Castro attempted to run for Congress in 1952, Batista revolted and overthrew the government once again. From this year on, Castro was determined to make a change to Batista's regime and published 'The Accuser' in seek for
The New Rationality.
Hist. 12 F Banu Kocal Cold War 2/27/04 The New Rationality The 1950's were the years of "limited conflict" this was due to the change of technology of warfare. The more weapons that were created, the longer peace would last as both sides were greatly aware of the dangers of the weapons created, trying to form a co-existence between themselves. Though there were events in which each was pushed towards the use, they were cautious as to find other means. One such example is the US's response towards Soviet satellites, "Such use of military force would in all probability start a global war. This alternative is not in accordance with current US policy and must therefore be rejected..." (July 1956)1 Alternatively, in the USSR's case, telling Anatoly Dobrynin, "...would not actually risk war, but would only bluff to gain concessions. War was inadmissible." Though both sides tried to reduce arms budget, there was still an increasing amount of arms, as well as tension. As confrontations grew, West Germany, Korea and Yugoslavia each side rearmed worrying that the other would start war. Yet with the change of leaders, policies changed and greater measures were taken to limit spending and the dependence on nuclear weapons, as both worried about the strain on their economies. Having made such weapons a constant question was just what good it actually
To what extent could Khrushchev's actions precipitating the Cuban Missile Crisis be described as "reckless adventurism", & how true is it to say that "Kennedy's statesmanship won the conflict"?
A. Plan of Investigation To what extent could Khrushchev's actions precipitating the Cuban Missile Crisis be described as "reckless adventurism", & how true is it to say that "Kennedy's statesmanship won the conflict"? The Cuban Missiles Crisis in 1962 was a pivotal point in the Cold War. The highest state of tension was present at this time. Was it Kenney's statesmanship or Khrushchev's recklessness that really contributed to the peaceful outcome of the crisis? My goal is to find out whose character really decided the final outcome. My first paragraph in part B would give the overall picture of the competition between the Soviet Union and the U.S.A. The second part would revolve around the events concerning the Breakdown of Peaceful Coexistence that lead up to the Cuban Missiles Crisis. The final section would center on the crisis itself. I will also evaluate two sources in Part C and analyze the actions of each leader in part D whether or not Kennedy was a statesman or whether or not Khrushchev was a reckless adventurer. I will then draw my conclusion from the analysis and decide which leader had a greater influence on the outcome. B. Summary of Evidence . The Cold War After World War II, a struggle for ideological, economic & military global supremacy between the USA and her allies, & the U.S.S.R and her allies emerged. The struggle, known as the Cold War, was never a
Assess the contribution of local grass root activists in the civil rights movement
Assess the contribution to the civil rights movement of local grass-roots activists The American civil rights movement is perhaps one of the most significant and influential movements of our history. For decades in America the African-American population suffered severely from discrimination, however it was a sequence of events which sparked an entire black nation to demand change. The fact that the country was found on the basis of freedom spoke out to many of the African-American's but it was perhaps after World War Two that the African-American population acted on their feelings, especially as they felt obliged to share the same rights as the white people who fought alongside them. Regardless of the actual reason as to what started this movement it is the variety of factors which contributed to the civil rights movement which are significant. When analysing the effects that the local grass-root activists had on the movement it is also as important in discussing other significant factors such as the influences of Malcolm X, media coverage and government involvement. Martin Luther King Junior and Rosa Parks could be considered two of the biggest names when discussing the Civil Rights movement in America. They both stood for the same idea, equality, as well as their connections with local grass-root activists allowed them to become heavily involved in the movement. It can be
Changing racial attitudes in Colonial and Apartheid South Africa. This piece explores the changing racial attitudes of the white communities of South Africa towards the Coloureds and Blacks, between British take-over and independence.
This piece explores the changing racial attitudes of the white communities of South Africa towards the 'Coloureds' and Blacks, between British take-over and independence. Race will be defined here as "a group descended from a common ancestor"1 This period is interesting as different "groups were brought into contact that had not had contact, or at least, simultaneous contact before"2 Firstly, the resentment of the Boers to the transplantation of European liberal ideas of the time about race to the South African Cape Colony shall be explained. Secondly, the period between the Great Boer Trek commencing in 1836 and the end of the Natalian Vortrekker Republic in 1945 will be outlined as its fundamental to the romantic or ethnic nature of Afrikaner nationalism. Thirdly, the development of segregationist and racial discriminatory policies between then and independence and how these were indicative of the racial attitudes of the time. Even though "the need to 'civilise inferior natives' became part of the justification for the scramble for Africa"3, Britain's main reason for taking control over the Cape Colony in 1806 was economical: to secure a key port on the trade passage to India. In 1833, however, the colonial administration, following having already abolished the slave trade and in line with existing Enlightenment thinking of the time, proceeded to grant equal