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
Propaganda in WW1 and WW2
In times of war, men are often told they cannot understand the complexities of it, but "must have faith", do their duty and not to question the righteousness of the government.1 But war times were stressful times, and citizens were asked to sacrifice their sons and daughters, land, properties and rations to supply for total war. Thus propaganda, the "attempt to influence behavior...[and] manner in which a mass audience perceives and ascribes meaning to the material world... through the use of mass media" was regarded as an imperative military device and used aggressively in World War II to battle for confidence and support on the home front. 2 Of all propaganda mechanisms, audiovisual technology was considered most crucial because of its availability and its ability to appeal to both senses of sight and sound at the same time. These abilities, consequently led to film's significant capacity to "mobilize emotions and immobilize the mind" through the creation of "overpowering illusions" while captivating audience in an entertaining manner. 3 During World War II, both the enemy- the Nazi Germany, and the hero- the United States recognized the influential quality of propaganda films and utilized the medium to gain support from the public. However, convincing American and German citizens into believing in the Second World War was no easy task. Both countries embarked on their
How far, and why, did traditional Catholicism decline during the reign of Elizabeth?
Alex Jockelson How far, and why, did traditional Catholicism decline during the reign of Elizabeth? Considering that on the accession of Elizabeth I the majority of men and women in England and Wales were Catholic - from the evidence of wills Protestant loyalty was limited to the south-east where even there it represented a minority - and that by the end of the reign English Catholicism had diminished to only one or two percent of the population, it is fair to say that the extent of the decline in traditional Catholicism was great. The reasons for this can be found by splitting the reign into three time periods where the presence and threat of Catholicism differ significantly. An interesting argument has arisen concerning the explanation of the decline of Catholicism. The historian J. Bossy argues that conservative gentry and clerical leadership did not produce any organized resistance to the 1559 settlement and instead allowed the laity to drift into conformity by attending Protestant church services. He goes on to suggest that it was only the later arrival of the seminary priests from Douai and the Jesuits that saved English Catholicism from complete extinction. Another historian C. Haigh counters this suggesting that Catholic survivalism was strong in the 1560s and that its demise can be attributed to 'strategic and logistical errors' made by the seminary priests and the
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
Examine the role that the financial crisis played in the outbreak ofrevolution in France in 1789.
Question: Examine the role that the financial crisis played in the outbreak of revolution in France in 1789. By: Sasha James. The French revolution was a significant part of French, and European history. It was responsible for the end of the Ancien Regime, and the introduction of a more democratic government. While the financial crisis played an imperative role in the outbreak of the revolution, there were also other contributing factors. The financial crisis played a crucial role in the outbreak of the revolution. The financial state of France before the revolution was detrimental. The total revenue for 1796 calculated by Calonne, the controller general of finances, was estimated to be 475 million livres, while the expenditure for was estimated to be 587 million livres. The economy of France was at a deficit. There were many reasons for the deficit of the economy, with the main reason being the increase in state borrowings. These loans taken by the French incurred large annual interests and repayments that the treasury was obligated to pay. The debts that were acquired were so excessive that it cost almost half of the annual revenue. Another reason was that the French government borrowed money on terms less favourable that the British or Dutch because in France there was no publicly supported bank through which government credit could be cheaply channelled. French
‘Wellington’s Waterloo’.
'WELLINGTON'S WATERLOO' The French Revolution played a significant role in the history of Britain. The ideal of intellectual enlightenment and the idea of an end of a corrupt and antiquated government and monarchist rule, swept across Europe from the summer of 1789. This followed the highly symbolic storming of the Bastille, and the Declaration of the Rights of man. However, when the Revolution degenerated into 'The terror' of Robespierre's government by fear and terrorism, intellectual joy turned into conservatism, and a feeling of betrayal. Politically, the social consequences were profound. As Britain staggered under the shock of Industrial Revolution, Urbanisation and the creation of a working class, the authoritarian response to the French Revolution, was a series of repressive acts of parliament and social measures, like the suspending of the writ of habeas corpus. Just as the new society cried out for help, Reform was effectively quashed for thirty years. The French Revolution also gave rise from Corsican outcast to Emperor, of Napoleon Bonaparte. This man perhaps affected Britain the most, and much as been written about this legendary figure and his wars of aggression. The object of this essay is, however, to tell the story of Bonaparte's final fall, in terms of military history and one engagement, which saw Bonaparte meet an equally illustrious figure, his
Which better explains Britain's success in the Napoleonic Wars: military and naval power or gold and diplomacy?
Which better explains Britain's success in the Napoleonic Wars: military and naval power or gold and diplomacy? During the French and Napoleonic Wars Britain's main objectives in defeating France were to blockade the French coastline and attack enemy colonies by means of naval power, fight a war on the continent using small units of British forces, plus pay subsidies to allies; and lastly was to support opponents of the Revolution inside of France. The naval strategy was successful, the others less so. In the early nineteenth century Britain had one of the smallest army of all the major European powers. Although through tight discipline, shrewd tactics and sound command. This recognised Britain as being a force to be reckoned with. The strength of the British armies tactics and commend was a major factor in the downfall of Napoleon's empire. Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington), was in charge of the British army, he was a great tactician and strategist. When he became the leader he created the opportunity of undertaking offensive operations against Napoleon on a scale that was not before thought possible. Napoleon Bonaparte's army was thought of as being invincible throughout the whole of Europe. However Britain's successful Peninsular campaign proved that this was wrong. The British army however did not fight alone and for most of the earlier years of the wars
To what extent was the breakdown of the Soviet-American "Grand Alliance" 1946-1948 the inevitable result of a fundamental clash of interests over the future of Europe?
To what extent was the breakdown of the Soviet-American "Grand Alliance" 1946-1948 the inevitable result of a fundamental clash of interests over the future of Europe? Insecurity and vulnerability were two characteristics which dominated foreign policy in the post-war era, triggering a spiralling deterioration in US-Soviet relations. This nature of insecurity was rooted in the Second World War where beneath the surface of the Grand Alliance, tensions were rife. It is easy to look at the post-war years in retrospect but it is important when analysing foreign policy in this era to think how the events which arose would have appeared to the US and Soviets at the time and in order to gain a full understanding, one must examine the limits and constraints on the options they had by incorporating both domestic and international factors into the equation. Underlying tensions throughout the war may have provided the framework for declining cooperation between the powers but in essence it was the constant drive for security in the post war years which provided the bones of contention which ultimately led to the breakdown in US-Soviet relations. It was primarily in Europe where the two superpowers chose to assert their interests in order to protect their borders from future threats. In 1945 numerous states suffered defeat and there was an obvious shift in the balance of power in
In 1989, when it first became clear to observers in the West that the Soviet Block was in its final death throws, commentators in the Western press began to predict a flood of economic and political immigrants from the USSR into western Europe.
B207 - POPULATION GEOGRAPHY CHERYL GODDARD WHY HASN'T EAST-WEST MIGRATION LIVED UP TO EXPECTATIONS OVERVIEW In 1989, when it first became clear to observers in the West that the Soviet Block was in its final death throws, commentators in the Western press began to predict a flood of economic and political immigrants from the USSR into western Europe. In 1990, the head of the Soviet passport department, Rudolf Kuznetsov, suggested that 'up to 8 million' people could leave the Soviet Union once the necessary travel legislation had been passed (Daily Telegraph, 27/9/1990). On 20th May 1991, the Supreme Soviet passed this long awaited and much discussed legislation. The new legislation, which was not to come into full effect until 1993, states the following:- * Every Soviet citizen is now entitled to a 5 year passport and no longer requires an exit visa. * All rules and regulations concerning the issuance of passports will be published. * Some temporary restrictions will apply, mainly to the milatary and those with access to state secrets. * Right of appeal if a passport application is declined. (Smirnov, 1991) Under Gorbachev's reforms the economy was spiralling out of control, the political situation was rapidly becoming more and more unstable and ethnic tensions were increasing. Surely, said the press in light of these developments, people will leave this
The French Revolution
The French Revolution The French revolution was more than just a revolution to change the government of France in fact it changed the whole of France socially, economically as well as politically, to quote A. J. P. Taylor, " The French were confident that they were preparing a new age and that history would begin again from 19 September 1792, when the revolutionary Convention met". In this light it is obviously foolish to look for one neat explaination of the French revolution. There are long-term causes such as the divisions within French society,and the lack of representation for the people within government. There are also short-term causes such as the bankruptcy of the country caused by war coupled with the increases in food prices caused by bad harvests, the need for the absolutist government to call the parlements in order to reform taxation and the sucess of the American revolution which saw a just and rational system of government set up in the colonies which broke away from Great Britian. There are though other factors which need consideration if a true explaination for the causes of the French revolution is to be found. The very structure of the French regime is of vital importance to this question. An absolutist state such as France was then is, by it's very nature, bound to exclude the mass of the people from taking an active role in government and it will
