"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,
"The body soul distinction is a myth derrived from philosophers such as Plato" - Discuss.
"THE BODY SOUL DISTINCTION IS A MYTH DERRIVED FROM PHILOSOPHERS SUCH AS PLATO." DISCUSS BY OWEN CLAYTON January 9th, 2003 Page 1 of 10 Questions that have plagued mankind for, it seems, almost as long as our existence are ones that cannot be answered in this life. " Will I survive death?" "What am I?" "Am I a unity of the spiritual and the material?" -Traditional church doctrine - "Or am I a mind/soul in a body?" -Typically Plato. There are several different views on the existence of the mind and body, exploring the existence of the mind alone, the body and mind in harmony, the body and mind separate but not linked and so on. Here the following paragraphs describe the main theories behind the body/soul distinction. In order to successfully debate this statement, one must define myth. Aetiological Myth is what is used to try to explain certain events in story form, the Tower of Babylon for example. Normal English usage is a distinction between true and false with myth representing a story, which is made up, e.g. a fairytale. There is no technical usage for the word myth in philosophy, each field of study has its own meaning of the word. The modern usage of the word does not have an inherent link between myth and falsehood, its merely a way of thinking about phenomenon which supersedes modern logical scientific thought, it exceeds the boundaries of time and Page 2 of 10
Abortion is the ending of pregnancy before birth and is morally wrong. An abortion results in the death of an embryo or a foetus. Abortion destroys the lives of helpless, innocent children and illegal in many countries
Abortion Abortion is the ending of pregnancy before birth and is morally wrong. An abortion results in the death of an embryo or a foetus. Abortion destroys the lives of helpless, innocent children and illegal in many countries. By aborting these unborn infants, humans are hurting themselves; they are not allowing themselves to meet these new identities and unique personalities. Abortion is very simply wrong. Everyone is raised knowing the difference between right and wrong. Murder is wrong, so why is not abortion? People argue that it is not murder if the child is unborn. Abortion is murder since the foetus being destroyed is living, breathing and moving. Why is it that if an infant is destroyed a month before the birth, there is no problem, but if killed a month after birth, this is inhumane murder? It is morally and strategically foolish, because we lose the middle when we talk about reproductive rights without reference to a larger moral and spiritual dimension, and we are unwilling to use language like transgression and redemption, or right and wrong. -Wolf p54 The main purpose abortions are immoral is how they are so viciously done. Everyday, innocent, harmless foetuses that could soon be laughing children are being brutally destroyed. One form of abortion is to cut the foetus into pieces with serrated forceps before being removed, piece by piece from the uterus by
"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
Philosophy - Panpsychism vs Emergentism
Is panpsychism a good solution to the mind-body problem. Carefully explain why (according to Nagel) one might believe in panpsychism, and then critically assess it as a solution to the mind-body problem: discuss and give your reasons for why this theory is or is not rationally acceptable. Many views in the discipline of Philosophy of mind, such as dualism and materialism appear to lack evidence in order to favour one position over the other, which is especially the case for panpsychism. Panpsychism, meaning 'all mind' or 'mind everywhere', is a radically different worldview, often disregarded as being counterintuitive and metaphysically demanding (Goff 2009). The doctrine of panpsychism entails that all things have a mind, or a mind-like quality. This is not to say that all matter in the universe are alive in the literal meaning, but rather its constituents are composed of some form of sentience. Panpsychism is often seen as the rival of emergentism, whose doctrines are concerned with entities that 'arise' out of more fundamental entities, that the mental comes to exist out of the physical, throughout certain times, and under certain conditions. Panpsychists such as Friedrich Paulsen have opposed to such notions of emergent properties, exclaiming, "When did psychical life arise? It did not arise, it was present at the origin of things". The sudden appearance of mental
What part, if any, of Anselm's approach to atonement could survive critical theological scrutiny today?
011323895 RT5313 Christian Doctrine of Salvation, Section One Question 2) What part, if any, of Anselm's approach to atonement could survive critical theological scrutiny today? 936 Words Anselm (1033-1109) is described in the dictionary as 'the most luminous and penetrating intellect between St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas'. Undeniably Anselm's mind was intensely rationalist, as is demonstrated in his theology of the atonement. It is important to remember that one of Anselm's earliest works Cur Deus Homo?1 was one of the first essays in a systematic theology of the atonement, which endeavored to bring an intellectual shape to an area where there had been much disorder. Anselm's aim was to 'reconcile philosophy and theology, Aristotelian logic and biblical revelation.'2 There appears to be mixed views in relation to Anselm's achievements, and opinions vary from Professor James Denny's tribute to it as 'the truest and greatest book on the atonement that has ever been written'3 to Dr. Steven's criticism 'it would be difficult to name any prominent treatise on atonement, whose conception of sin is so essentially unethical and superficial.'4 I will examine the conflicting viewpoints on the subject, and evaluate whether Anselm's work is able to survive a contemporary theological inspection. Although he includes biblical quotations and does refer to the Holy Spirit,
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.
Was revolution more far-reaching in Russia than elsewhere because of the superior organisation and efficiency of the Bolsheviks
Was revolution more far-reaching in Russia than elsewhere because of the superior organisation and efficiency of the Bolsheviks? Since 1613 Russia had been ruled by members of the Romanov dynasty who were absolute autocratic monarchs; there was no parliament, political parties or local governments. A strict press censorship was in organisation and 90% of the population were serfs. Despite this, Russia was a country of revolutionary tradition, which can be seen in the Decembrist revolt of 1825(which resulted in assassination of Tsar Alexander I). This shows there was national discontent throughout the Tsarist period. To combat this, Alexander II (The tsar liberator) passed the Emancipation Edict in 1861. However, most found this emancipation legislation unsatisfactory (due to redemption payments, the Mir etc) and it is said that the 1905 revolution was a result of the anticlimax of the emancipation, however revolution was always on the agenda in Russia and it was eventually the masses that made it happen. Nicholas II managed to survive this revolution but it did have consequences such as the October manifesto In 1900 Lenin a member of the Social Democrat Party, left Siberia(where he was exiled) and travelled to Europe where he founded a new revolutionary underground newspaper called Iskra (the spark) with which he intended to develop a strong organizational party network.
