Discuss the reasons for the growth and decline Essay -- essays researc

Up until World War II, Imperialism had been a major part of civilization throughout the world. The conquering and occupying of other lands had been prominent in all of the major world empires. The Romans, Ottaman Turks, Egyptians, Mongols, Syrians, Greecians, Babylonians, Muslims, Persians, and others had all thrived on the occupation of other territories. However, as the advancement of military warfare and techonolgy increased, the stakes increased, the wars longer, the casualities higher, and the controlling of vast amounts of land became harder as people sought ethnic diversity and clung to their heritage harder. The last of these great imperialistic empires stands with Great Britian and France. Other european powers in the 1800's also had their hand in the cookie jar of imperialism, including belgium, italy, and Germany, but the powerhouses existed with Great Britian and France. Up until a little after World War II, in the 1950's and 60's, did imperialism last. The questions asked now is how did European powers manuever their way into the lives of other ethninticies, and why didn't it last?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Around 1870, imperialism in Africa escualted, with her coast line quickly being snatched by Great Britian, France, the Dutch, Germany, and the Italians, and then they started working their way inward. The Industrial Revolution caused new wealth to emerge, and this new wealth was invested in occupying new territories, for either a sign of prestige or dominance, probably both to an extent. Techonology is growing, and communications is increasing, thus making it easier to occupy new lands and peoples. Medical techonolgy is increasing, and the ability to combat new diseases helps the imperialistic powers overcome the new pestilences that they encounter. The increasing growth of the R.R made it easier to transport goods and materials needed to occupy territory. The population in Europe is growing, and these new lands are possible place to settle as well. But why did countries like Great Britian seek to expend enouormous amounts of money on provinces without much coming back to them?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  One theory is the Accident theory that says their was no real intent in the colonization that took place. The theory says that once one land was taken, the surrounding land would... ...by the British by combining three tribal groups together. One the British left, much blood was shed over what a nigerian was or was not. There was no coherant agreement on what these new people stood for.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Goals for the future are almost dependant on the new countries ability to industrialize and keep up with the Western powers. Establishing a stable government is one step toward political and economic growth and stablity. Agreeing on what a country is about, and how they are to support themselves are vital. Holding fast to an identity, as Americans, Frenchmen, and the British do, only aids in the development of old things, and the creation of new techonology. However, as afore mentioned, because of their being no distribution of weatlth in the world, and within the new countries, the new money is only spread out over the growing population providing no real enhanced standard of living for anyone, the gap will become wider and wider economically between the more developed countries and the third world. Economic developement is the key to success, and without that, these once colonized countries will only continue to struggle.

Cold War and for its continuance to1956 Essay

How far do you agree that ideological rivalry between the superpowers was primarily responsible for both the origin of the Cold War and for its continuance to 1956? Certainly, the ideological rivalry that existed between the East and the West, concerning Communism and Capitalism was the largest factor to fuel the lengthy cold war, but there were other smaller factors that inflamed the conflict and ensured its continuance. Almost all of these factors can be drawn back to the fundamental contradictory ideologies and most of which were reactions against the other’s respective policies, such as Comecome was the Soviet response to the Truman doctrine/ Marshall Aid, and the Warsaw Pact a reaction to the creation of NATO. As the Second World War came to an end in 1945 it became clear that pre-war revulsion for the respective ideologies was ready to once again rear its ugly head. The war time association between the US and the Soviet Union had existed simply to unite against an enemy that if faced alone, neither could have overthrown. By 1945 it was obvious that Hitler and Nazi Germany were reaching the end of their powerful and destructive lifetime. With the downfall of their enemy, the two superpowers had no common ground and were therefore left to return to their nations and their respective pre-war international policies. Both Russian and American ideologies can only be fully understood or explained by looking at their individual roots. America, as it stands today was founded less than two hundred years ago, with such a short national history and no legs to stand on, it is no wonder they are so scared of other ideologies, and insist on enforcing their bogus ‘democracy, liberty and freedom’ on other countries with no allowance or acceptance of other ways of living. The basis of US foreign policy since 1945 has been the idea of containment, sketched out by George Kennan in the Long Telegram of 1946. Kennan argued that the methods and goals of the US and the SU were ‘irreconcilable’ and therefore the US should prepare for a long struggle. At some point the ‘illegitimate’ government of the SU would collapse from within and the struggle would be over, as almost perfect prophecy of what was to happen years later. During the late Middle Ages, Russia had been isolated from Europe by Mongol occupation, once Russia gained it’s freedom from the Mongol yoke and attempted to become a European power, it found that it lacked the technology and culture of the West. Furthermore, it was an underdeveloped peasant society, embracing enormous geographical expanse. The challenge was to change and modernize the country. Russian leaders from Ivan the Terrible onwards were all faced with the problem of transforming this backward society. In 1917, the Bolsheviks inherited these traditional Russian preoccupations; however they also inherited a desire to define themselves and pursue her own unique national calling rather than simply follow in a Western pattern of development. The Soviet Union, Stalin declared, did not need the West, but could succeed on its own. Additionally, while the Bolsheviks embraced the Marxist vision of a universal pattern of development, they also inherited Marx’s ambivalent attitude to capitalism and his desire to see its destruction. Suspicion of the West thus came to be deeply embedded in the Bolshevik mentality; the West was the enemy against which Bolshevism defined its identity. It was therefore, essentially, a ‘reactive’ identity; Soviet socialism, constructed as a protest against Western capitalism, was ‘an anti-world to Capitalism’ (Kotkin 1995). Personality clashes between the two superpower leaders, Stalin and any of the US Presidents once again comes back to their completely opposing ideological beliefs and their individual fears of the other’s possible world domination. So when Stalin died in 1953 it was unclear how, or even if, Soviet politics could maintain its hard-line policies both internationally against America and internally. However, in 1956 Khrushchev, the new Soviet leader made his famous secret speech, clearly criticizing Stalin this, almost even more clearly than even Stalin’s death, signified the end of Stalinism. Khrushchev’s appointment marked the end of the relationship between Stalin and the West. Brimming with positive ideas for ‘peaceful coexistence’, and a much larger power base than Stalin’s dictatorship ever allowed, the relationship between Khrushchev and the west began, and that’s a whole other story. The Cold War was an ideological and geographical struggle between two opposing systems. Equally important, it was a struggle that took place during the first fifty years of the nuclear age, and the existence of nuclear weapons greatly affected the nature of the struggle. The black cloud of nuclear Armageddon hung over the entire cold war period. Yet, thankfully, the bomb was never used to attack after 1945 by either the United States or the Soviet Union. Although this war was nothing like either the first or second world war, the rest of the world was dragged in too. The Korean War was labeled ‘the cold war in the east’ by one historian†¦. (sorry know this bit should be much much longer) At no point in history, from before the 16th century have two superpowers been able to coexist, there has always been a single hegemonic power. Yet Holland’s influence in the 16th century and Portugal’s colonization of Spain and South America, and even the British Empire would never have been labeled ‘superpowers’. Perhaps this is because although these countries had influence, they did not have the power to destroy the world at the press of a button. Nonetheless in this nuclear era there is even less room for two major powers, and even though the ideologies are complete opposites, the cold war can be explained as a power struggle between two big kids, fighting for their right to be the biggest bully in the playground. Although this certainly wasn’t the first, or indeed the last, war that America has ‘won’ I feel that this is almost the most important win in US, indeed even world, history. The battle of two superpowers, both with the ability to destroy the world, and that only, by the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 20th century, allowed the US to appear as the ‘winner’ and assume the position of the world’s only superpower and subtly declare itself ‘world leader’. I believe the cold war is one of the largest factors for causing the American superiority which had the cold war had a different outcome perhaps would have been suppressed or even seen the Soviet Union develop the ignorance and superiority that is so fiercely disliked by much of the world. I fully agree that fundamentally the cold war was a confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, fuelled on both sides by the belief that the ideology of the other side had to be destroyed. It is because of this that co-existence was not possible- one side could only win at the expense of the other, no matter how long either side had to wait for their victory, the ideological hatred ran so deep that both sides that neither side was prepared to jeopardize their own way of life for the benefit of the other. The Soviet Union held to Lenin’s belief that conflict between communism and capitalism was ‘inevitable’. The United States believed that peace and stability in the world would only emerge when the evil of communism had been exorcised. At the ideological level Moscow’s communist world-view, which saw capitalism as absolute evil, fed off Washington’s world-view, which saw communism as an absolute evil, and in this way helped to sustain the others prophecy. Every action that either power took was followed by an almost immediate reaction from the other, the continuation of the Cold War not only until 1956 but until the Soviet Unions downfall in 1970/80s, was continually fueled by actions and reactions which were sometimes insignificant but which also brought the world closer than ever to a full scale nuclear war. Bibliography Stalinism, An Overview – P. Boobbyer 2000 The Cold War – John W. Mason Sarah Holtam Page 1 2/5/8/2007

Wilkinson Picketts Spirit Level Book Essays - 1401 Words

Wilkinson Pickett, (WP) assert that society on the whole would be healthier, more successful and happier if the gap between the affluent and the poor was tightened. The ‘Spirit Level Book’, written by them in 2010, is one of the most influential books on social policy to date and it argues that not only does inequality affect the ones down the bottom of the ladder but everyone across the board. Affluent countries perform better when social indicators are more equal across society. This essay will assess the validity of Wilkinson Pickett’s conclusions by comparing the works of authors that support similar arguments, to the work of authors who disagree with them. A comparison of these different approaches, with a critical look at what†¦show more content†¦Dean argued that low standards in one or more of these areas lead to social problems, such as drug abuse, homicide, homelessness which affect all levels of society. Rowlingson (2011) agrees with Wilkinson and Pickett that there is indeed a strong correlation between income and health and social problems. In her report she includes the ‘Marmot Review’ (Marmot, 2010) which shows evidence that people living in England in the poorest areas compared to those living in the richest will, on average, die 7 years earlier. This suggests a clear link between class and health. The report further notes other additional factors, such as infant mortality, and mental and physical well being go hand in hand with inequality. A discussion of the opposing arguments The evidence does appear to suggest that inequality does play a major factor in certain measures of social well-being. However, there have been many researchers that disagree/critique this claim. The authors of ‘The Spirit Level Delusion’ (2010) attack this notion and conception of inequality, health and growing gaps between rich and poor, suggesting that Wilkinson and Pickett have no real evidence supporting their claims on this issue. Confounding factors and other variables, such as absolute income,Show MoreRelatedLiterature Review Of Literature On Economic Inequality1470 Words   |  6 PagesLiterature Review An extensive amount of material has been written about Economic inequality and how it affects various aspects of quality of life. The literature is diverse with recent works such as Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett’s The Spirit Level, which suggests that economic inequality has a detrimental effect on several factors such as increased crime, increased obesity, and worse mental health within a country. Simon Kuznets, an influential America economist set an economic paradigm which