Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
Why And How Did Britain Survive The War From 1940-1943?
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 4075 Views: 166 Comments: 0
As you can see from this map war was raging in Europe in 1940 and Britain ?was in big trouble. Germany appeared unstoppable as the defeat of Poland had ?taken just under a month in September 1939 by using their new Blitzkrieg ?tactics in which tanks would converge in one big group and punch a massive ?hole through enemy lines. For the next months a phoney war occurred in which ?Britain prepared for a German invasion. Although Britain was officially at ?war with Germany, Britain had decided not to assist the Polish with their ?war effort but if war broke...
of military ?hardware the Americans produced. German invasion of Russia took the pressure ?off us and military planning and scientific skill meant that the German ?threat in the Atlantic was put to rest. The grit and determination of the ?British people meant that we survived the Blitz. Although as a result of the ?Second World War this country was in massive debt and had work to do to ?build itself up again, the factors from 1940-43 caused Britain"s eventual ?victory over it"s enemies and enabled future generations to live their lives ?freely and peacefully. Just think what could have happened????
Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

In 1929-1932 there was the depression....In 1929-1932 there was the depression. At this time people were starving and had to get food from charity. Also at this time millions of people were unemployed and poor. President Hoover who as president at this time did nothing to help because he believed that the government should not interfere in industry or business, also he did little to help the unemployed and poor. But President Roosevelt offered a 'New Deal' to the American public, which was better than what they had now. He also promised to create jobs through public works schemes and he would give help to the poor. One of Roosevelt's aims was to restore America if he got elected. President Roosevelt sounded like a warrior when he said he "was waging a war against Destruction, Delay, Deceit and Despair" to get America back on track and out of the depression. All of this helped Roosevelt to win votes and to be elected president. Roosevelt also used strong powerful words like "crusade" which was a holy war, to fight the depression. And again at the start of the speech during his election campaign in 1932 he "pledges" himself to us, which means promises. His speech sounds powerful and uplifting to people especially since he was going to deal with the depression. That's why he was voted in. 2 Source B and C are very different. Source B supports the New Deal and source C is against the New Deal. In source B it mentioned the New Deal gave confidence and hope but in source C this is not even mentioned. In source B it mentions the New Deal created jobs but in source C it says the New Deal created jobs but that they were totally dependent on the government. It also tells us that unemployment rose to 11 million in 1938, but in source B it says that when Roosevelt became president unemployment had reached 14 million but this was about 1932-1933 so unemployment had gone down. In source B it mentions what the money has been spent on but doesn't mention anything about the cost and the debt. But in source C it tells us that they have a $250 billion debt and before Roosevelt they only had a debt of $19 billion. It also tells us that the money is raised from taxpayer's money. In source B it mentions that the government is strong but has no grater power than the people, which means the people can vote him out at any time. Whereas in source C it tells us that Roosevelt has all the power and is stronger than the people. And he used his power ruthlessly; he is like a dictator. 3 The photographer was trying to give the message that in America people have the "Worlds highest standard of living" but the photographer also shows us black people queuing up for government relief. But the poster also shows white people Americans driving around in a car with their family and pet. The poster also says "there's no way like the American Way". Which basically means every thing is fine and they're doing well. This means that the New Deal has only worked for some people. The New Deal has worked for the white American people but the New Deal has not worked for the black people because they are still queuing up for government relief. The photo was shoot in 1937. This was when Roosevelt had been in charge for 4 years. At this time Roosevelt cut tax but to do this he would have to fire people so this caused a spiral effect and created a lot of unemployment. So by this time unemployment was yet again rising, but this did not cause a new depression. 4 Source E was against the New Deal, because it says there has been "16 Billion Spent" on the New Deal. And the money was from the taxpayer because the source shows an old, weak man struggling with buckets of "$" up the hill which Roosevelt was pouring into the New Deal Pump, but the pump is leaking which means the tax payers money is being wasted. He is "spending the money like water". This source was drawn in an American newspaper in the 1930s just when Roosevelt was entering the Whitehouse. Source F is for the New Deal, because the source shows Roosevelt clearing out all the old polices which were all Hoover's ideas and polices, which President Roosevelt thought were rubbish. This source also shows Roosevelt with his sleeves rolled up which shows he was a man of action. The source was called "Getting Rid Of Rubbish". Source G is against the New Deal. The source shows that Roosevelt doesn't know what he is doing because he tells the old maid congress "Of course we might have to change remedies if we don't get a result" but in the source it shows us that he has already tried lots of bottles of remedies, which have had no result These bottles were the Alphabet Agencies. The bottles in the picture represent ways to make Uncle Sam America better. This was an American cartoon published in the middle of the 1930s, which was when Roosevelt had been president for about a year or so. 5 In source H it tells us that the New Deal worked for the old people But the old people wrote the letter. This was probably because Roosevelt gave old people pensions and he sent someone to help them. The old people were helped like in source H but in source I it says that all breadlines were gone but this was not true because this source was written in 1936, but in source D shows black people in breadline queuing up for government relief and source D was taken in 1937. Source H is biased because it was a letter published by Roosevelt's supporters as part of his election campaign. So this source would be un-reliable because it is one-sided and it was in favour of Roosevelt. Source I was a popular song that people bought. But people might not have agreed with the songs views, they might have just liked the music etc. In source H it tells us about the amount of people which agree with Roosevelt and it tells us that Roosevelt helped the old people we know that old people were helped because Roosevelt gave old people pensions. But we do know that this source is biased but out of both sources I think this source is the most useful. I don't think source I is that useful because it is a song and although this was a popular song, that doesn't mean people agreed with it. Source I would be unreliable because it mentions things like "no more breadlines we're glad to say" but as you know this wasn't the case this is mentioned above. 6 Source J was against the New Deal. The source was written by SB Fuller, who was a self-made businessman. This source was written in 1980. SB Fuller believed that the New Deal interfered with business. He also seems to imply that people who claim benefits were scroungers. In the source it shows this because it says, "a dog you feed will not hunt". Also he probably wasn't happy about the New Deal because rich people were heavily taxed. Also this source has very biased views because he puts people down. Source K is for the New Deal because it explains that with the New Deal, ordinary people have a better chance of life. This source also focuses on the ordinary people and not the rich, because it tells us that rich people have been hit hard but they still have something left. But the ordinary people like shopkeepers, or the ordinary, householder haven't got anything left. So when a voter sees this source it will definitely make a big impact on an ordinary person. But can we really trust this source? Because it was written by the secretary of Labour in Roosevelt's New Deal Government and she is bound to be in favour because she helped to build the New Deal. Source J was written in the 1980's and source K was written in 1949. These sources disagree with each other because source J says about the New Deal stopping the people using their initiative and that the New Deal hurt people. But source K tells us that the New Deal helped people who couldn't help themselves. 7 Source 7 i this view is for the New Deal tells us that "the New Deal helped many Americans" Only many? What is the point of having the New Deal if it didn't help all Americans and we know it didn't help the black people because in 1937 black people were still queuing for government relief. I know this because this is mentioned in source D This source also says that it gave Americans "self-respect" and "confidence". But what is the point of this? Because all this did was make most Americans over dependent on the government this is shown in source J. The New Deal did get America out of the Depression but unemployment was still very high but the war solved this for Roosevelt. Source B shows that the New Deal did this as it states "in the political field there was the strengthening of the government and the expansion of government activities to help people." But source B also mentions, "When Roosevelt became President, unemployment had reached 14 million" Source 7 ii This source is against the New Deal. In this source it tells us how the New Deal wasted money which was the tax payers money this is shown in source E. Because in source E it shows a little weak man carrying buckets of "$" up the hill and it shows Roosevelt pouring the tax payers money down "the New Deal pump" but the pump is leaking which shows that the tax payers money is being wasted. Also source G shows us that Roosevelt didn't know what he was doing because in this source it showed us that he had tried lots of ways to improve Americas state by making many Alphabet Agencies these were represented by the bottles in the picture but most of these had no result. This would have resulted in money being wasted. Source J also backs up source 7 ii ""¦it made people dependent on the government "¦" because source J says, "We had soup lines and the Depression became men lost confidence in themselves. Source C also backs up source 7 ii because in source it mentions ""¦ one in every four people depends on employment by the government." Source 7 ii also mentions, ""¦led to the government becoming too powerful." Source C can also back this up because source C says, "more people are on government relief and Roosevelt is calling for more power!" and also says that when Congress gave up much of its power to Roosevelt by giving Roosevelt billions of dollars into his hands, Roosevelt used the power ruthlessly. Conclusion for 7 i &7 ii I agree with source 7 ii. I agree with this source above because in source 7 i it says that the New Deal only "helped many Americans" but it didn't help any blacks. This is shown in source D. I agree with source 7 ii because the New Deal did waste a lot of money on pointless tasks This is shown in source E and others. And the New Deal didn't solve problems like unemployment the war did this. But from my background knowledge I know that the New Deal did help a lot of Americans mainly white people, and the New Deal did build up confidence and got rid of most of the breadlines. So this shows that parts of source 7 i were correct. 8 For or Against the New Deal. People were for the New Deal because the New Deal helped many Americans and gave them self-respect, the New Deal helped to gain confidence after the depression and the New Deal also made a lot of helpful government schemes for example the alphabet agencies. People were against the New Deal because rich people were heavily taxed, huge sums of money were paid to the unemployed people to do silly tasks like planting trees, and Roosevelt interfered with business by saying how long people could work for also people like Governor Huey long of Louisiana, thought the New Deal did not go far enough. Unfortunately the New Deal did not lower the unemployment rate to make a difference. But the war managed to solve this. Black people were also against the New Deal because the New Deal didn't really help them, because they still had to queue up in breadlines for government relief. But it really depends on who you were. A businessman would be against the New Deal because you would be heavily taxed, and the New Deal interfered with the way business was run for example limiting the hours people could work You can see this is true because source J is against the New Deal and this source is written by a businessman. A politician would be for and against the New Deal depending on which party you were on. A black person would be against the New Deal because not a lot changed for them source D shows this. An old person would be for the New Deal because they got benefits such as pensions this is shown in source H and also the unemployed would be for the New Deal because they would have received money from the government. The disagreement over the effects of the New Deal in the USA is shown in the sources below. Source B and C disagree over the New Deal even though they are written by historians. Source B focuses on the major achievements of the New Deal. But source C just focuses on all the bad points of New Deal so none of these sources gives an overall view of the New Deal. Source J and K also disagree. Source J is against the New Deal and this source was written by a self-made businessman who believed in rugged individualism and he also believed that anyone who claimed benefits are scroungers. This is a biased view. Source K was for the New Deal. This source was on about that the New Deal meant that ordinary people could have a better chance in life, because although rich people were hit by the depression they could cope. Ordinary people couldn't. But this source is also biased and can't be trusted because the women who wrote this was the Secretary of Labour in Roosevelt's New Deal government. Source A is also biased because source A was took from a speech by Roosevelt during his election campaign. We don't know much about these sources, below Source H is a letter from some old people saying how thankful they are to have Roosevelt as their president and all the benefits it has bought them. Roosevelt supporters published source H. Source I is a popular song which cant really be trusted because it is only a song and people might just have bought it for the music not the words. Conclusion Right from the start of New Deal different people had different views on it. Source E shows one view that people had of the New Deal. Which was, people thought Roosevelt is just wasting taxpayer's money down the drain as illustrated in the picture Source F shows another view people had of the New Deal. Which was, Roosevelt getting rid of all Hoovers old policies. It also shows Roosevelt with his sleeves rolled up which indicates he's a man of action. Finally Source G shows another view people had of the New Deal. Which was Roosevelt doesn't know what he is doing and he is wasting money on alphabet agencies, which don't work.   

In 1929-1932 there was the depression. At this time people were starving and had to get food from charity. Also at this time millions of people were unemployed and poor. President Hoover who as president at this time did nothing to help because he believed that the government should...

Words: 2760 View(s): 356 Comment(s): 0
Hippocrates 460? "“ 370? B.C.... Hippocrates 460? "“ 370? B.C. is acknowledged as the father of modern medicine. He was born on the island of Kos, and taught medicine there before dying in Larissa. He is known as the founder of holistic medicine, because he was the first to attribute illness to be one of the four elements "“ fire, water, earth, and air "“ rather than an affliction given by the gods. However, locals believed Hippocrates was a descendant of Asklepios, god of medicine. Hippocrates himself was a good example of his philosophy: he died aged 104. He is associated with the Hippocratic Oath and also the Hippocratic Corpus. Hippocrates stressed the importance of fresh air, a good diet and plenty of exercise to help the body heal itself. All of Hippocrates' students had to follow a strict ethical code that governed their behaviour as doctors known as the Hippocratic Oath. Students swore that they would maintain patient confidentiality and never deliberately poison a patient. Even today, doctors entering the profession can still choose to swear the Hippocratic oath. This oath was an attempt to place doctors on a higher footing than other healers and set them apart as specialists. Also medical ethics are still based on the Hippocratic Oath, which shows that Hippocrates is still important today. The Hippocratic Corpus is a collection of medical books that doctors used for centuries. Hippocrates may not have written all of these books and historians simply cannot tell who wrote them. However, this collection is important because it is the first detailed list of symptoms and treatments. Doctors continued to use the theories of Hippocrates as the basis of their own work for hundreds of years, which is an important reason why Hippocrates is still considered to be one of the most important people in the history of medicine. Hippocrates saw the healthy body as being in balance; he thought that illness was an imbalance of the elements airs, waters, places. Today we know this is not true but it was an important step forward from blaming disease on supernatural causes, which allowed the Greeks to understand disease further. He showed how important it was to study the symptoms to make a diagnosis. Consider and predict how an illness would proceed prognosis. He also maintained it was necessary to observe and carefully record the symptoms so that it was then possible to treat with confidence the disease. This had two advantages: doctors were more likely to choose the right cure if they took care to find the causes of the problem. Notes could also be used to help with the diagnosis and treatment of future patients Even though Hippocrates lived thousands of years ago he still plays an important part in the medical profession. He created the Hippocratic oath is still used today, it makes clear that doctors aren't magicians. Doctors also have to keep high standards of treatment and behaviour and to work for the benefit of patients rather than to make themselves rich. This is another important part of why Hippocrates is still considered to be one of the most important people in the history of medicine. Hippocrate's ideas were a strange mixture of commonsense and factual inaccuracies. His suggestions about diet and exercise are as valid today as they were 2,400 years ago and also his use of observation. However, his belief in the four humours black bile, yellow bile, phlegm, blood wasn't entirely wrong. Strangely enough, this theory dominated medical treatments until the 17th century, but the importance of exercise and diet was forgotten after the Romans! Hippocrates' most important contributions were in the development of the medical profession and in a code of conduct for doctors, which shows that he is an important person in the history of medicine.   

Hippocrates 460? – 370? B.C. is acknowledged as the father of modern medicine. He was born on the island of Kos, and taught medicine there before dying in Larissa. He is known as the founder of holistic medicine, because he was the first to attribute illness to be one...

Words: 639 View(s): 1041 Comment(s): 0
The conflict in Ireland... The conflict in Ireland began in 1150 with the Norman invasion but it was not until 1541 when Henry the 8th made himself king of Ireland that problems between the Catholics and protestants. Protestants began to colonise Ireland building settlements called plantations, this meant that Catholics had land taken off them and became poorer. This later prompted acts of secretarian violence. In 1641 there was a catholic rebellion in Ulster, thousands of Protestants were either murdered or driven out of the area. Oliver Cromwell later defeated the rebels, many Catholics were massacred and their land was taken away from them. On The 12th of July 1690 William of Orange finally defeated King James 2nd the catholic king of England at the battle of the Boyne, which is still celebrated today by Protestants of the orange order. After 1690 anti "“ catholic laws wee introduced. Catholics could not vote, become members of parliament, own a horse or a sword or take a government job. These laws stayed in place for almost 130 years until the Catholic Emancipation act in 1829. In 1845 a potato famine struck Ireland, Catholics were given no help from protestant landowners and thousands starved. From around 1850 onwards support for Home Rule grew, the Irish people wanted their own government. By 1914 Home Rule was ready to be put into action but this was not to be as the outbreak of world war one in 1914 meant that Home Rule had to be postponed. These events show the way that Catholics and Protestants have treated each other for centuries, it is these killings and rebellions that have led to the situation in Ireland today and due to history the divide between the two communities is as wide as ever. As long as history is remembered in Ireland these differences will not be overcome and the two sides will always have a reason for conflict. The Easter Rising was the armed uprising of Irish nationalists against the rule of Britain in Ireland. The uprising began on Easter Monday, April 24, 1916, and was centred in Dublin. The chief objectives were the attainment of political freedom and the establishment of an Irish republic separate from Britain. Centuries of discontent, marked by numerous rebellions, preceded the uprising. The new crisis began to develop in September 1914, following the outbreak of World War I. Suspension of the bill stimulated the growth of the Citizen Army, an illegal force of Dublin citizens organized by the Irish Volunteers, a nationalist organization and the extremist Irish Republican Brotherhood. Leaders of these organizations planned the uprising. Hostilities began around noon on April 24, when about 2,000 men led by Pearse seized control of the Dublin post office GPO and other points within the city. Shortly after these initial successes, the leaders of the rebellion proclaimed the independence of Ireland and announced the establishment of a provisional government of the Irish Republic. The rebels occupied additional positions during the night, and by the morning of April 25 they controlled a considerable part of Dublin. The counter-offensive by British forces began that afternoon with the arrival of reinforcements. Martial law was proclaimed throughout Ireland. Bitter street fighting developed in Dublin, during which the strengthened British forces steadily dislodged the Irish from their positions. By the morning of April 29, the GPO building, site of the rebel headquarters, was under violent attack. Recognizing the futility of further resistance under heavy British artillery bombardment, Pearse surrendered unconditionally in the afternoon of April 29. The British immediately brought the leaders of the uprising to trial before a field court-martial. Fifteen of the group, including Pearse, Connolly, and MacDonagh were sentenced to death and executed by firing squad. Four others received death sentences that were later commuted to life imprisonment. Casement was convicted of treason and hanged. Many others prominently connected with the rebellion were sentenced to long prison terms The Easter Rising had different long-term and short-term effects. In the short term the rising was a failure, as a republic was not formed and many of he rebels and their leaders were killed. Looking at in on the long term however the rising was in fact a success. When the people of Ireland found out about the way the leaders of the rising had been treated and the fact that 15 of them had been executed without a fair trial they were shocked. Due to this support for independence instead of Home Rule grew. When the leaders were executed the people of Ireland thought that the British had been very unfair. They felt increased compassion for the rebels and their cause. This lead to increased support for the Nationalist party Sinn Fein. The Easter Rising also affected the attitudes of the Nationalists and Loyalists. The Nationalists became even more determined that Ireland should become an independent state and that the rebels should not have died in vain whereas the Loyalists became even more determined that that Ireland should remain part of Britain and that the Nationalist rebels were traitors. Due to this in some ways the Easter Rising served to widen the divide between the Nationalists and the Loyalists. The Easter Rising is remembered today as a turning point in their history. The Easter Rising alone was not the only event that brought significant change in Ireland it was however the first major event that started the chain off events that led to significant changes within Ireland. Change may have occurred without the Easter Rising but I doubt it would have been so long ago or so quickly. The Easter Rising brought the republican groups to the attention of the Irish people and therefore they quickly gained the support that they needed for changes in Ireland to take place. The Easter Rising is remembered today by nationalists as a turning point in their history. Conscription also helped to bring support for Sinn Fein. In March 1918 the British were running short of men in the war with Germany. They decided to bring in conscription in Ireland. This meant that Irish men would be forced to join the British army and fight for Britain. After the Easter Rising in 1916 and the execution of the rebels this caused outrage. The anger meant that conscription was not brought in but ever more people now supported Sinn Fein. After world war one a general election was held in Ireland. Sinn Fein won 73 out off 107 seats in Ireland. This shows phenomenal support for Sinn Fein. The Sinn Fein M.P.'s refused to go to Westminster and set up their own parliament in Dublin. The parliament, called Dail Eireann, was banned by the British so they had to meet secretly. At the same time civil war was breaking out in Ireland. The IRA was willing to use force to make the British leave Ireland. By 1920 their guerrilla attacks on the British army and police were happening all over Ireland. This was called the war of independence and thousands of people were killed. It became clear that neither side could win the war and a truce was called in 1921. An Anglo Irish Treaty was signed by the Dail and Westminster, Ireland was to be partitioned. The North of Ireland became known as Northern Ireland with 6 counties staying part of the UK, the people here were mainly Protestant and Unionist. The south became the Irish Free State; the people here were mainly Nationalist and Catholic In 1921 after 'the war of independence' between the IRA and the British it was decided that Ireland was to be divided or partitioned. However this did not solve all of the problems in Ireland, in the years after the partition Northern Catholics felt that they were discriminated against. Many more Catholics were unemployed than Protestants, they had more council houses than Protestants, Catholics could be arrested and held without a trial and their votes were worth less than that of a protestant in an election. In Derry a town that was 70% Catholic it was fixed so that there could never be a Catholic council. The town was divided into 3 wards. There was one ward for the south of the town, which was predominantly Catholic, and 2 wards in the north and east where the inhabitants were protestant. The Catholic ward could elect 8 councillors and each of the 2 protestant wards could elect 6. This ensured that there could never be a Catholic majority. The Catholics wanted fairer treatment in Northern Ireland and so began non-violent protests and marches. However the mainly protestant police force took a very tough line and violence between Catholics. Protestants and the police spread rapidly. This unfair discrimination by Protestants against Catholics caused anger and resentment between the two sides to grow and increased the tension within the two communities. In August 1969 the British government was forced to send in troops to restore order. It was meant to be only a temporary measure but they have remained there ever since. At first the Catholics welcomed the soldiers to their streets even offering them cups of tea as they thought the soldiers would protect them from protestant violence. These acts of kindness however did not last long. The British army were under the control of the Unionist council and it soon became apparent that they would be little different from the police in the way they treated the Catholics. The arrival of the British army did not put and end to the violence and Northern Ireland seemed to be slipping out of control. Violence was increasing dramatically and this gradual slip into disorder finally reached its climax on Bloody Sunday, January 30th 1972. The Catholics were marching through the Streets of Londonderry on another non-violent protest against the discrimination that they were facing in Northern Ireland. The streets were heavily patrolled by British troops there to supposedly prevent any violence. It cannot be said for certain what happened next but a shot was fired. It cannot be proved which side fired the first shot but the results were devastating. The British troops opened fire on the protesters, they feel to the floor for cover but as a result of the shootings 13 unarmed Catholic protesters were shot dead. The actions of the soldiers were greatly criticized By the Irish people who found the deaths unacceptable. As a result of Bloody Sunday 20 000 people attack and burned down the British embassy. The IRA also stepped up its bombing campaign in Northern Ireland and England, they were also given orders to kill as many British soldiers as they could find. As a direct result of Bloody Sunday violence in Northern Ireland became the worst it had been for years. Bloody Sunday was to have a lasting effect on the conflict in Northern Ireland for years to come. The deaths during and following Bloody Sunday would never be forgotten nor forgiven by either side. After Bloody Sunday the British government had to return to a policy of Home Rule. For the IRA this was a success. It was not what they wanted but it was better than having unionists in control of Northern Ireland. Due to this the IRA thought that they could use violence to get a united Ireland, which would have a great impact on the conflict in Ireland in the future. I have found that all of the events that I have looked at have had some effect on the conflict in Northern Ireland. The Easter Rising was the first major event that set of the chain of events which led to significant change in Northern Ireland and therefore had a large impact on the history of the conflict. I have also looked at how the deployment of troops and Catholic discrimination led to hatred and resentment for the Unionists and British. I have also looked at Bloody Sunday and its effects on violence and the IRA and I have found that it has had a large impact on the history of the conflict in Northern Ireland. All of these factors have added to the history of the conflict, helping to widen the divide between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland and also providing a reason for the conflict to carry on today and into the future.   

The conflict in Ireland began in 1150 with the Norman invasion but it was not until 1541 when Henry the 8th made himself king of Ireland that problems between the Catholics and protestants. Protestants began to colonise Ireland building settlements called plantations, this meant that Catholics had land...

Words: 2069 View(s): 241 Comment(s): 0
THE REASON FOR THE ATTACK... THE REASON FOR THE ATTACK ON DIER YASSIN IS BASED ON NUMEROUS FACTORS THE MOST PROMINANTE OF THESE IS THE FACT THAT THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLES WHO WANT TO LIVE IN PALESTINE AND CLAIM IT IS THEIRS: - THE ARABS: THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED IN PALESTINE FOR THE LAST FEW HUNDRED YEARS "“ SO IT IS NOW THEIR COUNTRY. THE JEWS: IN THE OLD TESTIMENT THE LAND OF PALESTINE IS PROMISED TO THE JEWISH RELIGION NOT ONLY THIS BUT THEY HAD LIVED IN PALESTINE BEFORE THE OTTOMAN TURKISH EMPIRE. IN THE 20TH CENTURY THERE WERE ALREADY SOME JEWS LIVING IN PALESTINE BUT THE NUMBERS INCREASED RAPIDLY AFTER HITLER CAME TO POWER IN GERMANY AS MANY JEWS FLED TO PALESTINE AND AMERICA NOT ONLY THIS BUT THEY WERE COMING IN FROM RUSSA DUE TO THE POGROMS THE MASSACRE OF JEWS. THERE WERE ALSO JEWS PART OF THE ZIONISM MOVEMENT "“ A GROUP OF JEWS WHO WERE WILLING TO GO TO THE EXTREMES TO GET A HOMELAND "“ MOVING INTO PALESTINE AS WELL. IN 1922 BRITON WAS 'MANDATED' TO RUN PALESTINE BY THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS WHILE BRITAN RULED THAY FACED ONE MAJOR PROBLEM CONFLICT! CONFLICT BETWEEN THE JEWS AND ARABS BRITON TRIED TO SOLVE THIS CONFLICT BY RESTRICTING JEWISH IMMIGRATION THIS DID NOT WORK! IN 1936 THERE WAS AN ARAB TREVOLT IN WHICH OVER 400 ARAB CIVILLIANS WERE KILLED AND OVER 1000 REBELS BUT ONLY 200 JEWS DIED AND EVEN 69 BRITISH SECURITY OFFICERS WERE KILLED. AFTER WORLD WAR 2 BRITAN WAS FACING EVEN MORE BRUTAL CONFLICT THERE WAS NOW TERRORISM FROM A JEWISH GROUP CALLED "THE IRGUN" THEY BOMBED THE KING DAVID HOTEL IN JERUSULEM IN 1946, THIS LEAD TO A LOSS OF BRITISH LIFE, DUE TO THIS BRITAN PASSED PALESTINE TO THE NEWLY FORMED UNITED NATIONS U.N WHICH CAME UP WITH THE PARTITION PLAN, THIS WAS THE IDEA TO SPLIT PALESTINE UP INTO AN ARAB AND JEWISH STATE. HOWEVER THIS SPLIT WAS NOT FAIR, AS THE JEWS GOT MORE AND BETTER LAND. THE VILLAGE OF DIER YASSIN WOULD PROVIDE AN EXCELLENT STRATEGIC POSITION IF THE JEWS COULD OBTAIN IT, IT WAS IN THE CORRIDOR BETWEEN THE JEWISH AREA OF JERUSULEM AND THE JEWISH PORT OF TEL AVIV IF THE JEWS HAD THIS CORRIDOR THEY COULD COMMUNICATE WITH TEL AVIV AND TRANSPORT SUPPLIES FROM TEL AVIV TO JERUSULEM IT WOULD ALSO PREVENT ISOLATION OF THE JEWS Q1. B WHY DO SOURCES A AND B DIFFER ON WHO IS TO BLAME FOR THE ARAB FLIGHT FROM THE VILLAGE AND OTHER PARTS OF PALESTINE AT THE TIME. I HAVE STUDIED SOURCE [A] AND DITERMINED THAT IT SUPPORTS THE PALESTINE VIEW OF WHAT HAPPENED AT DIER YASSIN IT TRIES TO GET YOU TO FEEL SYMPATHETIC FOR THE PALESTINE BY CALLING DIER YASSIN A "PACEFUL"¦VILLAGE" THIS GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT THE PEOPLE KILLED WERE JUST INNOCENT CIVVILLIANS AND THAT THEY WERE MURDERED "IN COLD BLOOD" AND THEIR BODIES WERE MUTALATED. IT THEN SAYS THIS WAS ALL PART OF "THE PLAN" TO GET RID OF THE PALESTINIANS BY FRIGHTENING THEM INTO LEAVING PALESTINE AND THAT ONCE THEY LEFT THEY WERE "PREVENTED FROM RETURNING TO THEIR HOMES BY ISRAEL" THIS SOURCE WAS WRITTEN BY THE PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION PLO A TERRORIST GROUP WHO DEMAND PALESTINE BACK I BELIEVE IT IS BIASED AS IT WAS WRITTEN BY A GROUP WHO WILLING TO GO TO TURN TO TERRORISM TO GET PALESTINE BACK SO THEY WOULD EXAGGERATE TO TRY AND GET THE JEWS THROWN OUT OF PALESTINE AND GET ARABS TO FIGHT AGAINST THE JEWS. THIS SOURCE WAS WRITTEN ALMOST 40 YEARS AFTER THE EVENTS OF DIER YASSIN SO THE AUTHOR WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO LOOK THE FACTS AND EXAGERATE THEM TO HIS FAVOR I HAVE ALSO STUDIED SOURCE [B] AND DECIDIDED IT WAS WRITTEN BY A JEW FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS IT BLAMES THE REFUGEE PROBLEM ON THE ARAB LEADERS SAYING THEY TOLD ARAB CIVILLIANS "TO GET OUT SO THE ARAB ARMIES COULD GET IN" SHE ALSO SAYS THE PEOPLE WHO CARRIED OUT THE ATTACK ON DIER YASSIN WERE "JEWISH DISSIDENTS" WHO DID NOT REPRESENT THE JEWISH GOVERNMENT, SHE WOULD SAYS THIS AS SHE IS SPEAKING TO THE U.N AND WOULD WANT THEIR SUPPORT ALSO SHE SAYS THE REFUGEE PROBLEM WAS ALREADY IN EXISTANCE BEFORE THE EVENTS OF DIER YASSIN DUE TO ARAB FIGHTING AND TO PLACE THE BLAME FOR THE ARAB EXODUS ON DIER YASSIN WOULD BE "HISTORICALLY INCORRECT" THIS WAS WRITTEN IN 1969 ALMOST 20 YEARS AFTER DIER YASSIN. MY CONCLUSION IS THAT BOTH SOURCES DIFFER BECAUSE THE JEWS AND ARABS ARE EACH LAYING THE BLAME FOR THE REFUGEE PROBLEM ON THE OTHER PARTY AND ALSO THEY ARE BOTH WRITTEN TOWARDS DIFFERENT AUDIENCES AND AT DIFFERENT TIME PERIODS AND THE FACT THAT THEY WERE WRITTEN AT DIFFERENT AUTHORS WHO WERE ALIVE AT DIFFERENT TIMES WOULD GIVE THEM A DIFFERENT VIEW OF WHAT HAPPENED DUE TO THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THEM AT THE TIME Q2. READ ALL THE SOURCES, DO THEY HELP YOU COME TO A FIRM CONCLUSION ABOUT WHO IS TO BLAME FOR THE REFUGEE PROBLEM? SOURCE [A] IS AN EXTRACT FROM A PAMPHLET WRITTEN BY "THE PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION" IT SAYS THAT THE JEWS ATTACKED THE "PACEFUL" VILLAGE OF DIER YASSIN IN "COLD BLOOD" KILLED 154 CITIZENS AND "MUTILATED THE BODIES". THEY GO ON TO SAY THAT THIS ATTACK WAS PLANNED TO FRIGHTEN THE REST OF THE ARABS INTO LEAVING PALESTINE "TO AVOID THE SAME FATE" AND THAT THOUSANDS OF ARABS WHO LEFT PALESTINE WERE PREVENTED FROM RETURNING. THIS WAS WRITTEN BY A PALESTINIAN TERRORIST GROUP AND SO IS PROBABLE BIASED TOWARD THE ARAB POINT OF VIEW AND MAY HAVE EXAGGERATED THE FACTS OF WHAT HAPPENED AT DIER YASSIN. THIS SOURCE WAS PROBABLY WRITTEN TO TRY AND GET ARABS TO JOIN THE TERRORISTS AND FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE JEWS. SOURCE [B] IS FROM A SPEECH MADE TO THE U.N BY GOLDA MEIR THE ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTER. IT STATES THAT THE ARABS "INVADED" ISREAL AND THAT ALREADY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ARABS HAD ALREADY BECOME REFUGEES "AS A RESULT OF THE FIGHTING" AND THAT AS MORE ARAB ARMIES JOINED THE FIGHTING THERE WAS A "FULL SCALE WAR" AND BECAUSE OF THIS THE NUMBER OF REFUGEES "SWELLED" THIS IMPLIES THAT THE REASON FOR THE ARAB REFUGEE PROBLEM WAS THE ARABS FAULT AS THEY STARTED THE FIGHTING. GOLDA MEIR ALSO SAYS THAT ARABS LEFT "AT THE CALL OF THEIR LEADERS" SO THE ARMIES COULD GET IN. SHE ALSO SAYS THAT WHAT HAPPENED AT DIER YASSIN WAS CARRIED OUT BY "JEWISH DISSIDENTS" AND THAT IT IS "HISTORICALLY INCORRECT" TO BLAME THE ARAB EXODUS ON THOSE EVENTS. GOLDA MEIR WAS AN ISREALI MINISTER SO SHE WOULD PROBABLY BE BIASED TOWARD THE JEWISH PIOINT OF VIEW. IT WAS WRITTEN TO THE U.N TO TRY AND GET SUPPORT SO SHE WOULD PROBABLE EXAGGERATE HOW AGGRESSIVE THE ARABS REALLY WERE SHE IS ALSO DENING THAT DIER YASSIN IS REALLY AN ISSUE. IN SOURCE [C] ERSKINE CHILDERS, AN IRISH JOURNALIST IS TESTING THE ACCUSATION THAT THE ARAB LEADERS TOLD THE ARABS TO LEAVE PALESTINE HE LISTENS TO TAPES OF ARAB BROADCASTS FROM THE TIME. HOWEVER HE DOESN'T FIND A SINGLE ORDER TO LEAVE BUT THERE WERE REPEATED APPEALS "TO STAY PUT" THIS WAS WRITTEN BY AN IRISH JOURNALIST SO HE WAS PROBABLY IMPARTIAL IN HIS INVESTIGATION ALSO HE USES CLEAR EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE THE ACCUSATION MADE BY THE JEWS. THIS WAS WRITTEN AS AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EVNTS LEADING TO THE ARAB EXODUS BUT IT ALSO DISPROVES SOURCE [B] AS THE ARABS WERE TOLD NOT LEAVE BUT STAY PUT SO FAR THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE FROM THE SOURCES IS CONDRIDICTING BUT FAVOURS THE ARAB VIEW AS THIS SOURCE PROVES THE JEWS TO BE UNRELIABLE SO AT THIS POINT THE ARAB VIEW SEEMS TO BE TRUE BUT WE NEED MORE EVIDENCE BEFORE WE COME TO A CONCLUSION SOURCE [D] IS WRITTEN BY TWO PALESTIAN REFUGEES SAYING THEY "REFUSE HOUSES AND COMPENSATION" BUT ONLY WANTED TO GO BACK TO PALESTINE. THIS IS A VERY HELPFUL SOURCE AS IT SHOWS ONE OF THE BIG CAUSES FOR THE REFUGEE PROBLEM, THE FACT THAT ALTHOUGH THEY WERE OFFERED HOUSES THE ARABS TURNED THEM DOWN AND BECAME REFUGEES AND SO ESCALATED THE PROBLEM. THIS SOURCE WAS WRITTEN TO SHOW HOW MUCH THE ARABS WANT PALESTINE BACK BUT BY SAYING THIS THE ARABS ARE ADMITING TO BEING PARTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REFUGEE PROBLEM. SOURCE [E] IS A SECTION FROM A SPEECH MADE TO THE U.N IT DESCRIBES HOW THE REFUGEE PROBLEM HAS BEEN "ARTIFICIALLY MAINTAINED" BY THE ARAB GOVERNMENT AS THEY HAVE THE MONEY AND RESOURCES TO HOUSE "A MILLION REFUGEES" BUT THEY HAVE "STOPPED REFUGEES FROM SHARING THIS". THIS WAS WRITTEN BY THE ISREALI AMBASSADOR ABBA EVAN AND SO IS BIASED TOWARD THE JEWISH POINT OF VIEW HOWEVER IT DOES SUPPORT SOURCE D. THIS WAS WRITTEN TO THE U.N TO TRY AND PASS THE BLAME FOR THE REFUGEE PROBLEM TO THE ARABS AND GET SUPPORT FROM THE U.N. SOURCE [F] SHOWS TWO FRIENDS AN ARAB AND AN JEW THEY ARE BOTH HOLDING A SIGN, THE ARAB SIGN SAYS THAT SHE WAS BORN IN PALESTINE BUT SHE CAN'T RETURN THERE AND THE JEWISH SIGN SAYS SHE WAS BORN IN AMERICA BUT SHE CAN "RETURN" TO PALESTINE, "RETURN" IS IN INVERTED COMMAS AS IT REFERS TO THE RETURN LAW WHICH SAYS THAT ANY JEW HAS THE RIGHT TO BECOME AN ISREALI CITIZEN BUT NO ARAB CAN GO INTO PALESTINE. THERE IS ANOTHER PHOTO WHICH SHOWS THEM AGAIN 20 YEARS LATER STILL PROTESTING THIS SHOWS THE REFUGEES ARE STILL A PROBLEM. THIS SOURCE SHOWS US THAT THE JEWS ARE PARTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REFUGEE PROBLEM BY INTRODUCING THE "RETURN" LAW. THIS IS QUITE HELPFUL IN HELPING ME COME TO A FIRM CONCLUSION ABOUT THE REFUGEE PROBLEM BUT IT DOESN'T SHOW US ALL THE FACTORS EFFECTING THE REFUGEES. WE CANNOT TRUST SOURCE [A] AS IT FROM A PALESTINIAN TERRORIST GROUP FOR PROPAGANDA PURPOSES. SOURCE [B] IS ALSO BIASED BUT TOWARD THE JEWISH POINT OF VIEW. SOURCE [C] IS THE FIRST SOURCE WE CAN TRUST AS IT USES ACTUAL EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE [B]. SOURCE [D] PUTS THE BLAME ON THE ARABS FOR TURNING DOWN HOUSES OFFERED BY THE U.N. SOURCE [E] IS AGAIN PROBABLY BIASED TOWARD THE JEWISH VIEW. SOURCE [F] PUTS BLAME ON THE JEWS FOR THE "RETURN" LAW IN CONCLUSION I CANNOT COME TO A FIRM CONCLUSION ABOUT WHO IS TO BLAME FOR THE ARAB REFUGEE PROBLEM AS MOST OF THE SOURCES ARE FROM PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE BIASED TOWARD ONE OF THE PARTIES. TO COME TO A FIRM CONCLUSION I WOULD NEED TO SEE MORE IMPARTIAL EVIDENCE AND SOURCES FROM PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THE PROBLEM E.G. THE U.N, U.S.A, ALSO THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE CONTINUING VIOLENCE IN PALESTINE   

THE REASON FOR THE ATTACK ON DIER YASSIN IS BASED ON NUMEROUS FACTORS THE MOST PROMINANTE OF THESE IS THE FACT THAT THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLES WHO WANT TO LIVE IN PALESTINE AND CLAIM IT IS THEIRS: - THE ARABS: THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED...

Words: 1837 View(s): 180 Comment(s): 0
From 1915 to 1917, the... From 1915 to 1917, the trench warfare on the western front produced remarkably few decisive results. The front line during this time didn't move more than a few miles either way with the exception of the German withdrawal to the Hindenburg line in March 1917, despite several massive and bloody offensives from both sides. This was mainly due to the nature of the war "“ a war of attrition with modern weapons. In these circumstances it was almost always the defenders who had the advantage. It became clear to commanders on both sides quite early on in the war that it was going to become a matter of numbers "“ to achieve success the attackers would have to overwhelm the defenders numerically. However due to massive errors of judgement, bad weather conditions and poor planning, numerical advantages were lost by both sides in in a series of attacks resulting in catastrophic losses of life; most notably were the Allied offensives at the Somme and Ypres and the German offensive at Verdun. Because of these neither side was in a position to win a decisive victory, and the western front remained in stalemate. But several things changed as 1918 drew closer, which eventually led to the end of the stand-off and broke the western front into open warfare. The most significant long-term cause of movement was the USA joining the allies. The USA was brought into the war on April 6th 1917 by president Woodrow Wilson after several American ships were sunk by German u-boats and the Zimmerman Telegram was sent. This would have several major affects on the western front, as it would tip the balance of troops in the allies favour as well as bring the mighty American economy to bear. However the Americans were not equipped for war it would not be until 1918 that American Troops would be arriving in any significant number. This caused the Germans to become desperate, and made the German Command realise that if they are to have any chance of winning the war they would need start an decisive offensive soon before the Americans could have any major affect on the war. Although this was indeed a strong cause for the Germans launching an all-out offensive, they were at this point still in no position to do so. The next major event leading to movement on the Western front was the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. Lenin, as he had promised, announced his intentions to withdraw Russia from the war and peace talks began immediately in November 1917, although the treaty was not actually signed until March 1918. This caused the Eastern front to close and was an extremely important event as it freed up over one million German troops and 3000 pieces of artillery which could be now be written into a plan of attack on the Western front "“ the Ludendorf Offensive was thought up and preparations began. If this event had not happened it is unlikely the Germans would have been able to launch any major offensives and therefore this is an extremely important cause of the movement. These two factors were probably the largest, but there were several others which had an effect. The British naval blockade of the Baltic sea had cut of a large proportion of Germanys food and supplies. Without these Germany was not producing enough to feed its armies and its population. In 1917 it was estimated it would be less than a year until food ran out. This added to the desperation and confirmed that, for the Germans, time was not on their side. This is also important, and means even if the Americans hadn't joined the war Germany would still be facing a time constraint to win victory in the west.   

From 1915 to 1917, the trench warfare on the western front produced remarkably few decisive results. The front line during this time didn't move more than a few miles either way with the exception of the German withdrawal to the Hindenburg line in March 1917, despite several massive and...

Words: 632 View(s): 151 Comment(s): 0