Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
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.
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 632 Views: 203 Comments: 0
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...
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.
Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

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): 199 Comment(s): 0
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): 442 Comment(s): 0
The war on the western... The war on the western front was not over by Christmas 1914 for a number of factors. These include; the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, meaning Germany had to fight a war on two fronts. Secondly, the development of trench warfare resulted in both sides fighting a defensive war. The introduction of new weaponry such as, machine guns, tanks and gas bombs caused a static war with few advances made. Another factor was the alliance systems in Europe. Seven years before the First World War, countries in Europe had formed alliances. Two of these consisted of the Triple Entente "“France, Britain and Russia, and the Triple Alliance "“ Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary. These factors inter-linked together to cause the prolonged war. The causes of World War One consist of long term reasons - historic events that build up to cause the war, and short term reasons "“ events that spark off the war. One of the most important long-term reasons was Empire Rivalry. In 1900, a large empire was not only good for trade but also for prestige. Britain and France had large empires, and these continued to grow during the 1900's. Germany too wanted a large overseas empire. The result was that in the years to 1900, competition between the European powers became intense. This therefore links to Naval Rivalry, as Germany resented Britain's large empire, they started building their navy rapidly. In 1900, Britain's navy was still by far the biggest in the world, its had to be to protect the vast British empire, yet Britain was getting worried about Germany's increasing strength. The British were determined their navy should remain the largest. Soon a race to build new battleships developed. Another long-term reason was Alliance systems. In Europe, to keep peace, countries had formed alliances, The Triple Entente and The Triple Alliance. Instead of making countries feel safer, it increased their fears of getting dragged into war. This links to a short-term reason, The assassination or Franz Ferdinand. Serbia was part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, but they wanted to gain independence. Austria-Hungary did not want Serbia to become an Independent country, due to a decline in trade in Austria-Hungary. Some Serbs were so unhappy with this, that on the 28th of June 1914, Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary was assassinated. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Due to the Alliance system, Austria-Hungary's allies, and Serbia's allies were dragged into war. A second short-term reason was the creating of the Schlieffen Plan, a link to the Alliance Systems. Germany was so worried about being surrounded by their enemy alliances, France and Russia, that in 1905 a German general drew up the Schlieffen Plan "“ designed to avoiding fighting a war on two fronts. This lead to the war lasting longer as the alliance systems meant Europe was tangled in a web of alliances, adding more soldiers and weapons, therefore leading to the war lasting longer. European countries involved, had their own men and weaponry, and because this type of weaponry used was defensive rather than of an attacking nature, it lasted longer, and with more men able to fight, the longer the war would last. The Schlieffen plan was created so the German army could concentrate their forces on one particular country at a time, rather than having to split their army. The creation of the Schlieffen plan, links to the alliance systems because Germany was surrounded by two great powers, France and Russia, in alliance with each other and Germany felt threatened therefore being driven to war by fear and insecurity. Empire Rivalry is also linked to the creation of the Schlieffen plan, as Germany wanted to gain a bigger empire and thought that by taking over France and Russia, this would lead to greater power for the country as well as security. The plan stated that the German army would pass through neutral Belgium in 48 hours and attack France, before they had a chance to move their army from the border of Germany for defence. The German army would then move east, and attack Russia. The Schlieffen Plan was based on a very tight time schedule, and involved risks that were, at the time, considered unimportant. The main factor to enable the plan to run smoothly was the speed of the army, in attacking Belgium. The failure of the Schlieffen plan was a very important reason for the war to last longer due to the tight time schedule. The plan set 48 hours to attack Belgium, and the German army did not think this would become a problem, as Belgium did not have an army. Yet, when Belgium put up a fight, and prevented access for 10 days, this became a major problem. The French army had time to move up to Paris, and prepare defence, and Russia had longer to anticipate war and prepare their weaponry for German attack. Russia was a fairly poor country, and the Schlieffen plan stated it would take at least 6 weeks to prepare for attack, but whilst Belgium were withstanding the German army, it gave the Russians more time for preparation. The German army was also made from conscripts, and the timing for the plan was based on professional German soldiers. Alliance Systems contributed to the failure of the Schlieffen Plan as Britain had promised to protect Belgium and had formed alliances with France and Russia. Instead of just fighting one country, Alliance Systems meant other countries became involved and consequently making more equal forces and powers. The Germans did not think about the timing, and took many risks in putting the plan forward, and with its failure, led to the prolonged war. Trench warfare also led to the prolonged war. When the German army turned eastwards to fight Russia it met resistance from The Triple Entente. The Germans were driven back at the Battle of Marne. Both sides dug trenches. Trenches were built to protect the soldiers from gunfire, and defend their area. Trenches were built in rows, first the front line, then the support trench, followed by the reserve trenches. The aim was to take over the enemies' trench, and make advances by gaining ground, although the enemy lines hardly moved. British and French soldiers spent days, even weeks consecutively in the trenches, despite the conditions. The trenches were extremely, muddy, damp and wet. Clothing in the trenches never had a chance to dry out properly, meaning many soldiers developed 'trench foot' where the soldiers boots were constantly in moisture and a warm environment, perfect for bacteria to grow. This would rot the feet away, causing gangrene. Trench warfare developed as a result of the Failure of the Schlieffen Plan because French defences had time to move into the right place, consequently placing two enemies opposite each other, ultimately leading to trench warfare. The Germans met resistance from The Triple Entente at the Battle of Marne, and were faced with attack. Both the German army and The Triple Entente built trenches to defend their area, protecting the German army from invading France as the Schlieffen plan had stated they would do. Due to the tactics and weapons used in trench warfare, this led to a defensive war, with few advances being made on either side. This therefore led to stalemate, where neither side could advance, causing the prolonged war. During trench warfare, many new weapons were invented to 'help' defences advance. Tanks were invented by the British and were used to cross ' no man's land' and attack the oppositions' trench. Some tanks were made from strong metal and resisted gunfire, but if an well-aimed grenade hit the tanks, they were a death trap. The tanks were also extremely slow at 3-4 mph, and most got stuck in mud where they were hit by artillery. Few tanks actually made it over to the front line of the enemy trench. New weaponry also included machine guns, which would fire hundreds of bullets at a time and killed many people at a time. Mustard gas was also used on the opposition, yet it was not always reliable. If the wind changed, the weapon could be used against them. These weapons were used to protect trenches, and both the Triple Entente and the German army were well equipped. The trenches were so well defended; neither side advanced more than 10 miles forward or backwards from the positions they first held. New weaponry led to the prolonged war, because the defences used either killed soldiers or defended their land so well that no advances could be made, so war just carried on, leading to stalemate. Neither side could win. Neither side was willing to make peace. Stalemate is where trench warfare results in lack of movement or advances. Trench warfare meant that both sides dug down and fought a defensive war, rather than an attacking war. Each side was so well equipped, that many soldiers died without a consequence. The use of modern weapons continued, with no effect, or major advances, and made trench warfare the only possibility during The First World War. Stalemate was caused as a link to the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, as both sides dug down and used trench warfare as defence but with the new weaponry and battle tactics used, this led to Stalemate. Stalemate led to the war lasting longer, as neither side could win the war, and the method of warfare used did not enable either side to advance. By December 1914, lines of trenches stretched along the western front from the English Channel to Switzerland. Savage battles were fought, only to gain a few hundred metres. Overall, I think one of the most important reasons to have prolonged the war was the failure of the Schlieffen plan, because this led to a defensive war using trench warfare, which then contributes to stalemate. The main reason the plan failed was because the plan relied upon rapid movement. The resistance of the Belgians and the British army prevented this. One of the reasons, the failure of the Schlieffen plan led to stalemate was because it is easier to defend than attack and with two great powers with equal men and weaponry, made a conclusion that was difficult to resolve. It was only the Americans involvement in the war, in 1918, that broke the stalemate and enabled the Triple Entente to win the war.   

The war on the western front was not over by Christmas 1914 for a number of factors. These include; the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, meaning Germany had to fight a war on two fronts. Secondly, the development of trench warfare resulted in both sides fighting a defensive war....

Words: 1753 View(s): 201 Comment(s): 0