History Answers Essay

1. Liberalism is an ideological view that makes the individual, preferably than the family, the nation, the cr aver, the introduce or the faith, the center of nine. homosexual beings, on various grounds, are held to stick divulge practiceds that protect the individual from the allege and otherwise passel. It arose concomitant with industrialism and capitalism, that is, the destruction of the high study of the feudal companionship from the subsequentlymath of the baleful death onwards.It has its roots in the mercenary city subjects of Italy, especially Florence. As a matter of course, matchless can throw off that liberalism had devil branches, iodine based on vivid rights, and traces its roots back to derriere Locke, and one based on utility, vestige its roots back to Hobbes and Adam Smith. The former(prenominal) option holds that rights need to be anchored in metaphysical principles such as vivid law, or theological principles, such as God and His providenc e.This has the advantage of holding rights obscure from social life and the state, in that they do non derive from the state or from club, plainly when must be protected by them. In this view, the state has its blood line in the protection of natural rights check to the will of God for mankind. Hence, there is unceasingly room for rebellion, in that the state has a very specific reason for being. If this is vio after-hoursd, thence the state loses its legitimacy and can be overthrown (Hobhouse, 1964). On the other hand, the utile move rejects metaphysics as such.At least, it holds that there is no need for metaphysics, since all talk most rights and natural law actually name utility it is better for society if the state protects various rights, it produces happier citizens and greater production and trustworthyty. With this ascend, one need not have re behavior to metaphysics or theology, in that all of this, in actuality, is simply a much than conglomerate ela n of speaking about delight in general a society that protects rights will be better, in the sense impression of producing more happiness, than one that does not (Hobhouse, 1964). notwithstanding by the beginnings of the industrial revolution in England, the Scottish school of governmental economic system came into its own. Coming from David Hume, Adam Smith jilted the metaphysical basis of rights, and in detail, spurned rights talk in all forms. Instead, he created a sophisticated model of utilitarian liberalism in the invisible hand of merchandise forces. The system likely reflected what was already dispense withing on in the mercantile societies of the Netherlands or England, tho it holds that human passion is the unprompted force of society.This passion largely centers round covetousness the desire for gain and a good reputation. only this not be an evil if channe guide into a proper direction. The free market is this channel. The market idea says that if rival were freely allowed to flourish, greedy people would be labored to produce good products that people actually want, at a monetary value they are willing to compensation. If they refuse to do this, the market will shift its silver to those business organisationly greedy people who do.Hence, greed is channeled into healthy outlets, and the society is served demand is meet and people pay what the demand requires, rather than the price dictated by the producer. Here, a fully free prudence, based on the preferences of the market in a wedded society, can be based, not on rights, not on God or natural law, however on human passion, but a passion that is scientifically channeled to a place where it can be put to good use. 2. europiuman powers construct a large colonial empire throughout the world in the late 19th century.By this time, the Spanish had upset most of their colonies in Latin America, but the British, the french and the Dutch colonized oft of Africa and Asia, lar gely as a modal value of gaining access to raw materials, new markets and as a mean of settling glut universe of discourses (Cain, 2001). In general, after the defeat of the French in the Franco-Prussian war and the ravages earlier of Napoleon, England remained at the sole major outset of industrial wealth. While this incite England to prevent to flip ones wig its power into Africa and Asia, the continental powers were forced to continue the search for colonies in order to go for up.Germ all was the poorest in this regard, having fewer colonies until the beginning of domain of a function War I, forcing the Germans to use internal resources to industrialise under the monarchy that was, at this time, baffling in unifying Germany as a sort of internal colonization duration the Austrians were particular exploiting their many subject peoples, playing one ethnic group off against another. So for the German speaking peoples, colonization was internal. For the Netherlands, Be lgium and England, this was not an option, and therefore, the working out of europiuman mercantile interests grow outward.The British, for their part, were concerned about the expansion of Russia to the south. Russia, only partially a European power, was in any case a late comer, a desire with Germany and Austria, to the industrial age. hardly Russias concern was holey borders to the south, which were fortified against the attacks on her territory by the Islamic powers of central Asia and even in the Caucuses, partially armed by the British so as to stop any further Russian expansion into Central Asia. The Chinese had the advantage early on with the British, since they would only accept hard hard cash from the British olympianists.Unlike much of the third base world, china was relatively well organi gulld, and for a time was equal to(p) to resist British expansionism. The British tactic adopted to hatch with these issues, to break down the will of the Chinese to resist , was Opium, harvested from India and imported into mainland chinaware. The drug was legal in England, where it was popular, but many superpatriotic Chinese saw the spreading opium addition both(prenominal) as British ploy as well as a means of weakening Chinese society. Both were true.Chinese resistance to British policies in obedience of Opium and the exploitation of the Chinese market and resources, led to two wars over these questions with the Quing monarchy (Chesneaux, 1977). In general, the take aim of the new imperialism was to maintain protected markets and flash raw materials in the conquered countries. This was a way of having an edge over their European competitors. Russia and Germany were not involved in this race (they had utmost different concerns), but was largely a mercantile and financial policy of the more advanced European powers of the Netherlands, England and France.3. Japan was more successful in modernization than China. The Meiji reforms were motivated by the desire to stand up to both American and British work missions and military forces that defeated the Chinese in the British inspired Opium Wars. The state was concentrate in Japan, and very quickly, a apace developing Nipponese state, without any bag resources, expanded as a colonial force in imitation of horse opera models (Korniki, 1998) Japans development, rapid as it was, was a response to the gradual wearing of the power of the Chinese monarchy under British pressure in this same period.The fact is that Japan was not passing play to let Opium destroy her people, and hence, as is often the case, increase social discipline and a centralised government were the Nipponese response to the problem. This approach was one of the causes of the Civil War of 1877, but the victory of the modernist forces ensured that japan was instanter going to become one of the easts great powers (Korniki, 1998). The powers that took over Japan were of two kinds the first, the military attractionshiphip taken from the clans that favored modernization and second, the emperor himself, partially under the thumb of the military but overly a power in his own right.This coalition stabilized Nipponese society in this era, providing it with the peace necessary to develop into a major industrial power. To several(prenominal) extent, the British were involved in investing in this new state, in that the Japanese were seen in London as a necessary counterweight both to Russia and the possibleness of a revival of Chinese fortunes. Hence, bandage the Japanese developments after 1877 were impressive, British enthronement must similarly be considered.It must be mentioned that Japan was treated as more or less an equal partner with the British rather than as a subject, partially because of the undeniable potence of the Japanese state, but also cod to their value in dealing with east Russian expansion. This policy will behave fruit in the Russo-Japanese war of 1905-19 06. But the real issue was the connection amid British authorities, the oligarchy in Japan and the emperor, to some(prenominal) extent the puppet of both. The military leaders who emerged from the 1877 war victorious realized that China was the anti-type of proper Asian development.As China lost its central authority, saw its economy fall into the hands of both the Rothschild and Sassoon bankers, the Japanese realized two things first, that a coalition, rather than a battle, with England was necessary, and second, this coalition must be used to modernize and centralize the Japanese state, hence preserving it from colonization. But from these two realizations, it also was obvious that Japan was to become a colonizing power of its own, and in fact, took part of easterly China in this process.It is obvious because Japan, without local anesthetic resources, was forced to find them in Korea and China (Korniki, 1998) 4. The end of humans War I saw the fall of the German, Austrian, Tur kish and Russian royal houses. It saw the creation of the USSR and Yugoslavia as strives to reorganize society. Germany was blamed for the war by the British and French and had most of its sedulousness liquidated and sent to the victorious powers. The Germans also had to pay enormous reparations for starting the war (a questionable hypothesis).Germany was humiliated, and the weak republican government was correct for both communist and fascist takeovers. Hitler won fair elections as head of state over a prostrate and profaned acres. Most of Hitlers inner bunch were former adult male War I combat troops. Reindustrialization and rearmament to defend Germany from Stalins USSR was a major motive for Hitlers plans. The plagia place upright of Hitler is understandable given the level of degradation the Germans felt at this time. They were economically, militarily and emotionally scarred and destroyed.A strong leader with both socialist and nationalist political leanings was goin g to do well, especially after the communists had taken over in the USSR, Bavaria, and Hungary (these last mentioned two for a short time, see below). Hitler was the only force in Germany politics preaching the popular doctrine of simply rejecting Versailles. This is largely what got him elected (Kershaw, 2000). But economically, France, Britain, Russia and Germany were prostrate. Yugoslavia was an attempt to pool the resources of the souther Slavs in order to compensate for this. Turkey was no perennial a major power.France and England entered into a relationship in order to support Germany for the long term. America became the dominant force in European politics, and her late entry into World War I and the amount of capital she forwarded to England against Germany do certain that the US was now a dominant partner on both sides of the Atlantic. At the same time, the state terror of the USSR under both Lenin and Stalin forced the European powers to also fear the huge Russian gi ant, and enough emigres from the USSR were in westsideern Europe (especially Paris) to explain to European powers what scarce the Soviet revolution had in blood for them.Hitler rearmed not so much in respect of England (to which the Fuhrer had a grudging respect), but against the savage Asians from Russia. Therefore, a rearmed and powerful Germany was able to bring country after country into her economic orbit long in the lead Hitlers policy of military expansion took place. Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia and even Greece were under Hitlers control long before the mid 1930s, since any the USSR or Germany was offered to them as a employment partner. Most, quite rationally, looked to Germany for protection against Stalin.They were proven right when the latter, after World War II, built his own police states in easterly Europe. One might conclude that World War I sapped the strength of elected government in Europe, and to add to the carnage, the printing starting in Europe in 1 930 also proved democracies not up to the task both Stalin and Hitler took control of their individual economies and grew them tremendously, far and beyond the struggling British and American states, hence showing democracy, at least at that time, as an wanting(p) option to the ideological politics of Berlin and Moscow, they at least had growing economies and full employment.The west could not say that (Wrigley, 1993). 5. Hitler viewed the Jews as a fifth column for Soviet expansionism. The fugacious and unpopular Peoples res publica of Bavaria was run by several Jews Kurt Eisner, Franz Lipp, Eugene Levine and Ernst Toller. The sketch life of Soviet Hungary was run by four Jews Bela Kun (Kohn), Antal Dovcsak Jeno Landler, and Matyas Rakosi. Hence, Hitler feared the Jews as being loyal to the USSR and Marxism and hence, treated them as criminals (Kershaw, 1993).Therefore, Hitlers execration of the Jews did not derive from his believing they were inferior, or a natural slave rac e, but solely from their being disproportionately involved in Marxist governments and states from the USSR to central Europe. Hitlers policies make no sense unless seen in this light. While this might be uneasy to some, historical truth does not concern itself with comfort. For various reasons, the urban Jews of east Europe were heavily involved with Marxism as a means, most likely, of controlling nationalism.As a result, nationalist movements throughout central and eastern Europe were harshly opposed to Judaic political power as such, though the nationalist movement in Spain did not share this view. But Hitlers concluding exam ascendent had another source, a source rarely dealt with in the literature, a scant(p) known deal called the carry-over Agreement. When Edwin discolor wrote the first major work on this topic in 2001, it received mingled reviews. But a little later, few were able to argue with its conclusions.This book relates, victimisation almost solely primary do cumentation, how Hitler made an agreement with the small but powerful Zionist movement of Germany to move the Jews to Palestine. In return, the Zionists openly supported Hitler and his early rise to power. Black holds that the street violence betwixt Nazis and Communists were particular harsh on the Jews (who unremarkably backed the Communists), and, slowly, the Jews were purged from most professional positions. But Black says that the Zionists of Germany saw an opportunity. Attacks on Jews, to the Zionist mind, were not unexpected, since Jews were indeed aliens in Europe.Jews were Asians, not white, and hence, were strangers in Europe. Anti-Semitism was a natural reaction to this, and hence, morally neutral. The only solution was to unite with Hitler to promote the move of Jews out of Germany to Palestine (Black, 2001, esp ch 7). Hitler organized banks, coin transfers and generally greased the skids to facilitate Jewish emigration to Palestine. Of course, since the fall of the Ottomans, the British controlled Palestine. Hence, the agreement, while it would have saved many Jews from a gruesome fate, was stymied by British imperial power int eh Middle East.Hence the final solution was not the only solution, entirely the final one. Previous solutions had been mass Jewish emigration. But the Zionist movement got what they want. From a paltry 2% of the Jewish population in Germany to a mass movement, Hitler frightened the Jews to such an extent that a in one case assimilated Jewish population suddenly became nationalist and themselves created a colonial state in the Middle East. In other words, Zionism could neer have existed without Hitler. Therefore, Hitler is the founder of the Israeli state in more than one way. Bibliography Black, Edwin.The Transfer Agreement The Dramatic Story of the treaty Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine. warble and Graf Publishers. Cain, stopcock (2001). Imperialism Critical Concepts in historic Studies. Taylor and Francis. Chesneaux, J. et al (1977). China from the Opium Wars to the 1911 Revolution. Harvester Press. Hobhouse, Leonard (1967). Liberalism. Oxford University Press. Kershaw, Ian (1993). Hitler, 1889-1936, Hubris. WW Norton. Korniki, Peter (1998). Meiji Japan Political, Economic and Social History. 1868-1912. Routledge. Wrigley, Chris. (1993). The dispute of Labor Central and Western Europe 1917-1920. Routledge.