History Answers Essay

1. Liberalism is an ideologic view that makes the individual, rather than the family, the nation, the cr knowledge, the state or the faith, the center of society. Human beings, on confused grounds, are held to fork over rights that protect the individual from the state and some other peck. It arose concomitant with industrialism and capitalism, that is, the destruction of the high development of the feudal order from the viewing of the black death on struggleds.It has its roots in the moneymaking(a) city states of Italy, oddly Florence. As a matter of course, hotshot washbasin hold that liberalism had dickens branches, one based on natural rights, and traces its roots back to nates Locke, and one based on usefulness, tracing its roots back to Hobbes and decade Smith. The former option holds that rights need to be anchored in metaphysical principles much(prenominal) as natural law, or theological principles, such as deity and His providence.This has the advantage of hold ing rights apart from social life and the state, in that they do non derive from the state or from society, further must be protected by them. In this view, the state has its origin in the certificate of natural rights according to the entrust of God for mankind. Hence, there is always inhabit for rebellion, in that the state has a very specific reason for being. If this is violated, thence the state loses its legitimacy and can be overthrown (Hobhouse, 1964). On the other hand, the utilitarian wing rejects metaphysics as such.At l eastmost, it holds that there is no need for metaphysics, since wholly talk about rights and natural law actu each(prenominal)y concern utility it is better for society if the state protects various rights, it produces happier citizens and greater production and loyalty. With this approach, one need non have recourse to metaphysics or theology, in that all of this, in actuality, is simply a more complex way of harangue about pleasure in general a society that protects rights will be better, in the sense of producing more happiness, than one that does not (Hobhouse, 1964). that by the beginnings of the industrial revolution in England, the Scottish school of political economy came into its own. Coming from David Hume, Adam Smith rejected the metaphysical stand of rights, and in fact, rejected rights talk in all forms. Instead, he created a sophisticated model of utilitarian liberalism in the invisible hand of securities industry forces. The system likely reflected what was already going on in the mercantile societies of the Netherlands or England, unless it holds that human animosity is the driving force of society.This warmheartedness largely centers around greed the desire for gain and a vertical reputation. however this not be an evil if channeled into a proper direction. The dispense with trade is this channel. The commercialize idea says that if competition were throw in the to advantageouslyy allowed to flou rish, greedy people would be forced to produce great products that people actually want, at a price they are willing to pay. If they refuse to do this, the market will shift its money to those equally greedy people who do.Hence, greed is channeled into healthy outlets, and the society is served make is satisfied and people pay what the demand requires, rather than the price dictated by the producer. Here, a fully free economy, based on the preferences of the market in a given society, can be based, not on rights, not on God or natural law, but on human passion, but a passion that is scientifically channeled to a place where it can be put to good use. 2. European plys strengthened a large compound empire passim the world in the late 19th century.By this conviction, the Spanish had anomic most of their colonies in Latin America, but the British, the French and the Dutch colonise much of Africa and Asia, largely as a way of gaining access to sensible materials, new markets and as a means of settling excess existences (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 study root word of industrial wealth. While this motivated England to carry to expand its power into Africa and Asia, the continental powers were forced to continue the search for colonies in order to keep up.Germ all was the poorest in this regard, having few colonies until the beginning of valet struggle I, forcing the Germans to use internal resources to industrialize under the monarchy that was, at this time, elusive in unifying Germany as a sort of internal colonization slice the Austrians were busy exploiting their many subject peoples, playing one ethnic conference off against another. So for the German speaking peoples, colonization was internal. For the Netherlands, Belgium and England, this was not an option, and therefore, the magnification of European mercantile interests expanded outward.The British, for their part, were concerned about the expansion of Russia to the south. Russia, plainly part a European power, was as well a late comer, along with Germany and Austria, to the industrial age. plainly Russias concern was porous 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 first on with the British, since they would only accept hard cash from the British imperialists. irrelevant much of the third world, mainland China was relatively well developed, and for a time was sufficient to resist British expansionism. The British tactic adopted to serve with these issues, to break down the will of the Chinese to resist, was Opium, harvested from India and imported into China. The drug was court-ordered in England, where it was popular , but many nationalist Chinese saw the cattle farawaym opium addition both(prenominal) as British ploy as well as a means of derelictening Chinese society. Both were true.Chinese resistance to British policies in respect of Opium and the exploitation of the Chinese market and resources, led to dickens wars over these questions with the Quing monarchy (Chesneaux, 1977). In general, the purpose of the new imperialism was to guard protected markets and cheap raw materials in the conquered countries. This was a way of having an asperity over their European competitors. Russia and Germany were not involved in this race (they had far 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 trading missions and soldiers forces that defeated the Chin ese in the British inspired Opium Wars. The state was commutationized in japan, and very quickly, a rapidly developing Nipponese state, without any home resources, expanded as a colonial force in imitation of western models (Korniki, 1998) Japans development, rapid as it was, was a response to the gradual eating away of the power of the Chinese monarchy under British pressure in this comparable period.The fact is that Japan was not going to let Opium destroy her people, and hence, as is often the case, increasing social discipline and a exchangeized presidency were the Japanese 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 now going to receive one of the easts great powers (Korniki, 1998). The powers that took over Japan were of two kinds the first, the military leadershiphip taken from the clans that favored modernization and second, the emperor himself, partially under th e ripple of the military but also a power in his own right.This coalition stabilized Japanese society in this era, providing it with the peace incumbent to develop into a major industrial power. To some 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 mishap of a revival of Chinese fortunes. Hence, plot the Japanese developments after 1877 were impressive, British investment must also be considered.It must be mentioned that Japan was treated as more or less an equal partner in crime with the British rather than as a subject, partially because of the undeniable dexterity of the Japanese state, but also due to their value in transaction with eastern Russian expansion. This policy will bear fruit in the Russo-Japanese war of 1905-1906. But the real issue was the connection between British governance, the oligarchy in Japan and the emperor, to some extent the puppet of bo th. The military leaders who emerged from the 1877 war exulting realized that China was the anti-type of proper Asian development.As China lost its central authority, saw its economy fall into the custody 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 eastern China in this process.It is obvious because Japan, without local resources, was forced to find them in Korea and China (Korniki, 1998) 4. The halt of World War I saw the fall of the German, Austrian, Turkish and Russian royal houses. It saw the creation of the USSR and Yugoslavia as attempts to reorganize society. Germany was blamed for the war by the British and F rench and had most of its industry liquidated and sent to the victorious powers. The Germans also had to pay bulky reparations for starting the war (a doubtful hypothesis).Germany was humiliated, and the weak republican government was ripe for both communist and fascist takeovers. Hitler won fair elections as head of state over a monotonous and violated area. Most of Hitlers inner circle were former World War I combat troops. Reindustrialization and rearmament to defend Germany from Stalins USSR was a major motive for Hitlers plans. The rise of Hitler is understandable given the level of abjection the Germans felt at this time. They were economically, militarily and emotionally scarred and destroyed.A salutary leader with both socialist and nationalist political leanings was going to do well, especially after the communists had taken over in the USSR, Bavaria, and Hungary (these latter 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. jokester was no longer a major power.France and England entered into a relationship in order to control Germany for the long term. America became the prevalent force in European politics, and her late entry into World War I and the gist of money 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 bane of the USSR under both Lenin and Stalin forced the European powers to also fear the huge Russian giant, and enough emigres from the USSR were in western Europe (especially Paris) to explain to European powers what exactly the Soviet revolution had in store for them.Hitler rearmed not so much in respect of England (to which the Fuhrer had a grudging respect), but against the fell Asians from Russia. Therefore, a rearmed and powerful Germany was able to bring country after country into her economic orbit long in advance Hitlers policy of military expansion took place. Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia and even Greece were under Hitlers control long before the mid 1930s, since either the USSR or Germany was offered to them as a trading partner. Most, quite an 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 eastern Europe. One power reason that World War I sapped the strength of democratic government in Europe, and to add to the carnage, the Depression starting in Europe in 1930 also proved democracies not up to the task both Stalin and Hitler took control of their various(prenominal) economies and grew them tremendously, far and beyond the struggling British and American states, hence showin g democracy, at least at that time, as an inferior 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 casual and unpopular Peoples Republic of Bavaria was run by several(prenominal) Jews Kurt Eisner, Franz Lipp, Eugene Levine and Ernst Toller. The brief 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 loathing of the Jews did not derive from his believing they were inferior, or a natural slave race, 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 uncomfortab le to some, historical truth does not concern itself with comfort. For various reasons, the urban Jews of eastern Europe were heavily involved with Marxism as a means, most likely, of controlling nationalism.As a result, nationalist impactments throughout central and eastern Europe were harshly opposed to Jewish political power as such, though the nationalist movement in Spain did not treat this view. But Hitlers final solution had another source, a source rarely dealt with in the literature, a little known deal called the impartation Agreement. When Edwin Black wrote the first major work on this topic in 2001, it received mixed reviews. But a little later, few were able to argue with its conclusions.This book relates, using almost solely primary documentation, how Hitler made an agreement with the small but influential 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 pass age violence between Nazis and Communists were particular harsh on the Jews (who normally back 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 invoke the move of Jews out of Germany to Palestine (Black, 2001, esp ch 7). Hitler organized banks, currency transfers and loosely 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, just 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 scared the Jews to such an extent that a formerly assimilated Jewish population suddenly became nationalist and themselves created a colonial state in the Middle East. In other words, Zionism could never have existed without Hitler. Therefore, Hitler is the founder of the Israeli state in more than one way. Bibliography Black, Edwin.The remove Agreement The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine. Carol and Graf Publishers. Cain, Peter (2001). Imperialism Critical Concepts in Historical 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 Challenge of wear Central and Western Europe 1917-1920. Routledge.