Category: 11th Grade History

What was the Glorious Revolution? The Glorious Revolution involved replacing King James II with his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange. The reasons for this revolution were mainly religious oppositions. Why is the Glorious Revolution significant in English history? According to History, “Many historians believe the Glorious Revolution was one of the most important events leading to Britain’s transformation from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. After this event, the monarchy in England would never hold absolute power again.”

What was English life like under Oliver Cromwell? Cromwell was a Puritan, so he was very strict with his laws. In fact, anyone who was seen playing a specific game on Sunday would be whipped and punished. His laws were very strict. He even banned Christmas as we would have known it today. Over time, Cromwell became a hated man. Cromwell eventually died in 1658. Later, his body was put on trial, found guilty, and “executed” it.

On what grounds does Locke believe people can establish a claim to property ownership over a previously unowned good? According to Libertarianism, “…Locke held that individuals could come to acquire property rights in previously unowned goods by ‘mixing their labour’ with it, ‘for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to'”

According to Wikipedia, “Enlightened absolutism refers to the conduct and policies of European absolute monarchs during the 18th and early 19th centuries who were influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment, espousing them to enhance their power.” Enlightened Absolutism is just the belief in Enlightenment-era rationality, and the concern for social problems, This is basically just intermixed with the belief in an absolute monarchy or despotism. According to Wikipedia, an enlightened absolutist is a “non-democratic or authoritarian leader who exercises their political power based upon the principles of the Enlightenment.” An example of an enlightened absolutist is Catherine II of Russia, who succeeded in creating enlightened policies.

The constitutional dispute between the colonists and the British government that led to the American Revolution. Ever since the colonists land in America, the British had been treating the colonists like they were still British, despite the fact that the colonists came to America to be separated from the British. There was a constitutional dispute between the colonists and the British government that led to the American Revolution. One of the particular events in which this dispute was evident was the Stamp Act. According to Wikipedia, “The Stamp Act 1765, also known as the Duties in American Colonies Act 1765, was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain which imposed a direct tax on the British colonies in America and required that many printed materials in the colonies be produced on stamped paper from London which included an embossed revenue stamp.” The British passed the Stamp Act to help pay for British troops stationed in the colonies during the Seven Years’ War. Well, the colonists were furious because of this new Act and acted very quickly to oppose it. The colonists responded to this Act by not paying the taxes required. Eventually, the American Revolution came too life a little while later.

What is one issue that reflects the individualist versus collectivist outlook in today’s times? Individualism and collectivist outlook have been suppressed and encouraged throughout history. What is one issue that reflects these concepts in my own times? I think that one of these issues, or at least one of the big ones, is politics. How does it do this? A theme in history that has been growing is the fact that people tend to believe what the majority believes before doing their own research and choosing for themselves. They believe it just because a lot of other people already believes in it and the state promotes it, even though the majority or the state may be wrong, which would make false information fully accepted. So how does politics reflect the individualist versus collectivist outlook in my own times? An example of this is how different sides of a political or news story are suppressed. Many stories end up coming out one-sided because many people are biased. Many people tend to forget that just because the majority is going for something, does not mean that it is right, it may be wrong. That they can do their own research and open up to new opinions.

In what senses was the world a dangerous place in the 1960s and 1970s? One reason was war. There was the Cold War, which was an ongoing political rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective allies that developed after World War II. The Cold War also helped influence the Vietnam War, which was a “conflict in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from 1 November 1955 to the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975. It was the second of the Indochina Wars and was officially fought between North Vietnam and South Vietnam”, according to Wikipedia. There was also the assassination of J. F. Kennedy which caused an uproar in the U. S. After the vice president took over, president Johnson, he implicated what was known as the Welfare State. Even though this decade was a very stressful time for the west, it was not overall dangerous.

According to Wikipedia, “The Wirtschaftswunder (German: [ˈvɪʁt. ʃaftsˌvʊndɐ] ( listen), “economic miracle“), also known as the Miracle on the Rhine, was the rapid reconstruction and development of the economies of West Germany and Austria after World War II (adopting an ordoliberalism-based social market economy).” The two main factors of the economic miracle were currency reform and the elimination of price controls, both of which happened over a period of weeks in 1948. According to Springer, “A currency reform is a prearranged redenomination or alteration of the currency, sometimes with confiscatory elements.” According to the Dictionary, “a government regulation establishing a maximum price to be charged for specified goods and services, especially during periods of war or inflation.” And the Germans got rid of price control. These two things helped bring up the German’s economic miracle.

In what ways did revenge figure into the strategies of the countries fighting in World War II? If you go and read and learn about the entire World War II, then you will find a lot of revenge “stories”. Here are just a few: To begin with, when World War I ended, many people thought that Germany was the cause of the war, and Germany mostly was. So Germany was forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles, take the guilt of starting the war, pay reparations, Germany lost territory, and was forced to keep a small military. So Germany was super angry with this, so when Hitler came to power, he began to build a secret military and stock up on an army and weapons. Then when Hitler thought Germany was ready, be attacked Czechoslovakia and Poland, so then World War II started. Now, I know that Hitler just wanted to make Germany strong and wealthy again, but I can not help but wonder if revenge was woven into Hitler’s ambitions. I mean, what if Hitler also wanted revenge on the world for making it pay all these payments to the rest of the world for starting the war? It could be.

Also, the United States acted on revenge too. Let me tell you how. So you know about the Bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, right? Well, the day after the bombing, the United States declared war on Japan, thereby acting on revenge.

Also, the countries who were fighting in the war acted on revenge all the time. When an enemy invaded or attacked there territory or an allies territory, they attacked the country who attacked them first.

The war was partly built on revenge!

In this essay, I will discuss three questions given to me by my teacher explaining the brutality of World War II.

#1: Did World War II become more brutal as time went on? I believe it did. In the beginning of the war, only a few countries were involved, so the war was brutal, however, it became more brutal as time went on because more countries were joining half way into the war, like the United States. I think that the more countries that were in a war the more brutal it becomes.

#2: In what ways? In what ways did WWII become more brutal as time went on? Well, as I told you, I think that the more countries there are in a war, the more brutal it becomes, but also because new weapons and inventions were being used by the armies of the different countries to help them win the war. Like planes, ships, and even tanks. Planes could drop bombs on the enemy army to weaken them, and ships were used in Naval warfare. And also the tank could be used by the army to fire missiles at the enemy army. So weapons are a way that the war became more brutal later in the war.

#3: Was the brutality on only one side? No, of course not! Brutality could be used on both sides of the war, it just depends on how they use it. Sure, some countries could be more brutal than others, but that does not change the fact that brutality could be used by anyone in a war.

In what sense did World War II become more “global” during its first two or two-and-a-half years? Now, for the first two years of the war, the war was mainly focused in Europe and Asia, so it was a pretty big war, almost as big as World War I, but it was not quite a “global war”, at least not yet.

To start, I would like to say how World War II started. After the first world war, Germany was forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles, take the guilt of starting the war, pay reparations, Germany lost territory, and was forced to keep a small military. There was also the Great Depression, and the economies were shrinking, trade was reduced, businesses closed, prices fell, banks failed, and unemployment rose. In some cases of a depression, people look for a political leader to resolve there problems, and the people chose Hitler. He promised to make Germany wealthy and powerful again. Hitler then began to built a secret military and was building up Germany’s army and weapons. Hitler then invaded Czechoslovakia. At this time, neither France nor Britain were prepared to make war, so they let it be. But then Germany invaded Poland. By this time, France and Britain had had enough of Germany breaking its promises, and declared war on Germany. At this time, World War II had begun in Europe, and would soon spread to other parts of the world (this was taken from my “What problems from World War I helped contribute to the outbreak of World War II?” essay).

I believe that World War II became global after the United States joined, and the US joined the day after the Attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. The day after the attack the US declared war on Japan, and thereby entering the war.

What problems from World War I helped contribute to the outbreak of World War II? There were many problems that helped contribute the the outbreak of WWII, but only some of them were a result of WWI. After the first world war, Germany was forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles, take the guilt of starting the war, pay reparations, Germany lost territory, and was forced to keep a small military. There was also the Great Depression, and the economies were shrinking, trade was reduced, businesses closed, prices fell, banks failed, and unemployment rose. In some cases of a depression, people look for a political leader to resolve there problems, and the people chose Hitler. He promised to make Germany wealthy and powerful again. Hitler then began to built a secret military and was building up Germany’s army and weapons. Hitler then invaded Czechoslovakia. At this time, neither France nor Britain were prepared to make war, so they let it be. But then Germany invaded Poland. By this time, France and Britain had had enough of Germany breaking its promises, and declared war on Germany. At this time, World War II had begun in Europe, and would soon spread to other parts of the world.

 Now after World War I, the League of Nations was established. Basically, the League was supposed to solve problems peacefully between nations without there being war. Well, this failed because not all nations joined the League, and the League had no army to prevent military aggression between the nations.

These are probably the main causes of WWII.

In this essay I will be going over three specific points I am required to write about that have to do with the Russian Revolution, but not the Russian Revolution itself (just to avoid any confusion).

(1) What are the primary differences between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism? Basically Marxism predicted a revolution by a proletariat, whereas Marxism-Leninism forcefully demanded of the need for leadership lead by a vanguard party of professional revolutionaries (for example: Vladimir Lenin). Marxism also predicted a short-lasting dictatorship of the proletariat, while Marxism-Leninism established a permanent dictatorship of the Communist party, in practice. Marxism also imagined a revolution of proletarians in industrialized countries, but Marxism-Leninism gave special importance to the revolutionary potential of peasants in mainly agrarian societies (for example: Russia).

(2) Historian Richard Pipes wrote, “Soviet Russia was the first society in history to outlaw law.” What did he mean by that? What he meant was Russia had accepted people becoming judges who were clearly unfit for the job. These people didn’t go to law school, they knew almost nothing of the law, these people had to just rely on their own personal morals. This decision was disastrous. This policy seemed to have outlawed the law.

(3) What was the Russian government under Lenin like? What kinds of tasks did it attempt to achieve? According to Wikipedia, the Russian government under Lenin was like “Formation. Traditionally, the executive part of a government is directed by a council of ministers nominated by a ruler or by a president. The Bolsheviks considered this to be a bourgeois institution, and wanted to create what they believed was a new government made up of a ‘soviet’ of workers and peasants.” What did Lenin want to achieve in the Russian Revolution? According to Wikipedia, “From his Marxist perspective, Lenin argued that this Russian proletariat would develop class consciousness, which would in turn lead them to violently overthrow tsarism, the aristocracy, and the bourgeoisie and to establish a proletariat state that would move toward socialism.”