Ireland: Topic 2
Note: I have used paragraph headings on this essay, however, do not do this in your exam; rather use the headings as a brief essay plan in your rough work.
Movements for political and social reform
How effective was Parnell as leader of the Home Rule Party between 1880-’86?
SAMPLE ANSWER
Once he became head of the Home Rule Party (HRP) in 1880, Charles Stuart Parnell proved to be a very effective leader. In contrast to his predecessor Isaac Butt’s haphazard organisation, Parnell controlled his party from the centre and turned it into a disciplined, united force that supported his leadership on all issues. He appealed to both physical force
and constitutional nationalists, who saw him as someone who could deal with British politicians and negotiate home rule (HR) for Ireland. This essay will examine how Parnell’s
effective political leadership brought Ireland’s dream of home rule from a mere aspiration to the brink of reality between the years 1880 and 1886.
Parnell’s rise to power - A united and disciplined party
Following the 1880 general election, Parnell took over the leadership of the HRP and set about reforming the organisation. By 1882 he replaced the Land League with the National League and set up 1,200 League branches across the country, which collected money to help run election campaigns, give grants to poor MPs (who were unpaid at the time), choose candidates for election, and ensure supporters turned up to vote. Ever the effective politician, Parnell won the support of the Catholic Church by appointing bishops and priests as chairmen of local branches. Arguably though, his most effective change was to enforce the party pledge to
‘sit, act and vote as one, or resign’, thus ensuring the loyalty of party members. Such effective organisation strengthened Parnell’s hand in dealing with the British government and trying to gain HR for Ireland.
Chamberlain and the Central Board Scheme
However, as HR began to dominate British politics, the leader of the radical wing of the Liberals, Joseph Chamberlain, tried to settle the matter once and for all by proposing a Central Board Scheme, giving Ireland very limited control over local affairs. Mediator William O’Shea seems to have misled Chamberlain with regard to Parnell’s response to the scheme. At first, a delighted Chamberlain believed Parnell had accepted his proposal, but when it became clear that Parnell saw the scheme as nothing more than a stopgap on the way to HR, a furious Chamberlain turned against Parnell. This was to have disastrous consequences when the 1st HR Bill was introduced in 1886. Perhaps, if Parnell had dealt with Chamberlain more diplomatically at this time, he might not have made such a powerful enemy and his hopes of securing HR in 1886 may have been more effective.
Electoral reform Act to “Uncrowned King of Ireland”
Nonetheless, Parnell was very confident about his chances of success in the next election. This was mainly because the Electoral Reform Act, 1884 had enhanced his position, increasing the number of Irishmen entitled to vote from 220,000 to over 700,000. These were mostly smaller farmers that Parnell knew he could rely on because he had helped them through the Land Wars. He also managed to win the support of physical force nationalists by suggesting in Cork in January, 1885 that HR might not be the final settlement of the Irish Question. In a passionate speech, he stated that ‘no man has the right to say to his country, thus far shalt thy go and no further’. Through the use of such effective tactics Parnell’s popularity soared and he became known as the ‘Uncrowned
King of Ireland’.
Defeat of Gladstone and concessions
Parnell’s leadership tactics were tested again when in June 1885, he forced the defeat of Gladstone’s government when his party voted with the Conservatives on a financial bill. Gladstone resigned, and an election was called. However, as the Reform Act had not yet been finalised, the election had to be postponed. Lord Salisbury became caretaker Prime Minister, but he needed Parnell’s support to rule. Making the most of this opportunity, Parnell used his power effectively to gain concessions for Ireland: coercion was dropped. Lord Carnarvon, who was sympathetic to HR, became Chief Secretary and the Ashbourne Land Act was introduced. Winning these concessions increased Parnell’s popularity as party leader and his hopes for HR in the forthcoming election.
Balance of power – manifesto to Irish voters in Britain
If he could just gain the balance of power in the election, Parnell knew he could strengthen his position even more. He hoped to persuade either party, but preferably the Conservatives, because they held the veto in the House of Lords, to support HR. However, as neither party was prepared to commit to HR, Parnell had to find a way to ensure that he could play one off against the other after the election. Believing the Liberals would win more seats than the Conservatives, he
cleverly tried to manipulate the results by issuing a ‘Manifesto to the Irish Electors in Britain’, urging them to vote for the Conservatives. This move angered an already infuriated Chamberlain, who accused Parnell of betraying the Liberal Alliance and hardened his stance against the party.
Election results
Although historians believe the manifesto was very effective in depriving the Liberals of over 20 seats, they still won 335; the Conservatives won 249 and the HRP 86. If Parnell combined his votes with the Conservative Party, then the Conservatives and Liberals would have the same number of seats. This was the worst possible result because it meant that Parnell could barely keep the Conservatives in power, whereas if he combined with the Liberals they would have a comfortable majority.
Hawarden kite and defeat of Home Rule Bill
Before Parnell had much time to consider the situation, Gladstone’s son let slip, in an incident known as the ‘Hawarden Kite’, that his father had converted to the cause of HR. Parnell had little choice now but to support Gladstone and the 1st Home Rule Bill was introduced in April 1886. It was greeted with outrage by the opposition parties but, given the huge Liberal majority, it should have passed in the Commons. However, the combined votes of the Unionists, Conservatives and Liberal Unionists, led by Parnell’s old enemy, Chamberlain, meant that the bill was defeated on its third reading in June 1886. Gladstone resigned, and the Conservatives took office. Conclusion In conclusion, Parnell was an excellent and effective political tactician. However, one can’t help wondering if the 1st Home Rule Bill might have passed in the House of Commons in 1886, had he not fallen out with Chamberlain. One way or the other, I believe Parnell’s greatest achievement was in transforming the idea of Home Rule from a mere aspiration into an achievable goal for Ireland. However, the results of the 1885-’86 elections, coupled with later revelations about his private life, saw to it that the momentum was lost - at least for the time being.
Dictatorship and Democracy in Europe 1920 – 1945
How did Hitler establish a totalitarian dictatorship?
SAMPLE ANSWER
Although Hitler had come to power by largely democratic means in January 1933, he had no intention of upholding the democratic ideals of the Weimar Government. Indeed, he was determined to establish a one-party totalitarian dictatorship and take control of all aspects of people’s lives: social, political, economic and personal. This essay will examine how he rid himself of all opposition, created policies to appeal to most Germans, and used the twin evils of terror and propaganda to ensure he could establish a totalitarian dictatorship and rule his country with an iron fist.
March 1933 – Fire – Enabling Act
Once in power, Hitler called another election for March 1933. However, two weeks before it, a fire broke out in the Reichstag. Hitler blamed it on Communists and used the opportunity to ban them from campaigning in the election. To try to ensure he would win a majority, he legalised the SA into a special police force that intimidated people into voting for the Nazis. Although he still failed to secure a majority, Hitler retained power by combining with the Nationalist Party. Then, in a very audacious move on 23 March, he persuaded the Reichstag to pass the Enabling Act, allowing him to pass laws without referring to parliament or president; the Enabling Act ended any pretence at democracy in Germany and, so, within months of coming to power, Hitler was well on his way to establishing a fascist totalitarian dictatorship.
Policies and opposition
To eradicate any other opposition, Hitler began to move against his enemies even more ferociously; all political parties were banned, except the Nazis, elected state assemblies were abolished and replaced with Nazi appointed governors and trade unions were declared illegal and replaced with the German Labour Front. To win support for his leadership, Hitler cleverly designed his policies to appeal to most Germans by promising to improve social and economic conditions, to destroy the Treaty of Versailles, ‘turn the Red Tide’ and unite all German-speaking people. Step by step, Hitler was paving his way to a total dictatorship.
Night of the Long Knives - Death of Hindenburg 1934
Next, he turned his attention to threats from within his party and, particularly the SA, which had grown to over 2 million members. Hitler knew that to create a dictatorship, he had to control the military, but he feared he could lose control of the SA to Ernst Rohm. To eradicate this threat, on 30 June 1934, a date that became known as the “Night of the Long Knives”, Rohm and up to 400 other “enemies” were executed by the SS. The SS then became Hitler’s army, with all recruits swearing loyalty to him personally. Later in 1934, President Hindenburg died. Hitler took this opportunity to abolish the offices of president and chancellor and create just one post – that of Der Fuhrer. In just over 18 months, he ruled supreme over Germany.
Propaganda - media press
Hitler’s manipulative and excellent use of propaganda ensured he kept a vice-like grip on the country. He was a brilliant orator and created a cult of leadership that convinced people he was a new messiah, sent to right the wrongs perpetuated on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles and the Weimar Government. With the help of his Minister for Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, Hitler controlled all media and press.
Goebbels declared, “We are going to stage a masterpiece of propaganda”. To do so, news stories reflecting Nazi ideals were dictated to editors on a daily basis. The People’s Radio, which everyone was encouraged to own, only broadcast Nazi stations, ensuring a constant diet of Nazi propaganda was fed to citizens, most of whom were falling under his dictatorial spell.
Propaganda – slogans, speeches films
Hitler’s appeal to the masses was largely due to the use of simple slogans, the swastika, salutes, uniforms and symbols, which gave the impression of strength and power. To make him appear omnipresent, posters, depicting Hitler and good Nazis, working for the benefit of the State, were plastered everywhere. Many people greeted each other with ‘Heil Hitler’ and speeches and films were constantly blasted from cinemas and loudspeakers. Mass demonstrations, torchlight parades and the massive Nuremberg Rallies were all used to reinforce the cult of personality and Hitler’s grip on the country.
Nuremberg
The propaganda and ceremony that surrounded the Nuremberg Rallies acted as a bonding agent to bring all Nazis together in a celebration of Hitler. Leni Riefenstahl’s film ‘The Triumph of the Will’ filmed at the 1934 Nuremberg Rally was very influential in convincing Germans that Hitler was the essence of a saviour, who had come to lead Germany back to the days of glory. Anti-semitic speeches and the introduction of the Nuremberg Laws in 1935 were used to target Jews and reinforce Nazi doctrine. The rallies were also used as occasions to boast of Hitler’s achievements and ensure compliance with his totalitarian dictatorship.
Terror
Should anyone remain unconvinced, the SS and Gestapo played an enormous role in ensuring this compliance. They hunted down opponents to Hitler who were often tortured, executed or simply ‘disappeared’, most to labour or concentration camps. Such was the infiltration of the Gestapo into society that people were afraid to voice opposition to Hitler’s dictatorship regime, even within their own families, for fear they would be reported. Citizens lived in the knowledge that spies and secret police were everywhere. They swooped without warning and dealt viciously with anyone accused of disloyalty to Der Fuhrer, thus ensuring opposition was silenced.
Education
To ensure the younger generations were brainwashed, Hitler targeted the hearts and minds of the youth. Education in Nazi Germany concentrated on brainwashing children to become good Nazis. All books and subjects were designed to reflect Nazi ideals and glorify Hitler. From 1936 it became compulsory for children to join the Hitler Youth or the League of German Maidens. Younger boys were taught it was their “duty to destroy inferior nations”. As they grew older, they learnt Nazi ideology and military discipline. Girls were taught how to be good Nazi wives and housekeepers. Hence, Hitler groomed the young to unquestioningly accept his totalitarian leadership.
Conclusion
In conclusion, through his charismatic leadership, the eradication of all opposition, and the excessive use of propaganda and terror, Hitler managed to control all aspects of life in Germany. His successful creation of a totalitarian dictatorship within his own country between the years 1933 and 1939 led him to believe he could achieve world dominance and to the outbreak of World War II in 1939.
Europe and the wider world: Topic 3
The United States and the world, 1945 – 1989
Who was the more successful President, Truman or Johnson? Argue your case referring to both.
SAMPLE ANSWER
Both Harry Truman (1945-1953) and Lyndon B Johnson (19631968) were catapulted into the presidency of America following the deaths of their predecessors. They faced enormous challenges in office. On the international stage, both were engaged in a Cold War and struggled to contain communism, while on the domestic front, both presidents sought to improve civil rights and the lives of Americans through their social and economic programmes. This essay will argue that Johnson’s domestic policies were more successful than Truman’s, while Johnson had less success on foreign policy.
Civil Rights - Truman
Throughout their presidencies, both Truman and Johnson worked hard to improve civil rights. Once in office, Truman set up the Committee of Civil Rights, which was responsible for examining ways to improve rights, in particular for black African Americans. In 1948, he successfully introduced the desegregation of the armed forces. While some critics saw this as simply a cynical way to save money, as it would do away with the need to have separate living, training, eating quarters, etc, it certainly had a big impact and led to some African American soldiers reaching leadership positions in the Korean War.
Civil Rights - Johnson
However, it was Johnson who undoubtedly made the greatest impact in the fight for equal rights. In 1964, despite strong opposition from many quarters, he passed Kennedy’s promised Civil Rights Bill, which outlawed discrimination on grounds of race, religion, sex or national origin. He also introduced the Voting Rights Act, 1965, giving black citizens equal voting rights with whites. These two acts were revolutionary and were successful in creating a more equal society between the different races in the US.
Great Society Programme
Both presidents were also very keen to improve life economically for Americans. Truman initiated a ‘Fair Deal Programme’, while, as part of his ‘Great Society Programme’, Johnson declared ‘War on Poverty’. Under this initiative, the Head Start programme set up pre-schools for children and the Job Corps trained inner city youths. On the health front, Johnson established Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor. In a period of 18 months, Johnson was said to have successfully ‘bullied, badgered and brainwashed’ Congress to put through more laws than most presidents manage in two full terms in office.
Fair Deal Programme
Truman, on the other hand, often found it difficult to get his bills through congress, but he did pass the GI Bill of Rights, which approved grants for businesses, as well as housing and education for veterans returning from the war. Truman also managed to improve social security and public housing, but his domestic reforms were never as far-reaching or successful as Johnson’s.
Atomic bomb - Berlin
On the other hand, Truman was more successful than Johnson on the international stage. He brought about the end to World War II by dropping the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After the war, he successfully followed a policy of containment to stop the spread of communism. The first real test of Truman’s foreign policy came in 1948 after Germany was divided by the allies into four zones. Berlin was also divided into four sectors between the US, Britain, France and the USSR. However Stalin, fearing a prosperous West Germany would threaten Communism in his Eastern zone, began the Berlin Blockade to try to force the allies into leaving. Truman refused to be intimidated, declaring, ‘We are going to stay, period’. Under Operation Vittles, a huge airlift of supplies was arranged to keep Berlin going until, finally, realising he couldn’t win, Stalin lifted the Blockade in 1949.
Korean War and effects
The second test of Truman’s foreign policy came when North Korea invaded the South in a bid to reunite the country under a communist government. Truman responded by invading Inchon behind North Korean lines. By October, the North Koreans were pushed back behind the Thirty-Eighth Parallel and Truman’s policy of containment had once again proved successful. However, his continued aggression in Korea led to an invasion of 250,000 Chinese troops and the war dragged on until 1953. Truman’s failure to bring about a swift end to the war, along with the deaths of 33,000 US soldiers, led to a sharp decline in support for his policies. By the time he left the presidency in 1953, his popularity had plummeted to an all-time low.
Johnson and Vietnam
Foreign policy also proved to be Johnson’s nemesis. When he first came to the presidency, he was reluctant to escalate American involvement in Vietnam. However, his advisers were encouraging him to begin bombing the North, but Johnson would need a good excuse to justify such action. The opportunity came when the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin allegedly shot at US ships. Johnson appealed to US Congress to expand his powers. It agreed to the Tonkin Resolution, which allowed him to take ‘all steps necessary to protect US interests in SE Asia’. Johnson now sanctioned Operation Rolling Thunder. It was envisioned that this would last eight weeks, however, when it failed to have the desired result, ground troops were sent in. By 1965, there were 200,000 troops in Vietnam, this rose to 500,000 by 1966.
Anti-war Movement – Tet
While most Americans supported involvement in Vietnam in the beginning, as the war went on, an anti-war movement began in Michigan University in 1965. It was highly critical of Johnson and the policies he was following in Vietnam, especially the use of chemical weapons. Many ordinary Americans also began to feel that the Government was being less than truthful in revealing the full extent of what was happening in Vietnam and this led to a credibility gap. As the anti-war movement gathered pace, many senior politicians and respected political commentators began to criticise Johnson. Continued criticism after the Tet Offensive, which led to the deaths of a further 81,000, 4,000 of whom were Americans, led to slogans such as, “Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” In the face of such mounting criticism, Johnson was forced to begin withdrawing from Vietnam and from the 1968 presidential campaign.
Conclusion
In conclusion, domestically both Truman and Johnson had a beneficial effect on US society. Both made very positive contributions towards improving civil rights, and Johnson, in particular, improved welfare for many aspects of society. On the international stage, Truman met with success in places like Berlin and eventually Korea, while Johnson’s policies in Vietnam ruined his presidency.