History Of The World

Answer : The Pan-Slav movement recognized a common ethnic background among the various Slav peoples of eastern and east central Europe and sought to unite those people for the achievement of common cultural and political goals.

Answer : Representatives of the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan signed three bilateral agreements in Geneva with the United States and the Soviet Union serving as guarantors intended to end the war in Afghanistan. The agreement called for U.S. and Soviet non-interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan and Afghanistan, the right of refugees to return to Afghanistan without fear of persecution or harassment, and, most importantly, a timetable that ensured full Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan by February 15, 1989.

Answer : At the beginning of the 20th century, Europe was at the height of its power, controlling most of the land surface of the earth. The French had built the Suez Canal in Egypt linking Europe to Asia, and Europe's powerful Navies patrolled the oceans. Europeans believed in social Darwinism and the superiority of the "white race." They considered their society to be the greatest achievement of civilization and a model for all other peoples to follow. A major chapter in the story of the 20th century is how Europe destroyed its own dominance of the modern world. This gloomy tale begins with World War I.

• The spark that ignited World War I came from the Balkans, a region of many cultures and ethnic groups north of Greece that included the nation of Serbia. In August 1914, a young Serbian nationalist, hoping to trigger an uprising of Serbs living in Austria, assassinated Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary. Austria blamed Serbia for the attack and declared war on Serbia.
• Serbia's friend Russia declared war on Austria, and the system of entangling alliances kicked in trapping Europe in an unstoppable chain of events. Six weeks after the assassination, much of Europe was at war. The alliance led by Russia, France, and Britain, was known as the Allies; the alliance of Austria-Hungary, Germany and the Turkish Ottoman Empire was called the Central Powers.
• President Woodrow Wilson tried to keep the United States out of the war, but it became increasingly difficult. In 1915, a German submarine sank the British passenger liner Lusitania, which was carrying weapons, as well as passengers, from the United States to England. Of the 1200 people killed in the attack, 128 were Americans, mostly women and children. The sinking turned American public opinion against Germany. Economic interests also pushed America toward war. American banks had made large loans to the Allies, and if the Allies lost the war, these loans might never be repaid. When it looked like the Allies might be defeated, President Wilson took the United States to war.
• The U.S. declared war in 1917 "to make the world safe for democracy" in the words of President Wilson. With a million fresh American troops arriving in France, the Allies soon defeated the Central Powers.
• The Great War, as it was called, changed the political landscape of Europe. Gone were the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the long-decaying Turkish Ottoman Empire. Their lands were broken up into smaller nations. Russia lost its tsar, and Germany's Kaiser was replaced by a new German republic.

Answer : Mikhail Gorbachev's intention with the reforms he introduced after his accession to power can be regarded as an attempt to rejuvenate and revitalise the communist system. However, the issue of whether or not the Soviet Union could have survived these reforms requires political analysis taking into account Russia's internal circumstances at the time, and how these contributed to the events that unfolded.

• With regards to the internal situation in the Soviet Union, its economy, or rather the structural weakness of the economy was the principal problem. The Soviet economy was built on rewarding gross output rather than productivity, rigid central planning and offered disincentives to improvements in production techniques and management. A notoriously ineffective part of the Soviet economy, agriculture was hampered by the central planning's stifling of productivity and promotion of inflexible procedures as well.
• These problems however, were not enough to plunge the Soviet Union into systemic crisis. It was Gorbachev's initiatives which ripened the conditions that led to the fall of communism in the Soviet Union. The first of these was "glasnost". This was the option to allow distribution of knowledge regarding the truth about Soviet life. Economic and political restructuring were the second and third initiatives were known as "perestroika".
• Glasnost allowed for freedom of expression and the loosening of controls on radio, press, the film industry and television quickly paved the way for public opinion to slip beyond Gorbachev's grasp. Those who opposed Gorbachev now had a voice as well as those who wanted to go faster and farther than he did. In terms of political reform, Gorbachev proposed new legislature whereby only one-third of the representatives to the Congress of People's Deputies would be reserved for the Communist Party. The other two-thirds would be directly chosen on the grounds of popular vote. The result was that large numbers of Communist candidates suffered defeat, loosening the grip of the Communist Party on government.
• The Soviet Union under the Communist Party could not have survived the reforms introduced by Mikhail Gorbachev, as these reforms lead to calls for further and faster reform inside Russia and throughout the Soviet Union. Furthermore, freedom of speech, the distribution of truth about Soviet life and the catastrophic results of the economic reforms lead to an increasing part of the population becoming disillusioned and disgruntled with the current administration.
• The erosion of the Communist Party's power in Russia released ambitions for freedom which had been forcefully buried but not killed off by seven decades of Soviet rule. The demands for independence spread through the Soviet Union like a wild fire, heralding the collapse of communism and the Soviet Union.

Answer : The word "fascists" (or fascistic) as used in the 1930s by Benito Mussolini, the leader of the first Fascist movement and the Fascist dictator of Italy before and during World War II, most likely comes from the Italian word fascis and the Latin word fasces. Fascis means something along the lines of "bundle" or "unit." Fasces were a symbol of authority in ancient Rome, an axe surrounded by rods.

There are some basic principles that can identify a Fascist movement:

• Absolute power of the State: The Fascist state is a glorious, living entity that is more important than any individual. All individuals are part of the State, but the State is greater than the sum of its parts. All individuals must set aside their own needs and supplicate themselves to the needs of the State. There is no law or other power that can limit the authority of the State.
• Survival of the fittest: A Fascist state is only as glorious and powerful as its ability to wage wars and win them. Peace is viewed as weakness, aggression as strength. Strength is the ultimate good and ensures the survival of the State.
• Strict social order: Social classes are strictly maintained in order to avoid "mob rule" or any hint of chaos. Chaos is a threat to the State. The State's absolute power and greatness depends on the maintenance of a class system in which every individual has a specific place, and that place cannot be altered.
• Authoritarian leadership: To maintain the power and greatness of the State requires a single, charismatic leader with absolute authority. This all-powerful, heroic leader maintains the unity and unquestioning submission required by the Fascist state. The authoritarian leader is often viewed as a symbol of the State.

Recent upsurge in terrorist activities across Europe with the mix of Religion is the new far-right movement across Europe. Religion was not a significantly important issue during the time the Fascist and Nazi parties of Italy and Germany were active. Although the Nazi Party's extermination of Jewish people appears to be religious persecution, being Jewish was considered a racial, rather than a religious, trait.

Neither extreme right parties, nor radical Islamic groups, are fascist. Indeed, in regards to the extreme right, or nation-populist, parties, democracy appears to be an effective antidote to fascism. However, just because democracy has proven to be successful against fascism in this particular situation, it does not guarantee that democracy will always be successful. One cannot predict with certainty what democratic conditions will be like in the future or what types of political parties will exist.

Answer : The French Revolution had a great impact on modern day politics and the ideologies that have become common knowledge among society. When France was reconstructing their government in the 1790's, many of the changes inspired how politics has established itself in today's world.

• The role ideology played in the Socio-Political changes that affected the world
• Revolution cannot take place without the imminent personalities and their ideologies. In French revolution where political philosophers and theorists like Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rou-sseau and other eminent personality’s ideological contribution made French revolution to make their country Democratic and remove from the hands of Churches and Clergies.
• In the initial phase of French Revolution was the one in which the dominant ideas were those of Montesquieu, who claimed that a liberal constitutional monarchy was the best system of government for a people who prized freedom, on the grounds that by dividing the sovereignty of the nation between several centres of power, it provided a permanent check on any one of them becoming despotic.
• The comte de Mirabeau, the leading orator among the revolutionists of this early phase, was very much the disciple of Montesquieu in his demand for a constitutional monarchy. On the more abstract level Mirabeau believed that the only way to ensure freedom was to institute a divided sovereignty, but he did not agree with Montesquieu as to which estates in France should have a share in that divided sovereignty.
• Locke's theory of the natural rights of man to life, liberty and property: The French revolutionists made much of this because the American revolutionists had done so in 1776.
• Rousseau defined freedom as ruling oneself, living only under a law which one has oneself enacted. On Rousseau's philosophy of freedom, there was no question of the people dividing and diminishing sovereignty, because the people were to keep sovereignty in their own hands. In Rousseau's conception of a constitution, the nation became sovereign over itself.
• Voltaire and his doctrine of enlightened absolutism. This theory, like that of Rousseau, kept the sovereignty of' the state undivided, but in Voltaire's case it was not transmitted to the people but kept, without question, in the hands of the monarch.
• So by this various philosophers and their ideologies made France a democracy in the 18th century. Thus it can be said that revolution can’t take place without ideology.

Answer : Perestroika and Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms have similar origins but very different effects on their respective countries' economies. Both efforts occurred in large communist countries attempting to modernize their economies, but while China's GDP has grown consistently since the late 1980s, national GDP in the USSR and in many of its successor states fell precipitously throughout the 1990s. Gorbachev's reforms were gradualist and maintained many of the macroeconomic aspects of the command economy (including price controls, inconvertibility of the ruble, exclusion of private property ownership, and the government monopoly over most means of production).

• Reform was largely focused on industry and on cooperatives, and a limited role was given to the development of foreign investment and international trade. Factory managers were expected to meet state demands for goods, but to find their own funding. Perestroika reforms went far enough to create new bottlenecks in the Soviet economy but arguably did not go far enough to effectively streamline it.
• Chinese economic reform was, by contrast, a bottom-up attempt at reform, focusing on light industry and agriculture (allowing peasants to sell produce grown on private holdings at market prices). Economic reforms were fostered through the development of "Special Economic Zones", designed for export and to attract foreign investment, municipally managed Township and Village Enterprises and a "dual pricing" system leading to the steady phasing out of state-dictated prices. Greater latitude was given to managers of state-owned factories, while capital was made available to them through a reformed banking system and through fiscal policies (in contrast to the fiscal anarchy and fall in revenue experienced by the Soviet government during perestroika). Perestroika was expected to lead to results such as market pricing and privately sold produce, but the Union dissolved before advanced stages were reached.
• Another fundamental difference is that where Perestroika was accompanied by greater political freedoms under Gorbachev's Glasnost policies, Chinese economic reform has been accompanied by continued authoritarian rule and a suppression of political dissidents, most notably at Tiananmen Square. Gorbachev acknowledges this difference but has always maintained that it was unavoidable and that Perestroika would have been doomed to defeat and revanchism by the nomenklatura without glasnost, because conditions in the Soviet Union were not identical to those in China. Gorbachev had lived through the era in which the attempted reforms by Khrushchev, limited as they were, rolled back under Brezhnev and other proto-talitarian conservatives, and he could clearly see that the same could happen again without Glasnost to allow broad oppositional pressure against the nomenklatura. Gorbachev cited a line from a 1986 newspaper article that he felt encapsulated this reality: "The apparatus broke Khrushchev's neck and the same thing will happen now."
• Another difference is that Soviet Union faced strong secession threats from their ethnic regions and a primary challenge by the RSFSR. Gorbachev's extension of regional autonomy removed the suppression from existing ethnic/regional tension, while Deng's reforms did not alter the tight grip of the central government on any autonomous regions. The Soviet Union's dual nature, part supranational union of republics and part unitary state, played a part in the difficulty of controlling the pace of restructuring, especially once the new Russian Communist Party was formed and posed a challenge to the primacy of the CPSU. Gorbachev described this process as a "parade of sovereignties" and identified it as the factor that most undermined the gradualism of restructuring and the preservation of the Union. This caused a situation in the USSR whose closest analog would be if English sovereignty undermined that of the United Kingdom at a time when the entire UK society and economy was under significant stress and reform, or if North China had a party and state emerge as a challenge to the CCP and PRC during Deng's reforms.

Answer : The period of European history referred to as the Renaissance was a time of great social and cultural change in Europe. Generally speaking, the Renaissance spanned from the 14th to the 16th centuries, spreading across Europe from its birthplace in Italy.

• The term 'renaissance' is derived from the French word meaning 'rebirth'. It is a period where Europe witnessed changes in much of the art, architecture, literature, science and philosophy that surfaced during the Renaissance was so reminiscent of this ancient past, that it seemed as though Europe was indeed reborn during the late Middle Ages. It was a period characterised by innovation, imagination and creativity. Gradually, during this period it decreased the dominance previously held by the Catholic Church. We use it to denote the whole transition from the Middle Ages to the modern world; and though it is possible to assign certain limits to the period during which this transition took place, we cannot fix on any dates so positively as to say between this year and that the movement was accomplished. To do so would be like trying to name the days on which spring in any particular season began and ended. Yet we speak of spring as different from winter and from summer.
• Renaissance was not a political or religious movement that broke out on a one fine day but it was a state of mind which took place gradually in the society.
• The most notable changes experienced during the Renaissance were in art form there was shift symbolism to reality (da Vinci), in literature there was shift from religious and metaphysical subjects to human characteristics and behaviours, the philosophical changes which occurred during the Renaissance also paved the way for another shift in thinking that was experienced in Europe at the turn of the Modern Age and Science and engineering (Galileo) were other fields that experienced major changes during the Renai-ssance with inventions like telescopes, clocks and spectacles.
• Until the Renaissance, most Europeans followed the teachings of Catholicism because they had little exposure to any form of education beyond this. Science was not a well-understood concept and very little of what the Church taught people about life was challenged. Those who spoke out against the Church were accused of heresy and labelled a heretic (someone who holds unorthodox beliefs). Heretics were often subject to extremely severe punishments, such as being tortured or burned at the stake in front of the townspeople.
• During the Renaissance, however, things started to change. The 14th through to the 16th centuries in Europe were a period of questioning and discovery. People started to think independently and experiment with new ideas and concepts. As more and more advancements were made in the arts and sciences, the Catholic Church began to lose the overwhelming power and influence it had once held over people's beliefs about the world.

Answer : The world economy of capitalism from mid 19th century onwards was a conglomeration of national blocs or national economies which had emerged with the growing number of nation states. These states protected their industrialized economies against comp-etition from other nations. Thus these nations also became rival economies.

• The period inevitably saw the hunt for more profitable investment and more markets. This led to the clamor for colonies outside the areas traditionally dominated by Britain. Economic competition and economic rivalry between nation states led to imperialism of the 20th century and to the genesis of the 1st World War.
• Germany was hardly a colonial power before the New Imperialism period, but after isolating France by the Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary and then the 1882 Triple Alliance with Italy, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck proposed the 1884–85 Berlin Conference, which set the rules of effective control of a foreign territory. Weltpolitik (world policy) was the foreign policy adopted by Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1890, with the aim of transforming Germany into a global power through aggressive diplomacy, the acquisition of overseas colonies, and the development of a large navy. “Wilhelm-II adopted a very aggressive policy of colonization and colonial expansion.
• The growth of industrialization of Russia further altered the global economic envir-onment. The world system of capitalism was still working in the form of competing nati-onal economies.
• The political imperialism followed the economic expansion, with the "colonial lobbies" bolstering chauvinism and jingoism at each crisis in order to legitimize the colonial enterprise. The tensions between the imperial powers led to a succession of crises, which finally exploded in August 1914, when previous rivalries and alliances created a domino situation that drew the major European nations into the First World War.

Answer : Colonialism is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. It is a set of unequal relationships between the colonial power and the colony and often between the colonists and the indigenous population.

• The fundamental decisions affecting the lives of the colonized people are made and implemented by the colonial rulers in pursuit of interests that are often defined in a distant metropolis. Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonized population, the colonizers are convinced of their own superiority and their ordained mandate to rule.
• It was the lure of spice trade that brought Europeans to Southeast Asia while missionaries also tagged along the ships as they hoped to spread Christianity into the region. The socio- cultural impact of colonialism in this region was considerable, even on countries like Thailand, which did not formally become colony. Traditional forms of government disappeared, trading patterns were disrupted and the rich cultural traditions of these regions were destroyed. Southeast Asian response to colonialism was both collaboration and nationalism in all its forms. French troops attacked Vietnam claiming that they were protecting the Christians of Indo-China.
• Colonialism was always portrayed in the colonizing country (in public) as bringing benefits for the colony. They included: increased standard of living, benefits of Christianity, improved health and education, establishing law and order, etc. The sincerity with which and the extent to which these benefits were provided are often at the very least questionable. Also, many now-independent colonies have not yet recovered from the psychological trauma of colonialism.
• Europeans did not only have imposed their political—and in some cases over Southeast Asian peoples and territories but also, economic and cultural—domination. Hence, European colonialism covered a large chunk of Southeast Asian history.

I. Political Aggrandizement

• The major colonizers of Southeast Asia were Europeans, Japanese and the U.S. All in all, there were seven colonial powers in Southeast Asia: Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Great Britain, France, the United States, and Japan. From the 1500s to the mid-1940s, colonialism was imposed over Southeast Asia.

II. Cultural

• Colonialism is linked with the idea that the way of life of the colonizers was better than that of the colonized.

(a) “White Man’s Burden”

Whites are supreme beings. The supposed or presumed responsibility of White people to govern and impart their culture to non-white people, often advanced as a justification for European colonialism. Duty to spread the ways of the superior beings to inferior beings with inferior ways of living. Devaluation of indigenous cultures.

(b) Conversion to Christianity

Spain and Portugal spread Roman Catholicism to their colonies by converting the indigenous peoples. Propogated that local religions are inferior.

Answer : During 1870-1914, Bismarck and Kaiser Williams II, who were in position of power in different periods, had a different approach towards foreign policy. Bismarck had adopted a cautious policy. The basis of his foreign policy was to maintain the status quo in order to consolidate what Germany had gained after 1871.

• The core of his foreign policy was to isolate France, to avoid unnecessary conflicts and to keep peace between Russia and Austria. He had carried out three tasks in order to achieve this aim. Firstly, he supported republican movement in France, as this would make European monarchs suspicious of France. Secondly, he encouraged France to seek compensation for her losses through an active colonial policy so as to make France clash with other powers, for example, the Franco-Italian conflicts over Tunis. Thirdly, he tried to maintain peace between Russia and Austria, as he knew that if he alienated or had conflicts with either one, France would gain an ally effortlessly against Germany. With Bismarck’s great efforts, France was made isolated during his reign. Bismarck’s policy had a positive effect on the balance of power in Europe as serious open conflicts between Germany and France was avoided. In other words, it had a stabilizing effect.
• Kaiser William II perused a global policy. He had an active colonial policy and active navy expansion. This had made Germany engaged into the colonial rivalries, for example, the Franco-German rivalry over Morocco in Africa, which led to the Moroccan Crises of 1905 and 1911, as well as the Anglo-German rivalry over the Boer Republics in South Africa. In order to protect his overseas colonies, Kaiser William II expanded the navy largely. His policy had a negative effect in the balance of power in Europe as the constant empowerment of Germany in military and began to threaten the survival of other countries. Besides, he gave up Russian friendship and he had no intention to renew the Reinsurance Treaty. The policy of maintaining peace between Austria and Russia no longer exited. This had driven Russia into the side of France and at the same time, Kaiser William II also preferred Austria only.
• The encouragement of Austrian expansion had complicated the international circumstances and brought insecurity to Europe, which finally resulted in the outbreak of the First World War in 1914.

Answer : The process of decolonization began, in most of the colonies, at the close of World War-II. In the third world the Second World War had caused great upheavals, political and economic. Within years of the end of the War many colonies gained independence, but often after protracted disagreement, encouraged by the imperial power, on the contentions issue of distribution of power, leading to partition and civil war. Various areas of troublesome conflict in the 1970s and 80s, Middle East, Cyprus, South Africa, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, were legacies of British decolonization.

• There was no one process of decolonization. In some areas, it was peaceful, and orderly. In many others, independence was achieved only after a protracted revolution. A few newly independent countries acquired stable gove-rnments almost immediately; others were ruled by dictators or military juntas for decades, or endured long civil wars. Some European governments welcomed a new relationship with their former colonies; others contested decolonization militarily. The process of decolonization coincided with the new Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, and with the early development of the new United Nations. Decolonization was often affected by superpower competition, and had a definite impact on the evolution of that competition. It also significantly changed the pattern of international relations in a more general sense.
• The creation of so many new countries, some of which occupied strategic locations, others of which possessed significant natural resources, and most of which were desperately poor, altered the composition of the United Nations and political complexity of every region of the globe.
• The United States generally supported the concept of national self-determination it also had strong ties to its European allies, who had imperial claims on their former colonies. The Cold War only served to complicate the U.S. position, as U.S. support for decolonization was offset by American concern over communist expansion and Soviet strategic ambitions in Europe. Several of the NATO allies asserted that their colonial possessions provided them with economic and military strength that would otherwise be lost to the alliance. Nearly all of the United States’ European allies believed that after their recovery from World War II their colonies would finally provide the combination of raw materials and protected markets for finished goods that would cement the colonies to Europe. Whether or not this was the case, the alternative of allowing the colonies to slip away, perhaps into the United States’ economic sphere or that of another power, was unappealing to every European government interested in postwar stability. Although the U.S. Government did not force the issue, it encouraged the European imperial powers to negotiate an early withdrawal from their overseas colonies. The United States granted independence to the Philippines in 1946.
• However, as the Cold War competition with the Soviet Union came to dominate U.S. foreign policy concerns in the late 1940s and 1950s, the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations grew increasingly concerned that as the European powers lost their colonies or granted them independence, Soviet-supported communist parties might achieve power in the new states. This might serve to shift the international balance of power in favor of the Soviet Union and remove access to economic resources from U.S. allies. Events such as the Indonesian struggle for independence from the Netherlands (1945–50), the Vietnamese war against France (1945–54), and the nationalist and professed socialist takeovers of Egypt (1952) and Iran (1951) served to reinforce such fears, even if new governments did not directly link themselves to the Soviet Union. Thus, the United States used aid packages, technical assistance and sometimes even military intervention to encourage newly independent nations in the Third World to adopt governments that aligned with the West. The Soviet Union deployed similar tactics in an effort to encourage new nations to join the communist bloc, and attempted to convince newly decolonized countries that communism was an intrinsically non-imperialist economic and political ideology. Many of the new nations resisted the pressure to be drawn into the Cold War, joined in the “nonaligned movement,” which formed after the Bandung conference of 1955, and focused on internal development.
• The newly independent nations that emerged in the 1950s and the 1960s became an important factor in changing the balance of power within the United Nations. In 1946, there were 35 member states in the United Nations; as the newly independent nations of the “third world” joined the organization, by 1970 membership had swelled to 127. These new member states had a few characteristics in common; they were non-white, with developing economies, facing internal problems that were the result of their colonial past, which sometimes put them at odds with European countries and made them suspicious of European-style governmental structures, political ideas, and economic institutions. These countries also became vocal advocates of continuing decolonization, with the result that the UN Assembly was often ahead of the Security Council on issues of self-governance and decolonization. The new nations pushed the UN toward accepting resolutions for independence for colonial states and creating a special committee on colonialism, demonstrating that even though some nations continued to struggle for independence, in the eyes of the international community, the colonial era was ending. East and Central African colonies, Somaliland, Tanganyika, Uganda, Zanzibar, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia became independent. Botswana and Swaziland followed in 1966.

Answer : The American Revolution and the US Constitution drafters after the defeat of imperial Britain at the hands of thirteen colonies constitute epoch making events in the political history of the world and in the constitutional development of modern times. In the constitutional convention at Philadelphia, the very fact that the thirteen colonies had been exploited by the mother nation acted as the primary factor with the represe-ntatives undertaking upon themselves the task of creating a new order free from further exploitation. The colonists wanted to devise a system of government free from suppression and intrusion and thus found ample expression in the Articles of Confederation, which linked central authority to certain well defined fields. Thus, a constitu-tionally wanted government was envisaged by the delegates.

Criticism for being an economic document

• Charles Beard in his classic “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitutions” called into question the motives of the makers of the constitutions.
• He argued that the delegates of the constitutional convention belonged to two economic categories of self interest – mercantile and land owner having huge property assets and investment in trade & lending their support to the fledging constitution. He pointed out that none of the framers of the constitution were from farming or occupational artisan background. This coupled with the fact that many of the delegates were land speculators. He also argued that the Articles of Federation suppressed land values.
• Also, according to him in the process of ratification of the constitution, three fourth of the qualified voters were excluded by some means or other thus aiding the rest who stood to benefits from the passage of the constitutions. The Constitution was therefore not created by the people but by those motivated by monetary interests.
• However, Beard’s attempt to analyze the social and economic standing of the delegates is commendable, but it must be kept in mind that the US constitution was prepared in tune with the historical developments in the American colonies during the 18th century. It is true that a number of delegates were from wealthy corporate class, but at the same time, it cannot reduce the noble ideals, liberty is the most significant one. Also, the emphasis of an individual’s rights goes against Beard’s hypothesis of American Constitution being and economic document.

Answer : Colonialism is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of colony in one territory by a political power from another territory. It is a set of unequal relationships between the colonial power and the colony and often between the colonists and the indigenous population. Colonialism is a relationship between an indigenous (or forcibly imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders. The fundamental decisions affecting the lives of the colonized people are made and implemented by the colonial rulers in pursuit of interests that are often defined in a distant metropolis. Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonized population, the colonizers are convinced of their own superiority and their ordained mandate to rule.

Historians often distinguish between two overlapping forms of colonialism:

Settler colonialism involves large-scale immigration, often motivated by religious, political, or economic reasons.

• Exploitation colonialism involves fewer colonists and focuses on access to resources for export, typically to the metropole. This category includes trading posts as well as larger colonies where colonists would constitute much of the political and economic administration, but would rely on indigenous resources for labour and material. Prior to the end of the slave trade and widespread abolition, when indigenous labour was unavailable, slaves were often imported to the Americas, first by the Portuguese Empire, and later by the Spanish, Dutch, French and British.
• Plantation colonies would be considered exploitation colonialism; but colonizing powers would utilize either type for different territories depending on various social and economic factors as well as climate and geographic conditions.
• Surrogate colonialism involves a settlement project supported by colonial power, in which most of the settlers do not come from the mainstream of the ruling power.
• Internal colonialism is a notion of uneven structural power between areas of a nation state. The source of exploitation comes from within the state.
• As colonialism often played out in pre-populated areas, socio-cultural evolution included the formation of various ethnically hybrid populations. Colonialism gave rise to culturally and ethnically mixed populations such as the mestizos of the Americas, as well as racially-divided populations such as those found in French Algeria or in Southern Rhodesia. In fact, everywhere where colonial powers established a consistent and continued presence, hybrid communities existed.

Colonialism vs Imperialism

• Colonialism and imperialism are often used interchangeably, but they are two different words having different meaning. As both colonialism and Imperialism means political and economic domination of the other, scholars often find it hard to differentiate the two.
• Though both the words underline supp-ression of the other, Colonialism is where one nation assumes control over the other and Imperialism refers to political or economic control, either formally or informally. In simple words, colonialism can be thought to be a practice and imperialism as the idea driving the practice.
• Colonialism is a term where a country conquers and rules over other regions. It means exploiting the resources of the conquered country for the benefit of the conqueror. Imperialism means creating an empire, expanding into the neighbouring regions and expanding its dominance far.
• Colonialism is termed as building and maintaining colonies in one territory by people from another territory. Colonialism can altogether alter the social structure, physical structure and economics of a region. It is quite normal that in the long run, the traits of the conqueror are inherited by the conquered.
• Colonialism is a term used to describe the settlement of places like India, Australia, North America, Algeria, New Zealand and Brazil, which were all controlled by the Europeans. Imperialism, on the other hand is described where a foreign government governs a territory without significant settlement. The scramble for Africa in the late 19th century and the American domination of Puerto Rico and the Philippines can be cited as examples of Imperialism.
• In Colonialism, one can see great movement of people to the new territory and living as permanent settlers. Though they lead the life as permanent settlers, they still maintain allegiance to their mother country. Imperialism is just exercising power over the conquered regions either through sovereignty or indirect mech-anisms of control.

Answer : The Bolsheviks were a faction of the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) which split apart from the Menshevik faction at the Second Party Congress in 1903. On 7 November, 1917, the Bolshevik Party led by Lenin overthrew the despotic Czarist regime and declared the formation of the first socialist state. The new Soviet regime electrified the colonial world by unilaterally renouncing its imperialist rights in China and other parts of Asia.

• The Bolsheviks were the majority faction in a crucial vote, hence their name. They ultimately became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The Bolsheviks came to power in Russia during the October Revolution phase of the Russian Revolution of 1917, and founded the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic which would later become the chief constituent of the Soviet Union in 1922.
• With the exception of the heroic episode of the Paris Commune, this was for the first time millions of downtrodden workers and peasants took political power into their own hands, sweeping aside the despotic rule of capitalists and landlords, and set out to create a socialist world order. John Reed, the iconic American writer, described it in the following words in his celebrated work, Ten Days that Shook the World: “No matter what one thinks of Bolshevism, it is undeniable that the Russian Revolution is one of the greatest events in human history, and the rule of the Bolsheviks a phenomenon of worldwide importance.”
• For 73 years, the apologists of capitalism vented their spleen against the Soviet Union. There was an avalanche of slander unleashed to stain the image of the Bolshevik Revolution and the nationalised planned economy that emerged from it. They manoeuvred to identify socialism with the ‘bureaucratic totalitarian’ regime, which arose from the isolation of the revolution in a backward country. The regime established by the revolution was neither bureaucratic nor totalitarian, but, the most democratic regime yet seen on earth.

Answer : Karl Marx proposed that the motivating force of capitalism was in the exploitation of labour, whose unpaid work was the ultimate source of profit and surplus value.

• The employer can claim right to the profits (new output value), because he or she owns the productive capital assets (means of production), which are legally protected by the capitalist state through property rights. In producing capital (money) rather than commodities (goods and services), the workers continually reproduce the economic conditions by which they are forced perpetually to labour.
• Expropriation of surplus value-Due to the productive forces of industrial organization, laborers are seen as creating more exchange value during the course of the working day than the cost of their survival (food, shelter, clothing, etc.). Marxists argue that capitalists are thus able to pay for this cost of survival, while expropriating the excess labour (i.e., surplus value).
• Exploitation of Labour-Marx further argue that due to economic inequality, the purchase of labour cannot occur under “free” conditions. Since capitalists control the means of production (e.g., factories, businesses, and machinery) and workers control only their labour, the worker is naturally coerced into allowing their labour to be exploited.
• Marx in his Capital proposes an explanation of the “laws of motion” of the capitalist economic system, from its origins to its future, by describing the dynamics of the accumulation of capital, the growth of wage labour, the transformation of the workplace, the concentration of capital, comm-ercial competition, the banking system, the decline of the profit rate, land-rents, etc.
• In a capitalist economy, technological improvement and its consequent increased production augment the amount of material wealth (use value) in society, whilst simulta-neously diminishing the economic value of the same wealth, thereby diminishing the rate of profit—a paradox characteristic of economic cri-sis in a capitalist economy; “poverty in the midst of plenty” consequent to over-production and under-consumption.

Answer : The October Manifesto, issued by Czar Nicholas II, brought an end to the 1905 Russian Revolution by promising civil liberties and an elected parliament (Duma).

• The March revolution of 1917 (Better known as February revolution) forced the Russian Czar to abdicate, established freedom of the press, and granted a blanket amnesty to political prisoners in Siberia - including terrorists.
• By November 1917 the Provisional Gover-nment in Russia was in complete collapse. In the meantime, the Bolshevik party, helped by German money, had built up an efficient party organisation, a brilliant propaganda machine, and a powerful private army (the Red Guards). When Lenin moved to takeover, the Provisional Government was unable to stop him, and the ‘November Revolution’ was less of a revolution than a coup d’état.

Answer : A pact signed in September, 1938 at Munich between Britain, France and Germany regarding the future of Czechoslovakia.

• Hitler demanded for the secession of the German- speaking Sudetanland of Czechos-lovakia to Germany. This area was 1/5 of Czechoslovakia and had one of the largest munitions factories.
• German leaders argued and insisted that the government of Czechoslovakia were discrim-inatory toward the Sudetan people, and the secession of Sudetanland to Germany would justify to their request for self-determination.
• France and Great Britain were devastated by World War I and were willing to do anything to avoid more confrontation. With Great Britain’s and France’s acceptance, Hitler promised not to claim any other European territory.
• The Munich pact was the last major act of appeasement by the western powers. In March, 1939 the Germans marched into Czechoslovakia making most of the country a German protectorate. This immediately nullified the Munich Pact.

Answer : The Civil War is the central event in America's historical consciousness. While the Revolution of 1776-1783 created the United States, the Civil War of 1861-1865 determined what kind of nation it would be.

• The roots of the Civil War can be traced to increasing differences between North and South and their growing divergence as the 19th century progressed. Chief among the issues were expansion of slavery into the territories, the South's declining political power, states rights, and the retention of slavery. Though these issues had existed for decades, they exploded in 1860 following the election of Abraham Lincoln who was against the spread of slavery.
• The widening of the gap between slave and free states was symbolic of the changes occurring in each region. While the South was devoted to an agrarian plantation economy with a slow growth in population, the North had embraced industrialization, large urban areas, infrastructure growth, as well as was experiencing high birth rates and a large influx of European immigrants. This boost in population doomed Southern efforts to maintain balance in the government as it meant the future addition of more free states and the election of a Northern, potentially anti-slavery, president.
• As the South recognized that control of the government was slipping away, it turned to a states' rights argument to protect slavery. Southerners claimed that the federal government was prohibited by the Tenth Amendment from impinging upon the right of slaveholders take their "property" into a new territory. They also stated that the federal government was not permitted to interfere with slavery in those states where it already existed. They felt that this type of strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution coupled with nullification, or perhaps secession would protect their way of life.
• The issue of slavery was further heightened by the rise of the Abolitionist movement in the 1820s and 1830s. Beginning in the North, adherents believed that slavery was morally wrong rather than simply a social evil. Abolitionists ranged in their beliefs from those who thought that all slaves should be freed immediately (William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglas) to those calling for gradual emancipation (Theodore Weld, Arthur Tappan), to those who simply wanted to stop the spread of slavery and its influence (Abraham Lincoln).
• Thus, it can be said that American civil war in the 19th century was a war against the humanity and to protect equality among the masses

Answer : No doubt it was the imperialistic expansion of the French empire under the leadership of Napoleon, but it can be termed as a blessing in disguise. Before Napoleon's attack on German region the entire Germany was divided into 300 states.

• It was Napoleon, with his steel-frame of administration he created a Federal set up of 39 states. These 39 states were created out of the 300 states and thus a political unity was established. This Federal set up created by Napoleon had a psychological effect of the minds of millions of Germans and they first time felt that they were part of one cultural land.
• Later on the actual role in this regard was played by Bismarck who was genius diplomat and had united Germany not only by a better domestic policy but also by international diplomacy.
• As a diplomat he was totally against democracy and liberal political ideas. He followed the policy of Blood and Iron and did the best from his side for the unity of Germany under the leadership of Prussia. After 1851 Bismarck emerged as a great supporter of autocracy and had started constant effort for the unification of Germany under the banner of Prussia.
• When Bismarck was sent to Russia he won the support of Russian ruler against France. Again he was sent to France; there he won the sympathy of Napoleon III. Later on when he was appointed as the chancellor of Germany his real endeavor for German unity had started. After becoming the Chancellor of Germany he adopted the policy of Blood and Iron. He strengthened the unmilitary and paid attention to make his state a military power.
• Another important step was establishing very stringent control on the parliament. In this way he made him the most influential man in all the political affairs. Another aim was to stop the interference of Austria in German region. In 1862, he supported Russia in trampling the rebellion in Poland region just to get Russian support. He also established economic relation with France.
• As far as his military action is concerned he first attacked on Denmark. In this battle, he managed the support of Austria against Denmark. After the battle Austria got the region of Holestine that was the region inhabited by German. This was also a diplomatic win for Bismarck displayed hostile approach towards Austria which was the biggest hurdle in German unification.
• Before a direct conflict he strengthened friendship with France and assured to give France some of the resourceful regions. Bismarck had also reined a secret treaty with Sardinig against Austria. In this battle Austrian army fought on different fronts and during the battle it remained denied this proved beneficial for Prussa. After this battle states of Henovar, Holestine, Slesmige were merged into Prussia.
• France-Prussia war was another great success for Bismarck, this war had become inevitable as Bismarck had not given the region of Rhine valley to France after his victory in the war against Austria. The question of Luxemburg also added fuel to the fire against Bismarck managed the support of Italy by giving to it Venetia.
• This battle was the best opportunity for Italy to establish its control on Rome. French received a great set back in this battle and after the Treaty of Frankfurt on 26 Feb, 1871 Prussia got the region of Strasberg and Loren and also 20 crore pond as war identity. This victory on France unified the whole Germany.
• Thus it is true to say that Napoleon kindled the natural sentiment of the Germans and Bismarck established the real political unity and integrity.

Answer : The Cold War, a hostile rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, lasted from the late 1940s until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The war was "cold" only in that the United States and USSR never fought each other in a direct military confrontation, but both superpowers threatened each other with nuclear annihilation and participated frequently in "proxy wars" by supporting allied nations in num-erous "hot" wars in places like Korean, Vietnam, and Angola.

• The Cold War defined both countries' foreign policies through the second half of the twentieth century, as Americans and Soviets competed for allies to maintain and widen their respective spheres of influence around the world. Each side viewed the Cold War as a battle between civilizations; in the worldwide clash between American capitalism and Soviet Communism, only one could prevail.
• For more than forty years, the Soviet-American conflict hung heavy over global affairs, shaping the world with massive military buildups, a never-ending nuclear arms race, intensive espionage, and fierce technological competition as each side tried to gain the upper hand in preparation for the thermonuclear "hot war" all humans feared would someday come.

Answer : Neo-colonialism, the modern colonialism, has emerged as an influential force; used by powerful countries for a variety of reasons, it is continually shaping not only individual cultures, but the global culture. It was first defined as a description of the economic (and other) lengths one country might go to in an attempt to expedite the cultural assimilation of a foreign territory. Cultural assimilation, as described in this context, is desired by the colonizing country because it opens the colonized country for an economic partnership, even exploitation.

• The post-WWII international situation in which the term “neo-colonialism” was coined was quite unique. These years saw the rapid decolonization of many countries; particularly African nations that had been subject to European rule until the 1950s and 1960s. From the perspective of decolonization, neo-colonialism was used to describe the lingering relationship a colony has with its former power prior to decolonization.
• Because neo-colonialism developed as a concept in this post-war period, a great deal of focus was put on the continuing affiliation between colony and colonizer. Examining neo-colonial relationships like these that are so dependent on a unique colonial relationship should more often be subsumed under post-colonial theory. This is because today we see the same practices of neo-colonialism being carried out between cultures with no historical colonial connection.
• Historically, two of the most definitive examples of cultural imperialism include the French in Africa following World War Two, and the Cold War Era. During the Imperial Age, much of Africa was colonized by the European powers. After World War II came decolonization of the colonized African Nations, many of which were under French rule at the time. Following their decolonization, post-colonial ties remained between the nation of France and her former colonies. After all, African nations were faced with a great number of issues at the occasion of their decolonization such as national security, economic concerns, finding a socio-political identity, and delivering aid to their struggling peoples. These countries required support, and the French were willing to provide it to them in exchange for economic and diplomatic partnerships. Ties continue all the way to this day, and this continuing relationship has been referred to as Francafrique (Boisbouvier).
• In the case of the Cold War Era, the two main belligerents—the United States of America and the Soviet Union—were heavily invested in promoting their culture in all corners of the world as they competed for ideological supremacy. These countries gathered as many allies as possible while spreading their ideologies far and wide in an attempt to prove them the greater country and ensure security in the possible event of a nuclear war.

Answer : The July Revolution rippled through Europe, starting revolutions in Belgium and Poland. Belgium's revolution was essentially successful. The country ended up with self-government as long as it remained a neutral state, and the other powers agreed not to invade it. Polish nationalists, looking to the successful revolutions in Belgium in France, also decided to revolt in 1830. Czar Nicholas quickly crushed the Polish rebellion.

• In Britain, the Tory Party demonstrated an increasing sensitivity to the middle class. Foreign Minister George Canning and Robert Peel became more "liberal" Tories, trying to satisfy the middle class, passing Laissez Faire laws, creating a more secular state, and even creating a police force. Problems remained, however. Most critical were the Corn Laws, which remained too high for manufacturers' tastes, and the Rotten Boroughs, which furnished Southern England with far more political representation than it deserved while neglecting populous manufacturing cities like Manchester. In the 1830s, a reform bill came up which would remedy these problems, but it was quashed by Prime Minister Wellington. Wellington's action led to rioting. Parliament realized it had to pass the bill, which it reluctantly did in 1832. The Reform Bill of 1832 simplified voting, although maintaining a property requirement, and abolished the smaller boroughs, giving their seats to the large industrial cities like Manchester.
• As a result of the redistribution of British political power created by the Reform Bill of 1832, several reforms took place, beginning in 1833 with a Factory Act that limited child labor. In 1847, a Ten Hours Act passed into law, limiting the number of hour’s women and children could work per day.

Answer : The Manchurian Crisis 1931-1933: After the Wall Street Crash the US government introduced tariffs to protect her industry from Japanese competition. The tariffs had a huge impact of Japanese industry and led to high unemployment. As the economic situation got worse army leaders voiced their opinion that the only way in which Japan could solve its economic problems and show that it was still a strong nation was through expansion. The Japanese already had a colony on the Asian mainland and were highly influential in several areas, particularly a Chinese province called Manchuria.

• Manchuria was the source of much of Japans imported raw materials such as coal and iron ore. In September 1931 the Japanese owned railroad from Manchuria to the coast was vandalised at Mukden.

The Mukden Incident and the Invasion of Manchuria: The Japanese Imperial Army had the permission of the Japanese government to launch retaliatory actions if the Chinese attacked any Japanese property in the area. As a result, Japanese troops responded to the explosion at Mukden by attacking the nearby Chinese Garrison, taking and securing it with ease as the Chinese government had ordered troops in the area not to resist any attacks by Japanese troops in this area.

• The Incident was a masterstroke by Japanese officers determined to begin the process of territorial expansion. The explosion at Mukden was very probably staged by Japanese troops to enable a retaliatory attack. Following the seizure of Mukden Japanese troops began occupying other towns and cities in the area. Within 5 months the whole of Manchuria was under the control of the Japanese army.

The Chinese Response to the Invasion of Manchuria: The policy of the Chinese Gvernment at the time of the Mukden Incident was one of non resistance towards Japanese troops in this area. This was primarily because they wanted to concentrate their efforts on defeating Communism in China and securing a strong and stable government. As a consequence the small Japanese forces of some 11,000 men were able to take control of much of Manchuria very easily, despite the presence of a quarter of a million Chinese troops in the area.

• In order to try and retain control of Manchuria the Chinese appealed to the League of Nations. In October the League of Nations passed a resolution saying that Japanese troops should withdraw and established a commission which would investigate the claims of both sides. The Japanese rejected the League of Nations resolution and insisted on direct negotiations with the Chinese Government. These negotiations failed and the Japanese proceeded, now against some resistance, to take control of the remainder of Manchuria. They then proceeded to launch an attack on the Chinese city of Shanghai which was outside of the area of Japanese economic control.

The League of Nations response to the Manchurian Crisis: The initial response of the League of Nations was to follow its pre-arranged process for arbitration. They listened to the complaints of the Chinese and the Japanese position and then the Council, minus the representatives of China and Japan, discussed the issue before coming up with a Resolution. In this case the resolution called for Japanese withdrawal from Manchuria whilst a Commission investigated the issue.

• The Japanese ignored the wishes of the League of Nations and continued to expand whilst negotiations and diplomatic efforts to solve the crisis continued. When the commission produced its report on Manchuria in October 1932 it stated that Japan should leave Manchuria. A Special Assembly of the League of Nations was then held to vote on the issue in February 1933. When the vote reiterated that Japan should leave Manchuria, the Japanese delegation simply walked out of the League of Nations, never to return.

Answer : After having fought together against the fascist countries during second world war the deepening of conflict between the US and Britain on one side and the USSR on another side the relation between them began to deteriorate and came to be characterized by what is called the Cold War.

• It became more and more intense and the world was divided into two major blocks- the US and West European countries forming one bloc and USSR and the socialist countries of Eastern Europe forming the other. With the increase in the might of the USSR the emergence of government ruled by communist parties in many parts of the world alarmed the government of US, Britain and other west European countries.
• They all became aligned and began to follow a policy mainly aimed at curbing the growth of communism. In this tense international situation, the Brussels' Treaty was signed on 17 March, 1948 by Britain, France, Belgium, Holland and Luxemburg. It was a treaty of economic, social and cultural collaboration and collective self defense. It was a commitment by the five powers who Signed it that if any of them was attacked in Europe (which meant that their colonies were not covered) all other signatories would provide all military aid and other assistance within their power. This treaty created the Brussels' Treaty organization also. It was defensive in nature without naming any enemy in advance, but Soviet bloc interpreted it as an alliance against her as was the tense situation at that time.
• It is in this background that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) was formed in 1949 for defense against Soviet Union. The members of this alliance were US, Britain, France, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Netherland, Luxemburg, Norway and Portugal. NATO army was created which established its bases in many countries in Europe.

Answer : Following the stunning defeat of two great eastern powers - Russia and the Holy Roman Empire at the Battle of Austerlitz in December of 1805 the ever confident Napoleon, self-crowned Emperor of France was even cockier than usual.He was in a mood to redraw the map of Europe and shake up the old order.

• He was determined to peel away as many of the German speaking principalities as possible from the Hapsburg ruled old lands, which as the old joke went were neither Holy nor Roman or much of an empire.After months of cajoling, bribes and threats he convinced 16 German states to abandon the Empire and form the Confederation of the Rhine (Rheinbund,) a loose new nation to be under the protection of the French Emperor. It would also serve as a buffer between France and its Prussian and Austrian enemies and be a rich source of vassal armies.
• The Confederation came into being with the signing of the Treaty of the Confederation of the Rhine on July 12, 1806.Never before had so many German states been united outside of the lose loyalty that they long held to the Holy Roman Emperor.
• Later in 1806 Napoleon defeated the major German power, Prussia.After that, more and more states joined the Confederation.By 1808 26 more states had been lured or pressured into the Rheinbund.At its peak only Prussia, Danish Holstein, and Swedish Pomerania remained outside, while German areas west of the Rhine were annexed directly into France.
• The whole project fell apart in 1812 with Napoleon's epic blunder-the invasion of Russia. Many members of the Confederation switched sides after the Battle of Leipzig and joined the Prussians and Austrians in hectoring the defeated army.The Allies formally dissolved the Confederation in 1813.
• When peace was finally restored to Europe with the Treaty of Paris in 1814, the German states were formerly given their independence. The Congress of Vienna redrew the map of Europe in 1815, but the German states were little affected.
• Eventually the Prussians got the upper hand dissolving the Deutschder Bund to create the North German Confederation in 1866.The Hapsburgs turned their attention south, expanding their holding deep into the Balkans creating the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Answer : Liberalism emerged as a revolutionary ideology reflecting the ambitions of the rising bourgeoisie in relation to the abolition of feudal privilege. Liberalism won its decisive political victories in the revolutions in England, the US and France in the 17th and 18th centuries. Its rise was concurrent with the rise of capitalism. With the consolidation of capitalism, the tenor of liberalism shifted from emancipator optimism to a more conservative stance, suspicious of grand projects of social change.

• Political theorists often identify a series of fixed values that are taken to be the essential properties of liberalism. These might include liberty, democracy, tolerance, constitutionalism and human rights, for example. Liberty, constitutionalism and tolerance are more plausible, but are hardly the exclusive property of liberalism. It is no longer a sharply defined political movement but, in a sense, the very political condition of modernity. There are few political traditions that are clearly separate from it, because most other traditions are situated within this hegemonic context. Thus, modern conservatism is really a variant of liberalism, and socialism, too, is not wholly distinct from it.
• Liberalism was the political doctrine of a revolutionary class pitted against the ancient regime. By the 19th century, classical liberalism reflected the interests of a triumphant, confident bourgeoisie, extolling the virtues of laissez-faire capitalism. From the late 19thcentury, a form of social liberalism favouring welfare reforms and state intervention emerged under pressure from a growing challenge from organised labour.
• There is a common thread running throughout liberalism's history - present in all major strands of the tradition. Liberalism is founded on a particular view of human nature and society - the assumption that human beings are, first and foremost, individuals. This foundation is simultaneously ontological and ethical.
• Liberalism's ontological basis is a powerful intuitive force - it has sunk deep roots in the modern consciousness. Perhaps liberalism's greatest strength, however, is its remarkable adaptability. It's this quality that explains the bewildering variety of types of liberalism today.

Answer : A significant number of historians and other commentators have viewed the Open Door policy as the culmination of earlier attitudes, objectives, and policies, and as a coherent and decisive formulation of the major forces affecting American diplomacy during the century after 1865. The Open Door policy defines American perceptions and objectives, and hence, those who criticize or oppose the policy have been viewed as problems if not enemies. Germany was thus a troublemaker long before Adolf Hitler, Japan long before Hideki Tojo, and Russia long before Joseph Stalin.

• The Open Door Policy called for equal foreign commercial access to China, as opposed to closed spheres of influence. It came as the major powers were scrambling for special privileges in China. Its three interrelated goals were equality of commercial opportunity, territorial integrity, and administrative integrity. The Open Door policy was formally announced by U.S. Secretary of State John Hay in 1899 and 1900, who asked all foreign powers agree to have commercial access to China on equal terms, while at the same time they were to respect China's territorial integrity. Britain, which controlled 80% of China's foreign trade, approved the new policy. The other countries had hoped for exclusive trading rights in ports they controlled, but were stymied by the success of the open door policy. All the major powers agreed on the American proposal. Anti-foreign sentiment in China almost ended the policy, as diplomats were threatened; the international powers sent armies that seized Beijing during the Boxer Rebellion in 1900, and Hay ensured that the open policy was adhered to. The policy was reaffirmed by the Nine Power Treaty in 1922. China finally gained some strength in the 1920s under the KMT and leader Chiang Kai-shek. Japan in the 1930s decided to circumvent the open door by occupying Manchuria (1931) and coastal China in 1937, leading to war between the U.S. and Japan in 1941.

Answer : The Cold War was the geopolitical, ideological, and economic struggle between two world superpowers, the USA and the USSR, which started in 1947 at the end of the Second World War and lasted until the dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 26, 1991.

The Cold War was marked by continuous rivalry between the two former World War II allies. Conflict spanned from subtle espionage in the biggest cities of the world to violent combat in the tropical jungles of Vietnam. It ranged from nuclear submarines gliding noiselessly through the depths of the oceans to the most technologically-advanced satellites in geosynchronous orbits in space.

Causes of the Cold War

• American fear of communist attack
• USSR's fear of the American's atomic bomb
• USSR's dislike of capitalism
• America's refusal to share nuclear secrets
• USSR's fear of American attack
• USSR's need for a secure western border
• USSR's aim of spreading world communism

This feeling of suspicion lead to mutual distrust and this did a great deal to deepen the Cold War. Three things defined the post-Cold War world. The first was U.S. power. The second was the rise of China as the center of global industrial growth based on low wages. The third was the re-emergence of Europe as a massive, integrated economic power. Meanwhile, Russia, the main remnant of the Soviet Union, reeled while Japan shifted to a dramatically different economic mode.

The Three Pillars of the International System: In this new era, Europe is reeling economically and is divided politically. The idea of Europe codified in Maastricht no longer defines Europe. Like the Japanese economic miracle before it, the Chinese economic miracle is drawing to a close and Beijing is beginning to examine its military options. The United States is withdrawing from Afghanistan and reconsidering the relationship between global pre-eminence and global omnipotence. Nothing is as it was in 1991.

Answer : The Proletariat originated during the Industrial Revolution, which took place in England in the last half of the last (18th) century. This Industrial Revolution was precipitated by the discovery of the steam engine, various spinning machines, the mechanical loom, and a whole series of other mechanical devices. The result was that the capitalists soon had everything in their hands and nothing remained to the workers.

• Labor was more and more divided among the individual workers so that the worker who previously had done a complete piece of work now did only a part of that piece. This division of labor made it possible to produce things faster and cheaper. It reduced the activity of the individual worker to simple, endlessly repeated mechanical motions which could be performed much better by a machine. In this way, all these industries fell, one after another, under the dominance of steam, machinery, and the factory system, just as spinning and weaving had already done.
• But at the same time, they also fell into the hands of big capitalists, and their workers were deprived of whatever independence remained to them. Gradually, not only genuine manufacture but also handicrafts came within the province of the factory system as big capitalists increasingly displaced the small master craftsmen by setting up huge workshops, which saved many expenses and permitted an elaborate division of labor.
• This is how it has come about that in civilized countries at the present time nearly all kinds of labor are performed in factories – and, in nearly all branches of work, handicrafts and manufacture have been superseded. This process has, to an ever greater degree, ruined the old middle class, especially the small handicraftsmen; it has entirely transformed the condition of the workers; and two new classes have been created which are gradually swallowing up all the others. These are:
  1. The class of big capitalists
  2. The class of the wholly property less (proletarian), who are obliged to sell their labor to the bourgeoisie in order to get, in exchange, the means of subsistence for their support.

Answer : The world has developed tremendously after the industrial revolution. Production, consumption, trade and investment have increased.

• The countries on the globe are, nevertheless marked by uneven distribution of natural resources. Developed nations today have more capital and technology while the under developed economies have more unexploited resources. It therefore, seems imminent that the developed countries would try to have access to and control of natural resources in the developing and under developed economies. Apparently this seems to be an urge for new kind of imperialism.
• But we cannot see it just an urge for a new kind of imperialism. This urgency has compelled the developed economies to develop a symbiotic relation with the resource rich countries of the world. This symbiosis may lead to a new matrix for international cooperation. It may even out inequality in development, which was created during the first wave of imperialism. Today it may lead to more strategic partnership than the new wave of imperialism.
• The countries, which have grown faster, are confined to North while the South has not developed fast. The North comprises countries in the Northern hemisphere with the exception of Australia. The developed countries are mainly concentrated in the Western Europe and North America. The developing and least developed economies are confined mainly to southern hemisphere in Asia, Africa and South America.
• The developed economies have abundance of capital and technology. They have used their natural resources close to saturation level. To continue their growth story they need more natural resources. There production possibility curve cannot move northeast without more natural resources on the one hand and use of capital and technology in the resource rich areas.
• Countries like Japan, China, Russia, America and European countries like France, Germany, and Britain can sustain their economic growth only when they have more access to energy resources and raw materials which remain unutilized in the developing resources. All the developed economies are, therefore, trying to mark their presence in Africa, Central Asia and Latin America, where there is immense potential of energy resources and raw materials. Agreements for exploration of energy resources and utilization of farm lands and forest resources are being reached. This, however, comes through commitments for development of infrastructure and social overheads in the local economies. The local economies are also getting capital and technological support for industrialization.
• Therefore, it is true that differences in natural resources have compelled the developed economies to expand their outreach to developing economies. But this is not based on use of military might. It is very obvious when China is talking about peaceful rise while America is talking about strategic partnership. Therefore, we cannot say that a new kind of imperialist urge has developed. It is an era of cooperation and strategic partnership.
• there are some examples of this especially in Middle East where we are tempted to say that the great powers are driven to these areas not just to establish democracy, but they also have an eye on natural resources of the region. but today imperialist domination is not the aim; the main aim is to develop strategic partnership by sharing each other’s strengths.

Answer : Before the inception of the industrial revolution agriculture was the main economic activity. The landed aristocracy owned land and others toiled in their farms on almost fixed wages. At some place feudalism was so strong that slavery was also practiced.

• The Industrial Revolution marks a major turning point in history; almost every aspect of daily life was influenced in some way. In particular, average income and population began to exhibit unprecedented sustained growth. This gave birth to a new middle class which was different from the earlier feudal class whose aristocracy was based on the ownership of land.
• The industrial revolution was based on technological innovations and this led to progress of industries and urbanization. The ordinary man had now better employment opportunities and facilities to improve working conditions and living conditions. There were remarkable growth in education and health.
• In terms of social structure, the Industrial Revolution witnessed the triumph of a middle class of industrialists and businessmen over a landed class of nobility and gentry. Ordinary working people found increased opportunities for employment in the new mills and factories. The industrial revolution set the society under a dynamic situation when production and productivity increased. However, harsh working conditions were prevalent before the Industrial Revolution. Pre-industrial society was very static and often cruel—child labour, dirty living conditions, and long working hours were just as prevalent before the Industrial Revolution. The situation started improving gradually after the industrial revolution due to increase in income. Consumers benefited from falling prices for clothing and household articles such as cast iron cooking utensils, and in the following decades, stoves for cooking and space heating.
• Industrialisation led to the creation of the factory. The factory system was largely responsible for the rise of the modern city, as large number of workers migrated into the cities in search of employment in the factories. Nowhere was this better illustrated than the mills and associated industries of Manchester, nicknamed “Cottonopolis”, and the world’s first industrial city.
• The new business class depended on research and innovation, which led to new technology of production. Thus prosperity got a new reason than agricultural surplus. The industrial revolution saw increase in the profit of capital owners and industrialists.
• The gains for the working class and ordinary people in terms of higher wages, housing, health, working conditions, however did not improve as much.
• Of course, it was the triumph of the educated middle class which was research oriented, and had entrepreneurial skills.

Answer : Decolonization is modern phenom-enons which lead to the colonies to be emerged as independent nations after a long period of colonial domination. There are three contested opinions about the cause of decolonization.

They can be classified as follows:

• In the nationalist view indigenous resistance and anti imperialist struggle led to indep-endence.
• According to D.A. Low, the primary factor behind the end of empire was anti-imperialist movements — the metropolitan response only influenced the nature of this confron-tation, not the outcome.
• The resistance movements of the colonial people determined the pace of deco-lonization. Colonial rule became unviable once the groups which sustained it withdrew support, often under nationalist pressure or influence.

International Context Approach

• According to the international context of decolonization, empires failed to survive in the new world order after the Second World War.As John Darwin put it, there was an emergence of new set of international values as national self determination, Human rights, Atlantic Charter, This changed system put tremendous pressure over colonial masters.
• The United Nations General Assembly went a step further in 1960 in its Declaration on granting of independence to colonial countries and people. It sharply condemned colonial rule as a denial of fundamental human rights in contravention of the UN Charter.
• This international approach attributes the end of empires to the opposition of the US and USSR to ‘old style imperialism’. The US and USSR had nothing to gain from the older imperial powers, such as Britain and France, retaining their colonies.

Domestic Constraints Approach

• Domestic constraints approach focuses on how the colony became too big a burden on the mother country. In this explanation the end of empire is seen as a political choice made under pressure of domestic constraints and calculations of national interest. The mother country’s will to rule slackened once empire became too much of a nuisance, financially, militarily and in intern-ational relations.
• Historians John Gallagher and other scholars in the imperialist tradition argued that British imperial interests in India were declining, that India no longer fulfilled its role in the maintenance of imperial interests in the fields of either defence or commerce or finance and that, in fact, over the years it had become a liability for the British.
• The end of the Second World War found Britain in a severe economic crisis and a war weary British populace wished to get rid of the empire as quickly and painlessly as possible.
• Another factor was the post war expansion of the welfare state. Decolonization gathered pace once social reform became a priority and the empire began to be perceived as a drain on resources.

• Lessons the world learned from WW II are as follow:
• Peace could be achieved only through mutual trust.
• The nation states need to be bound by international commitments.
• Need for multilateral institutions.
• Bullying of the weak by the mighty would always boomerang or cause wars in the end.
• Development, cooperation and peaceful coexistence would facilitate development.
• International treaties and institutions were set up.
• Thrust on reconstruction and development increased.
• Mutual cooperation between nations of the world increased.

Despite the destruction, death, and devastation, the World War II is remembered as “The Good War” because it helped usher in a new world order. It was defined by the decline of the old great powers and the rise of two superpowers; the Soviet Union (USSR) and the United States of America (US) creating a bipolar world. Some nations preferred to stay away from these two power blocs through the Non-Aligned Movement.

As a consequence of the war, the Allies created the United Nations, a new global organization for international cooperation and diplomacy. Members of the United Nations agreed to outlaw wars of aggression in an attempt to avoid a third world war. The devastated great powers of Western Europe formed the European Coal and Steel Community (that later evolved into the European Union) in an attempt to avoid another war between Germany and France by economic cooperation and integration, and a common market for important natural resources.

World War II also marked the beginning of the end of world imperialism as nationalist movements began to triumph over weakened colonial empires. One by one, in the decades following the war, colonized peoples all over the world would gain their independence. In these ways, as historian Jay Winter has argued, 1945 marked the moment when the world broke from its past and moved toward a new era.

Answer : To a great extent it is true that exploitation of labour and common man’s miserable condition during the industrial revolution led to the birth of socialist and communist movements.

• The industrial revolution increased profit and wealth of the capitalist class. But the laborers were paid according to iron law of wages which did not allow any increase in wages even if demand for labour increased.
• Although consumers benefited from falling prices for clothing and household articles such as cast iron cooking utensils, and in the following decades, stoves for cooking and space heating, since states did not have regulatory mechanisms, the prices of the industrial products were at times maintained high for reaping super normal profit. Therefore, the living standard of masses was low.
• The working and living conditions of labour were also poor. A series of 1950s essays by Henry and Sheila V. Hopkins later set the academic consensus that the bulk of the population that was at the bottom of the social ladder suffered severe reductions in their living standards. Living conditions during the Industrial Revolution varied from the splendour of the homes of the owners to the squalor of the lives of the workers.
• Chronic hunger and malnutrition were the norms for the majority of the population of the world, including Britain and France, until the later part of the 19th century. Until about 1750, in large part due to malnutrition, life expectancy in France was about 35 years, and only slightly higher in Britain. The U.S. population of the time was adequately fed, were much taller and had life expectancy of 45–50 years.
• Ordinary working people found increased opportunities for employment in the new mills and factories, but these were often under strict working conditions with long hours of labour dominated by a pace set by machines. As late as the year 1900, most industrial workers in the United States still worked a 10-hour day (12 hours in the steel industry), yet earned from 20 to 40 per cent less than the minimum deemed necessary for a decent life.
• The Industrial Revolution led to a population increase, but the chances of surviving childhood did not improve throughout the Industrial Revolution (although infant mortality rates were reduced markedly). There was still limited opportunity for education, and children were expected to work.
• All the above mentioned factors created grounds for development of socialist and communist movement.

Answer : Following were the major similarities:

• Fight against racial discrimination.
• Fight against imperialism.
• Fight against economic exploitation.
• Fight against the policies of divide and rule.
• Demand for self determination.
• Urge for development of indigenous industries and use of indigenously produced commodities.
• Taking pride in local culture and history.

Answer : The French Revolution of 1789 is an important landmark in the history of Europe. It was the first great uprising of the people against the autocracy. It generated ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity which crossed the boundaries of France and influenced whole of Europe. The revolution not only changed the political, social and economic life of the people but also affected the entire course of world history.

• The King of France, Louis XVI was over-thrown in a popular rebellion, caused in part by the rise of a middle class no longer controllable by the old regime, by ideological changes brought about by such authors as Voltaire, Denis Did-erot, Turgot, and other theorists of the Enlightenment, and most proximately by the financial disarray of the government resulting in sharply higher taxes.
• The social conditions of France were as distressing as its political organisation. French society was divided into three classes or estates. The privileged class comprising the clergy and the aristocracy formed the first estate and the second estate respectively. These two estates enjoyed many privileges under the government and did not have to bear the burden of taxation.
• The nobility monopolised all important positions in the French administration and lived a life of luxury. The third estate comprised the common people. It consisted of middle class people, peasants, artisans, workers and agri-cultural labourers. Even the rich middle class, consisting of merchants, factory owners etc., fell in this category. The entire burden of taxation fell on the third estate. But these taxpayers had no political rights.
• The condition of the artisans, peasants and workmen was miserable. The peasants had to work for long hours and pay separate taxes to the Crown, to the clergy and to the nobility. After paying all these taxes, they hardly had enough money to feed themselves. The wealthy middle class had to pay heavy taxes and resented the privileges enjoyed by the aristocrats and the higher clergy i.e. the first two estates. The workers, the peasants and the middle class who suffered under the social and economic system wanted to change it.
• In 1792, the French monarchy was abolished and France became a republic upholding the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. A provisional government was set up. In a way French revolution was led by majorority of masses across the country played a role to change the socio-economic condition of not only their country bur also for rest of the world.

Answer : Russian Revolutionaries had opposed the war from beginning terming it as imperial war and under the leadership of Lenin had decided to transform it into a Revolutionary war to over throw the Russian Autocracy.

• Russians were not capable to continue a modern war. Because of this, the Russian army suffered heavily – 6 lakh soldiers have been killed. The war led to widespread discontent throughout the empire as well as in the Army.The Russians lost 65,000 square miles of their territory and the Germans captured the Latvian city of Riga. The prices of food grains soared and the people were finding it difficult to get the recessives of life.

• In 6th April 1917 USA declared war on Germany and entered into war-
• In 1915 the German U-Boats had sunk a British ship Lusitania, among the 1153 Passengers killed were 128 Americans.
• To ensure the repayment of the American loan paid to Entente countries.
• If Germany won the war, she would be serious rival to USA finally.

Answer : US policy towards wars in Europe was not stagnating; it ranged from neutrality to partial and limited support later on full engagement in the war. In the initial years of independence US policy was ‘Policy of isolation’ to the world. US were fully focused on expansion of its territory and industrialization.

• US Engagement in 1st world war: In 1915 the German U-Boats had sunk a British ship Lusitania, among the 1153 Passengers killed were 128 Americans. To ensure the repayment of the American loan paid to Entente countries. If Germany won the war, she would be serious rival to USA finally.
• US Engagement in 2nd world war: When the 2nd world war broke out, the US announce her neutrality. During the Munich talks US supported British, although US protested against the Japanese attack over china but not did much.
• Gradually US extended its support to Britain under ‘lend –lease System’ and issued The Atlantic charter (The charter called for final destructions of Nazi Navy). US had still not directly entered the war.
• On 7 December 1941, the Japanese bombers attacked the US Naval base at Pearl Harbor in hawai. On December 8 1941 US declared war on Japan and later on over Germany and Italy.

Answer : Economic Causes

• Tremendous economic strains of WWI on society
• Many men joined army so that there were insufficient numbers to run factories/farms, which led to widespread shortages of food, and working conditions deteriorated so badly that workers rioted and engaged in strikes to get better wages
• Tsar responded to worker strikes with violence, which only caused more strikes, including strikes by transportation workers that further paralyzed the country
• Prices soared as availability of goods plum-meted, Famine threats to big cities

Political Causes

• Upper classes and educated resented Tsar Nicholas' autocracy
• Perception of government decadence and ineptness affected each level of society who saw Romanov regime as corrupt
• Irritation when Tsar Nicholas decided to take direct command of army during WWI, leaving german wife at helm of government
• Tsar Nicholas was blamed for poor condition of army as well as his handling of the War
• Unwillingness of Tsar Nicholas to grant political reforms, his failure to let Duma be effective, and active attempt to diminish its power, caused all political opposition to become revolutionary
• Rise of radical socialist political parties dedicated to overthrowing both Tsarism and capitalism

Social Causes

• The Russian czar had built a vast empire by conquest of diverse nationalities and imposed Russian language and culture over them.
• Continuance of popular opposition to Tsar and his policies due to discontent of peasants, worker, and minorities
• Centuries of oppression towards lower classes, feelings of being second class subjects
• Need for workers in factories and lack of land for peasants resulted in many moving to cities, which became overrun and living conditions worsened
• Growing student and intelligentsia political radicalism, inspired by West
• The First World War brought out the worst of the forces that had been steadily gnawing at Tsarist Russia for years.

The Russians had more troops than any other European Army, yet they did not have enough rifles, cannon, and ammunition to adequately supply them. In going to war with Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Ottoman Turkey, all of the routes from which the allies could easily ship the supplies were blocked - the Baltic by the German High Seas Fleet, the Bosporus by Ottoman shore guns and the Gallipoli peninsula. This left Russia dependent on her own industry, which was not sufficient enough to fight a major war against three powerful enemies, while your most important allies do not share a common border.

Corruption within the Russian High Command and to a certain extent in the Tsar himself: Most of Russia's Generals were nobles who held Generalships because it suited the Russian Court, not necessarily because they were skilled. There were open rivalries between various Generals. At the same time, Nicholas II acting on bad advice from men Rasputin took over the army and proved unable to turn the tide, and largely ignored the advice of more experienced officers. Nicholas II also failed to draw the people behind him. His government promised an easy victory, that the Germans would fall before the "Russian Steamroller". Then, after Tannanburg, the Russian army was broken and soon in retreat. As a result, the people lost faith in their government and blamed Nicholas II for not only the defeats at the front but the losses suffered as well.

The poorness of Russia's road systems: Good roads were needed, not only to supply the army, but also to move food from places like the Ukraine to the major cities. Russia's roads and rail systems were poor and barely fuctioned before the war. With most of the men sent to the front to fight, there were no people to run Russia's transportation network, and over time, there were no farmers. With no food, the army and the people starved, which was soon blamed on the government which was not suffering in any visible way.

The Tsars ruled Russia with a firm hand. Men were killed, exiled, arrested, and tortured for various crimes against the state. This bread resentment of the Tsarist Government by the people who would soon turn to anyone speaking against the Tsar, and attempts on the life of the Tsar was nothing new by 1917.

Answer : The war which broke out in 1914 was considered as World war- 1 and not European war because of

(a) Participation and involvement: War was not confined to Europe, all colonies participated directly or indirectly in the war. Nations mobilized all their resources. Civilian population also participated in the war directly and indirectly, it was not a war in open between armies.

(b) Used Weapons and warfare: Many new weapons were used which were never seen before.

• British used Tanks.
• Aircrafts were used to bombard targets.
• Poison gas was used.
• Submarines were made use of.
• Machine guns had been used.
• Trench warfare set in.

(c) In terms of Impact: it impacted the world in all aspect of life that is political, economic and social. Its impact was not for the time being but far reaching.

• It set the tone of emergence of ideologies like Fascism and Nazism.
• It led to the great economic crisis of 1929.
• Emergence of USA as non European power.

Answer : It is a plan intended to ensure German victory over a Franco-Russian alliance by holding off Russia with minimal strength and swiftly defeating France by a massive flanking movement through the Low Countries, devised by Alfred, Count von Sch-lieffen in 1905.