Free Essay

Lloyd George in the Years 1918 to 1922

In: Historical Events

Submitted By weevyle
Words 2572
Pages 11
“He created the situation which led to his downfall in 1922.” “The Conservatives kept him in power only as long as they needed him.” Which view about Lloyd George in the years 1918 to 1922 is the more convincing?

Before analysing the separate statements it is perhaps rather prudent to look at a little bit of background as it could be argued that Lloyd George was already perfectly positioned to fall even before the 1918 election. It is important to keep in mind that Lloyd George was in a rather unique position of ‘a Prime Minister without a party’ due to the split of his own Liberal Party in 1916. This being the case, Lloyd George was always in a precarious position that could, in theory, be taken away in an instant should the Conservatives decide to do so. Should one subscribe to this idea then the former statement is made redundant immediately which inevitably makes the latter the more convincing case. However if one does not subscribe to such a belief then the situation becomes rather more complex. The Conservatives had not been in government on their own since 1905 and there was a severe lack of confidence in the party, even if they would have had a majority by proxy had they fought the election on their own (the Liberal party split had caused too much damage to the party and Labour wasn’t big enough to present a realistic threat). The general feeling had been summed up in 1918 by Arthur Balfour: “Our party, on the old lines, will never have any future again in this country”. Lloyd George could bring something new to the Conservatives. Nevertheless Lloyd George, it may be argued, was merely a ‘convenience’ for the Conservatives, who could pull the strings and have an easy scapegoat if and when things went wrong. Lloyd George would also serve to let the Conservatives ‘readjust’ themselves and gain back confidence before dropping him. Yet the converse could also hold true: this apparent dependency on Lloyd George could be taken as weakness as opposed to a shrewd political move. Yet the advantages of keeping Lloyd George outweighed the disadvantages, or at least, that was the opinion of the time. After the Great War had come to an end the stance was taken that the war would result in ‘a land fit for heroes’ and the general public consensus was that Lloyd George- ‘the man who won the war- embodied this. The subsequent Coupon Election (so-called after Lloyd George and Bonar Law signed statement of support coalition candidates received) seemed to entrench this idea with the majority of MPs wishing to remain in the coalition and the public voting overwhelmingly in favour of Lloyd George’s coalition (88% of MPs in the coalition were elected). In fact his dominance seemed so affirmed that a Liberal colleague went so far as to say, “the only thing the country listened to was what you said”. Some historians claim the election was essentially a plebiscite in favour of Lloyd George. However the circumstances were already being created for his downfall, regardless of the cosmetic appearance at first glance. It boils down to one simple fact: there was an excess of public optimism that created extremely high expectations- expectations that simply couldn’t be met due to Britain’s post-war condition. Lloyd George’s bold proclamations during the election that he would ‘make Germany pay’ and provide ‘homes fit for heroes’ only inflated such expectations. The simple fact was that Britain’s economy was in no shape to satisfy what the public wanted. While this factor was not created by Lloyd George personally, he may have been able to nullify the problem simply by demanding Britain’s money back. While Britain was heavily in debt to the US, she was actually owed more by other countries, especially Russia, than she owed to the US. Yet Lloyd George’s focus was on trade agreements and not debt collecting, thus leaving the country in debt and the economy ill-equipped to meet public expectation- a critical component one must have to win an election and absolutely critical that Lloyd George retain should he wish to stay in power. He needed to be an electoral asset to the Conservatives, thus leading Lloyd George to delegate no important tasts to colleagues: he wanted to be and be seen as personally successful. However it was a dangerous strategy and the corollary was every political success and failure would be regarded as his own. By June 1921 unemployment had rocketed to 2 million from around 300,000 in 1920. Lloyd George also didn’t help himself when it came to overseas competition. As a Liberal he believed in a free trade policy despite the majority of Conservatives calling for tariffs on foreign goods. Lloyd George’s plan was thus ‘Squandermania’ or, simply put, huge budget cut-backs. Lloyd George set up a committee headed by Eric Geddes and the ‘Geddes Axe’ pruned £64 million after departments had already cut £75 million from the budget. In 1922 government spending was cut by 12%. Farmers were hit the most by the campaign and lack of government support alienated their votes as well as around 40-50 MPs representing rural areas. Lloyd George’s housing scheme- headed by Addison- failed to produce ‘homes fit for heroes’, but ‘homes only heroes would agree to live in’ (the entire scheme was chopped by the Geddes Axe). This led to a decline in public opinion and Lloyd George’s position as an electoral asset to the Conservatives seemed to waver ever more. Despite avoiding a General Strike in 1921, around 86 million working days were lost in that year and relations with miner’s turned sour. In addition to increased demand from Trade Unions, Lloyd George’s handling of a workers’ strike in January 1919 was brutally excessive as crowds were baton-charged by police and later troops, lorries and tanks were sent in. This alarmed Tories who wanted to appeal to the working-class, not use militancy, in order to prevent Labour from rising. Such militancy was sustained when it came to Lloyd George’s initial stance on Ireland and many backbench Conservatives began to intensely dislike Lloyd George’s dictatorial style. Yet it wasn’t the violence that they disliked, it was the fact that Lloyd George compromised with Sinn Fein to only retain 6/9 Ulster counties. This outraged the Conservatives, who had even been called ‘the Unionist party’, as they saw Ireland as an integral part of Great Britain. A Tory MP was disgusted that “the man in power [in Ireland] is the man with the gun”. Even Bonar Law, arguably the most important man for Lloyd George to have on his side, admitted that “I doubt whether I would have voted for [the settlement” after seeing violence spark once more in Ireland. Lloyd George’s Irish policy seemed an obvious and costly failure. Lloyd George didn’t fare much better when it came to foreign policy which was a constant worry and distraction through the coalition’s lifespan. The 1919 Paris peace conference produced the infamous Treaty of Versailles that still splits opinion to this day. Indeed it was much the same for the contemporaries. In April 1919, 233 Conservative MPs signed a telegram expressing fears that the Treaty was too lenient. This idea was rather popular and was shown in Lord Northcliffe’s papers, The Times, and The Daily Mail. As if having the Conservative part of the coalition unimpressed with the Treaty wasn’t bad enough, the Liberal side branded the Treaty as too harsh and Maynard Keynes’s Economic Consequences Of The Peace made it fashionable in intellectual circles to condemn Treaty of Versailles and Lloyd George’s part in it. His policies didn’t work. After the lengthy Paris peace conference the Prime Minister attended 23 full-scale international conferences. Contemporaries called them his ‘circuses’ and one historian called them ‘meaningless gyrations’. He couldn’t overcome French resentment towards Germans or solve the problem of US isolation from world affairs. April 1922 saw the Genoa conference take place which aimed to sort out global economic affairs, rebuild central and eastern Europe, and negotiate a relationship between capitalism European economies and the newly formed USSR. Lloyd George hoped this conference would ‘restore his star to the zenith’ and pave the way for a successful general election, though it was ultimately counter-productive. The only result was disastrous: outcast nations USSR and Germany met and signed the Treaty of Rapallo. However possibly the most damaging foreign policy issue from Lloyd George, especially when it came to his delicate relationship with the Conservatives, was the Chanak crisis of 1922. Lloyd George helped negotiate the Treaty Of Sèvres with Turkey where most of Ottoman Empire was parcelled out between victorious powers of WWI. Settlement terms were so harsh it helped provoke a nationalist revolt against the Sultan. Army officer Mustapha Kemal set up a provincial government and began war of liberation with the aim of wresting Smyrna from Greeks. Britain’s ‘official’ stance was to back Greece, though they backed the loser. In August 1922 the Turkish massacred about 100,000 Greeks in Smyrna then pushed on. Chanak seemed to be in danger and a war against Turkey seemed possible. The public didn’t want way; they were already fatigued from WWI. The Daily Mail headline “Get Out Of Chanak” was an order for Lloyd George, not Kemal, and encapsulated the strong public opinion. But the PM was determined to stay. Lloyd George told commander General Harrington to present the Turks with an ultimatum to withdraw their forces. To some this was needlessly provocative and fortunately Harrington ignored the order, leading to an amicable settlement replacing Sèvres with the more moderate Treaty Of Lausanne. Chanak caused Lloyd George and the coalition much harm. His pro-Greek policy offended the traditional pro-Turk Conservative stance and the PM seemed to be recklessly risking war at a time of general war-weariness in Britain. Conservative and public opinion was summed up in a letter Bonar Law wrote to The Times: “We cannot act alone as policeman of the world”. Chanak occurred at crucial time: the Irish settlement appeared to be collapsing and now scandal erupted highlighting moral bankruptcy of Lloyd George’s regime. He was accused of selling knighthoods and peerages to supplement his own personal ‘political fund’. Such blatant disregard to the honours system appalled the Conservatives. In September 1921 Lloyd George called a Cabinet meeting in the Scottish Highlands to coincide with his holiday- highlighting his selfishness and annoying the Conservatives further. The PM seldom visited the House of Commons, leaked secret information to the press and Bonar Law claimed that if Lloyd George spoke freely for five minutes then he’d have to retire from public life. The key to Lloyd George’s success would, ultimately, hinge on the Tories. Despite being the PM, the Cabinet reflected the Conservative dominance in the government and the coalition. They controlled all of the major offices, thus held immense sway. The Conservative-Liberal links remaining for as long as they did could arguably all be attributed to one man: Bonar Law, aka, ‘the lynchpin’ of the coalition. Bonar Law and Lloyd George complemented each other and Baldwin went so far as to say they formed “the most perfect partnership in political history”. Bonar Law was an effective mediator between Lloyd George and Tory backbenchers, keeping both sides informed and, for the most part, co-operating. Some historians believe that Bonar law alone was the one who kept the Conservatives in the mind-set of ‘needing’ Lloyd George- never mind Lloyd George being dependent on the Conservatives; he was dependent on Bonar Law keeping the majority coalition party on side. Indeed, when Bonar Law resigned in May 1921, a severe blow was dealt to the PM and The Financial Times predicted “the beginning of the end of the coalition government”. Bonar Law’s replacement- Austin Chamberlain- was a poor communicator and was critical of Lloyd George (though he failed to communicate this to his backbenchers). Asquith likened the coalition under these two to a pair of scissors with only one blade. However it would perhaps be too much to blame Lloyd George’s failures and subsequent fall completely on Bonar Law’s leaving. It would be more apt to see this event as a speeding up of events. In fact it was the growing failures of Lloyd George- failing to deliver on promises, floundering hopelessly with foreign and imperial policy, alienating areas of the electorate, and failing to take Conservative opinion into account and acting more like a President- that led to the Conservatives realising they no longer needed him. In this sense the two statements cannot possibly be separated because one, in essence, caused the other to happen and vice versa. The honours scandal combined with the perceived warmongering of Lloyd George at Chanak (possibly in an attempt to force the right atmosphere to win an election) was the tipping point- and there was no Bonar Law to try and temper the disillusionment. On the 19th October 1922 Chamberlain called a meeting at the Carlton Club and argued that the Conservatives should stay in the coalition as the Tories were incapable of winning an election without it (failed to articulate he wouldn’t want Lloyd George remaining as PM though). His case was unconvincing and came at a time when an independent Conservative candidate had won a by-election in Newport, beating the coalition candidate and suggesting that the Conservatives could, in fact, go it alone as public opinion of the coalition was rapidly decreasing. Baldwin captured the general Conservative feeling towards Lloyd George: “A dynamic force is a very terrible thing… the Liberal party… has been smashed to pieces… the same thing will happen to our party [if we stay in the coalition and keep Lloyd George]”. Bonar Law’s subsequent speech, while praising the work Lloyd George had done, seemed to suggest that it was time for the Conservatives to move on and a motion to do just that carried overwhelmingly in favour, 187:87. As mentioned previously, it is impossible to separate the two statements from each other, though if we tried it may look like so: Lloyd George’s domestic policies had failed, leading to growing public discontent. Workers saw the dole as miserly and the middle class saw the taxation as excessive. In layman’s terms, the idea of an all-party coalition was no longer realistic. These reasons may contribute exclusively to the first statement, as they no longer made him an electoral asset. ‘Diehard’ Conservatives had been alienated by the supposed ‘softness’ of the Treaty of Versailles and were appalled at the Irish settlement. Conservative MPs for rural constituencies had been side-lined as farmers were suffering due to domestic policies and falling wheat prices. Coupled with Lloyd George’s stance on Chanak led to the Tories no longer needing him. Despite vast areas of manoeuvrability it is hard to deny that Lloyd George’s course was one mapped out by the Conservatives from the start, and that they would be the force that would ultimately undo him. The Conservatives would inevitably only keep Lloyd George for as long as they needed him- he was not one of their own, but a Liberal, after all- and Lloyd George’s own failings both on a personal, national and international level simply helped to facilitate the Conservatives getting rid of him sooner rather than later.

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Causes of World War Ii

...Allies drafted the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty itself was flawed due to the short time period it was drafted in and the opposing agendas of three main powers drafting it. The French premier, Georges Clemenceau saw this opportunity to protect France from any further conflict with Germany. David Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister, saw the need for a just and fair punishment for Germany but his main goal was to reestablish trade throughout Europe to ensure economic prosperity. The third main power was America. Woodrow Wilson’s goals were peace and self determination. His plan, The League Of Nations, was designed to unify Europe and prevent any future wars. As for his idea of self-determination Wilson thought that nations of multiple ethnic and religious groups should be able to choose their own political status without interference. French, British, and American leaders failed to create a strong and fair treaty after World War I. They failed to recognize each other’s interests and the interests of the rest of Europe. Despite troubling times in Europe, if they would have negotiated a stronger treaty, recognizing the interests of all European nations, strong and lasting democratic governments could have been established in Europe. German leaders signed the armistice on November 11, 1918. Quickly after the fighting stopped the Allied forces rushed to create a treaty. From the very beginning there was tension between the powers drafting the document, seemingly minuscule things...

Words: 1305 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Boom

...History Revision Peace-making and the League of Nations The French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau wanted Germany punished for all the humiliation France had suffered in the past. Clemenceau wanted Germany to pay for the cost of the War, the damage and also wanted guarantees that it would never happen again. He wanted the Rhineland to be handed over to France and Alsace-Lorraine to be returned. Large areas of France had been destroyed and everyone blamed it on Germany. Some French Politicians wanted Germany totally destroyed. However Great Britain had not suffered to the same degree as France had during the war, but Britain had to pay an enormous cost for victory. The British people expected Germany to pay for the effects of the war. When it came to the Treaty of Versailles, the British Prime Minister David Lloyd George didn’t want Germany to be punished too hard, but be allowed to recover. The USA had not suffered any damage during the war. The President of the USA Woodrow Wilson arrived in Europe in 1918. His aim was to keep World Peace and to ensure that war could never break out again. So he decided to come up with his ‘Fourteen points’, one which suggested to set up the League of Nations. The Treaty of Versailles was set up on the 28th of June 1919. The Germans were horrified with the Treaty as they considered it too harsh. They wanted to start another war, but it was impossible. The Germans expected that the Treaty would be based upon Woodrow Wilson’s ‘Fourteen points’...

Words: 1073 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

The Causes of the First World War

...The causes of the FIRST WORLD WAR 1_ The assassination at Sarajevo. (political murder) On 28th June Franz Ferdinand and his wife visited the Town of Sarajevo. The Archduke was the heir to the throne of the Empire of Austria-Hungary. As the car passed along the street, someone threw a bomb at it. The bomb bounced off the back of the car and exploded, injuring an officer in the car behind. The Archduke and his wife were unhurt. Later that day the Archduke said that he wanted to change his plans and visit the injured officer in hospital. He set off again by car, but the driver was not told the route had change. Some minutes later a man called Gavrilo Princip shot them and died. 2_ The great powers in 1914. If see the map the six most important and powerful countries in Europe were split into two armed groups. The triple Alliance. Central powers. Germany: was made up of many small states that had united and become one country only as recently as 1871. Otto von Bismarck, who was the Chancelor of the newly united Germany, firmly believed that all questions of the day could be solved by military strength by blood and iron. The stong national feeling in Germany and its wealth from industry made the Germans keen to play a leading part in world affairs. Kaiser Wilhelm II was impatient to make Germany the leading country in Europe. Austria-Hungary: the empire of Austria-Hungary was Germany´s oldest ally. German was the language of Government, but each group spoke its own language...

Words: 3793 - Pages: 16

Premium Essay

Ww1 and Female Suffrage: Help or Hindered?

...be ‘swept under the table’, so to say. During the war some 4 million women were employed in jobs previously done by men, whether this is from munitions factories and land girls, to the extent of secretarial and administration work following the invention of the typewriter and telephone. What is unusual about source 4, is the individual this source has come from. Asquith was a Liberal MP most infamous in fact, for his anti-female enfranchisement views. Now, post war Asquith does change his mind on the issue and goes onto support female suffrage, however at this point he was still believed to be against the cause. Perhaps Asquith has given this speech with the intention of regaining support after losing the Prime Minister post to David Lloyd George in 1916 during the coalition government, therefore this source although somewhat accurate, provides less weight for the argument the war helped the cause of women’s suffrage. However, source 6 challenges source 4 and presents the idea that in fact the war actually “obstructed votes for women” as according to this source it was seen that although women were taking over men’s previous jobs and even working within the armed forces themselves, they were...

Words: 1373 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Nep Development

...Soviets. Nevertheless, having made so much political capital out of the Provisional Government’s failure to call a Constituent Assembly throughout 1917, Lenin had no choice but to call elections immediately. For the Bolsheviks, the results were depressingly predictable: they gained barely a quarter of the available seats, whilst the SRs gained almost half.  Given his precarious position, Lenin’s response to this setback at first sight appears reckless: he contemptuously dissolved the Assembly, calling his action ‘true democracy’ because he knew the needs of the proletariat better than they did themselves. He then set up Soviets throughout the country in a desperate attempt to break the power of the SR-dominated Zemstvos. By the end of May 1918 Lenin felt confident enough to expel opposition parties from the Central Executive Committee and to declare that ‘our party stands at the head of soviet power. Decrees and measures of soviet power emanate from our party.’ Trotsky justified this by saying that ‘We have trampled underfoot the principles of...

Words: 3113 - Pages: 13

Premium Essay

The Ugly Americamn

...* “Sick Man” of Europe: 1914 This was a name given to the Ottoman's from the Europeans. It was based on the Ottoman's sultans inability to control the takeover of many states. It fails to recognize reform in the Ottoman's * “Stabbed in the Back”(1918): After germany lost the war the german people wanted someone to blame. Rhe german army believe they had been stabbed in the back by the Weimar Republic. This is because they were the politicians who signed the Armistice. Which made the known as the November ciminals. * “The White Man’s Burden” : The idea that Europeans have a duty/responsibility to help uncivilized nations. They thought that they were genetically superior to other races. They believed they were superior to the rest of the world previous to the idea of social Darwinism, but this new idea backed their thought. Since they believed themselves to be superior, they saw it as their right as Christians and superior humans to spread their modern and advanced ways with "inferior" races. * 14 Points: A detailed list of war aims presented by President Wilson: 1) Recognition of freedom of the seas 2) An end to the practice of making secret treaties 3) Reduction of national armaments 4) An "impartial adjustment of all colonial claims" 5) Self-determination for the various nationalities within the Austro-Hungarian empire. 6) "A general association of nations..for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity...

Words: 2515 - Pages: 11

Premium Essay

The Political Career of Winston Churchill

...served six British monarchs, from Queen Victoria to Elizabeth II. Through his life he was a statesman, soldier, author, journalist and twice prime minister, Churchill’s career has no parallel in modern history. The Early Years Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill was born at Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire, England, on November 30, 1874. His father, Lord Randolph Churchill, was a brilliant politician, even though he was one of the most hated. His mother was the American Jennie Jerome. One of his ancestors was John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, a great military hero. Winston Churchill himself showed no early signs of greatness. He was in fact a stubborn, unruly, manipulative, and often difficult red-haired boy and a poor student. He was also given to unpredictable behavior. Before he was even seven years old, it was already clear that he was headstrong, highly opinionated, and virtually impossible to control. He spent four years at Harrow School at the very bottom of his class. However during this time he showed that he had a remarkable memory similar to his father's. He particularly enjoyed English. From early childhood soldiers and warfare fascinated Churchill and he often played with a large collection of lead soldiers in his nursery. His later years at Harrow were spent preparing to enter the Royal Military College at Sandhurst. Young Churchill graduated eighth in his class, with honors. In early 1895 his father died. A few weeks later Churchill was commissioned as a...

Words: 6471 - Pages: 26

Premium Essay

Modern Ww1 Notes

...Course Study Notes: hsctutoringnotes@outlook.com MODERN HISTORY Topics World War One Germany Albert Speer The Cold War 1 Course Study Notes: hsctutoringnotes@outlook.com World War One Themes War on the Western Front Home Fronts in Britain and Germany Turning Points of the War The Allied Victory 2 Course Study Notes: hsctutoringnotes@outlook.com War on the Western Front Reasons for the development of the Stalemate A stalemate is an end of a war movement. It refers to the deadlock resulting from high levels of defence. The stalemate developed from four major reasons: i. The Faults of the Schlieffen Plan ii. The Faults of Plan XVII iii. Problems with Communications and Tactics iv. Problems with the High Command • The Faults in • There was an incredible reliance on speed – quick defeat of the France and a slow response by Russia Schlieffen • Unexpectedly strong resistance by Belgian forces – sabotaged Plan railway lines • Strong resistance from French • Troops were diverted from the West to the Eastern front • The “hammer swing” was shortened, so they approached Paris from the East which was expected • The Treaty of London was disregarded as a scrap of paper • Germans weren’t adequately trained for modern warfare strategies • The Faults in • French underestimated number of soldiers available to Plan XVII Germany • French were preoccupied with revenge for Alsace-Lorraine • Insufficient forces were given to the French...

Words: 20870 - Pages: 84

Premium Essay

World War 1

...About World War I "Total War I: The Great War" by John Bourne The First World War was truly ‘the Great War’. Its origins were complex. Its scale was vast. Its conduct was intense. Its impact on military operations was revolutionary. Its human and material costs were enormous. And its results were profound. The war was a global conflict. Thirty-two nations were eventually involved. Twenty-eight of these constituted the Allied and Associated Powers, whose principal belligerents were the British Empire, France, Italy, Russia, Serbia, and the United States of America. They were opposed by the Central Powers: Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Germany, and the Ottoman Empire. The war began in the Balkan cockpit of competing nationalisms and ancient ethnic rivalries. Hopes that it could be contained there proved vain. Expansion of the war was swift. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on 28 July 1914; Germany declared war on Russia on 1 August. Germany declared war on France on 3 August and invaded Belgium. France was invaded on 4 August. German violation of Belgian neutrality provided the British with a convenient excuse to enter the war on the side of France and Russia the same evening. Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia on 6 August. France and Great Britain declared war on Austria-Hungary six days later. The underlying causes of these events have been intensively researched and debated. Modern scholars are less inclined to allocate blame for the outbreak of war than...

Words: 7684 - Pages: 31

Premium Essay

Niotjin

...English statesman and author Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (1874-1965) led Britain during World War II and is often described as the "savior of his country." Sir Winston Churchill's exact place in the political history of the 20th century is, and will continue to be, a subject of debate and polemical writing. Where he succeeded, and how much he personally had to do with that success, and where he failed, and why, remain to be established. That he was a political figure of enormous influence and importance, belonging in many ways to an age earlier than the 20th century, and that he fitted uneasily into the constraints of British party politics until his moment came in 1940 are not in doubt. Until recently his reputation during the years from 1940 onward was scarcely questioned. But now historians are beginning to reassess his career in just the same way as Churchill himself tried to revise T. B. Macaulay's account of the Duke of Marlborough by writing a multivolumed Life of his distinguished ancestor (completed in 1938). Churchill's record both before 1939 and after 1945 was for the most part undistinguished. But as Anthony Storr writes: "In 1940 Churchill became the hero that he had always dreamed of being. … In that dark time, what England needed was not a shrewd, equable, balanced leader. She needed a prophet, a heroic visionary, a man who could dream dreams of victory when all seemed lost. Winston Churchill was such a man; and his inspirational quality owed its dynamic...

Words: 2123 - Pages: 9

Free Essay

Palestine

... Situated at a strategic location between Egypt, Syria and Arabia, and the birthplace of Judaism and Christianity, the region has a long and tumultuous history as a crossroads for religion, culture, commerce, and politics. The region has been controlled by numerous different peoples, including Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, the Sunni Arab Caliphates, the Shia Fatimid Caliphate, Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottomans, the British and modern Israelis and Palestinians. Boundaries of the region have changed throughout history, and were last defined in modern times by the Franco-British boundary agreement (1920) and the Transjordan memorandum of 16 September 1922, during the mandate period.[3] Today, the region comprises the State of Israel and Palestinian territories in which the State of Palestine was declared.[3] Contents [hide] 1 Etymology 2 History 2.1 Overview 2.2 Ancient period 2.3 Classical antiquity 2.4 Middle Ages 2.5 Modern period 3 Boundaries 4 Demographics 4.1 Early demographics 4.2 Late Ottoman and British Mandate periods 4.3 Current demographics 5 Modern...

Words: 5106 - Pages: 21

Free Essay

Research Paper - British Empire and American Imperialism

...To Baghdad 1917 to 2003 – Why is knowledge of the British Empire particularly relevant to the study of US relations and American Imperialism especially in the last twenty years? Emy Ibrahim Washington D.C. Public Policy Seminar-Research Paper April 17th, 2007 Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators. ... It is [not] the wish of [our] government to impose upon you alien institutions. ... [It is our wish] that you should prosper even as in the past, when your lands were fertile, when your ancestors gave to the world literature, science, and art, and when Baghdad city was one of the wonders of the world. ... It is [our] hope that the aspirations of your philosophers and writers shall be realized and that once again the people of Baghdad shall flourish, enjoying their wealth and substance under institutions which are in consonance with their sacred laws and their racial ideals.[1] The government of Iraq, and the future of your country, will soon belong to you. ... We will end a brutal regime ... so that Iraqis can live in security. We will respect your great religious traditions, whose principles of equality and compassion are essential to Iraq's future. We will help you build a peaceful and representative government that protects the rights of all citizens. And then our military forces will leave. Iraq will go forward as a unified, independent, and sovereign nation that has regained a respected place in the world. You...

Words: 8099 - Pages: 33

Premium Essay

Love

...The League of Nations In this module you will learn: The FOUR aims of the League of Nations [SIDE]. How many members the League had in 1919 and in the 1930s. The names of THREE countries who weren’t members of the League (and why). the four main members of the league. Four strengths of the League. THREE weaknesses of the League. FOUR powers of the League. EIGHT parts of the League’s organisation. NINE successes of the League in the 1920s. FOUR failures of the League in the 1920s. TWO failures of the League in the 1930s – and their effect on the League. SEVEN reasons why the League failed in the 1930s [WAS DUMB]. You must do the following written work: A spidergram showing the main aims of the League. Written notes on the League’s powers. Written notes on the League’s organisation. An essay: ‘How strong was the League of Nations?’ Written notes on the work done by the League. Written notes on Manchuria, 1931 Written notes on Abyssinia, 1935 A 35-word ‘last word’ comment on the League. Written answers to 15 questions on the League. Have you read: Peter Moss, History Alive 4, page 29. T Rea and J Wright, International Relations, chapter 4. Christopher Culpin, Making History, chapter 11. J Traynor and I Dawson, The Struggle for Peace, chapter 5. N deMarco and R Radway, The Twentieth Century, pages 148–155. | | |Source A | |The League of Nations ...

Words: 3023 - Pages: 13

Free Essay

Alevel History Spec

...AS LEVEL Specification HISTORY A H105 For first assessment in 2016 ocr.org.uk/alevelhistorya We will inform centres about any changes to the specification. We will also publish changes on our website. The latest version of our specification will always be the one on our website (ocr.org.uk) and this may differ from printed versions. Copyright © 2014 OCR. All rights reserved. Copyright OCR retains the copyright on all its publications, including the specifications. However, registered centres for OCR are permitted to copy material from this specification booklet for their own internal use. Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations is a Company Limited by Guarantee. Registered in England. Registered company number 3484466. Registered office:  Hills Road 1 Cambridge CB1 2EU. OCR is an exempt charity. Contents Introducing… AS Level History A (from September 2015) Teaching and learning resources iv Why choose an OCR AS Level in History A? 1 1a. Why choose an OCR qualification? 1 1b. Why choose an OCR AS Level in History A? 2 1c. What are the key features of this specification? 3 1d. 2 iii Professional Development 1 ii How do I find out more information? 3 4 2a. Overview of AS Level in History A (H105) 4 2b. Content of AS Level in History A (H105) 5 2c. Content of unit group 1: British period study and enquiry (Units Y131 to Y143) 8 2c. ...

Words: 21136 - Pages: 85

Free Essay

General Patton

...George Smith Patton, Jr. (November 11, 1885 – December 21, 1945) was a United States Army general, best known for his flamboyant character and his command of the Seventh United States Army, and later the Third United States Army, in the European Theater of World War II. Born in 1885 to a privileged family with an extensive military background, Patton attended the Virginia Military Institute, and later the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He participated in the 1912 Olympic Modern Pentathlon, and was instrumental in designing the M1913 "Patton Saber". Patton first saw combat during the Pancho Villa Expedition in 1916, taking part in America's first military action using motor vehicles. He later joined the newly formed United States Tank Corps of the American Expeditionary Forces and saw action in World War I, first commanding the U.S. tank school in France before being wounded near the end of the war. In the interwar period, Patton remained a central figure in the development of armored warfare doctrine in the U.S. Army, serving in numerous staff positions throughout the country. Rising through the ranks, he commanded the U.S. 2nd Armored Division at the time of the U.S. entry into World War II. Patton led U.S. troops into the Mediterranean theater with an invasion of Casablanca during Operation Torch in 1942, where he later established himself as an effective commander through his rapid rehabilitation of the demoralized U.S. II Corps. He commanded the Seventh Army during...

Words: 12444 - Pages: 50