The Foreign Policy Failures of British Governments, 1959 to 1964

The National Government were successful in some aspects of softening the blow in Britain. Faced with a steep decline in international trade the; partly due to America’s protectionist tariffs

about the many unjustified things the British did and also the “The establishment of an absolute

The year was 1940; the world’s second great World War was in full swing, with Britain and Germany at the forefront. The fall of Britain’s closest ally, France, stunned the British Empire and threw it into disarray. Through the chaos, Winston Churchill emerged. Churchill would be an inspiring leader who was able to rally the entire nation in times of hardship. Through his leadership, the “British Bulldog” would face the Axis powers and come out victorious, as well as become a public hero for the British people. Yet, immediately after the war, Churchill did not return to the prime minister seat because of a shocking defeat in his re-election, despite his immense reputation he gained from the war. Though lauded by the British population for his prowess as a wartime leader, Churchill’s conservative politics were out of touch with a population ready for post-war relief and led to his defeat in the 1945 election.

By the early twentieth century the Liberal Government was worried that Britain’s military capability and general military power was not as strong and it once was. Therefore, the Government’s concern over national security definitely influenced the decision for the reforms. However, there are three main factors that also need to be taken into account when deciding if concern over national security was the real reason for the reforms: the Social reasons, concerns for Britain’s Empire and the Political motive. The Social reasons played a large part in persuading the Liberals to reform. The detailed reports of Booth and Rowntree, and the evidence which was brought to light, highlighted that nearly a 1/3 of Britain’s population lived in

Since Britain was fighting two wars at once, on in Europe against Napoleon and one in North America against the United States, they were in desperate

Over the years 1930 through 1941 the goals of American foreign policy generally changed. In the earlier years America dealt with war and fought with other countries. America was not very smart in learning to stay out of war. Over the years, America became more neutral and attempted to stay out of war as much as possible. Throughout the years, important figures wrote documents to support America’s journey and decisions.

“It is true; democracy, votes for men and votes for women, making slow but certain progress in 1914, have suddenly become established facts in many lands in 1917. Already our one-time Mother Country has become the standard bearer of our Americanisms, the principles she once denied, and—cynical fact—Great Britain, not the United States, is now leading the world on to the coming democracy. Any man who has red American blood in his veins, any man who has gloried in our history and has rejoiced that our land was the leader of world democracy, will share with us the humbled national pride that our country has so long delayed action upon this question that another country has beaten us in what we thought was our especial world mission.” (Catt, 1917)

To begin, Great Britain had a total of 12,740,000 miles of land in the year 1913, a year before World War One began. The closest country to Great Britains size was France with 4,440,000 miles of land. Great Britain was very confident and would try to overpower many nations, causing problems. (Document F) In 1917, Germany became upset with Great Britain because they were practicing imperialism. Germany created a cartoon symbolizing how they felt Great Britain was taking over the world. (Document E) Also, Germany was angry with Great Britain because they took over the seas. The seas were a necessity for every country to be able to trade during the war and still make a profit and receive military aid too. (Document E) By practicing imperialism, lines are crossed, causing problems that lead to World War

If we were to argue that there was indeed a post war consensus in British politics from 1951 to

After earning his master’s degree and Ph. D from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Famous historian William Appleman Williams of Atlantic, Iowa, wrote the book, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy in response to the rampant changing things happening around him. Enraged, Williams’ addresses several points with foreign policy being the main one. He encompasses several themes throughout his book such as American capitalism, the failure of American liberalism, and the Open door notes. These themes help convey his view on the matters at hand, which for a lack of a better term was pissed. Quite frankly, Williams’ gets straight to the point without being around the bush with his extremely biased views by going into depth about America’s morbid foreign policy.

On 2 April 1982, the British political system was rocked by news of an extraordinary event eight thousand miles away in the South Atlantic. A long-standing and thorny dispute with Argentina over sovereignty of the Falkland Islands – a tiny relic of empire proximate to the South American mainland – had erupted with a sudden and unprovoked invasion of British territory by Argentine forces. Britain’s Conservative government faced the greatest crisis in foreign affairs for a generation (Freedman, 1988). Behind this audacious Argentine manoeuvre laid the assumption that the British Government – struggling with union strife, plunging

During the Cold War from 1946 to 1990 the United States had formed a policy called the containment policy which was adopted by President Harry Truman. The containment policy was a doctrine uniting military, economic, and diplomatic strategies to turn back communism and to insure that America would hold the leading role in world affairs.

Since International Relations has been academically studied Realism has been the dominant theory of world politics. The theory’s inability to explain the end of the Cold War, however, brought strength and momentum to the Liberalism theory. Today Realism and Liberalism are the two major paradigms of International Relations. The aforementioned theories focus on the international system and the external factors that can lead to two phenomena - conflict and cooperation. Realism believes that as a result of anarchy and the security dilemma, conflict is inevitable. Liberalism argues that this conflict can be overcome through cooperative activities amongst states and international organizations. This paper will explore as well as compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of both theories. It will also debate which of the two theories is more valuable in the

In order to fully understand how Britain’s decision to go to war against Germany is best explained one must engage into the debate revolving around the question of the extent to which Britain and other countries were responsible for causing war. This helps explain the intention Britain had for war which is vital in understanding their decision making process to cause war in the first place. Some schools of thought have come to the conclusion that it was everybody or nobody- the continent “slithered over the brink into the boiling cauldron of war without any trace of apprehension or dismay.”1 That analysis will be considered in this essay as will the widespread thesis that it was Germany’s aggression which not only created the preconditions for war, but also triggered Britain into war with the political imbalance of power being created from the growing naval and colonial expansion of Germany. Other factors that help explain why Britain went to war against Germany

In examining Kenneth Waltz 's “Structural Realism after the Cold War,”1 and Andrew Moravcsik 's “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,”2 it is clear that theories presented in each (Realism and Liberalism) are at odds with one another in many ways. But why did the authors reach the conclusions they did about the way that states behave in the international system? This paper seeks to answer that question.