Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of the First World War
Gandhi s idea on nationalism
Impact of the First World War
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of the First World War
World War I (WWI) changed the world forever. It brought the destruction of empires, the deaths of millions of people, the introduction of new weapons to wage war with, and created a desire for political independence amongst people in colonial nations. These desires resulted in movements across many of the Great Powers’ colonies after WWI. In The Wilsonian Moment, Erez Manela argues that President Woodrow Wilson’s rhetoric on self-determination created an opportunity for people under colonial occupation to seek their political freedom, and that the anticolonial movements that occurred after WWI were a response to this opportunity diminishing. Manela claims that a “Wilsonian moment” began when Wilson’s vision for the postwar world spread with …show more content…
As frameworks for the peace treaty became public, it was clear the leaders at the Paris Peace Conference would not grant the colonies self-determination. But that did not mean people in the colonies no longer wanted their political freedom. Manela states, “the period between 1917 and 1920 saw a sharp escalation or realignment of institutions and individuals that would play central roles in subsequent anticolonial struggles” (9). In Egypt, the imprisonment of Zaghlul led to the 1919 Revolution in March, which Egyptians of all classes participated in. Zaghlul was later released and led a delegation to the peace conference to bring Wilson’s attention to the Revolution and Egyptians’ desire for self-determination. Mahatma Gandhi advocated for nonviolent demonstrations in India in the years following WWI. Eventually, Gandhi became the leader of the Indian National Congress, which fought for India’s right to home-rule until it was finally granted in 1947. Mao Zedong, after participating in the May Fourth protests in China, felt like Wilsonian principles had failed the people of China and began to believe in the Bolshevist ideology from Russia. He would later lead the Chinese Communist Party to power after World War II. And in Korea, the March First movement, and movements amongst Koreans worldwide, were an attempt to try and get Wilson’s attention to their call for independence from Japan. Like Mao in China, Koreans would turn to Bolshevism in the years after WWI in the wake of Wilson’s failed vision. The Wilsonian moment might have failed, but it changed the way colonized people saw their relationship with their colonial power
In Todd Shepard’s work Voices of Decolonization, the featured documents provide keen insight into the geopolitical environment of the era of decolonization (1945-1965) and the external and internal pressures on the relationships between colonial nations and the territories that they held dominion over (Shepard 10). Decolonization is the result of a combination of national self-determination and the establishment of functional international institutions composed of independent sovereign nations united towards common goals. As decolonization progressed, it intersected with points of significant sociopolitical tension between colonies and the nations that colonized them. Some of these moments of tension came in the form of progressive ideals held by international agencies which colonial nations were allied with, the revolt of colonized populations against their standing government in favor of independence, and in moral and political conflicts that arose when decolonization takes a form unexpected or undesired by the primary agents of progressive international institutions.
...n and defeated, Wilson believed firmly that his vision of America leading a world community of nations would eventually be embraced by the American people. Twenty-five years later, the United Nations built its headquarters in New York, a tangible symbol of the bipartisan support that Wilsonian ideals had gained after a second world war. But Wilson's legacy was not confined to foreign policy. His progressive domestic programs helped stabilize and humanize a huge industrial system, and his success in making the presidency the intellectual and political leader of the American government enabled the United States to deal effectively with the challenges and threats of the modern world. But don't forget the credit of Roosevelt's "New Imperialism", it became the hallmark of American foreign policy in the new century, positioning America as the leader of the western alliance.
Woodrow Wilson was the 28th President of the United States and held the office from 1913-1921. He became known as “the Crusader” due to his foreign policy theory that America should be a beacon of liberty and aggressively pursue the spread of democracy throughout the world. His policy would enable America to prosper economically and develop an international security community through the promotion of democracy in other nations. While former Secretary of State Kissinger writes in his book Diplomacy that 20th century American foreign policy has been driven by Wilsonian idealism, an analysis of 21st century US foreign policy reveals that, in fact, US foreign policy has been influenced by ideals that can be characterized as Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, and Jacksonian as well.
In his book, “Woodrow Wilson Revolution, War, and Peace” by Arthur Link, Link walks step by step through President Woodrow Wilson’s career beginning from the time he was born and focuses on his role during and after World War I. Through his entire book, Link acts as an apologist for the actions of Wilson as well as argues against the opinions of other historians. Link speaks about Wilson almost as if he idolizes him; as if despite what other historians and public opinion might say that he can do no wrong.
As a leader, they unified the country, getting the masses of people involved in the resistance towards foreign forces. However, their methods were quite different. Gandhi proposed a non-violence resistance, well-known as “satyagraha” against the British government, defying the rule of colonial government. As shown in the Great Salt March, he was definitely opposed to any violent conflicts with any parties, including the British. More importantly, aiming at obtaining independence from the British so as to assist the people to be spiritually mature to make sure that they genuinely believed in “satyagraha”, Gandhi saw himself as spiritual leader and serving for the moral truth was his ultimate end. However, for Ho, violent ways were used to fight for the independence of Vietnam. Combining communism and nationalism, he was persistent in fighting with the invaders. Different from Gandhi’s ultimate aim of searching for truth, Ho merely wanted a united Vietnam that he was willing to accept aid from other
The progressive era was a period of social activism and political reform in the United States. The political climate was ripe for reform and America was seeking leaders who could provide a new, more beneficial direction. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were two of the most renowned presidents of this era. One kindred goal of both of these presidents was to monitor and rectify large trust and monopolies in the U.S. Despite the fact that Wilson and Roosevelt’s domestic policies were correlative of each other, their foreign policies were very different from one another. Roosevelt tended to become more involved with foreign events. On the other hand, Wilson favored remaining impartial in foreign affairs. Wilson didn’t want to become entangled in World War 1 until the United States had been directly stricken.
It’s impossible to argue that the effects of World War One were devastating for all parties involved. Unfortunately the reason for the wars inception is not as transparent as its resulting destruction. This “Popular Amnesia regarding World War One” has been attempted to be unraveled by historians for decades resulting in multiple theories and explanations. The European imperial expansion that took place in the late 19th century and the tensions it created has been credited by many historians as a cause for World War One .This essay will examine the role that imperialism played in the lead up to the war, as well as the alliances that were formed as a result of the rivalries between European states.
Mohandas Gandhi and Mao Zedong were two great leaders who succeeded in many ways by their actions and decisions. Gandhi was an Indian leader and Mao a Chinese leader. However, their approach to success, peace, and ultimately, a revolution, was very different. Mao favored peace through violence, and Gandhi favored peace through non-cooperation and standing up for what is right. He also believed that these changes will be accomplished by “conscious suffering”, was the way he put it. However, despite their differences, these two leaders were similar too. They were both very charismatic leaders who successfully made it through their revolutions. Mao’s revolution led to change in class structure while Gandhi’s revolution involved India as a country, and he wanted people to realize that working together is a great way to gain independence. While Mao and Gandhi both believed that each of their countries have the need of independence, their views differed when it came to the use of violence, development towards the revolution, and their thoughts on a caste system.
World War I, also known as “The Great War”, was a global war that revolved mainly around Europe. It took place from 1914 to 1918. This was a very brutal war that caused many casualties. The soldiers who survived experienced severe trauma and mental discomfort. This trauma was a direct result of the violence and agony they experienced during the war. Motivation for this war was the idea of nationalism and the pride in one’s country. This war was the cause of disillusionment among many of the soldiers that were involved in it.
President Woodrow Wilson had hopes for a New World. For Wilson, the war had been fought against autocracy. A peace settlement based on liberal-democratic ideals, he hoped, would get rid of the foundations of war. None of Wilson's hopes seemed better than the idea of self-determination -- the right of a people to have its own state, free of any foreign domination. In particular, this goal meant the return of Alsace and Lorraine to France which had been lost to Germany in the Franco-Prussian war, the creation of an independent Poland, the changing of the frontiers of Italy to include Austrian lands where Italians lived, and an opportunity for Slavs of the Austro- Hungarian Empire to form their own states.
The war of independence is thought to have been a war of revolution. It is not, it is the breaking of colonial rule. It was based on politics and a separation of powers. In my paper I will go from the start of a rising discontentment amongst the indigenous population and how those above them exploit the failures for their own gain in a system where they have always been favored more over.
Introduction: The epoch of imperialism cannot be defined simply as a proliferation of inflated egos tied to the hardened opinions of nationalists, but also a multi-faceted global rivalry with roots of philosophies tainted with racism and social Darwinism. The technique of each imperialist was specific to the motivations and desires of each combative, predominantly Western power and subsequently impacted the success of each imperialist and its colonies. Driven by industrialization, Europeans are aware of the urgent need for raw materials and new markets to maintain a constant rate of expansion and wealth. Imperialism became a competition; in general, the European countries led with fervor while the non-Western regions deemed likely to be stepped on.
The Wilson Administration.? 2002. The 'Secondary' of the U.S. History. - U.S. History. 22 November 2004.
Lastly, Gandhi continued to struggle with the satyagraha belief and was willing to devote his time on demanding the British to “quit India.” However, despite being imprisoned for this campaign, Gandhi aroused upheaval from the Indians who insisted the British to remove Gandhi from captivity. After the execution of the Salt March, the events that followed supported Gandhi’s philosophy on the satyagraha movement and further brought India closer to its independence from the British colonization. Works Cited Furbee, Mary and Mike Furbee. The Importance of Mohanda Gandhi.
Gandhi’s speech on the eve of his historic march on March 11, 1930, was intended as his last speech to his followers. He highlighted what his followers should do in the event that he was arrested for his crimes. They were to continue to try to attain Swaraj (self-governance, i.e. the country rules itself) with non-violence and truth. Instead of violence, he wanted them to cause civil disobedience by breaking small laws, such as owning and selling illegal salts, as well as purchasing or making them. He wanted the employees of the Government (British rule in India) to stop working in protest, in an attempt to undermine it. Gandhi asked for the taxpayers, and all who were cooperating with the Government to stop cooperating, doing things such as not sending their children to public schools or keeping titles. He also asked for them to have self-confidence in the goal of Swaraj, and to become leaders, while stressing non-violence and truth. Gandhi also asked his followers to continue to follow local leaders; to ensure that leadership at all levels in India was not changed all at once. At the end of his speech Gandhi tells his followers that is they are always truthful and non-violent while trying to make India self-governing, they will always be victorious, even if