Furthermore, increasing military spending meant that countries wanted to use their armies, and this idea is backed up by the ”use it or lose it” mindset. Alliances were formed to protect one another against possible future attacks, but ended up further increasing the tensions between the European powers as alliances were formed against other alliances. Imperialism meant that countries were already fighting over territory, and though it was far away from where these countries actually were, it severely increased the risk of war as the tensions between countries increased. Nationalism increased hostility as the propaganda war began and continued. Each country was frantically trying to prove that they were superior to all other countries, and in this process they often ended up making negative propaganda slandering other countries and their leaders.
The major pillar to the development of the Roman Empire was its military might. The Roman military is thought to be the most successful and powerful military in human history. Fiero (2013) stated, “Rome’s highly disciplined army was the backbone of the Empire”. The Roman army was extremely organized and knew how to adapt. The army had endurance to defend against invasions from their enemies and to expand the empire throughout the Western world.
The fact that there were two alliances had led countries to frame their foreign policies according to the situation in which they faced. An example of this was when the Franco-Russo Alliance was formed, which caused Germany to be in fear of encirclement. As a result, Germany evoked hostility amidst its neighbours. Thus, this demonstrates that the alliance system was a cause of WWI because it created unnecessary tensions throughout Europe – thus, a cause of WWI. Among the other problems of the alliance system were the expectations of the countries that had plunged into war.
In Europe at the time, there were many ideas which were causing friction. Nationalism, which was the desire for a country was causing friction because people in old empires sought to be free. The leaders of these people would not be happy and a war would definitely break out. If they became free they would also need to take land from someone else and this again may cause a war and usually did. Another idea which was contributing to the shifts of power in Europe was Militarism.
As Bruce so kindly points out, the Communist Revolution in China followed soon after, and, while it had little support from Europe, Mao and Stalin became close and they prospered from one another for a time. China was also forced into a system spawned by a far more Western train of thought than it was accustomed to – a system that, more often than not, was at war with Confucianism rather than utilizing it. Bruce implies that China and several surrounding countries are now basking in their own Confucianism and it is yielding enormous economic dividends. Yet again, Bruce fails to point out that there have been entire generations raised on an anti-Confucian doctrine. Though Chinese culture may yet have remnants of Confucianism so ingrained in it that no dictator, no matter how brutal, could stamp out, many Chinese don’t and, in all likelihood, won’t accept many of K’ung Fu-tzu’s ideas and teachings.
This was only the spark that started war in Europe; there were long term causes that contributed to the war and were the origins. This answer will explain the causes focusing on how they contributed to World War One and what the important links are between them. The Alliances not only contributed to war breaking out; it made the war last longer and become on a much larger scale; major political disputes would inevitably cause a large conflict. The alliances caused suspicion, fear, and tension among nations. The two camps were the Triple Entente (Britain, France and Russia) and the Triple Alliance (Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary).
Foreign Intervention did play a pivotal role in transforming China during this period. Throughout this essay I will be assessing the impact of foreign intervention through each of the leaders of China. Deng modernised the Chinese economy in a way that had never been seen making it one of the leading economies of the 20th century through the use of foreign influence but he made little political impact. Mao, on the other hand, damaged the economy greatly and his political reform means that his legacy still lives and he is still celebrated as one of the greatest leaders to date. Although not as prominent a figure, the political impact of Chiang cannot be ignored.
Xi Jinping, the newest president of China has already begun to address major issues that negatively impact China such as poverty, pollution, and corruption (Phillips). India, unfortunately has been doing little to change those three things that plague the nation. Their economy, on the other hand is a different story. India’s economic growth India’s economy is on the path to success, but for now, it’s still a developing country with a low literacy rate and large wealth
It had worked hard to become the dominant foreign bank in the country in expectation that the country's banking sector would be opened to all compe... ... middle of paper ... ...s well as the first international bank to launch two new investment products, Premium Accounts and Market Linked Accounts, in China (www.citigroup.com/citigroup/press/2005/050304a.htm.) While these were all significant developments, Citibank's pace of growth was non-existent in its Chinese operations. The regulatory changes that Citibank had expected never materialized and as a result, the bank was unable to offer the bulk of the services most important to profitability in China. REFERENCES "China: Citibank Opens New Consumer Bank Branch in Shenzen." Corporate press release, March 4, 2005.