History questions?

Question

please provide sources or be sure you remember the right stuff =)
1.What is the british colony of India called?
2.What is the term that relates to the idea of government control over every aspect of public and private life?
3.What is Laissez Faire?
4.Who was Otto von Bismarck?
5.Which country(state) was the first to establish a democracy?
6.What are the effects of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima?
7.In which country did the Industrial Revolution take place _FIRST_?

because i need help...

Answer 1

1) I am not sure but I believe it was East Indies
2) Totalitarianism
3) Study French!! "Laissez-faire" means let do basically it's a hands off policy. It occurs when a country's interest is in nonintervention.
4) Otto von Bismarck, chancellor of Prussia then later on of the German Empire. He was the mastermind of the unification of all the German states and later created a diplomatic system in Europe ("Bismarck system") that was favorable to Germany and aimed to avoid a Franco-Russian alliance. He had the idea of the Franco prussian war of 1870-1871 won by Germany. After Wilhem I emperor, died, his son Wilhem II, an arrogant idiot, fired Bismarck. The German hero died a few lyears later.
5) I would argue that it is France. However, if you are in the UK, your teachers will probably tell you it's Britain. Why France? Republic was created for the first time in 1792. It was also the first country to use universal suffrage in 1848. The UK was a monarchy that was not quite constitutionnal until the early 1900s and the US was not a real democracy since poor people couldn't vote.
6)Several thousand dead immediately, hundreds of thousands with the radiations. It forced Japan to consider surrending immediately (another bomb was dropped on Nagasaki 3 days later to convince them better). Humanity then understood the powerful tool of destruction that it had itself created which had an important impact on modern philosophy.
7)Britain the IR started around 1780 and then accelerated dramatically after 1815

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

Who

Answer 4

im happy you're right here , too. my 1st Q grew to become into : How am i able to upload a image next to my call it is Moonrise ? i didnt get a finished answer , so i havent located a image , and positioned an avatar particularly ! later , i grew to alter into confident of no longer putting my image !

Answer 5

7. I think it was Holland
6. too much to write
5. ancient greece, athens
4. creator of german empire and first chancellor
3. government policy of economic non-intervention (french. let do)
2. can't remember, I know it but...
1. Don't know

Answer 6

Why?

Answer 7

huh?

Answer 8

1.The British Raj (known from 1911 as the Indian Empire) was the period during which most of the Indian subcontinent, or present-day India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Burma, were under the colonial authority of the British Empire (Undivided India). Since the independence of these countries their pre-independent existence has been loosely termed British India, although prior to Independence that term referred only to those portions of the subcontinent under direct rule by the British administration in Delhi and previously Calcutta. Much of the territory under British sway during this time was not directly ruled by the British, but were nominally independent Princely States which were directly under the rule of the Maharajas, Rajas, Thakurs and Nawabs who entered into treaties as sovereigns with the British monarch as their feudal superior. Aden was part of "British India" from 1839, as was Burma from 1886; both became separate crown colonies of the British Empire in 1937. It lasted from 1858, when the rule of the British East India Company was transferred to the Crown, until 1947, when pre-independence India was partitioned into two sovereign states, India and Pakistan. Although Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) is peripheral to the Indian subcontinent, it is not counted part of the Raj, as it was ruled as a Crown Colony from London rather than by the Viceroy of India as a part of the Indian Empire. French India and Portuguese India consisted of small coastal enclaves governed by France and Portugal, respectively; they were integrated into India after Indian independence

2.Totalitarianism is a typology employed by political scientists, especially those in the field of comparative politics, to describe modern regimes in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior.

3.Laissez-faire (lɛse fɛr) or laisser-faire is short for "laissez faire, laissez aller, laissez passer," a French phrase meaning "let do, let go, let pass." from the French diction first used by the eighteenth century Physiocrats as an injunction against government interference with trade, it became used as a synonym for strict free market economics during the early and mid-19th century. It is generally understood to be a doctrine opposing economic interventionism and taxation by the state beyond that which is perceived to be necessary to maintain peace, security, and property rights.

In the early stages of European and American economic theory, laissez-faire economic policy was usually contrasted to mercantilist economic policy, which had been the dominant system of the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, France and other European countries, during their rise to power.

The term laissez-faire is often used interchangeably with the term "free market." Some may use the term laissez-faire to refer to "let do, let pass" attitude for concepts in areas outside of economics.1 Laisser-faire is associated with classical liberalism and libertarianism. It was originally introduced in the English language world in 1774, by George Whatley, in the book "Principles of Trade." Classical economists, such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo, did not use the term—Bentham did, but only with the advent of the Anti-Corn Law League did the term receive much of its present meaning.

4.Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck (April 1, 1815 – July 30, 1898) was one of the most prominent European aristocrats and statesmen of the nineteenth century. As Minister-President of Prussia from 1862 to 1890, he engineered the unification of the numerous states of Germany. From 1867 on, he was Chancellor of the North German Confederation. The latter was enlarged in 1871 to the German Empire, as the first Chancellor of which Bismarck served until 1890. He is nicknamed the Iron Chancellor ("der Eiserne Kanzler"). He was made the Count of Bismarck-Schönhausen in 1865, and in 1871 became Prince (Fürst) of Bismarck. In 1890 he was also made the Duke of Lauenburg. The ducal title, which he received upon his dismissal from office, he refused initially only to later accept, which was the highest rank of the non-sovereign nobility, and was styled Serene Highness.

A Junker, Bismarck held deep conservative, monarchist and aristocratic views. His most significant political objective was that of turning Prussia into the most powerful state within the German Confederation. He took advantage of his great skills in the field of diplomacy and led two wars to achieve this goal. After that, Bismarck broke France's supremacy over continental Europe in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870.

It was only with reluctance that Bismarck had accepted the idea of uniting Germany. However, from 1871 onwards, Bismarck carefully built the external security of the new German state upon his skillful diplomacy, which isolated France internationally and created a vast and complex system of alliances for mutual military support with most of Europe's nations. In the role of an 'honest broker', Bismarck was also successful in maintaining peace and stability in Europe by settling arising political conflicts through negotiations. Essentially a cautious politician, Bismarck never pursued an imperialistic course in Europe. In Africa, however, Bismarck followed a policy of imperial conquest, in a manner similar to the other European powers.

In the area of domestic policies, Bismarck was less successful. In the Kulturkampf, he wrested some important cultural powers away from the Protestant and Roman Catholic Church. Bismarck's Sozialistengesetze failed to suppress the labour movements but made him appear as a reactionary, a reputation he partially refuted with the new and generous social reform and welfare legislation he enacted.

Emperor Wilhelm I died in 1888 and his successor, Emperor Friedrich III, succumbed to cancer the same year. The crown finally went to 29-year old Emperor Wilhelm II who disliked Bismarck personally and forced him to resign all his political offices in 1890.

Personally, Bismarck was a celebrated entertainer who greatly appreciated funny stories and wordplay. Other than his native German, he was fluent in English, French, Russian, Polish — and a diplomat of excellent manners and politeness. His friends were chosen independent of origin, creed, or political beliefs, with the exclusion of socialists and social democrats, whom he despised. Bismarck loved good food and drink and had a tendency to indulge in both excessively. His most important tool in politics was his talent in successfully planning complex international developments.

5.Athenian democracy is the earliest well-documented democratic system, and the word democracy was coined in Ancient Greece in the 5th century BC. Records are intermittent from the time before this era, although there is contemporary documentation from Chios, probably from 575-550 BC, of a council and assembly. It appears that political rights were gradually expanded from a small group of landed aristocracy to eventually all eligible males who had completed mandatory military training, usually at the age of 20.

In Athens, political rights, or citizenship, were not granted to the entire population but only to a part of it. Women, slaves, and metics were not citizens, leading to estimates that the Athenian democracy included around one tenth or less of the Athenian population. In theory, all Athenian citizens were eligible to speak and vote in the Assembly, which set the laws of the city-state. In reality, many citizens who lived outside of the city (but rather in the surrounding villages) would have had a hard time attending Assembly sessions regularly. The Athenian democracy is considered today to have been a form of direct democracy, although Athens also had government offices, with officials mostly selected by sortition rather than election. Athenian democracy was effectively ended by the city's defeat by the Macedonians who abolished it in 323 BC.

6.The Effects of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima



The United States military conducted extensive investigations of the effects the atomic bomb had on the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Excerpted here are selections from that survey. Note the physical destruction, the human casualties, and the effects on morale wrought by the bomb.



A single atomic bomb, the first weapon of its type ever used against a target, exploded over the city of Hiroshima at 0815 on the morning of 6 August 1945. Most of the industrial workers had already reported to work, but many workers were enroute and nearly all the school children and some industrial employees were at work in the open on the program of building removal to provide firebreaks and disperse valuables to the country. The attack came 45 minutes after the "all clear" had been sounded from a previous alert. Because of the lack of warning and the populace's indifference to small groups of planes, the explosion came as an almost complete surprise, and the people had not taken shelter. Many were caught in the open, and most of the rest in flimsily constructed homes or commercial establishments.

The bomb exploded slightly northwest of the center of the city. Because of this accuracy and the fiat terrain and circular shape of the city, Hiroshima was uniformly and extensively devastated. Practically the entire densely or moderately built-up portion of the city was leveled by blast and swept by fire. A "fire-storm," a phenomenon which has occurred infrequently in other conflagrations, developed in Hiroshima: fires springing up almost simultaneously over the wide fiat area around the center of the city drew in air from all directions. The inrush of air easily overcame the natural ground wind, which had a velocity of only about 5 miles per hour. The "fire-wind" attained a maximum velocity of 30 to 40 miles per hour 2 to 3 hours after the explosion. The "fire-wind" and the symmetry of the built-up center of the city gave a roughly circular shape to the 4.4 square miles which were almost completely burned out.

The surprise, the collapse of many buildings, and the conflagration contributed to an unprecedented casualty rate. Seventy to eighty thousand people were killed, or missing and presumed dead, and an equal number were injured. The magnitude of casualties is set in relief by a comparison with the Tokyo fire raid of 9-10 March 1945, in which, though nearly 16 square miles were destroyed, the number killed was no larger, and fewer people were injured.

The impact of the atomic bomb shattered the normal fabric of community life and disrupted the organizations for handling the disaster. In the 30 percent of the population killed and the additional 30 percent seriously injured were included corresponding proportions of the civil authorities and rescue groups. A mass flight from the city took place, as persons sought safety from the conflagration and a place for shelter and food. Within 24 hours, however, people were streaming back by the thousands in search of relatives and friends and to determine the extent of their property loss. Road blocks had to be set up along all routes leading into the city, to keep curious and unauthorized people out. The bulk of the dehoused population found refuge in the surrounding countryside; within the city the food supply was short and shelter virtually nonexistent.

The status of medical facilities and personnel dramatically illustrates the difficulties facing authorities. Of more than 200 doctors in Hiroshima before the attack, over 90 percent were casualties and only about 30 physicians were able to perform their normal duties a month after the raid. Out of 1,780 nurses, 1,654 were killed or injured. Though some stocks of supplies had been dispersed, many were destroyed. Only three out of 45 civilian hospitals could be used, and two large Army hospitals were rendered unusable. Those within 3,000 feet of ground zero were totally destroyed, and the mortality rate of the occupants was practically 100 percent.

1. Casualties. -- The most striking result of the atomic bombs was the great numbers of casualties. The exact number of dead and injured will never be known because of the confusion after the explosions. Persons unaccounted for might have been burned beyond recognition in the falling buildings, disposed of in one of the mass cremations of the first week of recovery, or driven out of the city to die or recover without any record remaining. No sure count of even the pre-raid populations existed .... In this uncertain situation, estimates of casualties have generally ranged between 100,000 and 180,000 for Hiroshima, and between 50,000 and 100,000 for Nagasaki. The Survey believes the dead at Hiroshima to have been between 70,000 and 80,000, with an equal number injured; at Nagasaki over 35,000 dead and somewhat more than that injured seems the most plausible estimate.

Most of the immediate casualties did not differ from those caused by incendiary or high-explosive raids. The outstanding difference was the presence of radiation effects, which became unmistakable about a week after the bombing. At the time of impact, however, the causes of death and injury were flash burns, secondary effects of blast and falling debris, and burns from blazing buildings ....

The seriousness of... radiation effects may be measured by the fact that 95 percent of the traced survivors of the immediate explosion who were within 3,000 feet suffered from radiation disease.



. . . Some of the dead were said by survivors to have had their abdomens ruptured and intestines protruding; others were reported to have protruding eyes and tongues, and to have looked as if they had drowned. Thorough check by Allied investigators discredited these stories as evidence of direct blast effects; the normal effects of blast are internal hemorrhage and crushing. These external signs point to injuries from debris rather than blast.

Injuries produced by falling and flying debris were much more numerous, and naturally increased in number and seriousness nearer the center of the affected area .... There is no doubt that the bomb was the most important influence among the people of these areas in making them think that defeat was inevitable ....

Admiration for the bomb was more frequently expressed than anger. Over one-fourth of the people in the target cities and surrounding area said they were impressed by its power and by the scientific skill which underlay its discovery and production.

... The two raids were all-Japan events and were intended so: The Allied Powers were trying to break the fighting spirit of the Japanese people and their leaders, not just of the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ....

The reactions found in the bombed cities appeared in the country as a whole--fear and terror, anger and hatred against the users, admiration for the scientific achievement--though in each ease with less intensity.

[The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, The Effects of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946), pp. 3, 6, 15, 17-18, 21]

7. The First Industrial Revolution took place in Britain and spread throughout the rest of Europe.

The Industrial Revolution was the major technological, socioeconomic and cultural change in late 18th and early 19th century that began in Britain and spread throughout the world. During that time, an economy based on manual labour was replaced by one dominated by industry and the manufacture of machinery. It began with the mechanisation of the textile industries and the development of iron-making techniques, and trade expansion was enabled by the introduction of canals, improved roads and then railways. The introduction of steam power (fuelled primarily by coal) and powered machinery (mainly in textile manufacturing) underpinned the dramatic increases in production capacity.[1] The development of all-metal machine tools in the first two decades of the 19th century facilitated the manufacture of more production machines for manufacturing in other industries.

The period of time covered by the Industrial Revolution varies with different historians. Eric Hobsbawm held that it 'broke out' in the 1780s and wasn't fully felt until the 1830s or 1840s[2], while T.S. Ashton held that it occurred roughly between 1760 and 1830 (in effect the reigns of George III, The Regency, and George IV)[3].

The effects spread throughout Western Europe and North America during the 19th century, eventually affecting most of the world. The impact of this change on society was enormous and is often compared to the Neolithic revolution, when various human subgroups embraced agriculture and in the process, forswore the nomadic lifestyle[4].

The first Industrial Revolution merged into the Second Industrial Revolution around 1850, when technological and economic progress gained momentum with the development of steam-powered ships and railways, and later in the nineteenth century with the internal combustion engine and electrical power generation. At the turn of the century, innovator Henry Ford, father of the assembly line, stated, "There is but one rule for the industrialist, and that is: Make the highest quality goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible."

It has been argued that GDP per capita was much more stable and progressed at a much slower rate until the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of the modern capitalist economy, and that it has since increased rapidly in capitalist countries.[5]





[edit]
The idea and the name
The term 'Industrial Revolution' applied to technological change was common in the 1830s. Louis-Auguste Blanqui in 1837 spoke of la révolution industrielle. Friedrich Engels in The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 spoke of "an industrial revolution, a revolution which at the same time changed the whole of civil society".

The radical nature of the process had been noted before that, in his book Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society Raymond Williams states in the entry for Industry: The idea of a new social order based on major industrial change was clear in Southey and Owen, between 1811 and 1818, and was implicit as early as Blake in the early 1790s and Wordsworth at the turn of the century.

Credit for popularising the term may be given to Arnold Toynbee, whose lectures given in 1881 gave a detailed account of the process.

[edit]
Causes
The causes of the Industrial Revolution were complex and remained a topic for debate, with some historians seeing the Revolution as an outgrowth of social and institutional changes brought by the end of feudalism in Britain after the English Civil War in the 17th century. As national border controls became more effective, the spread of disease was lessened, therefore preventing the epidemics common in previous times. The percentage of children who lived past infancy rose significantly, leading to a larger workforce. The Enclosure movement and the British Agricultural Revolution made food production more efficient and less labour-intensive, encouraging the surplus population who could no longer find employment in agriculture into cottage industry, for example weaving, and in the longer term into the cities and the newly-developed factories. The colonial expansion of the 17th century with the accompanying development of international trade, creation of financial markets and accumulation of capital are also cited as factors, as is the scientific revolution of the 17th century.

Technological innovation protected by patents (by the Statute of Monopolies 1623) was, of course, at the heart of it and the key enabling technology was the invention and improvement of the steam engine[6].

The presence of a large domestic market should also be considered an important catalyst of the Industrial Revolution, particularly explaining why it occurred in Britain. In other nations, such as France, markets were split up by local regions, which often imposed tolls and tariffs on goods traded amongst them.[7]

[edit]
Causes for occurrence in Europe
One question of active interest to historians is why the Industrial Revolution started in 18th century Europe and not other times like in Ancient Greece[2], which already had developed a primitive steam engine, and other parts of the world in the 18th century, particularly China and India.

Numerous factors have been suggested, including ecology, government, and culture. Benjamin Elman argues that China was in a high level equilibrium trap in which the non-industrial methods were efficient enough to prevent use of industrial methods with high costs of capital. Kenneth Pomeranz, in the Great Divergence, argues that Europe and China were remarkably similar in 1700, and that the crucial differences which created the Industrial Revolution in Europe were sources of coal near manufacturing centres, and raw materials such as food and wood from the New World, which allowed Europe to expand economically in a way that China could not.[8]

However, modern estimates of per capita income in Western Europe in the late 18th century are of roughly 1,500 dollars in purchasing power parity (and England had a per capita income of nearly 2,000 dollars [3]) whereas China, by comparison, had only 450 dollars. Also, the average interest rate was about 5% in England and over 30% in China, which illustrates how capital was much more abundant in England; capital that was available for investment.

Some historians credit the different belief systems in China and Europe with dictating where the revolution occurred. The religion and beliefs of Europe were largely products of Christianity, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Conversely, Chinese society was founded on men like Confucius, Mencius, Han Feizi (Legalism), Lao Tzu (Taoism), and Buddha (Buddhism). The key difference between these belief systems was that those from Europe focused on the individual, while Chinese beliefs centered around relationships between people. The family unit was more important than the individual for the large majority of Chinese history, and this may have played a role in why the Industrial Revolution took much longer to occur in China. There was the additional difference as to whether people looked backwards to a reputedly glorious past for answers to their questions or looked hopefully to the future. Furthermore, Western European peoples had experienced the Renaissance and Reformation; other parts of the world had not had a similar intellectual breakout, a condition that holds true even into the 21st century.

In India, the noted historian Rajni Palme Dutt has been quoted as saying, "The capital to finance the Industrial Revolution in India instead went into financing the Industrial Revolution in England." In direct contrast to China, India was split up into many different kingdoms all fighting for supremacy, with the three major ones being the Marathas, Sikhs and the Mughals. In addition, the economy was highly dependent on two sectors--agriculture of subsistence and cotton, and technical innovation was non-existent. The vast amounts of wealth were stored away in palace treasuries, and as such, were easily moved to England.

[edit]
Causes for occurrence in Britain

Coalbrookdale at night, 1801 :
Artist: Philipp Jakob Loutherbourg the YoungerThe debate about the start of the Industrial Revolution also concerns the massive lead that Britain had over other countries. Some have stressed the importance of natural or financial resources that Britain received from its many overseas colonies or that profits from the British slave trade between Africa and the Caribbean helped fuel industrial investment. It has been pointed out however that slavery provided only 5% of the British national income during the years of the Industrial Revolution [9]

Alternatively, the greater liberalisation of trade from a large merchant base may have allowed Britain to produce and utilise emerging scientific and technological developments more effectively than countries with stronger monarchies, particularly China and Russia. Britain emerged from the Napoleonic Wars as the only European nation not ravaged by financial plunder and economic collapse, and possessing the only merchant fleet of any useful size (European merchant fleets having been destroyed during the war by the Royal Navy). Britain's extensive exporting cottage industries also ensured markets were already available for many early forms of manufactured goods. The nature of conflict in the period resulted in most British warfare being conducted overseas, reducing the devastating effects of territorial conquest that affected much of Europe. This was further aided by Britain's geographical position— an island separated from the rest of mainland Europe.

Another theory is that Britain was able to succeed in the Industrial Revolution due to the availability of key resources it possessed. It had a dense population for its small geographical size. Enclosure of common land and the related Agricultural Revolution made a supply of this labour readily available. There was also a local coincidence of natural resources in the North of England, the English Midlands, South Wales and the Scottish Lowlands. Local supplies of coal, iron, lead, copper, tin, limestone and water power, resulted in excellent conditions for the development and expansion of industry.

The stable political situation in Britain from around 1688, and British society's greater receptiveness to change (when compared with other European countries) can also be said to be factors favouring the Industrial Revolution.