West European Studies

Britain and France applied the appeasement policy in 1930s during Second World War. The appeasement military policy which was used by both Britain and France involved settling international quarrels with the Nazi regime by satisfying and admitting grievances via rational compromise and negotiations. These two countries were appeasing the Nazis in order to prevent resorting to an armed conflict scenario which would not only be economically expensive for them, but could also be possibly dangerous and bloody. Between the years 1937 and 1939, Neville Chamberlain, British prime Minister adopted appeasement policies towards the Nazis. The main military considerations that were applied in the appeasement policy were economic costs of the war, stand of their citizens and the great lessons learnt from WWI. With these considerations, both France and Britain avoided as much as possible any military confrontation with the Nazis. But even though they avoided the conflict at the initial stages, when it eventually resulted into WWII, they were affected.

Military considerations in the appeasement policy
For both Britain and France, their economic policies mainly focused on ensuring that they maintained a balanced budget throughout. During the Nazi regime when the Germans constantly invaded other nations, these two countries opted to appease the Germans and hence maintain a balanced budget as they desired. They considered that any military confrontation with the Nazis could have dire consequences on their budgets. France and Britain chose to apply the appeasement policy because they felt that they were not facing any security threats. It was therefore not necessary for them to employ their military personnel to protect people of other nations. These nations assumed that they did not have any foreign policy which could have prompted them to interfere in an international matter which was not affecting them directly. The lack of a foreign policy implied that these two nations could not employ their military forces in foreign nations especially if their own people were not facing any security threats arising from the external conflict. By appeasing the Nazis, Britain and France minimised chances of exposing their military forces and civilians of facing external aggression.

In late 1920s and early 1930s, the world suffered its first and possibly the worst economic depression. Many European nations suffered substantially as a result of the economic crunch. Britain and France were among the European nations which were devastated by the economic depression. Having participated in WWI, these two nations were more enlightened about the actual economic costs of a conflict. They did not have sufficient economic capacity to participate effectively in a major conflict. Economic military consideration was thus a major factor which made these two nations to apply the appeasement policy on the Nazis.

Furthermore, these nations feared the economic implications of a conflict with the Nazis and therefore avoided one as much as possible. The appeasement policy thus enabled Britain and France to choose economic prosperity instead of military success. The devastations of WWI to both France and Britain made them to avoid another conflict at whatever cost even if it meant applying the appeasement policy.

The former German chancellor, Hitler tested both France and Britain through the civil war of Spain and the march of the Nazis into Rhineland. Since France was not ready to enter into a military confrontation with German or any other nation, it opted to deal with the situation in Rhineland in a non military manner through the use of negotiations. France and Britain opted to stay away of the Spanish conflict and watch Mussolini and Hitler as they armed the Fascists. During the Czechoslovakia and Austria conflicts, the German leader anticipated that France and Britain would illustrate their military weaknesses and stay out of the conflicts. True to his expectations, neither Britain nor France bothered to intervene in the conflict. However, they did not stay out of these conflicts because their armed forces were weak as Hitler thought, but because that any military action in a foreign nation would have devastating effects back home.

Because France had close ties with Czechoslovakia, while Britain desired to prevent any possibility of having a military clash with the Germans or any other nation, Hitler deemed it wise to call for a conference in which he would suggest a diplomatic approach in resolving the conflict. France and Britain agreed to be convinced by Hitler that he had a sincere mission of unifying the German people. They were aware that that was not the real objective of the Nazi leader but he gave into their demands of bringing an end to the conflict by pretending that they had been convinced by the Germans that their objective in the conflict was noble.

Chamberlain attempted to justify the actions of the Nazis by arguing that staying out of the Nazi led conflicts would enable great Britain and France to rearm and thus increase their military capacity which had been greatly weakened by WWI and the 1930s great economic depression. Although this was true and was one of the military considerations of France and Britain, Chamberlain cared less if Czechoslovakia was attacked by the Nazis or not, all that he cared was for his nation to stay out of any military conflict not only to rearm, but also to remain focused on economic progress. Chamberlain desired to keep everything free and settled from the conflict via close economic relationships with the Nazis. Despite the fact that Great Britain and France had suggested that they were avoiding the conflicts, in order to rearm their military forces, German got rearmed far much better than either of them. In fact, German increased its military strength at a rate which was much higher than both Britain and France.

The appeasement policy that was applied by both Britain and France in the 1930s on the Nazis was considered by these two nations because the French people and the Britons approved most of Hitlers policies. It was therefore inappropriate for the governments of these two nations to join and oppose a conflict which was being supported by their people. This was yet another military consideration that was applied by both France and Britain. They argued that it was logically impossible for them to employ military force to oppose a cause that was being supported by majority of their citizens. For a nation to join a conflict and fight for a certain objective, the support of the common citizens is always very essential. Britain and France are no exception and they also needed to be supported by their citizens in opposing Hitlers policies. But since it was evident that most of its citizens were in support of the Nazi policies, it became hard for these two nations to march their troops in 1930s to oppose the Nazis. As a result, they opted to apply the appeasement policy and pretend that conflicts taking place beyond their borders did not concern them in any way since they did not have foreign policy and the conflicts were not bringing about any security threat to these two nations.

During the 1930s period, communism of the Russians was growing at a high speed and it seemed that it would soon affect west Europe including Britain and France. However, the growing military strength of the Nazis was capable of stopping the spread of Russian communism to Western Europe. France and Britain thus considered that by allowing the Nazis grow militarily and fail to interfere with their conflicts, the growth of the Russian communism especially to Western Europe could have been stopped effectively. These two Western Europe super powers therefore hoped to use the Nazis indirectly in stopping a future battle with the Russians. There was an ideological difference between the two Western Europe super powers and the Russians. While both France and Britain applied political ideologies supporting democracy and capitalism, the Russians on the other hand were in support of communism. To make matters worse, the Russians believed in forcing other nations to adopt communism. This therefore meant that growth of Russian communism could have in future affected these two nations by forcing them to do away with capitalism and democracy in favour of communism. As a result, a conflict between these two western European nations was inevitable in future. Since both France and Britain felt they were not ready for an armed conflict following the great lessons they learned from WWI, they had to avoid a military clash with the Russians as much as possible. Using the appeasement policy towards the Nazis was the best option available. If these two nations engaged in an armed conflict with the Nazis, they could have greatly increased their chances of also fighting with the Russians and they could therefore have participated in two conflicts. But by leaving the Germans alone without interfering in their conflicts, Britain and France could effectively avoid two major conflicts.

Most of the Britons and French people felt that 1930s events taking place in Europe were not part of the business of their governments. The citizens of these two nations were therefore more concerned with events which were taking place within their territories and less concerned with those taking place in other places but within the European continent. These views were also shared by their governments making the appeasement policy to be adopted much easily by these two nations since it did not face significant internal resistance. The citizens of these two nations felt that their military forces should only be used when their nations were facing real security threat. All the security threats resulting from the Nazis were not affecting the security situation in these two nations. The British and the French governments considered that by employing their military forces to fight with the Nazis, they would in the real sense be doing so against the spirit of their nations and the governed. Although the soldiers could have participated effectively in the conflict and possibly stop Hitler from pursuing his own personal goals at the expense of weaker governments, they could not have been supported by the general public.

It is not only the British and the France governments which had learnt the devastating effects of war following the end of WWI. Their citizens had also learnt the dire effects of war and were therefore reluctant to support their governments in joining a conflict especially when such a conflict was not affecting them in any way.

Following First World War, the first conflict which affected most nations around the world, the Britons and the French desired peace and were ready to make any sacrifice to ensure that their nations remained at peace. Their governments thus opted to apply appeasement policy and avoid conflicts with the Nazis or any other external parties. The most important thing for these two governments and their people was enhancing capacity of their military forces to be able to protect their national borders as opposed to assisting other nations in times of conflicts which least affect them.

The Versailles Treaty was one of the major reasons that led to increased military aggression by the Nazis. They argued that it was unfair and they were not well taken care of in the treaty as they were less considered. Both the British and the French were in agreement with this view and thus felt that there was need to allow Hitler to use his military forces to gain better bargaining powers and grounds. However, Hitler proved to have a great appetite of expanding the German territory through several invasions he made. The conflict expanded rather fast and before both Britain and France realised, the Nazis had already started WWII. Although they had done everything within their powers to avoid a conflict, it was not possible for them to escape the wrath of the second global conflict. The appeasement policy thus turned to be a great lesson to these two nations as they realised that it was very crucial to intervene in international security matters since if they go unchecked for a long time, they will eventually spill over and affect everyone. This was the case in WWII where all nations irrespective of their initial participation in the war eventually became affected by the global conflict.

Conclusion
The British and the French had the capacity to intervene in the international conflicts that were resulting from the Nazis. They however opted to apply the appeasement policy whereby they condoned the acts of aggression being perpetrated by the Nazis. These two nations pretended that the security issues arising as a result of Nazis invasions were not affecting them and they therefore did not have any business getting involved in such conflicts. Both the British and the French had suffered great economic losses from the first global conflict and the 1930s great depression. First World War had made them realise and appreciate the devastating effects of a conflict and they therefore avoided one as much as possible. Furthermore, both the economic depression and WWI had greatly weakened their ability to participate effectively in a conflict.

Appeasement was therefore the safe option they considered since it could give them ample room of rearming their forces as well as growing economically. They were however wrong since their failure to intervene the Nazis madness eventually led to the start of the Second World War and they had no alternative but to be involved despite the fact that they were not willing to participate in any conflict.

Kropotkin viewed the state in a totally different perspective. He viewed the state as being totally different from the government idea. He held that any person who would think different from him would be causing the two ideas of the state and the government. He viewed those thinkers who tended to confuse the society and the state as overlooking the advances which have occurred in the history domain. He observed that confusing the state and the society is overlooking the idea that the society existed since time immemorial and man lived in such societies for many years ago even before the idea of the state was born. He therefore held the view that the idea of the state is a relatively new idea of recent origin and it does not even go beyond the sixteenth century.

Kropotkin also viewed the state as having occurred or emerged in the historical evolution of the society and therefore it was just a form of the society and not a separate phenomenon. He therefore noted that there is need to make distinctions between what is accidental and what id permanent. In this case he referred to the society as being permanent and the state as being accidental or just having occurred as the society evolved.

Furthermore, Kropotkin observed that the government and the state are also two majorly confused concepts. However, according to Kropotkin the view that a state cannot exist on itself without a government is quite wrong because the government and the state are two quite different concepts which in essence have dissimilar order.

He held that the state in its totality comprised of a certain level of power which went beyond the society level and into the concentration of a territory level. In this regard, Kropotkin saw the state as implying a new kind of relationship between the society members which did not prevail before the state was formed and in this regard, a whole mechanism of policing and legislation had to be established in order make some classes subject or get dominated by others. Kropotkin held the view that the distinction between the government and the state might not be obvious in the eyes of many people but when people continue to study the state origin then the distinction becomes obvious. In addition, Kropotkin continued that in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the state, it would rather be advisable to go back to the studies of the development of the state throughout history rather than trying to make spontaneous views about the state.

Kropotkin continues that the state developed primarily according to the performed functions and it did so in a specific direction and not in every direction. He therefore concluded that the state should be abolished because as it populates institutions and growing in the societies, it prevents the smooth development of individual and local initiatives and crushes the prevailing freedoms or liberties thus preventing the blossoming of new relationships between human societies. The end purpose of the state being to make the minorities rule over other masses. Kropotkin views the state as being used to achieve evil ends and applied by greedy people with the sole objective of amassing more power to rule over others.  He also views the state as an institution that does not appreciate the history which brought it to being rather it tends to operate as an independent phenomenon apart from history.

History tells us that before women were actually recognized as equal to men, they had experienced various forms of discrimination and exclusion. It is not unknown that women had struggled through many hardships before they were able to attain their rights and enjoy the same opportunities that men have. In my opinion, the events involving the women that occurred during the second industrial revolution, such as the housewifization of women, should be considered atrocities and they should serve as lessons to the whole population of men. Women have long fought for equality and it is quite unfortunate that they have to fight for what should really be given to them without question.

Women during that time were considered to be lower beings than men and were deprived of various opportunities such as higher education. Most women during the second industrial revolution not only experienced severe discrimination but were also prohibited from doing things that may actually help them improve their social status as women. Since they were unable to gain higher education, they were unable to acquire good jobs apart from these, it was common opinion that women should only stay at home to cook, clean, take care of children, and serve men like common slaves.

Although women were able to experience new job openings during the second industrial revolution, such as positions for typists, clerks, or secretaries, most of these jobs were not really the kind which would help them elevate their status in life. This is because such jobs were unlike the kind which men at that time were allowed to undertake, such as business and others jobs that require physical and mental labor.

In todays world, such notions regarding what women should be would be met with barrages of complaints and other forms of protests, but during the second industrial revolution in Europe, such was the case. Because of the housewifization of women, they had to remain at home and focus on their husbands, children, and households. The concept of a working mother was simply unacceptable for society. In fact, women who decided to pursue professions were shunned, for they were going against what they were supposed to be housewives. Women were supposed to be considered as merely housewives and nothing more. Although they were able to work for themselves, after getting married, they would lose control of their lives and their roles would be forever kept within the confines of their homes apart from so that they may serve their husbands and take care of children. Apart from this, even if women were not married, the job openings available for them, as mentioned earlier, were not the kind of jobs which would enable them to improve their lives the end result was that they still had to depend on men for their needs.

It is appalling to think that women during those times were subject to such treatment. I think that such kind of treatment towards women can be considered unjust because men, it seems, have gone to various lengths in order to ensure that the former were held in their rightful place, which was below the state of men. In a manner of speaking, men were very careful to prevent women from rising from their social status as mere subordinates. It could even be said that such tactics are forms of oppression because men felt that women had the capacity to be better than they are, and they feared that one day, women would be able to rise and overthrow the rule of men.

Of course, this kind of setup was explained by the rise of capitalism, which states that the womans value is in the home, for she is the main factor in the creation of the potential labor workforce. This reasoning, it seems, tries to deviate from the fact that women should have the right to choose the kind of life they ought to lead. It is not assuming to say that upon marriage, the lives of women are predetermined, that their only role is to produce children who will be of value to the workforce of the capitalist society in the future. Such reasoning seems to claim that women are important because they are the ones responsible for child-rearing (whereas the men are responsible for producing necessities for everyday life), but it all boils down to the fact that women were seen as merely mothers and nothing more. Since women were not given the chance to prove their potential to society, they were unable to lead the kind of lives they prefer, cooped up within their homes while taking care of children.

Many women were faced with the question of what she should be during this time Should she stay at home, or should she go out and work like the rest of the men  There is, of course, no argue that the role of women within their homes is very important. However, the society during the second industrial revolution did not see other uses for the female being except for the task of motherhood. Even though there were available jobs for women, it is necessary to state once again that such jobs for women were low-paying ones (even if they were considered white-collar jobs).

The second industrial revolution may have brought several improvements to the lives of people in general however, it could not be denied that it was a rough time for women. The fact that they are women caused them great oppression, even though it was claimed that they are of value to the society in some means. During the industrial revolution, it could be said that society perceived that the only jobs that a woman should have were to be a wife and a mother. Since their importance to society was largely defined by only their role within the household, women were considered to be inferior. Because of this fact, women had no choice but to be dependent on their husbands and continue living their lives in the shadow of men they barely had other options because whether women get a job or stay within their homes, they would always be considered subordinates of men.

Also, it is necessary to state that if women were unable to gain jobs which they could pursue, then it is only logical that their recourse would be marriage, since they had no other choice but to find a husband who will provide for them. It was not a very likable option, but since they were faced with low-paying jobs, getting a husband would be the only means for subsistence. It seems as if women were predestined to be dependent.

Hence, it appears as if there is some form of conspiracy regarding the social state of women during the second industrial revolution. Women were demanding that they be allowed into the workforce, so society opened jobs for them however, such jobs were not sufficient enough, which means that even though women were allowed into the workforce, they were still put on a leash, and they still had to be dependent of men to be able to survive. Hence, in a sense, it seems like the whole business of letting women apply for jobs was merely for show. Even though women may apply for jobs, they would still not be able to gain emancipation from the grasp of controlling men. Even if women had jobs, it was inevitable that they would eventually return to the original state of dependency on men.

Such treatment of women during the second industrial revolution may be deemed as unjust women were treated not as equals but as subordinates. They were made to believe that they may have their own jobs and yet, such jobs were so meager that they would still be unable to assert their independence. Society created a faade in order to make women believe that they are, somehow, leading independent lives. While there were various feminist movements which aimed to improve the conditions of women, these movements failed dismally and produced little change.

In an overall summary, the living conditions of women during the second industrial revolution proved to be a great struggle. Women during those times lived in a society where they were only allowed to acquire low-paying jobs because they were less educated than men. They were made to feel that they were inadequate, and that the only role which they had was within the household. Women were also not made to feel that they can reach other horizons instead, women were brought up with the notion that the best they can do was be a wife and a mother. The capitalist society of the second industrial revolution defined the woman as a mere tool in the production of workforce She may not be able to contribute to society if she is without a man, and she cannot do anything else other than be dependent on a man.

It is quite unnerving to look at history and realize how much women have struggled to gain the freedom which they are enjoying today. During those times, the freedom of women from oppression was not a right and neither was it a privilege. It was a mere myth to most women during the second industrial revolution for it was believed that they did not belong in the workplace and that their destiny was to become dependent on men. While the idea that women are major factors in the production of the labor force is reassuring as it suggests that women are indispensable and very important in this process, it is not the only thing that is valuable in this world. It cannot be denied that women, like men, are complicated beings, which means that they also have their own desires.

The second industrial revolution may have paved way for various technological innovations which humankind is enjoying today, but it was certainly a dark time for the lives of women. In many ways, the second industrial revolution has proved that while humans can achieve economic and technological developments and change the world, they still remain undeniably primitive when it comes to the concept of gender equality, a condition which is yet to be completely achieved across the world.

The strength of the Papacy grew substantially during the Middle Ages with the beginning of the 11th century. This was the time when the First Crusade took place and the Pope was able to exercise and increase his authority, not over the clergy and laity, but also on the secular rulers and kings and Europe. Popes issued charters of founding universities, convened church councils, appointed papal judges delegate and commissioned preachers. The articulation of canon law, papal authority directly affected the lives of all Christians, as well as Jews and Muslims living under their authority. (History of Europe) During this time the popes consequently gained authority over a vast region of Italy surrounding Rome. The Pople were the rulers of the regions donated by Charlemagne and then Louis the Pious and his son Lothar I confirmed and expanded early Carolingian grants to the papacy. Despites several setbacks and revolts popes continued to rule these regions until 1859. (Papal States)

Under the Umbrella of the Holy Roman Empire the Church had a vast authority of much of the Western Europe. The Western Schism in the late 14th and early 15th century started to undermine the papal authority. During the reformation period many reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer and others campaigned against the papal authority and challenged it. The result of this campaign was that most of the Western European nations like Germany and England become Protestant and the popes lost their authority their. Soon the Scandinavia, The Netherlands, Hungary and Scotland also rejected papal authority. The French Revolution resulted in the loss of papal authority in France, though it was still a largely Catholic nation. In 1797 Napoleon invaded Italy, sacked Rome and took the Pope Pius back as a prisoner. Though he later resumed his authority after the fall of Napoleon, it was short-lived and in 1859 all the Papal States were liquidated. (The Papacy in History and Prophecy  Papal States)

When the reformation movement undermined or completely annihilated the power of papacy in the Western Europe the European nations started the great age of discovery and exploration. During this era several technological improvements also helped the Europeans to make more accurate and sophisticated navigation techniques. They were able to correct the readings of the compass, use the astrolabes more precisely for latitude determination and finally were also able to employ the dead reckoning for longitude determination.

In the 15th and 16th centuries the exploration of the world oceans started and continued with great rigor. Portugal made most of its maritime empire in the east with the exception of Brazil in the new world. This empire soon ended in 1580 when the king of Spain assumed Portuguese throne. The Spanish American Empire was vast and included much of the central America, South America with the exception of Brazil and Mexico and much of the North America including southern, southwestern and California-Pacific coastal regions of present day United States. (Western Colonization)

France has its major colonies in Nova Scotia and Quebec, Newfoundland to the Great lakes and gradually expanded to the parts of trans-Appalachian west. (New France) The strong French presence resulted in war between France and Britain, which was fought both in the colonies and the mother countries. In 1713 the French lost large part of New France but held Quebec and much of surrounding region. During the Seven Years war in Europe in 1756 the war between the British and French again started. During the first two years of the conflict the French and their allies were successful. But then the British sea power reinforced the British and American strength and in 1759 Quebec was captured and in 1760 Montreal surrendered to the British with all of the New France. This was the end of the second largest colony in the North America after the British. (New France)

When epic medieval tales are told and texts read, they are always heavy in the major issues concerning the subject and light in the common experience of the studied group of people and as such final analysis done in the modern world rarely gives the true picture. The texts on these middle Ages spanning the 5th Century to the 16th Century usually spin around the peak and the fall of the Roman Empire, territorial expansion of Europe powers and exploration of new hitherto unseen world (Pierre 29). Thus most historians will always query the wholesomeness of such texts. There are always the smaller details that are omitted and such vivid imagery is lost.

This essay paper will examine a period in a classical age of English renaissance period in the medieval period, focusing mainly on English city of Ipswich, located in the county of Suffolk, east of the country. The modern name is derived from its medieval age name of Gippeswick that is itself a corruption of the name River Gipping (Medieval English Urban History- Ipswich appendix 4).

In the period 144647, major medieval records have had minimal accounts of revenue and expenditure of the city of Ipswich other than the only two records available, a Manorial Accounts of a Medieval Rent Collector (Medieval English Urban History- Ipswich appendix 4). In this accounts we get an invaluable finer details of the nature of accounting and finance in the general people of Ipswich and therefore contextualize and contemporize the medieval age of whole of England.

When we think of the current economics equations that expenditure of a country equals its income, we realize from the accounts of the Manorial Accounts of a Medieval Rent Collector, that this economic equation was in existence even before the days of classical economists of the 18th Century like Adam Smith and the Keynesian Economic models of the 20th century. The Chamberlains accounts try to balance receipts with expenditure. The medieval people therefore had an advanced system of accounting and auditing for their receipts.

The fifteenth raw schedule for receipts shows the revenue from fines imposed on foreigners for their exemptions to pay custom and toll charges. These foreigners were not non English but fellow countrymen who happened to come from different parts of the country. We can therefore deduce that the medieval people had a close-knit community system and visitors into a certain town were required to pay a fine. Other than the normal taxation, people were also required to fund the welfare of their kings and rulers.

From both the revenue and expenditure schedules, it is observable that the medieval people had advanced justice system with courts, and each town had an attorney that was based at the local law courts. This was the place for arbitration of the various suits that the locals brought to the county.

In conclusion, we can acknowledge that inasmuch as we claim that the medieval ages were backwater like, it is from the records that these people were intelligent with advanced forms of life. Their finer detail of their day to day lives seems to have evolved more that most contemporary people seem to know or hear. Thus within the major stories and texts emanating from the Middle Ages, there is always a minor sub story and text that is often less said and it is such simple occurrences that themselves give wholesome pictures where there seems to be grey dots of ambiguity in history.

Whether a total naval blockage of the Japanese held islands and the main lands of Japan been enough to starve the Japanese people and force their leaders to surrender to the United States

The naval blockade of the Japanese - held islands dates back to many decades back when the Japan attacked the United States and its allies. It is referred to as the Pacific war and it involved the attack on Pearl Harbor which led to a serious conflict of the Second World War. The war continued till the year 1945 when the United States attacked using two atomic bombs in Japan. The first one was dropped in Hiroshima and the second one in Nagasaki. After a few days, Japan admitted to defeat and gave up the war, Davis (1-3).

According to The Citizens Compendium, Japan was unable to send supplies and troops to support Okinawa which exposed Japan to danger of attacks since Okinawa is an entrance to Japan. The Japanese government became defenseless as they were also stopped from exploiting power in the neighboring countries. This increased Japans vulnerability to attacks by the United States which would adversely affect it economy and citizens. Therefore, the situation rendered the Japanese government helpless compelling it to give up so that they avoid the drastic effects that naval blockade would cause on the countrys economy and security for the good of the people of Japan.

Naval resources are very critical for Japans market and have a big impact on the financial systems in the country. Naval blockade would have caused a huge drop in the republics productivity. During the war, Japan was unable to supply ore to the steel industry which was in need of tons of ore required for steel production, Bell (2000, 76).

Japans economy relies heavily on importation and therefore they would not be able to produce if the United States would have imposed naval the blockade on Japans islands. As the war progressed, importation dropped off which ruined the economy of Japan significantly. The American submarines went ahead and disconnected Japans petroleum supply line in the year 1944 which adversely affected the country. It paralyzed air fleets and sea fleets which could not operate as the country relies on imported petroleum. This weakened the Japan military as they were unable to work without the supplies, Yust (2009, 5)

Summary
It is these extreme effects that brought Japans government to its knees. This decision to surrender was very critical for the Japanese government in the view of the fact that naval blockade goes beyond power over the sea and has a grand effect on a nations economy. If Japan would not have given up the war, citizens would have starved as well as the military force.  If Japan would not have surrendered, the United States would have deployed its navy to patrol waters around Japan which would have completely blocked importation into Japan. This means that the U.S. would have controlled Japan from shipping equipment, tools, and even food. They also would not have been able to export their products such as steel and machinery which would have triggered total destruction to Japans economy.

The Japanese could have starved leading to massive deaths as they would have had nothing to feed on. The food produced internally by the Japanese can not be enough to cater for all the civilians as well as the military force. Food is a basic need, the workforce especially the military would not operate without food. Therefore, it was wise for the Japanese to surrender because the naval blockade could lead to severe effects.

The World War II that dates back to September 1st 1939 was characterized by massive deaths and casualties of enormous magnitude. The invasion of Poland by the German soldiers remains in history books and in the minds of many as an act that instigated the deadliest military conflict in the world. German soldiers under the leadership of Adolph Hitler attacked Poland as a first step in fulfilling what the leader had termed as the foreign policy agenda. However, this invasion was met by opposition from France and UK which retaliated by attacking Germany hence generating a full-blown war Ripley (2004, 177).

In 1933, Adolph Hitler embarked on a system that ensured all the soldiers underwent military training which systematically shaped them into compliant followers of the dictatorial leader. The leader had planned the attacks long before the World War II under the umbrella of Nazi extermination policy. The German soldiers were therefore used as tools of the system to fulfill the Nazis ideology which put the Aryan Germans superior above all other remaining races Ripley (2004, 177).

German soldiers (usually referred to as Wehrmacht) were subjected to thorough and intensive military drilling which not only changed their physical well being but also their perceptions. According to Heer, Naumann and Naumann (2004, 330), the soldiers became hard, indifferent and heartless due to the training they underwent. The three writers further lament how the soldiers were forced to readjust to unfavorable situations. These situations right from the military bases to areas of operation turned the soldiers into hardened beings. Furthermore, the orders issued by their leaders subjected them to inner change as well as installing an ideology into their minds. This transformed the soldiers into gross, senseless and ruthless beings who could thereafter participate in the Nazi genocide without fear Heer, Naumann and Naumann (2004, 330).

The Nazis developed the one hundred soldiers allowed by the member nations under the Versailles treaty to a fully-fledged officer corps of two hundred thousand soldiers. This was secretly done since the soldiers were only allowed by the member States for internal security purposes alone. Additionally, Heinz Guderian and other leaders invented tactics that were used to break through the territories of Germanys enemies including France, Poland and other small countries like Denmark as well as part of Russia. The aforementioned are some of the reasons that boosted the morale of the German soldiers in the World War II amid series of defeats Martel (2004, 3).

The leadership of Wehrmacht was another precipitating factor in the Eastern front. It had a record of longstanding professional military officers whose experience dated back to the Franco-Prussia war of 1871. This dictatorial leadership had installed a strong belief in the minds of the soldiers that the war was a life-or-death struggle and had to be fought in whichever way. A minority of the soldiers were upset by the leadership of Hitler and therefore made several unsuccessful attempts to kill the leader. The vast majority however remained loyal and continued to serve their leaders amid enormous atrocities committed by soldiers in the war Mitcham (2008, 71).

Conclusion
Hitler initiated a youth program which emphasized on the group loyalty as well as nationalistic ideals. These factors together with high degree of personal loyalty to the leader made Germany gain its reputation of being unconquerable. This helped the Germans remain in the war as stereotyping scared away the opponents and many countries feared attacking Germany.

According to I.K. Malanin, there are six factors which determine a nations ability to win or lose a war economic base, technological advantage, military techniques and tactics utilized, geography, manpower experience, and comparative power of the enemy.

Compared to the German economy, the Soviet Union had built up a more effective and reliable economic infrastructure after the First World War. The Soviet economy was geared for mass production of simple and reliable goods. During the Second World War, Soviet armies never suffered from supply problems since Soviet production centers continued to supply what was needed on the frontlines. The Soviet Union also obtained significant quantities of US and British aid.

There are several factors which explain Russias huge production capabilities large industrial manpower, mass production techniques, streamlining of ineffective products, and production expertise acquired from abroad. In the 5-year economic plan, Joseph Stalin outlined his major goals for the Soviet economy. One of his major goals was collectivization of industrial power. Collectivization allowed Soviet manpower to be shifted from one industry to another. In 1939, Stalin directed his economic directors to shift production from domestic goods to military hardware. The shift was relatively easy since industrial manpower was collectivized. By the eve of the German invasion, the country had more than 10 000 tanks, 6 000 planes, 1 million artillery, and millions of other military hardware.

The Soviet Union also copied American production techniques. On May 31 1929, the Ford Corporation signed a contract allowing the Soviet Union to construct military trucks at the Nizhni-Novgorod plant. US engineers directed the construction of the factory and the Ford Corporation provided most of the tools.

Soviet engineers were sent to one of Fords plant in Detroit to study US automotive mass production techniques. The Austin Company provided the Soviet Union with assistance for the construction of a special two and a half ton trucks. By 1940, the Soviet Union mass produced tanks, rifles, planes, and other military hardware. Germany, on the other hand, did not copy American mass-production methodologies.

After the German invasion of 1941, Soviet military hardware proved ineffective against German military hardware. Soviet mainline tanks were easily destroyed by Panzer IV model tanks. However, the Soviet did possess some effective military hardware such as KV-41 (heavy tank) and the IL -40 (aircraft). Stalin directed his economic directors to increase the production of effective military hardware. In less than a year, the Soviet Union had streamlined its production of military goods.

The Soviet government also acquired production expertise abroad. American engineers provided assistance to Soviet engineers working in plants beyond the Urals. Prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, the British also sent British experts to study Soviet production techniques and provide technical assistance in military research development. By 1941, the Soviet Union had advanced 50 years in technology over a span of 10 years. In 1943, the Soviet Union was mass producing effective military hardware, second to that of the United States in both quantity and quality. This feat would help the Soviet Union compete against the United States in the Cold War.

Volksgemeinschaft is a German word that translates to a peoples community and was a political ideology being pushed in Germany before the Second World War by the National Socialist German Workers Party (Welch, 2004). In German political circles, this system had been conceptualized by theorist Ferdinand Tonnies in his book Community and Society. However, Ferdinand became a social democrat when the Nazi movement was increasing in power and influence. In this essay, I explain the concept of Volksgemeinschaft and the mechanisms the Nazi machinery employed to attract German youth into the movement (Welch, 2004).

The Nazis, led by Adolf Hitler wanted to create a peoples community by having all religious groups, social organizations, families and the individual submit to the state (Welch, 2004). His rule thus absorbed arts, the media, institutions of education, religion and most of the other areas through which people interacted into Nazi organization to realize the Volksgemeinschaft. Volksgemeinschaft was a vision aimed at establishing a purely German community dedicated only to the state and war and to eliminate all forms of social stratification and class struggle (Welch, 2004). Ownership and control of private property was to be permitted only if such property benefited the common society. In other words, Nazism would become a doctrine and a religion, dominating all aspects of life in Germany.

In order to establish the peoples community, the Nazis seized control of information and propaganda (Welch, 2004). Regulatory control measures were placed on all entertainment and information channels and Adolf Hitler issued a directive order authorizing the creation of the Reich Chamber of Culture. This was the tool Hitler would use to dominate Germans by suppressing freedom of communication, opinion and expression. In addition, he appointed Dr. Joseph Goebbels as the Minister of Propaganda (Welch, 2004).

Hitler visualized native Germans as the perfect race, and therefore all other residents with their ancestry outside Germany were categorized as undesirable. Jews were the most targeted group. However, the Reich Chamber of Culture was not designed to keep the undesirables out of the system, but rather to integrate Nazi doctrines into the arts and other forms of entertainment (Welch, 2004).  It had divisions dedicated to literature, broadcast and print media, music, theatre and visual arts and the film industry.

The Nazi regime established a publishing house called Eher Verlag which controlled the purchase of all newspapers in the entire nation. From this publishing house, propaganda articles were pre-written as dictated from  the Nazi top brass and distributed to all newspaper publishers for inclusion in the news (Welch, 2004). All films were to glorify the Nazi party, its leader Adolf Hitler and the martyrdom of Nazism. Entertainment in forms of outdoor theatre and art thematically emphasized blood and soil, meaning that every German should be ready to die for the country. Hitler went on a mission to re-establish the relationship between ancient Greeks and modern Germans reinforcing the notion that they were not just culturally superior, they were the perfect race (Welch, 2004).

Hitler and the entire Nazi fraternity wanted to establish a socio-economic and political system anchored on Nazi principle (Welch, 2004). They therefore had to sell their ideology to the youth so that they grow having these beliefs entrenched deep into their consciences. To accomplish this, Hitler established youth groups according to ages to train young boys. Those aged between six and ten years were enrolled into a program called Pimpfen that is similar to cub scouts in the ordinary scouting movement. Boys Aged between ten and fourteen years were similarly enrolled into a program known as Deutsches Jungvolk and those between fourteen and eighteen belonged to the Hitler Jugend or the Hitler Youth (Wildt, 2007). Military values and enduring love for the countries were taught in the two older groups. The boys were taught to be unquestioningly obedient and ruthless while fulfilling their country to the nation and to have honor, undeterred strength and courage.

The boys were trained on military strategy, usually conducting military drills and ceremonies to honor those who had died in wars, fighting for the nation. Due to their importance to the Nazi regime, the boys in the Hitler youth were put under watch of very dedicated Nazi philosophers who made sure they were indoctrinated with the ideologies and philosophies on which Nazism was founded on (Welch, 2004). Additionally, the youth in the party who had shown enough commitment were given the responsibility of inducing staunch patriotism to other youth from all over the nation and absolute devotion to the leader, Hitler. By the year 1939, membership to the Hitler youth had become compulsory. Those emerging from the lower two categories were to take an oath while being initiated to the Hitler Youth (Welch, 2004).

Young girls were not left out of Hitlers grand plan being grouped into two separate groups one for those between the ages of ten to fourteen and another one for those between the ages of fourteen to eighteen (Welch, 2004). Besides being taught to be dutiful future wives and mothers, the girls were also indoctrinated with the values and philosophies of Nazism and taught to be obedient and disciplined and to absolutely submit to the will of the state. Hitler needed the youth of Germany to be loyal to him and him only therefore it is unsurprising that he went to such lengths to brainwash the youth of the nation.

Since the beginning of Nazi rule under Hitler, there was a deliberate attempt to control and manipulate all aspects of daily life. Popular culture, music, film and art plus broadcast and print media were filled with propaganda. To prevent from engaging in intellectual dialogue and issue-oriented thinking, Hitler enacted an anti-intellectualism policy and fed into all people a strong sense of militancy, national pride and love for Nazism (Wildt, 2007). He and the party realized the effectiveness of continuing to use the Reich (organizations, offices, ministries and other mechanisms for controlling a particular characteristic of daily life for example religion or music) to brainwash and control the youth in Germany as a means of establishing a Nazi rule that would last forever (Welch, 2004). If he had sufficient control over the youth, Hitler that his control over Germany would only strengthen with time, and then he could establish the Volksgemeinschaft with minimum opposition.

The main objective of Hitler in his endeavor of establishing a Peoples Community was reviving German strength after the destruction that had occurred in the course of the First World War. He also wanted to build an invincible nation and an army of brainwashed followers who would annex territory from states neighboring Germany for more living space, and eliminating the Jews and other undesired people (Wildt, 2007). He was a racial supremacist as pointed out earlier, and he wanted to implement the Volksgemeinschaft as a means of creating a nation of the perfect race.

Hitler was somehow successful in influencing the youth of Germany in accepting Nazi doctrines. German youth had a need for youth groups where their affairs could be addressed. At the time, being in the military was perceived as a prestige and a manifestation of patriotism and bravery (Welch, 2004). Hitler capitalized on these factors to indoctrinate the youth with Nazi ideals and philosophies. In any way, recruitment into the Hitler youth was made compulsory in 1939. Furthermore, the school system was inappropriately used to exalt warfare and alienate pupils from their parents. Popular strategies employed include fun activities like camping and hiking and while at it, children could be taught Nazi policies and be taken through marching sessions and other military drills (Welch, 2004). The leisure accompanying such outings attracted more and more young boys and girls and those who disdained from them had little choice since almost all other organizations were either illegalized or closed down permanently.

Continuous alienation between parents and kids raised a youth population that supported the Nazi regime more that their parents. Textbooks and educational curricula had been altered to expound on Nazi philosophy and history, perverted racial ideologies and teach how glorious war was (Welch, 2004). There was a deliberate attempt to induce anti-Semitism in children from a very young age by insinuating that the Jews were taking over the running of government, business opportunities and other resources that the bona fide Germans were entitled to by birth (Wildt, 2007). The timing of teaching such values and beliefs at such young ages was effective since the children had not come into contact with any opposing views as the media was gagged by the machinations of the National Socialist Party.

Children and young people also found it easy to accept outrages committed against the people by the Nazis like house inspections since unlike the older generations, they had not lived in any other political system and interpreted such activities as supporting government cause rather than invasion of personal privacy. Any anti-Nazi dialogue directed to most young people from parents or other members of the family and the community usually went unheeded since the children had been taught to put the Nazi party above everything else, including family (Welch, 2004).

However, some young people were more insightful and did not accept what they were taught by the National Socialist Party blindly. As a result, anti-Nazi youth movements sprouted from several quarters, the main being the Swing Movement youth group and the Edelweiss Pirates. As the war progressed, the Hitler Youth had become less leisure oriented and more of an army (Welch, 2004). Morale among members decreased and enrolment dropped. More and more youth were now joining anti-Hitler youth movements and engaged acts of disobedience for example listening to popular music from the United States and Britain which had banned.

The Edelweiss Pirates were move vocal in opposing Nazism. This group was more or less structured like the Hitler Youth and engaged in the same activities like camping hiking and singing but instead sang tunes attacking and criticizing the Nazi regime (Welch, 2004). When they encountered members from the Hitler Youth, they could attack the ferociously. They disobeyed directives issued by the Nazis like abstinence from sexual activities, not dressing like Americans or Britons and accepted members of the opposite sex (Welch, 2004). All in all, it is somewhat difficult to assess the extent of Nazi influence on German youth before the war since no solid statistics are available and even if they were, they would lack credibility as the Nazis often exaggerated things.

Both civilization in Greek and Roman Empire led to numerous contributions in different fields such as in religion, law and trade. The Roman Empire has been one of the most influential civilizations of all time. Its culture has been integrated throughout many societies. At its peak, the Roman Empire blanketed Europe in its vastness and even stretched overseas to Africa. In addition, the Roman civilization even reached into Asia as well. The Romans left their mark on many societies and left behind a bounty of cultural riches. A comparison of ancient Greek democracy and Roman republic, the ideals of government expressed and used by the ancient Greeks and Romans are well known. First, democracies and republics are alike and unlike in the way that their general system works. Both systems give their power to the people. A republic is a form of state based on the concept that sovereignty resides in the people and was found in Roman Empire while democracy is a political system in which the people of a country rule. Both systems have however got elected representatives.

Roman Empire Civilization
The Romans can be seen as one of the most complex civilizations of its time by examining its economy, technology, and religion. As a result of Roman civilization, many changes took place such as, the growth of the Roman economy through its tribal beginning to its historical rise to power. As a result of the civilization, there was a positive rise of technology and the changes were noted in the religious forms. The Roman Empire was composed of three tribes Latins, Sabines, and Semites. Greek civilization also marked the beginning of human development in terms of business and other social areas in major cities such as Patras and Larissa.

Democracy during the Ancient days in Roman and Greece
Democracy can be defined as the ability to express or participate in a political contest without being intimidated or without favoritism. It is the natural existence of the rule of Law in the society. During the early period in the Roman and Greece Empire, there existed kings and queens who had the mandate to come up with policies and decision makers in the running of the government. Athenian democracy was initiated in Athens, one of the Greek city-states and Athens was the first known democracy that was well documented and was more relevant and powerful during the Ancient times. By 500 BC, democracy started spreading in most parts of Roman Empire and the Etruscan Kings were opposed by the Roman aristocrats rule in Roman Empire. However, they could not get rid of the Kings hence they had to entice the poor in the society to help them in fighting the war.

The Roman Empire was full of radicalism and many elites in the Ancient days were against Monarchy rule. In 510 BC, Sparta together with the Athens united to bring down the tyrannical kingdom of Hippias. Athens took the opportunity to introduce a democratic form of government which lasted almost 200 years. A year later, the Romans overthrew the absolute power of Tarquinius and replaced it with the Roman Senate, which as a generally true republic lasted about 450 years the reason why Tarquinius was easily replaced by the Senate was because the system had weak political structure that could not respond to the crisis especially after 512 BC. However, the Athenian democracy was full of individualism and was based on personal interest such as the interest to use the army in fighting the people who were outside the wall.

Many people criticized the Athenian democracy since according to their definition on democracy it meant that democracy belonged to certain group or clique of people. They viewed society like a modern stock company and that democracy is like a company where all shareholders have an equal say regardless of the scale of their holding one share or ten thousand, it makes no difference. They regarded this as manifestly unjust. In Aristotle, this is categorized as the difference between arithmetic and geometric equality.

Democracy was far from being the normal style of governance and the beliefs on which it was based were in effect a minority opinion. In comparing the military structure in both countries, it is worth acknowledging that the Roman Empire had a strong military that was well organized as compared to the Greek Forces.
During the reign of Caesar Augustus, he abandoned all the citizen-soldiers and replaced it with fully qualified soldiers that were well paid by the Empire the military was well organized in terms of coordination. Soldiers were well distributed in the Empire and the legendary troops were paid to patrol around the Empire. Even though in Greek the soldiers were centrally placed to guard the State, it was not well organized and financed as compared to Romanian soldiers who earned up to 900 sesterces in a year. The Greek soldiers were earning almost half of what was paid to the Roman soldiers.

Similarity between the two Ancient forms of Government
It is worth noting that the two forms of government experienced worst form of governance based on Monarchy in Roman Empire and tyrannical rule in Greece. The two forms of government can be said to be grounded on dictatorial rule that led to revolution in both countries. In Roman Empire, Tarquinius was replaced with the Roman Senate and in Greece the people opposed the tyrannical rule that led to formation of Athenian democracy that was also opposed by the elites who claimed that it did not include the majority rights. Both political system in the Ancient time were undemocratic and based on hereditary, where leadership was transferred from one generation to the next.

Ancient Social aspects in Rome and Greek
Rome was the largest city of its time and the population was huge and required a good system of government that could ensure that there was food security. Before the civilization process in both Ancient States, people were involved in several activities from trade to agriculture. For instance, in the Roman Empire, Italian Peninsula in 10 BC, people were farmers who grew food crops along the Mediterranean Sea and as a result, the Roman Empire expanded to be one of the largest Empires in the world. It is worth noting that the Roman political aspect and changes were influenced by the agricultural activities that took place due to the increased population that required a proper government with good structures that could ensure that the interest of the majority were met.

As a result, there was a paradigm shift of power from the monarchs to Oligarchy form of government. This was a form of governance that was based on the decision of a group of leaders leading in a bad way vis--vis to autocracy that is composed of good leaders. In Greek city states, most people had a unique way of life. They valued trade as a means of earning a living and few were involved in farming as compared to the Romans. The two Ancient States experienced class conflict as a result of exploitations and control of means of production that were managed by the upper class that exploited the citizens and mistreated the poor. The kind of class conflict that was marked with a lot of changes was the class of conflict in Ancient Roman Empire when the lower class were against the rule and legislation of the Roman laws that only favored the oligarchs.

Even though there was no major difference in the types of laws that were used in both States, it is worth noting that the Roman laws gave the senate a lot of power and authority in terms of controlling the economic resources and this was the reason why most of the Ancient Romans were against the form of government that was in place during the leaderships of the Oligarchs. Despite the fact that the senators were powerful and authoritative, they could not come up with policies or legislation individually but required the support of the majority.

Conclusion
Although the Greek democracy and the Roman republic have many resemblances, they also have many differences. Ancient Greek democracy and the ancient Roman republic may seem the same but they are actually both similar and different in three significant ways how the system of a democracy and a republic work, how each government elected their officials, and how the hierarchy of each system was oriented. Finally, civilization in both Ancient States led to major changes both in social and political aspects.

The western civilization started in the late 1400 and continued in the two subsequent centuries. Renaissance was one of the major developments witnessed in this particular civilization this development became a major benefit not only to the western world but indeed the entire world. Renaissance intellectually marked the start of modernity which continues throughout the world to date. It is in fact possible to relate objectively the thoughts, debates and issues of the western civilization, to the ones taking place in the modern world. Therefore, without the early western civilization and in particular, without renaissance, the world could have waited for much longer to experience the benefits of modernity (Spielvogel, pp 26).

The classical past rediscovery was a major adventure as far as renaissance is concerned was the discovery of the voyages and the exploration and the conquest of America. It therefore became possible to transfer several aspects of the western civilization to the American continent. The pace of development of the American continent increased dramatically following the European invasion. Even though one might argue that it was not a good act for the Europeans to invade and rule foreign people on their own territories, the Americans benefited significantly from this invasion and ever since, they have never lagged behind as far as all aspects of development such as economic, cultural and political are concerned (Bruun and Commager, pp 37).

The western civilization brought about major developments in the world of science which resulted to the scientific revolution. This particular aspect of the western civilization had significant impact on how the work was done. Several machines were invented which made work much easier and the same time increased the level of productivity. Through the same scientific revolution, the Europeans were able to transfer such knowledge to other part of the world such as America. Ever since the scientific revolution started, more advanced inventions have been made and eventually we can now talk of a global village. Therefore, the western civilization, which increased the European powers, was a good thing as the world able to realize several benefits from it which are still evident to date (Bruun and Commager, pp 52).

The Persian, Peloponnesian, and Punic wars were among other things, wars for superiority

In all ages of civilization, wars have been part of the human society. In almost all the centuries, some nations or societies have been involved in wars. Every war has had its major causes and consequences according to the civilization of the society involved. These causes, the techniques used in the war and the aftermath of the war have changed as the society changes. The wars have evolved from the manual battles using simple weapons such as swords to very sophisticated weapons in the modern world such as nuclear and biological weapons or the more recent cyber war. The existence of wars in all ages of civilization has left historians with a lot of questions. The Persian, the Peloponnesian and the Punic war were wars of superiority between the fighting communities among other things (Burger, pp 15).

The Persian wars between the Persian Empire and the Greeks in 490 BC and the end of the fifth century can be considered as wars of superiority. Since the formation of the Persian Empire in the 6th century BC, the empire was perceived to be a threat of the states in Greece states. The wars resulted into the separation of the region which had enjoyed many years of interactions. In the first Persian war, the Greeks had superior weapons and tactics which were decisive against the Persians. The second war in the fifth century proved to be a war of superiority when the Hellenic League was formed by the Greek states as the Persian king made plans of large expeditions against them. The Greeks were able to defend their superiority while the Persians were able to defend their expansionism despite the superior weapons used by the Greeks in the war. The superiority of the Greeks culture and identity can be attributed to the events of the Persian war where their victories were an evidence of a superior culture (Stearns, pp 22).

The Peloponnesian war is another war of superiority in the ancient world. The Athens and the Sparta were two societies in Greece who had opposing economical and social ideologies. Each of the society desired to be superior over the other and control the region. This resulted into rivalry and confrontation between the two societies. The result was the terrible Peloponnesian war between 431 and 404 BC. In the 5th century BC, the Athens had attained absolute control over the region and the Greek felt that they had lost their superiority and autonomy in the land. This led to the formation of the Peloponnese league by the Greeks and the League of Delos by the Athenians (Hayes, pp 27).

The Punic war was not different. Carthage and Rome fought for superiority in the region during the first Punic war where Rome captured Sicily from Carthage and undermined her economic powers. In the second Punic war, Hannibal was determined to undermine the influence of Rome. He took assistance from the French and the Italian armies and was able to capture Iberian city from Rome. However, due to lack of a strong naval power, he was unable to capture Rome although Carthage gained superiority over Mediterranean region. Rome latter conquered in the third Punic war and regained her superiority (Stearns, pp 33).  

In conclusion, the Persian, the Peloponnesian and the Punic wars were in no doubt wars of superiority. Different powers fought military, economic and social superiority in their regions. To gain superiority, societies formed league against their rival which in some instances worked to their favor (Burger, pp 35).
How do historians identify groups as civilized

Historians and other scholars describe civilization as the process by which a society become civilized. Civilization is characterized by an organized society with organized social, political and economic structures. Modern civilized society is a society with developed agricultural and commercial systems, urbanization, religion, political and educational systems (Hayes, pp 41).

Many historians believe that civilization started in the Roman Empire. The roman civilization started developing in the tenth BC in Italia peninsula from a small agricultural society and developed to be the greatest civilization in the ancient world. The society developed to the Roman Empire which had an influence in most parts of Europe for several centuries (Stearns, pp 48).

The ancient Rome had well organized political, social and economic structures. The city of Rome which was the largest city in the ancient world enjoys the legacy of the home of ancient civilization. The population of Rome in the ancient world was up to a million people which is equal to the population of todays major towns such as London a century ago. There were well established legal systems, agricultural systems, culture, language, literature and art as well as educational systems. The Roman Empire like any other civilization in the ancient world had a well trained army which defended the empire and conquered new lands. The political leadership in Rome was initially headed by a king and latter by an emperor after the establishment of the Roman Empire (Hayes, pp 54).

The ancient Rome civilization was greatly influenced by the ancient Greek civilization. The Greek civilization fell after the Greeks were defeated by the Rome to establish the Roman Empire. However, the ancient Greek has over the centuries remained significant. The western culture and identity is based on the ancient Greek civilization. The modern political, literature and art, education and philosophies are founded on the ancient Greeks cultures. The ancient Greek world had organized social and political structures that were headed by military kings and the modern democracies are believed to have evolved from these systems of governance (Stearns, pp 60).

Until the 16th century BC, there were still people who were masked in mystery. Residing in the region lying to the west of Mesopotamia, the Persian people were a contrasting group of people among the European tribes of Indo. Some Persians were nomadic while others were living a settled life and were seen to be developing their own unique religion and culture which was different from great cities found in the west. At times, history is all about notions and nothing can emphasize more clearly this particular feature of history that the dramatic emergence on the world stage of the Persians, or the world stage which was basically centered in the Mesopotamia region. These historical ideas can explain the rapid increase of the power of the Persians not only within the region of Mesopotamia, but indeed throughout the world (Hayes, pp 64).

Despite the fact that the Persian Empire had immense power greatly influencing the entire Mesopotamian region and indeed the whole world, making it to be considered as the pioneer of the Roman Empire, the rise of Alexander the great as the Macedonian king posed a major threat to it. The Persian Empire was destroyed between 333 and 330 BC by Alexander the great. Within a period of only eighteen months, this great king had already cleared virtually all the Persian people out of the Anatolia region, a region they had occupied for more than two centuries. The great Macedonian king planned a mission to conquer the whole of the Persian Empire through his punitive expedition. Although the Persian ruler was sarcastically called Darius II, possessed a much superior military force than Alexander, the Macedonian king still managed to conquer the Persian Empire in 331 BC, when his military forces managed to cross the Euphrates River into Mesopotamia. After Darius II fled in 330 BC, Alexander entered Babylon. This marked the beginning of a new era for the Persians as their long history in the Mesopotamia region started developing into a new history. The Mesopotamia region thus first experienced the period of Hellenistic as well as the Greek and there after the Romans dominated the area between Euphrates and Tigris (Burger, pp 70).  

Development of democracy and republic by the Greeks and the Romans
Democracy as a word and also the concept it represents originated from the Mediterranian Sea communities. The origins of this noble concept can in fact be credited to the Greek people of the 16th century BC. The word democracy is derived from two words of the Greeks demos, which means people and kratein which means to rule. When these words are joined together they form democracy which basically means ruling people. The Greeks governance system was probably close to the true democracy as it is known today. According to the Greeks and the Romans, dictatorship was the worst form of government the governed could ever be subjected to and they thus shunned any ideologies biased towards dictatorship (Stearns, pp 78).

The civilization of the Greeks and the Romans was similar and was effectively divided into small states and cities and none could exceed a population of ten thousand people. Thus when a state or a city attained this population, it could earn the status of either a state or a city in order to ease the governance of people. According to the democracy of the Greeks and the Romans, no peoples representatives existed in the structures of governance. Rather, the people ruled themselves in a direct manner each individual was a member with life membership as far as decision making is concerned. This form of democracy was close to absolute democracy save for the fact that the slaves and the women were not considered as equal citizens and thus they did not have the right to vote (Hayes, pp 87).

The Romans were the first to establish a republic their republic was part of the civilization of the ancient Romans. The Roman Republic was basically characterized by the republican type of government. It started following the Roman Empire overthrowing in 509 BC, and lasted for more than four hundred and fifty years. It changed after its subversion via a long series of civil battles and later formed the Principate type of government as well as the imperial period. The republic of the Romans was governed under a sophisticated constitution that was mainly centered on the principles of checks and balances together with separation of power principles. The evolution of this particular constitution was significantly influenced by the great struggle between patricians or the aristocracy and the plebeians that is the talented Roman (Stearns, pp 92).

The democratic concept as developed by the Greeks was a major success in determining the best possible means through which people can be governed. They had democratic principles that favored absolute democracy where each person had the right to contribute to various decisions being made by the ruling authorities. However, the democratic concept of the Greeks had a major shortcoming in that it did not recognize slaves and women who formed more than fifty percent of the Greek population. The republic that was developed by the Romans was also a major success since it enabled the creation of a constitution that had ways of creating checks and balances as well as separating powers, thus enhancing integrity and accountability on the part of the leaders and rulers (Burger, pp 105).

The decay of the aura as Benjamin understands it comes about as a result of absence rather than presence of the object of focus. If Karl Marx and Frederick Engels are better known for their political and economic rather than literary writings, this is not in the least because they are regarded literature as insignificant (Seashore, 1967). This is because some of the literary and thematic writings and performances lack an object of focus leading to Aristotelian belief that literature is not a reflection of reality. I can substantiate this claims by the following presentations which show that some forms of literature lack the appropriate content therefore there is no way that they can reflect the society and what the society aspires (Ryan,1991).

The writings of Karl Marx
The writings of Karl Marx as a youthful author of lyric, himself as a youthful author of lyric poetry, a fragment of verse-drama and an unfinished comic novel much influenced by Laurence Sterne, are laced with literary concepts and allusions. He wrote a sizable unpublished manuscript on art and religion, and planned a journal of dramatic criticism, a full length study of Balzac and a treatise on aesthetics (Terry, 1976). Art and literature were part of the very air that Marx breathed as a formidably cultured German intellectual in the great classical tradition of his society. His acquaintance with literature, from Sophocles to the Spanish novel, Lucretius to pot boiling English fiction, was staggering in its scope. The German workers circle he founded in Brussels devoted an evening a week to discussing the arts, and Marx himself was an inveterate theatre-goer, declaimer of poetry, devourer of every species of literary art from Augustan prose to industrial ballads.

He criticized his own works in a letter to Engels as artistic whole and was scrupulously sensitive to questions of literary style, but not considered a particular subject of address (Terry, 1976).. Moreover the pressure of aesthetic concepts can be detected behind some of the most crucial categories of economic thought he employees in his mature work.

Marxist criticism is not merely sociology of literature concerned with how novels get published and whether they mention the working class. Its aim is to explain the literary work more fully and this means a sensitive attention to its forms styles and meanings (Thomas, 1991). It also means grasping those forms, styles and meanings as the products of a particular history.

Art therefore for Marxism is part of the superstructure society. It is part of the societys ideology an element in that complex structure of social perception which ensures that the situation in which one social class has powers over others is either seen by most members of the society as natural or not seen at all (Thomas, 1991).  To understand literature then means understanding the total social process of which it is part. As the Russian Marxist critic Georgy Plekhanov put it the social mentality of an age is conditioned by that ages social relations. This is nowhere quite as evident as in the history of art and literature. Literary works are not mysteriously inspired, or explicable simply in terms of their authors psychology (Jonathan, 1992).

Painter Henry Matisse
He once remarked that all art bears the imprint of its historical epoch, but that great art is that in which this imprint is most deeply marked. Most students of literature are thought otherwise the greatest art is that which is timelessly transcends its historical conditions. Marxist criticism of this has much to say on the issue but the historical analysis of literature did not of course begin with Marxism (Terry, 1976). Many thinkers before Marx had tried to account for literary works in terms of the history which produced them. One of this is the German idealist philosopher G.W.F. Hegel, who had a profound influence on Marxs own aesthetic thought. The originality of Marxist criticism, then lies not in the historical approach to literature, but in its revolutionary understanding of history itself.

The production of ides, concepts and consciousness is first of all directly interwoven with the material intercourse of man, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the spiritual intercourse of men, appear here as the direct efflux of mens material behavior (Seashore, 1967). We dont proceed from what men say, imagine, conceive nor from men as described, throughout of, imagined, conceived in order to arrive at corporeal man rather we proceed from the active man consciousness. Consciousness does not determine life but life is able to determine consciousness. Many literary works are written out of consciousness hence they dont reflect what life entails. If only the writer were considering life experiences and then write in consideration with them, then the works of literature would be having subjects of focus.

It is for the above reason that Marx argued that in the social production of literary writers, they enter into definite relationships that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces (Seashore, 1967). The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation on which raises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material conditions the social, political and intellectual life processes in general. It is not the consciousness of men, that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.

The dunciad
To understand King Lears work you dont have to understand the symbolism but study the literary history and add footnotes about the sociological facts which enter into them. First it calls for the understanding of the complex indirect relations between the works and the ideological worlds they inhabit, relations which emerge not just in themes and preoccupations but in style rhythm, image, quality and form (Brown, 1988). However we do not understand the ideology either unless we grasp the part it plays in society as a whole how it consists of a definite historically relative structure of perception which underpins the power of a particular social class.

Symbolic elements of Salambo
The process of writing Salambo occupied more than five years of Flauberts life. During this time, Flaubert claimed to have read hundreds of texts on the culture, art, economy, and history of the ancient Carthage. Flaubert organized these records in his dossier for the novel of which later was released to the public. This was partially in response to the criticism from his contemporary Charles Augustine Sainte-beuve, who had questioned not only the obscure subject of the work, but also its historical accuracy. Like Sainte-beuve, modern scholars have generally dismissed Flaubert claims of historical veracity. They have pointed out that Flaubert drew his material from one principal source, the history written by Polybius in the second century B.C., a basic record of the pubic wars. Accompanying such historical personages as Hamilcar Barca, Hanno and Matho, all of whom appear in the writings of Polybius, Flaubert inserted the indented figure of Salambo. In the end people consider Salambo as a conflation of history and the product of Flauberts active and neurotic imagination.

In the 20th century, George Kukacs viewed Salambo as a model of the historical novel. Later commentators have responded by arguing that Flauberts novel, despite its historic setting, bears little resemblance to such fiction, which tends to depict psychological motivation and to trace teleological momentum in history, qualities completely lacking in Salambo (Langer, 1942). In the contemporary period, victor Brombert initiated a new phase of serious interest in the work.  He viewed the work as a compendium of atrocities and refused to dismiss its outright as the sensationalized product of a disturbed mind.

In addition to form and theme, many late 20th century critics of Salambo have drawn to the sense of historiography implied by the novel most have maintained that its method is historical, observing that Salambo questions the very possibility of composing a scientific, archaeological recovery of the past in written form. Other scholars have considered Flauberts appropriation of myth in his narrative. O0ther scholars have also suggested that Flaubert undertook to write historical analogue by drawing broad comparisons between the ancient Carthaginians and the French bourgeoisie in the 19th century. As numerous points of view have been forwarded by critics, most consider the work paradoxical and unique component of the 19th century French fiction.

What is the  Age of Exploration  Who were the main countries involved in this race to build an empire What were their motives What kind of impact did exploration have on the New World and its inhabitants What inventions made exploration and sailing around the world possible How did the Age of Exploration impact Africa

The Age of Exploration was the time when the leading countries of Europe started conducting expeditions that enabled them discover lands beyond their borders, particularly lands in Africa and the New World (North and South America) which they would explore and later on colonize.  Spain and Portugal were the first two nations to embark on this venture and subsequently followed by England, France and Holland later on.  Their motives stemmed from the Three Gs  Glory, Gold and God.   To be able to acquire more lands than their rival would give them more prestige and stamp their class as a superior nation (Glory).  Conquering new lands would bring more riches to fill their coffers and make them wealthier than ever, especially with the lucrative spice trade which the Europeans wanted to covet as spices were considered far more precious than gold because of its rarity in Europe (Gold).  This was also an opportunity for them to Christianize the natives and spread the faith (God) .  After Portugal led the way, the rest of the leading European nations that could afford it joined in and created a competition for exploration and colonization (Duiker and Spielvogel, 287, 293-298).

If there was one impact it made, it led to the creation of a  new world system.   This was characterized by the gradual emergence of capitalism through a global trade network rising as mercantilism was gradually giving way to this new system.  Besides being settlements for people from Europe, these colonies served a purpose economically, providing natural resources for the colonizers to make a profit.  It also marked the end of the isolation of the western hemisphere as colonizers and settlers started coming in to add to the local population.  As for the inhabitants, they would be exposed to a culture that was alien to them as these new settlers tried to instill their culture upon them on the pretext of  civilizing  them.  In the process, these people would lose their identity as they were made to adapt to the ways of their colonizers.  This was particularly true in the colonies of the Spanish and Portuguese.  In the case of Africa, it was similar as the region is also rich in natural resources, particularly gold and in addition to this, the slave trade became very lucrative here as natives were abducted and sold at centers of trade and eventually imported to the western hemispheres.  Slavery used to be between Africa and the Middle East and the arrival of the Europeans, particularly the Portuguese, altered the direction of the slave trade to serve the interests of the Europeans (Duiker and Spielvogel, 286, 299-301).

As far as technology was concerned, the creation of sailing ships that were capable of sailing the high seas.  These ships replaced the galley-driven ones that used to ply the Mediterranean and were proven to be more faster and maneuverable.  In addition to the ships, special maps called portolani proved to be very reliable as well as other technologies that were imported from the orient such as the compass and the astrolabe also proved useful in expeditions (Duiker and Spielvogel, 293).

It is the Enlightenment era. You have had the ability to hear both John Locke and Thomas Hobbes discuss their unique and novel views of government. In your own words explain to me the arguments held by each man and what made them so new and innovative. Tell me if possible, what was the reasoning behind each of their works.

Both Thomas Hobbes and John Lockes ideas served as the foundation for modern democratic ideas during this era.  John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both agreed that a ruler of some sort appeared absolutely necessary for a country to thrive and flourish. Without a leader, the country would fall away into nothing, wracked by instability or chaos, if not anarchy.  In the political sense, the two philosophers agreed only on this subject. However, they each believed that a different type of power should reside as supreme. In his work,  Leviathan,  Hobbes emphasized the need of a ruler to regulate the lives of the people.  While he acknowledged that people are endowed with natural rights, they have the tendency to be a slave to it and follow it and it may cause conflict or chaos.  It is therefore necessary that society needs to have a ruler to regulate these rights and ensure order and stability.  This is Hobbes  Leviathan.  Hobbes thought that only one man, a king, should have the right to govern the people. One ruler should govern the people who in turn must be willing to conform to the norms of society by willingly curbing some of these rights as part of ensuring order.  This was Hobbes version of the social contract.  While Hobbes was an avowed royalist, he believed that any democratic society could still apply this principle (Duiker and Spielvogel, 380-383).

Locke took Hobbes social contract concept a step further felt that the people should somewhat administer their government. Unlike Hobbes, who believed the people have to give up some of their rights, he believed that the people should be involved in everything the government decided, those governing them. In his idea of the social contract, rulers have to govern wisely and judiciously and so as long as they do this, the citizens will comply with the laws and decrees.  However, if the government did not live up to its part of the social contract, the people had the right to change the government because this government is no longer considered legitimate and has lost the moral authority to govern.  This was how Locke came up with his own version of the social contract which is akin to the kind of arrangement found in democratic countries today (Duiker and Spielvogel, 380-383).  The bottom line here is that while Hobbes believed that even freedom-loving people still need a government to administer them since they are members of a society and the  contract  states they have to give up some rights.  Locke took a different view stating both rulers and the governed should forge an agreement, through a constitution to define their relationship.  So as long as both parties comply with this, everything will be orderly in society.

Greek civilization began in the archaic period in the 8th to 6th BC and continued through the classical period at the time of the Roman Empire which made it to spread across Europe and the Mediterranean region. The culture of the Greece especially during the classical period was the basis of civilization in the west. One of these aspects of the Greek culture that had significant impact to the Greeks and the western civilization is the concept of their sexuality. In the antiquity period, same sex marriages were prevalent in ancient Greece. The most widespread form of homosexual relationships that existed in the Greek society was the relationships between the youthful boys and adult men (Sinos, 33). These relationships were termed pederasty. The concept of pederasty was linked to the athletic and arty nudity of the gymnasia, segregation of women from social issues and delayed marriages by men.

Pederasty was an integral part of the society especially the military and at some times it influenced troop deployment. These relationships were complex and were classified as either honorable or dishonorable. The society considered it an abomination and a deficiency for a man not have a youthful boy as lover and opposition to not doing so were punishable. These relationships were critical in the Greek society and were an essential part of the educational and social settings. The rituals that were performed before such relationships began included the approval by the father of the youthful boy for the suitors. The boys were protected from seduction by potential suitors by being under the surveillance of slaves that were called pedagogues. There was great expectation especially by the fathers of the boys that the there boys would grow into handsome young men in order to be the object of desire from adult men.

Boys were eligible to enter into such pedestary relationships from the age of twelve but some joined even at the age of nineteen. The boys were at liberty to choose their suitors and had to be seduced by their potential suitors. This made the boy child in the Greek society to be used for social and financial gains by their suitors and their fathers. The pedestary union lasted until the boy reached adulthood. The Greek society regarded the union as a rite of passage of boys into adulthood. The union offered several advantages to the parties in the union for the boys and his family, mentoring by a respected older man was the elevation in social standing and possible attainment of powerful positions in the society (Thornton, 21). When the relationship ended the man had matured, the man turned heterosexual and married but the close relationship remained between the two men of the union and the society permitted lovemaking to continue if the two men so wished.

Pedestary had its rules, and some actions were not allowed, some of the practices that were not permissible included lovemaking between the slaves and boys or paying unengaged boys for sex. These unengaged or free boys could be prevented from perfuming certain roles in the society or were scorned by the society if they were found to have accepted gifts for sex before they were engaged. These relationships were open for abuse and a classic example of this was the case between aeschinian and timarchious in 346 BC. Aeschines argued that timarchiois during his youth had traded sexual favors for public office with several rich families. Arschenian won the case but he himself was also engaging in the vice while in position of power.

These pedestary relationships although permitted by the society, there were provisions for ending the relationships due to certain circumstances especially when there was violence. There was also circumstances when there youthful boy was given the opportunity to declare whether the relationship was favorable to him and in the event the boy wanted to end the relationship , he was given the go ahead. The pedesytary relationship was beneficial to the Greek society because it acted as a safeguard mechanism against youthful sexual immorality. This was possible because in the case the youthful lover committed a crime it was his lover who was punished and not the youthful boy. The relationships also benefited the military by fostering unity because the lovers fought beside each other in the wars (Thomas, 28). The relationships were also aimed as a method of controlling the population by channeling sex to activities that were not procreative.

The heterosexual relationships in the Greek society were characterized by adult men in their thirties pairing up with young women in their teens. The society tightly controlled the affairs of women. For example, in the pederasty relationships, the boys were allowed freedom of choice of their partner from their suitors while in the case of women, there was no choice and they were married off at the direction of their families. The marriages occurred mainly after the men had undergone the pederasty relationships and some of these men maintained this union even when they were married to their wives.

The women were viewed as just objects of safeguarding citizenship through bearing of children. They were viewed as just exchange of property when they were married .The average Greek man had to ensure that the wife sired only his children. This made women to be under tight surveillance from the man by locking women in their houses and monitoring of their movements (Keenan, 2). If a woman was found in a comprising situation with man, the man was charged or even killed

Prostitution was loathed in the Greek society. Prostitutes were viewed as victims of excessive makeup and other ruse methods to improve their beauty. They were also hated for being deceitful and greedy for money. The sex choices that were at the disposal for the male excluding the pedesyral relationships were varied like, male and female slaves, concubines and prostitutes These choices were there for them for free or at a cost. In the pedesyral relationships, there was a deliberate attempt to avoid enjoying the sexual encounter between the two men in the union. The subjects in the relationships mostly practiced intercrural sex where there was no penetration and alternatives like outer course were practiced though the extent to which how this was controlled is not clear (Thornton, 54). The other homosexual relationship that was practiced in the Greek society occurred within the noble social drinking community parties which was termed symposium. The activities during the drinking spree included games, and entertainment and casual sex between the drinking aristocratic groups and female and male slaves. These relationships between the drunkards and the slave boys and guys led to the creation of artistic work in Greece that had the deepest expressions of love in Europe.

The most common method of practicing sex in ancient Greece was the missionary position where the act was performed in bed hastily in bed as it was supposed to be for procreation only. Women had to contend for sex with the adolescent boys and the slaves from his husband. There were few sex taboos in the Greek society and practices such as incest and rape were prevalent although they were regarded as a norm in the society. In ancient Greece, these homosexual relationships were not restricted to men only and there were lesbian relationships as well but they were not as prevalent as those of the male counterparts as the society frowned upon them (Sinos, 39).  The ancient Greek society did not use the sexual preferences of the population to categorize the society into homosexual or heterosexual but rather on the function each played in the action order reflect on the submissive roles women and the young boys played in the society.

Adult homosexual relationships between men were frowned upon and the society regarded them as showing the signs of feminism. The insistence of the Greek society towards maintaining relationships only between adult men and young men and young women were supposed to keep the society with the view that masculine practices were a preserve of adult men and high social status. Feminism was viewed a preserve of women and the youth and was associated with low social standing. In summary, it is evident that all sexuality roles in the ancient Greek society were viewed only in the eyes of men and women occupied a very passive role in determining the sexual roles in the society.