How far did both Hitler and Stalin have consistent foreign policies Essay Example

How far did both Hitler and Stalin have consistent foreign policies? Essay In the study of 20th-century history there can be no foreign policys more influential to the geo-political map than those of Hitler and Stalin. As the autocratic leaders of Germany and Russia, both of which were potential superpowers, the power wielded by them, in their own country and on the world stage, shaped the development of Europe in the last century The period specified in the question has obviously not been selected at random, as January 30th 1933 saw Hitler become Chancellor of Germany, heralding the dawn of the Third Reich and by the end of 1941Germany was at war with Russia and had just declared war on the United States of America. Stalin had seen his former ally invade Russia and had consequently transferred his countrys allegiance to reconvene the allies of the First World War. In discussion of the question posed, this essay will first explore the positions of Hitler and Stalin in 1933 and the circumstances that had formed these positions. It will then move onto the aims and ideologies of the two leaders within the timeframe of 1933 to 1939. The years of 1939 to 1941 will be discussed as a period, as the two leaders foreign policies became entwined before violently diverging. We will write a custom essay sample on How far did both Hitler and Stalin have consistent foreign policies? specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on How far did both Hitler and Stalin have consistent foreign policies? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on How far did both Hitler and Stalin have consistent foreign policies? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer According to the Pocket Oxford Dictionary the adjective consistent is defined as, compatible or in harmony or alternatively, constant to the same principles. Using these definitions in the study of the two leaders foreign policies a theme emerges, this theme is based in the contrast between the rigid ideologies of Hitler and Stalin, set against their personal pragmatism and opportunism in the short-term pursuit of their ideological goals. Due to the evolutionary nature of foreign policy, it is important to look at earlier factors, before studying the period stipulated by the question. The first of these is the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, signed on the third of March 1918, which extracted Bolshevik Russia from the First World War. It was entered into by the Russians in order to consolidate the revolutionary government and in signing it Russia capitulated to Germany. It represented a trade-off between time against land and proved expensive for Russia, as she surrendered all the territories gained since the 16th century, including Finland, the Ukraine and the Polish and Baltic territories, in total one million square kilometres and one-third of her population. These terms would be remembered by the Russian government and in particular Stalin in later years. The Treaty of Versailles was condemned for its se verity, however the terms imposed on Russia by the Brest-Litovsk Treaty were far harsher. The Treaty of Versailles, signed on 28th of June 1919, brought the First World War to an end. The German delegation to the peace conference set out, in the firm belief that the settlement would be a negotiated one. (The Road to War. Overy and Wheatcroft, page 27). This was not to be; under threat of Allied invasion the German representatives were forced to cede to the allies and submit to terms of a diktat. The German view of the armistice as a truce was dismissed by article 231, The War Guilt Clause, which laid the blame for World War One on Germany. In order to settle this account with the allies an eighth of German European territory was divided up and given to France, Belgium, Denmark, Poland and Czechoslovakia. The loss of the port of Danzig, as it became a free city under the newly formed League of Nations, and the corridor which linked it to Poland particularly rankled with Germany, nationalists referring to it as the open wound in the east. (The Road to War. Overy and Wheatcroft, page 2). Union with Austria was forbidden, the Rhineland was demilitarised and the Saar basin was placed under international control, resulting in the loss of its iron and steel industry. In conjunction with The War Guilt Clause reparations were demanded from Germany totalling 132 billion gold marks, with a payment plan stretching to 1988. There were also strict limitations imposed on Germanys armed forces, including the numbers retained, a ban on conscription, limitations of ships tonnage and the banning of all aircraft, airships and submarines. Her borders were also redrawn resulting in 13% of the German population being marooned beyond the original German borders, making them ethnic minorities of their new countries. The treaty was neither conciliatory nor crushing in its treatment of Germany, producing a vengeful Germany (The Origins of the Second World War. A W. Perdue, page 13), bitter at her treatment by the allies, It was this profound sense of injustice that infused all Germanys foreign policy during the years that followed. (The Road To War. Overy and Wheatcroft, page 28). Two other treaties, which had a bearing on later foreign policy, were the Rappallo Treaty of April 1922 and the Locarno Treaty of December 1925. Rapallo is significant as it signalled the re-emergence of the signatories, Russia and Germany, from the wilderness of defeat and revolution back to the political stage. The importance of the Locarno Treaty is drawn from its ability to please all parties involved, including a German delegation. Among its stipulations was that Germany should be accepted into the League of Nations, this helped to encourage the feeling that the Germans were now treated as equals, not the defeated enemy (The Origins of the Second World War. AJP Taylor, page 83). Hitler became Chancellor Germany on January 30th 1933, in a period of economic decline he offered bread and work whilst stirring up old feelings of bitterness against the victors of World War One coupled with reminders of Germanys period of humiliation. At the time of his ascension to power Hitlers aims and ideology can be divided into five areas, the first and most immediate of which was for Germany to become a great power again. This was a broad aim encompassing economic restructure and growth, rearmament and the acceptance by the German people of the Nazi ideology of Social Darwinism and the concept of the Aryan Master race. The second aim was the reversion of the Versailles Treaty, important as it symbolised all that was negative in recent German history and, by its conditions, it restricted the countrys growth and separated her people. Hitlers concept of lebensraum, or living space, had been sketched out in Mein Kampf eight years before and was an integral element of his plans f or Germany to become a world power, without space Germany would decline however strong her racial stock (The Road to War. Overy and Wheatcroft, page 44). His fourth aim was closely associated with the lebensraums expansion eastwards, as it was the destruction of communism. The ideologies of fascism and communism were diametrically opposed and Hitler also believed that Bolshevik Russia was part of the Jewish world conspiracy. Settlement of the Jewish problem is the last of the five aims and it can be seen that it runs in harmony with Hitlers views concerning racial purity, lebensraum and the destruction of communism. Although Hitlers aims remained consistent from the 1920s throughout, during his early years in power priority was given to the rebuilding of Germany economically, as he needed to consolidate his partys political power and without a strong base Germany would be unable to pursue any of his further aims in foreign policy. During the years of economic recovery and political stabilisation German foreign policy remained restrained and circumspect. (The Road To War. Overy and Wheatcroft, page 39). Openly speeches were made on the revisionist policies towards Versailles, always tempered with talk of peace and allies, whilst in private, although vague, Hitler spoke of conquest in the east, Germanisation, rearmament and the annulment of Versailles. In line with his future plans for Germany Hitlers first steps into foreign policy withdrew Germany from the disarmament conference and the League of Nations, on the grounds of parity in arms. His consistent anti-Soviet rhetoric severely damaged rela tions with Russia formed by the Rappallo treaty, which was eventually destroyed by Germanys non-aggression pact with Poland, signed in January 1934. This was the first of a number of pacts signed to prevent Soviet attempts at collective security and was an example of long-term ideological goals, i.e. lebensraum, being pursued at the expense of frontier revision. It seemed to be an about face in policy and was unpopular as Poland held large areas of land, formally part of Germany, but to Hitler it was an important buffer between Germany and Soviet Russia. By 1936 both Hitlers and the Nazis power had been consolidated, Germanys economy was in a much stronger position and a strident rearmament program had just begun. Coupled with Germanys secure foundation was Britain and Frances desire to uphold peace in Europe above all else, demonstrated by their uncoordinated and weak response to Italys attack on Ethiopia in 1935. Sensing an opportunity, presented by the preoccupation of international politics with the Abyssinian crisis, Hitler decided to restore full German sovereignty to the Rhineland. Even though this action violated both the treatys of Versailles and Locarno the gamble paid off, as it provoked only verbal protests from the British and French governmen ts. Fuelled by his success, the initiative in German foreign policy from 1936 passed to Hitler embarked on an active and aggressive pursuit of his goals, prompted by the opportunities presented by a failing League of Nations and Britain and Frances weakness due to economic crisis, and political instability. There was also an underlying feeling in Europe that some revision of Versailles was necessary and the fear of a second war in thirty years amongst the British and French politicians weakened their position. For Hitler a war was inevitable if Germany was to realise her potential and his plans, it was only the timing that was flexible, as in his view war was a necessity, a natural outcome of the competition between races. (The Road to War. Overy and Wheatcroft, page 45). With the knowledge of Germanys limits and the rest of Europes fears Hitler was astute enough to recognise, the role of circumstances and opportunity in international affairs. (The Road to War. Overy and Wheatcroft, page 45). This consistency in ideological aims pursued by flexible opportunism in foreign policy would become a hallmark for Hitlers actions throughout the period 1933 to 1941. On the fifth of November 1937 an infamous meeting took place, during which Hitler outlined his immediate plans to his commanders-in-chief. These included the annexation of Austria, the destruction of Czechoslovakia, the gain of European lebensraum and a major conflict with the great powers, to occur no later than 1943/45. The authenticity of the document which recorded this meeting, known as the Hossbach memorandum, has been disputed, but even if it is not entirely accurate it is still a testament to the consistency of Hitlers ideological goals. The achievement of these goals through the opportunist application of foreign policy was also consistent as Austria was marked out to become a province of the Third Reich, an objective he had stated on page one of Mein Kampf fourteen years before. (Hitler and Stalin Parallel Lives. Bullock, page 617). The Anschlus was achieved in March 1938 by a mixture of political chicanery and Nazi bullyboy tactics employed against Austrias politicians. Austro-German unity was specifically forbidden under the terms of the treaty of Versailles, but again the action only provoked verbal chastisement. The previous year Eden had told Ribbentrop people in England recognised that a close connection between Germany and Austria would have to come at some time. (Europe 1880 to 1945. Roberts, page 427). Buoyed by the ease of his success, achieved under the pretext of uniting the German people, liberation of the three and a quarter million Germans of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia became the next item on Hitlers foreign policy agenda. Originally Czechoslovakia was the goal but Hitler settled for the Sudetenland at the Munich conference, mainly because he could not be sure of the Soviet response if he used force and the possibility of war on two fronts, a repeat of a major World War One mistake, was to be avoided at all costs. Even though Britain and France stood their ground against Germanys use of force and saw it as a victory, peace in our time, Hitler had again collected the spoils of war without a fight. The appeasement policy of Britain and France at Munich showed a further extent to their weakness to him, which he intended to exploit further in 1939. A search for security against Nazi aggression and expansion was the great continuity in Soviet policy from 1933-41, not a quest for alliance with the future enemy. (The Soviet Union and the Origins of the Second World War. G. Roberts, page 4). Nevertheless Soviet Russias alliance with Nazi Germany was the result of Stalins pursuit of his aims and foreign policy of the 1930s. In 1933 Stalins aims bore more than a passing resemblance to Hitlers, the most constant and overriding of which was to maintain the security of the Soviet nation. This concern bordered on paranoia at times, but it was understandable to a degree, as Soviet Russia was the only communist country, with a completely different ideology in a capitalist world. There were advantages to this ideological isolation as Stalin had been able to carry out the rebuilding of the country without worrying too much about foreign policy or events outside his borders. There is no doubt that another of Stalins aims was for Russia to become a great world power, if only to reflect his own personal success and the success of communism as a practical ideology. Coupled with this aim was the reversion of the Brest-Litovsk treaty, which had deprived Russia of land, and resources. Once established as world power opportunities may arise to reclaim the lost territories. The rise of fascism in the twenties and thirties and its condemnation of communism made it a threat to Russian security, therefore its containment and defeat was an aim, as the security of the nation was paramount. Finally, the aim to spread world communism was a stated objective of communist ideology; the initial hope that the 1917 revolution would spark others had not occurred, but this ideologica l objective remained a constant factor in Soviet foreign policy. Stalins foreign policy throughout the 1930s can be seen as a complex balancing act, whereby he endeavoured to maintain Russias semi-isolated stance but was prepared to be more involved in world and European politics in order to maintain the balance of power in Europe and thereby safeguard Soviet interests. The ideological differences between Soviet Russia and the other countries of Europe always meant that Stalin was suspicious of their motives, his view regarding any dealings with capitalist countries was that they were to be entered into with a healthy mistrust. By the end of 1933 Hitler and the Nazi partys publicly stated anti-communist stance had prompted Soviet Russia to embark on the foreign policy of collective security, i.e. to the construction of a system of alliances with other states designed to curb Nazi aggression and expansionism. (The Soviet Union and the Origins of the Second World War. Bullock, page 47). The first evidence of this policy was the Soviet entry into the League of Nations in September 1934. Russias policy of collective security from 1933-39 was based in a belief that the imperialist nations had divided into two camps, the aggressive containing Germany, Japan and Italy and the democratic with Britain, France and the United States of America as members. As it was the aggressive camp that threatened Soviet security, Russias interests became aligned with those of the democratic camp. For Stalin there was a concern over alliance with the democratic countries, as in their future efforts to avoid a war they may steer the aggressive alliance eastwards towards Russia. A situation that would leave her alone to fight their war, should they renegade on their collect ive security responsibilities. In an effort to counter this problem Stalins foreign policy was to hedge his bets by maintaining efforts to improve German/Soviet relations while signing non-aggression pacts, containing little or no Russian commitment to assistance in the event of war. The period of appeasement by France and Britain and their hidden agenda of directing the aggressive powers eastwards did nothing to quell Stalins fears over the failure of collective security. Although powerless to prevent either the remilitarisation of the Rhineland or the Anschlus of Austria, both Russia and France had commitments to Czechoslovakia through mutual assistance treaties. The noncommittal French response to Soviet enquiries regarding a combined action in defence of Czechoslovakia from Germany and the subsequent betrayal of the country at Munich signalled to Stalin that his fears over collective security were likely to be realised. From the Soviet point of view, the Munich crisis presented the last chance to stop Hitler without all-out war, although collective security, as a policy was not formally abandoned after Munich, Soviet foreign policy was now directed to finding a war fighting alliance. Collective security was superseded by strategy of collective defence. (The Unholy Alliance. G. Roberts, page 93). In order to maintain his long-term goals Stalins ideology would be required to be flexible. The period of 1939-41 is dominated, in terms of Hitler and Stalins foreign policy, by the formation and dissolution of the German/Russian Non-Aggression Pact, signed on the 23rd of August 1939. Initially, the notion of a pact between these two opposed ideologies, publicly committed to the eradication of one another, seemed improbable at the least. Therefore the pacts existence stands as testimony to the pragmatism of both Hitler and Stalin, both of whom had never dismissed the possibility and thereby compromised their respective ideologies with practical foreign policies. The Soviet choice in August 39 was a rational, even predictable one. It was avowedly opportunistic but Stalin had never pretended that soviet foreign policy was anything else. (The Road to War. Overy and Wheatcroft, page 246). Stalins decision to enter into a pact with his ideological enemy was based on the following reasoning. The failure of collective security, still pursued by the Soviet Union until the middle of August 39, in the face of British time wasting and the Polish refusal to grant passage to Red Army troops, enabling them to advance on Germany. Even if a settlement could be reached with Britain and France what could they offer Stalin? At best, the hostility of Germany and at worst involvement in a European war, their preparations for which appeared inadequate and based on defensive rather than aggressive tactics, neither of these facts gave Stalin any confidence in their proposals. Another factor was the fear that Britain and France would abandon the Soviet Union in a combined stand against the imminent German action against Poland. The appeasement policy may be used to encourage Germanys interests eastwards, so in signing the pact both of these threats were removed, even if, with regard to Germanys interest in the east, the respite was temporary. During the hasty negotiations Stalin also managed to obtain German guarantees on a Soviet sphere of influence i n the Baltic States, Finland and eastern territories of Poland, detailed in a secret additional protocol to the pact, revising the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. For Hitler, the most immediate reason for the forming of the pact lay in the premise that without Soviet support Britain and France would not take military action against him when his plan for Poland was executed. It would also remove the possibility of a two front war, for which he did not have sufficient resources, however lebensraum and the destruction of communism could be pursued again, once the threat from Britain and France had been neutralised. Any chance of an encirclement of Germany by Allied countries would be thwarted and the psychologically damaging revival of First World War entente between Britain, France and Russia could not returned to haunt him. Safe in the knowledge that he had tamed Stalin and the non-aggression pact was signed and sealed Hitlers forces invaded Poland on the first of September 1939. Originally planned for 26th of August the invasion was put back until the pact with Stalin was complete, such was its significance. This time verbal protests were followed by an ultimatum, and on the third of September Britain and France declared war on Germany, an act that surprised Hitler who had expected appeasement, as before. The pacts lifespan was less than two years, destroyed by Hitlers invasion of Russia on the 22nd June 1941. Named Operation Barbarossa, it signalled the return of Hitler to his ideology demonstrated by foreign policy. In the last six months of the pact Stalin had tried to extend the Soviet sphere of influence to the Balkans, making demands on Germany, mistakenly in the belief that Hitler needed him more than he needed Hitler. The demands were read as threatening and only added to the list of reasons for the implementation of Operation Barbarrossa. These included, Hitlers theory that Soviet or American intervention was seen as a prop for Britain which she may have been holding out for, therefore the destruction of Russia removed one of these props and would allow Japan freedom to concentrate on America. Other factors were lebensraum, racial and political hatred, and Hitler was also worried that once Britain was defeated he would be incapable of rousing the German people to fight Russia . Hitler had rationalised the two front war, something that his foreign policy had previously been consistent in its avoidance of. Although wary of using the term alliance, Churchill immediately agreed to fight alongside Stalin, paving the way to the rekindling of the World War One entente between Britain, France and Russia. Hitlers last significant act of foreign policy before the end of 1941 was the declaration of war on the United States of America on the 11th of December. It came four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour and initially the decision may be seen as an act of hubris. To Hitler, the declaration was seen as an opportunity to formalise the state of relations already in existence with America, due to her support of Britain, whilst retaining the advantage of control of the situation. As von Ribbentrop told Weizsacker at the time, A great power doesnt let itself have war declared on it, it declares war itself. (Hitler Nemesis. Ian Kershaw, page 446). A revised tripartite pact tied Germany to war with the USA, as a partner of Japan, so after Japans declaration of war it was therefore inevitable. Hitlers miscalculation lay in the presumption that Japan would reciprocate and declare war on Britain and that the USA would concentrate her efforts, and underestimated resources, in the Paci fic rather than Europe. The decision to declare war on the USA was both pragmatic and opportunistic although it had no foundation in Hitlers original ideology making it a departure from the consistent decision-making process he had previously employed.

Bust, Burst, and Arrest

Bust, Burst, and Arrest Bust, Burst, and Arrest Bust, Burst, and Arrest By Maeve Maddox Yes, I know that just about everyone uses the word bust as a noun to mean arrest and as a verb to mean arrested. Phoenix police discuss soured drug bust that killed Chandler officer †¦a Merrill Lynch banker†¦ was busted along with seven others yesterday for participating in an illegal game†¦ I know too that its common to use the word bust to mean burst or break. Hurricanes roaring across the Gulf of Mexico create strong enough underwater waves to dig up and potentially bust open oil pipelines Innovative Sound Device Could Bust Cancer Cells Holiday price stings could bust the family budget. Commonly used or not, these uses always register as nonstandard with me. Colloquial, yes. Appropriate in some idioms, yes. Acceptable in a formal context, no. The verb burst means to break suddenly when in a state of tension. Balloons burst. Bubbles burst. Burst means to break the outer covering and discharge the matter. Boils burst. Burst means to open out, to disperse. Flowers burst into bloom. Seed pods burst. We get wet from a sudden cloud burst. And, of course, undersea oil pipes burst. Undersea wells break or break down. Used informally, the word bust is acceptable in certain idioms: to bust a bronco (break a horse) to go bust (to lose ones money at gambling) boom or bust (economic prosperity or failure) drug bust (drug arrest, raid) to bust (to arrest, or to be discovered in an illegal or disobedient act) This deliberately playful headline about the discovery of a publicity hoax plays on two colloquial meanings of bust as a verb, burst and found out as culpable: Balloon Boy Busted In standard usage, bust is a noun with such meanings as A piece of sculpture representing the head, shoulders, and breast of a person. The upper front part of the human body; the bosom (esp. of a woman). The measurement around a womans body at the level of her bust, usually measured in inches My inability to accept bust as an unexceptionable synonym for break or arrest may be totally irrational. Nevertheless, whenever I hear it from the mouth of a news announcer, or see it used in the context of a formal news story, it strikes me as nonstandard and unnecessarily jarring. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Misused Words category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:50 Redundant Phrases to AvoidTelling a Good Poem from a Bad OnePersonification vs. Anthropomorphism

The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe Assignment

The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe - Assignment Example Many folk practices and folktales have been cataloged in the ethnographic encyclopedia and folkloric motifs as a standard guide. These works allow the historian to crosscheck critically the practices and customs that were documented in primary sources. Our area of focus is going to deal with blood and its relationship to the early modern European (Redwald 27). The blood and the bodily symbolism are not only going to reflect the individual and social beliefs but also be able to interpret as they have the values and concepts that can be used to understand how people’s identity is built in a given society that they belong to. Anthropology methodologies are normally concerned with people’s culture; we are going to deal with an anthropological study of magic, witchcraft, heresy, and mysticism commonly known as paganism. Paganism ranges in various ways of high magic (known as ceremonial magic); through witchcraft, these two have varying cosmologies and mythologies, but they h ave a common unifying belief in communication with other spirits and deities in other worlds. These are usually experienced in one’s consciousness (Matteoni 97). According to Sprenger and Institoris’ analysis about witchcraft to have an effect, there must be the witch, the devil and God’s permission to concur in all the mentioned things. So the definition of many late medieval icons about the devil is not easy as one cannot tell the extent to which the devil is present in people’s minds (James 70). According to Peter Burke, the definition of â€Å"people† in western culture existed from the opposed categories: the nobility for the commoners, the literate for the illiterate, the rich for the poor, and the clergy for the laity. Historiography witchcraft reflects the problem of which figure perception by different parts of society, and historians have taken into consideration the socio-economic problems and changes in religious tensions, early modern society, the perception of the witch figure, effect of reformation and its gender relations (Levack 74).           Ã‚  

A literature review. The purpose of such a characterization is to set Essay

A literature review. The purpose of such a characterization is to set up the need for your contribution. Summaries of a - Essay Example Amitai Etzioni asserts that regulations are the way to prevent an economic decline brought about by businesses. In terms of the consumer consumption, a culture change supersedes regulations, but it seems too difficult to develop such a change. Many Americans have continued to work hard to sustain their livelihoods in terms of reaching their wants. As he notes â€Å"what needs to be eradicated†¦ the obsession with acquisition that has become the organizing principle of American life† (Etzioni, 2012). People get to great length for the sole purpose of maximizing their earnings in an effort to meeting their physiological-motivated needs. The society has branded more money and more things to mean ‘good life’ when in real terms the struggles are too much compared to the benefits thereof. He continues to assert that the capitalism has been the key player in facilitating the consumer trends seen. However, capitalism cannot be solely blamed on the woes, what needs to be done is creating a balance between consumption and other engagements (Etzioni, 2012). The perception that increased income relates to increased happiness is misplaced and cannot hold. This is not an advocacy for laxity in striving to be economically stable, but a call for individuals to be cognizant of the need to regulate their consumption. Because of the perception taken against consumption, the public should be made to understand that manageable consumption could not be related to failure (Etzioni, 2013). On the other hand, Juliet Schor presents a view that consumption should be individualized and not be presented as a public affair. She talks about the misplaced thinking that prompts individuals to keep on spending. Her suggestions clearly depict a systematic approach to consumption. She notes that a decent living should be a factor of satisfying the needs and not the wants. In addition, she advocates that the focus should be to improve the quality of life and not a desire t o see the massive items all around them, pushing hard to belong to a consumption class is an irrelevant and displaced move. The consumption levels ought to be in a way that it encourages conservation of the ecology. Consumption also should be made to be free will without having influences from the producers and retailers (Schor, 1999). The two authors establish a common ground of argument. From their views, ‘political’ aspects in the consumption chain have hampered freedom of consumption. They strongly advocate for a change in consumption culture in an attempt to vary the current spending dynamics. Quality of life has also been emphasized; individuals should not only focus on earning and being reduced to shoppers who do not have even the time to do it. The little time available is fixed with one activity after the other. They also call for regulations through the government and the relevant stakeholders in order to create a need-related consumption. Revitalization of co nsumer and labor movements to focus on this hidden yet dangerous trend is an urgent need in an attempt to protect the consumers. At the end of their arguments, the suggestions provided are biased on cultural change among the consumers in order to prevent unnecessary hard work whose products are miserable spent in making acquisitions.

Recent developments in policies in care

Recent developments in policies in care There are a number of recent developments in policies relating to care, however, I am going to focus on just one of these policies which is the National Health Service And Community Care Act 1990. Community care has no single meaning, broadly, it means helping people who need care and support to live with dignity and as much independence as possible in the community. The community is hard to define, it most often means ordinary homes, but for some people, it includes special forms of housing, residential or nursing homes. Community care involves provision which is largely pensions, benefits, income, transport, housing, the opportunity to work, policies for essential services such as fuel, telephone, recreation, education and leisure. Community care is part of our lives. It is the web of care and support provided for frail, people have sick, dependent people both by their families or others members of the community and by public or other services. This means helping some people remain in their homes or creating homelike places appropriate support. Community care means a preference for home life over institutional care. It means helping people to be integrated with their local community, rather than being separate from it, in a long stay hospital, where people do live with others in what are called communal settings or group homes. There is a general reference for smaller homes close to where people have always lived. New arrangements are being introduced for publicly provided social services. These are often referred to as the community care changes. They were first described in 1989 Government document called Caring for people, the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 made the necessary legal changes. Firstly, When looking at the history behind the NHS and community Care Act 1990, In 1948 the new National Health Service (NHS) and local authorities inherited 500 old workhouses that catered for, or warehoused a mixture of elderly people, some of whom were incapable of looking after themselves, some of whom needed medical or nursing care, and some of whom simply had nowhere else to go. The NHS, wanted to get rid of its embarrassing institutions, which contained hundreds of people confined to large wards with no privacy and receiving no significant medical treatment (Townsend 1962). The Nuffield Foundation issued a report from a committee chaired by seebohm Rowntree in 1947 on the circumstances of old people living in these homes, in smaller residential accommodation and at home. It recommended the development of small units, of no more than thirty five people, sited in the community. Central Government issued guidance to local authorities encouraging them to develop such smaller residential homes, though its own expenditure restrictions made this difficult to achieve until the 1960s when closure of the remaining workhouses became a major policy goal and local authorities began to build up services that supported elderly people in their homes, such as home helps and meals on wheels. In NHS terminology these alternatives to long stay care in the old hospitals and workhouses came to be called community care. The same approach can be seen in the next social group to be considered for community care, which was the mentally ill. The Royal Commission on the Law relating to mental illness and mental deficiency in 1957 saw a decline in the number of people needing long-term compulsory detention in hospitals. Many were there and their civil liberties denied merely because no alternatives were available. The preparation for the closure of large long stay hospitals for the mentally ill began in the early 1960s but it progressed very slowly at first. It was the scandals that hit the long stay institutions for the mentally handicapped in the late 1960s and early 1970s that began a large programme of hospital closure for that group too. (Martin 1984). The term community care came to be applied to those facilities that were developed to replace long-stay hospital care. The expectation was that local authorities would take on the role of proving such alternative care. In the 1980s, the emphasis changed again. In their very early statement of policy priorities for the elderly, growing older, the new conservative government emphasised the importance not of care in the community but of care by the community (Department of Health and Social Security 1981). This essentially meant care by the family and support by neighbours and local voluntary groups, not the local authority. Community care has been a concern to shift the responsibility for care from one agency to another, from the NHS to local authorities, from local authorities to families. The NHS and Community Care Act 1990 was introduced for a number of reasons, it introduced new procedures for arranging and paying for state funded social care. The government stated that they aim to make the best use of public money to make sure that the services which are provided by local and health authorities meet their needs. They encouraged authorities to set priorities to decide how they will spend money if there is not enough to provide for everyones needs. They also ensure that local authorities check on the quality of care which is being provided through inspection units, complaints procedures, care management, setting of service specifications and monitoring contracts for care and they aimed to encourage local authorities to use other organisations to provide services, not just to provide themselves. The Audit Commission 1986 carried out a report called making a Reality of Community Care, which was a highly cogent and critical document. It discussed the fragmented nature of the so-called spectrum of care that was supposed to be available, from hospital to domiciliary care. It pointed out that many agencies were involved and that many people were either getting the wrong kind of care or not getting care at all. It criticised funding arrangements that gave more central government support to hospital care than to local authorities, which were providing an alternative. What was new was the exposure of what was happening to the social security funding of residential care. The Audit Commission documented the rise in spending and argued that the government was being wholly inconsistent. It was telling local authorities that it wanted old people to stay at home for as long as possible because that was the most cost-effective and desirable thing to do, but at the same time it was pushing large sums of public money into expensive residential and nursing home care. Sir Roy Griffiths, Mrs Thatchers trusted advisor on the NHS, had already reported to her on the management of the NHS. He was called into service again. He established the Griffiths report in 1984 to review the way in which public funds are used to support community care policy and to advise the secretary of state on options which would improve the use of these funds. (Department of Health and Social Security 1988). His essential job was to sort the money problem. In his report he recommended that public finance for people, who require either residential home care or non-acute nursing home care, whether that is provided by the public sector or by private or voluntary organisations, should be provided in the same way. Public finance should only be provided following separate assessments of the financial means of the applicant and of the need of care. The assessments should be managed through social services authorities. Local authority social services departments were responsible for the funding of support and organisation in the community, which commenced when the establishment of the NHS and Community Care 1990 was made. The blurring of the boundaries involving health and social care came into effect at the same time as the development of this Act was made. Recent debates are concerned with equality in community care over the allocation of public resources involving various client groups, income groups, localities and generations. Local authority services departments were in charge of funding and organising care and support in the community, this was carried out by the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 to allow individuals who are affected by disability or ageing to live independently as possible. Both the idea of responsibility and community care and for its organisation has been especially hard to identify. For example, in 1981 a study by the Department of Health and Social Security distinguished the inconsistent understanding of community care by health and social services authorities. For the NHS, community care typically referred to care offered outside the health service, for example, residential care from local authorities. Residential care was referred mainly by social services departments. The central department of social security was handed the main responsibility for funding from means testing to local service departments. Providing and planning care and assessing peoples needs was the local authoritys responsibility. This included domiciliary care as well as the allowance of money for places in residential and nursing homes. The Act included key objectives, which were, three different types of services available for people at their homes such as respite, day and domiciliary services which includes occupational therapy, bathing services, home care and home help, various types of daytime care outside a persons home is associated with day services. Examples of day services are lunch clubs, day hospitals and day centres. Another key objective is respite care enables people who are being cared for and carers to get a break from another. Respite services include day centre attendance, family placement schemes, sitting services and also respite care provided in nursing and residential homes. Another objective from the Act was service for carers, when an individuals needs assessment is being prepared, carers need to be considered. Another key objective was that a referral on behalf of a patient to social services can be made by any individual as well as any person who is a member of the primary health care team. Also, anyone who appears to need a community care service must be carried out by the local authorities. A written care plan should be then set out by the local authority which should address who, when and what will be achieved by providing services, to deal with issues with services there should be a contact point and if any circumstances change, there should be information on how the individual can ask for an evaluation of the services. Another objective is that GPs are expected to deliver helpful information on health to assist social services in the care assessment. There are a number of adult client groups that benefited from these objectives. The children Act 1989 introduced many changes relevant to provision for children and their protection, adult client groups include elderly people, people with physical disabilities, mental health problems, drug and alcohol problems, people with HIV or AIDS, homeless people and people who are terminally ill. However, the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 have been criticisms. There is a tension between the idea of user-led assessment and the targeting of resources on people. Some social services departments are worried that the assessment process will raise expectations which cannot be met. It is possible that some assessments will not reflect peoples actual needs, but only the needs they are allowed to express in line with those the authority feels able to meet. Such a system would suppress only understandings of the true level of need, unless the unmet needs are carefully recorded and fed back into the system. Also the community care reforms are rooted in the idea that people should have choice about how their care needs are met. Assessment should be user-led, but gives the ultimate responsibility for defining need and working out how or if it will be met to the local authority through the assessor or care manager The Act has been also criticised for using the term vulnerable adults. They are defined as at risk of abuse. They are those meeting the criteria of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990, or being in need of community care services by reason of mental or other disability, age or illness and being unable to take care of themselves or to protect themselves against significant harm or exploitation. The term vulnerability is being used in this Act to stress the differences between people in terms of their ability to protect themselves. However, these differences are not fixed and a disability perspective would argue that casting disabled or older people, or people with health problems, as vulnerable is a form of infantilization and further perpetuates their less than full adult status. They can be seen as helpless or dependent and unable to manage the risks of ordinary living. Examples of this are: people with learning disabilities may be over-protected by those who fear they will be exploi ted, in particular, sexually. Another criticism of the Act is that Lewis and Glennerster (1996) have suggested that NHS officers regarded the 1990 Act as good grounds for getting rid of their long-term care responsibilities as soon as possible. Some health authorities stopped providing any continuing care beds at all (Richards 1996). Eventually, these developments forced the department of health publicly to accept that the 1990 Act had led to a reduction in the responsibility of hospitals for long term care, not withstanding its earlier claims to the contrary. On a 1994 report by the Health Service Commissioner into the case of a seriously brain damaged patient, for whom the local health authority had refused to accept responsibility, The Commissioner found that, in refusing to spend resources on patients of this type, the health authority was failing to fulfil its duties. (Health Service Commissioner 1994). Another criticism of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 are that even though the reforms have stressed the significance of carers (primarily other family members), however, some of the individuals that need care do not have families and of the individuals who do have families do not have carers. Also the basic difference in individuals family situation is not directly addressed by the current policy. The community care reforms, which were preceded by the white paper, found that the government distinguishes that demographic movements will have repercussions for the potential availability of carers. However, it failed to explore what these repercussions might be; the reforms also persist to place the relatives at the middle of the care system. Another criticism is that there also may be no interpreting service to help people whose first language is not English, or who is death, People may not want their financial means to be assessed, disablement benefits have to be put towards servic es offered, when there is already difficulty making ends meet. In conclusion the community care involves provision which is largely pensions, benefits, income, transport, housing, the opportunity to work, policies for essential services such as fuel, telephone, recreation, education and leisure. Community care is part of our lives. The NHS and Community Care Act included key objectives, which were, three different types of services available for people at their homes such as respite, day and domiciliary services which includes occupational therapy. Criticisms of the policy include casting disabled or older people, or people with health problems, as vulnerable is a form of infantilization and further perpetuates their less than full adult status. (2599 words)

The Prevalence Of Anorexia Nervosa, Bulimia Nervosa, And Binge Eating D

The Prevalence Of Anorexia Nervosa, Bulimia Nervosa, And Binge Eating Disorder How prevalent is anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and other eating disorders? Without the knowledge of research, one is likely to think eating disorders are quite prevalent in society today. However, research proves that eating disorders, in general, are not as prevalent as one might think without any knowledge of the subject. Prevalence of an eating disorder refers to the number of cases of an eating disorder within a population. When discussing the prevalence of anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and eating disorders, it is important to realize and understand the risk factors and characteristics that help to better explain the prevalence of such disorders. This paper will discuss the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and eating disorders, as well as the risk factors and characteristics involved with each disorder. The prevalence of eating disorders in college men will also be discussed along with the risk factors and characteristics that lead to these prevalence rates. Prevalence and Diagnostic Criteria for Anorexia Nervosa In order to understand the importance of the prevalence of anorexia nervosa it is important to generally understand the DSM IV criteria for anorexia nervosa. In order to qualify for diagnosis as an anorexic, a Patient must maintain an abnormally low weight (I 5% below expected weight for height and age). One must also have severe concerns about shape and weight, which is usually seen as an intense fear of gaining weight, in order to be classified as an anorexic. One who qualifies as anorexic also has low self evaluation about shape and weight. Also, in post-menarchal females... ...c cases? The American Journal of Psychiatry 1996; 153:386-394. Fairbum, Christopher and Terence Wilson. (1993). Binge Eating. New York: Guilford Press. Garfinkel, Paul, Elizabeth Lin, Paula Goering, and Cathy Spegg: Bulimia nervosa in a Canadian community sample: prevalence and comparison of subgroups. The American Journal of Psychiatry 1995; 152: 1052-1062. Kendler, KS, Neale Maclean, R. Kessler, A. Heath, and L. Eaves: The genetic epidemiology of bulimia nervosa. American Journal of Psychiatry 199 1; 1627-163 7. Olivardia, Roberto, Harrison Pope, Jr., Barbara Mangweth, and James Hudson: Eating disorders in college men. American Journal of Psychiatry 1995; 152:1279-1291. Walters, Ellen, and Kenneth Kendler: Anorexia nervosa and anorexic-like syndromes in a population based female twin sample. The American Journal of Psychiatry 1995- 152: 64-75.

Better to be Feared or Loved? Essay

In The Prince, Niccolà ² Machiavelli goes into depth about how it is better to be feared than loved. He states that â€Å"Well, one would like to be both; but it’s difficult for one person to be both feared and loved, and when a choice has to be made it is safer to be feared.† I disagree with Machiavelli that it is better to be feared than to be loved. Being feared eventually wears off while being loved is always a feeling that will be there. There are many reasons why I disagree with Machiavelli. First of all, it is better to be loved than feared. Sometimes being feared will help someone get what they want, but with fear, feelings of resentment and hate can be found. It will also nurture subversive thoughts of revenge and other malicious intent. Just like in the TV show Gossip Girl, the main characters Blair and Sarina go back and forth seeking revenge over each other because one has more than the other. They are always in a constant battle against each other. Fear mu st be used in a tightly controlled and insistent fashion or it will fail. To be loved, however, nurtures caring, loyalty, kindness, and other positive binding and giving emotions. It can spawn jealousy in some, but overall it is a much better relationship to have with other people. Fear can cause people to retaliate and eventually disappear. In the article, â€Å"Leadership and the Fear Factor†, the authors state â€Å"Emotions like love and fear, trust and mistrust, can play a significant role in whether a leader gains followers.† This concludes that typically leaders or anyone in the society gain followers by having trust and love. On a more of personal relationship, I would rather be loved, because to have everyone show fear towards each other, would mean you have no intimate relations with anyone and that is not true living. Franklin P. Jones once said, â€Å"Love doesn’t make the world go round. Love is what makes the ride worthwhile.† It is the most powerful feeling to feel loved. I know this by having such a supportive family. My family is always there through thick and thin and are always showing their love and compassion. I also know how it feels to be truly hated. In middle school, there was this girl named Hunter Welch and no matter how hard I tried, she always hated me. So on further note, I think love is a way more powerful feeling. It does seem noticeable however, that someone would want to be feared if they are in a high position or authority. People who are in high authority are often driven by those who rule by fear. However, in a  more personal relationship, it is best to be loved. In the article â€Å"Connect, Then Lead†, the authors gained my full attention. They question the readers, â€Å"Which is better, being loveable or being strong?† This question involves people who are on a high authority. The authors say, â€Å"Leaders who project strength before establishing trust run the risk of eliciting fear, and along with it a host of dysfunctional behaviors.† By this, they mean people ruin the leadership effectiveness. The authors then say, â€Å"The chances that a manager who is strongly disliked will be consi dered a good leader are only about one in two thousand.† Just by these statements, it is best to say that being feared rather than loved does not get people very far. Being feared can cause a mass of destruction, but being loved by people can cause a more healthy relationship between others and the society. In conclusion, people who are loved are more valued than being feared. Whether people are of a high authority or just a common citizen, it is better for people to be loved than feared. Having hatred towards others or yourself will only cause loneliness and heartache. For example, Adolf Hitler, the dictator of Nazi Germany during World War II, may have had many people support him. However, Hitler caused only hatred and brought a lot of destruction. On a further note, being loved is better than being feared. Love has a stronger connection than fear.