1) Legacies of American revolution America is often called an idea as much as a place, a clarion call for freedom, independence and resistance to tyranny. Yet in contrast to the idealism of the Revolution, the freedom granted by the Constitution remained limited for many years following the Revolution. Women could not vote, nor could half a million slaves or over a hundred thousand Native Americans. Slavery and racial segregation remained a political and cultural fault line. Constitutional amendments have alleviated some of these injustices, and the Constitution of the United States of America remains the oldest written constitution still in use today, with ideals that still speak to us. The language of democracy and freedom have informed Western Europe since the Second World War and remain an enduring legacy of the Enlightenment thought first put into practice in the North American colonies. Others documents of that era, such as the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), have had equal influence, but were informed and in part inspired by the American Revolution, while other revolutions, such as that in Tsarist Russia in 1917, have not matched the peace and prosperity granted to the citizens of the United States. Other experiments in federal government, such as the European Union may now provide an alternative model, but it is one that is in many ways indebted to the ambitions of men of the 1770s. 2) LEGACY OF FRENCH REVOLUTION At its core, the French Revolution was a political movement devoted to liberty. But what that liberty actually was and what was required to realize it remained open questions during the Revolution, as they have ever since. Some historians have suggested that what the revolutionaries’ liberty meant in practice was violence and a loss of personal security that pointed to the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. This negative view had its roots in the ideas of many counter-revolutionaries, who criticized the Revolution from its beginning. These ideas gained new popularity during the period of reaction that set in after Napoleon’s final defeat in 1815, when the monarchy and its counter-revolutionary allies were restored to power. However, the majority of Europeans and non-Europeans came to see the Revolution as much more than a bloody tragedy. These people were more impressed by what the Revolution accomplished than by what it failed to do. They recalled the Revolution’s abolition of serfdom, slavery, inherited privilege, and judicial torture; its experiments with democracy; and its opening of opportunities to those who, for reasons of social status or religion, had been traditionally excluded. One of the most important contributions of the French Revolution was to make revolution part of the world’s political tradition. The French Revolution continued to provide instruction for revolutionaries in the 19th and 20th centuries, as peoples in Europe and around the world sought to realize their di.

1. 1) Legacies of American revolution
America is often called an idea as much as a place, a clarion call for freedom, independence and
resistance to tyranny. Yet in contrast to the idealism of the Revolution, the freedom granted by
the Constitution remained limited for many years following the Revolution. Women could not
vote, nor could half a million slaves or over a hundred thousand Native Americans. Slavery and
racial segregation remained a political and cultural fault line.
Constitutional amendments have alleviated some of these injustices, and the Constitution of the
United States of America remains the oldest written constitution still in use today, with ideals
that still speak to us. The language of democracy and freedom have informed Western Europe
since the Second World War and remain an enduring legacy of the Enlightenment thought first
put into practice in the North American colonies.
Others documents of that era, such as the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the
Citizen (1789), have had equal influence, but were informed and in part inspired by the
American Revolution, while other revolutions, such as that in Tsarist Russia in 1917, have not
matched the peace and prosperity granted to the citizens of the United States. Other experiments
in federal government, such as the European Union may now provide an alternative model, but it
is one that is in many ways indebted to the ambitions of men of the 1770s.
2) LEGACY OF FRENCH REVOLUTION
At its core, the French Revolution was a political movement devoted to liberty. But what that
liberty actually was and what was required to realize it remained open questions during the
Revolution, as they have ever since. Some historians have suggested that what the
revolutionaries’ liberty meant in practice was violence and a loss of personal security that
pointed to the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. This negative view had its roots in the
ideas of many counter-revolutionaries, who criticized the Revolution from its beginning. These
ideas gained new popularity during the period of reaction that set in after Napoleon’s final defeat
in 1815, when the monarchy and its counter-revolutionary allies were restored to power.
However, the majority of Europeans and non-Europeans came to see the Revolution as much
more than a bloody tragedy. These people were more impressed by what the Revolution
accomplished than by what it failed to do. They recalled the Revolution’s abolition of serfdom,
slavery, inherited privilege, and judicial torture; its experiments with democracy; and its opening
of opportunities to those who, for reasons of social status or religion, had been traditionally
excluded.
One of the most important contributions of the French Revolution was to make revolution part of
the world’s political tradition. The French Revolution continued to provide instruction for
revolutionaries in the 19th and 20th centuries, as peoples in Europe and around the world sought

2. to realize their different versions of freedom. Karl Marx would, at least at the outset, pattern his
notion of a proletarian revolution on the French Revolution of 1789. And 200 years later Chinese
students, who weeks before had fought their government in Tiananmen Square, confirmed the
contemporary relevance of the French Revolution when they led the revolutionary bicentennial
parade in Paris on July 14, 1989.
Along with offering lessons about liberty and democracy, the Revolution also promoted
nationalism. Napoleon’s occupation provoked nationalist groups to organize in Italy and
Germany. Also influential was the revolutionaries’ belief that a nation was not a group of royal
subjects but a society of equal citizens. The fact that most European countries are or are
becoming parliamentary democracies, along the lines set out by the French Revolution, suggests
its enduring influence.
Socially, the Revolution was also important. Clearly, society in France and to a lesser extent in
other parts of Europe would never be the same. Once the ancient structure of privilege was
smashed, it could not be pieced together again. The Revolution did not fundamentally alter the
distribution of wealth, but that had not been the intention of most of the revolutionaries. Insofar
as legal equality gradually became the norm in France and Europe, the revolutionaries
succeeded.
The cultural impact is harder to assess. The Revolution did not succeed in establishing the
national school system it envisioned, but it did found some of France’s elite educational
institutions that have produced some of that nation’s greatest leaders. Its attack on the church had
profound repercussions, making the status of the church a central political issue, which even
today divides France politically and culturally.
As for economic development, the Revolution probably hurt more than it helped. In the long
term, the liberation of the economy from royal controls, the standardization of weights and
measures, and the development of a uniform civil law code helped pave the way for the
Industrial Revolution. But the disruptive effects of war on the French economy offset the
positive effects of these changes. In terms of total output, the economy was probably set back a
generation.
3) difference between Ameerican & French revolution
The French Revolution and American Revolution had some similar aspects; however, there are
a lot of differences between these two wars. A main difference is the context of the war. The
American Revolution was caused by a majority of the America population becoming unhappy
because of how the British were ruling them. They believed they deserved more freedom from
the British. The French Revolution was started by French’s lower class because they were
unhappy with how they were being treated. Although both of the wars were caused by similar
reasons, they were started by completely different kinds of people. One started by all different

3. classes of people, but led by the upper class, and the other started by the lower class of a country.
Another difference is who got involved after these Revolutions started. The American
Revolution pretty much stayed between the Americans and the British except when the French
joined. The French Revolution started between the French lower class and the French
government. It then evolved into the French fighting against other monarchies in Europe such as
Austria and Prussia. Another smaller difference is that the French Revolution was more violent
and bloody. The revolutionaries in the French Revolution would kill anyone who they heard
were supporters of the king. The revolutionaries in the American Revolution never really killed
supporters of the British and weren’t very violent to British people unless they were in battle.
These are just a few of the many difference between the French and American Revolutions.
4) Napolean - Hero
Naturally, his enemies (British, Russians, anti-French people etc) viewed him as a villain. The
more great things Napoleon did the more of a hero he became amongst Frenchmen, and the more
of a villain he became to his enemies.
I would say he was a hero, simply because he is one of the best military commanders and
leaders in European history. He fought multiple enemies and it took seven coalitions against him,
in 15 years of war, to finally bring him down. His military victories were all spectacular, and
most were against the odds. His goal was to spread the ideas of the French Revolution (liberty,
equality and fraternity) in a world dominated by kings. His ultimate goal was to unify Europe
under democracy so there would forever be no more wars. You have to remember, that apart
from France, the major European countries at the time were ruled by kings so they were naturally
against Napoleon and his "dangerous" republican ideals. Because I am a supporter of
democracy over absolute monarchy, I admire his actions, and you can say Napoleon's dream is
fulfilled by the EU right now, and the fact that the "Napoleonic Code" is used as basic law for
many democratic countries worldwide.
He is not a villain in my opinion. Contrary to popular belief, Napoleon didn't go about
conquering Europe for his personal glory. Although millions of Frenchmen died fighting for
Napoleon, they also fought for the survival of the ideas of the French republic, and in a world of
kings, I think that was worthy of fighting for. A true villain is Hitler and his scheme of genocide
against the Jews. Napoleon on the other hand, was the first leader to grant Jews equal rights as
citizens - due to his belief of equality for all people. Europe was largely anti-semitic at the time,
and the European monarchs were outraged, which I think makes Napoleon a very brave and
admirable leader.

4. I would very much rather to have lived under Napoleonic France where there was liberty,
equality and I could've been a Buddhist or a Muslim without being persecuted, rather than living
in some European kingdom where I had no rights. Not to mention, Napoleon believed in "talent
over status", so a soldier of France could one day become a general if he worked his way up the
ranks, but a soldier of Russia, Prussia, Britain, Austria etc stays a soldier and generals are
reserved for those of noble or aristocratic birth.
Overall, I think he was a good guy.
5) Effect of Industrial revolution on western
he Industrial Revolution of the 19th century made an overall positive impact on Western society.
The introduction of factories and the assembly line, new inventions, the development of
electricity, and the railroads all contributed to faster, more efficient production of goods and
materials. While the Industrial Revolution also contributed to such problems as child labor and
urban overcrowding, even these resulted in such positive effects as the funding of schools and
the passage of child labor laws. As a result, the Industrial Revolution enhanced both economic
production and the way in which people lived.
6) Features of Maxism
1. The most important features of a society are its economic classes and their relations to each
other in
the modes of production of each historical epoch.
2. A class is defined by the relations of its members to the means of production.
3. Under capitalism, the capitalists own the means of production, the proletariat own only their
capacity
to work. Landlords rule the land, and the peasants are less significant than workers and are
trapped in
the idiocy of rural life. The proletariat definitely includes those who produce objects in factories
with
their hands, but Marxists dither about whether it includes people who work with their minds but
are
employees and live by their salaries.
4. History is the history of class struggles among the classes in society. New progressive classes
arise
that are related to new forms of production and struggle with the old. New forms of society arise

5. appropriate to the new forms of production when the new classes win power. This doctrine is
called
historical materialism.
5. The state is the means whereby the ruling class forcibly maintains its rule over the other
classes.
6. The successive stages of history include primitive communism characterized by equalitarian
hunting
and gathering, barbarism characterized by rule by chiefs, slave society with a slave class and
agriculture, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and communism.
7. Most struggles in history are class struggles, even though the participants profess other goals.
For
example, protestantism reflects the rising capitalist class.
8. New classes usually win power by revolution. Revolutions are violent, because the dying
ruling class
doesn't give up power without a desperate struggle. As Marxists say about Revolution:
Socialism cannot come into existence
without revolution. For the birth of
socialism to take place the old order must
die. This requires, according to Marx, the
overthrow of the existing ruling power,
which he defines as revolution.
7) Darwinian evolution vs Creationism
here is a difference between Darwinism and Creationism, one is based on data and the other is
based on belief. Darwinism concerns itself as a science, that is explained by scientific
methodology. Biological evolution concerns changes in living things during the history of life on
earth. It explains that living things share common ancestors and over time evolutionary change
gives rise to new species. On the other hand, the ideas of creation science is derived from the
conviction of most Abrahemic religions that God created the universe-including humans and
other living things-all at once in the relatively recent past. Creationists say that creatures started
out as distinct and separate organisms when God created them and they do not believe that
organisms change into complete differently and distinct animals through evolution. For example,
Creationists do not believe that single-celled organisms evolved into more complex plants and

6. animals, finally evolving into Homo Sapiens. Even though creationism is not a scientific theory,
Creationists are using scientific evidence in supporting their argument that Darwinism can not be
proven scientifically based on the fact that Darwinism goes against creationism. Besides
criticizing evolution, Creationists are seeking scientific evidence of their own, to support the
creation account in Genesis. They only problem with this is that Creationists are crossing the
boundaries between religion and science by trying to entwine these two origins which isn't an
effective pairing because religion doesn't require proof but science does. Scientists are now
doing the same because at first they were staying into their own realm but it after posing that the
theory of evolution can be scientifically proven, scientists are going against the Bible. Therefore,
scientists are also crossing the boundary.
Creation science, which is a belief that God created the Earth and all the creatures in it, is not
science because creation by God or another divinity does not give concrete scientific explanation
of life's origin. Rather, it is an explanation consistent with their beliefs that an intelligent creator,
God, exists and created the universe. Creationists try to verify this concept and other Biblical
stories by evaluating on scientific grounds. Geologists, for instance, used to try to explain all the
earth's geological features in terms of Noah's Flood.
8) Causes of world war I
Franco-Prussian War
Accession of Wilhelm II to the German Throne
Russo-Japanese War
Entente Cordiale
Moroccan Crises
Bosnian Annexation Crisis
Italo-Turkish War
Balkan Wars
Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria
July Ultimatum
9) Results of world war I
First, the World War I ended up with the defeat of the Central Powers under the leadership of
Germany.
Second, the World War I also saw the collapse of four Empires-German, Austrian, Turkish and
Russian.
Third, the World War I paved the way for the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.
Fourth, Russia withdrew from the War by signing the Treaty of Breast-Litovsk by which she had
to accept harsh terms dictated by Germany.
Fifth, another important result of the World War I was the triumph of democracy in Europe.

7. Democratic governments were established in different countries of Europe.
Sixth, as a result of the World War I the trade-union movement started in different countries at a
large scale. The labour became actively conscious about their rights.
10) causes of world war 2
The causes of World War Two can be divided into long term causes and short term causes. There
can be little doubt that one of the long term causes of the war was the anger felt in Weimar
Germany that was caused by the Treaty of Versailles. Another long term cause was the obvious
inability of the League of Nations to deal with major international issues. In the 1930’s these
would have been inManchuria and Abyssinia. In both conflicts the League showed that it was
unable to control those powers that worked outside of accepted international law. In the case of
Manchuria it was Japan and in Abyssinia it was Mussolini’s Italy.
With such apparent weakness, Hitler must have known that at the very least he could push the
boundaries and see what he could get away with. His first major transgression was his defiance
of the Versailles Treaty when he introduced re-armament into Nazi Germany. The expansion of
all three arms of the military was forbidden by treaty. Hitler, however, ignored these restrictions.
The world’s powers did nothing. The same occurred in 1936 when Nazi Germany re-occupied
the Rhineland. Forbidden by Versailles, Hitler felt confident enough to ignore it. Europe’s
failure to react was also demonstrated when Austria and theSudentenland were occupied. Only
when it became obvious that Hitler was determined to expand east and that what was left of
Czechoslovakia and region Poland were to be his next targets, did the major powers of Europe
react. Hitler’s reference to the Munich Agreement as a “scrap of paper” made clear his
intentions. However, in 1938, very many in the UK had supported Neville Chamberlain’s
attempts at avoiding war (appeasement) and public opinion was on his side. This only changed
when it became clear thatappeasement had failed and the public rallied to the side of Winston
Churchill – the man who had insisted that Chamberlain had taken the wrong course of action.
11) Results of World war 2
Germany was totally defeated, and the Nazi regime brought down. Its leaders were tried for
crimes against humanity at Nuremberg, the former site of Nazi propaganda triumphs. Hitler
escaped trial and execution by committing suicide in his Berlin bunker at the end of the war.
German cities were in ruins from a massive bombing campaign.
Germany was divided into 4 zones of occupation by the victorious powers, pending a more
permanent political settlement.
Japan also was in ruins from extensive bombing. Prominent military leaders were tried and
convicted of war crimes, but the emperor was allowed to retain his position.
Japan was temporarily placed under U.S. military rule.
England was devastated by the war, having experienced extensive bombing during the 1940

8. blitz by the Germans. The economy depended for recovery upon aid from the United States.
England rapidly phased out most of its remaining imperial holdings in the years immediately
following the war.
France had not experienced the enormous human losses sustained in the First World War, but
would have to recover from the effects of Nazi occupation. Retribution was taken upon
collaborators. Like England, France would be compelled to dismantle its colonial empire in the
years following the war. This was a particularly traumatic and drawn out process for the French,
in Algeria and in Vietnam where they fought prolonged and bitter wars in an attempt to maintain
their colonial control.
England and France no longer held a status of power comparable either to the United States or
the Soviet Union.
The Russian people had suffered immeasurably during the war, and western Russia was
devastated by the land warfare which was primarily on Russian territory. But, in the process of
defeating the Germans, the Russians had built a large and powerful army, which occupied most
of Eastern Europe at the end of the war. The great resources and population of Russia assured
that the Soviet Union would be, along with the United
States, one of two super-powers.
The United States economy was greatly stimulated by the war, even more so than in World
War I. The depression was brought decisively to an end, and new industrial complexes were built
all over the United States. Spared the physical destruction of war, the U.S. economy dominated
the world economy. After 4 years of military buildup, the U.S. had also become the leading
military power. The position of the United States as world leader was now more obvious than
ever.
WHAT WERE THE EFFECTS OF THE WAR UPON THE NON-EUROPEAN WORLD?
The struggle for national independence of non-European peoples was greatly enhanced and
stimulated by the war. The weakness of England and France, the two major European imperial
powers, provided opportunities. The stage was set for the collapse of European empires in the 3
decades following the war.
New technology, developed during the war to fight disease, would, when applied to the non-
European world, result in sharply lower mortality rates and soaring population growth.
WHAT EFFECTS DID THE WAR HAVE UPON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY?
Enormous technological progress was made during the war. The English developed radar
which would be the forerunner of television. Progress in electronics and computers, made during
the war, provided a foundation for further development which fundamentally transformed the

9. postwar world.
The development of the atomic bomb by European and American scientists during the war,
not only transformed the nature of potential future wars, it marked the beginning of the nuclear
power industry.
WHAT POLITICAL CHANGES OCCURRED IN REGARD TO THE PROSPECT OF
FUTURE WARS?
World War II had appeared to pose an unprecedented threat to human civilization and gave
impetus to the renewal of Wilson's vision of an international organization to keep the peace.
Organizing efforts were begun even while the war was on. In June, 1945, 51 nations were
represented at the founding conference in San Francisco. In October, 1945,
the United Nations was officially established. Unlike the League of Nations, the UN had the full
support and leadership of the United States. The Soviet Union and all the most significant
nations of the world were members.
In 1944, representatives of the major economic powers met to create an International
Monetary Fund and to agree upon a regime of international tariff regulation known as GATT.
There was a determination to avoid the mistakes of the interwar years which had exacerbated the
Great Depression.
The world community was thought to be entering a new era of international cooperation.
Solution
1) Legacies of American revolution
America is often called an idea as much as a place, a clarion call for freedom, independence and
resistance to tyranny. Yet in contrast to the idealism of the Revolution, the freedom granted by
the Constitution remained limited for many years following the Revolution. Women could not
vote, nor could half a million slaves or over a hundred thousand Native Americans. Slavery and
racial segregation remained a political and cultural fault line.
Constitutional amendments have alleviated some of these injustices, and the Constitution of the
United States of America remains the oldest written constitution still in use today, with ideals
that still speak to us. The language of democracy and freedom have informed Western Europe
since the Second World War and remain an enduring legacy of the Enlightenment thought first
put into practice in the North American colonies.
Others documents of that era, such as the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the
Citizen (1789), have had equal influence, but were informed and in part inspired by the
American Revolution, while other revolutions, such as that in Tsarist Russia in 1917, have not

10. matched the peace and prosperity granted to the citizens of the United States. Other experiments
in federal government, such as the European Union may now provide an alternative model, but it
is one that is in many ways indebted to the ambitions of men of the 1770s.
2) LEGACY OF FRENCH REVOLUTION
At its core, the French Revolution was a political movement devoted to liberty. But what that
liberty actually was and what was required to realize it remained open questions during the
Revolution, as they have ever since. Some historians have suggested that what the
revolutionaries’ liberty meant in practice was violence and a loss of personal security that
pointed to the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. This negative view had its roots in the
ideas of many counter-revolutionaries, who criticized the Revolution from its beginning. These
ideas gained new popularity during the period of reaction that set in after Napoleon’s final defeat
in 1815, when the monarchy and its counter-revolutionary allies were restored to power.
However, the majority of Europeans and non-Europeans came to see the Revolution as much
more than a bloody tragedy. These people were more impressed by what the Revolution
accomplished than by what it failed to do. They recalled the Revolution’s abolition of serfdom,
slavery, inherited privilege, and judicial torture; its experiments with democracy; and its opening
of opportunities to those who, for reasons of social status or religion, had been traditionally
excluded.
One of the most important contributions of the French Revolution was to make revolution part of
the world’s political tradition. The French Revolution continued to provide instruction for
revolutionaries in the 19th and 20th centuries, as peoples in Europe and around the world sought
to realize their different versions of freedom. Karl Marx would, at least at the outset, pattern his
notion of a proletarian revolution on the French Revolution of 1789. And 200 years later Chinese
students, who weeks before had fought their government in Tiananmen Square, confirmed the
contemporary relevance of the French Revolution when they led the revolutionary bicentennial
parade in Paris on July 14, 1989.
Along with offering lessons about liberty and democracy, the Revolution also promoted
nationalism. Napoleon’s occupation provoked nationalist groups to organize in Italy and
Germany. Also influential was the revolutionaries’ belief that a nation was not a group of royal
subjects but a society of equal citizens. The fact that most European countries are or are
becoming parliamentary democracies, along the lines set out by the French Revolution, suggests
its enduring influence.
Socially, the Revolution was also important. Clearly, society in France and to a lesser extent in
other parts of Europe would never be the same. Once the ancient structure of privilege was
smashed, it could not be pieced together again. The Revolution did not fundamentally alter the
distribution of wealth, but that had not been the intention of most of the revolutionaries. Insofar

11. as legal equality gradually became the norm in France and Europe, the revolutionaries
succeeded.
The cultural impact is harder to assess. The Revolution did not succeed in establishing the
national school system it envisioned, but it did found some of France’s elite educational
institutions that have produced some of that nation’s greatest leaders. Its attack on the church had
profound repercussions, making the status of the church a central political issue, which even
today divides France politically and culturally.
As for economic development, the Revolution probably hurt more than it helped. In the long
term, the liberation of the economy from royal controls, the standardization of weights and
measures, and the development of a uniform civil law code helped pave the way for the
Industrial Revolution. But the disruptive effects of war on the French economy offset the
positive effects of these changes. In terms of total output, the economy was probably set back a
generation.
3) difference between Ameerican & French revolution
The French Revolution and American Revolution had some similar aspects; however, there are
a lot of differences between these two wars. A main difference is the context of the war. The
American Revolution was caused by a majority of the America population becoming unhappy
because of how the British were ruling them. They believed they deserved more freedom from
the British. The French Revolution was started by French’s lower class because they were
unhappy with how they were being treated. Although both of the wars were caused by similar
reasons, they were started by completely different kinds of people. One started by all different
classes of people, but led by the upper class, and the other started by the lower class of a country.
Another difference is who got involved after these Revolutions started. The American
Revolution pretty much stayed between the Americans and the British except when the French
joined. The French Revolution started between the French lower class and the French
government. It then evolved into the French fighting against other monarchies in Europe such as
Austria and Prussia. Another smaller difference is that the French Revolution was more violent
and bloody. The revolutionaries in the French Revolution would kill anyone who they heard
were supporters of the king. The revolutionaries in the American Revolution never really killed
supporters of the British and weren’t very violent to British people unless they were in battle.
These are just a few of the many difference between the French and American Revolutions.
4) Napolean - Hero
Naturally, his enemies (British, Russians, anti-French people etc) viewed him as a villain. The
more great things Napoleon did the more of a hero he became amongst Frenchmen, and the more
of a villain he became to his enemies.

12. I would say he was a hero, simply because he is one of the best military commanders and
leaders in European history. He fought multiple enemies and it took seven coalitions against him,
in 15 years of war, to finally bring him down. His military victories were all spectacular, and
most were against the odds. His goal was to spread the ideas of the French Revolution (liberty,
equality and fraternity) in a world dominated by kings. His ultimate goal was to unify Europe
under democracy so there would forever be no more wars. You have to remember, that apart
from France, the major European countries at the time were ruled by kings so they were naturally
against Napoleon and his "dangerous" republican ideals. Because I am a supporter of
democracy over absolute monarchy, I admire his actions, and you can say Napoleon's dream is
fulfilled by the EU right now, and the fact that the "Napoleonic Code" is used as basic law for
many democratic countries worldwide.
He is not a villain in my opinion. Contrary to popular belief, Napoleon didn't go about
conquering Europe for his personal glory. Although millions of Frenchmen died fighting for
Napoleon, they also fought for the survival of the ideas of the French republic, and in a world of
kings, I think that was worthy of fighting for. A true villain is Hitler and his scheme of genocide
against the Jews. Napoleon on the other hand, was the first leader to grant Jews equal rights as
citizens - due to his belief of equality for all people. Europe was largely anti-semitic at the time,
and the European monarchs were outraged, which I think makes Napoleon a very brave and
admirable leader.
I would very much rather to have lived under Napoleonic France where there was liberty,
equality and I could've been a Buddhist or a Muslim without being persecuted, rather than living
in some European kingdom where I had no rights. Not to mention, Napoleon believed in "talent
over status", so a soldier of France could one day become a general if he worked his way up the
ranks, but a soldier of Russia, Prussia, Britain, Austria etc stays a soldier and generals are
reserved for those of noble or aristocratic birth.
Overall, I think he was a good guy.
5) Effect of Industrial revolution on western
he Industrial Revolution of the 19th century made an overall positive impact on Western society.
The introduction of factories and the assembly line, new inventions, the development of
electricity, and the railroads all contributed to faster, more efficient production of goods and
materials. While the Industrial Revolution also contributed to such problems as child labor and
urban overcrowding, even these resulted in such positive effects as the funding of schools and
the passage of child labor laws. As a result, the Industrial Revolution enhanced both economic

13. production and the way in which people lived.
6) Features of Maxism
1. The most important features of a society are its economic classes and their relations to each
other in
the modes of production of each historical epoch.
2. A class is defined by the relations of its members to the means of production.
3. Under capitalism, the capitalists own the means of production, the proletariat own only their
capacity
to work. Landlords rule the land, and the peasants are less significant than workers and are
trapped in
the idiocy of rural life. The proletariat definitely includes those who produce objects in factories
with
their hands, but Marxists dither about whether it includes people who work with their minds but
are
employees and live by their salaries.
4. History is the history of class struggles among the classes in society. New progressive classes
arise
that are related to new forms of production and struggle with the old. New forms of society arise
appropriate to the new forms of production when the new classes win power. This doctrine is
called
historical materialism.
5. The state is the means whereby the ruling class forcibly maintains its rule over the other
classes.
6. The successive stages of history include primitive communism characterized by equalitarian
hunting
and gathering, barbarism characterized by rule by chiefs, slave society with a slave class and
agriculture, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and communism.
7. Most struggles in history are class struggles, even though the participants profess other goals.
For
example, protestantism reflects the rising capitalist class.

14. 8. New classes usually win power by revolution. Revolutions are violent, because the dying
ruling class
doesn't give up power without a desperate struggle. As Marxists say about Revolution:
Socialism cannot come into existence
without revolution. For the birth of
socialism to take place the old order must
die. This requires, according to Marx, the
overthrow of the existing ruling power,
which he defines as revolution.
7) Darwinian evolution vs Creationism
here is a difference between Darwinism and Creationism, one is based on data and the other is
based on belief. Darwinism concerns itself as a science, that is explained by scientific
methodology. Biological evolution concerns changes in living things during the history of life on
earth. It explains that living things share common ancestors and over time evolutionary change
gives rise to new species. On the other hand, the ideas of creation science is derived from the
conviction of most Abrahemic religions that God created the universe-including humans and
other living things-all at once in the relatively recent past. Creationists say that creatures started
out as distinct and separate organisms when God created them and they do not believe that
organisms change into complete differently and distinct animals through evolution. For example,
Creationists do not believe that single-celled organisms evolved into more complex plants and
animals, finally evolving into Homo Sapiens. Even though creationism is not a scientific theory,
Creationists are using scientific evidence in supporting their argument that Darwinism can not be
proven scientifically based on the fact that Darwinism goes against creationism. Besides
criticizing evolution, Creationists are seeking scientific evidence of their own, to support the
creation account in Genesis. They only problem with this is that Creationists are crossing the
boundaries between religion and science by trying to entwine these two origins which isn't an
effective pairing because religion doesn't require proof but science does. Scientists are now
doing the same because at first they were staying into their own realm but it after posing that the
theory of evolution can be scientifically proven, scientists are going against the Bible. Therefore,
scientists are also crossing the boundary.
Creation science, which is a belief that God created the Earth and all the creatures in it, is not
science because creation by God or another divinity does not give concrete scientific explanation
of life's origin. Rather, it is an explanation consistent with their beliefs that an intelligent creator,
God, exists and created the universe. Creationists try to verify this concept and other Biblical
stories by evaluating on scientific grounds. Geologists, for instance, used to try to explain all the

15. earth's geological features in terms of Noah's Flood.
8) Causes of world war I
Franco-Prussian War
Accession of Wilhelm II to the German Throne
Russo-Japanese War
Entente Cordiale
Moroccan Crises
Bosnian Annexation Crisis
Italo-Turkish War
Balkan Wars
Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria
July Ultimatum
9) Results of world war I
First, the World War I ended up with the defeat of the Central Powers under the leadership of
Germany.
Second, the World War I also saw the collapse of four Empires-German, Austrian, Turkish and
Russian.
Third, the World War I paved the way for the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.
Fourth, Russia withdrew from the War by signing the Treaty of Breast-Litovsk by which she had
to accept harsh terms dictated by Germany.
Fifth, another important result of the World War I was the triumph of democracy in Europe.
Democratic governments were established in different countries of Europe.
Sixth, as a result of the World War I the trade-union movement started in different countries at a
large scale. The labour became actively conscious about their rights.
10) causes of world war 2
The causes of World War Two can be divided into long term causes and short term causes. There
can be little doubt that one of the long term causes of the war was the anger felt in Weimar
Germany that was caused by the Treaty of Versailles. Another long term cause was the obvious
inability of the League of Nations to deal with major international issues. In the 1930’s these
would have been inManchuria and Abyssinia. In both conflicts the League showed that it was
unable to control those powers that worked outside of accepted international law. In the case of
Manchuria it was Japan and in Abyssinia it was Mussolini’s Italy.
With such apparent weakness, Hitler must have known that at the very least he could push the
boundaries and see what he could get away with. His first major transgression was his defiance
of the Versailles Treaty when he introduced re-armament into Nazi Germany. The expansion of
all three arms of the military was forbidden by treaty. Hitler, however, ignored these restrictions.

16. The world’s powers did nothing. The same occurred in 1936 when Nazi Germany re-occupied
the Rhineland. Forbidden by Versailles, Hitler felt confident enough to ignore it. Europe’s
failure to react was also demonstrated when Austria and theSudentenland were occupied. Only
when it became obvious that Hitler was determined to expand east and that what was left of
Czechoslovakia and region Poland were to be his next targets, did the major powers of Europe
react. Hitler’s reference to the Munich Agreement as a “scrap of paper” made clear his
intentions. However, in 1938, very many in the UK had supported Neville Chamberlain’s
attempts at avoiding war (appeasement) and public opinion was on his side. This only changed
when it became clear thatappeasement had failed and the public rallied to the side of Winston
Churchill – the man who had insisted that Chamberlain had taken the wrong course of action.
11) Results of World war 2
Germany was totally defeated, and the Nazi regime brought down. Its leaders were tried for
crimes against humanity at Nuremberg, the former site of Nazi propaganda triumphs. Hitler
escaped trial and execution by committing suicide in his Berlin bunker at the end of the war.
German cities were in ruins from a massive bombing campaign.
Germany was divided into 4 zones of occupation by the victorious powers, pending a more
permanent political settlement.
Japan also was in ruins from extensive bombing. Prominent military leaders were tried and
convicted of war crimes, but the emperor was allowed to retain his position.
Japan was temporarily placed under U.S. military rule.
England was devastated by the war, having experienced extensive bombing during the 1940
blitz by the Germans. The economy depended for recovery upon aid from the United States.
England rapidly phased out most of its remaining imperial holdings in the years immediately
following the war.
France had not experienced the enormous human losses sustained in the First World War, but
would have to recover from the effects of Nazi occupation. Retribution was taken upon
collaborators. Like England, France would be compelled to dismantle its colonial empire in the
years following the war. This was a particularly traumatic and drawn out process for the French,
in Algeria and in Vietnam where they fought prolonged and bitter wars in an attempt to maintain
their colonial control.
England and France no longer held a status of power comparable either to the United States or
the Soviet Union.
The Russian people had suffered immeasurably during the war, and western Russia was
devastated by the land warfare which was primarily on Russian territory. But, in the process of
defeating the Germans, the Russians had built a large and powerful army, which occupied most
of Eastern Europe at the end of the war. The great resources and population of Russia assured

17. that the Soviet Union would be, along with the United
States, one of two super-powers.
The United States economy was greatly stimulated by the war, even more so than in World
War I. The depression was brought decisively to an end, and new industrial complexes were built
all over the United States. Spared the physical destruction of war, the U.S. economy dominated
the world economy. After 4 years of military buildup, the U.S. had also become the leading
military power. The position of the United States as world leader was now more obvious than
ever.
WHAT WERE THE EFFECTS OF THE WAR UPON THE NON-EUROPEAN WORLD?
The struggle for national independence of non-European peoples was greatly enhanced and
stimulated by the war. The weakness of England and France, the two major European imperial
powers, provided opportunities. The stage was set for the collapse of European empires in the 3
decades following the war.
New technology, developed during the war to fight disease, would, when applied to the non-
European world, result in sharply lower mortality rates and soaring population growth.
WHAT EFFECTS DID THE WAR HAVE UPON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY?
Enormous technological progress was made during the war. The English developed radar
which would be the forerunner of television. Progress in electronics and computers, made during
the war, provided a foundation for further development which fundamentally transformed the
postwar world.
The development of the atomic bomb by European and American scientists during the war,
not only transformed the nature of potential future wars, it marked the beginning of the nuclear
power industry.
WHAT POLITICAL CHANGES OCCURRED IN REGARD TO THE PROSPECT OF
FUTURE WARS?
World War II had appeared to pose an unprecedented threat to human civilization and gave
impetus to the renewal of Wilson's vision of an international organization to keep the peace.
Organizing efforts were begun even while the war was on. In June, 1945, 51 nations were
represented at the founding conference in San Francisco. In October, 1945,
the United Nations was officially established. Unlike the League of Nations, the UN had the full
support and leadership of the United States. The Soviet Union and all the most significant
nations of the world were members.
In 1944, representatives of the major economic powers met to create an International

18. Monetary Fund and to agree upon a regime of international tariff regulation known as GATT.
There was a determination to avoid the mistakes of the interwar years which had exacerbated the
Great Depression.
The world community was thought to be entering a new era of international cooperation.