12/27/2019 0 Comments
Germans Reaction to the British and Americanâ€™s Occupation Essay What was the reaction of the Germans to the British and Americanâ€™s occupation in the West Germany region? The reasons for their occupation of the allied forces could be traced to the causes of the Second World War. After the Second World war was over conflict arose between the soviet union and the united states of America an its allies such as Britain and France and this led to the division of Germany into two regions that is, West Germany and East Germany. The allied forces occupied West Germany while the other part was for the Soviet Union. The bone of contention was about the future structure of Germany, the United States wanted a stable Germany that would grow economically and even help its ailing western European nations but the soviet union wanted Germany to be completely weakened so as it would never be able to cause another world war. This disagreement led to the eventual division that made the West Germanâ€™s to protest against this occupation. They saw this as an aggression act for during the war the allied forces bombed the towns and cities in Germany. My main focus on this essay will be to discuss how the West Germans viewed the occupation of the Allied forces. According to the opinion polls that were done in Germany after the world war two showed that most West Germans were very pre-occupied with health, security and even physical survival and because of that they were much worried with the fate of their constitution. Drawing up a new constitution did not prove to be a very hard task as it was thought to be as there were a lot of constitutional drafts that had been drawn by the Germans who were in opposition to the Hitlerâ€™s ruling style. Most of those proposals were against dictatorship that the regime of Hitler was using and thus they were advocating for democratic model. The United States and the allied forces, which supported the free trade system of economy, were much worried about the communism spread after the Second World War. These forces were ready to do anything in their capacity to check its spread. Both USA and USSR had different interests that is, the US and its allied wanted to advance the capitalization mode of economy while the eastern European countries spearheaded by the Soviet Union wanted to spread communism. (Lammerder F. R 1999, 7) Most Germans were bitter because their friends who were in other countries were killed on suspicion that they supported the Vichy government. For example in France, more than two thousand five hundred people were killed in France. Women who were believed to have been cooperating with German soldiers were clean shaved and those who had a sign of Swatistika on their head were stripped naked in public. This did not go along well with Germans at home to see their fellow Germans in Diaspora being humiliated. (Nelson D. J. 1987: 48-57) Starting from May 7th 1995 more than eighty million members of the Nazi Party who were ardent supporters of the Nazi regime were greatly surprised to hear that their party had surrendered. They thought that all would be well little did they know the magnitude of difficulties that were awaiting them. Over the period of the four years that followed they were humiliated and frustrated by the western governments that occupied this region, which was created in 1945 at the Yalta Conference in 1945. The three forces after agreeing to demarcate this region set an allied control collectively pursued their goals such as demilitarization so as to pave way for democracy but as time went by, the Soviet Union distanced itself from the Western nations in terms of its economy. Soviet tried to disassemble Germany ruthlessly as a way of getting its reparations. It grabbed the state owned industries and everything that was alleged to be owned by the criminals and those who supported Hitlerâ€™s government were taken and confisticated. The allied control government also carried out some agrarian reforms that saw all tracts of land that belonged to the members of Nazi as well as those that were owned by the war criminals being taken away from them. This government reduced the size of land that one individual was supposed to possess to 1km2. About five hundred Junker estates were turned into settlement farms and over thirty thousand kilometer squared (30,000km2) of land was given to five hundred thousand landless peasants, casual laborers in the agricultural sector and to the refugees who were in the country. (Nelson D. J. 1987: 48-57)
In todayâ€™s society the topic of assault weapons have been very controversial. From mass shootings to defending oneself, this is a topic that can be very difficult to agree on. In this paper I will be discussing if the federal government should ban automatic weapons. In my opinion, assault weapons should not be banned. With this decision, I consider the implications of the second amendment, public safety, and the fact that weapons will never cease to exist. With these reasons I will explain to show that the federal government should not ban automatic weapons.One of the reasons I stand behind not allowing the federal government to ban automatic weapons because under the constitution, the Second Amendment states â€œA well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringedâ€ (Mount, Steve, 1995). Although this can be interpreted differently to other people, this amendment allows people of the United States to have an individual right to keep and bear arms. The people are allowed to be armed, if wanted.I believe it is an important part to consider when banning weapons because this is a part of our rights, and should not be taken away. The Bill of Rights was designed to guarantee individual rights and freedoms. Once you take away a right that is in the constitution, there is no limit on the endless amount of things the government can then take away, including free speech, freedom of religion, and voting rights. So, not following this amendment for the sake of banning weapons does not only risk losing this freedom but also the other rights we as Americans should have.With not taking the second amendment into consideration and banning weapons anyways, people feel that public safety will increase. The opposing side would take this as one of their main reasons to ban weapons. I believe that public safety would not change. Crime will not go down by banning weapons since the majority of criminals have unregistered weapons. If we ban guns, criminals still will get a hold of them, unless we ban them worldwide, make gun making illegal, and destroy every single gun ever.Some of the strictest gun controlled states in the US have the highest crime rates, because normal people have less protection. Guns donâ€™t kill people, people choose to kill others. I believe that if people are able to have guns, they are able to protect themselves when in danger when there is no government, or police to protect them at that moment. People are less likely to attack or commit a robbery if they know that a victim is armed, or able to fight back. Citizens can not only protect themselves, but will feel at peace knowing they are able to defend themselves when a situation calls for it.Public safety is important, and if the government cannot protect its citizens, then it is their obligated rights to do so themselves. Making a law banning assault weapons is something that is ideal for people who want to stop violent acts, or crimes that come from weapon use. But, there are always pros and cons to situations. Weapons will never cease to exist because if it is not an assault weapon it will be something else. Weapons have and will always evolve. Getting rid of weapons from the public will be a very difficult task.In conclusion, the federal government should not ban assault weapons. Banning assault weapons will not make them disappear. In order people to protect themselves, their property, and their own families it is a legitimate right of the citizens to own weapons. As citizens we have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. These rights were made for the people and should not be interfered with. Public safety should not only be contingent upon assault weapon use but the actual public itself.Weapons will never cease to exist because today, the majority of cases involving firearms used are not legally bought or even registered, but are smuggled or stolen. There has not been much progression at the federal level regardless of nationwide news coverage on the recent mass killings, and not a lot of detail of what will happen in the future of a law that will ban weapons. In my opinion weapons should not be banned, because in reality this nation is not a harmless environment, and to be defenseless in a needed time is not a good situation.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.