Harold Macmillan

Winston Churchill and Andre Tardieu show how war impacted France. Tardieu states ‘The war cost us 150 billions of francs.’ In showing this first-hand information, it makes the argument much more persuasive. Additionally, historians Margaret MacMillan and Harold Nicolson help sum up Murray’s argument towards the failed cooperation of the leaders. Murray is confident in showing that the treaty never progressed far enough. We can see the importance of the Treaty of Versailles to Murray’s argument…

The United States of America gained prestige and recognition as a powerhouse that defended the freedom of Americans in the Fifties. After World War II the United States was the wealthiest country in the world. The other countries in the world placed America on a pedestal based on its healthy economy, freedom and consumer goods. The Fifties were known as the “happy days” where the American people experienced prosperity and peace. The image of the country was one of a utopia. It made perfect sense…

After WWII tensions between the East and West would intensify following US concerns over Soviet plans for expansion and global influence, along with Russia’s attitude towards the West, which had put a strain on any peaceful co-existence that the US may have envisioned. Similar to US concerns, Russian Kremlin Joseph Stalin had also viewed the Western world as a threat to the long term goals of communist Russia. The creation of government agencies such as the CIA, MI6, and the KGB had been formed…

After the Second World War, Germany was divided into four zones. “These occupation zones had been drawn during the war by the European Advisory Commission” (Maddox 1320) the four zones were; the American Zone of Occupation, the British Zone, French Zone and the Soviet Zone. Frankfurt was under the control of the Americans, Bad Oeynhausen under the control of the British, Baden-Baden under French control and East Berlin under Soviet control. With Germany being divided in four, issues began to…

Unfortunately, some companies have mismanaged their greatest asset—their brands. This is what befell the popular Snapple brand almost as soon as Quaker Oats bought the beverage marketer for $1.7 billion in 1994. Snapple had become a hit through powerful grassroots marketing and distribution through small outlets and convenience stores. Analysts said that because Quaker did not understand the brand’s appeal, it made the mistake of changing the ads and the distribution. Snapple lost so much…