Was it inevitable that the League of Nations would fail to preserve the peace?

There is no way to know for sure what things in human history could possibly have happened differently.  We cannot run experiments on human history to determine whether the League of Nations could have achieved lasting peace had, for example, the Great Depression not occurred.  However, I would argue that the League of Nations was doomed to fail for two main reasons.

First, the League was arguably doomed because there were countries that were potentially quite strong that were dissatisfied with the status quo that the League was trying to protect.  Germany and Japan were the most obviously unhappy countries, but Italy was not particularly happy with the status quo either.  When powerful countries are unhappy with the status quo, they will work to overthrow it.  This will make it difficult to preserve peace.

Secondly, we can argue that the League was doomed to fail because strong countries were not really willing to support it vigorously.  The United States never even joined the League.  Other powers, like Britain and France, did not try hard to enforce the League’s sanctions against countries that violated League rules.  If a country like Italy could invade Ethiopia without the League doing anything serious to stop it, why would other countries feel that they had to obey the League?  If the major countries of the world were not willing to put their weight behind the League’s rules, it would be very hard for the League to keep the peace.

While we cannot know for sure if the League was doomed to fail, I would argue that it was.  There were powerful countries who wanted to upend the status quo while, on the other hand, there were not enough powerful countries that were willing to use their power to support the League’s efforts to preserve that status quo.

When a mass of 350g is hung on a spiral spring which was designed for a maximum load of 200g, what happens?

The spring is designed to take a maximum weight of 200g. At this threshold, the spring reaches its elastic limit when the weight is attached to it and allowed to drop down towards the ground.

The extension (e) in meters (m) of a spring is related to the force (F) in Newtons (N) applied to it and its spring constant (k) in Newtons per meter (N/m) by Hooke's Law

`F = k times e `

Assuming a gravitational constant of 9.81m/s^2 (that on Earth), the maximum force that can be applied to the spring in question is

`F_max = 0.2 kg times 9.81 "m/" s^2 = 1.962 kg "m/" s^2 = 1.962N`` `

When the maximum force the spring can withhold is exceeded, the spring constant of the spring will no longer be the same. The spring is no longer in equilibrium and loses its properties of retraction and elasticity. The tension in the matter that makes up the spring is weakened, some bonds of the matter (perhaps metal or plastic) being stretched beyond a critical threshold.

Being overloaded, the spring might lose its elasticity by bending in one or more of its coils, perhaps so much so that the spring snaps. The spring would not spring back up in the direction of its original starting position before the 350g excessive weight was added, as it would with a weight less than 200g, unless the ground which the weight would drag the spring down towards were also springy.

From the point of view of the 350g weight that is added to the spring, the spring would slow the weight's progress to the ground, counteracting the acceleration due to gravity. Depending on the height of the (originally contracted) spring from the ground, the weight might drop to the ground still attached to the spring, or might drop to the ground severed from part or all of the spring, or might dangle above the ground on the spring as a result of its warping of the spring.

What is the overall message of the poem "Dulce Et Decorum Est" by Wilfred Owen?

"Dulce Et Decorum Est" is an anti-war poem by Wilfred Owen, a soldier in the British Army during World War I. The title of the poem is derived from a poem by Horace, an ancient Roman, who claimed that it was "sweet and fitting (dulce et decorum)" to die for one's country. This statement was being echoed by many British politicians in Owen's day, and it is his intent with this poem to prove that it was, as he flatly says, a "lie." He describes the drudgery and misery of war, opening the poem by describing soldiers slogging through mud "knock-kneed, like old beggars under sacks," coughing "like hags." As they are slowly marching along, a gas shell explodes nearby, and as the men fumble to put on their gas masks, they are horrified to realize that one of their number has failed to get his mask on. Owen then describes, in equally vivid language, the horrors of the man's death struggle as he thrashes about "like a man in fire or lime" and drowns as his lungs fill with fluid. The scene is terrifying, and Owen tells the reader that if they had witnessed such carnage, they would not tell the "old lie" that it was sweet and fitting to die for one's country. With these lines, he sends a powerful antiwar message through the eyes of one who has witnessed the worst of war.

What is the socio-economic structure of Sumerian society?

Sumerian civilization in present-day Iraq was one of the first societies in the world to create a social class system.  At the top of the social hierarchy was the ruling family.  Each city-state had a king and an aristocratic class that consisted primarily of the royal family.  Also highly regarded in Sumerian city-states were the priests that were responsible for keeping the gods happy.  They were in the upper classes and close in importance to the royal family.  A middle class emerged that consisted of warriors, scribes, merchants, and artisans.  Trade was very important in Mesopotamia and merchants could acquire wealth through trading with other city-states.  They had to work very hard for this wealth.

The lower classes in Mesopotamia consisted of farmers.  While they were very important to the city-states, they were not highly regarded.  A penal slave class existed below the farmers on the social hierarchy.  

Why is the play named Julius Caesar and not Marcus Brutus?

Brutus seems to be a much more important character in the play than Julius Caesar. Caesar not only has few appearances in the opening acts, but he is assassinated in Act 3, only halfway through the play. Yet Shakespeare chose to call the play Julius Caesar. No doubt this was because Julius Caesar was one of the greatest names in history, while Brutus was not well known to the general public, including the playgoers of Elizabethan England. Brutus really does seem like a tragic figure. Caesar, in Shakespeare's play, seems like a minor character by comparison. We find it hard to pity Caesar because we hardly get a chance to know him.

On the other hand, the play may not feature Caesar but it is all about Caesar. There is hardly a scene or a page which is not concerned with Caesar. In Act I, Scene 2, we see Cassius and Brutus talking about Julius Caesar. Then they are joined by Casca, and he has a lot to say about Julius Caesar. If you open the play anywhere at random, you will very likely to see that whatever is going on has something to do with Julius Caesar. For example, I open my Pelican Shakespeare of Julius Caesar more or less in the middle--and what do I find? Marc Antony is about to speak at Caesar's funeral on page 67.

When the play opens, a group of working men are honoring Julius Caesar, and two tribunes break them up because these officials are against Caesar. In fact, the whole city of Rome seems to be for or against him. Julius Caesar as a character may not be appearing frequently in the play, but his power, his influence, his ambition, his popularity, his plans for Rome, his secrets, his gravitas, and his will are felt consistently, which is undoubtedly the way Shakespeare planned it. Everything in the play has to do with Julius Caesar. He is so powerful and so important that he hardly even has to make appearances.

In Act III, Scene 1, Marc Antony addresses Caesar's dead body in terms that suggest the unstoppable will of this mighty man.

Over thy wounds now do I prophesy
Which like dumb mouths do ope their ruby lips
To beg the voice and utterance of my tongue,
A curse shall light upon the limbs of men;
Domestic fury and fierce civil strife
Shall cumber all the parts of Italy;
Blood and destruction shall be so in use,
And dreadful objects so familiar,
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quarter'd with the hands of war;
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds,
And Caesar's spirit ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry “Havoc!” and let slip the dogs of war,
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.

When Cassius and Brutus commit suicide on the battlefield at Philippi, they both acknowledge the omnipotence of Caesar in causing their defeat and their deaths. In Act V, Scene 5, Cassius says:

Caesar, thou art revenged,
Even with the sword that killed thee.

And Brutus says:

Caesar, now be still.
I killed not thee with half so good a will.

Antony and Octavius have won the battle, but they are only fighting Brutus and Cassius over the right to inherit the empire which was virtually the property of Julius Caesar. Octavius becomes one of the triumvirate only because he was Julius Caesar's nephew and his heir. Antony was Caesar's best friend and most loyal follower. 

Shakespeare had a problem writing a play about Julius Caesar. He could not cover all over Caesar's long and eventful life, so he focused on Caesar's assassination and its aftermath. But if Caesar dies, isn't the rest of the play anticlimactic? This was what Shakespeare must have had in mind when he decided to give so much importance to the character of Brutus. Brutus provides a thread to follow from the beginning to the very end. This probably helps to explain why we feel more sympathy for Brutus than for Caesar. But Caesar was a far more important figure. As Cassius says to Brutus early in the play:

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs, and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves.     Act I, Scene 2

How are the themes of warfare, search for identity, and jealousy used in A Separate Peace by John Knowles?

When the action of the book starts, Gene is a high school student faced with an identity crisis, and he is filled with fear. He writes of that time, "We were in shaky transit that summer from the groveling status of Lower Middlers to the near-respectability of Upper Middlers." Even Gene's status in the school, caught between the youngest kids and the oldest, is unclear. Gene, an intellectual, is unsure of his identity, and he befriends Finny, a popular boy, in part to cover up for his own insecurities and to feel less afraid. 

Part of Gene's fear has to do with the war, as the book's action starts in 1942, during World War II. He says:

"The class above, seniors, draft-bait, practically soldiers, rushed ahead of us toward the war. They were caught up in accelerated courses and first-aid programs and a physical hardening regimen."

While Gene and his classmates are still "numbly reading Virgil," students just a bit older than them are preparing to enter the war and to leap into the unknown, worsening Gene's fears. 

While Gene admires Finny, he is also jealous of his friend's ability to get away with behavior none of the other boys would dare exhibit. For example, when Finny wears a bright pink shirt, the teachers only find it funny, not punishable. Gene thinks:

"I was beginning to see that Phineas could get away with anything. I couldn’t help envying him that a little, which was perfectly normal. There was no harm in envying even your best friend a little."

Gene's insecurity and confused identity, worsened by the coming war, makes him more and more jealous of Finny until he decides to deliberately shake the branch of the tree on which Finny is climbing. 

What effect did World War II have on the political dispensation of America?

World War II affected American politics in complex ways. For one thing, it essentially ended the strong isolationist strain in American politics, relegating it to the fringes of the American political spectrum. The war, along with the Great Depression, also created what has often been called a "liberal consensus" that the government had a major role to play in the economic well-being of its citizens. Most Democrats and even most Republicans supported such programs as the GI Bill and others that promoted economic expansion. The war also created increasing momentum for civil rights for African-Americans, who served with distinction in the armed forces and achieved significant economic gains at home. Finally, the end of the war brought about the Cold War, which altered the landscape of American politics in profound ways. The nation was put on an anti-communist footing after World War II, a condition that led many Americans to accept and even embrace the rapid expansion of the American military, the development of increasingly destructive weapons, and the emergence of what President Dwight Eisenhower, speaking in 1960, called the "military-industrial complex." These are just a few of the complex and often contradictory changes in postwar American politics.