Unit 07 WHAP Practice
Answer not correct on assignment
.
Giolitti's concerns in Source 2 about the potential consequences of conflict in the Balkans are most directly explained by which of the following developments in Europe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries?
European states entered into military alliances with each other that forced them to come to their allies' aid in the event of conflict with a nonallied state.
Source 1 "German wartime propaganda [during the First World War] has been criticized on many different grounds, but its success in blaming the war on Russia was a masterstroke, mobilizing widespread Russophobia in the working classes, the people most opposed to armed conflict, and playing on the threat of invasion. As [a daily newspaper in Berlin] told its readers, 'the German people may honestly say once more in this hour that it did not want this war. . . . But it will not allow the soil of the Fatherland to be overrun and devastated by Russian regiments.' The brief occupation of East Prussian territory by Russian units at the end of August fanned fears of the so-called 'blood Tsar' and his 'Cossack hordes' further. Exaggerated atrocity stories appeared in the press and were given credibility by the letters of men serving [at the front]. Under such circumstances, it was hardly surprising that men of all classes decided that it was their patriotic duty to fight. . . . [I]n Germany, surrounded on all sides by enemies, the rush to volunteer was immediate and spontaneous. With no official encouragement, 260,672 enlistment requests were received in Prussia alone during the first week of mobilization. . . . Moreover, contrary to the usual claim [made by historians] that volunteers were 'war-enthused' students or schoolchildren, examination of muster rolls [lists of new recruits] and letters demonstrates that a broad cross-section of urban society enlisted, mainly for reasons of patriotic self-defense." Alexander Watson, British historian, Enduring the Great War, 2008 Source 2 "In Britain, the interpretation of what constituted sensitive military news and should therefore be suppressed was broad, but censorship was handled far less obtrusively [than in Germany]. Essentially, the British system consisted of a close control of news at the source by military authorities, combined with a tight-knit group of 'press lords' who . . . decided what was 'good for the country to know.' Important losses or battles often went completely unmentioned. When the [British] battleship Audacious was sunk by a mine on 27 October 1914 off the Irish coast, the loss was simply never announced. When the Battle of Jutland [a major naval engagement between British and German fleets] was under way, not one civilian knew about it. [Even when official censorship sometimes foundered], the press willingly censored itself. Why did British journalists cooperate so willingly in suppressing important news? The obvious answer is that they all belonged to the same club, whose membership also included the most powerful politicians. Publishing a casualty list (or a letter from a wounded corporal about military bungling) would have meant expulsion from the club; social ostracism apparently meant more to the newsmen than their professional duty to inform the public. The government also possessed positive incentives. In addition to breakfast, lunch, tea, dinner, and golf weekends in the company of the powerful, knighthoods and lordships were generously distributed among the press and, finally, prestigious posts in government itself. Alice Goldfarb Marquis, United States historian, "Words as Weapons: Propaganda in Britain and Germany during the First World War," article published in an academic journal, 1978 Watson, in the first paragraph of Source 1, uses the newspaper quote to support the claim that
German propaganda portrayed the conflict with Russia as a defensive war
Which of the following contributed significantly to the decline of both the Qing and the Ottoman Empires?
Internal conflict with ethnic and religious minorities
Which of the following statements best represents a nationalistic interpretation of the collapse of the Ottoman and Russian empires during and immediately after the First World War?
Military weakness and political instability were the primary reasons for the collapse of these empires.
Source 1 "German wartime propaganda [during the First World War] has been criticized on many different grounds, but its success in blaming the war on Russia was a masterstroke, mobilizing widespread Russophobia in the working classes, the people most opposed to armed conflict, and playing on the threat of invasion. As [a daily newspaper in Berlin] told its readers, 'the German people may honestly say once more in this hour that it did not want this war. . . . But it will not allow the soil of the Fatherland to be overrun and devastated by Russian regiments.' The brief occupation of East Prussian territory by Russian units at the end of August fanned fears of the so-called 'blood Tsar' and his 'Cossack hordes' further. Exaggerated atrocity stories appeared in the press and were given credibility by the letters of men serving [at the front]. Under such circumstances, it was hardly surprising that men of all classes decided that it was their patriotic duty to fight. . . . [I]n Germany, surrounded on all sides by enemies, the rush to volunteer was immediate and spontaneous. With no official encouragement, 260,672 enlistment requests were received in Prussia alone during the first week of mobilization. . . . Moreover, contrary to the usual claim [made by historians] that volunteers were 'war-enthused' students or schoolchildren, examination of muster rolls [lists of new recruits] and letters demonstrates that a broad cross-section of urban society enlisted, mainly for reasons of patriotic self-defense." Alexander Watson, British historian, Enduring the Great War, 2008 Source 2 "In Britain, the interpretation of what constituted sensitive military news and should therefore be suppressed was broad, but censorship was handled far less obtrusively [than in Germany]. Essentially, the British system consisted of a close control of news at the source by military authorities, combined with a tight-knit group of 'press lords' who . . . decided what was 'good for the country to know.' Important losses or battles often went completely unmentioned. When the [British] battleship Audacious was sunk by a mine on 27 October 1914 off the Irish coast, the loss was simply never announced. When the Battle of Jutland [a major naval engagement between British and German fleets] was under way, not one civilian knew about it. [Even when official censorship sometimes foundered], the press willingly censored itself. Why did British journalists cooperate so willingly in suppressing important news? The obvious answer is that they all belonged to the same club, whose membership also included the most powerful politicians. Publishing a casualty list (or a letter from a wounded corporal about military bungling) would have meant expulsion from the club; social ostracism apparently meant more to the newsmen than their professional duty to inform the public. The government also possessed positive incentives. In addition to breakfast, lunch, tea, dinner, and golf weekends in the company of the powerful, knighthoods and lordships were generously distributed among the press and, finally, prestigious posts in government itself. Alice Goldfarb Marquis, United States historian, "Words as Weapons: Propaganda in Britain and Germany during the First World War," article published in an academic journal, 1978
Muster rolls and letters
The photograph above of German East African troops best illustrates which of the following historical processes during the First World War?
The increasing inclusion of non-Europeans in European conflicts
In addition to the potential destabilization of the Ottoman Empire, Giolitti's argument in Source 2 regarding Italy's ambitions in Libya is likely explained by the concern that any attempt by a European state to acquire colonies in Africa could
dangerously intensify rivalries between European states seeking to acquire territories and resources
Moltke's prediction in Source 1 about the consequences of a potential war between Germany and France is most directly explained by the fact that
previous conflicts had stirred intense nationalism in France and Germany
Which of the following factors contributed most significantly to the contraction of the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century?
Independence movements inspired by ethnic nationalism
Which of the following was a major similarity between the goals of leaders of the Chinese Communist Revolution, such as Mao Zedong, and the goals of leaders of the Mexican Revolution, such as Emiliano Zapata, in the early twentieth century?
Support for redistribution of land to poor peasants
Which of the following best supports the contention that the First World War was the first total war?
Governments mobilized large segments of their populations and economies and targeted their opponents' military and economic capabilities.
The opinion expressed in the passage above is most consistent with which of the following?
Redistributing one-third of the land controlled by large landholders to landless peasants
Which of the following is an accurate description of relations between European states and the Ottoman Empire in the period 1815 to 1914 ?
Russian, English, and French expansion came at the expense of the Ottomans.
"Are we prepared for so stubborn a fight as a future war involving the great powers of Europe will undoubtedly become? The answer, we must say without evasion, is no. In addition to the military considerations, there is also the political angle. It should not be forgotten that Russia and Germany are representatives of the conservative principle in the civilized world, as opposed to the democratic principle represented by England and France. From this point of view, a war between Russia and Germany, regardless of the specific issues over which it is fought, is profoundly undesirable to both sides. Such a conflict, however it ends, would entail the weakening of the conservative principle of which the two powers are the only reliable bulwarks. Moreover, one must realize that, under the precarious conditions that now exist, a general European war is mortally dangerous to both Russia and Germany, no matter who wins. It is my firm conviction, based on long and careful study of the multitude of subversive tendencies and movements that we are presently facing, that there must inevitably break out in the defeated country a social revolution that, by the very nature of these things, will inevitably spread to the country of the victor. In our country today, there are countless agitators telling the peasant that he should demand a gratuitous share of somebody else's land, or the worker that he should be getting hold of the entire capital and profits of the manufacturer. War with Germany will create exceptionally favorable conditions for such agitations." Pyotr Durnovo, Russian Minister of the Interior, memorandum to Tsar Nicholas II, February 1914 Which development during the first decade of the twentieth century can best be explained in the context of the "weakening of the conservative principle" mentioned in the first paragraph of the passage?
The Mexican Revolution, as middle classes and peasants united to oust longtime dictator Porfirio Díaz and establish a more equitable society
"Are we prepared for so stubborn a fight as a future war involving the great powers of Europe will undoubtedly become? The answer, we must say without evasion, is no. In addition to the military considerations, there is also the political angle. It should not be forgotten that Russia and Germany are representatives of the conservative principle in the civilized world, as opposed to the democratic principle represented by England and France. From this point of view, a war between Russia and Germany, regardless of the specific issues over which it is fought, is profoundly undesirable to both sides. Such a conflict, however it ends, would entail the weakening of the conservative principle of which the two powers are the only reliable bulwarks. Moreover, one must realize that, under the precarious conditions that now exist, a general European war is mortally dangerous to both Russia and Germany, no matter who wins. It is my firm conviction, based on long and careful study of the multitude of subversive tendencies and movements that we are presently facing, that there must inevitably break out in the defeated country a social revolution that, by the very nature of these things, will inevitably spread to the country of the victor. In our country today, there are countless agitators telling the peasant that he should demand a gratuitous share of somebody else's land, or the worker that he should be getting hold of the entire capital and profits of the manufacturer. War with Germany will create exceptionally favorable conditions for such agitations." Pyotr Durnovo, Russian Minister of the Interior, memorandum to Tsar Nicholas II, February 1914 The memorandum is best explained in the context of which of the following developments in the early twentieth century?
The emergence of external and internal challenges that threatened the stability of imperial states
All of the following resulted from the French and Russian Revolutions EXCEPT
a socialist economic system
"Are we prepared for so stubborn a fight as a future war involving the great powers of Europe will undoubtedly become? The answer, we must say without evasion, is no. In addition to the military considerations, there is also the political angle. It should not be forgotten that Russia and Germany are representatives of the conservative principle in the civilized world, as opposed to the democratic principle represented by England and France. From this point of view, a war between Russia and Germany, regardless of the specific issues over which it is fought, is profoundly undesirable to both sides. Such a conflict, however it ends, would entail the weakening of the conservative principle of which the two powers are the only reliable bulwarks. Moreover, one must realize that, under the precarious conditions that now exist, a general European war is mortally dangerous to both Russia and Germany, no matter who wins. It is my firm conviction, based on long and careful study of the multitude of subversive tendencies and movements that we are presently facing, that there must inevitably break out in the defeated country a social revolution that, by the very nature of these things, will inevitably spread to the country of the victor. In our country today, there are countless agitators telling the peasant that he should demand a gratuitous share of somebody else's land, or the worker that he should be getting hold of the entire capital and profits of the manufacturer. War with Germany will create exceptionally favorable conditions for such agitations." Pyotr Durnovo, Russian Minister of the Interior, memorandum to Tsar Nicholas II, February 1914 Durnovo's argument in the second paragraph regarding the effect of war between Germany and Russia on the two countries would prove to be
accurate in its prediction that a war with Germany would create the circumstances for a revolution in Russia