WWII: 2

"Many years later [Prime Minister] Clement Attlee wrote that, if someone asked him, 'What exactly, did Winston [Churchill] do to win the war?' he would have to say 'talk about it.' Edward R. Murrow, the American news correspondent, said much the same thing when he wrote of Churchill's mobilization of words. The effect of his speeches to the nation on British morale is incalculable and can be described, without hyperbole, as transforming. . . . Churchill's words also gripped the attention—as they were meant to—of both politicians and people in the United States and anywhere else that an English-speaking population had access to them. They seriously irritated the Nazis and arguably contributed to Hitler making ill-advised strategic decisions such as switching [German] bombing raids in Britain from airfields to civilian centers. . . . [The speeches themselves] were the first great battle of the Second World War, fought and won, not with Hurricanes* and Spitfires* but with words, passion, and history. . . . In the year that followed the German invasion of France [in May 1940], there was overwhelming evidence of a new-found British social cohesiveness and mutual loyalty. The complete isolation of Britain, fighting on alone, which Hitler not unreasonably assumed would make it a soft target, had precisely the reverse effect. Churchill turned on the 'island nation' rhetoric, and the British people across all classes, with very few exceptions, echoed him. . . . It is impossible not to be struck by the degree to which Britain, which had been such a divided society between the wars, managed to pull together when it mattered most. . . . The unions and employers, so bitterly at odds for so long, now worked together . . . so that no undue [government] pressure needed to be applied to have factories, many of them, of course, staffed by women, working 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The collaborative push made a critical difference to the production of munitions in general, but especially of war planes, which in turn made the difference between winning and losing the Battle of Britain." *British military aircraft used during the Second World War Simon Schama, British historian, A History of Britain: The Fate of Empire, 1776-2000, book published in 2002 All of the following statements are factually accurate. Which could be most directly used to modify Schama's argument that the war provided "overwhelming evidence of a new-found British social cohesiveness and mutual loyalty"?

After a brief period of supporting the war effort, the Indian National Congress continued its anti-imperialist agitation, with Gandhi launching a Quit India campaign in 1942.

"1. Every Hutu should know that a Tutsi woman, wherever she is, works for the interest of her ethnic Tutsi group. Consequently, we should consider a traitor every Hutu who marries a Tutsi woman, befriends a Tutsi woman, or employs a Tutsi woman as a secretary. 2. Every Hutu should know that our Hutu daughters are more suitable and dutiful in their roles as women, wives, and mothers of the family. . . . 4. Every Hutu should know that every Tutsi is dishonest in business. Their only aim is supremacy for their ethnic minority group. As a consequence, every Hutu is a traitor who makes a business partnership with a Tutsi, invests his money in a Tutsi enterprise, lends money to a Tutsi, or gives business favors to a Tutsi. 5. All strategic posts, political, administrative, economic, military, and those in the area of security, should be entrusted to the Hutu. 6. The majority of the education sector must be Hutu. 7. The Rwandan armed forces should be exclusively Hutu. No member of the military should marry a Tutsi. 8. The Hutu should stop having mercy on the Tutsi." Excerpt from the "Hutu Ten Commandments," a manifesto published in Kangura, a newspaper dedicated to the promotion of Hutu supremacy, Kigali, Rwanda, 1990 Which of the following best explains the similarity between Hutu views of the Tutsi in the "Hutu Ten Commandments" and the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany?

Both the Tutsi and Jews were persecuted based on ethnic prejudice.

"Japan's colonial policy aims at extending into its colonies the principle of paternalistic protection followed in the home land. The protection of industry and education, which is a characteristic feature of Japanese administration at home, has largely been transplanted to the Korean peninsula. The results that have followed the industrialization of Korea, for both the native population and the Japanese administration, may be summarized as follows: 1. The development of industries has increased capital in the country and helped Korean society in a general advance toward a capitalistic stage of development. 2. As a result of industrialization, the Japanese administration's financial resources have been increased. 3. Korean mineral products are of kinds that are scarce in Japan proper and consequently there is little competition between Korean and Japanese mineral products. Administration by Japan, the inflow of Japanese capital, and the provision of public education have all tended toward a fundamental transformation of native Korean society. The Koreans are being rapidly modernized and even their inherent seclusive nature is undergoing a marked change. Under their former corrupt rulers, the people were reduced to abject poverty and misery and resigned themselves to fatalism, having been robbed of all incentives to earn and save money. Under Japanese government, however, the Korean people have begun to be active and industrious once again." Tadao Yanaihara, Japanese economist, "Problems of Japanese Administration in Korea," article published in a Canadian journal, 1938 All of the following statements about Canada in the early twentieth century are factually accurate. Which would most likely help to explain why Yanaihara thought that his claims regarding Korea might be well received by a Canadian audience?

Canada's economy grew during most of the early twentieth century under British rule, and Canadian troops willingly helped the British Empire defend its colonial territories in Asia and Africa.

"1. Every Hutu should know that a Tutsi woman, wherever she is, works for the interest of her ethnic Tutsi group. Consequently, we should consider a traitor every Hutu who marries a Tutsi woman, befriends a Tutsi woman, or employs a Tutsi woman as a secretary. 2. Every Hutu should know that our Hutu daughters are more suitable and dutiful in their roles as women, wives, and mothers of the family. . . . 4. Every Hutu should know that every Tutsi is dishonest in business. Their only aim is supremacy for their ethnic minority group. As a consequence, every Hutu is a traitor who makes a business partnership with a Tutsi, invests his money in a Tutsi enterprise, lends money to a Tutsi, or gives business favors to a Tutsi. 5. All strategic posts, political, administrative, economic, military, and those in the area of security, should be entrusted to the Hutu. 6. The majority of the education sector must be Hutu. 7. The Rwandan armed forces should be exclusively Hutu. No member of the military should marry a Tutsi. 8. The Hutu should stop having mercy on the Tutsi." Excerpt from the "Hutu Ten Commandments," a manifesto published in Kangura, a newspaper dedicated to the promotion of Hutu supremacy, Kigali, Rwanda, 1990 The "Hutu Ten Commandments" is best explained as being part of which of the following continuities in twentieth-century history?

Extremist groups using propaganda to target specific minority populations

"Many years later [Prime Minister] Clement Attlee wrote that, if someone asked him, 'What exactly, did Winston [Churchill] do to win the war?' he would have to say 'talk about it.' Edward R. Murrow, the American news correspondent, said much the same thing when he wrote of Churchill's mobilization of words. The effect of his speeches to the nation on British morale is incalculable and can be described, without hyperbole, as transforming. . . . Churchill's words also gripped the attention—as they were meant to—of both politicians and people in the United States and anywhere else that an English-speaking population had access to them. They seriously irritated the Nazis and arguably contributed to Hitler making ill-advised strategic decisions such as switching [German] bombing raids in Britain from airfields to civilian centers. . . . [The speeches themselves] were the first great battle of the Second World War, fought and won, not with Hurricanes* and Spitfires* but with words, passion, and history. . . . In the year that followed the German invasion of France [in May 1940], there was overwhelming evidence of a new-found British social cohesiveness and mutual loyalty. The complete isolation of Britain, fighting on alone, which Hitler not unreasonably assumed would make it a soft target, had precisely the reverse effect. Churchill turned on the 'island nation' rhetoric, and the British people across all classes, with very few exceptions, echoed him. . . . It is impossible not to be struck by the degree to which Britain, which had been such a divided society between the wars, managed to pull together when it mattered most. . . . The unions and employers, so bitterly at odds for so long, now worked together . . . so that no undue [government] pressure needed to be applied to have factories, many of them, of course, staffed by women, working 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The collaborative push made a critical difference to the production of munitions in general, but especially of war planes, which in turn made the difference between winning and losing the Battle of Britain." *British military aircraft used during the Second World War Simon Schama, British historian, A History of Britain: The Fate of Empire, 1776-2000, book published in 2002 Which of the following best explains why Schama uses the claim that the British government did not have to apply any "undue pressure" on either factory owners or factory workers during the war?

He wanted to support his argument that Britons were completely mobilized for the war effort.

"Many years later [Prime Minister] Clement Attlee wrote that, if someone asked him, 'What exactly, did Winston [Churchill] do to win the war?' he would have to say 'talk about it.' Edward R. Murrow, the American news correspondent, said much the same thing when he wrote of Churchill's mobilization of words. The effect of his speeches to the nation on British morale is incalculable and can be described, without hyperbole, as transforming. . . . Churchill's words also gripped the attention—as they were meant to—of both politicians and people in the United States and anywhere else that an English-speaking population had access to them. They seriously irritated the Nazis and arguably contributed to Hitler making ill-advised strategic decisions such as switching [German] bombing raids in Britain from airfields to civilian centers. . . . [The speeches themselves] were the first great battle of the Second World War, fought and won, not with Hurricanes* and Spitfires* but with words, passion, and history. . . . In the year that followed the German invasion of France [in May 1940], there was overwhelming evidence of a new-found British social cohesiveness and mutual loyalty. The complete isolation of Britain, fighting on alone, which Hitler not unreasonably assumed would make it a soft target, had precisely the reverse effect. Churchill turned on the 'island nation' rhetoric, and the British people across all classes, with very few exceptions, echoed him. . . . It is impossible not to be struck by the degree to which Britain, which had been such a divided society between the wars, managed to pull together when it mattered most. . . . The unions and employers, so bitterly at odds for so long, now worked together . . . so that no undue [government] pressure needed to be applied to have factories, many of them, of course, staffed by women, working 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The collaborative push made a critical difference to the production of munitions in general, but especially of war planes, which in turn made the difference between winning and losing the Battle of Britain." *British military aircraft used during the Second World War Simon Schama, British historian, A History of Britain: The Fate of Empire, 1776-2000, book published in 2002 Which of the following would best support Schama's argument in the first paragraph about the role of Churchill's speeches in Great Britain's war effort?

New mass media such as radio greatly expanded the reach of governments' mobilization efforts.

"1. Every Hutu should know that a Tutsi woman, wherever she is, works for the interest of her ethnic Tutsi group. Consequently, we should consider a traitor every Hutu who marries a Tutsi woman, befriends a Tutsi woman, or employs a Tutsi woman as a secretary. 2. Every Hutu should know that our Hutu daughters are more suitable and dutiful in their roles as women, wives, and mothers of the family. . . . 4. Every Hutu should know that every Tutsi is dishonest in business. Their only aim is supremacy for their ethnic minority group. As a consequence, every Hutu is a traitor who makes a business partnership with a Tutsi, invests his money in a Tutsi enterprise, lends money to a Tutsi, or gives business favors to a Tutsi. 5. All strategic posts, political, administrative, economic, military, and those in the area of security, should be entrusted to the Hutu. 6. The majority of the education sector must be Hutu. 7. The Rwandan armed forces should be exclusively Hutu. No member of the military should marry a Tutsi. 8. The Hutu should stop having mercy on the Tutsi." Excerpt from the "Hutu Ten Commandments," a manifesto published in Kangura, a newspaper dedicated to the promotion of Hutu supremacy, Kigali, Rwanda, 1990 All of the following statements about the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups in Rwanda are factually accurate. Which would best explain how the attitudes expressed in the "Hutu Ten Commandments" were a reaction to past developments in Rwandan history?

The Tutsi were heavily favored and promoted to positions of power under European colonial rule, while the Hutu were not.

"The German people once built up a colonial empire without robbing anyone and without violating any treaty. That colonial empire was taken away from us unreasonably. First, it was said that the natives in those colonies did not want to belong to Germany. But, who asked them if they wished to belong to some other power and when were these natives ever asked if they had been content with the power that formerly ruled them? Second, it is stated that the colonies were not administered properly by the Germans, but Germany had these colonies only for a few decades and they were in a process of development. Third, it is said that the colonies are of no real value. But, if that is the case, then they can be of no value to any other state. Moreover, Germany has never demanded colonies for military purposes, but exclusively for economic purposes. It is obvious that in times of general prosperity the value of certain territories may decrease, but it is just as evident that in times of distress such value increases. Today, Germany lives in a time of difficult struggle for foodstuffs and raw materials. Sufficient imports are conceivable only if there is a continued and lasting increase in our exports. Therefore, as a matter of course, our demand for colonies for our densely populated country will be put forward again and again." Adolf Hitler, German chancellor, speech delivered in the German parliament, 1937 The point of view that Hitler expresses in the first three paragraphs is most directly significant in helping to explain how which of the following contributed to starting the Second World War?

The provisions of the Treaty of Versailles that ended the First World War

"Japan's colonial policy aims at extending into its colonies the principle of paternalistic protection followed in the home land. The protection of industry and education, which is a characteristic feature of Japanese administration at home, has largely been transplanted to the Korean peninsula. The results that have followed the industrialization of Korea, for both the native population and the Japanese administration, may be summarized as follows: 1. The development of industries has increased capital in the country and helped Korean society in a general advance toward a capitalistic stage of development. 2. As a result of industrialization, the Japanese administration's financial resources have been increased. 3. Korean mineral products are of kinds that are scarce in Japan proper and consequently there is little competition between Korean and Japanese mineral products. Administration by Japan, the inflow of Japanese capital, and the provision of public education have all tended toward a fundamental transformation of native Korean society. The Koreans are being rapidly modernized and even their inherent seclusive nature is undergoing a marked change. Under their former corrupt rulers, the people were reduced to abject poverty and misery and resigned themselves to fatalism, having been robbed of all incentives to earn and save money. Under Japanese government, however, the Korean people have begun to be active and industrious once again." Tadao Yanaihara, Japanese economist, "Problems of Japanese Administration in Korea," article published in a Canadian journal, 1938 Which of the following best explains the long-term historical significance of the views expressed by Yanaihara in the passage?

They show that some members of the Japanese elite sought to justify aggressive Japanese colonial efforts in China and the Pacific region.

"Japan's colonial policy aims at extending into its colonies the principle of paternalistic protection followed in the home land. The protection of industry and education, which is a characteristic feature of Japanese administration at home, has largely been transplanted to the Korean peninsula. The results that have followed the industrialization of Korea, for both the native population and the Japanese administration, may be summarized as follows: 1. The development of industries has increased capital in the country and helped Korean society in a general advance toward a capitalistic stage of development. 2. As a result of industrialization, the Japanese administration's financial resources have been increased. 3. Korean mineral products are of kinds that are scarce in Japan proper and consequently there is little competition between Korean and Japanese mineral products. Administration by Japan, the inflow of Japanese capital, and the provision of public education have all tended toward a fundamental transformation of native Korean society. The Koreans are being rapidly modernized and even their inherent seclusive nature is undergoing a marked change. Under their former corrupt rulers, the people were reduced to abject poverty and misery and resigned themselves to fatalism, having been robbed of all incentives to earn and save money. Under Japanese government, however, the Korean people have begun to be active and industrious once again." Tadao Yanaihara, Japanese economist, "Problems of Japanese Administration in Korea," article published in a Canadian journal, 1938 Which of the following best explains a likely significant purpose behind Yanaihara publishing his article in a Canadian journal?

Yanaihara wished to justify continued Japanese colonial rule of Korea to potentially hostile Western states.

"The German people once built up a colonial empire without robbing anyone and without violating any treaty. That colonial empire was taken away from us unreasonably. First, it was said that the natives in those colonies did not want to belong to Germany. But, who asked them if they wished to belong to some other power and when were these natives ever asked if they had been content with the power that formerly ruled them? Second, it is stated that the colonies were not administered properly by the Germans, but Germany had these colonies only for a few decades and they were in a process of development. Third, it is said that the colonies are of no real value. But, if that is the case, then they can be of no value to any other state. Moreover, Germany has never demanded colonies for military purposes, but exclusively for economic purposes. It is obvious that in times of general prosperity the value of certain territories may decrease, but it is just as evident that in times of distress such value increases. Today, Germany lives in a time of difficult struggle for foodstuffs and raw materials. Sufficient imports are conceivable only if there is a continued and lasting increase in our exports. Therefore, as a matter of course, our demand for colonies for our densely populated country will be put forward again and again." Adolf Hitler, German chancellor, speech delivered in the German parliament, 1937 In the context of the late 1930s, the arguments that Hitler makes in the last paragraph are most significant in explaining how

imperialist aspirations contributed to motivating the policies of fascist states

"The German people once built up a colonial empire without robbing anyone and without violating any treaty. That colonial empire was taken away from us unreasonably. First, it was said that the natives in those colonies did not want to belong to Germany. But, who asked them if they wished to belong to some other power and when were these natives ever asked if they had been content with the power that formerly ruled them? Second, it is stated that the colonies were not administered properly by the Germans, but Germany had these colonies only for a few decades and they were in a process of development. Third, it is said that the colonies are of no real value. But, if that is the case, then they can be of no value to any other state. Moreover, Germany has never demanded colonies for military purposes, but exclusively for economic purposes. It is obvious that in times of general prosperity the value of certain territories may decrease, but it is just as evident that in times of distress such value increases. Today, Germany lives in a time of difficult struggle for foodstuffs and raw materials. Sufficient imports are conceivable only if there is a continued and lasting increase in our exports. Therefore, as a matter of course, our demand for colonies for our densely populated country will be put forward again and again." Adolf Hitler, German chancellor, speech delivered in the German parliament, 1937 Based on the historical situation in which the speech was given, Hitler's most significant motivation for giving the speech was likely to continue to

reinforce the idea to the German people that past injustices required Germany to continue its military buildup and engage in future territorial expansion