The Great War (1914-1918) • Industrial mass slaughter - battles of attrition • Attrition: outlasting & outproducing your enemies was essential (U.S. is most dominant industrial country - American manpower & machinery contributes greatly to the side of the Triple Entente/the Allies) • Rare - none of the primary nations (except Germany) had war aims when war started, they were manufactured by the mobilizations of the other countries • Germany fought to protect their country and expand their empire • France, Britain, & Russia were mainly defensive in their movements but had no idea why there was an outbreak of war • Total war - civilians and non-combatants fought (war feeling were felt by everyone, not just soldiers) (no distinction between civilians and soldiers - everyone suffered) • Government took over control of economy • Rations of food & steel etc. • Censorship/Propaganda - no freedom of speech • Women work in factories to produce weapons; Farmers grow food for soldiers • Is a civilian working in a factory producing bullets a target for war? • Is it justifiable to starve to death a civilian population that is designing weapons for murdering others? (British stops all trade routes into Germany which causes many deaths) • Technology was not decisive, the war was prolonged (unlike the advanced technology in WW2 - bombs, aircrafts etc)
Prohibition: an inevitable failure?
Patrick Gilbert MYP4a MP4 History. Focus Question: 'Prohibition: an inevitable failure?' Areas of Interaction: - Approaches to Learning (working with sources) - Health and Social Education In 1920 Prohibition came into effect in the United States. The making, selling and transporting of alcohol were banned. Thousands of illegal stills and millions of gallons of wine and spirits were destroyed but Prohibition also led to a vast increase on organized crime. In 1933 it was clear that Prohibition had failed and it was brought to an end nationally although a few states continued with their own ban on alcohol. Was the failure of Prohibition inevitable? The assignment: Study the sources and then answer all the questions which follow. You must use your own knowledge of the period to interpret and evaluate the sources. Where you are asked to use specific sources you must do so to score high marks. You may use any of the sources to help you answer the questions, in addition to those sources to which you are specifically directed. You will spend three lessons to answer these questions in class. Then type your answers at home. Please, print one question per page. The due date is: 14 / 4 / 2009 . Study sources A and B. How far do these two accounts agree about the causes and the consequences of Prohibition? Both sources A and B discuss the causes of Prohibition,
Discuss the short and long term consequences of the Indian Mutiny 1857
Discuss the short and long term consequences of the Indian Mutiny 1857 The Indian Mutiny brought a lot of changes to the Indian society even though it failed as a revolution for independence. It would be 90 years before the Indians get their independence. The mutiny had both short and long term consequences; I think that short term consequences are changes that happen up till three years after the mutiny (1860). I will talk about the short term consequences first and then the long term consequences. After the mutiny the British realized they had to take more control, therefore they abolished the East India Company, brought the Mughal Empire to an end and declared Queen Victoria the ruler of India. This meant that Britain took over all territories owned by the East India Company. Then negotiations with the princes started and Britain tried to get all provinces under indirect control. The relationship between the Indians and the queen was considerable warm. Queen Victoria had a special affection for India and had a personal Indian advisor. The Indian people welcomed the direct rule and in 1877 this lead to the Queen announced Empress of India. The British army in India was before the mutiny mostly sepoys, there was a ratio of 1 British soldier for every ninth sepoy. The British saw this as a problem and reduced the amount of sepoys with 40% and raised the amount of British
Proxy Wars during the Cold War
Victor Fung IB History November 17, 2008 Proxy Wars during the Cold War In the past, proxy wars have been fought through the use of third parties in order to prevent a full-scale war. During the Cold War, the need to prevent such a full-scale war became extremely important due to the fear of mutually assured destruction. Instances such as the Greek civil war, Korean War, Cuban Revolution, Vietnam War, Bay of Pigs, Afghan Soviet war, Angolan Civil War, were all examples of such proxy wars between the Soviet and the American sides. In a proxy war, either side would strive to implement their own form of government, which would then serve as a beacon for similar revolutions in the region. In addition, such proxy wars were also a test of economic capacity for either the Americans or the Soviets. Thus, these wars were fought to great effect during the Cold War and had long lasting consequences for either side. For wars such as the Greek civil war, the Cuban revolution, and other similar revolutions, the Americans and the Soviets did not advocate direct intervention. For example, the Truman Doctrine allowed American aid and materiel to be sent to pro-Capitalist Greek and Turkish supporters, rather than direct military involvement. This is similarly done by the Soviets, who sent aid to countries such as Cuba in the form of oil and other resources to support the economy, as well
Why was Stalin successful in becoming the next leader of the USSR?
Why was Stalin successful in becoming the next leader of the USSR? Stalin was successful in becoming the new leader of the USSR for many complex reasons. Firstly, the divisions within the party, made his task of eliminating people less complicated, he only had individuals, not groups of people against him. Moreover he knew perfectly how to manipulate people on his behalf and also how to gain supporters and how to get out of the way his opponents. But one of the main factors for his success was that members of the party did not realize that Stalin was to be more than the General Secretariat they saw him as a treat when it was too late. The personality of Stalin was quite important for his emerging as a leader of the Soviet Union. His understanding of Marxism was not excellent; however he had other qualities that helped him through his rise to power. Stalin was very determinate, he knew what he wanted and also he could visualize how to achieve it. Also he was able to use the structure of the party for his success because he knew how everything worked since he had much experience in many roles. However it did not matter how he would achieve whatever he wanted. One of his main characteristics is that he was ruthless and cruel. He could do whatever he needed to meet his objectives and that is exactly what Lenin did not like from him, as he wrote in his testament. In 1922, after
Both Louis XIV and Charles I attempted to create an absolute monarchy Absolute Monarchy is a type of monarchy in which the monarch attempts to make royal power dominant over regional authorities such as aristocracies. Monarchs that abided by this theory typically also subscribed to the theory of the Divine Right of Kings. The Divine Right stated that kings were not subject to earthly authority and only God could judge kings since God had picked the kings, which in effect allowed the kings to do what they wished during their reign. Although both subscribed to the theory of Divine Right, as well as attempt to bring religious unity, and both loved art and architecture, Louis XIV successfully managed to centralize his government while Charles I failed to centralize his government due to the fact that he failed to give his nobles a sense of power. Also Louis listened to his people, though specifically his nobles, while Charles disregarded his nobles and did not care about them. This is how Louis succeeded in creating a central monarchy - he managed to give his nobles a sense that they had power through the multiple committees he created as well as listening to his nobles' complaints and because Charles had done the opposite he failed in creating an absolute monarchy. Both kings attempted to bring religious unity to their respective countries. Document 5 was written by Louis XIV
Bismarck's policies success
"Bismarck pursued a successful foreign policy between 1871 and 1890 but was often defeated on domestic issues". To what extent do you agree with this statement? Jude Batayneh Once Germany was unified, Bismarck mainly wanted to prevent any challenges against the new European order and to unite the new German state, which faced much domestic opposition and great suspicion from the rest of Europe, rather than seek further territory or fight more wars. As Chancellor from 1871 - 1890, Bismarck provided continuity and stability on one hand, and reflected his own restless and suspicious nature through his predominance on the other. Part of Bismarck's foreign policy in which he was successful in achieving was the weakening and isolation of France. The former objective was attained by the peace settlement imposed on France by the Treaty of Frankfurt, which included a large war indemnity. The five main powers in Europe were Great Britain, Russia, France, Austria- Hungary and Germany. Bismarck wanted to form an alliance with at least two of them in order to isolate France. The isolation of France was more difficult yet also attained. First of all, Britain would not present Bismarck with any problems as it was more concerned with her empire than with the rest of Europe. Also, Britain was more pro-German than pro-French. Second of all, in fear of a future two-front war, Bismarck managed
Why Germany Lost The War
Why Germany Lost The War WHY THE GERMANS LOST Failure of the Schlieffen Plan * The Schlieffen Plan was a strategic plan developed by General Alfred von Schlieffen in 1905 and was to be implemented in the event of a European war. * The plan was to avoid a war on two fronts by swiftly defeating the French on the Western Front and the Russians on the Eastern Front. In order to get to France, the Germans would first have to cross through Belgium * However, when WWI broke out, the German's fear of a war on two fronts was realised when the Schlieffen Plan failed. * The Belgium army put up a stronger resistance than expected and delayed the Germans by the month and the French could not be defeated swiftly. * This dragged Germany into a war of attrition on two fronts as the Russians had also mobilised their troops quicker than the Germans had expected. However, the failure of the Schlieffen Plan was made certain by the Battle of the Marne. The Battle of the Marne * The Battle of the Marne, fought between 5 and 12 September 1914, was a battle that resulted in an Allied victory and effectively ended the month long German offensive that opened the war and had reached the outskirts of Paris. * This caused the war to become a stalemate and the German defeat, and the subsequent retreat, ended any hopes of a swift German victory, meaning that the Schlieffen Plan had failed and
The War of Independence in the Thirteen Colonies was primarily caused by economic factors. To what extent do you agree with this statement?
Chantelle McMullin Hstory 11 IB Essay March 31th/08 The War of Independence in the Thirteen Colonies was primarily caused by economic factors. To what extent do you agree with this statement? The War of Impendence in the Thirteen Colonies was caused by economic factors but, also by many other things. You can not justly say that it was caused by one thing, for that is untrue. It was caused by many things such as political factors, economical factors, intellectual factors, social factors and some people even argue religious factors. The first thing that you have to look at is the proclamation of 1763. This is when Britain proclaimed that all lands west of the Appalachians were reserved for Native Americans and closed to colonial settlement. This was very beneficial to Britain for it created peace with the Native Americans and kept the colonies under British control easier. Needless to say the colonists did not approve of this and felt like they were losing an opportunity that was rightfully theirs. They helped Britain win these lands then lost the opportunity to settle on them. Also, they were not happy when it was demanded that they help pay for the army that was to defend the frontier. Next came the Sugar Act. It started in 1964 when Parliament tried to collect a series of taxes from the colonies to ease the war debt and strengthen the British empire. The strongest
Origins of WWII
Raghav Ramabadran Grade 12 IB History January 28th 2009 Ms. Santos The Origins of the Second World War After a decade of what many may call as "peace" considering the magnitude to which destruction overshadowed all other aspects of life during the First World War, the world was yet again on the dawn of a new war that would revolutionize the future. In these years, called the post-depression years, political unrest was a common element among the world super powers. For instance, Germany's Nazi regime was on the up rise after years of economic and social struggles throughout the country due to the heavy losses suffered at the end of the First World War. Once again, Germany, this time under Adolf Hitler had formed a regime to take on world super powers to gain land, power and regain the dignity lost after WWI. If it were not for "Hitler's restless quest for empire, war might have been avoided"1. The war itself was a "technologically advanced" one compared to that of 1914 and thus the scare of a nuclear war was more prominent among civilians. More importantly, the social struggle which was clearly evident in Germany was a manipulating factor for the next uprising regime in Germany. Without such a social discontent, one may question Germany's ability to form a strong government that gained the support of many blinded citizens. The exact origins of such a treacherous war