1. What were the long-term and short-term causes of WWI?
2. To what extent was Germany (could be any nation) responsible for the outbreak of the Great War?
3. To what extent was WWI a “total war?”
4. How did new developments in weaponry affect the conduct of WWI?
5. What was the social and economic impact of WWI?
6. Compare and Contrast two nation's mobilization of their respective homefront (economy, propaganda, gender roles, stifling dissent, and raising an army).
7. To what extent did the Paris Peace conference address the causes of WWI?
8. Why did the League of Nations fail?
9. To what extent was Wilson responsible for the failure of the U.S. Congress to ratify the Versailles treaty?
10. What were the short-term and long-term results of WWI?
11. Why did a "fair peace" fail to emerge from the Paris Peace Conference?
101 comments:
Mr. O,
I’m kinda confused on essay question 3, about WWI being a total war. When we describe how it was a total war wouldn’t it be like answering essay question 6 by explaining how each nation mobilized their homefront and how it was an arms race to be the most powerful?
Lisa
the arms race was only part of what it takes to have a total war. check out the notes form 3/20
Lisa,
Katherine is right about the notes. Other things to consider are mistreatment of different ethnic groups including the people of Belgium, the Armenian genocide, attacks on Germans in America. Also look at the extensiveness of the military combat that involved an all out conflict with every weapon available.
For question 8 on why did the league of nations fail, is it better to do a four bucket essay of
1. how the league was different than the old approach.
2. the balance was off (France only gains)
3. Britain and US back out
4. lack of military enforcement
Would that work for buckets or are some to vague?
Mr. O,
Why did Britain feel compelled to join the war after Belgium was invaded. Was the treaty they pulled out from a hundred years ago just an excuse?
Kelsie,
Your buckets are too narrow. Pt 1 would be better as an AG. Hit Balance of Power and how Wilson came to change the dynamics. I don't know what Pt 2 means, Pt 3 is good,b but be sure to talk about the new role of the U.S. On Pt 4, your bucket is too small. Make it structural problems and you can include the lack of money, poor selection of five permanent council members, unanimous voting, etc. At some point, you may want to mention that there is a significant group of nations that are hostile to the League.
Cristine,
They have troops on the ground in France which makes you think that they probably would have joined anyway. However, the mistreatment of neutral Belgium was gold in trying to convince the British population that the war was necessary. Additionally, German control of the lowland nations would give them easy access for a cross-channel invasion. Hence, Britain couldn't allow anyone to violate Belgian neutrality.
To follow off of Christine's, Mr. O, would a point or support for Britain entering war is Germany's mistreatment of the Britons and the desire of african countries?... what kissinger pointed out in chapter 7?
what question, if any, would the information you gave us on the genocide of armenian christians fit into?
Mr. O,
Why was Japan so ticked about the League of Nations and how/why was that a problem? Also why was the selection of permanent council members and the unanimous voting a problem?
Are airplanes offensive or defensive weapons?
Kelsey L, airplanes are offensive weapons... and does anyone think that for question 5 (the social and economic impact of WWI) it would be a good idea to also address the political impact, in order to balance the essay?
So is the U.S. considered to be in total war because they have so much propaganda and things like that supporting the war or are they not in total war?
Kelsey L, the Japanese were angry because they thought they were going to receive more land from the deal. They were also angry because of something to do with the Australians, but I'm not quite sure why. Also the unanimous voting is a bad idea because for any legislation to be passed all of the countries have to agree, which rarely happens. It's kind of like what happened with the Articles of Confederation.
If anyone has anything else to add or if my answer is wrong in any way, PLEASE SPEAK UP.
Kyle, the U.S. was in a total war because... heres what i put..
1. Economic (meatless mondays, hoover and food administration, war bonds, prohibition, etc)
2. Social (propoganda, women in workplace, creel, etc)
3. Military (draft, genocide, etc)
... that may or may not be very helpful.
Kelsey and Kyle,
Japan is mad because they felt they didn't get enough colonies out of the deal like Kyle said. The Australia thing had to do with racial equality. Japan is mad at Australia because they insisted on "no racial equality" while Japan wanted the opposite. Australia insists on this because they are afraid of the immigration of non-whites into their country.
O.K., Here we go...
Jamie-I'm lost. Do you mean Germany's mistreatment of Belgium? I would also bring up Weltpolitik.
Leif-I might fit it into a bucket on human rights abuses in the total war question.
Megan, isn't that just how the U.S. mobilized?
Mr. O
for what was the social and economic impact of WWI, I guess I don't get it is that talking about the results or how that changed things on the home front during the war.
kyle,
it could be how they mobilized, however, according to the notes we got about total war, it shows that America had many/all of traits of being involved in a total war mainly because the entire country's focus turned to the war efforts, etc.
Kelsey-Kyle and Meghan are correct.
Breanna-Don't change the question. If it asks about economic and social, stick to those.
Megan M-If you are going the genocide route, make sure that you talk about nations other than the U.S. Otherwise genocide is the only non-U.S. point. Otherwise, Kyle is right.
Brett,
You can do both, particularly if the change during the war creates a permanent change. For example, the freedom women experienced to enter the work force during WWI has an effect on how they view themselves during the 1920's
If that is why Japan is so ticked than why is Italy so ticked?
Mr. O,
What is the most efficient way to address all the four causes of world war one (alliances, nationalism...)without creating four buckets? If I slip it into the intro, I'm afraid that paragraph may be too long.
Cristine,
Go four buckets. There is nothing necessarily sacred about three points.
Kelsey,
Italy was promised a significant chunk of land including the city of Fiume in a secret treaty with France and Britain that brought them into the war. When the conference occurs, Wilson opposes giving them land that has few ethnic Italians. In the final settlement, Italy get some land, but not nearly as much as they expected.
Mr. O,
Why are Russia and Italy so ticked off then?
Can someone please refresh my memory as to why Russia mobilized their army first?
How is Wilson to blame for U.S. Congress not ratifying the Treaty of Versailles?
Kelsie L, Wilson refused to come to any compromise with the Lodge reservations, and therefore the treaty was not ratified by congress. In the Wilson packet a reporter asks him why he will not compromise and Wilson replies, "Let Lodge compromise!" there is more but i'm not sure what...
Does anyone know if the Battle of Jitland (spelling?) was the battle invloving ships?
Mr. O,
Does the issue of nationalism only encompass the Serbia - Austria issue where a bunch of ethnic groups want their homeland? Are their any countries that have this problem? How is this a significant cause of the war?
For the long-term short-term cause question, could you use the 4 traditional causes for four paragraphs and then make a running commentary on the long and short term effects of each one? I'm confused on how to approach it...
Mr. O,
Referring to the question "why did a "fair peace" fail to emerge from the Paris Peace Conference," I was wondering if the buckets of France, U.S./Britain, and Italy/Germany would work. I am unsure because all I can come up with under "U.S./Britain" is that they did not join the League of Nations. Therefore, they could not enforce their desired "fair peace"
Thanks, Tess
Mr.O
On queston one could you go through the short term and long term causes by just one country? the country I am thinking of is Germany.......
Hi Gang,
Thank you Meghan and Kyle for trying to answer each others questions. I don't mind jumping in to help on an issue that hasn't been addressed, but it makes me feel better if I see everyone trying to help each other out.
Meghan,
As for your question, Kissinger points out Russia had to mobilize because they couldn't allow Austria to dominate he Balkans. Germany had already given the Austrian-Hungarian empire the green light.
Kelsie-Yes
Cristine-The Balkans is the key are of nationalism, but you also see it within the Austrian Hungarian Empire. Remember that nationalism is also the rise of extreme national pride which emerges in Germany under the guise of weltpolitik.
Meghan-Use the 4 causes and then go short term/long term within each point.
Jaimie-Bad idea
Tess-I think you need to define the issues a bit better before I give you the green light. What are you going to say under Germany/Italy that is different than France, Britain, U.S. I think you might be better off with an issue based approach.
My wife just looked at the title of the blog and commented that she hopes you all recognize just how great these war essay questions are. Ah, the joys of being married to an English teacher.
For question 7, would it work to use war guilt clause and wilson's 14 points for buckets? But I can't think of what a good third bucket would be and whether those two are too large.
Would it be okay to answer the second question, the about it being any one country's fault particularly Germany, like this:
1. Say what Germany did wrong
2. How they were in total war and records show that they planned to start a war.
Then end with:
3. But it wasn't only Germany's fault and discuss the fault's of other country's.
Mr. O,
For the failure of the emergence of "fair peace" out of the Paris Peace Conference, could I address for point one the angry nations, then for point two the foolish nations, and for point three the confused nations and explain why for each?
How would you recommend using historians for the weapons of war question?
Kelsie,
I probably take the four causes and make those my points. Within each point, I then look at how the fourteen points attempts to address them (look at you wkst from Monday), and then I look at what actually came out of the conference.
could i link german nationalism back to the franco-prussian war when germany was unified?
Kyle-Yes
Kelsey-Yes
kb-Martin Gilbert
Cristine,
Yes
Excellent. Thank you Mr. O
Who is Martin Gilbert?
Who is martin gilbert? my memory has failed me...
I can't believe that you don't remember Martin Gilbert. I am so disappointed. The reason you probably don't remember him is because I may not have mentioned him. However, it was his book, "The First World War: A Complete History" that I used for the notes.
When did Germany decide to use to Schlieffen Plan again?
Does the Paris Peace conference ever come to a conclusion on Wilson's first point about no secret treaties?
Kyle,
The Schlieffen plan was actually developed in 1905, but was implemented as soon as the Russians began to mobilize. The Germans figured they had six weeks until the Russians were ready to fight.
kb-
i think that you could also (carefuly) use mann with his "influence of sea power..." in a naval point. be sure to emphisise trade and supply in doing so though
Does Kissenger argue that not implementing Moltke's Plan was a mistake?
okay, that makes more sense. Thank you Mr. O.
Meghan,
Not exactly. However, the creation of the League of Nations is supposed to stop the need for secret alliances because there would no longer be a need for Balance of Power. With collective security, all nations would be allied against the offender.
Kyle,
Yes on Kissinger and Moltke.
Thanks Mr. O.
Thanks again. You are the greatest.
on a total war question would some good buckets be Social(women, propoganda, deceint), Economic(srikes, bonds, gardens, conserving), and Military Practices(using all available technologys, genocide, deaths of millions)?
also for the social and economic impact what other ways besides those being the buckets are there? are they good ideas? (i'm thinking somesort of compare and contrast aproch... bad idea???)
Logan,
Add Baruch, $ a day men, and Hoover to economic and I think you have the right idea.
Logan,
Make that $ a year men.
Is Trippetz German or Russian? Who was the man who did not want the Russians to mobilize and go to war with the rest of the world because of the costly effort and effect it might cause to Russia?
Are dollar a day men the same thing as 4 minute men?
wilson
tripitz is german navy head
dunovo was the russian
Andy-
That was Durnovo
See Kissinger.
kyle
NO
dollar a year men are people volantering, a decent definition is on !gasp! wikipedia
who is Baruch??
Mr. O,
I'd just like to clarify a few things. For the question "To what extent did the Paris Peace conference address the causes of WWI," could I use the four causes of the war as buckets? Then, within each of these, I would talk about how Wilson's 14-points tried to address these issue and what the end result was.
Secondly, I am rather lost on the question "Why did a 'fair peace' fail to emerge from teh Paris Peace Conference." Is that one you said you could use the mad countires, the foolish countries, and the confused countries as points?
Thanks very much!
Tess
and for the pairs conference adressing cause could you say to little/no?? and go through 4 causes and make comentary???
logan,
baruch was chairman of War Industries Board and presidential advisor to Wilson
on the Compare and Contrast two nation's mobilization could you combine propoganda and dissent, and also combine gender and military?
Logan, I did mobilizing the people, the economy, and media.
Logan,
What exactly are your buckets for that question? I had mine in social, economic, and military.
Social
Women
Media
Econ:
Trade
Loans
Ability to raise money
Taxes
Military
Mobilizations
Number of people
women could cross over into this category as well
Perhaps a political point?
Ability to organize government and the ability of the government to mobilize the economy? but perhaps that's an ill founded point...
Which two countries did you compare Hannah?
For results of the war, I need ideas for a broad view, i was thinking you could probably end with geopolitics (rearranging the map, it's effects, and the emergence of new countries),
economically (each country is devasted except America, which becomes the largest creditor, germany is screwed when it comes to money and resources (it has neither b/c of rhineland and alsace lorraine loss)
Social issues perhaps (germany has no leadership, russia is full of commies, france has half the male population either dead or crippled), america reverts back to isolationist ways, britian loses trade and therefore money, they also become the side kick of the US.
Kyle -
Meh, I was thinking a combo of either:
America and Germany (who, by the way was pretty bad with media)
or
America and Great Britian, but I think it would be more interesting to look at America and Germany.
BTW, look at the yellow sheet. It is fantastic
H
i was going to go with the points in the question, and combine a few, but i like kelsey's wording.
For the short and long results could those be the buckets? or what would be the third?
I did Britain because i found it easier to pick out points for propaganda and such. Along with America of course.
Logan,
I was thinking for buckets:
1.Political/geopolitical results
2.Social
3.Economic
What do you think? What were your ideas?
H
don't forget that france also forced germany to pay a couple hundred billion in gold for econ
For the Wilson question: How were the american people responsible?
ok, for the wilson question, i have no idea for buckets! any assistance? maybe his unwillingness to compromise and the fact that he brought no republicans along....
Logan,
Yes, thank you for reminding me. :)
H
also for social you got women and the spanish flu, and PTSD on the vets of the war
econ also gets that all the old deals with empires are now gone as they don't exist
and i was lost for points thanks
MEGAN!
We find ourselves in the same German U-boat. I think Kelsie had an good way of doing it:
1. Wilson himself and his unwillingness to compromise
2. Congress (Lodge and Hiram (sp?)
3. The American people
I need more detail though...and am open to improvement/suggestions. For this question I just really need historians.
Thank you Logan!
speaking of historians, i just found a cool website with a bunch of historians talking about ww1!
its wwww.pbs.org/greatwar/historian
i think those are good points, however, i don't really know much detail about any of them.... um
H
for wilson historians use Thomas A bailey for it was willson's fault and William G carleton for it wasn't
Thank you again, Logan. I will be to bed now. My dreams probably filled with Wilson, German U-boats, and that crazy austrailian gorrilla. Oh! And Kissinger, whose first name is Henry.
Good night all! Sleep soon!
Bed Time Haiku (because Brett has neglected to write one)
Henry Kissinger
He is a historian
I don't trust Wilson
H
how are the people to blame for the treaty not passing?
But wait there is more!
Logan,
I don't know. Hence why I need help! I think it's because Americans became nervous after the war (republicans were basically given free reign over the US with wilson gone) which allowed them to sway the people. Also, german americans felt germany got a bad deal, there are other groups but i forget which though they conflicted were united under the dislike for the treaty. Americans also swayed towards being isolationists after the war and stepping out of the way. We felt we shouldn't meddle with the French cheese or Russian babushka (which really means scarf). Wilson's absence magnified these issues because he was able to reassure the people. I hope that's somewhat helpful.
another haiku
The Wilson was Odd
I mean Andy, not Woodrow
Henry Kissinger
by the way I mean wilson WAS NOT there and therefore these issues were magnified.
Logan,
Sorry, I disappeared for a while, but you guys were doing so well on your own. It isn't so much that they are to blame, but they are having to do an about face on American history. Washington pushed separation from Europe in his farewell address and America had followed it for 130 years. Also, they are deeply divided. There is a wonderful paragraph in the Wilson packet that talks about the divisions. It starts with the Irish and German factions and then goes forward from there.
Now that I have arisen to answer a question for logan, I am going back to bed.
Post a Comment