1. Discuss the part played in the outbreak of the First World War by two states (excluding Germany). (10)
2. To what extent was World War I caused by social and economic forces?
3. What were the long-term and short-term causes of WWI?
4. To what extent was World War I a “total war?”
5. To what extent did technological developments ensure victory in World War I?
6. How did new developments in weaponry affect the conduct of WWI?
7. Compare and Contrast two nation's mobilization of their respective homefront (economy, propaganda, gender roles, stifling dissent, and raising an army).
8. Analyse the short term results of World War I.
9. Why did a "fair peace" fail to emerge from the Paris Peace Conference?
10. To what extent did the Paris Peace conference address the causes of WWI?
This might be useful to you particularly as you try to answer question 7.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/wars_conflict/home_front/the_home_front_01.shtml
101 comments:
O'Donnell..... Are these all of them, or are there more coming?
Also, why can't you let us have one day to feel good about ourselves?
Love the picture, Mr. O! :)
Yup these are the questions. I don't like you to feel like I am being a slacker. Otto Dix is an interesting artist.
Mr. O do you like the British English? I am stuck culturally using a mix of the two and it drives word into conniptions.
Mr. O. I am having issues narrowing my midget IA down. I like both the Darien Scheme and the Colony of Ellena in North Borneo. I have resources for both. Because the Darien scheme is major in scottish history there is a ton of online primary source material. I would have to email a couple museums potentially for extensively detailed info on Ellena, but North Borneo is one of my favorite places. Your thoughts.
OMGoodness, Mr. O! Shannon accidentally commented on my blog with your id. I've written a pb (ms) about WWII and am working on a mg novel too.
should i narrow down the alaska gold miners to a specific gold rush like the klondike? or should i go more broad?
the summarey of evidence.....is that a list or full sentences? do bullets work?
so who is the guy that writes all the stuff about the historiographers? i know he is just an editor but he may have stuff on the kkk.
Ok as far as causes go. Is it a fair assessment to point out that all major powers saw the war coming? BTW sorry about the M&Ms I didn't intend for them to become a currency.
Hey Mr.O I kinda last my IA sheet and noticed that it was not on docushare.... any chances you could help me out there?
Mr. O,
I just remembered I promised to post this link to the blog!
http://www.keiththompsonart.com/pages/grandmap.html
Hey Mr. O, do the footnotes count as part of the 1200 word limit?
Bailey, From what I understand only the main bulk of the text counts. Any text in citations, titles, and images does not.
Mr. O! can we use you as a resource in our practice IA? because i have some pretty handy notes just chillin in my notebook, and was wondering how to reference them/you. thanks!
Vale, I believe MLA is, Last name, First Name. "Name of Lecture". Date of lecture. Its the same for a personal interview
Mr. O.
I have a quandary about WW1 as a total war.
Would you consider a war where citizens targeted a total war even if the methods of attacking those citizens were ineffective?
Bailey-No
Vale-No
Connell-Yes, but it is only one aspect.
mr. o im using the orange sheet to study and who is josef and what country is he from. can't find him in our notes and i can't figure out who he is based on a google search.
Josef was king of austria if I remember right
Could the order of the white feather group be used as an AG to #7 or would it fit better under raising an arm (Britain)?
in class you kept saying that george was something checker? what was that?
Mr. O. You are a wonderful history teacher. We couldn't ask for better. Just wanted to clarify that the Selective Services Act was 1917 and not 1916 as stated in our very handy and much apperciated yellow packet.
Also, I still don't understand the shell scandal. Do I need to for a complete British industry bucket?
Michaella he was the exchequor (wrong spelling) which is the equivalent of our secretary of treasury
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/22/us-venezuela-chavez-mars-idUSTRE72L61D20110322 Absolutely hilarious speech by Chavez. and on question 5 would Cambrai be a good battle to use
http://quizlet.com/4906439/ww1-terms-and-battles-flash-cards/
great help on the orange packet thanks to elena :)
Josh,
Historians have largely debunked Cambrai as the beginning of successful mobilized tank warfare. Knowing your approach, there could be a another angle that you are trying to prove.
Elena-Nice job on the flashcards. With the way the quiz is written it might not be a bad idea to check the term box in the corner.
Emma-Which question are we talking about with British industry. If it is the homefront one, I would suggest running commentary with industry being one bucket.
the three packets for homework, do you want the stuff we have to write typed or does it matter?h
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)? then, fit in the human rights abuses into the AG even though it would limit that? what do you think?
Mr. O,
I was looking at some bucket strategies for question #1 and was thinking of doing geopolitical, socioeconomic and then a military bucket. This would perhaps work for #3 too, but what two nations would you say would be the most advantageous to compare?
Hey Mr.O i hope you are have as great of a night as I am studying history! so anyways... for Number 1 does the whole excluding Germany mean we can't even mention Germany or (my Mr.o voice) "to what extent" can we mention Germany? thanks have a great night!!! =]
Emma-The one caution I would give you on the total war question is that there is an argument that it doesn't quite reach the standard. The first two years of the war aren't quite as convincing on this argument and we don't see the type of civilian deaths in a few of the nations...particularly Great Britain and U.S.
Laura-I like Serbia and France, because they give you links to the other nations, but the key is to have one nation from each front.
Ashley-You can mention them, but the focus really has to be on the other nations and perhaps their interaction with Germany.
Mr. O
Would you say that Austria-Hungary was an agrarian or industrial society at the time of WWI?
Hi Justin,
Outside of the Russians, Austria is probably the weakest of the major powers and she is closer to Russia's level than Germany or Great Britian. Towards the end of the war, German industry and manpower is propping her up.
For question number 2, could the arms race be considered an economic force? I am thinking it fits because the industries of many nations were deeply affected; Britain spent so much money of the Two Power System, Germany increased its military spending by 300% and the new innovation for automobiles, steel, railroads, and new factories added to the arms race and clearly affected the economies. Am I on the right path with that?
Also, is it alright to say for number two, that the war was caused by economic and social forces, but also greatly by political factors and talk about the alliance system as a bucket?
Okay, I might be posting a lot on the blog today. Hopefully someone might find it helpful, or at least with any luck I can get a little feedback.
For number three, I am thinking a two-point structure. The first would be the "beefiest" point, since it deals with the four traditional long-term causes (the -isms). For the second, to talk about Germany mostly, and of course the Reisler Diary, the Black Hand, the role of Austria, and the Willy-Nicky telegraphs. Good enough? I always feel like two-point structures can be great in theory but then get sticky when you try to balance them out.
Grr, it just deleted my comment when I tried to post. Sorry for the delay Elena, but I am fighting with the computer. Let me see if I can get this up before you get another post up.
Question 1-Yes, that material can be used, but you need to be VERY careful that you link it to a cause. Simply building those things doesn't cause war. Your best bet is to tie it to the imperialism point. In order to build their economy, the materials were needs and once they were built markets were needed.
Question 2-Yes, it is fine to do that, but the best essays will have some weighing mechanism. For example, the economic and social forces were the primary causes of the war, but the alliance system exacerbated the tensions that were already in place.
Question 3-That two point structure can work, but you might want to consider taking the alliance system and making it the heart of the second point rather than dealing with it in point 1. Additionally, you seem to hedging toward the direction that the assassination of Ferdinand was simply an excuse for the major powers to go to war.
Mr. O
Regarding question 6, I was thinking of breaking it into offensive weapons, defensive weapons, and... something else. any ideas?
Also, on number 7, how do we go about breaking up the points that we need to discuss (economy, propoganda, etc.) into buckets?
Elana keep posting! they are really good questions that are really helpful thanks. Oh and so are Mr.O's answers =]
Thank you Mr. O,
Yes, I definitely understand the need to tie back constantly to the question for number two. I find prompts like that interesting because you can answer them with whatever bucket you want as long as you weigh what you are talking about against the options the question offers you.
I like the idea of making the alliance system an essential part of the second point a lot. I think that will help balance the paper more. Thank you.
Justin,
I am not sure that I am crazy about the labeling in that structure. What I might look at is the conventional military tactic that were employed prior to World War I that end up surviving into the war. Then I might look at how the combination of trenches and machines guns effect those tactics and then an examination of the mostly failed attempts to address the defensive weaponry. Anyone else have a better idea? Don't forget that just because I came up with it, there could certainly be a much stronger and creative approach out there.
Elena-Keep firing the questions. Sometimes I think my class needs to be made much harder, just to keep up with you.
For question 5 can I discuss how the new weapon developments did not ensure victory because as offensive weapons developed so did defensive weapons keeping the war one of stalemate and attrition?
Mr. O, I swore you told me to use the buckets Justin suggested for 6, but whatever.
On 9, I've listed out the many reasons for failure but they haven't resulted in the best buckets of
1. Geopolitical (Br, Fr, Romania as a sidenote)
2. Economic (Italy, mandated colonies, and_________?)
3. The Many Things Wilson Overlooked and Didn't Understand (Europe punishment, abundence of religions)
Any help with revision?
NanniG is Natalie, right?- I think I would tweak this, but you have the right idea. I am not sure the defensive weapons really developed in response as much as the offensive weapons never were developed well enough to break the stalemate.
Emma-How many times have I told you that I am just making things up as I go and you might get a different answer if you ask at a later date? However, I doubt I told you that your third point should be "something else." :-) In all honesty, sometimes you get better answers on the blog than when you come in the morning because I am less distracted.
Your structure will work, but let me take a shot at another approach that may be a bit simpler. The reason the Paris Peace conference failed to create a "fair peace" was?
A desire for vengeance or power grab. At the heart of this point would be French revenge, Italian land, and British colonial policy.
The organization was very poor. Please refer to Kissinger. Germany and Russia not invited is key, but also the large number of nationalities demanding peace and the small number of top leaders trying to implement it.
The U.S. had designed a League of nations that had fundamental flaws for enforcing a fair peace and the U.S. chose not to join it. You can also address Wilson issues here.
For question number 8, would you consider the League of Nations, WWII, and the Cold War as long term and then pretty much everything else as short term? Also, could that be divided long term/short term, or is there a better way to organize it?
Yes, NanniG is Natalie =)
Natalie-Yes, those would all be long term with the exception of the creation of the League of Nations. I left long term results out of the questions because you probably haven't learned enough history to answer that aspect.
Nothing like studying for an essay test on a Sunday afternoon. This is even more fun than a Monday morning!
@Mr. O. Lol, I am enjoying my studying. I found a pretty good 3 hour documentary, with recolored period filmography. That Italian front was the Isonzo Front. 12 battles mostly poorly managed Italian attacks. 1 every 3 months or so. Battle of Caporetto led to an Italian retreat and a new general. Battle of Piave, halts austrian advance. Battle of Vittorio Veneto, is one of the most successful assaults I have read about in this war. A lot of ground was gained. (roughly from 30 miles north of venice to Switzerland and Fiume.)
That's interesting, Josh. I should have known you were lurking somewhere. When we start talking about thirty miles as being a lot of ground, it becomes very clear what kind of war this was.
For number 6 are we just talking about how this war differed with old european wars (trenches, machine guns, gas, and all that jazz)? Or is there more to it?
Natalie-I am referencing my answer at 3:01. When I mention the first point tactics, that is what I am addressing. Wars used to be fought by relatively small armies on a field of battle and the armies charged each other. The machine gun makes mass assaults very difficult, hence the fact that it is responsible for 25% of the casualties in WWI
Mr. O, having a hard time with number 8. Like buckets and info. Any help you could give me?
Nick,
Well, I look at this and try to figure out what needs to be covered. Probably need something to address the immediate costs of the war like death toll, economic cost, casualties, Spanish flu.
Then, I take a look at the changes in empires. Elimination of Austria, Ottoman's, the Bolshevik revolution, the shifting of power from Britain to U.S. I also could mention the international bazaar that occurs at the Paris Peace conference
Then I probably focus in on the Versailles treaty which gives me a chance to talk about the punishment of Germany, condition of France, and the League of Nations.
Anyone have a better idea? I'll be back, but I need to go throw a baseball to a nine year old who doesn't understand that 47 degrees is not a warm, spring day.
Okay, so I am not quite sure how to structure number four. I really like the question because I think it could encompass a lot of information, which makes organization difficult.
Would looking at the way nations handled the war on the home front, battle field, and ...through politics? be the way to go? I don't know how to craft an effective third point. I was thinking "through politics" as in dragging the whole world into the conflict (the Australians at Gallipoli, Mexico and the Zimmerman telegraph, not sure what else.) Actually, I am skeptical of that working...
Okay, that last comment still needs to be a little more clear. I meant that the nations used all available resources not only on the home front and on the battle field, but also abroad through their diplomacy and colonial resources.
Mr. O. Do you have any good sites for looking at the start of the war? I am uncomfortable on just using the material from the lecture and the Fay thesis. If my memory is still working didn't the governing Serbian council have very active involvement in the assassination? Maybe with a few more details on the premonitions experienced by the great powers as well. The packets and notes were great for specific incidents, but not so great for big picture.
thanks, josh
Okay, I think there are a number of things we have to consider. First of all, remember that this has to focus on the civilian population, not necessarily the number of nations or the tactical approach. Secondly, there is an argument that it wasn't a total war during the first couple of years and never was total war in Britain and France.
So, with that out of the way, consider some of these possibilities. First, you want to note to what extent were civilians part of the war. You could look at civilian roles in industry and the homefront. I would certainly give some attention to the women at this point. I might also look at the propaganda agencies and their attempt to convert the homefront.
Next, I might look at the extent that civilians were targeted. Belgium and Armenia pop into my head, but there was also significant targeting of civilians in Russia and Serbia. The 700,000 starving Germans could fit in here. The Germans target civilians with U-boats and a few Zeppelin bombings.
Finally, you might take an examination at the military or you might show the level that it wasn't a total war. Either point would need some expansion, but could work.
Mr. O what could I use for info on the failure of the league of nations? for number 9?
Josh,
You may want to glance at the digital history online textbook. For what you want, feel free to glance at Wikipedia. I hope those will provide you the help that wasn't given in lecture notes and packets.
Wilson's desire for the League of Nations certainly fits in question 9. I think you should go back to Kissinger for this question. Please take a look at my answer to Emma for question nine at 3:28 today.
Would it be suicide to try at question one while at the same time affirming the Fischer Thesis, (The Fay says Germany was practically not involved at all). eg While planing on a war Germany was not solely responsible for WWI, because several other nations took action to allow for it. AKA Everyone started the war. Probably buckets of Imperialistic Goals/past, Nationalistic Goals, and Political goals. Not necessarily in that order.
so for the question about total war when talking about the utilization of the civilian population can we include government taking control of the economy and talk about the manipulation. How could we tie in the economy bit and what exactly does that involve?
I really like that set up. I think I would want to look at the military for the third point. Could I sort of condense the information used for number six to look at how the new technology created a new style of war different than Europe had previously engaged in? And how civilians were engaged with that development because of the industry on the homefront? I think I would have to rearrange the buckets to be civilians as targets of war, civilians engaged on the homefront, and revolutionary military tactics in order for the points to transition more smoothly.
I would also like to include German starvation in that but i cant find it in my notes and neither can sierra and vale's no help either can some summerize that and help me apply it to Civilians being effected thanks!
Ashley, you can find it in the yellow packet. Here is the info I know:
In 1918, Germany produced 50% of the milk it did before the war. The winter of 1917 was called the "Turnip Winter" because the potato supply was completely depleted. Because of the British naval blockade, 750,000 Germans died from starvation and flu. Germans were more susceptible to the flu because of malnutrition. This figure includes soldiers who had survived the war and came home only to die of the flu.
Josh-I wouldn't do it. It may not be suicidal, but I'm not sure it would be very bright. Realize that question isn't asking you to say that Germany isn't responsible, it just isn't interested in that portion of the war. Josh, your biggest challenge taking the IB test will be avoiding the squirrels.
Elena-I think that would work. Now that you are focused in on the civilians, I think you have it.
Ashley-Elena's got it right on the civilian deaths in Germany. As for industry, there are a number of ways to tie it in, but it could be tied into a governmental control point which would also include propaganda and the draft. Remember, there are multiple acceptable structures.
I am going to make dinner now, but I will be back.
Mr O. or anyone that can help... What are some possibilities on buckets for 5 and 6?
Haha, I am with Sierra. My attempt didn't work out well at all. I separated my buckets into Passenger Weaponry (tanks, air planes, navy, etc), Handheld Weaponry (machine guns, grenades, flame throwers) and Gases (chlorine at Ypres, mustard at Verdun, gas masks, and how gases were banned after the war)
Mr. O will probably tell us to do something about the relationship between offensive and defensive weapons and how it added to the stalemate. At least, that is what I have picked up from Natalie's question earlier today. I am still confused on 5 and 6 too though.
Squirrels? Where?!!.
Sierra and Elena.
On 5. It is hard to say that technological developments won the war. I would approach the buckets as follows. Defensive Technology, (Trenches, MGs, relevant tactics), Support tech (Massive artillery batteries (1000's of pieces at any battle by end of the war, Mortars, Gas Weapons), Offensive and Scouting Tech (Aircraft, Tanks, New Naval Tactics, Stormtroopers, and grenades)
On 6.
Naval Warfare (Point out few major naval battles, A few overseas combats, Siege of Tsingtao, and the Emdem (http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/emden.html), Subs) , Trench Warfare, Responses to Trench Warfare.
Josh, I don't know what you just posted. But that happens more often than not.
I definitely wouldn't argue that advances in technology alone could win a war. I just try to link back to the thesis question with each bucket and link the weaponry to their corresponding battles. Mostly, battles that we have learned about it class.
I am going to rethink these outlines a bit and maybe come up with something new as well.
Sorry Elena. I will try to clarify my random self.
5.
Thesis in Brief. Technology did not win the war, in fact it made the war longer.
Buckets
Changes in Defensive Technology
eg Trenches, Machine Guns,any relevant tactics or happening, example race to the sea.
Changes in Support, I mean battlefield support. So you are looking at artillery, Gas weapons,troop transports, Maybe Hospital Trains. You also get personal light artillery in the form of mortars. At the first Battle of the marne for example all the taxis in Paris are requisitioned to get troops to the battlefield.
Changes in Assault Tech
Tanks, and Aircraft are developed.
Planes are not in great enough numbers/ don't have enough range to have much effect. Tanks are very slow. They work somewhat well but take large casualties. At Cambrai a british tank offensive takes some ground at ~ 170 casualties / ~500 tanks. The army however overextends itself in the process.I would also focus on the new naval warfare here. Especially subs.
I didn't attach a battle for most of these but I know battles for almost all of them so just ask. :)
Is there any other thing here I need to clarify myself on?
Nope, no more clarifications needed. Thank you!
Mr. O. If we get 2 very similar questions for the test say 5 and 6 or to a lesser extent 9 and 10, do you drop one of the 2 for a different choice?
Josh-You get whatever you draw. They may be similar, but if you have the same answer for them, then you are being too generic in most cases.
Elena-On number five, I might also consider disagreeing with it and making the statement that it wasn't the key to ensuring victory. To a great extent, both sides have the critical weapons. You then can open up the door to arguing what you think did make a difference. One of those points would probably be the Americans. The other could be failed German strategies.
On number six, I wouldn't give too much credence to the offensive weapons. They are created, but largely fail. In fact, my final point would probably be exactly that. You could argue that those failures extended the war. As I mentioned at 3:01 today, you may want to talk about the old fashioned approach to fighting and then examine the effectiveness of the machine gun. I hope this clarifies some.
Josh, could you explain the artillary in your bucket of "change in battle support" for Q 5....
What does milk have to do with it? Is that just because the Germans didn't have food to feed themselves let alone a cow?
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
Josh's thesis is fine for maybe a point or two, but you need to make sure that you provide an alternative for what did end the war if you are going to disagree with a topic. I think Josh has a valid argument, but it can't stand alone if you are looking for an A or even a high B.
Then Mr.O, help please?
What is the best estimate for the Russian (soldier) death toll? And was it Faulkenhein who wanted to bleed the oponent white?
so can we just prove their ineffeciveness through out the essay?
Emma-That is the basic point. It is also considered a necessity for a healthy diet. Not just the milk, but the materials that are made out of it. Plus, Germans really get angry if you mess with their milk supply. It is one of the little known facts about Hitler. He really came to power because he was such a supporter of the milk. Just ask Katie Brown.
I am not making the connection between the absence of Germany and Russia and the Conference's extent at addressing the causes - espcially Germany. They were losers and had to pay 132 million (?). If (as Fischer argues) they were the cause the Conference hit them pretty hard.
Emma-1.7 to 1.8 million soldiers killed for the Russians.
Sierra-Josh's basic point is valid. However, on number five, I would argue that the Americans entrance into the war really makes the difference. It make the Germans take chances they wouldn't take because they come to the realization that they can't win a war of attrition. Additionally, American industrial capacity would eventually overwhelm the Germans, so they had to win fast. This is part of what leads to the second battle of the Marne. On the other hand, if you are going to disagree with the premise, you have to knock down the weaponry argument.
Ashley-It helps if you keep reminding me of what topic you are talking about because there are a lot of them.
Ok, for question 1, I know we need two countries from opposite fronts that connect to all the other countries, but I can't figure out how to bucket it. any suggestions?
About the Hitler/milk comment: was his the first "Got Milk" mustache? :)
Emma,
If the cause of this war was unbridled rivalries on the issues of Colonialism, Nationalism, and Militarism, it might be helpful to have all of them there and create an equitable peace. Instead, Versailles tries to permanently win the three causes.
In WWI Artillery were able to shoot several miles, and shot very large shells. You also get gas warfare that develops. It was very regular for shelling to go on for days on end. Obviously this was a huge factor for Shell shock. Similarly the majority of the larger battles had more than a 1000 artillery pieces on both sides. You might get more than 10,000 shells fired in an hour easily.
Mr. O. When I expand my thesis, it goes as follows: "World War One's new defensive tactics and massive armies were so effective that they extended the war and led to a frantic struggle to improve the armament of the soldiers and develop new weapons and strategies capable of winning or tipping the balance of power away from the stalemate that pervaded the conflict; which in turn really amounted to nothing." 3 Buckets
Defenses - explaining how defensive technology and strategy was all that.
Support - how the support weapons were largely innefective and just made the war more terrible.
Offensive - How offensive technology never truly adapted to the scale of the conflict and was largely ineffective, in turn making things that "bleeding the other white" won the war.
Besides the long thesis are there any problems with this? I would love some suggestion on shortening the thesis.
sorry i tend to add to what sierra is say and forget our names are not the same on the Blog. The dynamic duo strikes again! i was talking about the military and victory one and if we say tech. did not help victory it just made the war last longer and we prove this through out the essay do we really need to have a whole paragraph dedicated to it?
Justin,
I would two point it using the two nations that you select. Then, you can take the long term and short term causes and look at your nations to see which ones apply to the country you picked. For example, Serbia might be ideal for nationalism and alliance system while Britain might be good on imperialism, alliance system, and militarism.
Josh,
That will work for you on number six, but the one I was concerned with you had labeled as five. Otherwise, this looks fine for a structure.
Ashley-I would still argue that you need to give me a plausible alternative to weaponry. It is like a murder trial. My client didn't do it isn't quite as convincing as my client couldn't have done it because his twin brother did it. Getting a little loopy. Too much time on the blog.
Mr. O. 2 things. I can see how it fits 6. Partially its the way I worded it. It could lean both ways but appears more 6. Unless I am mistaken the same basic pieces of information can be used for both 5 and 6. 6. would take developments and look at their usages and eventual effectiveness focusing on changes in warfare. 5. Would look to see if the developments really meant victory focusing on the overall effect of technology.
Also, are substantial references to the other fronts ok? When it comes to the IB tests, I am very likely to do a WWI topic and would be likely to refer to all the fronts if the question was right.
Mr. O,
I'm at a loss for how to bucket #7. Perhaps Control of Media, Roles of Women, and Conscription? Maybe change out the last bucket..?
Do you have any information on Austria's process of raising an army and/or imperalism?
Ben,
How about trying the good old Political, Economic, And Social? In political you can do the civil liberty restrictions and conscription, in economic the economic aspects of governemtn and citizen, and then in social the women's roles and propaganda. I am going to do that simply to simplify it for myself. Hope this helps.
Emma,
If you are looking for Imperialism, Austria Hungary had Bosnia if I remember correctly and it got in trouble with the Bosnian crisis. Check the beginning notes of short term causation for that. The only thing I can think of otherwise is possibly something about the Drikeiserbund, but Mr. O can probably help more.
could we put nationalism in "short-term causes" for question 2? It seems to me that it only really becomes importand when war seems much more likely to the masses and with Serbia.
Also, I'm looking for recomendations for question 10. any suggestions appreciated, thanks
Ben, I did raising an army, industry (included women), and propoganda. The Order of the White Feather Gropu can be a handy AG which also mentions women
Josh-I'll deal with you later.
Ben-There are lots of options, but here is one approach. Increased government intervention, managing dissent (which includes propaganda), and women's roles. Laura's works too though and she loves the economic, political, and social.
Emma-Laura's right about Bosnia. That is the critical issue from an imperialism standpoint. They are more important for nationalism than imperialism.
Justin-Yes you could put it in short term. The quick answer on #10 is that it does address the problems...for the Central Powers which really means they don't address the issues. They also don't address the nationalism issue in Germany which will rise again.
Josh,
You may be able to lean both ways, but I am the one grading it and my six years of evaluating IB test questions indicates that it would get dinged by their graders. Additionally, I see some significant flaws if you don't address an alternative. However, I think you can take pieces from it to create one or two points proving that technology didn't win the war, but in the third point should give an alternative.
Here is the issue with the WWI questions on the IB test. You are welcome to address other fronts, but not if you neglect the most significant battles of the war. One of the concerns I have with you and the IB tests is that sometimes you get a bit focused on tangents that aren't quite as critical, but are interesting to you. There is a whole tree of knowledge and you sometimes find a very interesting leaf to describe. You do an wonderful job describing the leaf, but it doesn't leave you with enough time to cover the critical portions.
I will be at school early tomorrow, so I am sure I will see a few of you bright and early. With that, good night and good luck.
Post a Comment