European History Study Aid




1.  Causes of World War 1(SBQ)

7. “Russia’s policies caused the outbreak of war in 1914.” Use Sources A-D to show how far the evidence confirms the statement.
 Austria-Hungary did not negotiate seriously to resolve the problem but was intent on attacking and defeating Serbia.
 Germany gave its support unnecessarily to Austria- Hungary.
 An alternative explanation is that responsibility should be shared and especially between Russia and Germany.
 Nicholas II did not press Serbia hard enough to reach a settlement; if negotiations broke down, Russia would still support Serbia.
 Austro-Hungarian fears of Russia but they were not unreasonable in view of the developments of the previous fifty years. Germany intervened in a quarrel between Russia, Austria-Hungary and Serbia in which it was not directly involved and declared war when negotiations were still being conducted.
 Austria-Hungary was determined and therefore Germany’s mistake in giving its full support to that state.
 Russia’s policies caused the outbreak of war in 1914. .Russia supported Serbia and would defend it, that is wage war, if attempts to reach a settlement failed.
 Germany was critical of Russia’s support for Serbia and that Russian mobilization sparked off the war. On the other hand, Germany had tried to restrain Austria-Hungary and had made an effort to settle the differences between Austria-Hungary and Russia.
 Russia had tried to extend its influence and power for a long time.
5) 'The Kaiser and other German officers were determined to go to war in 1914.'
 Weltpolitik
 Crisis in BosniaGermany threaten to send in troops for Austria when it wasn't necessary
 Makes Germany look over-agressive
 2nd Moroccan CrisisSend in the Panther to 'protect' Germany interests Shows that Germany is very over-agressive
 Naval Arms RaceBuilding up the navy to compete with Britain Why would you need a large navy if you aren't planning on using it soon?
 Schliefen PlanA battle plan if/when Germany got into it with FranceHowever, made in 1905 Makes sense that they were preparing to attack France, because Germany and  France never got along anyways
 Was Germany really using Weltpolitik and the incidents to start a war?
 Or were they only being foolish, nosy neighbors?
6) 'Austria was not to blame for the quarrel with Serbia.'
 Congress of Berlin Allowed Austria to have Bosnia, Herzegovina and Novibazar Started the move into the Balkans for Austria
 Peter 1Once in power in Russia, he supported Serbia in their quest for Balkan independence Turned Serbia into the Piedmont of the Balkans Tagged Serbia as the 'ringleader' and now enemy for Austria
 Pig War Started by Austria but keep up by both A-H and Serbia Was an incubator for hostilities and tension
 A-H's first ultimatum to SerbiaWhen Austria called Serbia's bluff and forced them out of Albania Showed A-H taking the initiative in the fight A-H could have just let Albania go, but they didn't
8. “Germany was more responsible than Britain for the naval race before the First World War.” Use Sources A-D to show how far the evidence confirms this statement.
 William II’s anti-British feelings.
 The Kaiser was more enthusiastic about a German navy than Bismarck, an eminent German politician and international statesman.
 William II also claimed that its role would be defensive, not aggressive.
 The arms race began because of the increasing tension at the beginning of ww1 and because of Britain's superior naval capabilities.
 Germany need something to strike back with and so when Britain started to manufacture the biggest and most advanced warship the 'dreadnought', you can also be assured that Germany had spies in the British navy so after Britain had completed their first dreadnought Germany were already manufacturing their own.
 In 1909 Britain started to build their eighth dreadnought and because of their lesser naval intelligence Germany was struggling to keep up with the increasing pressure of the war.
    3.
 July 28 in open car, Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie was assassinated
 Against: Drove through Sarajevo, Bosnia to taunt the Serbians and make the south Slav nationalist  dislike Hapsburg rule in Bosnia
 7 assassins were Serbians and were led by the Radical party leader, Prime Minister Pasic
 Apis, the colonel in charge of Serbian Intel
    4.
 Aug 1914 a German Ultimatum to Belgium to grant free passage through or suffer
 Belgium refused this because they “ intend to fulfill her international obligations” said by the minister of foreign Affairs
 Treaties of 1839 and 1870 state that the major Powers will back them up as well and they did not want to make any violations to lose those allies
 But Germany knew that if they did not invade Belgium that they would be on the brink of a two front war with Russia and France
 Belgium also did not have a large army due to their security in their neutrality
 King Leopold also made a law that only one male could be born to each family

7. RUSSIAS POLICIES LED TO THE OUTBREAK OF A GENERAL EUROPEAN WAR IN 1914. HOW FAR -IS THIS SUPPORTED?
-Franco- Russian alliance was countered by the alliance between Germany and Austria Hungary
-Friendship between Russia and Serbia and public pressures in Russia
-Russia was the first to mobilize
-Don't underestimate Germany's involvement

    12. "BRITAINS ATTITUDE TO GERMANY BEFORE THE OUTBREAK OF WWI WAS  UNNECESSARILY     HOSTILE" -IS THIS SUPPORTED?

    -Britain feared growing German Naval power
    -The Naval Race
    -Secret treaties undermined international confidence
    -Britain long term animosity towards Germany
    -Britain’s Gov wished to avoid war
    -Belgian neutrality


16.How far: “Britain’s fear of the German navy before World War 1 was completely justified”

 The decision to create a large navy stemmed from Weltpolitik. It was a demonstration of how serious Germany was willing to take it.
 Admiral VonTirpitz said “The fleet is necessary to show that Germany is as well born as Britain.” This statement showed that the birth of the navy was done in particular to irritate Britain.
 The naval race was aimed at Britain to draw Britain out of their policy of Splendid Isolation.
 Germany had a chance to build a navy that could actually compete with Britain’s. This was because Germany invested in heavy industry in order to produce a large fleet.

2.  French Revolution and Napoleon
1. Explain why Bonaparte was able to establish a strong autocratic government in France

 Napoleon had a strong character, and had achieved a lot by a very young age. Napoleon had strong support from the French people, and was very charismatic.
 Napoleon’s successful campaigns in Italy and Egypt gained him a good measure of prestige and reliability. This became very useful in his rise to power.
 The Revolt of Brumaire put Napoleon into a position from which he could seize power. After the revolt Napoleon was put into a position of Consul. The Law of Brumaire was put into act in order to consolidate his power.
 Napoleon pushed aside the other two consuls, and dominated in the writing of the constitution.
 Napoleon used propaganda to gain support and keep it.
 Napoleon’s rule was efficient and decisive.
 All of the government under Napoleon was chosen by himself. This allowed him to stay in power and hold it.
 The constitution Napoleon set up was so complex that it never functioned properly and was abandoned by 1802. This left him as the central authority.
 Napoleon dealt away with opposition before it could pose a problem
    Why, during the period 1789 to 1793, did Louis XVI fail to satisfy the demands of the French?
 King Louis, as we all know, was a “wishy washy” indecisive man, who couldn’t really be trusted to make major choices, therefore any hope of positive change is close to non-existent. He was neither determined enough nor resourceful enough to halt the revolutionary ideas that were sifting through France and didn’t try to stop the rebels who were dangerous until they were already causing trouble and panic. So his first reason for not being able to satisfy the French is his nature and attitude toward his position.
 His constant power struggle also set him back, for as a monarch he had complete control, but he was not able to help every single peasant problem in all of France, so he was forced to use “intendants” or ministers to go and act in his name within all of the providences. Because these people were nowhere near being a good substitute for proper Civil Service, the townspeople usually hated them, and therefore their leader, King Louis, and in the end, what the peasants wanted and needed usually was brushed under a rug, forgotten. So King Louis’ inactiveness with his people and his poor judgment of his own helpers led to nothing being accomplished.
 His court was slow, inefficient, as well as corrupt, so there was no fair judgment for the common people.
 Because he still held onto the beliefs of the old system with the three separate classes, Louis was unable to appeal to the larges populated class, The Third Estate, due to the corrupt class system where the First and Second Estates were tax exempt and not forces to hard labor. This of course trampled the peasant’s demands of freedom. Without equal classes, there was no united France, therefore leading to more revolts and chaos.
 The other fact that he hid from most of the problems in Versailles and sent for foreign help from countries like Germany showed weakness on his part and also demonstrated how the power to give and satisfy the people could not be found in him.

7.) From 1789 to 1799, who posed the more dangerous threats to the French Revolution: its internal or its external enemies?

Internal:
-Third Estate grievances: 1789
-Unfair taxation, feudal obligations to nobility, voting by order in Estates General, voting rights, urban poor couldn’t afford consumer prices, opposition to conservative order of the ancient regime
- King (and his military),
-Church, suppressing and such
-nobility, upper class 3rd Estate
-reluctance of King Louis XVI to accept the changes involved in the Revolution
- regional resistance and groups in France that feared the excesses of the extreme republicans
            -eventually became violent
External:
-pretty much anyone who had an army who hated the French, haha.
-European monarchs
-Austrian relatives
            -all thanks to Marie Antoinette
-Prussia, from the Franco-Prussian War
-France had a weak military
            -very vulnerable to an outside attack

 8. Why did the French revolution become increasingly radical during the years 1789-94?
quickie answer: They began to radicalize as a counter to the strict conservative nature of their government, and continued to progressively become more extreme as a reaction to the events that surrounded them. Their radical nature heightened when radical parties and leaders began to take control, as radical nature became the norm, so for further radical change, levels of radical were increased. (does that last sentence make sense? it's poorly worded, but what I mean is that if radicalism were a drug, the more they took it, the more they needed to get an effect) it's also difficult to "go back" a level of radicalism. once you've reached a certain level of radicalism, who cares if you're that radical again. you've already made that step, you might as well go further. (I don't think this makes a whole lot of sense either but if you don't understand, e-mail me and I'll try to explain.)
information to analyze:
 Setting right before events of 1789: they had been under absolute monarchy that was unwilling to change. Peasants were finding food difficult to afford. France was spending 25% more than what was being made. (Caused tensions, dept, and frustrated peasants)
 Tensions were also still high from the Revolt of the Nobles. The revolt showed that the nobles were just out for themselves, as they wouldn't accept losing money in order to help the economy. This probably would have caused hatred among estates, with the 3rd estate most likely viewing the nobles as "greedy" and "privileged," probably having the mind-frame of a child who sees that when their sibling is asked to do a chore, they throw a temper-tantrum and get pardoned by their parents, and so the chore is placed on the observing child. (The nobles were "spoiled brats")
 Tensions increased when the Estates General was called. The Paris Parliament wanted to have each estate get one vote, but with that system, the 3rd estate would get outvoted. This caused the Paris Parliament to seem like protectors of privilege, which would have caused the 3rd estate to believe that they are selfish and unfair. (This caused the 3rd estate to hate the Paris Parliament further, increased tension, and increased a hatred for the system) Such hatred for the way things are done often leads to radical viewpoints to counter extreme conservatives. (For instance, if you have an acid and you want to to become a base, you must add a powerful enough base. They simply had to be opposite but more than equal in their viewpoints in order to get some action in a direction they'd like.)
 Peasants can't afford anything besides taxes and food. So when the rumor that grain's price would be raised from porting began circulating, they became livid. (fear, tensions, and hatred spread)
 The National Assembly wanted a meeting with the king on June 20, 1789, but the king didn't show up to the meeting, and it was raining, so the National Assembly ran to the building next door; a tennis court. Here, they vowed not to dissolve until a new constitution was formed. (increased tensions and seals-in inevitable radical natures-- if you vow to do something, and plan to stick to your word at any cost, but the mainstream ways of doing it aren't working,  you'll be more likely to try radical ways to see if they get you the results you want.)
 June 23, 1789, the king agrees to meet the National Assembly. Instead of coming to an agreement, the king argued that the National Assembly was invalid, and that so was their constitution. (this annoys them tremendously, as they were probably very proud of both the Assembly and their constitution. tensions increased.) (sorry, it all comes down to tensions)
 July 11, 1789, the German Calvary begins to occupy the streets of Paris. This is because the French army wasn't obeying the king anymore. The Parisians were unnerved, and the king tried to reassure them that the Germans were there for the protection of the citizens, but the people had their doubts, naturally. This caused high fear and anxiety-- 2 things that make great fuel for radical actions. July 12, Parisians ran around the streets of Paris burning city buildings to find guns to protect themselves, as they were horribly scared for their lives.
 In addition, there was the rise to power of the San-Culottes political party, a radical group who pushed for revolution. Their rise to power was the result of high demand for radicalism, and also the cause of further radicalism, once they became the leaders of the revolution.
 The Fall of the Bastille-- a journee formed and took guns from Les Invalides. They needed more so they marched to the bastille, and the crowd waited as the leaders tried to negotiate with governor de Launay. The crowd got impatient and tried to get inside, which spooked the guards who fired at the crowd and killed 98 members. The National Assembly was enraged and took over the bastille, where they set 7 prisoners free, and arrested and beheaded de Launay. They then put his head on a pike and marched around the city. (the rage and anxiety caused radicalism yet again) The levels of radicalism started out as mildly daunting to murderous in an afternoon, due to the killing of their members.
 July 17, 1789, the king was losing his control over the crowd, so he appeared on the steps of City Hall, wearing revolutionary colors and proclaiming himself "king of the free people," which is not only an oxymoron, but also moronic. This would have been insulting to the Assembly, as the king wanted nothing to do with them before this occasion. He also recognized the commune, the National Assembly, and the National Guard. This was too-little, too-late. He said that the Assembly needed to set up a constitutional representative government. (the people probably viewed this as the king being a sycophant. Now that he had something to gain from accepting them, he's going to do what he can to be in their favor. tensions probably increased as the Assembly found themselves exasperated by the nerve of the king.)
 The Great Fear-- the rising of the peasants. There were rising bread prices, and unemployment rates, but there was also a hope for things to get fixed. Summer of 1789, many peasants stopped paying taxes, and instead starting attacking estates, finding and burning the terriers that connected them to their landowners. They became afraid due to rumors that the nobility was hiring vagabonds to attack peasants. (they were acting radically out of fear)
 Robespierre comes into the scene at this point, and he's very radical, demanding to end the monarchy. He eventually takes over, so under his command, those who follow him would, in turn, act radically. (people often follow the behaviors of their leaders, so if he was radical, they would be, too)
 September Massacres-- rumors that nobility and royalist priests were going to escape prisons and escape to Austria were circulating. In fear of this happening, they opened the jails and killed 2000 prisoners. After this, the new height of radicalism in France, they got more radical because they can't go back a level of radicalism now that they've already reached this height.
 The National Constituent was trying to figure out what to do with the king. The Grandins favored imprisonment, whereas Jacobins favored execution. They decided to execute him, an example and proof that the more radical groups were in charge, so therefore, actions in the future would be radical to match the overall party policies.
14. Why did the French ancien regime collapse in 1789?
Quickie answer: high tensions and a strong need for change that wasn't being brought about by the old system of government.
yahooanswers:
The French monarchy had bankrupted itself from expensive wars for centuries. Nearly their entire annual income went to interest on their enormous debts. After several attempts at reform King Louis XVI eventually had to call the Estates General and to request to raise taxes, something that hadn't happened in quite a while. The aristocrats smelled blood so to speak as the calling of the Estates was a sign of the French monarchies weakness. Rather than assist the monarchy by raising taxes the aristocracy tried to extract "concessions" (bribes, privileges, titles, etc.) but unwittingly their anti-royalist propaganda and public show of defiance to the monarchy ignited a rebellion with the lower and middle classes who also sought to extract concessions however it quickly got out of control and led to full scale rebellion but King Louis could not raise the money he needed to pay the troops to put down the rebellion and ultimately the rebels set up a new government and executed the king and queen.
Aside from financial problems there was the advancement of the scientific method and the enlightenment which had early supporters in North West Europe (France, England, Low Countries). These new philosophies radically changed the way Europeans viewed the centuries old monarchies of Europe. With their increased education Europeans saw these old conservative regimes as oppressive, corrupt and ultimately unable to compete with more liberal powers such as England and the Netherlands.
Info from 8. (new info in bold)
 Setting right before events of 1789: they had been under absolute monarchy that was unwilling to change. Peasants were finding food difficult to afford. France was spending 25% more than what was being made. (Caused tensions, dept, and frustrated peasants) inspired needs for change
 Tensions were also still high from the Revolt of the Nobles. The revolt showed that the nobles were just out for themselves, as they wouldn't accept losing money in order to help the economy. This probably would have caused hatred among estates, with the 3rd estate most likely viewing the nobles as "greedy" and "privileged," probably having the mind-frame of a child who sees that when their sibling is asked to do a chore, they throw a temper-tantrum and get pardoned by their parents, and so the chore is placed on the observing child. (The nobles were "spoiled brats") the nobles were in charge, the 3rd estate wanted more equality, but the 1rst and 2nd estates were unwilling to let that happen. another need to change.
 Tensions increased when the Estates General was called. The Paris Parliament wanted to have each estate get one vote, but with that system, the 3rd estate would get outvoted. This caused the Paris Parliament to seem like protectors of privilege, which would have caused the 3rd estate to believe that they are selfish and unfair. (This caused the 3rd estate to hate the Paris Parliament further, increased tension, and increased a hatred for the system) Such hatred for the way things are done often leads to radical viewpoints to counter extreme conservatives. (For instance, if you have an acid and you want to to become a base, you must add a powerful enough base. They simply had to be opposite but more than equal in their viewpoints in order to get some action in a direction they'd like.)
 Peasants can't afford anything besides taxes and food. So when the rumor that grain's price would be raised from porting began circulating, they became livid. (fear, tensions, and hatred spread)
 The National Assembly wanted a meeting with the king on June 20, 1789, but the king didn't show up to the meeting, and it was raining, so the National Assembly ran to the building next door; a tennis court. Here, they vowed not to dissolve until a new constitution was formed. (increased tensions and seals-in inevitable radical natures) Sealed the revolution and guaranteed that they would do whatever they could to make change come about.
 June 23, 1789, the king agrees to meet the National Assembly. Instead of coming to an agreement, the king argued that the National Assembly was invalid, and that so was their constitution. (this annoys them tremendously, as they were probably very proud of both the Assembly and their constitution. tensions increased.)
 July 11, 1789, the German Calvary begins to occupy the streets of Paris. This is because the French army wasn't obeying the king anymore. The Parisians were unnerved, and the king tried to reassure them that the Germans were there for the protection of the citizens, but the people had their doubts, naturally. This caused high fear and anxiety-- 2 things that make great fuel for radical actions. July 12, Parisians ran around the streets of Paris burning city buildings to find guns to protect themselves, as they were horribly scared for their lives. This would make them feel as if their government was out to get them, and was potentially dangerous, so of course they'd want a new government that could be trusted.

15.) Why was Napoleon Bonaparte able to become Emperor of France?
-was successful in revolutionary wars, especially against Austria
-gained much support for his ability to put down insurrection and disorder within France.
            -quelling revolutionary riots with his knack for public speaking
-made his Empire and proved to France he was capable of leading
- outmanoeuvred colleagues in the Consulate
-promised to keep the ideals of the Revolution to the people in his rule
- pursued populist policies, which was all the rage at the time
            -like his Concordat with the Pope and his Code of Napoleon
-lots of war victories, etc
-Some, such as extreme royalists and Jacobins, were not reconciled but Napoleon’s autocracy and the establishment of the Empire were not seriously threatened by other people or alternative ideas.

Question 3
Which of the grievances of the Third Estate in France in 1789 were the most important?
 Taxation
 Taxes caused unrest amongst the people.
 On the other hand, opposition to the regime was also important. This alone caused many uprisings and unrest.
 Bread prices were rising with the taxes on them and people were starving. Women were getting angry because their children were starving and agitation was rising.
 On top of the opposition to the regime was the falling economy that resulted in taxes being raised.
 Salt taxes led to the revolution, so the taxes were one of the main causes of the French Revolution and can be argued that they can be linked to all the opposition because the Third Estate was the majority of the population and could hold large revolts.


“Which of the grievances of the Third Estate in France in 1789 were the most important? Explain your answer.”

 3rd estate was made of Bourgeoisie and peasants.
 Only class that had to pay taxes.
 Peasants were 98% of the total population
 Had no political power.
 Were put into the infantry. 80% were peasants.
 By 1770s, france in constant trouble, so kept asking for more taxes from them.
 Taxation more than 40% of income.
 Bread more than 75% of wage.
 Bourgeoisie did not want to increase their land value because that meant more taxes, so there was no industrialization.
 Calling of Est. General was unfair, mirrored 1614 meeting, every group got one vote so the third estate would always lose.
 In cahiers, most say they want a repre. Gov.
 Louis XVI never listened to them. Supposed to meet with him on June 20, 1789, so everyone goes to the tennis court and makes the tennis court oath. Where they make National Assembly.
 June 23, king say they are null and void.
 3rd estate becomes more radical as a result.
 This results in the fall of the bastille, july 14, 1789, where, after they can’t negotiate with Fr. Leaders, peasants took control of the bastille (place kept for armaments, etc.)
 Driven by not being able to talk to gov. or negotiate with leaders.
 If could negotiate, they would solve a lot of issue, but didn’t, so therefore, the lack of a voice in the government was the most important grievance, as it drove them to more radicalism, more taxes, unfairness, etc. It caused everything else that eventually led to the revolution.


6) How far did Napoleon Bonaparte maintain the ideals of the French Revolution during the period 1799-1815?
 EqualityMaintain: Taxation fair for all 1st and 2nd Estates equally taxedMaintain: Code of Napoleon Leveled the playing field of the French civil law for everyoneMaintain: Lowered the power of the church Again, no unfair advantagesMaintain: Acknowledged/accepted Biens Let the rightful owner (the person who paid for the land) keep it rather than return it to it's privileged ownerDisregard: Slight favoritism of mid/upper class Better education for the children Offered more jobs in the military/government
 LibertyDisregard: He was an absolute monarch with no room for democracy Disregard: Magistrates of Public Safety They presided over the Tribunals and tried "political" criminals France was now a police state, with strict laws/punishment for any "political" crimes committed Any opposition was silenced quickly
 Fraternity



“Why, during the period 1789 to 1815, was Napoleon Bonaparte more successful than earlier French leaders in maintaining himself in power with France?”
The pressures of foreign wars helped to bring about the end of Louis XVI’s monarchy
whilst Napoleon’s success added to his popularity and therefore his power in France. But the
question does not need narratives of foreign exploits. Louis XVI’s monarchy (1789–92/93) was
discredited by his reluctance to accept the Declaration of Rights and the Civil Constitution of the
Clergy and the flight to Varennes proved a fatal error. Robespierre and the Jacobins enjoyed a
brief period of power (1793–94) but their radicalism quickly alienated many. The Thermidorean
Reaction produced a very difficult character of regime in the Directory. The Directors enjoyed
little support among the civil population and depended increasingly on the army, including
Napoleon. They failed to solve some of the basic problems if France, including the economic and
financial weaknesses. They were personally unpopular and accused of corruption. Napoleon
proved a strong contrast. He claimed to be the heir of the Revolution, gaining popularity among
those who wished to defend the changes since 1789, but he also provided the stability that
reassured more conservative groups. His domestic reforms, for example the Code, the
Concordat and changes to the machinery of government, enhanced his personal position whilst
giving the appearance of rule in the interests of the people. He tried to reconcile the interests of
different groups; in reality, it favoured most the more influential social and economic classes.

9. ‘The economic difficulties of France in 1789 were more serious than the political problems.’  How far do you agree with this judgement?
The key issues are the problems of France in 1789.  Candidates must end in 1789, either with the opening
 of the Estates-General or the end of the year.  Candidates can spend more time on what  are perceived as the more serious problems but one might normally expect about a 60:40  balance for answers in the two highest bands. Band 5 will require a basic knowledge and  understanding of one category of problems.  Royal finances were weak.  The costs of war were
 high.  The most important nobles and the Church paid little or no tax.  Some lesser nobles, who  had offices, paid a small ‘tax’ as the price of holding them.  Some bourgeois were able to evade  many financial impositions.  The peasantry bore a heavy burden.  Tax collection through tax  farmers was inefficient.  Attempts at reform by controllers-general were foiled by nobles and the  Church who influenced Louis XVI.  The late 1780s saw poor harvests with particularly devastating
 effects on the peasantry. Most of the demands of the  cahiers from the Third Estate were  economic, whereas the First and Second Estates looked for political solutions.  Louis XVI’s  absolutism was accepted almost universally but was not unlimited.  Candidates might discuss the  personal weakness of the King. Royal intendants were often thwarted by powerful nobles. The  parlements proved troublesome. The Assembly of Notables was potentially useful but was not a
 solution. The Estates-General seemed to be the best hope of a representative body. If candidates  continue beyond the decision to call the Estates-General, they might deal with the unrest in Paris  and then in the provinces (Grande Peur).  They might examine the Declaration of the Rights of  Man.  The assumption by the Third Estate of the title ‘National Assembly’ and the nobles’  surrender of some of their privileges can be regarded mostly as political moves. The removal of
 Louis XVI from Versailles to Paris might also be seen as an important political step.
16. How far, and why, did the aims of the revolutionaries in France change during the period from 1789 to 1793?
The key issue is the extent of change in the aims of the French revolutionaries from  1789.  Answers in the 22–25 band will show a clear understanding of developments  in this period.  They will focus on analysis and explanation and come to clear  judgements about the extent of change.  The answers in the 19–21 band will also be  analytical and explanatory but they will miss some possible lines of discussion.   There will be much descriptive narrative in answers in the 16–18 band but they will  make a number of salient points of explanation about the aims of the revolutionaries.   Alternatively, there might be some sound, but very partial, analyses in this band.   Different levels of description narrative can merit either the 11–13 or the 14–15  band.  A characteristic of the weaker answers is that they effectively stop on 1789,  describing the background to the events of that year but showing an insufficient  knowledge and understanding of developments to 1793.  Some vague descriptions  of the ancien regime that do not get beyond 1789 will not be worth 11 marks but  analyses of the aims of 1789 alone might be worth 11–13 marks.  Analyses of 1789  with some awareness of the main developments to 1793 might be worth 14–15  marks.  The better answers will explain the move from comparatively moderate  reform to hard-line republicanism.  The primary aims of the revolutionaries of 1789  were economic and social reforms, especially in the fiscal system.  They saw the King as their ally.  In ensuing years, their targets changed.  Criticism of the Church  became more extreme and the revolutionaries were intolerant of those who opposed  them, such as emigres and royalist provinces.  Louis XVI’s suspected dealings with foreign powers and the fear of defeat in the war led to his rejection.  The advent of the Jacobins and their victory over more moderate groups, in conjunction with the  King’s own actions such as the Flight to Varennes, led to his execution.  Some candidates might deserve credit for explaining the wider programme of the Jacobins  in their attempts to introduce thorough change to France.  Answers can either end with the execution of Louis XVI or the rule of the Jacobins.

3.  Industrial Revolution
2.
 It captured England  first then Netherlands, France, Germany, North Italy then US and Japan
 Early 1800’s coal and steam engines were created. Then steel, oil, internal combustion engines and electricity which rose economic development and also led to European colonization
 New social classes were forming and revolutions began to end aristocratic rule into the turn of the century
7.
 New production forms and scale of production: provide more investment opportunities and land by the church
 Political  Privileges: Parliament began to represent the trade union ban and passed laws regulating factory conditions like the reform bill in 1832 that granted most middle class men the right to vote
 Economic gain:  provided products to comfort the people due to the revolution
 Educational gain: the Revolution created the need for engineers, clerical, professional workers which made education vital
 Living: Better diets, better living quarters, and less deaths caused by disease
13
 Britain made new roads and canals to further connect the nation
 1837 the telegraph  was made which then spread all across Europe as well as the radio
 German, Frederick Kolning improved the printing press as well
3. How similar were the conditions which encouraged the development of industrialization in any two of Britain, France, and Germany in the nineteenth century.
 Agricultural Revolution in Brit; spreads to northern France ( fertilizers, enclosures, selective breeding of livestock, seed drill)
 Increased population; fewer farmers needed; move to cities for jobs
 More people meant more demand for products meant need for better machinery
 England and France’s population both demanded social and other types of reforms.
 Brit experienced a massive increase on agricultural productivity which led to an unprecedented population growth freeing a significant percentage of the workforce from farming, and helping to drive the Industrial Revolution.
 The whole of the population could not all be dedicated to agriculture. The high population led to demands for better machinery and other hardware.
 More population in the workforce led to a demand in rationalization and standardization.
 Soon mechanization (the Industrial Revolution) had spread into other countries.
Question 4
Did the Industrial Revolution result in more advantages than disadvantages for the working classes in nineteenth-century Europe?
 More disadvantages
 The advantage was the improvement of diet because people were earning money to feed their families in France.
 There was no safety in the factories in Britain though. Many people suffered injuries or even death in some cases.
 The transportation was improved though in Russia.
 Infection and disease filled the factories.  People died from the filth and lack of ventilation.
 More universities opened up for the demand of engineers and professional workers. This benefited the education system.
 The child labor in Britain resulted in many children being hurt and so a law was eventually made, but many children still suffered.
Question 9
Why did Europe industrialize during the nineteenth century?
 French textile industry developed to keep up with the other countries and make profit.
 Germany developed in iron industry to compete with other countries and gain more power.
 The countries adopted the assembly line to gain more money and to increase trade. This helped them acquire items faster and it would take little training for the workers.
 Employment rose because of the factories.
 Trade increased because of the increase in products.
 Competition with other countries and to keep up with each other.
 It would also enable the European countries to update their weapons.
Question 15
Were European governments strengthened or weakened by the development of industry in their countries?
 Strengthened.
 The railroad systems developed and allowed for quicker trade and faster traveling.
 Society changed in Britain for the better with the enlightenment and new ideas and education increasing.
 Liberalism in France
 The economy increased
 Power steam ships in Britain meant better guns and ammunition.
 Unity, it brought the people together in the country.
 Although, it was weakened by the government losing control because of the fast production and moving pace. The more people that take part in a movement, the easier it is for the whole change to fall apart.
 Started imperialism which was what led to the tensions that led to World War I.

8. How far had Euro countries developed industrial societies and economies by the middle of the nineteenth century, refer to at least two of Brit, France, or Germany
 Many cities above 100,000 pop. (not just London, Paris, Frankfurt) by 1850
 Railroads crisscrossing England and continental Europe
 Steamships crossing oceans by 1840’s
 Investment bankers forming stock markets
 Prussia has Zollverein by 1830’s
 Telegraph cables on ocean floor in 1830’s
 Canals connecting center to coast
 Machines replace handcraft (textiles)
 Steel construction replaces wood
 Factory workers outnumber agriculture in England and Prussia
 Military equipped with breech loaders
14. Why did industrialization have important political effects on Euro during the nineteenth century, refer to at least two of Brit, France, or Germany

 Mass movement to cities meant political participation
 New middle class they had voting rights, wealth
 Reform movements (Factory Act of 1833)
 Mining Laws in Prussia (Zollverein)
 Government sponsored railroads, banking, canals, shipping, colonialism
 Socialism/communism require change in government (or at least debates and votes)
 Political participation leads to revolution from monarchies (1848)
 Availability of modern weapons changes politics of diplomacy (industrialized vs. not)
 Explain the conditions that were necessary in the nineteenth century for the development of an industrial economy. (Referring to Britain, France, and Germany)
5. Explain the conditions that were necessary in the nineteenth century for the development of an industrial economy. (Referring to Britain, France, and Germany

 In Great Britain, we see a swift change from manual labor and draft animal based economy to a machine based manufacturing such as textile industries and iron making techniques and the sudden increased use of refined fuel. This lifted the trains from human and animal workers and meant faster, mass production. This was true for all countries; it made life easier.
 The sudden mass rush to outdo each other and out show everyone bordering them was one condition for the race for industrialization. As everyone looked to expand their empires, there was an extreme need for steam ships to move people and goods, for better weapons in case there was a war, and the mass making of new vessels and ships came to be in high demand.
 In France’s case, there was a rush of young, unskilled men with little or no education came flooding in, so the jobs of industry, such as steam, coal, and heavy machinery that needed little training were highly needed and appreciated.
 The need from farms for ways and equipment in order to farm land more efficiently caused the look for inventors and new technologies.
 Increase of population, leading to an increase of wants for goods was another reason.
 Explain the main differences between pre-industrial societies in the 19th century Europe.
 It seems that in all cases, all the countries had similar pre-industrial societies, though England was able to jump on the train so to speak a little earlier than the others.
 France, as we all know, was under highly unstable political circumstances as usual, with extreme revolutionaries and failing government pushing toward a new industrial government. They also relied on importing stuff from England and Belgium, the fact that they had a poor transport system was slowing them down.



4.  Nationalism 1815 to 1871


3) 'Bismarck promoted the interests of Prussia; he was not a German nationalist.' How valid is this judgement on Bismarck's aims and policies during the period 1862-1871?
 Schleswig-Holstein CrisisBismarck stepped in and, with Austria, gained joint custody of Schleswig and Holstein This did not even have the pretense of being for the benefit of the Germans who lived in Holstein. He is quoted as saying, "It's no concern of ours whether the Germans of Holstein are happy."
 Austro-Prussian WarThis was only a test of strength against both Austria and some of the northern German states for Bismarck Clearly only in the interests of Prussia Germany was being pounded by Prussian forces too
 Luxembourg QuestionA turning point for BismarckThe events surrounding the Luxembourg Question were directed more by the nationalistic feelings in Germany: Luxembourg was part of Germany and would not be sold to France at any cost
 Aimed (at first) to bring Prussia into a more dominate role in German politics
 Through the course of events, his aims shift to uniting Germany under Wilhelm and not Prussia.
2
 Mazzini- was a native of Piedmont and was a major activist in the Italian Unification
 M- he wanted to unify Italy as a whole to make a better representative state as well as a democratic republicanism to spread all over Europe
 M- he used propaganda, speeches and pamphlets as his methods of influence
 Cavour- minister of piedmont who wanted to bring northern Italy under his control
 C- he wanted a constitutional monarchy and his vision was solely set upon Italy; he was quite conservative
 C- he used politics, diplomacy, war and outside help from France
 Both wanted a unified Italy and didn’t want any foreign influence from Austria to Venetia and from France to Rome
    6. ANALYSE THE REASONS FOR THE GROWTH OF NATIONALISM IN EUROPE DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1815 TO   THE UNIFICATION OF GERMANY AND ITALY (1870-1871)
        -Enlightenment principles were known by the common people
        -Napoleon had showed the power of a national army and what it could conquer
        -Revolutions of 1848 inspired nationalism
        -Mazzini formed young Italy and spread liberal and democratic ideas
        -Cavour and Bismarck lead nationalists


Why was Bismarck more successful than the revolutionaries of 1848-1849 in unifying Germany?
        -His ability to do as he sees fit and come up with legitimate sounding reasons so it seems legal and is the right thing to do   helped a lot. An example is when he tried to negotiate a compromise with the Landtag and when it started to fail, he simply sent    them home and spent the money as he saw fit. He justified his actions with the “gap theory” (look at German Unification Lecture     Day 1 under 14.4 for more details). His use of words and sly trickery helped him abundantly.
        -In the end, Bismarck was a pure leader, and stayed securely in charge at all times, with outstanding foreign policies and  winning streaks that amped up nationalism in Prussia more than ever before. The revolutionaries simply couldn’t compare or come   close to having the resources or opportunities to unify Germany.


Assess the claim that the assistance of foreign powers was the most important reason why Italy became unified during the period from 1848 to 1871.
 Study conditions in Italy and the 1848 revolutions, the contributions of Mazzini and Cavour, as well as Garibaldi
 southern Italy had most control, very conservative
 Victor Emmanuel II seen as savior of Piedmont-Sardinia because of his work saving the constitution from Austrian control
 Austrians seemingly content with VE in power, as his wife and mother were Austrian, so they did not impair him, helping unification
 Cavour comes to power as anti-church legislation from the previous minister failed to pass
 Cavour’s free-trade treaties that improved Piedmont’s economic prosperity, involves foreign countries
 Cavour pushes question of what to do with Italy to foreign powers at Vienna as only the powers could change Italy’s former status
 Piedmont involved itself in the Crimean War in hopes of recognition, received little at first from the powers. They were asserting themselves, not being pushed by powers
 War between piedmont and Austria, nationalism promoted in piedmont by fear of Austrian dominance
 Attempted assassination of Napolean III by Felice Orsini got France and Italy to work together, again Italy promoting this, not foreign powers
 France did more fighting than piedmont, showed how fate of piedmont was always up to larger powers and not Italy themselves
 Fear of foreign powers promoted nationalism, but little assistance was actually done. Garibaldi and Cavour with limited role from VE actually did more work unifying Italy
 Prussia assisted Italy in getting Venetia, but more work was done by Italy even though they did little in war


16. 'Bismarck did not plan the unification of Germany. He merely reacted to events.' How far do you agree with this judgement on the period from 1862 to 1871?
 This person argues that 3 wars ensued during this time; he probably did not plan for war."When it comes to the war with Denmark Bismarck had no control over the Kings death which led to the Throne getting passed to Glucksberg. If these events hadn’t of happened a chance of a war would have been much slimmer. Also the Austro-Prussian war wouldn’t have started if the Austrians hadn’t mobilized their troops and this is something Bismarck did not have control of. And lastly, the Franco-Prussian war might not have started if the Spanish king had not died and if the war had started and if he had planned the war he would have no idea that the French would be unprepared." Their wording is garbage, so basically: he couldn't have planned the wars so all he could do was react to them. They do not take into account that Bismarck was known for great manipulation, and could have manipulated Austria. And he could've know quite easily that the French were unprepared. For one, they're French. He could have seen how their economy was doing, if there appeared to be an military training, and the mentality of the leaders.
 However, this person argues that perhaps those 3 wars went precisely to plan. "According to the reports of Disraeli, Bismarck planned the unification of Germany as early as 1862. it was a coherent plan with a precise time-table. It involved three wars to complete the unification. First Bismarck attacked Denmark in order to get possession of Schleswig and Holstein. Then by allying with Austria and co-administering Schleswig-Holstein, Bismarck trapped Austria into another war. After defeating Austria, Bismarck established the North German Confederation. Then Bismarck exploited the ambition of Napoleon III and used the Spanish Succession Question to provoke France into war. These wars showed some great logical design, with each stage fitting its pre-appointed place. Bismarck could even, ahead of time, isolate his enemies from likely allies. before war against Austria, he secured Russian neutrality by assisting her in the Polish affairs in 1863. He also gained French neutrality by deceiving Napoleon III into thinking that he would get territorial compensation. Before fighting France, he secured Austrian neutrality by treating her leniently after the Seven Weeks war. Finally, Germany was unified in the same sequence that Bismarck had planned.
 At the same time, could Bismarck have really planned out something so accurately and with such precision in only 10 years? Many argue that the "master-planner" image of Bismarck was based on legend rather than fact. For instance, the Schleswig-Holstein crisis was a long-existing problem, and the Spanish Succession was unexpected; neither were his creation. And even if he'd had plans, there's no guarantee that they'd turn out exactly as he'd wanted. It is also argued that Bismarck didn't dictate his "diplomatic activities" on "war-preparation considerations." "Bismarck intervened in the Polish affair in 1863 because he was alarmed by the possible effects of polish success on Prussia's polish subjects. he fought the Danish war in 1864 because of the strategic importance of Schleswig-Holstein to Prussia. he allied with Austria because he had to due to Austria's domination in Germany. his lenient treatment of Austria in 1966 was based on the immediate realistic calculations.
The syllabus:
The key issue is Bismarck’s view of German unification. Candidates are not required to have
knowledge of the historiography of this topic but might refer to different views generally. There is a view, partly based on a feeling of inevitability, admiration for Bismarck’s prowess and his own claims after unification had been achieved, that German unification was carefully planned. (NOTE: you may want to mention that these views are biased and perhaps idealistic.) A counter-view is that he sought primarily to secure Prussia’s position, and especially the position of William I against the Liberals, took advantage of the (often mistaken) policies of other states and ended by establishing the new German Empire in 1871. Some candidates might adopt one argument wholeheartedly. This might deserve a mark in Band 1 if argued effectively. However, answers in this band will normally need some consideration of both judgements. On the other hand, this is not a Question in which examiners will look for a balanced argument. The question begins in 1862 and candidates should take care when referring to earlier development but it will not be irrelevant to point out that Bismarck had already developed strong anti-Austrian feelings when he was a Prussian representative at the Diet. His appointment was due to pressures on the Prussian monarch from the Liberals, especially over the army budget. His early preoccupations were to defeat these Liberals and to disarm and weaken Austria, for example is the Schleswig-Holstein and Austro-Prussian Wars (1864 and 1866). Candidates might consider how far Bismarck was responsible for provoking these crises. The largely Protestant North German Confederation, dominated by Prussia, might well have been as far as Bismarck wished to go at that point. There are different explanations of developments to 1871. Did he provoke France, which was a danger because of its potential links to the largely Catholic southern German states, or was he pushed because of Napoleon III’s mistaken diplomacy? Certainly, Bismarck used the Ems Telegram as a device to provoke both French and German opinion but the linked issues of the Spanish succession and the Hohenzollern Candidature were not of his making. Bismarck ensured that Prussia also dominated the new Germany.

7. Explain growing support for nationalism in Germany and Italy from 1848-1871

Germany
 Hesse-Cassel tension between Austria and Prussia
 Pressure of Prussia at Erfurt Union, relief at Capitulation at Olmutz
 Princes prefer Austrian over Prussian leadership
 Austria trade treaty w/ Prussia Zollverein (meaning Prussia back in picture)
 Crimean War
 Conservatives Prussians want pro-Russia
 Liberals Prussians favored Brit and France & thus Austria
 Princes started doubting Austrian protection because they were isolated and from the war, they seemed more concerned with imperial interests
 And besides, Prussia abundant w/resources & interest in industry development
 Bismarck deals w/ economics, was a good speaker; said not through speeches but through “iron and blood” they’d win
 Manipulated situations & took control—what the people needed
 Schleswig-Holstein Crisis w/London Protocol
 Convention of Gastein gave Austria Holstein and Prussia Schleswig
 Weakness of Confederation shown
 Austro-Prussian War win by Prussia
 Bismarck starting to win over liberals as they took pride in Prussian achievements, while hating his methods
 Bismarck needed them b/c they have increasing number of seats in Landstag
 So Biz justified spending by using Gap Theory
Italy
 Unrest w/ D’Azegegelio and his Siccardi Laws
 There’s a need to improve economy, agriculture, and answer the Southern question
 Mazzini was the heart of the rev because he was the face of Young Italy
 Victor Emmanuel was assumed protector of Piedmontese constitution
 Garibaldi was the mighty hero, the sword and action-driven part of the movement
 Reputation for being good guerilla fighter; “freedom fighter”
 Cavour was the brains, bringing commercial/industrial success by his free-trade treaties
 Censorship prevented any other info from affecting the Italian mindset
 Crimean War & need for Piedmont to have a say in international affairs


10. How consistent were Bismarck’s aims and methods from 1862 to 1871
 Bismarck’s main aim was always German unification. Bismarck always did tend to look after Prussian interests.
 Before 1866 Bismarck’s methods remained the same. Bismarck used war to intimidate and force his ways upon others.
 The wars against Denmark, Austria, and France were consequential in order to maintain unification.
 Bismarck was an opportunist who took advantage of situations and events although he did not always have control over them.
 Consider how far Bismarck’s aims changed after 1866. In 1867 Bismarck’s plan to isolate Austria was working. From here Bismarck turned his attentions to France, the only stumbling block left in the way of unification.
 After 1866 Bismarck introduced a new method to achieve his goals and this was diplomacy.

4. How similar were the aims and methods of Bismarck and Cavour in the unification of Germany and Italy?
 Very similar: Both led their own countries' aggrandizement(not necessarily aimed at the unification of their country)
 Both used other countries as allies in the cause (Cavour used France: and Bismarck used Austria)
 Both led industrialization efforts to make their own state stronger (railroads, modern weapons, etc.)
 Both were politicians appointed by their people.
 Both were willing to use warfare as a means to an end. (Bismarck: Schleswig/Holstein, Austro-Prussian, Franco-Prussian. Cavour: Austro-French)
 Both ignored their own parliament if necessary.
 Bismarck acted alone in Prussia with a goal of unification from the start.
 Cavour was building on a foundation laid my Mazzini and Garibaldi; only wanted a Northern Italian empire for Piedmont.
 Bismarck was more militaristic in method.
 Cavour was more diplomatic in method.
 Bismarck succeeded in defeating Austria and France; Cavour died in 1861 before Italy was finally unified in 1870.

15.) Why did Piedmont play a leading role in the unification of Italy from 1848 to 1871?

Pros:
-had some great leaders to persevere through Italian independence
-role of Cavour
            -basically led Piedmont’s success
-role of Charles Albert
            - put Piedmont at the centre of resistance to Austria’s power in Italy
-role of Victor Emmanuel II
            - gave weight to Piedmont’s position in the Risorgimento
- better able to secure support from the governments of other countries, espec France, Britain and Prussia as a constitutional-monarchical state
-better developed economy than other Italian states
-larger military than other states
Cons:
- weakness of the republicans and those who pursued more populist policies
- Mazzini and his followers
- Garibaldi was persuaded to surrender his gains in the south to monarchist Piedmont/Italy.
- Other groups were divided in their aims and lacked the resources and leadership to succeed





5.  New Imperialism
9. Assess the effects of imperialism on Euro countries during later years of the 19th century

 Trade, new goods
 International prestige
 Status/a say in everything
 10% colonized by 1880
 African geography
 Disease by tsetse flies, Malaria, sleeping sickness
 African resistance, only they knew trade routes so Europeans can avoid going into interior of Africa
 Dr. Livingstone & Henry Stanley mapped Congo in 1880
 King Leopold of Belgium had colony to get rubber
 Killed 8-10 million
 European technology introduced
 Automatic maxim gun
 Medical breakthrough (quaidine)
 Gold mines, diamonds
 Berlin Conference to divide Africa into “spheres of influence”
 Anglo-Afghan War (2nd)
 Lord Lytton (Brit) sent to oust Russians  from Kabhul
 Boer War
 Gladstone and Suez Canal
 Fashoda Incident (France and Brit)
 Jap war with China
8.) Imperialism resulted in more problems than benefits. Assess this judgment in the effects of imperialism on Europe in the later 19th century.
    Problems:
    -increased tensions between countries
            -most notably the struggle of power between France, England and Germany
    -colonies failed to produce profit for the host country
    -military alliances began, leading up to WWI
            -naval arms race was also instigated
    -the push to expand to ‘make countries look stronger’ made them waste money on colonizing
            -Social Darwinism to ‘help’ other ‘savage’ countries
    Benefits:
    -prestige of gaining world-wide empires
    -increased industries and production in expanding countries
    -technology advances began
    -Social Darwinism could be used here too
    -reflected the gumption of the European states and gave them something to do, you could argue
16.) How far did European governments support imperial expansion in the later nineteenth century because of the pressure of public opinion?
    - Governments were often forced into imperial adventures in order to placate public opinion
            -example: Biz and Disraeli were reluctant to start expansion at first
    -colonies were seen as a symbol of a country’s strength
    -the more colonies a country had, the stronger it seemed and made other countries look weaker in turn
    -Social Darwinism could have possibly spawned from this
    -economic factors include expansion centered around Africa
            - delivered few economic advantages
    - Political factors might include the perceived need to secure national interests by keeping up with, or ahead of,  other countries
    -ex: Franco-British rivalry in north Africa, Fashoda, German activity in south-east and south-west Africa
    -Britian: maintaining colonies was necessary for its world role
    - France saw empire as evidence of recovery after the 1870 defeat by Germany
    -Germany was led to expand by Weltpolitik


What was “new” about imperialism in the later years of the nineteenth century?

 Study effects on Europe of overseas expansion
 Britain had been in splendid isolation, now imperializing
 France wants revenge on Germany, needs resources and power
 Germany wants world power
 Imperialism is new as the reasons are new, more aggressive, better understanding of African territory allowed for more efficient imperialization
 Ideas of social Darwinism used to promote it
 Instead of individual imperializing, it became a group effort, like at the Berlin Conference when they met to divide Africa into spheres of influence
 New weapons or motives promoted it as opposed to simply the will to grow in size and economic strength (diamonds, gold, trading areas, etc.)
 Newer ideas, need to defend from aggression as well as be aggressive in taking colonies to protect economy, such as Britain endeavoring into India for trade
 More for protection than anything



Explain the problems European countries faced in promoting imperial expansion during the later nineteenth century.
 Britain wanted to remain in splendid isolation, but need expansion
 Changes in administration and the prime minister positions changed the ways imperialism was viewed in Britain, made it tougher to get support from the people
 Conflict was faced in India, such as the Sepoy rebellion, but Britain was forced to take direct rule
 Boer wars created conflict in Africa, and war with Afghanistan had already occurred…Britain basically forced to take role in expansion to protect its trade
 Tough to promote for France, as they had little reason other than revanche and the nationalistic need to be superior to Britain colonially
 Much in-fighting, little accomplished
 Little incentive for French people to want expansion, as it was not successful for the most part
 Germany trying to appease French, but this creates conflict with Britain…little economic impact on Germany were the colonies, so there was no reason to want more expansion other than for domination, thus it was tough to promote
 German foreign policy and domestic policy completely different and of varying importance…too much to worry about at home to worry about colonies


6.  Russia and the Russian Revolution
5. Tsarist regime more successful in dealing with economic than political problems

 Nicholas II only concerned w/ Divine Right and autocratic gov
 Wife Alexandria was German so allegiance was questionable
 Russo-Jap war showed Russia’s weakness
 Old military, policies, techniques for farming, industry
 Emancipation of the Serfs (by Nick II’s dad) and Emancipation Manifesto freed serfs and gave them full rights of free citizens
 Property ownership
 Business ownership
 Land Hunger
 Limited land so peasants and serfs end up going back to landlords because there’s nowhere to go or buy land to farm
 Land Bank: funds to buy land & sell at low interest
 Tsar’s foreign policy: interest in Far East is secondary to Euro problems
 Factory strikes; Bloody Sunday
 Resettlement Bureau: stimulate migration to Siberia
 Steady industrialization and farming issues cause peasant migration to urban industries to work
 Russian liberalism and Zemstvos (say in gov)
 October Manifest was minimally accepted because it didn’t address peasants’ need for land or limit Tsar’s autocratic power
 WWI was most important cause of Russian Revolution
 personally, it seems more like a wake-up call rather than an actual cause of the revolution, though it did cause a spike in inflation and unemployment
 Russia already large to begin with
 Already backwards in farming
 Union of Zemstva: coordinate medical facilities
 Military zones
 Suppress civilian participation in preparing for WWI
 When Tsar was gone to lead the armed forces, Alexandria was in charge of the Petrograd gov
 Influenced by Rasputin
 9% mobilization of population
 food prices doubled, tripled, quadrupled
 Rouble lost 44% of value
 Lost jobs after war industries were done after war
 How far had Lenin achieved his aims by his death (1924)?
 Offered simple promise: land, out of war, food in belly
 April Theses appeal to end war, all state power to Soviets
 Bolsheviks: Red Guard, CHEKA, secret police maintain order and control through fear
 Nationalized banks, mineral resources, industry, foreign trade
 No private ownership of property
 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk
 Lenin thought war would end w/ everyone sharing bad conditions & worldwide revolt
 Gov takes livestock from rich, including Kulaks-richer peasants-to give to poor
 New Economic Policy, He did what he said he’d do although he implemented it in ways many hated


    Why did imperialism cause rivalries between European countries in the later 19th century?
        In some cases, I’d say that the rivalries weren’t really created but were rather deepened by the race for imperialism. One  must remember that the countries all thought they had equal rights to conquering the lands around them as well as in Africa. So it’s  easy to see how tensions could flame up as they all bumped and fought for the land they thought they deserved. France, Germany,     and England were now all competing for better land and goods; all squished in close quarters, so disputes were going to occur.
    As the empires grew, the countries looked to each other as rivals, and as threats to their home, so everyone bristled at each movement and were constantly ready to defend everything they had worked hard for.

8
 Very weak because the Imperial family was now being challenged by the people
 The humiliating defeat against Japan in 1905 threatened the Tsar’s popularity
 They had a large but ill equipped army and malnourished
 The Tsar also angered many people by fight on the battlefield as commander and chief with no training at all

Why did Nicholas II’s regime survive the revolution of 1905 but not that of 1917?
 Study the tension of pre-revolution conditions, much worse in 1917 than in 1905
 Economic and social changes that hurt Russian society in 1917 much worse
 Emerging revolutionary groups after 1905 created a shift in power which made it tough for Nicholas to survive
 Peasant problem
o   Agrarian problems, farming with outdated tools and the government regulating amounts of produce caused peasant unrest
 Powerful political movements making the regime easier to overthrow in 1917
 WWI and its effects on the revolution, people eager to get out of war and needed change
 The progressive bloc and its political influence, liberal reform and helping overthrow the tsar
 The Bolsheviks emerging as a dominant political force in 1917
 Economic failures of the regime as the peasant population grew and were ready for change
 Decisions made by the tsar that led to his downfall, such as leading the army and staying in the war

How far did Nicholas personally cause the downfall of the government in 1917?
 His problems in dealing with the peasants
 The growing urban proletariat and the unrest at the agrarian problems that the tsar could not fix
 Attempts at solving problems such as the resettlement bureau and a land bank did not solve the whole problem, the tsar was not addressing everything
 Look at the opposite side, the growing unrest that he could not help, the growing power of radical groups due to foreign affairs and war
 His failure to have success in the Russo-Japanese war
 Failure in dealing with peasant unrest and uprisings
 His decision to assume command of the army in WWI, leaving the country in disarray and upsetting the people. He also did not get out of it when the people wanted to
 He did not deal well with the problems faced by the Russian people and faced political opposition due to this. Also, however, some factors were out of his control such as war

What accounts for Lenin’s success as a revolutionary leader up to October 1917?
 The failures of the tsarist regime, as mentioned above
 The rise of liberal groups and political opponents such as the progressive bloc in the duma and the provisional committee
 Lenin wanted out of war, got support from Germany and this helped his success. The people also approved.
 Propaganda and his ability to draw support against the government
 Soviets and socialization
 Ability to appeal to  the moods of the people, deal with direct issues

Assess the reasons why the Russian Revolution of 1917 ended in victory for the Bolsheviks.
 Again asses the failures of the tsarist regime, as well as Lenin’s ability to get support from the people and a little from foreign parties such as Germany
 Power in political as well as military areas, kept them from crumbling
 Failures of the provisional government in dealing with the war effort made it easy for the Bolsheviks to get support
 The red guards and how they helped establish power
 Appeal to the people to get out of war, socialize, and transfer all power to local soviets, which the people saw a s a good idea




7.  Years Between the Wars and Totalitarianism
1. How important was the “cult of personality” to Hitler’s rule in period to 1939?

 Exclusive attitude, this oneness was attractive
 Nazi party has clear purpose and goal (as outlined in Mein Kampf)
 Eliminate weak links (Jews, homosexuals, old and sick, etc.)
Superior race
 Secure resources to be self-sufficient and Lebenstraum – living space
 “Fuhrerprinzip” which was appealing especially to those who thought democracy led to humiliation and economic ruin
 ideas appealed to lower middle / skilled working classes who faced more economic upheaval
 popular through constitutional means and blamed communists for all the problems like the burning of the Reichstag building
 propaganda, anti-Semitic + jobs
 censorship in media/radio
 maintained control through ideals and fear
 SS
 Gestapo
 Brainwashed future generations
 School implements Nazi ideals in everyday learning
 Hitler Youth, the German “boy scouts”
 Incentive for Aryan moms
 “Mother’s Cross” gold, silver, bronze
  “Strength Through Joy” holiday packages
 Volkswagen, “People’s car”; anyone can have one if they save up to buy it
 Winter Help programme
 “plant communities” boss and worker interaction
 Beauty of Labour-improve working conditions
 13. How far was it the effects of WWI that brought about the rise of totalitarian regimes in inter-war Europe?
Germany
 Humiliation from Treaty of Versailles (Guilt clause)
 War reparations payments
 Disarmament and restriction of army
 Loss of Polish corridor
 Used as justification for Hitler to invade Poland later for revenge
 Bad economy-inflation, low value of Reichmark
 Golden Years of Weimar Republic
 False security of financial stability
 Stressman had short-term success with Dawes Plan, Locarno Pact; passive resistance success
 Von Hindenburg gave gov some credibility; carried some weight as a patriotic army general
 Stock Market crash marks the rise of Nazis
 Weakness of League of Nations shown when they did little to stop Germany
 Other European countries busy with domestic problems
 Heinrich Brunings “hunger chancellor” policies was too much for the people
 Cut unemployment benefits
 Reduced social services
 Dissolution of the Reichstag- huge mistake because it was structure and public say and involvement that the people needed.
 Propaganda, censorship once Hitler in power
 4-Year Plan to rearm and become self-sufficient; experience from war showed that they couldn’t rely on any other power
 Fear through SS, Gestapo
 Incentive for Aryan moms
 Incentive for workers and youth
Russia
 Stalin sees weakness of League of Nations and western allies
 Totalitarianism = total takeover of state and eradication of any links to past
 Collectivization was started to solve the hunger issue that WWI helped cause
 Peasants sent to work on state farms
 Need to industrialize was obvious after Russia had only 9% mobilization during WWI
 Labor camps for resistance or prisoners
 Propaganda “industrial progress is innate in Russian worker, matured through socialism”


6. How similar were the methods by which Hitler and Stalin governed Germany and the USSR respectively during 1930s
 Hitler and Stalin both used propaganda.
 Both made sure to only set up on actual political party in the country (their own of course).
 Hitler and Stalin both had control of education. Hitler: Hitler Youth Stalin: Young Communists
 Use of secret police. Germany: Gestapo USSR: Cheka. Both of these were used to scare and intimidate the people.
 Both Hitler and Stalin had strict censorship. Resistance didn’t stand a chance.
10. Why was Hitler able to establish dictatorial rule in Germany in the 1930s
The key issue is the reasons for Hitler’s dictatorial rule.  The focus of answers
should be on domestic issues.  Foreign policy can be referred to briefly to show how
it helped to make Hitler popular but it is not a necessary part of the answer and
should not form a major element in the essays.  Hitler and the Nazis gained power
democratically but candidates should examine the importance of the Enabling Act
because of the alleged danger to public order from the Communists, using the
Reichstag Fire as justification.  Although a dictator, he espoused populist policies
that contrasted with the weak governments of the Weimar Republic.  Measures were
introduced that seemed to appeal to most sections of the population; their origin in
the dictatorial rule of Hitler became less important.  Appropriate measures were
thought necessary in order to restore the economy.  The opponents of the regime
were forced to capitulate.  The use of the Gestapo suppressed real and imagined
enemies of the state.  He won the co-operation of the army, partly by crushing the
SA in the Night of the Long Knives.  Propaganda was important in portraying Hitler
in a favourable light.  Answers worth 11–13 marks will probably contain generally
relevant descriptions of Nazi Germany.  The specific issue of Hitler’s dictatorial rule
might be implicit rather than explicit.  14–15 marks can be awarded for fuller
descriptions.  The focus on Hitler will be dearer in the answers worth 16–18 marks
although the approach will still be largely descriptive.  19–21 answers will
emphasise analysis but will miss some possible lines of discussion.  Fuller analyses
and clear judgements, supported by sound knowledge, can be awarded 22–25
mark
Why, by 1939, had Stalin been able to impose totalitarian rule on the Soviet Union?
 Lenin had laid the groundwork out nicely, examples like the Communist Party; Cheka; a socialist economy; the Red Army had defeated the White Army, so inheriting the position gave Stalin a lead on getting a totalitarian rule.
 Stalin’s collectivization and 5 year plans all aided the rule and got rid of those who opposed him by putting them in work camps.
 His mass purges of the army and congress who did not agree with him by using corrupt, speedy trials all got rid of those in high positions who might have the power to stop over throw them.
 After World War I and as the Great Depression loomed over all of Europe, the other countries did not have the time or tolerance to deal with foreign policies, so no one outside of Russia questioned him and what he was doing, therefore Stalin was able to get away with everything and was able to impose the totalitarian rule with little to no opposition from the outside.
How accurate is the claim that the effects of WWI were the most important for the rise of totalitarianism in Europe up to 1939?
 Treaty of Versailles and how its terms against germany contributed to hitlers rise to power
 Economic impact of war and reparations, as well as hostility to other countries helped get Hitler support to rise to and establish power
 Allied alliances dissolved post-war due to tensions and domestic problems for each country, allowing totalitarian rulers to gain support without fear of interference
 Controversy beyond reparations, such as the fact that germany believed it shouldve won the war, and that it was betrayed by its leaders…hitler believed this and got the people to support this, which helped him take power. All these effects of the war caused the rise of totalitarianism
 High reparations caused the league of nations and individual countries to make deals with geramny, allowing reduced payments, eventually germany was able to rebuild and Hitler was able to maintain control over a powerful state
 Refer to Russia and how the war allowed for the fall of the tsarist regime and the rise of the Bolsheviks,  which allowed stalin to rise to power
 Mention the economic and political crises, such as the wall street crash, and how its relation to war affects the collapse of former European governments and the rise of autocratic ones
1. Why, to 1939, did many Germans support Hitler and his Nazi dictatorship?
 After 1923 they did not win many Reichstag seats (they only had 12 in 1928), but during this time they began to build for the future.
 They managed to get huge funding from rich businessmen (including the German steel bosses Krupp and Thyssen, the German car firms Opel and Skoda, and the American businessmen Henry Ford) who thought the Nazis would stop Communism.
 They were brilliant at propaganda (organized by Josef Goebbels) and used the most modern technology (radio, newspapers and airplanes) to get their ideas across.
 They used some communist ideas (e.g. state control of industry/ land to the small farmers/ better pensions) to gain the support of the working classes.
 They set up a fun youth club which began indoctrinating young people to believe the Nazi message.
 Adolf Hitler was a brilliant speaker, and his book – Mein Kampf – became a best seller.   One-by-one, the Nazis began to take over other right-wing parties.
 In 1929 there was a crisis on Wall Street (the American stock exchange) and a great depression hit the American economy.
 Nazis, who promised a strong government which would stop the chaos.
 In the July 1932 elections, 230 Nazis were elected to the Reichstag.
 For many people the Nazi regime was the happiest time of their lives.
 Nazi economic policies (including ‘Autarchy’ – the desire for Germany to be self-sufficient – re-armament and government work programmes) gave full employment, prosperity and financial security - many observers stated that there was no poverty in Germany.
 German ‘autobahns’ provided work and improved transport.
 A Nazi scheme called ‘Strength through Joy’ gave workers free picnics, visits to the theatre and even free holidays.   There was law and order (few people locked their doors), and the Nazis knew the excitement of ceremonies and rallies.
 Germans had hope, and self-belief, and there was a feeling that Hitler ‘keeps me safe from all harm.'
 Nazi philosophy idealised women and the family, and the Law for the Encouragement of Marriage gave newly-wed couples 250 marks for each child they had (Mothers who had more than 8 children were given a gold medal).
12. How far can Mussolini’s rule in Italy from 1922 to 1939 be described as a “totalitarian” regime?
 The key issue is an assessment of the claim that Mussolini’s government of Italy was totalitarian.
 Totalitarianism involved the control of a populace through a single party, the leadership of a single person, suppression of the opposition and an end to individual rights. It was associated with the use of force and terror to suppress dissidents.
 Mussolini came to power in 1922 at the head of a coalition but was a dictator by 1925.
 The political opposition was banned, as were trade unions.
 The press was controlled.
 Local officials were nominated by the fascists, not freely elected.
 The use of violence can be linked to the murder of Matteotti (1924), a leading socialist.
 However, Mussolini’s regime did not use the extreme measures of terror that were common in Germany and Russia
 The police were active in seeking out open dissidents but private criticism was still possible.
 He had to accept the continued influence of groups such as the army, Catholic authorities (Lateran Treaties of 1929), the monarchy and powerful economic classes.