Unit 7 AP World History

 

Which of the following best explains the changes depicted in Map 2 ?

European imperialism and increasing ethnic nationalism

“Are we prepared for so stubborn a fight as a future war involving the great powers of Europe will undoubtedly become? The answer, we must say without evasion, is no. In addition to the military considerations, there is also the political angle. It should not be forgotten that Russia and Germany are representatives of the conservative principle in the civilized world, as opposed to the democratic principle represented by England and France. From this point of view, a war between Russia and Germany, regardless of the specific issues over which it is fought, is profoundly undesirable to both sides. Such a conflict, however it ends, would entail the weakening of the conservative principle of which the two powers are the only reliable bulwarks. Moreover, one must realize that, under the precarious conditions that now exist, a general European war is mortally dangerous to both Russia and Germany, no matter who wins.

It is my firm conviction, based on long and careful study of the multitude of subversive tendencies and movements that we are presently facing, that there must inevitably break out in the defeated country a social revolution that, by the very nature of these things, will inevitably spread to the country of the victor. In our country today, there are countless agitators telling the peasant that he should demand a gratuitous share of somebody else’s land, or the worker that he should be getting hold of the entire capital and profits of the manufacturer. War with Germany will create exceptionally favorable conditions for such agitations.”

Pyotr Durnovo, Russian Minister of the Interior, memorandum to Tsar Nicholas II, February 1914

The memorandum is best explained in the context of which of the following developments in the early twentieth century?

The emergence of external and internal challenges that threatened the stability of imperial states

“Are we prepared for so stubborn a fight as a future war involving the great powers of Europe will undoubtedly become? The answer, we must say without evasion, is no. In addition to the military considerations, there is also the political angle. It should not be forgotten that Russia and Germany are representatives of the conservative principle in the civilized world, as opposed to the democratic principle represented by England and France. From this point of view, a war between Russia and Germany, regardless of the specific issues over which it is fought, is profoundly undesirable to both sides. Such a conflict, however it ends, would entail the weakening of the conservative principle of which the two powers are the only reliable bulwarks. Moreover, one must realize that, under the precarious conditions that now exist, a general European war is mortally dangerous to both Russia and Germany, no matter who wins.

It is my firm conviction, based on long and careful study of the multitude of subversive tendencies and movements that we are presently facing, that there must inevitably break out in the defeated country a social revolution that, by the very nature of these things, will inevitably spread to the country of the victor. In our country today, there are countless agitators telling the peasant that he should demand a gratuitous share of somebody else’s land, or the worker that he should be getting hold of the entire capital and profits of the manufacturer. War with Germany will create exceptionally favorable conditions for such agitations.”

Pyotr Durnovo, Russian Minister of the Interior, memorandum to Tsar Nicholas II, February 1914

Durnovo’s argument in the second paragraph regarding the effect of war between Germany and Russia on the two countries would prove to be

accurate in its prediction that a war with Germany would create the circumstances for a revolution in Russia

Which of the following contributed significantly to the decline of both the Qing and the Ottoman Empires?

Internal conflict with ethnic and religious minorities

All of the following resulted from the French and Russian Revolutions EXCEPT

a socialist economic system

Which of the following is an accurate description of relations between European states and the Ottoman Empire in the period 1815 to 1914 ?

Responses

Russian, English, and French expansion came at the expense of the Ottomans.

WORKERS AND SOLDIERS MARCHING IN THE STREETS OF SAINT PETERSBURG, RUSSIAN EMPIRE, AFTER TAKING OVER CONTROL OF THE CITY, FEBRUARY 1917

Keystone-France/Contributor

The makeup of the force shown in the image is best explained by the fact that by 1917

Russia’s army morale and home-front effort were collapsing because of the strains of total war

WORKERS AND SOLDIERS MARCHING IN THE STREETS OF SAINT PETERSBURG, RUSSIAN EMPIRE, AFTER TAKING OVER CONTROL OF THE CITY, FEBRUARY 1917

Keystone-France/Contributor

The unrest reflected in the image is best explained by which of the following features of the Russian government at the time of the photograph?

The Tsarist regime that governed Russia was autocratic and unresponsive to calls for reform.

WORKERS AND SOLDIERS MARCHING IN THE STREETS OF SAINT PETERSBURG, RUSSIAN EMPIRE, AFTER TAKING OVER CONTROL OF THE CITY, FEBRUARY 1917

Keystone-France/Contributor

Which of the following best characterizes the significance of the events in Russia in the winter of 1917, as shown in the image?

They started a process that eventually led to a communist revolution.

“The immense majority of Mexico’s villages and citizens own only the ground on which they stand. They suffer the horrors of poverty without being able to better their social status . . . or without being able to dedicate themselves to industry or agriculture due to the fact that the lands, woods, and water are monopolized by the few.”

Emiliano Zapata,, Plan of Ayala, 1911

The opinion expressed in the passage above is most consistent with which of the following?

Redistributing one-third of the land controlled by large landholders to landless peasants

Which of the following factors contributed most significantly to the contraction of the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century?

Independence movements inspired by ethnic nationalism

Which of the following best supports the contention that the First World War was the first total war?

Governments mobilized large segments of their populations and economies and targeted their opponents’ military and economic capabilities.

The photograph above of German East African troops best illustrates which of the following historical processes during the First World War?

The increasing inclusion of non-Europeans in European conflicts

Source 1

“German wartime propaganda [during the First World War] has been criticized on many different grounds, but its success in blaming the war on Russia was a masterstroke, mobilizing widespread Russophobia in the working classes, the people most opposed to armed conflict, and playing on the threat of invasion. As [a daily newspaper in Berlin] told its readers, ‘the German people may honestly say once more in this hour that it did not want this war. . . . But it will not allow the soil of the Fatherland to be overrun and devastated by Russian regiments.’ The brief occupation of East Prussian territory by Russian units at the end of August fanned fears of the so-called ‘blood Tsar’ and his ‘Cossack hordes’ further. Exaggerated atrocity stories appeared in the press and were given credibility by the letters of men serving [at the front].

Under such circumstances, it was hardly surprising that men of all classes decided that it was their patriotic duty to fight. . . . [I]n Germany, surrounded on all sides by enemies, the rush to volunteer was immediate and spontaneous. With no official encouragement, 260,672 enlistment requests were received in Prussia alone during the first week of mobilization. . . . Moreover, contrary to the usual claim [made by historians] that volunteers were ‘war-enthused’ students or schoolchildren, examination of muster rolls [lists of new recruits] and letters demonstrates that a broad cross-section of urban society enlisted, mainly for reasons of patriotic self-defense.”

Alexander Watson, British historian, Enduring the Great War, 2008

Source 2

“In Britain, the interpretation of what constituted sensitive military news and should therefore be suppressed was broad, but censorship was handled far less obtrusively [than in Germany]. Essentially, the British system consisted of a close control of news at the source by military authorities, combined with a tight-knit group of ‘press lords’ who . . . decided what was ‘good for the country to know.’ Important losses or battles often went completely unmentioned. When the [British] battleship Audacious was sunk by a mine on 27 October 1914 off the Irish coast, the loss was simply never announced. When the Battle of Jutland [a major naval engagement between British and German fleets] was under way, not one civilian knew about it.

[Even when official censorship sometimes foundered], the press willingly censored itself. Why did British journalists cooperate so willingly in suppressing important news? The obvious answer is that they all belonged to the same club, whose membership also included the most powerful politicians. Publishing a casualty list (or a letter from a wounded corporal about military bungling) would have meant expulsion from the club; social ostracism apparently meant more to the newsmen than their professional duty to inform the public. The government also possessed positive incentives. In addition to breakfast, lunch, tea, dinner, and golf weekends in the company of the powerful, knighthoods and lordships were generously distributed among the press and, finally, prestigious posts in government itself.

Alice Goldfarb Marquis, United States historian, “Words as Weapons: Propaganda in Britain and Germany during the First World War,” article published in an academic journal, 1978

Goldfarb, in Source 2, most directly supports her claim that the British press during the First World War routinely suppressed important war news by citing

the case of the sinking of a battleship and the Battle of Jutland

Source 1

“German wartime propaganda [during the First World War] has been criticized on many different grounds, but its success in blaming the war on Russia was a masterstroke, mobilizing widespread Russophobia in the working classes, the people most opposed to armed conflict, and playing on the threat of invasion. As [a daily newspaper in Berlin] told its readers, ‘the German people may honestly say once more in this hour that it did not want this war. . . . But it will not allow the soil of the Fatherland to be overrun and devastated by Russian regiments.’ The brief occupation of East Prussian territory by Russian units at the end of August fanned fears of the so-called ‘blood Tsar’ and his ‘Cossack hordes’ further. Exaggerated atrocity stories appeared in the press and were given credibility by the letters of men serving [at the front].

Under such circumstances, it was hardly surprising that men of all classes decided that it was their patriotic duty to fight. . . . [I]n Germany, surrounded on all sides by enemies, the rush to volunteer was immediate and spontaneous. With no official encouragement, 260,672 enlistment requests were received in Prussia alone during the first week of mobilization. . . . Moreover, contrary to the usual claim [made by historians] that volunteers were ‘war-enthused’ students or schoolchildren, examination of muster rolls [lists of new recruits] and letters demonstrates that a broad cross-section of urban society enlisted, mainly for reasons of patriotic self-defense.”

Alexander Watson, British historian, Enduring the Great War, 2008

Source 2

“In Britain, the interpretation of what constituted sensitive military news and should therefore be suppressed was broad, but censorship was handled far less obtrusively [than in Germany]. Essentially, the British system consisted of a close control of news at the source by military authorities, combined with a tight-knit group of ‘press lords’ who . . . decided what was ‘good for the country to know.’ Important losses or battles often went completely unmentioned. When the [British] battleship Audacious was sunk by a mine on 27 October 1914 off the Irish coast, the loss was simply never announced. When the Battle of Jutland [a major naval engagement between British and German fleets] was under way, not one civilian knew about it.

[Even when official censorship sometimes foundered], the press willingly censored itself. Why did British journalists cooperate so willingly in suppressing important news? The obvious answer is that they all belonged to the same club, whose membership also included the most powerful politicians. Publishing a casualty list (or a letter from a wounded corporal about military bungling) would have meant expulsion from the club; social ostracism apparently meant more to the newsmen than their professional duty to inform the public. The government also possessed positive incentives. In addition to breakfast, lunch, tea, dinner, and golf weekends in the company of the powerful, knighthoods and lordships were generously distributed among the press and, finally, prestigious posts in government itself.

Alice Goldfarb Marquis, United States historian, “Words as Weapons: Propaganda in Britain and Germany during the First World War,” article published in an academic journal, 1978

Watson, in the first paragraph of Source 1, uses the newspaper quote to support the claim that

German propaganda portrayed the conflict with Russia as a defensive war

Source 1

“German wartime propaganda [during the First World War] has been criticized on many different grounds, but its success in blaming the war on Russia was a masterstroke, mobilizing widespread Russophobia in the working classes, the people most opposed to armed conflict, and playing on the threat of invasion. As [a daily newspaper in Berlin] told its readers, ‘the German people may honestly say once more in this hour that it did not want this war. . . . But it will not allow the soil of the Fatherland to be overrun and devastated by Russian regiments.’ The brief occupation of East Prussian territory by Russian units at the end of August fanned fears of the so-called ‘blood Tsar’ and his ‘Cossack hordes’ further. Exaggerated atrocity stories appeared in the press and were given credibility by the letters of men serving [at the front].

Under such circumstances, it was hardly surprising that men of all classes decided that it was their patriotic duty to fight. . . . [I]n Germany, surrounded on all sides by enemies, the rush to volunteer was immediate and spontaneous. With no official encouragement, 260,672 enlistment requests were received in Prussia alone during the first week of mobilization. . . . Moreover, contrary to the usual claim [made by historians] that volunteers were ‘war-enthused’ students or schoolchildren, examination of muster rolls [lists of new recruits] and letters demonstrates that a broad cross-section of urban society enlisted, mainly for reasons of patriotic self-defense.”

Alexander Watson, British historian, Enduring the Great War, 2008

Source 2

“In Britain, the interpretation of what constituted sensitive military news and should therefore be suppressed was broad, but censorship was handled far less obtrusively [than in Germany]. Essentially, the British system consisted of a close control of news at the source by military authorities, combined with a tight-knit group of ‘press lords’ who . . . decided what was ‘good for the country to know.’ Important losses or battles often went completely unmentioned. When the [British] battleship Audacious was sunk by a mine on 27 October 1914 off the Irish coast, the loss was simply never announced. When the Battle of Jutland [a major naval engagement between British and German fleets] was under way, not one civilian knew about it.

[Even when official censorship sometimes foundered], the press willingly censored itself. Why did British journalists cooperate so willingly in suppressing important news? The obvious answer is that they all belonged to the same club, whose membership also included the most powerful politicians. Publishing a casualty list (or a letter from a wounded corporal about military bungling) would have meant expulsion from the club; social ostracism apparently meant more to the newsmen than their professional duty to inform the public. The government also possessed positive incentives. In addition to breakfast, lunch, tea, dinner, and golf weekends in the company of the powerful, knighthoods and lordships were generously distributed among the press and, finally, prestigious posts in government itself.

Alice Goldfarb Marquis, United States historian, “Words as Weapons: Propaganda in Britain and Germany during the First World War,” article published in an academic journal, 1978

Which of the following types of evidence does Watson (Source 1) cite to support his claim that early German support for the war was not limited to the young?

Muster rolls and letters

Source 1

“Under the present circumstances, if we were to find ourselves in a war with France, it will be a people’s war that cannot be won in one decisive battle but will turn into a long and deadly struggle with a country that will not give up before the strength of its entire people has been broken. Our own people, too, will be utterly broken and exhausted, even if we emerge victorious at the end.”

Helmuth von Moltke, German general, letter to the German emperor Wilhelm II, 1905

Source 2

“The integrity of what remains of the Ottoman Empire is one of the principles upon which the world’s balance of power is based. Therefore, I reject the idea that it is in our national interest to shatter one of the cornerstones of the international order. What if, after we have attacked Libya* and destabilized the Ottoman Empire, the Balkans begin to stir? And what if a Balkan war provokes a clash between the two power blocs and a European war? Italy must not be the country that bears the responsibility of putting a match to the powder keg.”

*Italy wanted to colonize Libya, which at the time was a province of the Ottoman Empire.

Giovanni Giolitti, prime minister of Italy, speech before the Italian parliament as it debated whether to attack Ottoman Libya, 1911

Moltke’s prediction in Source 1 about the consequences of a potential war between Germany and France is most directly explained by the fact that

previous conflicts had stirred intense nationalism in France and Germany

Source 1

“Under the present circumstances, if we were to find ourselves in a war with France, it will be a people’s war that cannot be won in one decisive battle but will turn into a long and deadly struggle with a country that will not give up before the strength of its entire people has been broken. Our own people, too, will be utterly broken and exhausted, even if we emerge victorious at the end.”

Helmuth von Moltke, German general, letter to the German emperor Wilhelm II, 1905

Source 2

“The integrity of what remains of the Ottoman Empire is one of the principles upon which the world’s balance of power is based. Therefore, I reject the idea that it is in our national interest to shatter one of the cornerstones of the international order. What if, after we have attacked Libya* and destabilized the Ottoman Empire, the Balkans begin to stir? And what if a Balkan war provokes a clash between the two power blocs and a European war? Italy must not be the country that bears the responsibility of putting a match to the powder keg.”

*Italy wanted to colonize Libya, which at the time was a province of the Ottoman Empire.

Giovanni Giolitti, prime minister of Italy, speech before the Italian parliament as it debated whether to attack Ottoman Libya, 1911

Giolitti’s concerns in Source 2 about the potential consequences of conflict in the Balkans are most directly explained by which of the following developments in Europe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries?

European states entered into military alliances with each other that forced them to come to their allies’ aid in the event of conflict with a nonallied state.

Source 1

“Under the present circumstances, if we were to find ourselves in a war with France, it will be a people’s war that cannot be won in one decisive battle but will turn into a long and deadly struggle with a country that will not give up before the strength of its entire people has been broken. Our own people, too, will be utterly broken and exhausted, even if we emerge victorious at the end.”

Helmuth von Moltke, German general, letter to the German emperor Wilhelm II, 1905

Source 2

“The integrity of what remains of the Ottoman Empire is one of the principles upon which the world’s balance of power is based. Therefore, I reject the idea that it is in our national interest to shatter one of the cornerstones of the international order. What if, after we have attacked Libya* and destabilized the Ottoman Empire, the Balkans begin to stir? And what if a Balkan war provokes a clash between the two power blocs and a European war? Italy must not be the country that bears the responsibility of putting a match to the powder keg.”

*Italy wanted to colonize Libya, which at the time was a province of the Ottoman Empire.

Giovanni Giolitti, prime minister of Italy, speech before the Italian parliament as it debated whether to attack Ottoman Libya, 1911

In addition to the potential destabilization of the Ottoman Empire, Giolitti’s argument in Source 2 regarding Italy’s ambitions in Libya is likely explained by the concern that any attempt by a European state to acquire colonies in Africa could

dangerously intensify rivalries between European states seeking to acquire territories and resources

Which of the following most directly led to the start of the First World War?

Nationalist competition among industrialized powers for resources

“Just yesterday, you sent me a telegram appealing to my friendship and called upon me to act as an intermediary and help resolve the conflict between you and the Austro-Hungarian government. But I understand that, even as you did that, your troops were being mobilized against Austria-Hungary. This makes my attempts at meditation almost pointless. Nonetheless, I continued in my efforts today.

I now receive fresh news of even more serious Russian preparations for war on my Eastern frontier. Responsibility for the safety of my empire forces me to take defensive and preventive measures. In my endeavors to maintain the peace of the world, I have gone to the utmost limit possible. The responsibility for the disaster that is now threatening the civilized world will not be laid at my door. At this moment, you still have the power to avert war. Nobody is threatening the honor or power of Russia, and you can well afford to await the result of my mediation. My friendship for you and your empire, transmitted to me by my grandfather on his deathbed, has always been sacred to me and I have often supported Russia in the past when she was in serious trouble.”

Wilhelm II, emperor of Germany, telegram to Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, July 31, 1914

Which of the following events that preceded the outbreak of the First World War best explains why Russian troops were being mobilized against Austria-Hungary, as stated in the first paragraph?

Russia was acting in support of Serbia, which was facing an imminent Austro-Hungarian attack following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

“Just yesterday, you sent me a telegram appealing to my friendship and called upon me to act as an intermediary and help resolve the conflict between you and the Austro-Hungarian government. But I understand that, even as you did that, your troops were being mobilized against Austria-Hungary. This makes my attempts at meditation almost pointless. Nonetheless, I continued in my efforts today.

I now receive fresh news of even more serious Russian preparations for war on my Eastern frontier. Responsibility for the safety of my empire forces me to take defensive and preventive measures. In my endeavors to maintain the peace of the world, I have gone to the utmost limit possible. The responsibility for the disaster that is now threatening the civilized world will not be laid at my door. At this moment, you still have the power to avert war. Nobody is threatening the honor or power of Russia, and you can well afford to await the result of my mediation. My friendship for you and your empire, transmitted to me by my grandfather on his deathbed, has always been sacred to me and I have often supported Russia in the past when she was in serious trouble.”

Wilhelm II, emperor of Germany, telegram to Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, July 31, 1914

The passage can best be used to explain the role of which of the following in bringing about the First World War?

Rival great power alliances

“Just yesterday, you sent me a telegram appealing to my friendship and called upon me to act as an intermediary and help resolve the conflict between you and the Austro-Hungarian government. But I understand that, even as you did that, your troops were being mobilized against Austria-Hungary. This makes my attempts at meditation almost pointless. Nonetheless, I continued in my efforts today.

I now receive fresh news of even more serious Russian preparations for war on my Eastern frontier. Responsibility for the safety of my empire forces me to take defensive and preventive measures. In my endeavors to maintain the peace of the world, I have gone to the utmost limit possible. The responsibility for the disaster that is now threatening the civilized world will not be laid at my door. At this moment, you still have the power to avert war. Nobody is threatening the honor or power of Russia, and you can well afford to await the result of my mediation. My friendship for you and your empire, transmitted to me by my grandfather on his deathbed, has always been sacred to me and I have often supported Russia in the past when she was in serious trouble.”

Wilhelm II, emperor of Germany, telegram to Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, July 31, 1914

Wilhelm II’s assurances in the second paragraph that “nobody is threatening the honor or power of Russia” and that the tsar can “well afford” to await the results of attempts to defuse the crisis best testify to the importance of which of the following factors in the outbreak of the First World War?

Intense nationalism, fueled by mass media, often forced the hand of military and political leaders.

“At school the teachers say it is our patriotic duty to stop using foreign words. I didn’t know what they meant by this at first, but now I see it—you must no longer say ‘adieu’ [‘farewell’] because that is French. It is in order to say ‘lebwohl’ [‘farewell’ in German] instead. We also have  a little tin box in which we’ll put some small change in every time we slip up and use a foreign word. The contents of this little war savings box will go towards buying knitting wool. We must now knit woollen things for the soldiers.”

Diary of a twelve-year old German girl, August 1914

The passage above best exemplifies which of the following processes shortly after the outbreak of the First World War?

The strengthening of nationalist sentiment throughout Europe

Snark/ Art Resource, NY

Poster from the Seventeenth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 1934.

Poster text: “Raise the Flag of Lenin, It Gives Us Victory!”

Banners at bottom read: “Long live the invincible party of Lenin!” “Long live the great guide of the international proletarian revolution, Comrade Stalin!”

Which of the following best describes the likely intent of the poster?

To build support for centrally directed economic modernization programs in the Soviet Union

“Dear Comrade Lenin!

I cannot avoid pointing out an outrageous phenomenon that can still be observed all over our Soviet Russia. Even though it has been more than two years since power in Russia has been in the hands of the Soviets, in all major cities certain things can be observed that do not at all indicate the existence of a dictatorship of the proletariat. I want to point out the most insulting one.

In our city, Kazan (and as I mentioned, this also happens in all major cities), there live many former factory owners and other members of the bourgeoisie. Even though their factories and businesses have been nationalized, if you enter their apartments you would see them still living as they did in the ‘good old times.’ These gentlemen do not seem to know that the Civil War is still raging and that power is in the hands of the workers. As in the past, they continue to reside in the most luxurious, spacious, and warm apartments, with luxurious furniture. In their kitchens, you would still see hired cooks with white caps and uniforms, and in their households you would still see a variety of servants. In the summer they still go out to their country houses to ‘relax.’ When I see this, I become almost ashamed of our proletarian revolution. Why has no attention been paid to this yet? Why are workers not being moved into the bourgeois apartments and the bourgeois into workers’ cellars? Why is their furniture and other belongings not being confiscated and distributed to the workers? And anyway, why has this gang of bourgeois parasites not yet been destroyed?

I am turning to you, Comrade Lenin, as our leader and the most loyal friend of the proletariat, and I am waiting so that this issue, which concerns me and many other honest communists, can be resolved by an appropriate decree.”

Letter to Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin from a member of the Communist Party living in Kazan, Russia, November, 1920

Which of the following aspects of the immediate historical situation in which the letter was written best explains the author’s demands toward the end of the second paragraph?

The Soviet government used the pretext of the ongoing civil war to engage in repressive policies against entire sections of its population.

“Dear Comrade Lenin!

I cannot avoid pointing out an outrageous phenomenon that can still be observed all over our Soviet Russia. Even though it has been more than two years since power in Russia has been in the hands of the Soviets, in all major cities certain things can be observed that do not at all indicate the existence of a dictatorship of the proletariat. I want to point out the most insulting one.

In our city, Kazan (and as I mentioned, this also happens in all major cities), there live many former factory owners and other members of the bourgeoisie. Even though their factories and businesses have been nationalized, if you enter their apartments you would see them still living as they did in the ‘good old times.’ These gentlemen do not seem to know that the Civil War is still raging and that power is in the hands of the workers. As in the past, they continue to reside in the most luxurious, spacious, and warm apartments, with luxurious furniture. In their kitchens, you would still see hired cooks with white caps and uniforms, and in their households you would still see a variety of servants. In the summer they still go out to their country houses to ‘relax.’ When I see this, I become almost ashamed of our proletarian revolution. Why has no attention been paid to this yet? Why are workers not being moved into the bourgeois apartments and the bourgeois into workers’ cellars? Why is their furniture and other belongings not being confiscated and distributed to the workers? And anyway, why has this gang of bourgeois parasites not yet been destroyed?

I am turning to you, Comrade Lenin, as our leader and the most loyal friend of the proletariat, and I am waiting so that this issue, which concerns me and many other honest communists, can be resolved by an appropriate decree.”

Letter to Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin from a member of the Communist Party living in Kazan, Russia, November, 1920

The letter’s significance as a source of information on popular attitudes to Bolshevik revolutionary policies lies in the fact that it suggests that some Soviet citizens

supported the Bolsheviks in their nationalization of industrial property but urged them to seize the upper classes’ private property as well

“Dear Comrade Lenin!

I cannot avoid pointing out an outrageous phenomenon that can still be observed all over our Soviet Russia. Even though it has been more than two years since power in Russia has been in the hands of the Soviets, in all major cities certain things can be observed that do not at all indicate the existence of a dictatorship of the proletariat. I want to point out the most insulting one.

In our city, Kazan (and as I mentioned, this also happens in all major cities), there live many former factory owners and other members of the bourgeoisie. Even though their factories and businesses have been nationalized, if you enter their apartments you would see them still living as they did in the ‘good old times.’ These gentlemen do not seem to know that the Civil War is still raging and that power is in the hands of the workers. As in the past, they continue to reside in the most luxurious, spacious, and warm apartments, with luxurious furniture. In their kitchens, you would still see hired cooks with white caps and uniforms, and in their households you would still see a variety of servants. In the summer they still go out to their country houses to ‘relax.’ When I see this, I become almost ashamed of our proletarian revolution. Why has no attention been paid to this yet? Why are workers not being moved into the bourgeois apartments and the bourgeois into workers’ cellars? Why is their furniture and other belongings not being confiscated and distributed to the workers? And anyway, why has this gang of bourgeois parasites not yet been destroyed?

I am turning to you, Comrade Lenin, as our leader and the most loyal friend of the proletariat, and I am waiting so that this issue, which concerns me and many other honest communists, can be resolved by an appropriate decree.”

Letter to Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin from a member of the Communist Party living in Kazan, Russia, November, 1920

Considering the purpose of the letter, it most likely overstates which of the following?

The extent to which wealthy Russians continued to live exactly as they did before the revolution (second paragraph).

“When the proposal to proclaim the equality of races was rejected by the Peace Conference at Versailles, Viscount Makino, the Japanese representative, made it known that Japan would reintroduce the proposal. Obviously, Japan feels that this issue is momentous for the sake of humanity and the peace of the world.

Of the non-white countries, Japan has taken the lead in adopting the best parts of European civilization. Japan codified her laws, and reformed her police and judicial systems, her military and naval forces, thus placing herself almost on an equal footing with that of the European countries.

Some whites regard the development of Japan as an unjustifiable encroachment upon their own rights. It is, of course, true that there are still peoples in this world who are so backward in civilization that they cannot at once be admitted into the international family on an equal footing. What they need is proper guidance and direction. When they have reached a certain stage of civilization, they should be given an equal place and rank in the family of nations. Although most Asiatic nations are fully peers of European nations, yet they are discriminated against because of the color of the skin. The root of this discrimination lies in the perverted feeling of racial superiority entertained by the whites. If the present situation continues, there is every likelihood that the peace of the world will be endangered.”

Okuma Shigenobu, Japanese member of parliament and former prime minister, “Illusions of the White Race,” article published in a Japanese journal, Tokyo, 1921

Shigenobu’s point of view regarding Western attitudes toward Japan as expressed in the passage is significant in that similar ideas were used by members of the Japanese government during the period between the First and the Second World Wars to justify

militarizing the Japanese state and expanding its territories in Asia

“When the proposal to proclaim the equality of races was rejected by the Peace Conference at Versailles, Viscount Makino, the Japanese representative, made it known that Japan would reintroduce the proposal. Obviously, Japan feels that this issue is momentous for the sake of humanity and the peace of the world.

Of the non-white countries, Japan has taken the lead in adopting the best parts of European civilization. Japan codified her laws, and reformed her police and judicial systems, her military and naval forces, thus placing herself almost on an equal footing with that of the European countries.

Some whites regard the development of Japan as an unjustifiable encroachment upon their own rights. It is, of course, true that there are still peoples in this world who are so backward in civilization that they cannot at once be admitted into the international family on an equal footing. What they need is proper guidance and direction. When they have reached a certain stage of civilization, they should be given an equal place and rank in the family of nations. Although most Asiatic nations are fully peers of European nations, yet they are discriminated against because of the color of the skin. The root of this discrimination lies in the perverted feeling of racial superiority entertained by the whites. If the present situation continues, there is every likelihood that the peace of the world will be endangered.”

Okuma Shigenobu, Japanese member of parliament and former prime minister, “Illusions of the White Race,” article published in a Japanese journal, Tokyo, 1921

Shigenobu’s criticism of European race-based discrimination against Japanese people is significant mostly because it shows that advocates of Japanese imperialism

adopted the European attitudes about a “civilizing mission” and used those attitudes to justify Japan’s own imperial policies

“When the proposal to proclaim the equality of races was rejected by the Peace Conference at Versailles, Viscount Makino, the Japanese representative, made it known that Japan would reintroduce the proposal. Obviously, Japan feels that this issue is momentous for the sake of humanity and the peace of the world.

Of the non-white countries, Japan has taken the lead in adopting the best parts of European civilization. Japan codified her laws, and reformed her police and judicial systems, her military and naval forces, thus placing herself almost on an equal footing with that of the European countries.

Some whites regard the development of Japan as an unjustifiable encroachment upon their own rights. It is, of course, true that there are still peoples in this world who are so backward in civilization that they cannot at once be admitted into the international family on an equal footing. What they need is proper guidance and direction. When they have reached a certain stage of civilization, they should be given an equal place and rank in the family of nations. Although most Asiatic nations are fully peers of European nations, yet they are discriminated against because of the color of the skin. The root of this discrimination lies in the perverted feeling of racial superiority entertained by the whites. If the present situation continues, there is every likelihood that the peace of the world will be endangered.”

Okuma Shigenobu, Japanese member of parliament and former prime minister, “Illusions of the White Race,” article published in a Japanese journal, Tokyo, 1921

Asian reactions to Western claims of racial and cultural superiority, such as the reaction by Shigenobu in the passage, were also instrumental in the period 1918–1945 in the

intensification of anti-imperial resistance activities and independence movements

“By the 1930s, many Europeans were ready to leave behind the liberal, democratic order created after 1918 by Britain, France, and the United States for a more authoritarian future. What they did not bargain for was the brutal reality of Nazi imperialism and the denial of all national aspirations apart from German ones. . . . No experience was more crucial to the development of Europe in the twentieth century. As both Hitler and Stalin were well aware, the Second World War involved something far more profound than a series of military engagements and diplomatic negotiations; it was a struggle for the social and political future of the continent itself. And such was the shock of being subjected to a regime of unprecedented and unremitting violence that in the space of eight years a sea-change took place in Europeans’ political and social attitudes, and they rediscovered the virtues of democracy. . . .

Hitler’s war aimed at the complete racial reconstitution of Europe. There were no historical parallels for such a project. In Europe, neither Napoleon nor the Habsburgs had aimed at gaining such exclusive domination. In its violence and racism, Nazi imperialism drew more from European precedents in Asia, Africa, and—especially—the Americas. ‘When we eat wheat from Canada,’ remarked Hitler one evening during the war, ‘we don’t think about the despoiled Indians.’ On another occasion he described the Ukraine as [Germany’s] ‘new Indian Empire.’ But if Europeans would have resented being ruled as the British ruled India, they were shocked at being submitted to an experience closer to that inflicted upon the native populations of the Americas.”

Mark Mazower, British historian, Dark Continent: Europe’s Twentieth Century, 2000

Which of the following was the most important factor behind Europeans’ readiness to embrace authoritarian political systems in the 1930s?

The economic crisis caused by the Great Depression

“By the 1930s, many Europeans were ready to leave behind the liberal, democratic order created after 1918 by Britain, France, and the United States for a more authoritarian future. What they did not bargain for was the brutal reality of Nazi imperialism and the denial of all national aspirations apart from German ones. . . . No experience was more crucial to the development of Europe in the twentieth century. As both Hitler and Stalin were well aware, the Second World War involved something far more profound than a series of military engagements and diplomatic negotiations; it was a struggle for the social and political future of the continent itself. And such was the shock of being subjected to a regime of unprecedented and unremitting violence that in the space of eight years a sea-change took place in Europeans’ political and social attitudes, and they rediscovered the virtues of democracy. . . .

Hitler’s war aimed at the complete racial reconstitution of Europe. There were no historical parallels for such a project. In Europe, neither Napoleon nor the Habsburgs had aimed at gaining such exclusive domination. In its violence and racism, Nazi imperialism drew more from European precedents in Asia, Africa, and—especially—the Americas. ‘When we eat wheat from Canada,’ remarked Hitler one evening during the war, ‘we don’t think about the despoiled Indians.’ On another occasion he described the Ukraine as [Germany’s] ‘new Indian Empire.’ But if Europeans would have resented being ruled as the British ruled India, they were shocked at being submitted to an experience closer to that inflicted upon the native populations of the Americas.”

Mark Mazower, British historian, Dark Continent: Europe’s Twentieth Century, 2000

Based on the passage, it can be inferred that Mazower might also support which of the following assertions?

The Nazis’ rigidly ideological approach to empire building prevented them from consolidating their control of continental Europe.

“We did not have a tractor industry. Now we have one. We did not have an automobile industry. Now we have one. In the output of electric power we were last on the list. Now we rank among the first. In the output of oil products and coal we were last on the list. Now we rank among the first.And as a result of all of this our country has been converted from an agrarian into an industrial country.”

Joseph Stalin, Soviet Union, 1933

The economic development Stalin describes above was achieved primarily through which of the following?

Government control of the national economy

“In theory, all of the peoples of the world, though different in their degree of civilization and enlightenment are created equal and are brothers before God. As universal love advances, the theory goes, and as the regulations of international law are put into place, the entire world will soon be at peace. This theory is currently espoused mainly by Western Christian ministers or by persons who are enamored of that religion. However, when we leave this fiction and look at the facts regarding international relations today, we find them shockingly different. Do nations honor treaties? We find not the slightest evidence that they do. When countries break treaties, there are no courts to judge them. Therefore, whether a treaty is honored or not depends entirely on the financial and military powers of the countries involved. Money and soldiers are not for the protection of existing principles; they are the instruments for the creation of principles where none exist.

There are those moralists who would sit and wait for the day when all wars would end. Yet in my opinion the Western nations are growing ever stronger in the skills of war. In recent years, these countries devise strange new weapons and day by day increase their standing armies. One can argue that that is truly useless, truly stupid. Yet if others are working on being stupid, then I must respond in kind. If others are violent, then I too must become violent. International politics is the way of force rather than the way of virtue—and we should accept that.”

Yukichi Fukuzawa, Japanese intellectual, Commentary on the Current Problems, 1881

Ideas similar to those expressed in the passage would contribute most directly to which of the following?

Japanese imperialist policies in East and Southeast Asia in the first half of the twentieth century

“The German people once built up a colonial empire without robbing anyone and without violating any treaty. That colonial empire was taken away from us unreasonably.

First, it was said that the natives in those colonies did not want to belong to Germany. But, who asked them if they wished to belong to some other power and when were these natives ever asked if they had been content with the power that formerly ruled them?

Second, it is stated that the colonies were not administered properly by the Germans, but Germany had these colonies only for a few decades and they were in a process of development. Third, it is said that the colonies are of no real value. But, if that is the case, then they can be of no value to any other state.

Moreover, Germany has never demanded colonies for military purposes, but exclusively for economic purposes. It is obvious that in times of general prosperity the value of certain territories may decrease, but it is just as evident that in times of distress such value increases. Today, Germany lives in a time of difficult struggle for foodstuffs and raw materials. Sufficient imports are conceivable only if there is a continued and lasting increase in our exports. Therefore, as a matter of course, our demand for colonies for our densely populated country will be put forward again and again.”

Adolf Hitler, German chancellor, speech delivered in the German parliament, 1937

In the context of the late 1930s, the arguments that Hitler makes in the last paragraph are most significant in explaining how

imperialist aspirations contributed to motivating the policies of fascist states

“The German people once built up a colonial empire without robbing anyone and without violating any treaty. That colonial empire was taken away from us unreasonably.

First, it was said that the natives in those colonies did not want to belong to Germany. But, who asked them if they wished to belong to some other power and when were these natives ever asked if they had been content with the power that formerly ruled them?

Second, it is stated that the colonies were not administered properly by the Germans, but Germany had these colonies only for a few decades and they were in a process of development. Third, it is said that the colonies are of no real value. But, if that is the case, then they can be of no value to any other state.

Moreover, Germany has never demanded colonies for military purposes, but exclusively for economic purposes. It is obvious that in times of general prosperity the value of certain territories may decrease, but it is just as evident that in times of distress such value increases. Today, Germany lives in a time of difficult struggle for foodstuffs and raw materials. Sufficient imports are conceivable only if there is a continued and lasting increase in our exports. Therefore, as a matter of course, our demand for colonies for our densely populated country will be put forward again and again.”

Adolf Hitler, German chancellor, speech delivered in the German parliament, 1937

The point of view that Hitler expresses in the first three paragraphs is most directly significant in helping to explain how which of the following contributed to starting the Second World War?

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

“The German people once built up a colonial empire without robbing anyone and without violating any treaty. That colonial empire was taken away from us unreasonably.

First, it was said that the natives in those colonies did not want to belong to Germany. But, who asked them if they wished to belong to some other power and when were these natives ever asked if they had been content with the power that formerly ruled them?

Second, it is stated that the colonies were not administered properly by the Germans, but Germany had these colonies only for a few decades and they were in a process of development. Third, it is said that the colonies are of no real value. But, if that is the case, then they can be of no value to any other state.

Moreover, Germany has never demanded colonies for military purposes, but exclusively for economic purposes. It is obvious that in times of general prosperity the value of certain territories may decrease, but it is just as evident that in times of distress such value increases. Today, Germany lives in a time of difficult struggle for foodstuffs and raw materials. Sufficient imports are conceivable only if there is a continued and lasting increase in our exports. Therefore, as a matter of course, our demand for colonies for our densely populated country will be put forward again and again.”

Adolf Hitler, German chancellor, speech delivered in the German parliament, 1937

Based on the historical situation in which the speech was given, Hitler’s most significant motivation for giving the speech was likely to continue to

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

ANNUAL REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES OF THE AFRICAN FRENCH COLONY OF TOGO, 1938

(in French francs)

Revenues
Direct taxes on the people	7,933,000
Taxes on domestic production and imports	22,870,000
Revenue from postal service and telegraph	1,130,000
Funds from the French colonial budget	8,744,000
Other income	3,380,000
TOTAL	44,057,000
Expenditures
Colonial official salaries and other expenses	17,600,000
Public works, communication and infrastructure	4,885,000
Sleeping sickness-related personnel and other medical costs	2,700,000
Other expenditures	15,259,000
TOTAL	40,444,000

The figures are from a report of the Togo colonial government to the Ministry of Colonies in Paris.

The table best supports which of the following conclusions?

European powers maintained colonies despite global war and economic depression.

“The peace conditions imposed upon Germany are so hard, so humiliating, that those who had even the tiniest hope for a ‘just peace’ are bound to be deeply disappointed. Our condemnation of the lust of power and conquest that Germany displayed during the war is strong and unwavering. But a condemnation of wartime actions must not amount to a lasting condemnation of an entire nation.

The question is not whether the Germans have been led astray by their leaders, or whether they have been willing accomplices in the misdeeds of those leaders—the question is, whether it is in the interest of mankind to punish the German people as the Entente governments seem to have decided to do.

The Entente evidently desires the complete annihilation of Germany. Not only will its whole commercial fleet be confiscated, but its shipbuilding yards will be obliged to work for the foreigner for some time to come. Whole regions of Germany will be entirely deprived of their liberty; they will be under a committee of foreign domination, without adequate representation. The financial burden is so heavy that it is no exaggeration to say that Germany is reduced to economic bondage. The Germans will have to work hard and incessantly for foreign masters, without any chance of personal gain, or any prospect of regaining liberty or economic independence.

This ‘peace’ offered to Germany is a mockery of President Wilson’s principles. Trusting in these, Germany surrendered and accepted peace. That confidence has been betrayed in such a manner that all Germans must now feel that they wish to shake off the heavy yoke imposed on them by the cajoling Entente. And we fear very much that they will soon find the opportunity to do so. Chained and enslaved, Germany will always remain a menace to Europe.”

Algemeen Handelsblad, Dutch liberal newspaper, editorial on the Treaty of Versailles, June 1919

The mention of “President Wilson’s principles” is most directly significant to understanding the editorial’s point of view about the Treaty of Versailles because of the United States president’s commitment to

broker a peace agreement on liberal principles that would not be motivated by revenge

“The peace conditions imposed upon Germany are so hard, so humiliating, that those who had even the tiniest hope for a ‘just peace’ are bound to be deeply disappointed. Our condemnation of the lust of power and conquest that Germany displayed during the war is strong and unwavering. But a condemnation of wartime actions must not amount to a lasting condemnation of an entire nation.

The question is not whether the Germans have been led astray by their leaders, or whether they have been willing accomplices in the misdeeds of those leaders—the question is, whether it is in the interest of mankind to punish the German people as the Entente governments seem to have decided to do.

The Entente evidently desires the complete annihilation of Germany. Not only will its whole commercial fleet be confiscated, but its shipbuilding yards will be obliged to work for the foreigner for some time to come. Whole regions of Germany will be entirely deprived of their liberty; they will be under a committee of foreign domination, without adequate representation. The financial burden is so heavy that it is no exaggeration to say that Germany is reduced to economic bondage. The Germans will have to work hard and incessantly for foreign masters, without any chance of personal gain, or any prospect of regaining liberty or economic independence.

This ‘peace’ offered to Germany is a mockery of President Wilson’s principles. Trusting in these, Germany surrendered and accepted peace. That confidence has been betrayed in such a manner that all Germans must now feel that they wish to shake off the heavy yoke imposed on them by the cajoling Entente. And we fear very much that they will soon find the opportunity to do so. Chained and enslaved, Germany will always remain a menace to Europe.”

Algemeen Handelsblad, Dutch liberal newspaper, editorial on the Treaty of Versailles, June 1919

Which of the following accurately explains the historical significance of the harsh conditions imposed on Germany that the editorial describes?

They encouraged the rise of political extremism in Germany.

“The peace conditions imposed upon Germany are so hard, so humiliating, that those who had even the tiniest hope for a ‘just peace’ are bound to be deeply disappointed. Our condemnation of the lust of power and conquest that Germany displayed during the war is strong and unwavering. But a condemnation of wartime actions must not amount to a lasting condemnation of an entire nation.

The question is not whether the Germans have been led astray by their leaders, or whether they have been willing accomplices in the misdeeds of those leaders—the question is, whether it is in the interest of mankind to punish the German people as the Entente governments seem to have decided to do.

The Entente evidently desires the complete annihilation of Germany. Not only will its whole commercial fleet be confiscated, but its shipbuilding yards will be obliged to work for the foreigner for some time to come. Whole regions of Germany will be entirely deprived of their liberty; they will be under a committee of foreign domination, without adequate representation. The financial burden is so heavy that it is no exaggeration to say that Germany is reduced to economic bondage. The Germans will have to work hard and incessantly for foreign masters, without any chance of personal gain, or any prospect of regaining liberty or economic independence.

This ‘peace’ offered to Germany is a mockery of President Wilson’s principles. Trusting in these, Germany surrendered and accepted peace. That confidence has been betrayed in such a manner that all Germans must now feel that they wish to shake off the heavy yoke imposed on them by the cajoling Entente. And we fear very much that they will soon find the opportunity to do so. Chained and enslaved, Germany will always remain a menace to Europe.”

Algemeen Handelsblad, Dutch liberal newspaper, editorial on the Treaty of Versailles, June 1919

Which of the following true statements about the Netherlands best explains how the newspaper’s national origin likely influenced the view of Germany expressed in the editorial?

The Netherlands, by remaining neutral during the war, profited significantly from helping Germany evade the Entente’s naval blockade.

The global economic downturn of the 1930s had which of the following effects on nations in Europe and North America?

Governments took a more active role in directing and regulating their economies to stimulate growth.

“The way in which the nuclear weapons that we are now developing are first used will be of fateful importance. Our primary objective once the war is over should be to reach an international agreement on the total prevention of nuclear warfare. From this perspective, using nuclear weapons against Japan may easily destroy all our chances of success.

A demonstration of the new weapon might best be made, before the eyes of representatives of all nations, in a desert or on a barren island. Then America could argue, ‘We are ready to renounce the use of these weapons in the future if other nations join us in this renunciation and agree to the establishment of an efficient system of international control.’

If an international agreement is not concluded immediately after the first use of nuclear weapons, this will mean a flying start toward an unlimited armaments race. However, once an international peace agreement is achieved, then the technology and materials accumulated in the process of developing the weapon can be used for important peacetime developments, including power generation and mass production of radioactive materials. In this way, the money spent on wartime development of nuclear technology may benefit the peacetime development of the national economy.”

James Franck, German-born scientist developing nuclear weapons technology for the United States, report to the United States government, 1945

Which of the following developments during the Second World War would Franck most likely have cited as evidence to support his arguments in the passage?

Allied firebombing in Germany and Japan had caused massive devastation and civilian casualties, and atomic weapons were vastly more powerful than those used in firebombing.

“The way in which the nuclear weapons that we are now developing are first used will be of fateful importance. Our primary objective once the war is over should be to reach an international agreement on the total prevention of nuclear warfare. From this perspective, using nuclear weapons against Japan may easily destroy all our chances of success.

A demonstration of the new weapon might best be made, before the eyes of representatives of all nations, in a desert or on a barren island. Then America could argue, ‘We are ready to renounce the use of these weapons in the future if other nations join us in this renunciation and agree to the establishment of an efficient system of international control.’

If an international agreement is not concluded immediately after the first use of nuclear weapons, this will mean a flying start toward an unlimited armaments race. However, once an international peace agreement is achieved, then the technology and materials accumulated in the process of developing the weapon can be used for important peacetime developments, including power generation and mass production of radioactive materials. In this way, the money spent on wartime development of nuclear technology may benefit the peacetime development of the national economy.”

James Franck, German-born scientist developing nuclear weapons technology for the United States, report to the United States government, 1945

Which of the following arguments would a supporter of using nuclear weapons against Japan have most likely cited to explain the limitations of Franck’s arguments in the first and second paragraphs?

Japanese government propaganda instilled fierce, suicidal nationalism in the Japanese population, making Japan unlikely to surrender unconditionally without experiencing the effects of nuclear weapons.

“The way in which the nuclear weapons that we are now developing are first used will be of fateful importance. Our primary objective once the war is over should be to reach an international agreement on the total prevention of nuclear warfare. From this perspective, using nuclear weapons against Japan may easily destroy all our chances of success.

A demonstration of the new weapon might best be made, before the eyes of representatives of all nations, in a desert or on a barren island. Then America could argue, ‘We are ready to renounce the use of these weapons in the future if other nations join us in this renunciation and agree to the establishment of an efficient system of international control.’

If an international agreement is not concluded immediately after the first use of nuclear weapons, this will mean a flying start toward an unlimited armaments race. However, once an international peace agreement is achieved, then the technology and materials accumulated in the process of developing the weapon can be used for important peacetime developments, including power generation and mass production of radioactive materials. In this way, the money spent on wartime development of nuclear technology may benefit the peacetime development of the national economy.”

James Franck, German-born scientist developing nuclear weapons technology for the United States, report to the United States government, 1945

Contemporaries who agreed with Franck’s argument in the second and third paragraphs regarding the need for an international agreement would most likely have made which of the following arguments to support their position?

The end of the war would probably lead to a new rivalry between the victorious states.

DAVID OLÈRE, FRENCH JEWISH PAINTER, WHO SPENT MORE THAN TWO YEARS (MARCH 1943 TO MAY 1945) AS AN INMATE IN AUSCHWITZ AND OTHER NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMPS, THE FOOD OF THE DEAD FOR THE LIVING, PAINTED CIRCA 1950

 

The implementation of the policies of extermination shown in the image is most directly explained by which of the following aspects of Nazi ideology?

The idea that minority populations within Germany were somehow responsible for its defeat during the First World War

DAVID OLÈRE, FRENCH JEWISH PAINTER, WHO SPENT MORE THAN TWO YEARS (MARCH 1943 TO MAY 1945) AS AN INMATE IN AUSCHWITZ AND OTHER NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMPS, THE FOOD OF THE DEAD FOR THE LIVING, PAINTED CIRCA 1950

 

The image can best help explain which of the following differences between the Nazi program of genocide and other acts of genocide in the early twentieth century?

The Nazis industrialized the killing process, allowing them to commit murder on a massive scale.

DAVID OLÈRE, FRENCH JEWISH PAINTER, WHO SPENT MORE THAN TWO YEARS (MARCH 1943 TO MAY 1945) AS AN INMATE IN AUSCHWITZ AND OTHER NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMPS, THE FOOD OF THE DEAD FOR THE LIVING, PAINTED CIRCA 1950

 

Which of the following most directly explains the Nazis’ ability to carry out the policies of extermination shown in the image?

Local populations collaborated with the regime either out of racial prejudice, fear, or hopes for material gain.

INDIAN MUSLIM TROOPS IN THE BRITISH ARMED FORCES PRAYING. PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN IN SURREY, ENGLAND, 1916

FPG / Staff

 

In the background, a group of British civilians, mostly women, are watching the troops pray.

The situation shown in the image is best understood in the context of which of the following aspects of twentieth-century warfare?

States made full use of their populations and material resources to fight total wars.

Which of the following countries experienced the greatest number of war-related deaths during the Second World War?

The Soviet Union

A historian researching the motives of the perpetrators of the Holocaust would find which of the following sources most useful?

Letters and publications written by Nazi leaders before the Second World War

“Many years later [Prime Minister] Clement Attlee wrote that, if someone asked him, ‘What exactly, did Winston [Churchill] do to win the war?’ he would have to say ‘talk about it.’ Edward R. Murrow, the American news correspondent, said much the same thing when he wrote of Churchill’s mobilization of words. The effect of his speeches to the nation on British morale is incalculable and can be described, without hyperbole, as transforming. . . . Churchill’s words also gripped the attention—as they were meant to—of both politicians and people in the United States and anywhere else that an English-speaking population had access to them. They seriously irritated the Nazis and arguably contributed to Hitler making ill-advised strategic decisions such as switching [German] bombing raids in Britain from airfields to civilian centers. . . . [The speeches themselves] were the first great battle of the Second World War, fought and won, not with Hurricanes* and Spitfires* but with words, passion, and history. . . .

In the year that followed the German invasion of France [in May 1940], there was overwhelming evidence of a new-found British social cohesiveness and mutual loyalty. The complete isolation of Britain, fighting on alone, which Hitler not unreasonably assumed would make it a soft target, had precisely the reverse effect. Churchill turned on the ‘island nation’ rhetoric, and the British people across all classes, with very few exceptions, echoed him. . . . It is impossible not to be struck by the degree to which Britain, which had been such a divided society between the wars, managed to pull together when it mattered most. . . . The unions and employers, so bitterly at odds for so long, now worked together . . . so that no undue [government] pressure needed to be applied to have factories, many of them, of course, staffed by women, working 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The collaborative push made a critical difference to the production of munitions in general, but especially of war planes, which in turn made the difference between winning and losing the Battle of Britain.”

*British military aircraft used during the Second World War

Simon Schama, British historian, A History of Britain: The Fate of Empire, 1776-2000, book published in 2002

Which of the following would best support Schama’s argument in the first paragraph about the role of Churchill’s speeches in Great Britain’s war effort?

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

“Many years later [Prime Minister] Clement Attlee wrote that, if someone asked him, ‘What exactly, did Winston [Churchill] do to win the war?’ he would have to say ‘talk about it.’ Edward R. Murrow, the American news correspondent, said much the same thing when he wrote of Churchill’s mobilization of words. The effect of his speeches to the nation on British morale is incalculable and can be described, without hyperbole, as transforming. . . . Churchill’s words also gripped the attention—as they were meant to—of both politicians and people in the United States and anywhere else that an English-speaking population had access to them. They seriously irritated the Nazis and arguably contributed to Hitler making ill-advised strategic decisions such as switching [German] bombing raids in Britain from airfields to civilian centers. . . . [The speeches themselves] were the first great battle of the Second World War, fought and won, not with Hurricanes* and Spitfires* but with words, passion, and history. . . .

In the year that followed the German invasion of France [in May 1940], there was overwhelming evidence of a new-found British social cohesiveness and mutual loyalty. The complete isolation of Britain, fighting on alone, which Hitler not unreasonably assumed would make it a soft target, had precisely the reverse effect. Churchill turned on the ‘island nation’ rhetoric, and the British people across all classes, with very few exceptions, echoed him. . . . It is impossible not to be struck by the degree to which Britain, which had been such a divided society between the wars, managed to pull together when it mattered most. . . . The unions and employers, so bitterly at odds for so long, now worked together . . . so that no undue [government] pressure needed to be applied to have factories, many of them, of course, staffed by women, working 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The collaborative push made a critical difference to the production of munitions in general, but especially of war planes, which in turn made the difference between winning and losing the Battle of Britain.”

*British military aircraft used during the Second World War

Simon Schama, British historian, A History of Britain: The Fate of Empire, 1776-2000, book published in 2002

Which of the following best explains why Schama uses the claim that the British government did not have to apply any “undue pressure” on either factory owners or factory workers during the war?

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

1. Scientists have reached general agreement in recognizing that mankind is one: that all men belong to the same species, Homo sapiens. . . .

10. The scientific material available to us at present does not justify the conclusion that inherited genetic differences are a major factor in producing differences between the cultures and cultural achievements of different peoples or groups. . . .

14. The biological fact of race and the myth of “race” should be distinguished. For all practical social purposes “race” is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth. The myth of “race” has created an enormous amount of human and social damage. In recent years it has taken a heavy toll in human lives and caused untold suffering.

A. According to present knowledge there is no proof that the groups of mankind differ in their innate mental characteristics, whether in respect of intelligence or temperament.

B. There is no evidence that race mixture as such produces bad results from the biological point of view.

C. All normal human beings are capable of learning to share in common life, to understand the nature of mutual service and reciprocity, and to respect social obligations and contracts.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), statement about the “science of race,” 1949

The declaration’s mention of a “heavy toll” in the third paragraph was most likely a reference to which of the following?

The deaths that occurred during the Holocaust