Napoleonn 2nd midterm

1. In 1848, German nationalists had failed to achieve a unified Germany. When was a German nation-state finally created, and by whom and how? Carefully explain the process of German unification (Merriman, p. 672 ff.). Who (i.e., which states and/or peoples) was included, and who was excluded, from this new German nation-state?

The German nation-state was finally created in 1871 by Otto von Bismarck through a series of wars and diplomatic maneuvers. Prussia led the unification, defeating Denmark (1864), Austria (1866), and France (1870–71) to consolidate German-speaking states under Prussian dominance. The German Empire, proclaimed in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles, included Prussia and other German states but excluded Austria and non-German minorities. This “Kleindeutschland” solution ensured Prussian leadership and sidelined Austrian influence.

2. Between 1848 and the eve of World War I, how did some of the goals and constituencies of European nationalism change? Mention three important changes. Carefully explain your choices of examples.

Between 1848 and World War I, nationalism shifted from liberal to conservative hands, as leaders like Bismarck used it to consolidate power. Nationalism also became more ethnic-based, leading to exclusionary policies against minorities such as Jews and Slavs. Finally, nationalist movements grew more aggressive, fueling imperial expansion and militarism, as seen in Britain and Germany. These shifts made nationalism a more divisive and destabilizing force in Europe.

3. By the eve of World War One, which European states felt most threatened by the rising tide of nationalism, and why? Pick two examples of states threatened by nationalist movements. Carefully explain your points.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire felt threatened by nationalist movements from Slavs, Hungarians, and other ethnic groups seeking independence. Similarly, the Ottoman Empire faced nationalist uprisings in the Balkans, where Serbian and Greek movements sought to break away. Both empires struggled with internal fragmentation due to rising nationalist sentiments. This instability contributed to tensions leading up to World War I.

4. Roughly when did the Second Industrial Revolution occur, and what were some of its distinctive features that set it apart from the First Industrial Revolution? Name three important distinctive features and explain your choices (see Merriman, History of Modern Europe, p. 752 ff.).

The Second Industrial Revolution (c. 1870–1914) was distinct due to advances in steel production, electricity, and chemical industries. Mass production and assembly lines revolutionized manufacturing, increasing efficiency. Transportation and communication improved with automobiles, airplanes, and the telephone, fostering global economic integration. These innovations reshaped urban life, labor structures, and global trade. The growth of “white collar” service jobs. There was a trend towards greater business concentration and cartels. 

5. How did attitudes towards women’s role and the family begin to change during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? Discuss specific examples of reform proposals covered in class. Which larger social, economic, and/or political shifts helped give rise to these new demands for gender reforms (Merriman, p. 765 ff.)?

Attitudes toward women and family roles shifted as demands for education, suffrage, and workplace rights grew. Reformers like Emmeline Pankhurst pushed for women's voting rights, while socialists advocated for better labor protections. Economic changes, such as industrialization, allowed women to work outside the home, challenging traditional domestic roles. These demands reflected broader shifts toward democracy and social justice.

6. What were some of the key features of the system of state-regulated prostitution, or, “regulationism”? What light does regulationism shed on larger aspects of gender roles and attitudes towards sexuality in late nineteenth and early twentieth-century Europe (see Flexner, “Berlin Regulations,” Canvas)?

Regulationism, the state-controlled system of prostitution, subjected women to medical exams while men faced no restrictions. This system reflected broader gender inequalities, treating women as sources of disease while reinforcing male dominance. It revealed societal anxieties about female sexuality and control over women’s bodies. The system underscored the era’s double standards in morality and legal rights.

7. What were some of the characteristics of the “new imperialism” emerging during the second half of the nineteenth century (Merriman, History, p. 830 ff.)? How was the new imperialism different from earlier eras and forms of European/western colonialism? Name three important differences and explain your choices.

New imperialism (c. 1870–1914) was characterized by direct territorial control, economic exploitation, and racial justifications for dominance. Unlike earlier trade-based colonialism, it involved formal annexation and intense competition among European powers. Technological advances, such as machine guns and steamships, enabled deeper penetration into Africa and Asia. These changes fueled imperial rivalries and global conflicts.

8. Who (i.e., which groups in European society) supported colonial expansion during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and what were their reasons for doing so?

Supporters of colonial expansion included industrialists seeking raw materials, politicians aiming for national prestige, and missionaries spreading Christianity. Economic motives drove businessmen to exploit resources and labor in colonies. Nationalists saw empire-building as a sign of strength, while social Darwinists framed it as a natural hierarchy. These groups justified imperialism as a civilizing mission.

9. How did the new imperialism impact Europeans’ attitudes toward race and racial “difference”? How would you explain the rise of scientific racism in the late 1800s?

New imperialism reinforced racial hierarchies, portraying Europeans as superior to colonized peoples. Scientific racism, influenced by social Darwinism, classified races hierarchically, justifying colonial rule and discrimination. Pseudoscientific theories about skull size and intelligence fueled policies of segregation and exclusion. These ideas deeply shaped European attitudes and colonial governance.

10.  Is it possible to draw connections between the new imperialism and the intensification of antisemitic and racist prejudices within European societies? Why/Why not? Carefully explain your argument.

The new imperialism intensified antisemitic and racist prejudices by promoting exclusionary nationalism and racial superiority theories. Colonization normalized racial hierarchies, which were later applied within Europe, exacerbating antisemitism. Jews and non-European minorities were increasingly portrayed as threats to national purity. This racialized thinking laid the groundwork for extreme nationalist and racist ideologies in the 20th century.

11.  Name specific historical examples that illustrate the ways in which the new imperialism helped spark political and military tensions between different European nations. Is it correct to argue that imperialism contributed to the outbreak of World War I?

New imperialism fueled tensions between European nations, as seen in the Fashoda Crisis (1898) between Britain and France and the Moroccan Crises (1905, 1911) between Germany and France. These rivalries heightened distrust and reinforced military alliances. Imperial competition also contributed to the Anglo-German naval arms race, further escalating hostilities. Imperialism played a key role in World War I’s outbreak by intensifying nationalist rivalries and militarization.

12.  Name two long-term (pre-1900) factors that contributed to the outbreak of WWI. Carefully explain your choices of factors.

One long-term factor was militarism, as European powers built massive armies and developed aggressive war plans like Germany’s Schlieffen Plan. Another factor was the alliance system, which divided Europe into rival blocs (Triple Alliance vs. Triple Entente), ensuring that a conflict between two nations could escalate into a continent-wide war. These structural tensions made war increasingly likely. Imperial competition further deepened hostilities.

13.  Name two short-term (post-1900) factors that contributed to the outbreak of WWI. Carefully explain your choices of factors.

Short-term factors were the 1905 and 1911 Moroccan Crises, which heightened Franco-German tensions and reinforced alliances. Another was the Balkan Wars (1912-1913), which weakened the Ottoman Empire and emboldened Serbian nationalism, making Austria-Hungary increasingly hostile toward Serbia. These conflicts destabilized Europe and set the stage for war.

14.  Compare the nature of warfare in World War I Europe to the nature of warfare during Europe’s colonial wars of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Where do you see some important similarities, and where do you see important differences? Carefully explain your points.

World War I featured industrialized trench warfare, mass conscription, and prolonged battles, unlike colonial wars, which relied on smaller, mobile forces and technological superiority over poorly armed local populations. Both types of warfare involved brutality, but WWI’s scale and technological destruction (machine guns, artillery, gas) were unprecedented. Colonial conflicts, such as the Boer War, foreshadowed WWI’s use of concentration camps and scorched-earth tactics. WWI was a war of attrition, whereas colonial wars were often swift and asymmetric.

15.  Which factors help explain why the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, escalated so quickly into a major world war? Name three distinct factors. (Merriman, History, especially pp. 874-898.)

The assassination escalated due to Austria-Hungary’s harsh ultimatum to Serbia, backed by Germany’s “blank check” of support. Russia, as Serbia’s ally, mobilized in response, triggering Germany’s war plan against France and Russia. The alliance system ensured that Britain, France, and other powers were drawn in rapidly. Nationalist fervor and militarism made peaceful resolutions unlikely.

16.  Why do historians call World War I the “first modern total war”? Which aspects of the war illustrate particularly well its “total” nature? (Merriman, History, p. 899 ff.; in addition, consult lecture slides entitled “WWI and total war,” on Canvas, which contain a definition of total war.)

Historians call WWI the first total war because it mobilized entire societies, not just armies, with economies, industries, and civilians fully engaged in the war effort. Propaganda, rationing, and war production reshaped daily life. The war blurred civilian and military distinctions, as cities were bombed and economies were militarized. Governments expanded their control, setting a precedent for future total wars.

17.  The conditions of total war during 1914-18 created revolutionary situations in Russia and other European countries. How did this work? Focusing on the Russian case, discuss two major wartime developments that helped undermine the Tsarist regime and create a revolutionary situation (Merriman, A History, 934-951).

In Russia, food shortages and economic collapse fueled mass discontent, leading to strikes and protests. The war’s military failures, including the heavy losses on the Eastern Front, undermined support for the Tsar. The February Revolution (1917) forced Tsar Nicholas II to abdicate, as soldiers and workers turned against the regime. Continued war efforts under the Provisional Government further radicalized the population, leading to the Bolshevik Revolution.

18.  Use the poetry of Owen, Sassoon, and Pope to discuss wartime perceptions of gender roles and relations between male soldiers and women at the home front. From reading Owen and Sassoon, one could get the impression that conditions at the home front were completely different—i.e., protected, removed from the brutalities of industrial warfare, etc.—from soldiers’ experiences at the front. To what extent is that impression accurate (see Merriman, esp. p. 899-905)?

Owen and Sassoon’s poetry highlights the horrors of the front, contrasting them with the patriotic and naïve portrayals of war at home, such as in Pope’s work. Women were depicted as pressuring men to fight (as in “Who’s for the Game?”), reinforcing traditional gender roles. The impression of the home front as entirely removed from war is somewhat misleading, as civilians faced food shortages, bombings, and grief. However, soldiers’ brutal experiences in the trenches created a profound disconnect between the front lines and civilian life.

19.  What were some important ways in which WWI created new tensions over European colonial rule in Africa and Asia? Name one wartime development that made it potentially harder to justify the legitimacy of European colonial rule over African and Asian peoples.

WWI exposed European hypocrisy, as colonized peoples were expected to fight for their oppressors while being denied self-rule. African and Asian soldiers who served in European armies saw the contradictions in colonial rhetoric about civilization and democracy. The war weakened European economies, making colonial control harder to maintain. Rising nationalist movements, inspired by Wilson’s rhetoric of self-determination, further challenged imperial rule.