IB MOCKS Flashcards
Ideology as a cause of WW1?
Ideology caused WW1
Example: The pre-eminence of nationalism, which can be seen in the Balkans
The collapse of the Ottoman Empire that began in 1908 + increasing threats to the A-H
–> Increase in Nationalism
How did the Balkan Wars lead to WW1 (Ideology)?
1st and 2nd Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913 –> Serbia wanted to become Independent
This led to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in 1914
It was the expression of Pan-Slavism that allowed this to happen
Criticisms of Ideology as a reason for WW1?
Independent magazine 1914
“the financial system of the world is in chaos, that international commerce is suspended, that industries are everywhere demoralized and families ruined.”
How did Ideology cause WW2?
Hitler’s Nazm was an ideology that prioritised war as a key element, as best evidenced by the foreign policy pursued by the German state through the 1930s in Austria and eventually Poland.
Hitler’s Nazm was based as it was on the expressed desire for Lebernsraum in the East, was a belief system that met its ideological match in both liberal democracy and communism
The ideological underpinning of each war, however, was closely linked to the need for imperial expansion
Compare and Contrast the Ideology of Pan-Slavism and Hitler (Ideology as a cause) WW2?
This could not be said of Pan-Slav nationalism in the abstract, whereby the contrast Hitler’s aggressive and radicalise Nazism desired war and expansionism by design
The Second WW2 can therefore more easily be defined as a war between ideologies where WW1 is much harder to define as such
Ideology did indeed paly its role in WW1 , but as part of a much larger collection of disparate causes, rather than as the main cause in and of itself
Direct Area of Contrast between Imperialism?
Can be seen in the Balkans
A-H concerns in the Balkans seemed to be the maintenance of an existing empire, being torn apart by the various national groups contained within, rather than the aggressive acquisition of territories outside of it.
This, therefore, is a helpful area of contrast- it could hardly be argued that Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan’s imperial ambitions were based around the maintenance of an already existing empire
How did Alliances cause ww1?
As a direct consequence of the economic factors, just discussed and the militarism strongly associated with it, events in Sarajevo eventually led to the triggering of both the Triple Alliance and Tiple Entente against each other that started the war in 1914
Turned small –> big
How did Alliance cause WW2?
Similarly, alliances played a role in WW2
Nazi Soviet Pact that gave Hitler the confidence to invade Poland in Sep 1939, knowing that his agreeing with the Soviets avoided the potential threat of war on two fronts.
How did Alliance cause WW2?
Similarly, alliances played a role in WW2
Nazi Soviet Pact that gave Hitler the confidence to invade Poland in Sep 1939, knowing that his agreeing with the Soviets avoided the potential threat of war on two fronts.
Contrasts for Alliance?
Time Period and Intentions
Alliances had been in place for decades (in the case of Britain’s guarantee of Belgian neutrality in 1839) or at least several years
Neither seemed to be create with express for War
Nazi-Soviet pact –> war orientated
Similarly, lack of foresight on the part of Germany
In First, this can be seen through the lack of foresight of Belgian neutrality in 1914 and in 1939 through Hitler’s belief that Br and France would continue their policy of appeasement, were he to invade Poland, which has been abandoned in March
Alliances were, therefore, the catalyst for war in both the First and Second World Wars, if not the underlying cause.
Evidence that WW1 was a total war shown by Women?
800K women served in the USSR armed forces
18,0000 women working at radar stations and erecting barrage balloons in Britain
Hastings - “Every nation sought to glamourise the role of women”
Criticisms to evidence that WW1 was a total war shown by Women?
Faced discrimination in terms of
wages –> significantly lower than their male counterparts
Was there a total War in Germany as evidenced by the Role of Women?
No
refused to mobilise 1/2 of population due to the concerns of male trade unions about pay cuts.
December 1916 ‘Auxiliary service for the Fatherland’ law.
Requiring all adult males between…17 and 60 to perform “war work”’ (Daniel, 1917) ‘ultimately excluded women’ due to trade unionists (Grayzel).
Was there a total War in other European countries due to the role of Women?
Women’s paid employment increased by 400,000 in Britain (WWI)
Russian women mobilised ONLY VOLUNTARILY
‘Women such as Flora Sandes and the members of the Russian Women’s Battalions of Death experienced combat first-hand by choice’ (Grayzel)
Women 26% - 43% in workforce
The economy as evidence for a total war in WW2?
- DEFENCE OF THE REALMS ACT 1915: Government could requisition any land or buildings deemed necessary for the war effort.
-Britan’s production of shells increased 1000%.
1914 - Rationing for both sides introduced
- Ministers and departments took control of economic production, determining production targets, allocating manpower and resources.
War loans were heavily raised.
1916 - Hindenburg and Ludendorff
- Produced the oberster kriegsmat (Supreme war office) which dictated all war activity, including economy.
Criticisms to Evidence for total war in the economy in WW2?
Idea of total war in WW1 could be refuted, as in France, war-time distribution left to groups of privately owned companies, each responsible for own wartime need (ie shells or rifles). This worked in principle, however, not as well as places which did fully nationalise, such as Germany.
Evidence for a total war in the economy: WW2
1939 - Rationing introduced
50-61% of their total GDP to munitions productions.
Germany ideals of expansion outwards could be fuelled as desire for raw resources.
Technology as a sign of Total War: WW1?
military developments such as the machine guns (600 round per minute) and heavy artillery (70% of all casualties).
Chemistry – Chemical weaponry was used like chlorine gas and phosgene gas
Tanks were too slow and unreliable to break stalemate – had no effect suggesting there was not total war in regards to use of tanks – however the tanks were in early development at this time so neither power really had any opportunity to use them the same way as they were in ww2. Armour couldn’t resist artillery which has been established as a crucial part of ww1.
War at sea became a major factor for both sides which hadn’t been utilised quite this way before. Ships could cut of food supplies and control of trade routes became essential in regards to resources – total war in this aspect.
Germany used U-boats (submarine attacks) to sink merchant ships. Sea mines were also used on enemy ships along with the development of torpedoes and submarines making large battleships vulnerable unlike before ww1.
Some sinking of ships was done to neutral countries though (USA getting hit and joining the allies changing the war outcome hugely) - neutrals getting pulled into war was relatively uncommon and more countries means more conflict and more war – total war.
Starvation from ships – public of Britain were reduced to only six months’ worth of corn with over 1 million tonnes of shipping lost in 4 months from naval attacks – public struggle from technology – total war.
Aircraft were a recent invention for ww1. Pilots used heavily for scouting and eventually dogfights started taking place which was previously unseen.
Bomb dropping on enemies and resource dropping on allies was common and played a significant role in trench warfare. However, compared to ww2 it was limited and therefore not a total war in the same sense.
Criticisms of Technological Developments Total War: WW2
- Too dependent on wind for usage it never made any real impact – not total war in regards to chemical weaponry.
Importance of Industrial Power in determining the outcome of the War?
WW2: JAPAN
Less industrially advanced
Failed to organise its industrial production fully and allowed women to join the war to late
They were conquered by the US, who had begun preparing for a long-term war by mid-1941 with the Victory Programme when it was not yet involved in the war
Importance of Industrial Power in determining the outcome of the War?
WW2: Russia
Not industrialised
- Lack of comprehensive railway –> Could not fully supply the home front
- They were less equipped than the Germans and Austrian-Hungarians who had very efficient systems due to the proximity of their home front and their front lines(s)
Peasant based economy, only recently came out of serfdom
Criticisms of the importance of Industrial Power in determining the outcome of the War?
WW2: Russia
However, one could argue they do have technological advancements
they have the access to some of the most advanced oil supplies in the world.
Couldn’t use this effectively
Why was the war in the air to a small extent significant in WW1?
Military aircraft were used primarily for reconnaissance in WW1
Called ‘scouts’
Also used to supplement land attacks
Example: Middle East - BR + Aus used artillery and then managed to pursue the Turkish at the Battle of Megiddo in 1918
New tech - only used for scouting
Criticisms of the argument that the War in the Air was not useful?
Can be argued that it was effective
Used the air superiority of 2:1 to photograph German positions at Amien
Allowed the Brits to conceal their attacks and prevented Germany from doing the same
LLoyd George argued in parliaments that having aircraft were so important that the number of aircrafts went from 2:1 –> 5:1
