11 Modern

History
Syllabus
Question
Booklet
The following questions are based on your syllabus dot points.
They are revision questions to help you write – they do not come with sources.
You must add at least 2 sources to each question yourself.
It is not sufficient to only rely on this booklet, redo your source questions in your textbook
and binder booklet, including other resources handed out.

CONTESTABILITY OF THE PAST – PEARL HARBOR

1. Explain how historians test hypotheses about the Pearl Harbor through the
corroboration of sources.
To understand the context and reason why historical events occur, historians create hypotheses to
investigate whether their viewpoints are true. They do this by collecting a series of sources as
evidence to support their theories, such as the Advanced Knowledge Theory concerning the Pearl
Harbour Attack during December 1914 of WWII. This hypothesis tests the US motives behind joining
the war, and whether they had knowingly allowed the P.H attack to occur to get involved. Such
hypotheses are assessed by historians using primary sources from the time of the event, such as
street interviews conducted by the US Library of Congress, to record the reactions of American
citizens after the Pearl Harbour attack, called the Archive of American Folk Song. Accessible via
online forums, historians are provided with authentic evidence to investigate the reactions of these
interviewees and deduce whether the theory that the widespread public opposition of joining the
war within the American community, prior to the Pearl Harbour attack was true. This is a significant
argument against the Advanced Knowledge theory and is hence crucial in allowing historians to test
hypotheses about the Pearl harbour attack.

2. Discuss problems associated with the evaluation of sources: authenticity, and

reliability and usefulness for particular historical inquiries.
In order to evaluate sources effectively, historianss must contest the nature of the sources, including
it’s context, origin, audience and intention. Historians check the evidence in primary sources and
compare it to sources that have already been determined to be “trustworthy”. Then, they look at
secondary sources that express different points of view to get a clear idea of what happened and
determine a successful historical opinion. However, issues of authenticity, reliability and usefulness
arise when two sources of similar context conflict, creating further confusion as to which theory of a
hypotheses is correct, such as testing the Advanced Knowledge Theory of Pearl harbour. For
instance, the censorship of Japanese textbooks during the 1960s and 1970s demonstrates an
unreliable view of the history of the Pacific War. Written with a nationalistic agenda, the details of
war were either ignored or presented in such a way that they absolved Japan of all guilt, to filter the
content learned by young Japanese students, and uphold their national pride. This instils sources
with bias, causing the impressionable students to misunderstand the information being taught at
schools. As a result, this crucial source of evidence is unreliable and hence, cannot be used by
historians to investigate historical inquiries, such as Japan’s involvement and militarism of the Pearl
Harbour attack and the Advanced Knowledge Theory.

3. Describe the importance of understanding the historical context of Pearl Harbor in the
interpretation of sources.
When interpreting sources, it is crucial to understand the historical context of Pearl Harbour to
indicate instances of bias and identify the credibility of these historian’s statements as the attack on
this port is one event on the scope of World War II. In an excerpt from Saburo Ienga’s book “A
Critical Perspective on Japan’s Role in WWII”, he intends to share an outsider’s perspective of the
Pacific War during World War II, He does this by stating the book is a form of critic and opinion,
which indicates a subjective bias. He contests the viewpoint of Japanese nationalist author, Izezaki
Tadataka by arguing against the Japanese government and military, causing a conflict in opinions.
Their contestation allows for a wider range of viewpoint on the two historians, who, despite their
similar ethnic background, hold different opinions on Japan. However, Tadataka’s book may be
considered a product of its context in Japan’s history as it was written during the peak of Japanese
militarism. This suggests that the pride and nationalistic ideals of Japan prior to their downfall could
have altered the opinion of the Japanese author. The Pearl Harbour contests the title of the book,
“Why Fear the United States?”, as it led to the US’s victory over Japan. Therefore, by understanding
to context of the Pearl Harbour attacks, such as the time and people involved in the events, sources
can be effectively interpreted.
4. Evaluate the role of sources and evidence in the evaluation of different theories about
the past.
The hypothesis surrounding the Pearl Harbour Attack in December 1941, deemed the Advanced
Knowledge Theory, was the speculation of whether the U.S was aware of the Pearl Harbour attack
prior to it occurring and if they had planned to utilise this event as an excuse to join the war. In
support of this theory, four major US military warships, including the USS Yorktown aircraft carrier,
was not affected in the P.H attack, as they were located on the Atlantic. Here, the question arose as
to why Japan would attack Pearl Harbour if they knew the aircraft carriers were not there and if the
aircraft carriers had been moved just prior to the attack, the theory purports that the U.S must have
known about the attack. Similarly, aircraft carriers are always accompanied by cruiser ships,
destroyer classes and battle ships, which carry very strong radars. Also, supporting the theory are
2/3 of the radars were working on the day of the attack, according to the track of carrier task force
for Pearl Harbour, questions arise as how the US failed to detect any of the surrounding Japanese
aircrafts prior to, or even during the attack. Moreover, Message B on November 30th, from Private
Secretary of Winston Churchill is abruptly omissed after the mention of “averting war between
Japan and our” which sparks questions surrounding what and why further information was
censored, and its correlation with the Advanced Knowledge Theory. On the other hand, in
opposition to this theory, the US’s concern with avoiding the war is demonstrated on November 26th
1941, in which the US officials released a 10-point document insisting Japan withdrew their troops,
demonstrating that the U.S was adamant on avoiding the war within Japan and did not expect the
attack. Further support for this ideal is the widespread public opposition of joining the war within
the American community, prior to the pearl Harbour attack. Their adamant attitude to remaining
neutral demonstrates that the US must have not intentionally allowed for the Pearl Harbour attack
to occur, thus, forcing them to engage in the war in defence. On the same day, Japan overtly
disregarded this plan and initiated the “Japanese Hawaii operation”, launching the aerial attack on
Pearl Harbour and triggering the dispute with the US. Hence, through the evaluation of several
primary sources during the attack on Pearl Harbour, different theories about the past can be tested
effectively, creating two oppositions which support either argument.
 CASE STUDY 1: THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMANOV DYNASTY

HISTORICAL CONTEXT.
1. Describe the origins and nature of the Russian Empire.
The Russian Empire originated in 1500 alongside other bordering Empires: The Ottoman Empire and
the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Made up of a majority of orthodox Christians, ethnicities residing in
the Russian Empire mainly consisted of Slavic, with minority populations of other European
backgrounds and religions, such as Catholic Christians an, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists. Prior to the
Romanovs. Russia experienced a variety of rulers. The first Tsar, Ivan IV (deemed ‘Ivan the Terrible’),
who faced many conflicts with the Ottomans and expanded Russian territory immensely. Peter the
Great, the Austria-Hungarian ruler from 1672-1725 initiated the modernisation of the Russian army
and navyand sparked the industrial revolution towards the end of his reign. Catherine the Great
expanded Russia into Siberia and ruled Russia alone from 1762-1796, leading Russia into full
participation in the political and cultural life of Europe by embracing the arts and reorganised the
law. Another significant Russian leader was Alexander II who established the Trans-Siberian railway
system, acting as a steppingstone to international relations and trade. By the time Tsar Nicholas was
in reign, Russian society was organised as an upper class of royals and nobility (12.5%), the working
class (4%) and the peasants (82%). However, the true significance of the rule of each Tsar was their
rule of autocracy, which was later inherited by Tsar Nicholas II. Such political ideals present
throughout the Russian empire led to the accumulation of civil unrest and rebellious social ideals
contributing to the Russian Revolution in 1917.

2. Outline Russia’s relationships with foreign powers

During the reign of Alexander II, the Trans-Siberian railway was built in 1891-1916 to protect Russian
Pacific Ocean territories and transport goods around Russia and it’s bordering countries, such as
Ukraine and Siberia. This allowed Russia to settle Siberia, harvest its natural resources and expand
trade with East Asia. This railroad transformed Siberia by industrialising the region and spurring
soviet leaders to mine the region’s plentiful raw materials, as well as ultimately assisting with the
concept of trade and industrialisation, later expanding to the borders of Russia and influencing
international trade. However, Russia’s defeat in the Russo-Japanese war caused national
embarrassment, as it was the first occasion in history that a modern European country was defeated
by an Asian power. This exposed Russia’s military and industrial weaknesses to the world, as well as
their corrupt government system, gaining international attention, and created a negative
connotation of Russia in terms of the foreign powers. According to historian Streitch Phillip (2016),
“Internationally, it shattered long-standing beliefs in European military dominance, triggered a major
loss of prestige for Russia, removed any doubts about Japan’s status as the newest great power, and
redefined the balance of power in the Far East.”

NATURE OF DECLINE.
3. Describe the Romanov empire at the time of Nicholas II, including political, economic
and social grievances
In the 1890s of Romanov Russia, the industrial development led to a large increase in the size of the
urban middle-class and working class, which gave rise to a more dynamic political atmosphere and
the development of radical parties. This came to be due to the production of the Trans-Siberian
railway, which was built to allow Russia to settle Siberia’s expansion, harvest its natural resources,
and expand trade with East Asia. This transformed Siberia by industrialising the region and spurring
Soviet leaders to mine the region’s plentiful raw materials. During the 1890s and early 1900sl bad
living and working conditions, high taxes, and land hunger gave rise to more frequenting civil strikes
against Nicholas II’s autocracy. Russia’s delayed systems for agricultural production, the worst in
Europe at the time, influenced the attitudes of peasant and other social groups to reform against the
government and promote social changes such as Russia’s social hierarchy, which consisted of the
upper class of royals and nobility (12.5%), the working class (4%) and the peasants (82%). In 1904-05,
the Romanovs suffered an immense defeat against Japan in the Russo-Japanese War, marking the
first occasion where an Asian power defeated a modern European power. According to historian Dr.
Marjorie Bloy, the “reign characterized by defeat at the hands of Japan and political violence". (Bloy,
2013), When this occurs, the 1905 revolution uprises, a year of riots and disturbances, leading the
development of the October Manifesto. This concession was issued by Nicholas II to help stop the
civil unrest in Russia by promising political reform and establishing the countries first constitution,
however, this is ineffective and dissolves after 10 weeks. During the beginning of WWI in 1914, the
Russians had gone to war against an alliance between Britain. France and Turkey in the Cimmerian
War (1853-56), where their defat prompted governmental and societal reforms in Russia.

4. Outline the role of Nicholas II as autocrat

The character of Nicholas II as an autocrat was extremely ineffective due to his personality, rarly
sharing power with the Duma. Although he was a humble, intelligent and gentle persona, such
qualities made his character vulnerable. He ruled with a mediocre and overly subjective perspective
on society and lacked political understanding despite his rule of complete authority over Russia.
Suggested by Sergei Witte (1920), the former Prime Minister of Russia, "his character is the source of
all our misfortunes” and was viewed as weak and unqualified to rule as an autocrat. Due to his
traditional mindset and lack of economical background, Nicholas caused Russia to lack social growth,
and did not allow the advancement in technology, delaying the industrial revolution. This caused
Russian society to struggle in the peasant class, allowing for poverty and slow economic growth.
Historian David Christian comments on Nicholas II’s autocratic rule, claiming "Nicholas deprived his
government of almost one-third of its revenues on the eve of the greatest war Russia had ever
fought". (Christian, 2013) Hence, Nicholas II’s role as an autocrat was extremely ineffective in the
prosperity of Russia.

5. Explain the development of opposition to the Romanovs

The uprise in the political ideologies of liberalism and socialism began to filter Russian society in the
nineteenth century. With the enragement surrounding the autocratic rule of Nicholas II, as well as
the growing miliary defeats in the Russo-Japanese War, sparked the intransigence and grievance of
the working and peasant class of Russia, escalating to the 1905 Revolution. Even though there was
some political reform and development under the rule of Tsar Nicholas II, such as the Duma and the
Russian Constitution, he severely held back societal and economic progress in Russia due to his
determination to remain an autocrat and dissolving the Duma. In comparison, Western Europe had
industrialised far before Russia, hence, any political reform lacked the effectiveness of other
Western European countries. Such political instability created astronomical civil unrest within Russia,
which led to the development of rebellious political parties against the Romanovs, for instance, the
rise of extreme politics such as communism. According to historian Richard Pipes (1994), “the
problem with Russian peasants was not oppression, but isolation. They were isolated from the
country's political, economic and cultural life, and therefore unaffected by the changes taking place
in Russia at the time.” Moreover, with the enlistment of men during the Russo-Japanese war in
1904, the mobilisations of young peasant’s and workers disrupted agriculture and food supplies,
causing mass economic inflation, placing further financial hardship and an overall discontent after
the loss of the war with Japan, furthering civil unrest in the Russian working class. As a result, the
1905 revolution occurred, where St. Petersburg workers peacefully advocated for the Tsar to
introduce trade unions to protect the rights of the working class and establish a more representative
and supportive government body to allow freedom of religion and cultural conduct for the ethnic
minorities such as Ukrainians and the Polish. However, they were faced with brutal retaliation by
Russian troops, who killed around 100 Russian workers and wounded several hundreds. This marked
a great turning point in Russian history, where the common class came to the realisation that the
Tsar’s rule was damaging their economic state. As a result, extreme political parties arose, including
the development of the Petrograd Soviet, Mensheviks and Bolshevik activities. Hence, a massive civil
opposition developed towards the Romanovs.

6. Assess the role of World War I in the collapse of the Romanov dynasty.
The decline of the Romanov power, specifically during the period of World War I, was immensely
impacted due to accumulation of several events that reflected Russia’s social and political instability.
This began after the coronation and crowning of Nicholas Romanov II in 1894, which sparked great
controversy amongst the lower social class of Russia. As the Romanov leader refused to
accommodate to the Industrialised Revolution alongside the rest of Europe, Nicholas II triggered
major civil unrest amongst the Russian civilians. The peasant class, which made up of 90% of Russia,
began to demand better pay and safer working conditions to aid with their increasing poverty. These
conditions enraged society into a large protest, soon known as “Bloody Sunday” in 1905. Wishing to
petition the Tsar to introduce trade unions, establish a representative government and implement
freedom of religion, the St. Petersburg workers were faced with lethal opposition from the Russian
military. Due to the disregard shown by the Tsar, Unions began to emerge called “The Union of
Unions” and the “Petrograd Soviet,” where universal suffrage occurred and lead to the formation
the division of society into extreme lefts. Several years later, the public humiliation amongst the
Russians was further triggered due to Russia’s lack of preparation and resource availability during
World War I. Moreover, the decline of the Romanov power was also elicited due to the political
instability of Russia. Beginning on 1904-05, the Russo-Japanese war occurred over territorial
ambitions of the opposing nations, which leads to a horrid loss for Russia after Japan destroyed the
Russian fleet at the Battle of Tsushima. Sparking civil unrest due to Russia’s lack of industrialisation,
extreme politics, such as nationalism, was established, and major political blame was enforced onto
the Romanov’s. Due to his autocratic ambitions, Tsar Nicholas II severely refrained from major
political reform, which was faced with the proposal of the “October Manifesto.” In response to this
petition, Russia enforced the Duma, which acted as a parliament body under the Tsar’s rule.
However, this was greatly unsuccessful and only increased civil unrest. By the end of World War I,
the Russian politics are humiliated due to their inexperience and lead to further mistreatment by
other European nations. Hence, the Romanov decline occurred due to several social and political
factors by 1917.

7. Explain the transfer of power from the Romanov regime to the Provisional
Government
Prior to February 1917, public outrage began to rise due to the loss of Russian territory, deaths and
civil agitation leading to protests in World War I, mass starvation, due to the decline in agrarians,
resulting in inflation of food and resources. These harsh conditions sparked great civil unrest
amongst the Russian lower class, leading to the development of extreme politics, in attempt to
overthrow their corrupt and inexperienced government. This led to the February Revolution, where
large protests began. On February 23, 1917, the women of Russia protested in Petrograd to demand
increased food and bread portions due to the lack of resources in the aftermath of the chaotic war.
Faced with retaliation from the government, riots were sparked on February 24, 1917, where
students and workers joined with anti-government signs, which went on for eight days of constant
protest, and lethal retaliation. As a result, Tsarist officials are arrested, and symbols of the Tsarist
regime are destroyed, leading to the rise of the Duma government, who take over and diminish the
absolute power of the Tsar who then abdicated on March 2nd and later, his brother Michael
abdicates, resulting in the permanent loss of a Tsar in Russia.

This liberal Duma, otherwise known as the Provisional Government, ruled with dual authority,
meaning it had shared power with the Petrograd Soviet - consisting of the Mensheviks and Social
Revolutionaries – established on March 12, 1917. Under this new government, the Russia continues
to participate in World War I to meet obligations amongst the allies and desired that a victory would
bring additional civil support to the Provisional Government. However, this ongoing war created
national hatred of the war, which swayed society towards the extremist political party, the
Bolsheviks, leading to a wide support to overtake the government. Protests began to generate
nationwide in July 16-20, 1917, by the Petrograd workers and soldiers, who gained the support of
the Bolsheviks and adapted their ideologies to eliminate dual authority, naming the event the July
Days.
Suggested by 2011 historian Nikita A. Khlystov, “Given the events of the July Days, such a sharp
reaction was a blunder that mad the October Revolution inevitable. The protestors, who had been
denied their demands and now were being severely repressed, had become extremely radicalized:
to them, peaceful negotiation was no longer a possibility.” (Khlystov, 2011) Here, the provisional
government orders to shoot protestors, which further enrages the public, gaining increased support
for the Petrograd Soviet. During this time, Vladimir Lenin, who was previously exiled on the borders
of Germany and Switzerland, is sent by Germany to further increase civil turmoil, with the motive of
forcing Russia out of the war. Although Lenin is immediately re-exiled to Finland, he remains in
contact with the Bolsheviks, specifically former Menshevik, Leon Trotsky.

This conflict lead to the Kornilov Affair in August 1917, where General Kornilov was provided with
great authority by the head of the P. Govt, Kerensky for aid, attempting to establish a military coup
to take over. Kerensky then arms the Bolsheviks with weapons and releases previous prisoners of
the protests. This leads to a mass accumulation of Bolshevik supporters with the support of the Red
Guard and the Russian working class. After the abuse of power from both parties, the coup does not
occur as Kornilov’s army never succeeded in their venture to Petrograd, the Red Guard refuses to
return arms, and the Bolsheviks prove that they can fix this crisis, unlike the lack of power from the
Provisional Government. This gains mass civil support, resulting in becoming the largest left-wing
party. Eventually, these events accumulate to the main Russian revolution, the October Revolution
1917, due to the rise of Bolshevik power, with both Lenin and Trotsky on the forefront, and utilise
their civil support to overtake the government with ease.

HISTORICAL ISSUE/DEBATE.
8. Discuss the execution of the Romanovs OR the role of ethnic minorities in the Russian
Empire under Nicholas II (note: we did execution of the Romanovs in this dot point).
After his abdication on March 15 1917, Nicholas returned to Petrograd and remained under house
arrest in the Winter Palace from March – August 1917 and were later moved by Kerensky to the east
of Urals for their protection from Bolshevik opposition, where they lived a life of luxury until the civil
war, where supplies were cut off and the working class retaliated against the government.
Surrounding the time of the Russian Civil War, the decision was taken by the Bolshevik party (Reds)
to assistance the entire Romanov family to prevent their being rescued by the anti-Bolshevik forces
(Whites), and the possibility of Nicholas being restored to the throne, as it was assumed that the
Whites do this. The Russian Imperial Romanov family were shot and bayoneted to death by the
Bolshevik Revolutionaries by Yakov Yurovsky on the Orders of the Ural Regional soviet in
Yekaterinburg. Historians assumed Lenin ordered the killings to occur, however there is no physical
or documentary evidence to support this theory. Suggested by historian Anastasia Edel (2017), “The
lack of proof worked in the Bolsheviks’ favor. With their grip on power solidified, they were keen to
distance themselves from the bloodshed on the very foundations of the state they were building.“
(Edel, 2017). The assassination occurred on the 17th of July 1918 at the Ipatiev House, Russia, where
the bodies were moved into a ‘secret burial’ spot in the forest and doused with acid before they
were officially buried. After 70 years, the bodies of the Romanov family were discovered in 1979 by
Russian amateur investigators. They used a government report on the Romanov execution,
publicising the matter later due to fear of retaliation and public outrage, and revealed that what
they had found was the Romanov burial site. Here, they discovered the remains of Nicholas II and his
wife, Alexandria, alongside all but one of their daughters and their son, Alexis, who’s skeleton has
yet to be discovered. The bodies of the last members of the Romanov dynasty were originally said to
have been thrown into a mineshaft before being burned and hurriedly buried by the Reds.
Yurovsky’s men also confiscated the jewellery hidden in their clothing, as according to Yurovsky’s
account, “it had been so hard to kill the daughters”, and ensured they were pierced by the bullets
and other weapons used to assassinate them. However, debate sparked surrounding the possibility
of the survival of the youngest Romanov princess, Anastasia. Particularly, a young woman, Anna
Anderson, of similar characteristics to the princess was found at a canal in Berlin in 1920, who
claimed to be the tsar’s youngest daughter, intriguing historians to investigate the survival of the
Romanov bloodline. However, through mDNA analysis, it was found that the true body of the
missing Romanov children were discovered in 2008, satisfying the Anastasia mystery beyond a
reasonable doubt.
 CASE STUDY 2: THE MAKING OF MODERN SOUTH AFRICA

HISTORICAL CONTEXT.
1. Outline an overview of British colonies, the Boer Republic and African kingdoms
c.1890.
From 1880-1900, Britain, amongst other European empires, enforced its imperialist aggression onto
Africa due to the discovery of its ample valuable natural resources such as gold and diamonds, and
gained control over southern and north-eastern Africa. Simultaneously, African societies put up
various forms of resistance against the attempt to colonise their countries and impose foreign
domination, however, Britain was motivated by three main factors: economic, political and social.
The Boer Republic (or Boer states) were independent, self-governed Republics in the last half of the
nineteenth century, created by the Dutch-speaking inhabitants of the cape colony, and their
descendants names the Voortrekkers, who were established the Transvaal and Orange Free State.
Due to British colonisation, the Boer’s faced British annexation and were displaced from their
colonies, faced with changing laws and ways of life. This ultimately led to civil retaliation, escalating
to the First Boer War, which resulted in a British victory, asserting its dominance. Moreover, African
Kingdoms existed prior to and during European settlement, including the Rozwi Empire – Zimbabwe
region in the North East of Africa and the Ndwedwe Kingdom in the east of South Africa.

2. Discuss and describe British perceptions of Southern Africa.

Three key motivations drove European imperialism's advance into Africa: economic, political, and
social gain. Following the collapse of the slave trade's profitability, its abolition and prohibition, as
well as the rise of the European capitalist Industrial Revolution, arose in the nineteenth century.
Britain was the world's largest empire, and it was known as the "sun never sets" empire. The Dutch,
on the other hand, started the trans-Atlantic slave trade (from West Africa to North and South
America), which was continued by subsequent European powers. In comparison to French and
British colonies, Dutch colonies were tiny and had dispersed communities. The Dutch, who
controlled the global spice trade, arrived at South Africa in the 1600s to create new farming estates
and to express Calvin Protestantism freely. Later into the settlement, resource wealth in South Africa
is discovered, specifically diamonds and gold, as well as other highly valuable minerals. Due to the
durable properties and high value of diamonds and gold, the market is taken by the control and
monopoly of the De Beers, hence, wealth is increased. Historian Stanley Trapido (2008), “British
settlers not only obeyed the laws of the market but attached themselves to imperial strategic
objectives although they quickly sought to ensure that these helped foster their own”. Overall, by
1950, the colonial imperialists grew more powerful and wealthy, leading to the eventual apartheid
of modern South Africa.

THE NATURE OF MODERN SOUTH AFRICA 1890–1910.

3. Explain the impact of the exploitation of diamonds and gold, and the transformation
of the Veld by African labour
The Boer Republics were independent, self-governing republics established in the last half of the
nineteenth century by Dutch-speaking residents of the Cape Colony and their descendants. These
settlers arrived in South Africa in the 1600s to build new farming estates and openly practise
Calvinism. The trans-Atlantic slave trade (from West Africa to North and South America) is started by
the Dutch, and it is continued by other European powers. In 1806, the United Kingdom took control
as colonial authority at the Cape of Good Hope from the Netherlands. Following that, numerous of
its Dutch-speaking residents went inland, initially in small groups, then in groups of about a hundred
individuals, and finally in groups of hundreds around 1834. The language rules were one of the initial
causes for the Boers' departure from the Cape Colony. The British had declared English to be the
only official language of the Cape Colony, prohibiting the use of Dutch. During the Great Trek, Boer
migrants were known as the Voortrekkers, and many large migrations occurred in the 1830s and
1840s. A prime example of the impact of European colonisation of the African Kingdom is the
downfall of the Kingdom of Zulu. The Zulu Kingdom, often known as the Zulu Empire or the Kingdom
of Zululand, was a Southern African kingdom. The Zulus were initially faced by the Boers before
coming face to face with the British. The Boers began migrating northwards across the Orange River
to build their own state as a defence against the British. Both conducted wars against one other
during 1838. At the Battle of Blood River on December 16, 1838, 15000 Zulu warriors assaulted a
troop of 470 Voortrekker settlers headed by their commander, Pretorius, and suffered a crushing
loss. The British Empire invaded in 1879, kicking off the Anglo-Zulu War, and defeating the Zulu
Kingdom. The area was absorbed into the Colony of Natal and later became part of the Union of
South Africa. According to historian Stephen Ocheni (2012), the loss of the African Kingdoms
“dehumanized African labour force and traders. It forced Africans to work in colonial plantations at
very low wages and displaced them from their lands.” As a result, the Veld was established due to
such mining in South Africa, which was an open rural landscape which Boer republics aross as “a
scattered community of farmers…who required very little administrative machinery and preferred a
minimum government.” (Macimillian 1949, 117). Therefore, the British and Dutch colonisation of the
African Kingdom effectively destroyed the traditional customs of South Africa, and successfully
achieved their aims of colonisation: land, wealth and society.

4. Explain the nature of race relations in South Africa.

In South Africa, race relations were the social concept which became particularly explosive during
colonisation and during the apartheid period in 1948. Such distinguishable characteristics of races
and ethnicities were determined by one’s ancestry, territorial progression, language and religion.
Africa consisted of several ethnic groups which were in separate homelands, with a majority working
as peasants, or self-providing groups in their economy such as agriculture. The Black population of
South Africa was divided into two major ethnic groups: the Nguni People, who made up most of the
population, and consisted of the Zulu, Xhosa, Ndbek and Swizi African kingdoms; and the Sotho
people, who consisted of the northern and southern Sotho, Twana and Venda tribes. In urban areas,
Africans were housed in Urban townships or ethnic lines, where Indians, coloureds and Africans
were allocated different facilities such as schools. In the respected region, there were more than ten
languages within Africa, grouped into the Nguni and Sotho Languages. The white population was
made up of 60% Afrikaans, who were the South African Dutch population, and 40% of British decent.
These race relations, however, created tension between the racial factions, particularly between the
Boers and British, which ultimately led to the Boer War of 1899-1902.

5. Outline the role of the following individuals in South Africa

a) Cecil Rhodes
Cecil Rhodes served as Prime Minister of Cape Colony from 1890-1896, and was a financer,
statesman and ultimately, the empire builder of British South Africa. Born in Bishop Stortford, United
Kingdom on July 5th, 1853, Rhodes’ significant impact on south Africa was the foundation and
organisation of the DeBeers diamond-mining firm, which until recently, controlled the global trade.
He had a firm belief that the Englishman was the greatest human specimen in the world, and that his
rule would be a benefit to all. Stated when he was 24 years old, “The object of which I intend to
devote my life is the defence and extension of the British Empire,” demonstrating that he was a
great imperialist who believed he was obligated by God to spread British rule across the world. After
the discovery of diamonds in 1874, Rhodes decided to gain control over the production and
distribution of diamonds (oligopoly) in order to avoid cyclical boom and bust of the diamond
industry and launched the De Beers Consolidated Mines mining company in April 1888. Sited by
coup, Barney Barnato at the time, “Rhodes had an extraordinary ascendancy over men”,
characterising Rhodes as ambiguous. However, it became clear that Rhodes was not after the
monetary gain of the De Beer’s success, however, merely sought for “power” as he informed
reporter Hans Sauer.

b) Nathan Mayer Rothschild

The Rothschilds were a wealthy Ashkenazi Jewish family, originally from Frankfurt, that rose to
prominence with Mayar Amschel Rothschild. Nathan Myer Rothschild, born on the 16th of
September 1777 in Frankfurt, Germany, impacted south Africa as he consolidated the De Beers
company, establishing banks and finance agencies to execrate the diamond field.

c) Jan Smuts

6. Describe the causes, course and consequences of the South African War (2nd Boer
War) 1899–1902.
The causes of the South African War arose due to the conflict between the British colonisers and the
Boers Republics from the Transvaal Republic and Orange Free State, following the expansion of the
British Empire, issues in the exploiting Transvaal government for diamonds and gold, the British
annexation of the Transvaal and the Boer opposition to the British rule in the Transvaal. The Second
Boer War prevailed within 3 phases. The first Phase of the war occurred when Boer armies attacked
the British on 2 fronts, who were unprepared and militarily unprepared. Northern districts of the
Cape Colony rebelled against the British and joined the Boer forces, defeating the British in late 1899
and early 1990, where the Boer victory was deemed “Black Week” on December 10-15, 1899. Cities
involved during this phase involved Northern Cape Colony, Orange Free State, Kimberly, and the
South African Republic. In phase 2, with heavy reinforcements and the assumption of overall
command by Lord Roberts with Lord Kitchener as his Chief of Staff, the British turned the situation
around. Imperial troops eventually relieved the besieged towns of Ladysmith (28th February 1900),
Kimberley (15 February 1900) and Mafeking (18th May 1900). On 13th March 1900 Roberts
occupied Bloemfontein, the capital of the Orange Free State, and on 28th May the province was
annexed and renamed the Orange River Colony. The Transvaal was annexed on 1st September
1900. President of the SAR at the time, Paul Kruger, evaded capture and fled to Europe, but was
unsuccessful in his attempts to gain viable assistance in the fight against the British. At the end of
the 1900, the war entered upon it’s most destructive phase. Boer commanders held British troops at
bay, using hit-and-run guerrilla tactics. Under the leadership of Louis Botha, Christiaan de Wet, Jan
Smuts and de la Rey, the Boers abandoned the British style of warfare and increased their reliance
on small and mobile military units. In response, the British embarked on a scorched earth policy to
deny supplies to the fighters. This was followed by several 'drives' which produced large numbers of
displaced Boer and African families. As a result of the war, Boer’s recognised the British annexation
of their republics. Fighting continued until the Boers finally accepted the loss of their independence
until the Boers finally accepted the loss of their independence with the peace of Vereeniging in May
1902. Smuts opted to negotiate for peace based on British suzerainty, promises of local self-
government, swift restoration and efficient management of the gold mines, and the alliance of Boers
and Britons against black Africans, eventually leading to apartheid policies. Ultimately, “the South
African War of 1899-1902 was the culmination – if not inevitably so – of a hundred years of British
domination of the region.” (Trapido, 2008)

7. Explain the creation of the Union of South Africa and its segregationist policies.
The creation of the Union of South Africa was founded on May 31, 1910, which unified Cape Colony,
the Natal Colony, the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. Coloureds and Indians in the
Transvaal, led by Mohandas K. Gandhi, resisted discriminatory legislation. During the Boer War, most
black South Africans identified with the British cause. Milner had hoped to withhold self-rule from
whites until "there are three men of British race to two of Dutch". Until the end of apartheid, almost
nine-tenths of South Africa belonged exclusively to whites. Hertzog government achieved a major
goal in 1931 when the British Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster. The two parties aimed
to help the enfranchised over the unenfranchised, all of whom were black.

HISTORICAL ISSUE/DEBATE.
8. Outline the causes of the Boer War
There were several causes of the First Anglo-Boer War: the expansion of the British Empire,
problems within the Transvaal government, the British annexation of the Transvaal, the Boer
opposition to British rule in the Transvaal and the discovery of Gold and Diamonds.
 SHAPING OF THE MODERN WORLD - WORLD WAR I
25-mark essay; 1000 words; one historian source per paragraph

HISTORICAL CONTEXT.
1. Outline the influence of nationalism, imperialism, militarism and alliances on Great
Power rivalry by the end of the 19th century.

The Great Powers of the First World War were Great Britian, Russia and France, as well as Germany,
Austria-Hungary and Italy. Such accumulation of tension during the end of the 19th century was
caused by the extremist political ideologies of nationalism, imperialism, militarism and alliances.
Thus, the escalation of rivalry between the Great Powers ultimately carried into the early 20th
century, and ultimately the outbreak of World War I.

By the end of the 19th century, nationalism immensely influenced the Great Power rivalry at an age
where all nations wanted to assert their power and independence, often tied to militarism.
Nationalism is the extreme pride or patriotic feelings towards one’s country, causing rivalry and
conflict between the 6 major powers in the struggle to dominate each other. In Europe, Slavic
peoples of eastern European wanted to be free of Austrian rule, under the nationalist ideology of
Pan-Slavism. This aimed to unite the Slavic people of Eastern Europe, particularly Russians and
Serbians who made up the largest nationalities of Slavs, who had previously been divided between
the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Russia used this nationalistic wave, however,
to support its plans of gaining control over the Turkish Straits, and in case of Serbia’s actions
threatened Russia’s national interests, it was ready to abandon its Pan-Slavic rhetoric (McMeekin,
2011. Such nationalist tendencies around the world led to the escalation of national competition,
triggering the enforcement of related ideals such as imperialism, militarism, and hence, the
formation of alliances.

Moreover, imperialism astronomically developed across the Great Powers due to the rise of
nationalism towards the end of the 19th century and growing in prominence in the early 20th century.
Imperialism consisted of all the great powers competing for colonies and territories, ultimately
pushing countries into alliances. In particular, western European nations viewed the issue of having
numerous overseas colonies as a show of might (Kelly, 2018). By 1914, Great Britain had the largest
empire, with its main competitor, France. However, the British feared German colonial ambitions in
South Africa as well as its economy, as its manufacturing output advanced far beyond Great Britain
by the early 20th century. In an alliance with Japan for its colonies, Britain no longer fears Russia due
to its loss in the Russo-Japanese war in 1905. On the other hand, the rise of pan-Slavism threatened
Austria’s expansion to the Balkans, as the Russian empire spread rapidly, however, was quite useless
due to its lack of political and economic expansion. Hence, the battle for land sparked great tension
between the Powers of World War 1.

To further assert a nation’s political interests during the early 20th century, militarism relied on the
use of military force to create further conflict between the Great Powers. The largest militaries
during the first world war were Germany, followed by France and Russia, who raced to expand their
armies to intimidate its opposing nations. Between 1880 and 1914, the three nations greatly inflated
their military, with Germany increasing from 1.3 million soldiers to 5.0 million soldiers, France
increasing from 0.73 million soldiers to 4.0m soldiers slightly less than Germany, and Russia
increasing from 0.40 million soldiers to 1.2 million soldiers. Specifically, Britian feared an attack on
their empire from France and Germany due to their military dominance, where Europe is said to be
“plagued by jealousies, hatred and suspicions that threaten peace” (E.M. House, 1914). German
military figures, such as Count Alfred von Schlieffen utilised his large military to attempt the
Schlieffen Plan with the aim to cause the French to surrender their military by raiding Paris through
Belgium in 6 weeks, however, was unsuccessful. Thus, militarism created intense rivalry between the
Great Powers by the end of the 19th century.

Due to the competition between the Great Powers, a web of alliances developed in Europe between
1870 and 1914, effectively creating two camps bound by commitments to maintain sovereignty or
intervene militarily – the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente. Suggested by historian, “the alliance
system was basically an attempt at trying to form collective security,” (Fogarty, 2014),
demonstrating the motives behind forming the alliances. The Triple Alliance originated as the ‘Dual
Alliance’ in 1979 due to Slav rebellions in the Balkans, joining Italy and the Ottoman Empire in 1882
to pledge military aid in the occurrence of a war. On the other hand, Russia feels threatened by the
formation of the Triple Alliance and sign a treaty with France in 1893. In 1904 – 1907, France and
Great Britain become allies due to the threat of Germany’s industrial advancements to geologically
surround them, forming the Triple Entente, who is later joined by Italy in 1915 as the Triple Alliance
declines in power. As a result, the Great Power rivalry was influenced by the end of the 19th century.

Overall, the extreme political ideals of nationalism, imperialism, militarism and the formation of
alliance ultimately shaped the uprise of the war, creating conflict and amassed tension between the
Great Powers towards the end of the 19th century.

THE NATURE OF WWI.

2. Describe the outbreak of war in 1914, the Western and Eastern fronts, and why it
became the world’s first global conflict.

The outbreak of the First World War was sparked by the assignation of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of
the Austro-Hungarian Empire on June 28, 1914. He was killed in Bosnia by Serb nationalist, Gavrilo
Princip, who was a member of the Black Hand terrorist organisation, had the intent to unite all Slavs
into one country under Pan-Slavism. However, the Austro-Hungarian empire responded to abolish
Slav nationalism. By implementing harsher laws and indoctrinate the Serbs into a separate nation.
The assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serb was a perfect excuse for Austria-
Hungary to start a war on Serbia and prevent the Slavic nationalism from spreading (McMeekin,
2011). In response, Russia mobilises its troops as Tsar Nicholas II declares war Austria in support of
Serbia on July 31, 1914. Germany declares war on Russia after Russia declines its ultimatum to
remobilise, and despite the threat if German invasion, France joins Russia into the German
declaration of war on August 3, 1914.

As war began to break out on the Western Front, Germany established the Schlieffen Plan in fear of
the war occurring on its eastern and western borders. The 6-week plan involved avoiding French
defences by invading France through Belgium to the city of Paris by foot, with the intent of finishing
a western front war and re-deploying all its troops to the East of Russia. However, the plan was
unsuccessful due to France’s strong military defence, as it was designed for an era when armies
numbered in tens of thousands, not in the hundreds of thousands and millions (Tipton, 2003). Here,
the German’s breached the 1839 Treaty of London Britain by mobilising its troops near its border,
hence, leading to Britain declaring war on Germany on August 4, 1914. Hence, war broke out
inevitably on the Western Front.

On the Easten Front, whilst enduring severe civil and political unrest, Russia is targeted by Germany,
who makes huge advancements into the empire in Tannenberg during August 1914. Russia suffered
the most losses on the Eastern Front due to its struggle with industrialization and poor overall
equipment for its soldiers. (Beck, 2015) Meanwhile in the Middle East, the Ottoman Empire lost
large parts of its Arab speaking territories in rebellions initiated by the British, such as T.E Lawrence
guarantying Arab’s that they would obtain a large autonomous Arab county if they rebelled against
the Ottomans. However, Britain promises Jews that they will receive a homeland with the Balfour
Declaration (1917), and secretly makes an agreement with France called the Sykes-Picot agreement
that divided Arabia into French and British Mandates. Within the political battles in 1914, trench
warfare is established on the two fronts of the war, becoming the world’s first global conflict
involving European Powers and its allies.

Therefore, the rapid nature of the outbreak of the war in 1914 on both the Western and the Eastern
Front ultimately accumulated tension between the powers, leading to the world’s first global
conflict.

3. Outline the varying experiences of soldiers in each of these key battles, eg Verdun, the
Somme, Passchendaele, Tannenberg, Beersheba etc.

During the key battles of the First World War, varying soldiers endured grave suffering and struggle
while battling their oppositions. Stretched from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the
south, the Eastern Front participated in the Battle of Tannenberg in August 1914, followed by the
Battle of Beersheba on October 31, 1917. Meanwhile on the Western Front, the military fought at
the Battle of Verdun from February to December 1916, the Battle of Somme from July to November
1916, and the Battle of Passchendaele from July to November 1917.

The Battle of Tannenberg was significant in preventing the Russian advance into Germany during the
first month of the war, while effective for the German forces that invaded the Russian Second Army.
On the Eastern Front, its wide distribution meant that its trenches were extremely ineffective in
comparison to the mobility and training of Germany’s advanced system of trench warfare, allowing
them to dominate during the battles of the Eastern Front. This is evident in the Battle of
Tannenberg, where despite Germany’s 150 000 troops being immensely outnumbered by Russia’s
250 000 trips, 78 000 Russian soldiers were killed or wounded, and 90 000 were captured as
prisoners of war, taking Germany 60 trains to carry all the Russian equipment that had been
captured. As a result, the Battle of Tannenberg effectively asserted Germany’s military power and
halted a Russian invasion.

Two months later, the Battle of Beersheba broke out in the desert sands of Palestine, where
Australian and New Zealand trips supported the British against the ottoman Empire in one of the last
great cavalry battles of modern warfare. In a battle for water due to Beersheba’s reliable water
wells, Australian troops charged with bayonets and rifles strapped to their backs, displaying the
image of modern warfare on the Eastern Front. 31 Australian soldiers were killed in the battle,
however, were successful in obtaining the wells. This victory helped consolidate British control in the
region, eventually leading to its conflict to the Middle East into present day.

On the opposite Front, the Battle of Verdun was the most sustained battle of the First World War, in
which the French suffered more than 400,000 casualties and the Germans nearly 350,000. The battle
arose from a plan of General von Falkenhayn (1861-1922), chief of the German General Staff, who
claimed that it would be possible ‘to bleed France white’ by launching a massive attack on a narrow
sector where national sentiment would force the French to ‘throw in every man they had’. Stated in
a letter from a soldier in Fort Choisel, 1916, the battle was “an unending Hell”. The battle
encompassed German arterially, who fired 23 million shells at the French, and utilised newly
developed lethal weapons such as phosgene gas and flame-throwers. In defence, the French army
accumulated thousands of soldiers which ultimately made up three-quarters of the army, to protect
Verdon, which was a fortress of symbolic importance for the French. The French were seriously
weakened by the losses in the battle, but the battle came to symbolise their fortitude. The Germans
also suffered great losses. There was no gain for either side, with more than 700 000 men killed,
wounded pr missing during the 10-month battle. Suggested by historian O’Brien Browne, The only
true winner was the monstrous inferno of the battle itself (Browne, 1998)

For a week before the battle of Somme, the German lines were bombarded by British artillery. 1.6
million shells were fired. The bombardment could be heard in London. The aim was eliminating all
German life in the trenches so that on the 1st of July, the British troops would be able to walk across
no man’s land to the German trenches without facing enemy fire. The German trenches were deep
and well-established, and they were able to survive the barrage. A German machine-gunner recalls
the first day of the Battle of the Somme as where “We didn’t have to aim, we just fired into them.”
(John, 1988). When the bombardment ended and the battle began, the Germans left their deep
bunkers, bringing their machine guns with them to the surface. Despite their victory of 8km of land,
the 1st July was the worst day in British military history with 60,000 casualties including 20,000
dead. According to historian John Terraine, “the Somme was the turning point” of the first world
war. (Terriane, 1980)

The Battle of Passchendaele occurred in a wet August, with twice the normal rainfall, combined with
the low-lying Flanders plain to make Passchendaele a battlefield of mud. Allied troops suffered
300,000 casualties in creating a dangerously exposed salient of five miles, speedily evacuated five
months later when the Germans launched their spring offensive. Passchendaele, in which the
German defenders used mustard gas for the first time, remained the supreme “hellhole of horror”
among the British and the Canadians much as Verdun did so for the French. (Palmer, 1979) With the
aim to relieve the French after losses and mutinies during the year, take the Belgian ports of
Oostende and Zeebrugge and further wear down the German through attrition, there little gain at
great cost. The Germans, in their Spring Offensive in 1918, retook all the territory taken by the
British during the Battle of Passchendaele.

In conclusion, the varying experiences of soldiers in key battles of World War I, such as the Battles of
Verdun, the Somme, Passchendaele, Tannenberg, Beersheba, were similarly as destructive to the
military stability, political dominance, and security of the soldiers that took place.

4. The extent of scientific and industrial developments in weaponry, the mechanisation

of modern warfare, advances in medicine and communications.

Due to the mechanisation of modern warfare, which was unprecedented in the world, many
advancements in technology, medicine and communication occurred to overcome the way war was
fought to a significant extent, which was in trenches and no-mans land. Inventions aimed to bypass
the barries of trench warfare, yet also prevailed past the wat to benefit the wider society.

On the Western Front, the use of mechanised weapons, such as heavy artillery guns and machine
guns, gave the advantage to defenders and prolonged the stalemate. Military leaders in WWI also
were the first to use tanks and aircraft, which could be used to counter the enemy’s artillery fire
during an attack and increase the chances of a rapid advance and victory. Heavy artillery guns fired
large shells over a long distance, however, were extremely heavy, making it difficult to transport and
often became bogged in mud or craters. Tracer bullets were used in a bayonetted rifle, which
emitted small amounts of flammable material to obliterate the enemy, which also were effective
against German Zeppelins. Aircrafts, such as the Zeppelin were developed as huge, hydrogen-filled
balloons, with the crew slung underneath in a gondola. Aircrafts were not only effective in the front
line, however, introduced raids in civilisation, such as Britain, killing thousands of women, children,
the sick and elderly. Tanks were also introduced in the war, however, were too large, limiting its
terrain of use. Chemical warfare, however, broke the deadlock on the Western front, where chlorine
gas, phosgene gas and mustard gas were used as weapons to cause bodily harm, and ultimately
death. However, the use of gas was only occasionally effective, due to the development of
protective measures such as gas masks. Amongst the gas casualties of the war, only 3 or 4 per cent
died and of those that lived nearly all of them recovered from the damages (Sibert, 1994)

In terms of communication advancements, the development of the telephone and wireless radio
systems allowed instant communication between the front line and commanding field officers, who
were behind the front line. The recent introduction of electricity- and radio-based communications
revolutionized the art of war, joining other advances such as military airplanes, tanks, machine guns
and chemical weapons. (Lallinla, 2014). However, telephone lines could be easily damaged by
artillery fire or tank movements, hence, soldiers continued to act as ‘runners’, relaying messages
amongst the trenches.

Simultaneously, medical technology was designed to save the lived destroyed by the advanced
weaponry. The war necessitated rapid developments in all areas of medicine and medical
technology. (Bell, 2018) For instance, prior to medicinal technologies in 1914, there was an 80 per
cent chance of death from a broken thigh from battle, however, in 1916, the rate changed to an 80
percent chance of survival due to the Thomas splint. Moreover, mobile facilities such as X-ray
machines were brought to the front line to station nurses and surgeons closer to the battles to treat
injuries quicker and more efficiently, using treatments such as blood transfusions. Outside the front
line, prosthetic limbs and aid in facial reconstruction improved to alter the disfigured soldiers of the
war to aid in readaptation into civilisation.

Therefore, scientific and industrial developments in weaponry, the mechanisation of modern

warfare, advances in medicine and communications were crucial to a great extent.

5. Explain the impact of the war on civilians, including women’s lives and the changing
role of women.

World War I had significant impacts on civilians, including women’s lives and the changing role of
women, declaring the war as the first modern “total war”. This meant that all aspects of the
economy and society are directed towards the war effort, resulting in greater government control of
the economy and labour. As a result, the global conflict contributed to sincere civil unrest on all
civilians at the time and increased the demand of labour and resources from the public.

On the home front, vast quantities of money and materials were needed for munition production
and food supply to aid the soldiers at war. Mobilisation required immense amounts of money, acting
as a prerequisite, which placed significant burden onto the government and hence, the working
class. Due to this pressure, the principal means of covering expenditure was borrowing finances
from abroad between allies, but primarily, the home font. As a result, all nations experienced
economic inflation, particularly in Russia, Austria-Hungary and Turkey, who verged on hyper-
inflation. The huge growth of munitions output had ripple effects across the war economies: not
least on agriculture and food supply. (Stevenson, 2014) During this state, rationing of resources such
as foods, textiles, natural resources and farm animals were distributed by the government to
prevent mass starvation and exploitation of resources owned by the state in the war. By rationing,
governments could alter the food women could obtain and eat; by imposing censorship, they tried
to restrict the information they could know or share. Another reason of the food shortages was due
to the disproportionate recruitment of young men from the countryside, where many war time
family farms were run by wives, assisted by their children and sometimes by migrant workers
provided by the Commonwealth, or even prisoners of war in Germany.
Following the outbreak of a total war, women’s lives and societal roles shifted to aid the men at war
and the civilians on the home front. Originally, women were homemakers, with the role of domestic
chores and taking care of the children and generally did not have to work. Due to the outbreak of
the war and conscription of males, opportunities rose for their introduction into the workforce.
Aiding with the production and manufacturing of goods for the soldiers such as uniform and
eventually munition, women were making vital contributions to the war effort in place of their
mobilised and absent men. (Grayzel, 2014). Soon, women were aiding the military directly by taking
on nursing roles, and in Russia, women even joined combat forces.

Although women’s roles were altered in this era, any wartime opportunities for women proved
temporary, since women lacked political rights, some women, including feminists who had worked
for women’s suffrage for years before the war, saw it as an opportunity to prove themselves worthy
of citizenship. At the time, women were deprived of the rights to education, banking work, divorce
and travel, and while some managed to obtain rights directly after the war in Europe, others did not
until the late 20th century. Feminists supported their stive for equality as some experiences at home
were comparable to those of men. For instance, due to innovations in wartime technology, some
women (and children) found themselves facing new means of waging war, such as air power and
chemical weapons, hence affected a feminised civilian population far from traditional front lines.
(Grayzel, 2014).

Therefore, it is evident that the effects of World War I on civilians, particularly on women's life and
the changing roles of women, demonstrated the nature of the total war. As a result, the worldwide
battle raised the need for labour and resources from the general population and caused genuine civil
discontent among all people at the time.

6. Discuss the scale of recruitment, conscription, censorship and propaganda in World

War I.

During World War I, the need to enlist young men into the military introduced recruitment, which
cumulatively lead to the use of propaganda to advocate for enlistment on the front line, later
extending to the home front. Such attempts to expand the army created the concept of conscription
to desperately recruit soldiers, resulting in the censorship of certain information regarding the true
nature of the war, which the government blockaded from the public.

Recruitment into the army initially relied on the voluntary enlistment of men, particularly in Britain,
who started the war with a small volunteer army of 730 000 men, eventually promoting calls for
volunteers in all areas in society and amassed more than two million volunteers by late September
1914. Similarly, the great rush of German volunteers occurred in the first 10 days of the war, where
143,992 men enlisted in Prussian units alone. Patriotic duty appears to have been a prime
motivation for soldiers, who were exposed to considerable social pressure to enlist. (Watson, 2014)

Germany asserted its numerical superiority prior to the war, due to their tradition of conscription for
military training and service, entering the war with a well-trained army of three million soldiers, and
by the end of the war, accumulated to 11 million soldiers. Similarly, France underwent conscription
of men aged 20-30, enabling the mobilisation of 2.9 million men by the end of August 1914.
Although initially relying upon voluntary enlistment, Britain introduced the conscription bill to
parliament in January 1916, due to the amounted numbers of war casualties. The bill targeted single
men from ages 18-41 initially, but expanded to also include married men, and broadened the age
from 15-51 in 1918, and by the end of the war, Britain conscripted 2.5 million men with the support
of the Empire and Allies. Hence, the First World War was fought predominantly by conscript armies
fielding millions of ‘citizen-soldiers’. (Watson, 2014). However, the conscription of men placed
additional burden on the home front, where women’s lives and societal roles shifted to aid the men
at war and the civilians on the home front.

In congruence with conscription and recruitment, propaganda was utilised in the First World War on
a global scale to mobilise hatred against the enemy, to convince the population of the justness of the
cause, to enlist the active support and cooperation of neutral countries, and to strengthen
nationalism within civilisation. The act of government-enforced persuasion prompted an
accumulation of societal expectation to support one’s nation in the global conflict through several
types of propaganda, such as patriotism and nationalism, atrocities, influencing international
opinions and enforce policies upon the home front, including women and children. Particularly, the
government often utilised atrocity propaganda to demonise the enemy to enforce a common enemy
upon which the people will unite to target and offer a scapegoat to divert attention from the civil
unrest occurring on the home front, such as starvation, political instability, inflation and high
demand for labour.

Due to the accumulation of civil unrest following the conscription of soldiers, World War 1 marked
the first-time extreme censorship was imposed by the government. Censorships of the events of the
war occurred on all forms of indirect communication such as mail, telegrams, bops, newspapers, film
and speech. Modelled along British lines, censorship was designed to stop information like troop
movements from falling into enemy hands. The total nature of the First World War significantly
relied on the advancement of technology and public opinion, which meant controlling
communications could be achieved relatively easily. Conscription ensured the home front was
maintaining a strong sense of hope, patriotism and nationalism the work force and recruitment of
soldiers was securely functioning. As a result, the First World War strengthened the state’s ability to
servile its populace in times of crisis for years to come. (Davidson, 2018).

Therefore, recruitment, conscription, censorship and propaganda were utilised on an extensive scale
in various countries, all of which had a significant impact on the war.

7. Explain the reasons for the Allied victory - ESSAY

November 11, 1918, marked the Allied victory of World War I. The Western Front of World War One
had been at a standstill for more than three years by the start of 1918. However, the Allied victory
was due to several changes in the demographic of the war, such as the allied manpower, German
Spring Offensive and surrounding of Germany’s allies, resources and victory in the seas in assistance
of the British naval blockade, the entry of the USA, and the inevitable 1918 Armistice.

The British Naval blockade immensely contributed to the victory of the Allies in World War I, where
the Allies, particularly Britain, used its unshakable navy to starve Germany and Austria-Hungary into
submission. By maintaining a blockade of enemy ports from 1914-1918, it hoped to cut off supplies
from the outside world and was successful in reducing Germany’s material power. According to
Allied commander-in-chief Ferdinand Foch, the final victory in the First World war was due 50% to
the military and 50% to the blockade. This naval supremacy of the Allies enabled them to recruit
men and gain supplies from their colonies and to buy war materials from neutral countries. Germany
fought back by using unrestricted submarine warfare, however, failed to destroy Allied naval power
and eventually, led to America’s entry into the war. While the Allied offensives lessened the material
power of Germany, insufficient food, defective equipment, and tales of the anguish at home sapped
the soldiers’ morale. (Grant, 1946). Hence, the allied manpower, resources and naval victories
against German greatly contributed to their victory of the total war.
Following the uprising manpower of the Allies, the USA declared war on Germany in 1917. Due to
Germany’s previous victory over Russia, which meant that Germany was no longer fighting a war on
two fronts and could bolster their western front with troops transferred from the east. In the spring
of 1918, the German Army, desperate for victory before the arrival of American troops, launched a
series of attacks known collectively as the “Spring Offensive”. Troops on the front were bolstered by
reinforcements transferred from the east, where Russia had collapsed into revolution. This would
cut off supplies from Britain across the English Channel. However, historians suggest that Germany
did not possess the necessary superiority in manpower to exploit the breakthrough of spring 1918
(Carr, 1989). Ultimately, their failure now meant inevitable defeat for the Germans. Germany had
suffered over 1,000,000 casualties, lost over 100,000 men as prisoners, and much of their artillery
captured. By July, American troops were joining battle in large numbers. Thus, the allies were
steadily becoming more victorious in the end of the First World War.

Submarine warfare in the Atlantic kept tensions high, and Germany's sinking of the British ocean
liner Lusitania on May 7, 1915, provoked outrage in the U.S. The United States declared war on
Germany on April 6, 1917. Sending more than a million troops to Europe, they waged in trenches
and in the air, marking the rise of such military technologies as the tank, the field telephone, and
poison gas. America's production of armaments was to meet not only its own needs but also
France's and Great Britain's. (Showlater, 2010) American loans to the Allies worth $7million between
1917 and the end of the war maintained the flow of U.S. arms and food across the Atlantic.
Therefore, the entry of the United States was the turning point of the war, making the eventual
defeat of Germany possible.

Although fighting continued elsewhere, the armistice between Germany and the Allies was the first
step to ending World War I on Nov. 11, 1918. The Armistice was the ceasefire that ended hostilities
between the Allies and Germany on the 11th of November 1918. The Armistice did not end the First
World War itself, but it was the agreement which stopped the fighting on the Western Front while
the terms of the permanent peace were discussed. In many Allied towns and cities - especially those
freed from enemy occupation - there were scenes of happiness. However, the celebratory mood was
tempered by the grief of the many thousands who mourned for the war dead. Away from the
Western Front, the signing of armistices did not necessarily mean an end to conflict. Fighting
continued while peace negotiations got under way (Sawers, 2018). Thus, the First World War
reached a gradual close, with the Allied victory in hand.

In conclusion, the German Spring Offensive, the encirclement of Germany's allies, the resources and
success in the seas in support of the British naval blockade, the admission of the USA, and the
unavoidable 1918 Armistice all contributed to the Allied triumph.

8. The extent to which World War I gave rise to the Russian Revolution - ESSAY

The effects of World War I significantly gave rise to the Russian Revolution, forcing the abdication of
Tsar Nicholas II, the rise of a provisional government and the overthrow by radical socialists. Russia
entered the war confident due to their industrial advances, however, were unaware of their
precarious political, economic and social state of their society. They were under-developed and ill-
equipped to supply a prolonged war, hence World War I created immense civil unrest, giving rise to
the Russian Revolution to a grievous extent.

Prior to the outbreak of the war, the Russian empire rested on what historian Orlando Figes called
“unstable pillars” (Figes, 2014), hence, struggled to sustain any form of dominance or stability during
the First Total War. When war was initially declared in 1914, Russia seemed optimistic that the war
would save the Romanov dynasty, where thousands of volunteers recruited into the army. By
putting aside their political differences in defence of the homeland from their common enemy,
Austria-Hungary, the Russian army mobilised on Austrian borders in the July Crisis of 1914 to uphold
their treaty to protect Serbia and uphold the ideology of Pan-Slavism. Regardless of the Tsar’s
relation to the German Kaiser, Wilhelm, Germany and Austria declared war on Russia on July 31. This
eventually influenced the beginning of Russia’s civil unrest, giving rise to the Russian Revolution to a
great extent.

Moving to assist on the Eastern Front, Tsar Nicholas II and the Romanov dynasty sparked immense
civil opposition from 1914-1915. The Tsar’s military and political inexperience lead to poor planning
and leadership tactics during battle, which led to an immense loss of 150,000 troops at the Battle of
Tannenberg in late August 1914. However, the domestic government was left under the authority of
Tsarina Alexandra rather than the prime minister, Alexander Kerensky. Due to her over reliance on
religion and superstition, influenced by Russian monk Rasputin, Alexandra’s autocratic rule created a
wave of domestic instability within Russia. Within six months of the war, the human and economic
costs badly eroded all political stability under the Tsar’s government. (Hickey, 2011). In December
1916, Rasputin was killed by aristocrats to save the monarchy, which paved the way to the Russian
Revolution. By February 1917, shortages of food and fuel were dire, the re-named capital city,
Petrograd, experienced severe delays in importing goods amongst society, and inflation skyrocketed,
ultimately causing a civil outrage and rebellion in 1917.

Replacing the tsarist regime, the Provisional Government introduced some liberal reforms, such as
freedoms of assembly and the press, and amnesties for political prisoners. Facing international
pressure due to the war, however, it refused to end Russia’s involvement in the total war. The
defeats, military follies, casualty lists and food shortages continued, and after six months, the
Provisional Government’s popularity amongst the social class had slumped. Following the decline of
the Duma in October 1917, the socialist Bolshevik Party was on the rise, emerging to seize control of
Russia, led by Vladmir Lenin, and promising Russia with “peace, bread and land”. In March 1918, the
Bolsheviks signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk after much peace negotiations with Germany, which
formally ended Russia’s involvement in the war. Here, Russia surrendered large amounts of territory,
people and fertile farmland. According to Orlando Figes, the collapse of the offensive dealt a fatal
blow to the authority of the Provisional Government, and hence, impacting the outcome of the
Russian Revolution to a critical extent.

Evidently, World War I incited the Russian Revolution, abolishing the Romanov monarchy and
delivered a new political phenomenon: social dictatorship. Causing immense civil unrest, the events
of the First World War, regarding Russia, ultimately gave rise to the Russian Revolution to an
immense extent.

9. Evaluate the idea of ‘total war’, the end of ‘empire’, and World War I as ‘the war to
end all wars’ - ESSAY

The great conflict of World War I from 28 July 1914 – 11 Nov 1918, caused severe destruction to the
economic, political and societal state around the globe. Due to its impact on the battle front, as well
as the home front, WWI is indefinitely deemed as a total war. This widespread destruction
eventually led to the end of most empires, excluding France and Britain, who only prospered after
the war. However, the war was not a “war to end all wars” as civilians had hoped, leading to the
Second World War in 1939.

Total war is the name given to a national effort in wartime, where all aspects of the workforce,
economy, civilians and soldiers contribute to the war effort, inducing both the home front and the
battle front. World War I was the first total war in history, as well as the first modern war of the
industrialised age, as it demonstrated prodigious strength, resilience and killing power. However, the
most distinguishable feature of the first World War was its use of extreme ideologies, such as
patriotism, nationalism, imperialism and militarism, believing in the power of the social hierarchy.
Such strong political opposition caused the conflict between the nations to be harsh and more
competitive, which in turn, increased tension between the Great Powers, particularly, the civilians in
the respective nations. Suddenly war again became the business of the people – a people of 30
million, all of whom considered themselves to be citizens (Chickering, 2015). The total war mobilised
all the resources of society, such as industry, finance and labour to fight the war, where workers in
factories were forced to work long hours at jobs they had not chosen. Oat was often low, and as the
war continued, food became scarce in Europe. As a result, approximately 750, 0000 lost their lives
and total control of society. Civilians back home had to make major adjustments to their lifestyles:
women took over for men in industry, food rationing came into effect, and business owners changed
or adjusted their products to support the war. Hence, the idea of World War I as a “total war” is
extremely correct, due to its modern warfare of involving both the battle front and the home front.

Furthermore, World War I led to the collapse of four out of six empires at the time: Russian, Austro-
Hungarian, Ottoman and German Empire, which were either caused by defeat or revolution. In
addition to being dismantled and transformed into sovereign nations, these empires also lost their
monarchy. Unlike the other empires, the collapse of Russia did not cause the formation of a Russian
republic, however, it became collection of 15 republics under the national name of the USSR (Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics) from 1917-1991. This was caused by the communist revolution
partaking in Russia in October 1917, followed by the execution of the Romanov family and the rapid
transition of Russian politics from the Provisional Government to the Bolshevik, led by Vladimir
Lenin. Signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on 3 March 1918, Russia renounced all territorial claims in
Finland, Poland, Ukraine, the Baltic States, and ceded Kars, Arahant and Batum to Turkey. Soon
after, the Ottoman Empire faced defeat, losing all its Arab states to the Middle East and most of its
Aegean islands to Greece under the Treaty of Sevres on 10 August 1920, however, was later rejected
by the Turkish government and replaced by the final treaty of WWI, the Treaty of Lausanne on 24
September 1923 to establish the borders and independence of modern-day Turkey.

In Europe, the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye in 1919 declared the collapse of the Austro-
Hungarian Empire, which were given the responsibility, along with the Central Powers for starting
the war, and was split into Hungary, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Kingdom of Serbs and Croats and
Slovenes (later, Yugoslavia). Most importantly, the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919, formally ended
World War I signed between Germany and it’s Allies. This treaty held Germany responsible for
starting the war and imposed harsh penalties such as massive reparations, demilitarisation, and
ultimately, the loss of its territories such as Sudetenland. Hence, the German Empire was formed
into the Weimar Republic, sparking economic distress caused by hyperinflation in 1922 and
resentment within the German public, fuelling the ultra-nationalist sentiment that led to the rise of
Adolf Hitler, his Nazi Party and eventually, World War II. Despite various limitations on the actions of
the colonial powers, both Britain and France upheld their imperial control. It wasn't just the
"benevolence" of imperial lords that led to reform of the British-French colonial system after the
Great War. (Kitchen, 2014). Therefore, World War I marked the end of most empires, however, the
success and further imperialization and political dominance of the British and French empires.

The idea that WWI would “end all wars” was a hope that was cherished by contemporaries of the
time. It was a thought at the time that treaties could create a new world order that would remove all
sorts of governments and attitudes that caused of war. However, it quickly became clear that this
was a misguided hope. The hope to end all wars was carried by US President Woodrow Wilson, who
established 14 Points and the League of Nations at a peace conference in 1918. In addition to
specific territorial settlements based on an Entente victory, Wilson’s peace negotiation emphasised
the need for national self-determination for Europe’s different ethnic populations. The USA did not
commit itself to joining the League of Nations, hence, leading to the collapse of collective security.
However, rather than including such reparations in the Treaty of Versailles as anticipated by
Germany, the Treaty established a year later humiliated Germany. The peace treaty that officially
ended the conflict, “The Treaty of Versailles of 1919”, forced punitive terms on Germany that
destabilised Europe and laid the groundwork for WWII. This caused Germany resentment that Hitler
capitalised on to gain support and that led to the beginning of WWII. Evidently, the Treaty of
Versailles was successful in ending future wars from occurring and instead acted as a catalyst for
further national tension and hatred, as the phrase “the war to end all wars” was merely a slogan to
explain British and later American participation in the war (Wells, 2014).

Therefore, WWI is eternally regarded as a total war because to its effects on both the home front
and the battlefield. Most empires crumbled because of this extensive devastation, with the
exception of France and Britain, which expanded after the conflict. The Second War began in 1939
because the outcome of the First World War, contrary to what citizens had anticipated, was not a
"war to end all wars."
10. Assess the extent of the nature and legacy of World War I and its influence on
modernity.

The nature and legacy of World War I had vast influences on the formation of the modern world.
The future political state of Nations was influenced by the Legacy of the Treaty of Versailles, leading
into the outbreak of World War II and the future of political regime within Europe and surrounding
nations. Moreover, the human loss suffered by the home front due to the total war influenced the
future of economics and financial stability across the globe. Such waves of modernity ultimately
contributed to the use of war technology within civilisation and integrate advancements in medicinal
and psychological discoveries into practice, leading to the modern world of science and human
anatomy.

Following the war, the legacy of Versailles became vastly prominent within global politics, and the
recovery of European states in terms of civil unrest and changing political ideals. The Nazi Regime
emerged as a result of the Great Depression and the fall of the Weimar Republic, which it capitalised
on by rejecting the conditions of Versailles. Germans were enraged by clause 231 assigning them the
primary responsibility for the war. No one anticipated Germany to be able to pay the entire amount
of reparations since the burden on the country was so immense. John Maynard Keynes warned the
European economy would crash if it did. French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau wanted to
punish Germany severely in Versailles. Military leader Ferdinand Foch believed the treaty didn't
secure against a future German threat. The United States Congress rejected the treaty, and
eventually reached a different peace with Germany. The U.S. would never join the League of
Nations, making it ineffective in preventing the outbreak of WWII. Without the U.S. on board, the
number of Central and Allied votes on its governing council was equal, and the League faced
deadlocks even on its most central tenets, like disarmament. (Blakemore, 2020). The post war
treaties also had the effect of the rise of fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini since the Italians had
been promised significant territories in the Treaty of London (1915) and Versailles in 1919. As a
result, the Italian home front reputed with anti-Americanism and shifted towards fascistic policies.
Hence, the legacy of Versailles contributed to the development of modernity across the globe.

Furthermore, Europe has gone bankrupt because of the conflict. Some industrial sectors, like
aviation, chemicals, and the auto industry, benefited from the conflict. All the participating countries
engaged in a credit war, relying on local loans as well as, in the case of France, money obtained from
abroad in the form of bonds. Failure to pay back bonds (and over printing of money) led to
hyperinflation, which countries were already experiencing since wartime. Inflation spread through
Europe and picked up speed before peaking in Germany in November 1923, when one US dollar was
equivalent to 4.2 trillion German marks. The trauma inflicted on the German people was lasting and
aided the rise of embittered radicalism in the following years (Arbuckle, 2016). The Great Depression
began globally in 1929 when the stock market fell. Worldwide, unemployment reached millions,
money continued to lose value due to hyperinflation, and the level of poverty rose. In World War
One, 1.4 million men were "lost to the enemy" in France alone. More than 2 million soldiers were
lost in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia. The death of 800,000 "Tommies," including men from
the Dominions, caused deep sorrow in Britain. Therefore, the human loss suffered globally
demonstrated the lasting impact of the events of the first World War.

The art of modern war and how war was waged in the future were both fundamentally influenced by
technology. Tanks, barbed wire, poison gas, aerial bombing of military and civilian targets, air craft
carriers, depth charges, radar, and hydrophone technology, as well as their application on military
equipment, changed the nature of warfare and established the concept of "total war" for all future
conflicts. Wristwatches, trench coats, stainless steel, passports, and other useful daily "technology"
also had an impact. In addition, Modern surgery was born in the first world war. Trench warfare
meant that the head and the face were especially exposed to enemy fire. Countless veterans
survived the war but paid the price by leaving it maimed, mutilated and disfigured. Reconstructive
surgery and plastic surgery were developed during this era.There was a new psychological
understanding of "Shell Shock" and PTSD. Soldiers (80,000 in the British army alone) displayed
strange symptoms that were caused by emotional pressures rather than physical ones. Common
symptoms among traumatised troops were speech problems, twitching, anxiety, and stomach
issues. Thus, the discoveries made to adapt in the battle front eventually became integrated within
society, leading to future developments of such technologies and medicine.

In conclusion, the aftermath of World War I had a significant impact on how the contemporary world
was created. The Legacy of Versailles has an impact on the political situation of the world in the
future. These modernisation waves finally helped civilisations exploit combat technology and put
new medical and psychological findings into effect, giving rise to the present world of science and
human anatomy. The legacy of the Treaty of Versailles had an impact on the future political system
in Europe and the surrounding countries, which in turn had an impact on the start of World War II.
Modern History Timeline
CONTESTABILITY OF THE PAST – PEARL HARBOR
December 7, 1941→ P.H. attack

CASE STUDY 1: THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMANOV DYNASTY

1500 → Russian empire originated
1598 → Ivan IV: first Tsar
1762-1796 → Catherine the Great modernises Russian legal system
1801- 1825 → Alexander II created trans-Siberian railway
1891-1916 → trans-Siberian railway built
1894 → tsar is crowned
1890s- early 1900s → civil strikes against autocrats becomes frequent
1904- 1905 → Russo Japanese war
February 23, 1917, + February 24 1917→February revolution: women, students, workers
protested for eight days
March 2 1917→ Tsar abdicates
March 12, 1917, → provisional government established
July 1917 → July days lead up to Bolshevik rule
August 1917→Kornilov affair losers’ authority
October 1917 → October revolution; Bolshevik rise to power
July 17 1918→ Romanovs executed (bodies found in 1979)

CASE STUDY 2: THE MAKING OF MODERN SOUTH AFRICA

1600s → Dutch arrived in S.A: tans-Atlantic slave/ spice trade
1806 → Cape Colony taken over by GB from Cape of Good Hope
1834 → Boers in Cape Colony begin to move inland away from GB rule
1830s-1840s → The Great Trek
1838 → Orange Free State taken from Orange River under Voortrekkers
December 16, 1838, → Battle of Blood River Voortrekkers vs Zulus
1879 → Anglo-Zulu War: British invade Cape Colony into Colony of Natal (Union of S.A)
20 December 1880 - 23 March 1881 → First Boer War: Boer Victory + independence of S.A
Republic
1890-1896 → Cecil Rhodes PM of Cape Colony
1974 → Rhodes establishes the De Beers diamond-mining firm controlling global trade
(oligopoly)
1899-1902 → 2nd Boer War due to British annexation/exploitation of the Transvaal
1899-1900 → Phase 1 British defeat
December 10-15, 1899, → Black Week for Boer victory
February – May 1900 → imperial GB troops besiege Boer towns
March 13, 1900, → Phase 2 Lord Kitchener occupies Orange Free State capital Bloemfontein
May 28, 1900, → Orange Free State annexed to Orange River Colony
September 1, 1900, → Transvaal annexed
1902 → Phase 3 Boers use guerrilla tactics under Jan Smuts – GB victory
May 1902 → Peace of Vereeniging accepts Boer loss – alliance leads to apartheid policies
May 31, 1910→ Union of S.A founded: Cape Colony + Transvaal + Orange River Colony
apartheid
SHAPING OF THE MODERN WORLD - WORLD WAR I
1870-1914 → Alliances formed
3A: 1879 → Dual Alliance between GER and AUST.H in defence from RUS
3A: 1882 → ITA + OTTO.E pledge military aid
3A: 1883 → ROM joins
3E: 1893 → RUS signs with FRA due to fear of 3A
3E: 1904-1907 → FRA + GB to geologically surround GER threat
3E: 1915 → ITA joins due to decline of 3A
June 28, 1914, → Archduke Franz Ferdinand assassinated by Serb Gavrilo Princip in Bosnia
July 31, 1914, → Tsar N declares was on AUST.H to support SERB – mobilises troops on
border
August 3, 1914→ FRA joins RUS in declaring war on GER
August 4, 1914→ Schlieffen Plan breaches T of London (1839) → GB declares war on GER
August 1914 → Battle of Tannenberg (E. Front) GER v RUS
October 31, 1914, → Battle of Beersheba (E. Front) GB ANZAC v OTTO. E
February-December 1916 → Battle of Verdun (W. Front) GER v FRA
July-November 1916 → Battle of Somme (W. Front) GER v GB (GB victory July 1)
July-November 1917 → Battle of Passchendaele (W. Front) GER v FRA/GB
May 7, 1915, → GER launches Spring Offensive; sinks GB warships
April 6, 1917, → US declares war on GER
November 11, 1918, → Armistice
March 3, 1918 → Treaty of Brest-Litovsk: RUS E. → USSR
1919 → Treaty of Saint Germain-en-Laye: AUST.H E. → Hungary, Austria, Czech, Kingdom of
Serbs
June 1919→ Treaty of Versailles: GER (Bolsheviks) → Weimar Republic
1918 → League of Nations by W. Wilson: 14 Point Plan
September 24, 1923 → OTTO. E → Turkey
1929 → Great Depression
Modern History Source List
CONTESTABILITY OF THE PAST – PEARL HARBOR
1. Archive of American Folk Song by the US Library of Congress → street interviews
2. Censorship of Japanese textbooks during the 1960s to 1970s → nationalistic agenda
filters the true details of Japan’s loss at PH (bias)
3. A Critical Perspective on Japan's Role in WWII by Subura Ienga → Japanese historian
offers an outside view of pH against the Japanese government and military
4. Why Fear the United States? By Izezaki Tadataka → nationalistic historian shows great
confidence prior to PH considered a product of its context
5. Military US warships (USS Yorktown aircraft carrier, cruiser ships, destroyer classes and
battleships) → support AKT
6. Track of Carrier Task Force: two out of three radars on US ships working during PH →
support AKT
7. Message from private secretary of W Churchill on November 30: censorship of
information regarding “averting war between Japan...” → support AKT
8. 10-point doc. by U.S. officials on November 26: US was adamant on avoiding war →
opposes AKT
9. Japanese Hawaii operation: Japan ignores the 10-point doc., US joins the war in defence
→ opposes AKT

CASE STUDY 1: THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMANOV DYNASTY

1. Historian Streitch Phillip, 2016 → Russo Japanese war shattered beliefs in in European
military dominance and triggered major loss of Russian prestige
2. Historian Richard pipes, 1994→ Russian peasants isolated from countries political
economic and cultural life and hence unaffected by political reform
3. Sergei Witte, 1920→Tsar’s character is the source of all misfortunes
4. Historian David Christian, 2013→ deprived his government of almost a third of its
revenues prior to the Russo Japanese war
5. Historian Nikita a Khylostov, 2011→ given the events of the July days October revolution
was inevitable no possibility of peaceful negotiation
6. Historian Anastasia Adele, 2017→ the lack of proof of the Romanov execution worked in
the Bolsheviks favour

CASE STUDY 2: THE MAKING OF MODERN SOUTH AFRICA

1. Historian Stanely Trapido, 2008 → British settlers fostered imperialism when colonising
S.A.
2. Historian Stephen Ocheni, 2012 → loss of Zulu’s dehumanised African labour force and
trade
3. Macimillian 1949, 117 → Veld was scattered community of farmers w/ little machinery +
govt.
4. Coup Barney Barnato → Rhodes had an extraordinary ascendancy over men
5. Reporter Hans Sauer → Rhodes sought for power rather than monetary success.
6. Historian Trapido, 2008 → Boer War II was accumulation of 100s of years of GB
domination
SHAPING OF THE MODERN WORLD - WORLD WAR I
1. Historian McMeekin, 2011 → RUS used Pan-Slavism conditionally
2. Historian Kelly, 2018 → W.EU viewed large colony as a show of dominance
3. Historian E.M House, 1914 → EU plagued with jealousy, hatred and suspicion
4. Historian Fogarty, 2014 → Alliance system was a used as an attempt for security
5. Historian McMeekin, 2011 → Assassination was the perfect excuse to start war on SER +
end Pan-Slavism
6. Historian Beck, 2015 → RUS suffered E. Front losses due to its lack of industrialisation
7. Soldier in Fort Choiseul, 1916 → Battle of Verdun was an unending hell
8. Historian O’Brien Browne → True winner of Verdun was the monstrous battle itself
9. German Machine Gunner in Somme → just fired into the enemy without aim
10. Historian John Terraine, 1980 → Somme was the turning point of WWI
11. Historian Palmer, 1979 → Passchendaele was hellhole of horror for GB
12. Historian Sibert, 1994 → only 3-4% of gas causalities died
13. Historian Lallinla, 2014 → communication advancements revolutionised art of war
14. Historian Bell, 2018 → war necessitated rapid developments in medicine tech
15. Historian Stevenson, 2014 → Munition output ripple effect on war economics
16. Historian Grayzel, 2014 → women made vital contributions to the war effort
17. Historian Grayzel, 2014 → innovations in war time tech affected feminised civilian
population
18. Historian Watson, 2014 → prime motivators for enlistment were patriotic duty + social
pressure
19. Historian Watson, 2014 → WWI fought by majority conscripted “civilian-soldiers”
20. Historian Davidson, 2018 → WWI strengthened the state’s ability to servile it’s populace
21. Allied Commander Ferdinand Foch, 1918 → Allied victory was 50% military: 50%
blockade
22. Historian Grant, 1946 → naval blockade sapped GER soldier’s morale
23. Historian Carr, 1989 → GER lacked the manpower to exploit Spring Offensive in 1918
24. Historian Sawers, 2018 → Signing of Armistice did not end conflict, peace negotiations
25. Historian Chickering, 2015 → war was business of the people (total war)
26. Historian Kitchen, 2014 → Both GB and FRA upheld their imperial control after WWI
27. Historian Wells, 2014 → ‘war to end all wars’ only excused GB and US involvement
28. Historian Orlando Figes, 2014 → RUS E. rested on unstable pillars
29. Historian Orlando Figes, 2014 → Collapse of RUS in WWI ruined Duma authority
30. Historian Blakemore, 2020 → without US in L.O.N it was inevitable to fail