Individuals and Societies: History of Nationalism and WW1

INDIVIDUALS
AND
SOCIETIES
HISTORY
level 4 - 2017
St. Catherine’s Moorlands School - Tortuguitas
Name: Teacher:

SYLLABUS
UNIT 1: National Consciousness
People feel the need to belong to a group in order to build and reinforce their identity
Case Study: The Unification of Germany. The German Confederation. Situation between
1815 & 1871. Cultural Nationalism. Military Necessity. Economic Nationalism.
Opponents and Allies. Political turmoil in Germany. The role played by Bismarck.
Bismarck as a planner or an opportunist. Different factors that also contributed to the
unification: Prussian militarism & industrialization. The situation of Germany between
1870 & 1914 on the brink of WW1. Germany as a newcomer and as a threat to the
European Balance of Power.
Key Concept: Systems
UNIT 2: Causes of the First World War
Conflicts are the consequences of long and short term causes
Short- and long-term causes. System of alliances. New imperialism in the late 19th
century. Militarism. Nationalism. Rising tension between states. The Balkans as the
power-keg of Europe. The Balkans wars. The growth of Serbia. The Moroccan crises.
Franco-German antagonism. The “last straw”: the Sarajevo murder. The countdown to
war. Who was to blame for the outbreak of WW1?
Key Concept: Global Interactions
2

UNIT 3: The First World War
Conflicts affect and transform people’s lives
War on land. The German attack. The Schlieffen Plan. Different war plans and their
implementation. The Western front: trench warfare and main campaigns. Eastern front.
The Gallipoli campaign. Other fronts: main events. War at sea: main battles. Submarine
warfare and the convoy system. The third dimension: war in the air. The Home front:
concept of total war. The year 1917 as a turning point in WW1. The USA’s entry to WW1
and her contribution. The Russian Revolution in 1917 and her withdrawal from the war.
The end of the war. Why it lasted so long. Why the Central Powers were defeated. Effects
of the war.
Key Concept: Change
UNIT 4: Peace settlement after WW1
After a conflict, peace is difficult to achieve due to diverse interests
The problem of making a peace settlement. Attitudes of the winners towards the losers.
The treaty of Versailles and the other peace treaties. German objections to the terms of the
treaty. The fairness or unfairness of the treaty.
Key Concept: Global interactions
3

OBJECTIVES
A Knowing And Understanding
Knowledge and understanding is fundamental to studying individuals and
societies subjects and forms the base from which to explore concepts and
develop skills. Knowledge is both factual and conceptual.
At the end of the course, the student should be able to:
i. use individuals and societies terminology in context
ii. demonstrate knowledge and understanding of subject-speciﬁc content and
concepts through developed descriptions, explanations and examples
B Investigating
The development of investigative skills within the subjects of individuals
and societies is an integral part of the inquiry cycle. It enables students to plan
and carry out research as individuals or in a group. The focus is placed on
acquiring systematic research skills and processes. As part of, or during, this
process, students might reappraise methods and/or research question(s) and
make recommendations for improving the process and act on these where
appropriate.
i. formulate a clear and focused research question
ii. formulate and follow an action plan to investigate a research question
iii. use methods accurately to collect and record information consistent with the
research question
iv. eﬀectively address the research question
4

C Communicating
Students should be able to demonstrate the ability to use a variety of media
to organize and communicate their factual and conceptual learning.
i. communicate information and ideas using an appropriate to the specific
audience and purpose
ii. structure information and ideas in a way that is appropriate to the specified
format
iii. document sources of information using a recognized convention
D Thinking Critically
The ability to think critically within individuals and societies subjects is
vital in developing a deeper understanding of the subject and its concepts.
i. analyse concepts, events, issues, models and arguments
ii. analyse and evaluate a range of sources in terms of origin and purpose,
recognizing values and limitations
iii. interpret different perspectives and their implications
iv. synthesize information in order to make valid, well-supported arguments
5

ASSESSMENT AND ATTITUDES
Assessment
• Oral and written work in class
• Oral lessons
• Special lessons prepared and explained by students
• Project Work
• Homework
• Paragraph writing
• Written tests
• Final exam
Attitudes
• Presents work neatly
• Is well equipped for work
• Completes assignments and meets deadlines
• Participates actively in class
• Strives to produce good work
• Shows respect to others
• Behaves appropriately in class
6

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brockie, G; Walsh, R. (1986). 19th Century in Focus. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan Ltd.
Heater, D. (1988) Our World This Century. Oxford: OUP
Murphy, D; Morris, T; Fulbrook, M. (2008). Germany 1848-1991. London: Collins.
Waugh, S. (2001). Essential Modern World History. London: Nelson Thornes Ltd.
Walsh, B. (1995). History in Focus: GCSE Modern World History. London: John Murray.
"National Consciousness.” BBC News. BBC, n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <http://
www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/history/nationalism/consc/revision/1/>.
7

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA LEVELS 4-5
Criterion A:
Knowing and
understanding.
The student:
Criterion B:
Investigating.
The student:
Criterion C:
Communicating.
The student:
Criterion D:
Thinking critically.
The student:
0
•does not reach a
standard described by
any of the descriptors
below
•does not reach a
below
•does not reach a
below
•does not reach a
below
1-2
•uses limited relevant
terminology
•demonstrates basic
knowledge and
understanding of
content and concepts
with minimal
descriptions and/or
examples
•formulates a research
question that is clear or
focused and describes
its relevance
•formulates a limited
action plan to
investigate a research
question or does not
follow a plan
•collects and records
limited information not
always consistent with
the research question
•makes a limited
evaluation of the
process and results of
the investigation
•communicates
information and ideas in
a limited way, using a
style that is limited i its
appropriateness to the
•in a limited way,
structures information
and ideas according to
the specified format
•in a limited way,
documents sources of
information
•analyses concepts,
issues, models, visual
representation and
theories to a limited
extent
•summarizes
information to a limited
extent to make
arguments
•describes a limited
number of sources/data
in terms of origin and
purpose and recognizes
few values and
limitations
•identifies different
perspectives and
minimal implications
3-4
•uses some terminology
accurately and
appropriately
•demonstrates
adequate knowledge
and understanding of
through satisfactory
descriptions,
explanations and/or
examples
•formulates a research
question that is clear or
focused and describes
its relevance in detail
•formulates and
somewhat follows a
partial action plan to
investigate a research
question
•uses a research
method(s) to collect and
record mainly relevant
information
•evaluates some
aspects of the process
and results of the
investigation
•communicates
information and ideas
satisfactorily y using a
style that is appropriate
to the audience and
purpose
•structures information
and ideas in a way that
is somewhat
appropriate to the
specified format
•sometimes documents
sources of information
using a recognized
convention
•analyses concepts,
representation and
theories
•summarizes
information to make
arguments
•analyses and/or
evaluates sources/data
in terms of origin and
purpose, recognizing
some values and
limitations
•interprets different
perspectives and some
of their implications
8

Criterion A:
Knowing and
understanding.
The student:
Criterion B:
Investigating.
The student:
Criterion C:
Communicating.
The student:
Criterion D:
Thinking critically.
The student:
5-6
•uses a range of
terminology accurately
and appropriately
•demonstrates
substantial knowledge
and understanding of
through accurate
descriptions,
explanations and
examples
•formulates a clear and
focused research
question and explains
its relevance
•formulates and follows
a substantial action plan
to investigate a research
question
•uses research
method(s) to collect and
record appropriate
relevant information
•evaluates the process
and results of the
investigation
•communicates
accurately by using a
style that is mostly
appropriate to the
is mostly appropriate to
the specified format
•often documents
using a recognized
convention
•discusses concepts,
representation and
theories
•synthesizes information
to make valid
arguments
•effectively analyses
and evaluates a range of
sources/data in terms of
origin and purpose,
recognizing values and
limitations
•interprets different
perspectives and their
implications
7-8
•consistently uses a
wide range of
terminology effectively
•demonstrates detailed
knowledge and
understanding of
through accurate
descriptions,
explanations and
examples
•formulates a clear and
focused research
question and justifies its
relevance
•formulates and
effectively follows a
comprehensive action
plan to investigate a
research question
•uses research methods
to collect and record
appropriate, varied and
relevant information
•thoroughly evaluates
the investigation
process and results
•communicates
effectively and
accurately by using a
style that is completely
appropriate to the
is completely
appropriate to the
specified format
•consistently documents
using a recognized
convention
•completes a detailed
discussion of concepts,
representation and
theories
•synthesizes information
to make valid, well-
supported arguments
•effectively analyses
and evaluates a wide
range of sources/data in
terms of origin and
purpose, recognizing
values and limitations
•thoroughly interprets a
range of different
perspectives and their
implications
9

IB PROFILE
The aim of all IB programmes is to develop internationally minded peoples who,
recognizing their common humanity and shared guardianship of the planet, help
to create a better and more peaceful world. As IB learners we strive to be:
✤ Inquirers - We nurture our curiosity, developing skills for inquiry and
research. We know how to learn independently and with others. We learn
with enthusiasm and sustain our love of learning throughout life.
✤ Knowledgeable - We develop and use conceptual understanding,
exploring knowledge across a range of disciplines. We engage with issues
and ideas that have local and global signiﬁcance.
✤ Thinkers - We use critical and creative thinking skills to analyse and take
responsible action on complex problems. We exercise initiative in making
reasoned, ethical decisions.
✤ Communicators - We express ourselves conﬁdently and creatively in more
than one language and in many ways. We collaborate effectively, listening
carefully to the perspectives of other individuals and groups.
✤ Principled - We act with integrity and honesty, with a strong sense of
fairness and justice and respect for the dignity and rights of people
everywhere. We take responsibility for our actions and their consequences.
✤ Open-minded - We critically appreciate our own cultures and personal
histories, as well as the values and traditions of others. We seek and
evaluate a range of points of view, and we are willing to grow from the
experience.
10

✤ Caring - We show empathy, compassion and respect. We have a
commitment to service, and we act to make a positive difference in the
lives of others and in the world around us.
✤ Risk-takers - We approach uncertainty with forethought and
determination; we work independently and cooperatively to explore new
ideas and innovative strategies. We are resourceful and resilient in the face
of challenges and change.
✤ Balanced - We understand the importance of balancing different aspects
of our lives - intellectual, physical and emotional - to achieve well-being for
ourselves and others. We recognize our interdependence with other
people and with the world in which we live.
✤ Reﬂective - We thoughtfully consider the world and our own ideas and
experience. We work to understand our strengths and weaknesses in order
to support our learning and personal development.
11

TIPS ON ESSAY WRITING - LEVEL 4
There are two kinds of essays in History
• Causative
•Argumentative
Both essays must ALWAYS have a clear introduction, body and conclusion
12

Imagine the essay question was: “To what extent was the system of alliances the main
cause of World War 1?” (argumentative)
1. Context: Ask yourself what the main (more general) event in the question is. You will
need to place that event (WW1) in time and place in the first sentence of your introduction
2. Link to topic: What aspect of the war will you be discussing? Causes of the war. So in
the second sentence, try to introduce the concept of “cause”.
3. Aim of essay: In HISTORY you need to state the aim of your essay explicitly. Careful!
You shouldn’t do this in essays for all subjects. Each text type has a different audience,
register and structure. In the third sentence, you should state your aim explicitly.
Rephrase the essay question and make sure the word order is that of a statement.
4. Organization: In the last sentence of the introduction, you should help the reader
understand how you will go about organizing your essay. Use passive voice. THIS LAST
SENTENCE will be different in a causative and an argumentative essay. In this case, as
it is an argumentative essay, your essay will be structured presenting two opposing
views: Why would some historians argue that the system of alliances was the main
cause of WW1? Why might some historians claim that the system of alliances was not
the main cause of WW1?
13
In 1914, the First World War broke out in Europe.
After years of increasing tension between the Great
Powers of Europe, specifically between the Triple Alliance
and the Triple Entente, there was one event that triggered
the war. The aim of this essay is to discuss
whether WW1 started in 1914 mainly due to the system of
alliances or whether other factors played an important role
as well. In order to do so, the formation of and
growing tension between the alliances will be analysed
followed by the crises that took place between 1905 and
1914 and their impact on global affairs.
1
2
3
4

Now, write an introduction for the following essay questions using the structure discussed
above:
- “To what extent was the Unification of Germany the result of a rising feeling of
nationalism?” (argumentative)
- “Why can it be said that the Unification of Germany was caused by a combination of a
collective feeling of nationalism and one man’s determination?” (causative)
- “To what extent was nationalism the main cause of World War 1?” (argumentative)
- “Why can it be said that the crises of 1905-1913 made war inevitable?” (causative)
- “To what extent was the Western Front the most important front of World War
1?” (argumentative)
- “Why can it be said that 1917 was a turning point for the development of World War
1?” (causative)
Part 4 of the introduction (organisation) will
determine the topic sentences of your
paragraphs. Remember topic sentences should
present the argument that you will discuss
throughout the paragraph. The whole paragraph
has to be connected to that topic sentence. You
should also include a closing sentence that
wraps the paragraph up. Closing sentences
help the essay flow from one point to the next.
14

Both types of essays also share the structure of their conclusions.
cause of World War 1?” (argumentative)
15
To sum up, it is debatable whether the system of alliances was the main
cause of World War 1 or whether other factors were as important.
The view of those who claim the alliances were key is clear: if it were
not for the alliances, the conﬂict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia
would not have developed into a World War. However, it is also true that
militarism, nationalism and imperialism gradually increased the tension
between the Great Powers, and the combination of these meant the war
was inevitable. What can not be denied is that wars are never the
result of a single cause, but they are rather the result of a combination of
factors that strain global interactions past their breaking point.
1
2
3

Argumentative Essays
In argumentative essays you NEED TO present diverging or opposite views. AND your
essay needs to be balanced. So...
... the body of your essay should have one paragraph FOR and one paragraph AGAINST
the statement in the essay question. You can also write two paragraphs FOR and two
paragraphs AGAINST, or three and three for that matter. The important thing is that your
essay should be balanced.
As regards which view to include ﬁrst, it is up to you. Consider these two examples:
“She cooks very badly, but she is such a nice person.”
“She is a nice person, but her cooking is appalling.”
What impression do you get in each case? Would you try this person’s latest recipe? In the
ﬁrst sentence, people are usually left with a positive idea of the person, and they are
willing to try the new recipe. In the second sentence, people are usually left with a negative
idea and they wouldn’t try this woman’s new recipe.
Usually, you should leave the strongest argument for the end (this is a way of including
your opinion in a concealed manner).
16
argument |ˈärɡyəmənt|
noun
1 an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one:
I've had an argument with my father | heated arguments over public spending |
there was some argument about the decision.

Each paragraph should follow the PEEL structure you use in Language:
P: Point (remember the topic sentence should
present the argument you will discuss in the
paragraph)
E: Explanation (provide an adequate
explanation of the argument presented. This
can include a definition, a description, among
others)
E: Example (illustrate your argument with an
appropriate example of a specific event)
L: Link (this is the closing sentence. It should give closure to your argument, be
connected to your thesis statement - aim of essay - and it should guide the reading
forward to the following paragraph)
cause of World War 1?” (argumentative). The paragraph in favor of this statement, in which
you argue that the System of Alliances was indeed the main cause of WW1 could look
somewhat like this:
17
On the one hand, there are several reasons why it can be argued that the System
of Alliances was the main reason why WW1 started. The pacts signed
between the European powers during the last decades of the 19th century were
gradually strengthened during the early 20th century, which meant that any conflict
involving two powers would drag their allies into it, and so, the alliances that had
originally been thought to maintain peace, only made war more likely. In fact,
the murder in Sarajevo in 1914 is the clearest example of this: the conflict between
Austria-Hungary and Serbia quickly escalated when the supporters of each stood up
to defend their allies. It is evident, then, that the Great War would have never
developed into a world war if it had not been for the associations between the
Central Powers and the Triple Entente, as these turned the increasing tension caused
by militarism, nationalism and imperialism into a well-packed bonfire waiting to be lit.
P
E
E
L

Causative Essays
“Why” questions: here you are supposed to explain the causes of an event or
the reasons why something happened.
In causative essays you NEED TO make a list of causes or explanations. Each cause
should be developed in the form of a paragraph with the appropriate structure and
connection to the thesis statement.
The body of your essay should have as many paragraphs as you need to develop the
essay question.
Each paragraph should follow the PEEL structure you use in Language:
P: Point (remember the topic sentence should
present the argument you will discuss in the
paragraph)
E: Explanation (provide an adequate explanation
of the argument presented. This can include a
definition, a description, among others)
E: Example (illustrate your argument with an
appropriate example of a specific event)
L: Link (this is the closing sentence. It should give closure to your argument, be
connected to your thesis statement - aim of essay - and it should guide the reading
forward to the following paragraph)
Imagine the essay question was: “Why did war break out in Europe in 1914?” (causative).
When you brainstorm you may come up with several reasons, among which there may be
the fact that the system of alliances increased tension to such an extent that they made a
local conflict develop into a widespread war that involved all the major powers. So that
paragraph might look like this:
18

19
To begin with, the System of Alliances was one of the reasons why
the war started in 1914 since they distanced the Great Powers
unnecessarily, dragging them into conflicts that did not concern them
directly. The Triple Entente, signed in 1907, was an
understanding between France, Britain and Russia that stated that
they each had a moral obligation to support each other and this
Entente had been growing stronger in part thanks to Kaiser Wilhelm’s
failed attempts to break it through his interference in Morocco. The
Triple Alliance, signed in 1882 between Germany, Austria-Hungary and
Italy meant that a conflict involving any of these countries would bring
in the other two. These two alliances, originally created to
prevent war, eventually dragged all the major European powers into
the deadliest armed conflict it had faced so far, when the Murder in
Sarajevo triggered this system into action and each country defended
her allies. In particular, upon Serbia’s refusal to accept Austria-
Hungary’s ultimatum, both Austria-Hungary and Germany declared
war first on Serbia, and then on Russia and by August, all the major
powers found themselves involved in a war that would last until 1918.
The System of Alliances was, thus, a clear factor that determined
the outbreak of World War One, since the conflict might not have
extended further than the Balkans had this system not existed.
P
E
E
L

TIPS ON SOURCE ANALYSIS - LEVEL 4
Read the following statements and decide whether they are true or false and explain why
you think that:
Now let’s try to reflect on them. In the case of primary sources, what are they and how are
they produced? For example, if a soldier writes a diary entry during a war, how can his
emotions and senses affect what he is writing? Does this mean we should disregard this
source outright, or can we learn something from it?
What about a History book written by a well-known historian? Can emotion affect his/her
writing? What about the language he/she uses? Can a historian recount an event fully or is
he/she always making some sort of selection as to what to include and what to leave out?
What is HISTORICAL EVIDENCE? Everything that has been left by the past (a long time
ago or just the recent past).
To evaluate a source, the first step we must take is to look into its origin. Then, look into
its purpose and message (why this source was made and what message it is
transmitting). Here it is important to remember that sources are very seldom produced for
students to study an event in the future. More often than not, the sources we study are
elements that were produced with a completely different purpose (for example, a letter
from a soldier to his lover, or a speech delivered by a politician: the soldier and the
politician wanted to address people right there and then; they most probably never
20
Primary sources are subjective because they give us insight to
feelings of a particular person of the past.
Historians and the history books they write are objective
because they had time to look at many different primary
sources.
Studying History allows us to get a true account of what really
happened in the past.

thought Level 4 students would be analysing their production in the 21st century). Finally,
decide to what extent the source is valuable (=useful), and what its limitations are.
Depending on the teachers you have had, you might be used to analysing sources in the
form of a chart, or using the “triangles” or writing everything in the form of a paragraph.
Regardless of how you are used to doing it and what your teacher asks of you, remember
that at this level you must always support your answers fully by making reference to the
source you are analysing.
Origin
Primary/secondary (look at the date it was produced, drawn, published, said or
written)
- Primary sources are those which come from the time of the event we are studying; they
are close to this event. E.g.: diaries, letters, politicians’ speeches, newspapers from
that time, books written at the time of the event, cartoons, photographs taken at
the time of the event, ﬁlms from that time, posters, paintings, statistics, oral
accounts, artifacts coming fro the time of the event.
- Primary sources are those produced by a witness of the event even if he/she produced
the source long after the event. E.g.: memoirs or books written after the event (by a
soldier or a nurse who lived during the event).
- Secondary sources are those sources produced long after the event; they do NOT come
from the time of the event. They are ALWAYS based on primary sources! E.g.: textbooks
21

(such as the one you use at school), copies of artifacts/objects imitating the
original ones, etc.
Who the author is and his/her nationality.
When and where it was produced.
Context: What was going on at the time the source was produced.
VALUES AND LIMITATIONS IN TERMS OF ORIGIN
Values in terms of origin
- Primary sources are valuable because they give insight to feelings and thoughts of the
time. Authors normally provide more details in their accounts. They are ﬁrst-hand
accounts. The author is a witness of the event or of the period.
- If the author of a primary source is from the same country as the issue he/she’s
describing, then the source is valuable because it represents the feelings, thoughts of
some people living in that country at the time of the event. His/her description is usually
vivid, full of details and emotions.
- Secondary sources are valuable because the author has had more time to analyse and
research on events. There is greater availability of material a long time after the event.
The author is not emotionally involved with the event he describes. They are also free
from censorship if there wasn’t censorship at the time the author produced it.
- If the author of a primary or secondary source is not from the same nationality as
the issue he/she’s describing, the value of his account lies in the fact that he/she’s an
outsider, an observer of the situation and he/she may be more balanced and objective in
his/her story. It’s a foreigner’s view.
Limitations in terms of origin
Primary sources:
- The author is emotionally involved in or aﬀected by the events he/she’s describing (his/
her story will be biased, not reliable, will present only one point of view and not others).
- The source might produced or sponsored by the government (it cannot be objective
because the author will respond to the government’s instructions).
22

- There might have been censorship at the time the author produced it and maybe he/she
was not free to express him/herself, he/she was forced/intimidated/pressured into writing
something he/she him/herself did not think, like or believe in.
Secondary sources:
- The main limitation is the lack of feelings and insight to the thoughts of the time (you
cannot get the “juicy” details and vividness of the witnesses’ accounts).
- If the material covers a much extended period of time and is not speciﬁc on the event we
are studying (the source lacks details and is too general).
- Do not make comments saying that a source has been translated and we do not know if
the translation is accurate. This does not count as a limitation.
- Avoid saying that because it’s just an extract, the value of the source is necessarily
limited. This does not count as a limitation.
PURPOSE
Why did the author make this source? What was his intention when he/she produced it?
Who is/was this source (made) for?
He said/painted/wrote/drew/produced it TO...
- inform about.... (as in textbooks)
- criticize (a person/an action) OR to praise (a person)
- express feelings/opinions/thoughts about.... (as in diary entries, letters)
- persuade (a person) as in speeches, propaganda, cartoons, posters
- any other reason/intention YOU may think of
What is the message the author is trying to transmit?
In fact, there are inﬁnite messages an author may want to transmit. Look at the source you
have in front of you very carefully, come to a conclusion and support it.
23

You could write: One message conveyed by the source is that ..... because the source
says/shows.... A second message conveyed by the source is that ... because the source
says/shows ....
VALUES AND LIMITATIONS IN TERMS OF PURPOSE
To decide how valuable a source is, these questions will be of help
1. Is the source relevant (=clearly related) to the topic/event we are studying?
2. What could the historian learn from the source about the topic seen?
3. How reliable is the source? Does our knowledge of the topic coincide with what the
source tells us? Is the source biased (=partial, subjective) and emotional; or is it
objective (=impartial)? Was it produced just to inform, or with the intention of
persuading others of personal ideas? Please have a look at the notes on RELIABILITY
OF SOURCES.
4. Does the source leave out important details of the topic/event? (this would be a
limitation) According to your own knowledge of the topic, what doesn’t the source tell
us?
Values in terms of purpose
- When the purpose is to persuade, the source can still be valuable (though not reliable)
because it gives info on the methods used by the government, or the political parties to
persuade people to think or act in a certain way.
- If the purpose is to inform, most probably the writing is mostly objective. Balanced or
objective writing presents both sides of the story. This adds value to the source.
Limitations in terms of purpose
- When the purpose is to persuade, the source is limited since the source is partial,
biased, and most probably has an ulterior motive. Such a source is likely to exaggerate
certain aspects or omit certain others in order to achieve its aim.
- When the purpose is to criticize or to praise, again the source will be biased, since it
will highlight the features that suit the author’s purpose.
- Sources produced to express feelings also have limitations since they are likely to be
based on the author’s sense perception, and tainted by emotions.
24

How To Evaluate Cartoons
In general, cartoons are produced at the time of the events (primary sources), when
events have just happened or are still happening and usually show how the artist saw the
event. This makes cartoons valuable sources.
However, they may have limitations because they usually show personal opinions/
feelings/thoughts of the artist. Now, if his feelings/opinions/thoughts coincide with our
knowledge of the topic/event, then the cartoon is reliable and, as a consequence, more
valuable for us to understand the event.
On the other hand, if it leaves gaps in the information or exaggerates, then it is less
reliable and, as a consequence, it is still valuable but with limitations.
To interpret a cartoon/painting/engraving you need to:
1. Think about the events in that period: look at the date. What was happening at that
time? Who was involved? Cartoons refer to something that was current at that time
(origin of the source).
2. Observe the different elements in the drawing: people, things, background, size, facial
expressions... Every detail has a meaning! Cartoons often include political figures of the
time. Try to identify them... how? It is suggested you become familiar with photographs
or images of those figures. The elements in the cartoon help you to determine the
message that the artist is trying to transmit.
3. Cartoons often have captions that will help you to identify the meaning.
4. Think about the artist and his motives: look at who drew the picture... what is the
nationality of the artist? What does he think about what he’s drawing about? What is he
trying to tell us through his picture (message)? Remember that a cartoon is somebody’s
personal view of an event so there is a subjective element to it.
5. Now go back to the picture and try to see what all the elements stand for (mean or
represent) E.g.: a dove may stand for peace; a weapon/a military helmet may stand for
war, etc.
6. What does this drawing help you to understand about the time, and how people/how
the artist thought and felt? (value)
7. Cartoons tend to oversimplify the events they are describing, so may not explain the full
reality of events (limitations).
25

Use a QRcode reader app on your phone to check
out this analysis of a cartoon:
26
“Even after the historian has followed E H Carr's procedure of
selecting only the signiﬁcant facts, the person who decides
what are the "facts of history" is a human being, who comes
complete with the full complement of background, education,
attitudes, opinions, likes and dislikes. And he is a man of his
time. The facts of history cannot be pure, being always
"refracted through the mind of the recorder!'. There is another
way in which the historian is himself a barrier to objectivity.
When historians insist that their work is not only to record facts,
but also to interpret them, they are by deﬁnition adopting a
subjective approach to history.”
Munro, N. (n.d.) "Objectivity in History." Pathways to
Philosophy. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.

National Consciousness
People feel the need to belong to a
group in order to build and reinforce
their identity
27

When Napoleon was in power, he controlled most of Europe.
http://www.emersonkent.com/map_archive/europe_1810_napoleon.htm
He was then defeated and in 1814-1815 a Congress was held in Vienna where delegates
from the major powers in Europe debated what to do with Napoleon’s lands. The main
criteria for the reshaping of Europe were:
- to establish a new balance of power in Europe which would prevent any single state/
empire to gain too much power, such as the Napoleonic empire had. This was suposed
to maintain the peace between the great powers.
- legitimacy, which involved the restoration of dynasties deposed during the Napoleonic
period.
- security, by which the states bordering France were enlarged to buﬀer any possible
future aggression on the part of that country.
28

- compensation, which meant that the powers who had defeated Napoleon were given
territories as a form of “payment”.
All in all, this is what Europe looked like after the Congress of Vienna:
http://www.zonu.com/images/0X0/2009-12-26-11489/Europe-after-the-Congress-of-
Vienna-1815.jpg
The leaders at the congress divided Europe by just looking at the map, and didn’t take into
consideration the people living in those territories. As you can see, the German
Confederation was a combination of 39 German-speaking states to the East of France,
which included part of Prussia and part of the Austrian Empire. This was bound to create
trouble.
29

ACTIVITY
1. Form groups of 8 and divide yourselves into pairs. Each pair should read 1 of the
following texts.
• a) Underline main ideas
• b) Highlight important terms
• c) Share your text with the rest of the group. Make either a mind-map or a chart.
• d) Write a paragraph combining the information the 8 of you ﬁnd in the four texts
USING YOUR OWN WORDS
TEXT 1
From: Brockie, G; Walsh, R. (1986). 19th Century in Focus. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan Ltd.
THE UNIFICATION OF GERMANY
A Divided Germany
We have seen already how Germany was divided into thirty-nine states after the Congress
of Vienna in 1815. Although the people in these states all spoke the German language and
followed German customs, each state had its own ruler. However, as in the case of Italy,
certain Germans began to look for the unity of all German-speaking people in a single
state. These were known as German nationalists and they stressed the importance of the
German language and of German music and folk customs.
There was one group to which all the German states belonged after 1815. This was the
German Confederation, which had its headquarters in the town of Frankfurt. However, the
Confederation had very little power and could rarely agree on a joint course of action.
Another group to which many German states belonged after 1815 was the Zollverein or
Customs Union. While it promoted valuable co-operation on economic matters, it did not
really help to bring about German unity. During 1848 German nationalists from all over the
German states had met at Frankfurt and hoped to unite the country. They failed completely
as the various rulers throughout Germany refused to give up their powers.
It was clear that German unity could only come about it one the the larger states
succeeded in controlling the rest. A great leader would be needed to accomplish this.
Such a man was soon to arrive on the scene - his name was Otto von Bismarck.
30

Bismarck - The ‘Iron Chancellor’ Comes to Power in Prussia
You will have seen in the map that one of the largest of the German states was called
Prussia. Prussia was a Protestant state situated in the North-East of Germany. At the
Congress of Vienna it got some important land in the west of Germany. From then on
Prussian kings hoped to unite the two parts of their kingdom.
In 1862 King William I of Prussia had a big dispute with his parliament. The king wanted
more taxes for his army and the parliament refused to vote for them unless William gave
them more power. The king threatened to give up the throne but was persuaded to send
for a strong man, who as Chancellor or Prime Minister would force parliament to obey him.
The man chosen was Otto von Bismarck.
Bismarck was a member of the Prussian noble class and had little time for parliaments or
democracy but believed that the king should rule the country through his Chancellor. In a
famous speech to parliament he declared that the great issues of the time would not be
decided by speeches or voting but by ‘Blood and Iron’. In other words he was placing his
trust in the might of the Prussian army and the power of Prussian industry.
Because of his tough personality and determined political programmes, Bismarck became
known as the ‘Iron Chancellor’. Soon after his appointment as Chancellor, Bismarck forced
parliament to vote for the taxes for the king’s army. He then prepared to make Prussia
stronger in Europe. First and foremost Bismarck was a loyal Prussian and not a German
nationalist. He would only unite Germany gradually to ensure that Prussia remained firmly
in control.
Prussia Defeats Austria
The first country which Bismarck wished to defeat was the powerful Austrian Empire.
Austria had a great influence over the Southern German states because they shared the
same Catholic religion. Bismarck, therefore, decided that he could not allow Austria to
become part of a united Germany in case Catholics would outnumber Protestants. This
would not suit Prussia which was the strongest Protestant power in Germany. To reduce
Austrian influence Bismarck decided to provoke a war.
In 1864 Austria and Prussia both took control of the Danish provinces of Schleswig and
Holstein. These were German-speaking areas which had, up to then, been ruled by the
king of Denmark. However, disagreement soon broke out between Prussia and Austria
regarding the government of Schleswig-Holstein. Bismarck used this dispute to provoke
war between both countries.
The war between Austria and Prussia which broke out in 1866 lasted only seven weeks.
Prussia gained a decisive victory at the Battle of Sadowa. As a result, the old German
Confederation was abolished and all Austrian influence in Germany was ended. Prussia
31

joined with all the states of Northern Germany. This became known as the North German
Confederation.
Only four Southern German states remained independent. Bismarck knew that if he tried
to unite these with Prussia France would feel threatened and go to war. He wanted war
with France - but not quite yet.
The Franco-Prussian War 1870-1871
Up to this time France had been the strongest country in Western Europe. Bismarck knew
that the French Emperor, Napoleon III, was likely to take action to prevent any further
steps towards German Unification. He therefore decided to go to war against France when
it suited Prussia.
Bismarck picked his time carefully. By 1870 the Prussian army was ready so he cleverly
provoked France into declaring war by a trick known as ‘The Ems Telegram Affair’. King
William I sent Bismarck a telegram from Ems where he was on holiday saying that he had
refused to promise France that no Prussian prince would offer himself for the vacant
throne of Spain. Bismarck changed the words on the telegram to make it appear that
William I had insulted France. He then released the changed version to the press. There
was an immediate outcry in France and Napoleon III was forced to declare war on Prussia.
The Prussian Army was much quicker mobilising than the French army. Soon the
Prussians were marching through France. Two important battles were fought at Metz and
Sedan - the Prussians won both. The Emperor of France, Napoleon III, was taken prisoner
at Sedan. The Prussian armies then marched on Paris which they surrounded and waited
until starvation forced its people to surrender.
The German Empire is Established
When the Franco-Prussian war broke out in 1870 Bismarck succeeded in getting the
Southern German states to join in on the side of Prussia. In January 1871 they decided to
join with the Northern German states to form a new united Germany. At the famous Hall of
Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles outside Paris on 18 January 1871, King William I of
Prussia was proclaimed Emperor William I of the new German Empire. Bismarck had
succeeded in his aim of making Prussia the most powerful state in Germany and of uniting
the rest of the German people under the Prussian king.
The Franco-Prussian War Ends
Once Bismarck had fully defeated France he was determined to impose hard peace
conditions. A few days after the German Empire was set up, Paris at last surrendered.
Napoleon III have up the throne and left France. In his place a new government under
Adolphe Thiers was elected in February 1871 and it agreed to Germany’s peace terms.
32

Under the Treaty of Frankfurt (1871) France had to hand over the two provinces of Alsace
and Lorraine to the new German Empire. These two provinces on the country’s eastern
border were very rich in minerals, such as coal and iron. In addition France had to pay a
huge sum of money to Germany and German troops would remain the country until this
was paid. The French people were resentful and angry over these conditions and as a
result France and Germany remained enemies for many years to come.
For Bismarck the Franco-Prussian War had worked out exactly as planned. Instead of
being just Chancellor of Prussia he wa snot Chancellor of the German Empire, a post he
was to hold for nearly twenty years.
TEXT 2
From: Murphy, D; Morris, T; Fulbrook, M. (2008). Germany 1848-1991. London: Collins.
GERMANY 1848-1991: A SYNOPTIC OVERVIEW
Between 1848 and 1991 Germany was an area central to the development of European
history. In the early part of this period, from 1848 to 1871 Germany was unified into one
state, the German Empire. This was achieved under the leadership of the German state,
Prussia, through three wars between 1864 and 1871. In the process, Prussia defeated two
of Europe’s Greatest Powers, Austria and France.
By 1871 Germany had been transformed from a loose confederation of thirty nine states
into the greatest continental power. Form 1871 to 1945, German affairs dominated
European history. By 1914 it was able to rival Britain and the USA as one of the world’s
great economies. The German Empire was also Europe’s greatest military power. Under
the Chancellorship of Otto von Bismarck (1871-1890) Germany did not exploit to the full its
enormous military and economic potential. However, from the mid-1890s, under the
influence of Kaiser William II, Germany embarked on a programme which aimed to make
the German Empire a world power. This policy, Weltpolitik, launched Germany into a
period of growing conflict with other Great Powers, most notably Britain.
By 1912 Germany, instead of reaching world power status, was faced by the opposition of
France, Russia and Britain, which had formed an alliance and made general agreements,
known as ententes, between themselves.
Much historical controversy surrounds the outbreak of world war in July/August 1914.
However, many historians, several of the German, believe that Germany was willing to risk
a major war in order to achieve its aims under Weltpolitik. Germany twice came close to
winning the subsequent war - in 1914 and again in 1918. However, instead of achieving
33

Weltpolitik, the German Empire collapsed into revolution in October/November 1918. The
Kaiser was overthrown and a democratic republic was declared.
How and why was Germany unified in the period 1848-1871?
Perhaps the most significant development in European history between the defeat of
Napoleon in 1815 and the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 was the unification of
Germany. In January 1848 the German area was a loose confederation of thirty-nine
states. These ranged from lesser states no bigger than a small English county to two Great
Powers, Prussia and the Austrian Empire. To complicate matters further, parts of both
Prussia and Austria were outside the German Confederation.
In European history, 1848 was the year of revolutions. Beginning in France in February,
most of central Europe was engulfed in revolutions. These revolutions aimed to replace the
autocratic rule of monarchs with governments where political power was shared with the
liberal middle class - the businessmen, lawyers, doctors and teachers. In March, both
Austria and Germany faced ‘liberal’ revolutions. From March 1848 until early 1849 the two
German Great Powers were paralysed by revolution. In this climate a group of liberals met
in Frankfurt in an attempt to unite Germany by consent. The Frankfurt Parliament lasted
only as long as it took Austria and Prussia to return to political stability. Once this had
occurred, in 1849, the Frankfurt Parliament was dissolved. The attempt to unite Germany
by liberals had failed.
Unification was achieved, instead, because of the rivalry between Austria and Prussia
about which state should dominate Germany. The two states had been political rivals
since 1740, and in the 1860s this rivalry came to a head. Prussian Minister-President,
Bismarck, attempted to make Prussia co-equal in power with Austria within the German
Confederation. When Austria refused, a war took place, which lasted seven weeks in 1866.
Prussia was victorious and dissolved the German Confederation, creating in its place, a
‘North German Confederation’ under Prussian leadership. This development altered
fundamentally the balance of power in central Europe. In an attempt to rectify this change,
France, under Napoleon III went to war with Prussia in 1870. The Franco-Prussian War
was another spectacular success for the Prussian army. As the war came to a close, the
‘German Empire’ was declared in January 1871. It comprised all the German states,
except Austria.
To some historians, the unification of Germany was more to do with Prussian domination
over the rest of Germany than a genuine unification of the German nation. In this process
Bismarck was seen as a master politician who was the architect of the unification. To other
historians, Bismarck was only one part of the process. Prussian success was due more to
its rapid industrial growth and the prowess of the Prussian army. Also, the process of
unification saw a genuine outpouring of German national feeling. In the new German
Empire Bismarck’s biggest supporter was the National Liberal Party.
34

TEXT 3
From: Murphy, D; Morris, T; Fulbrook, M. (2008). Germany 1848-1991. London: Collins.
THE UNIFICATION OF GERMANY, 1850-1871
Overview
The main forces working for and agains the political unification of the German states were
evident for several decades before Otto von Bismarck was called to power. Theories of
German nationhood had flourished in intellectual circles throughout this period, and had
occasionally been translated into action, most notably in the establishment of a German
parliament in Frankfurt in 1848. As the events of 1848-49 indicated, however, such
theories faced formidable opposition form several influential forces. They clashed directly
with the specific political interests of the individual rulers of the German states whose
priority was invariably to resist any reduction of their own powers and prerogatives. Yet
they were sometimes distracted from such preoccupations by other considerations. The
experience of the Napoleonic Wars, and of the disruption of the 1840s, made it clear to
them that their positions were vulnerable. They were under threat, equally, from the
ambitions of a foreign power such as France and from the radical demands of their own
subjects. The desire for security jockeyed with political conservatism at the head of their
agenda.
In addition to this desire for security, important economic forces worked in favor of some
form of unity. German manufacturers and merchants had appreciated, for some time, the
benefits to be gained from the relaxation of customs duties and the other restrictions that
were involved in transporting goods and materials from one German state to another.
Crucially, of course, this was a benefit that might also be enjoyed by the larger, and more
economically advanced, of the German states. In particular Prussia, with territories to the
west and north-east of Germany after the 1815 settlement, had a powerful vested interest
in easier economic intercourse. In northern Germany, such considerations had produced a
degree of economic unity as early as the 1830s, in the form of the Zollevrein. This
‘customs union’ had flourished for more than two decades before Bismarck came to
office.
The events of 1848 illustrated some important truths about the prospects of German unity.
They made it clear, for instance, that the middle-class nationalists assembled in Frankfurt
lacked the political means to impose their vision of Germany’s future upon the more
powerful German princes. The initiative lay with such rulers as the King of Prussia or the
Emperor of Austria. For the time being, Austria remained the stronger of these two powers,
with military resources and diplomatic connections that Prussia could not afford to
35

challenge. Nor was either power greatly interested in the ‘national question’. Austria was
clearly preoccupied with the maintenance of its multinational Empire, which Prussia’s
primary concern was for its freedom of action in northern Germany, and for the
maintenance of the political and economic interests of its Junker governing class. Their
attitude was mirrored in neighbouring states, in France and in Russia, for instance, where
the prospect of a powerful neighbour, where once there had been more than 30 lesser
states, was extremely unattractive. Whatever forces worked towards German unity, they
would have some thorny diplomatic or military problems to solve in this respect.
It was the following decade that transformed the prospects of German unity. In the course
of the 1850s, the European context was altered in several important respects. Austria’s
credibility as a leader and defender of the German princes was reduced dramatically. Its
decision to remain neutral in the Crimean War ruptured the conservative alliance with
Russia that had served it so well in 1848-1850. Its failure to resist French forces in Italy, in
1859, not only called into question its ability to defend the German princes, but also
brought home to princes and to German patriots alike the potential threat posed to them
by a new Napoleon Bonaparte. At the opening of the 1860s, there was not only a power
vacuum in the politics of German leadership, but an urgent and widespread desire that it
should be filled.
Such were the circumstances that prevailed when Bismarck was appointed Minister
President of Prussia in 1862. The priorities that he brought to that office have been the
subject of considerable debate, but few historians today would doubt that they were
primarily Prussian and conservative. Above all, he sought to defend the Prussian state, as
the interests of his Junker class, against two major threats. These were, firstly, the
domestic, political ambitions of the middle classes, with their liberal, constitutional claims,
and, secondly, the continued claims of Austria to be regarded as the major political
authority within the German Confederation. As a primary instrument of Austrian Authority,
Bismarck viewed the Confederation itself as a threat to Prussian integrity, and to its
freedom of political action. In political terms, it was not hard to outmanoeuvre the liberals,
and by 1867 Bismarck appeared to have done so. In part, he had achieved this by taking
measures to increase the size and power of the Prussian army, the key to political power,
without bothering about the approval of the parliamentary deputies. It may have been
illegal, but it worked. In part, however, he achieved a working relationship with the liberals
by appearing to work with them on the projects closest to their hearts, the promotion of
political unity within Germany.
There is a strong case for claiming that, by 1866, Bismarck had achieved all that he really
wished to achieve. Austrian influence had been banished from northern Germany, where
Prussia now exercised the decisive influence over the North German Confederation. In
domestic politics, the prestige of the Prussian crown and of the Prussian army was such
that it could not be challenged in the foreseeable future. In the process, Bismarck had
36

firmly established his own political position. Yet other forces drove him further. Some of
these forces were diplomatic, for hie could not ignore the possibility of an Austrian
recovery, and of the re-establishment of its influence over the loose confederation of
states that existed in southern Germany.
More serious, and more immediate, was the French reaction to the events of 1866.
Desiring compensation and security from the new Prussian ‘super state’, France made
demands that Bismarck hoped initially to satisfy, in order to maintain his new creation.
When it proved impossible to do so, he too sought security, in military alliances with the
south German states, in diplomatic intrigues with Spain, and by a pretended community of
interest with the nationalists in various German states.
TEXT 4
From: "National Consciousness.” BBC News. BBC, n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <http://
www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/history/nationalism/consc/revision/1/>.
NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS
Case Study: The German Unification
German States 1815
In 1815 Europe had just defeated Napoleon. Germany, as we know it, did not exist. There
were 39 German states, each ruled by its own prince. They joined in the German
Confederation (Bund) which aimed to protect its members and give Germany a stronger
voice in Europe. It had a parliament or Diet but it did not achieve much because decisions
had to be unanimous and political divisions meant this was hard to achieve.
Throughout the nineteenth century, the populations of these separate states began to
develop a sense they were not just citizens of their own individual states but part of a
German volk (people). They realised they had much in common.
Cultural nationalism
All of these 39 states spoke the same language and shared similar customs. They had a
common culture and shared the same taste in literature and music. Writers such as Hegel,
Goethe and Schiller recognised common German characteristics - things that identified a
person as German. Here were the beginnings of a German identity.
Military necessity
37

After Napoleon had conquered the German states after 1805, the 39 states realised that
being small and politically divided meant to be vulnerable to strong aggressors. The states
realised they needed each other for common defence. The German princes stirred up
nationalistic feelings in the German population to help raise armies to drive Napoleon's
forces out of German territory. The lessons learned by defeat to Napoleon, and the strong
nationalism that was stirred up to finally drive him out, helped strengthen the sense of a
common German identity with common goals.
Economic nationalism
Industrialisation was gaining pace in Germany. Businessmen wanted to increase the
markets available for their goods to maximise profits. Most existing trade was between the
39 states but developing this was hampered by tariff barriers. A single Germany without so
many taxes and tariffs would help trade and increase prosperity. In 1818 Prussia, the
largest and most powerful German state, scrapped its trade tariffs between its own
territories. The following year, it offered an economic alliance (Zollverein) with similar trade
concessions to other German states. By 1836, 25 other German states had joined this
economic alliance. Prussia developed its road and rail networks to maximise trade
opportunities. This economic co-operation was so successful it made people think of
political union.
Opponents and allies
Opponents of nationalism
Austria: The Austrian empire was extremely powerful in Europe and was competing
politically and economically with the 39 German states. German nationalism might lead to
unification of the states. This would make them stronger and more of a threat to Austria.
20% of the people in the Austrian empire were German. The Austrian Emperor feared
nationalism might make them want to break away and join Germany. This would leave
Austria weaker and cause other national groups in the Empire to demand their
independence.
German Princes: Many princes feared that if the German states were unified they would
lose power and influence over their own territories. If the German states were unified, there
could only be one person in charge. Prussia, as the dominant state, would be the prime
candidate.
France and Russia: These countries feared that a strong, united Germany would be a
political, economic and military rival to them.
Allies of nationalism
38

The educated middle-class had become important to German society. They were the
doctors, lawyers and business men, who helped make the German states
prosperous.Across all 39 states, this middle-class wanted more rights and freedoms as
German subjects to reflect their contribution to German states' success. They wanted
freedom of speech and an elected parliament that would represent their interests. They
thought these ideals would best be realised and protected in a united Germany with a new
constitution. By 1859, groups of doctors, lawyers, teachers and businessmen formed the
Nationalverein. This organisation became the Liberal Party, which actively campaigned for
reforms such as parliamentary elections.
Political turmoil in Germany
Throughout the 1840s many German states were under pressure from nationalist and
liberal demonstrators wanting greater political representation and reform. The reformers
recognised that a unified Germany with popular elections and a constitution would be the
best way of guaranteeing political freedoms.
German monarchs, such as Prussia's King Frederick William IV, feared that if Germany
were to be united according to the demands of the nationalists they would lose power and
influence in their territories.
A Prussian parliament
Despite being a staunch opponent of popular democracy and written constitutions, the
King of Prussia was forced in 1848 to draft a Prussian constitution and to allow an elected
parliament to meet and advise him. He agreed to this after witnessing increasing civil
unrest on the streets of Prussia's capital city, Berlin.
The Frankfurt Parliament of 1848
After widespread revolts, not only across the 39 states but also across many other
European nations such as France, a Parliament was called to discuss reforms and attempt
to draft a constitution for a unified Germany. This was seen as being the best way of
stopping the political unrest.
The constitution was completed in March 1849. This would unite the German states as a
German Empire headed by a German Emperor. Government would be provided by an
elected parliament that represented the populations of all 39 states. This new German
Empire would replace the existing Bund. The Crown was offered to Prussia's Frederick
William IV.
The Frankfurt Parliament and the attempt to unify Germany through political reform failed.
Frederick William refused to accept the crown because it had not been offered by the
other German Princes, stating that he would not "accept a crown from the gutter". By late
39

1849, the movement for political reform had lost its impetus and the German Princes and
the Austrian Emperor were able to regain control of politics in their territories.
Grossdeutschland or Kleindeutschland?
After the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament, Prussia put forward a plan to unify the German
states under Prussian control. The question was whether a united Germany should contain
Austria (Grossdeutschland) or leave it out (Kleindeutschland). The Prussians, as rivals of
Austria, argued for Austria's exclusion. The Austrians refused to agree with the Prussian
plan since it would eliminate their influence in German affairs. The Austrians persuaded the
Bund's Federal Diet to threaten sanctions against Prussia. In 1850, with Russians
supporting Austria, the Prussians backed down. Another attempt at a unified Germany had
failed.
2. Look at the following mind map:
a. Divide the factors mentioned in the mind map into long-term reasons and short-term
reasons.
b. Which of the factors do you regard as the most important in explaining Prussia’s
success in uniting Germany? Give reasons for your answer.
c. Which of the factors are linked? (For instance, ‘Prussian industrial power’ and ‘the
strength of the Prussian army’ aided ‘Bismarck’s diplomacy’.)
40

Causes of the First World
War
Conﬂicts are the consequences of long
and short term causes
41

Source: Heater, D. (1988) Our World This Century. Oxford: OUP
45

The First World War
Conﬂicts aﬀect and transform people’s
lives
46

L4 Research Project
1. Read the newspaper article “El principio del fin de toda una época” and analyse its origin and purpose in terms of its
values and limitations. Focus
2. What do you think might be the meaning of the highlighted phrases on lines 43, 46, 62 and 80-81? After having
discussed the war in class, go back to question 2 and correct/improve your answer.
Phrase Originally I thought it meant… Now I know it means…
47
ASSESSMENT
CRITERION A: Knowing and understanding
You should:
• Consistently use a wide range of terminology effectively
• Demonstrate detailed knowledge and understanding of content and concepts through thorough accurate
descriptions, explanations and examples.
CRITERION B: Investigating
You should:
• Formulate a clear and focused research question
• Use methods accurately to collect and record information consistent with the research question
• Effectively address the research question
CRITERION C: Communicating
You should:
• Communicate information and ideas effectively and accurately by using a style that is completely
appropriate to the audience and purpose
• Structure information and ideas in a way that is completely appropriate to the specified format
CRITERION D:Thinking critically
You should:
• Synthesize information to make valid, well-supported arguments
• Effectively analyse and evaluate a source in terms of origin and purpose, recognizing values and limitations

3. Read the following activities.
Choose 1 aspect of the war you would like to know more about. You will have to carry out research on the topic and
produced different texts based on that research. Here are some suggestions:
•“Total war”
•Propaganda during WWI
•Life in the trenches
•The War at Sea
•The War in the air
•Technology
•Infantry
•The role of women / Women vote
•War on other fronts
TOPIC
a. Think of a wh-question related to that topic which will guide your research.
G U I D I N G
QUESTION
b. Now turn it into an essay question. Define whether your essay will be causative or argumentative:
C A U S A T I V E O R
ARGUMENTATIVE?
ESSAY QUESTION
c. From the following types of sources, choose at least 1 source of each type to use in your research. Explain what
values and limitations each of the chosen sources has (you will be doing this in the IT lab as well).
HISTORY TEXT BOOKS:
VIDEOS:
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES:
CHARTS/GRAPHS:
VISUAL SOURCES (Art or propaganda posters)
OTHERS:
48

d. Make a summary of each of the sources chosen and explain what they have contributed to your essay question
(“From this source I learned…”).
e. Write an essay answering your question and using the information from the sources researched (around 500
words). Bear in mind some ideas on academic honesty:
An authentic piece of work is one that is based on your individual and original ideas, with the ideas and work
of others fully acknowledged.
Always cite your sources whether in the form of direct quotation or paraphrase.
When using the words of another person you must use quotation marks and you must include the source in
a footnote and in the bibliography.
When paraphrasing you must include the source in a footnote and in the bibliography.
f. Think of an aspect of your research that can be criticised (maybe the attitude of some government towards the
issue, the consequences of some event, etc). Imagine you are a cartoonist living at the time of the war. Draw a
cartoon making some criticism. Make sure you think of the origin, audience and message of the cartoon before you
design it.
What are you criticising? What is the message you are trying to transmit?
Who do you think would publish your
cartoon? When?
49

Reggiani, Andres. "El Principio Del Fin De Toda Una época." La Nacion[Buenos Aires] 28 July 2014: n. pag. Web. 5 June 2015. <http://
www.lanacion.com.ar/1713550-el-principio-del-fin-de-toda-una-epoca>.
lanacion.com| Opinión
Lunes 28 de julio de 2014 | Publicado en edición impresa
A cien años de la gran guerra
El principio del fin de toda una época
El 28 de julio de 1914, con el asesinato del archiduque Francisco Fernando en Sarajevo,se encendía la mecha de un
conflicto bélico en el que la humanidad perdió las ilusiones de un progreso ineluctable
Por Andrés Reggiani | Para LA NACION
BERLÍN
La foto, incluida en una muestra organizada por la Staatsbibliothek de Berlín, es una de las tantas que se exhiben por toda Europa
en exposiciones conmemorativas de los cien años del estallido de la Primera Guerra Mundial: un soldado muy joven, con el típico
casco prusiano, posa sentado, con gesto adusto, sosteniendo con su mano izquierda el fusil. La inocencia del rostro, la pulcritud
del uniforme, el correaje ajustado con precisión geométrica, evocan un mundo ordenado y previsible que la tragedia enterró a
sangre y fuego. Ninguna otra guerra puso fin a toda una época de una manera tan abrupta y profunda.
En la primavera de 1914, la mayoría de los líderes políticos de Europa buscaron de manera deliberada o se resignaron a una solución militar que
pusiera fin a la tensión acumulada por las sucesivas crisis internacionales que se habían sucedido de modo intermitente desde fines del siglo XIX.
Ninguno, sin embargo, supo prever las repercusiones de las decisiones fatídicas tomadas en las semanas que siguieron al atentado de Sarajevo.
Todos daban por descontada una guerra entre el imperio austro-húngaro y el reino de Serbia, lugar donde se concibió el plan y organizó la logística
para asesinar al archiduque Francisco Fernando. Pero habida cuenta del sistema de alianzas y de la voluntad
expresada por algunos líderes de honrar los compromisos adquiridos con sus respectivos aliados -la
garantía del presidente francés Poincaré al zar Nicolás II, el "cheque en blanco" del emperador alemán
Guillermo II a su par austríaco- pocos se hacían ilusiones de que el conflicto quedaría limitado a su órbita
regional.
Churchill dijo una vez que los Balcanes producían más historia de la que podían consumir. Tras
dos cruentas guerras (1912-1913), esta región montañosa (ése es el significado del
términobalkan en turco) arrastró al resto del continente a una conflagración sin precedentes.
Cuando las armas se silenciaron a las 11 de la mañana del 11 de noviembre de 1918, Europa
era apenas reconocible: los imperios ruso, austro-húngaro y otomano -los Estados más
antiguos de la época- se habían derrumbado como castillos de naipes. En su lugar había
surgido una madeja de Estados sostenidos por los vencedores como un "cordón sanitario"
capaz de contener el revanchismo alemán y el comunismo ruso. Sin embargo, el nuevo orden
mundial que resultó del intento de conciliar las consideraciones estratégicas de las potencias y
el principio de autodeterminación nacional de los nuevos Estados llevaba las semillas de su
propia destrucción. Los tratados de paz impusieron condiciones severas -aunque no
irrazonables- a los vencidos, pero no previeron los mecanismos para que éstos las cumplieran.
En Medio Oriente, el reparto de las antiguas posesiones otomanas entre Francia y Gran Bretaña
abonó el terreno para las discordias étnicas que asolarían la región hasta el día de hoy. Lejos de
apaciguar los nacionalismos, la guerra los exacerbó. En los países vencidos, como Alemania -y
en los vencedores que se consideraron injustamente tratados, como Italia y Japón- el resentimiento alimentó un espíritu de
desquite que socavó las frágiles democracias y condujo a una nueva guerra.
En 1914 se inició una "era de los extremos", para usar la expresión de Eric Hobsbawm. Los beligerantes se lanzaron a una guerra
total e ilimitada cuyo único resultado posible era la sumisión del adversario. Al fracasar todos los intentos de poner fin a la guerra
asestándole al enemigo un golpe devastador, el equilibrio militar obligó a sustituir la doctrina suicida de la ofensiva (la guerra de
movimiento) por la estrategia del desgaste (la guerra de posiciones y la asfixia económica). Esta estrategia prolongó la contienda e
hizo necesaria la movilización de toda la sociedad. Estado e industria forjaron una alianza que ya no se disolvería y que más tarde
se conocería como el "complejo militar-industrial".
50

La "guerra total" fue una innovación alemana, hija de la necesidad. Aunque el concepto fue acuñado por el general Eric Ludendorff
después del conflicto, la idea de coordinar la producción y suministro de recursos estratégicos ya se había puesta en práctica con
la creación de la Oficina de Materiales de Guerra (1916), a cuyo frente fue designado el sagaz director de la Sociedad General de
Electricidad (AEG), WaltherRathenau. Fue el primer experimento moderno de dirección centralizada de la economía.
Todos los gobiernos recurrieron a la desinformación y el engaño a fin de mantener una moral que la prolongación de la guerra
comenzaba a minar. La demonización del adversario transformó la guerra en una cruzada ideológica del bien contra el mal, la
civilización -o la cultura- contra la barbarie. Las consecuencias de la propaganda antialemana se hicieron sentir de manera
perversa durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, cuando los servicios de espionaje angloamericanos descartaron las primeras
informaciones sobre los asesinatos en masa de judíos como puras fabricaciones de la resistencia antinazi. Al mismo tiempo se
introdujeron mecanismos de censura que dieron a los gobiernos facultades ilimitadas para controlar la información y las ideas, y
cuyas repercusiones se harían sentir hasta la actualidad: el año pasado el gobierno norteamericano sacó a relucir una antigua ley
de 1917 para justificar su política en los casos de Chelsea Manning y Edward Snowden.
La guerra total alteró el carácter cuasi artesanal que hasta entonces había tenido la tecnología bélica. Hizo a las armas
convencionales (la artillería) más devastadoras, y estimuló el desarrollo de otras nuevas. Algunas fueron inicialmente recibidas con
escepticismo (el tanque), otras con curiosidad (el aeroplano). Hubo una cuya sola mención generaba terror. La tarde del 22 de abril
de 1915 los alemanes escribieron una nueva página en la historia de la guerra al lanzar sobre las tropas enemigas, desplegadas en
el frente belga de Langemark , 170 toneladas de cloro gaseoso. Esta sustancia actuaba como un poderoso irritante de los ojos y
las vías respiratorias, y en altas concentraciones provocaba la muerte por asfixia. El ataque dejó un saldo de 1200 muertos y 3000
heridos, pero su efecto principal fue psicológico: al ser más pesado que el aire, el gas se depositó en las trincheras y los soldados
las abandonaron presas del pánico, exponiéndose al fuego enemigo. Aunque sólo el 4% de las bajas de toda la guerra fue obra de
las armas químicas, la ciencia (el Instituto Kaiser-Wilhelm, antecesor del actual Max Planck) y la industria (las empresas BASF,
Bayer y Hoetsch) habían dado un salto cualitativo al desarrollar un agente químico que atacaba la atmósfera -en lugar de los
cuerpos, como las armas convencionales- privando al adversario del medio esencial para la vida. El filósofo Peter Sloterdijk llamó a
esta nueva metodología bélica "atmoterrorismo". La movilización de todos los estratos de la sociedad aceleró cambios que se
venían anunciando desde fines del siglo anterior, muchos de ellos auspiciosos. Con el colapso de los imperios continentales -
alemán, austro-húngaro, ruso y otomano- los pueblos de Europa central y suroriental iniciaron su primera experiencia
democratizadora. Éste es uno de los motivos que hicieron difícil una conmemoración colectiva que reuniese a todos los miembros
de la Unión Europea: en algunos de ellos -especialmente en el Este y Sudeste- la contienda es recordada como el acontecimiento
que hizo posible la autodeterminación nacional; en cambio, en otros, como Francia y Gran Bretaña, la contienda es sinónimo de un
gran trauma colectivo. El efecto emancipador de la guerra también se hizo sentir en otras esferas: la extensión del sufragio a las
mujeres en los países donde ya existía un movimiento sufragista de importancia y la erosión del orden colonial en el mundo árabe y
Asia.
Pero en 1914 también murieron las ilusiones sobre el progreso como destino ineluctable de la especie humana. Las grandes
matanzas en los campos de batalla y las atrocidades contra poblaciones civiles, aun cuando fueron una pálida muestra de
catástrofes por venir, revirtieron una tendenciahacia la generalización de pautas asociadas con lo que llamamos una sociedad
"civilizada". Los "cañones de agosto", para citar la ya clásica obra de la historiadora norteamericana BarbaraTuchman, marcaron el
retorno de la barbarie, es decir, de la ruptura de los sistemas de normas y conducta moral a través de los cuales las sociedades
regulan las relaciones entre sus miembros, y entre éstos y los de otras sociedades. En 1914, Europa cruzó un Rubicón, un umbral
del cual ya no habría retorno, porque el fin de la guerra en 1918 no trajo la paz, sino una larga tregua tras la cual aguardaban
desgracias aún peores.
51

Individuals and Societies: History of Nationalism and WW1

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (7)

Similaire à Individuals and Societies: History of Nationalism and WW1

Similaire à Individuals and Societies: History of Nationalism and WW1 (20)

Plus de Paula Ledesma

Plus de Paula Ledesma (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Individuals and Societies: History of Nationalism and WW1