AP European History March 19 – 23 2018

MONDAY Review activity for Unit Test late 19th century Russia and Imperialism

Materials Strategy/Format Review questions review

Student Skill TypesComp/Context (5)Historical Arguments (7) Interpretation/Synthesis (8, 9)

Instructions Per our materials before Spring Break we will do a little refresher for the Unit Test in class tomorrow. As a

reminder, the Unit test will cover the following:

1. The Mini-Unit on Russia during the 19th-early 20th century (some of this is in the text pp: 764 – 769 top)a. The Decemberist Revoltb. The Reforms of Alexander IIc. The conservative shift of Alexander III (see information about “russification” and the pogroms)

2. Race Theory in the Late 19th-early 20th Century (There is almost none of this in the textbook)a. The ideas of key theoristsb. The Dreyfus Affair and the growth of Zionism

3. New Imperialism 1870 – 1914 (in the textbook this is all of chapter 24)a. Comparison of with Old Imperialismb. The pdf New Imperialism (pages 1-7 on this doc)c. Imperialism in Asia (China and India particularly)d. Imperialism in Africa

This Unit test will be approximately 40 questions with a DBQ take home component!

HomeworkStudy!!!!!!!

TUESDAYUNIT TEST MC and SA based

Materials Strategy/FormatMC-SA format test materials Assessment and review W.CCR.1-2

InstructionsFor this test, you will probably need some additional paper for the SA section. See the DBQ prompt below.

Homework (Due on Thursday)DBQ Essay on ImperialismPrompt: “To what extent was “New Imperialism” both detrimental and a yet sometimes positive for colonial peoples?”**Remember that for “to what extent” style you must address this in the thesis and the body of the essay. This allows you to modify your answer to the prompt. You could say all positive, no positives, some positives (and of course tell which aspects were positive)

AP History DBQ Rubric (7 total points)

The Thesis/Claim (1 point)Scoring Criteria

You should respond to the prompt with a historically clear and defensible thesis/claim that establishes a line of reasoning

Example: Let say you are faced with a prompt that states, "The Civil War successfully made the federal government supreme over state governments." You should take an immediate position in the intro paragraph and explain your position. "The Civil War was the succeeded because_________________". Or, The Civil War was not the not a because _________________."

Tips about the Thesis/Claim Your thesis should be in the intro paragraph and addressed again in the body/conclusion paragraphs. If the

prompt asks for a position then you must give one and stick to it. You will not get this point if you just restate the thesis. The College Board says that the thesis can be in the conclusion. This is NOT good writing. The reader needs to immediately know what this essay is about. It is BETTER writing to hammer home your point multiple times.

Example: "The Civil War succeeded in centralizing power because the issue of state's rights on the slavery question was decided."

Or, "The Civil War did not centralize power because the south institutionalized racism for another hundred years in state laws."

A good essay begins with an intro paragraph that takes a strong position and briefly supports it. It should NEVER be a single sentence and even two sentences is a little week. This is POOR writing. Think of the intro as the preview to a new film. Make it interesting enough to draw in your audience!

Another example of good history writing will always be the time period or span presented in the prompt

Contextualization (0-1 point)Scoring Criteria

Describes the broader historical context relevant to the prompt.

This is simply where a good writer discusses pertinent background content relevant to the prompt.

Tips about Contextualization Good history writing sets the stage for the Thesis/prompt that you take. Your context could begin the into

paragraph but should also flow through the essay. Let's take our above prompt example. One might begin by discussing the several state's rights issues

beyond just the slavery debate such tariffs, the Bank of the U.S. or funding for internal improvements during the antebellum years. or monarchies had developed new power through military strength, taxation, support of the middle class etc. You would need to explain a little about this battle.

Evidence (0-2 points)Scoring CriteriaOne Point: Uses the content of at least THREE documents to address the Topic. This should include the following: Purpose/POV/Bias/TONE/Significance/Reliability of the source Two Points: Supports the argument/thesis using specific evidence related to the prompt in SIX documents including Purpose/POV/Bias/TONE/Significance/Reliability of the source

Tips about Evidence As in the LEQ this section is the heart of good history writing. I have always believed that being a good

writer is like being a good attorney. No good lawyer wins a case without showing evidence. In this section, you can grab 2 points by explaining 3-6 of the documents themselves using a version of SOAPS analysis.

The procedure involves you taking 3-6 documents and analyzing for Purpose/POV/Bias/TONE/Reliability of the source. Now, they are not expecting detail like I would when we analyze sources. You can do this in just a few sentences. I believe that by the AP exam you will be masterful in this skill. Certain types of documents can for certain types of analysis:

Visuals/Photos/Political Cartoons/Art: You can do all of SOAPS analysis Written sources such as speeches, diary entries, historian’s views etc: You can do all of SOAPS

analysis Statistics and Maps: Only use purpose and significance (while statistics can have a bias you won’t

see this with DBQ documents on the AP exam

Example: Let's say you take the position that the Civil War did not immediately end slavery. In the source documents, you have an excerpt from a poor African-American sharecropper writing about his early life and the account was given on his 100th birthday. Right away as a diary account questions of reliability, bias, POV should come to mind. Additionally, you note that the source is decades after the end of sharecropping by someone who lived at the time. This might lead you to discuss reliability because, while it is an eyewitness account, it is being retold by a very old man.

Evidence Beyond the Documents (0-1)Scoring CriteriaOne Point = Provides specific examples of evidence relevant to the topic/prompt. Supports the argument/thesis using specific evidence related to the prompt

Tips about Evidence This is the heart of good history writing. I have always believed that being a good writer is like being a

good attorney. No good lawyer wins a case without showing evidence. This is what basically gets you the single point. However, showing the supporting evidence and explaining how it leads to guilt/innocence is what wins the case. In writing your essay I always suggest that you go for two-three strong pieces of evidence to build your case/support your thesis. This way if you have a weakness the AP reader tends to focus on your strengths.

Example: Let's say you take the position that the Civil War did not completely centralize power over the states. You could point out the fact that even after military occupation of the south for over ten years after the war, the KKK developed and grew stronger despite being outlawed or that "black codes" in state laws kept freedmen in a state of servitude." These examples strongly support you position.

Analysis and Reasoning (1-2 points)Scoring CriteriaOne Point = Uses historical reasoning (e.g. comparison, causation, CCOT) to frame the structure of an argument that addresses the prompt. Two Points = Demonstrates a complex understanding of historical development that is focused on the prompt using evidence that can corroborate, qualify, or modify an argument that addresses the question.

Tips about Analysis and Reasoning This section is largely based on the type of prompt that you face. For example, let’s say you want to show

that the Civil War only ended slavery but did not create equality. And you discuss race relations from 1900-1920. This is an example of a CCOT essay because whichever position you take you'd have to explain the causes of his strength/weakness and how this changed over time.

To some degree how effectively you use evidence may get you one point without entering deeper analysis. One of the best (and my favorite) types of analysis is called synthesis. Where you might take as an example

other challenges to Federal authority in a much more recent period. Another way to achieve two points here could be to show how central governments have been challenged in other countries in similar ways.

Grading ScaleSince I must convert your essay score I use this general scale. Clearly, we want to stay above a three and this gives me a little flexibility

TOTAL POINTS (out of 7):_____ 7= 97 6=93 5=87 4=78 3=70 2=57 1=47

Document 1

Document 2

Document 3

“The wicked Governor, Yü Hsien, scattered proclamations broadcast. These stated that the foreign religions overthrew morality and inflamed men to do evil, so now gods and men were stirred up against them, and Heaven's legions had been sent to exterminate the foreign devils. Moreover, there were the Boxers, faithful to their sovereign, loyal to their country, determined to unite in wiping out the foreign religion. He also offered a reward to all who killed foreigners, either titles or office or money. When the highest official in the province took such a stand in favor of the Boxers, what could inferior officials do? People and officials bowed to his will, and all who enlisted as Boxers were in high favor. It was a time of license and anarchy, when not only Christians were killed, but hundreds of others against whom individual Boxers had a grudge….Late in July a proclamation of the Governor was posted in the city in which occurred the words, "Exterminate foreigners, kill devils." Native Christians must leave the church or pay the penalty with their lives. Li Yij and I talked long and earnestly over plans for saving the lives of our beloved missionaries. "You must not stay here waiting for death," we said.”

Luella Miner, Two Heroes of Cathay, 1907

Document 4

Rudyard Kipling, 1899

Document 5

"The spark which lit the train was undoubtedly the greased cartridges. A change in the shape of a turban had led, in eighteen hundred and six, to the mutiny and massacre of Europeans at Vellore, and there can be no doubt that the danger to their caste, supposed to be hidden in the obnoxious cartridge, was sufficient case, in the existing temper of the sepoys to incite a revolt... Incendiary fires began to blaze in every large cantonment and soon the special grievance of the new cartridge was lost in the unmistakable signs of general mutiny. In February, the 19th Native Infantry refused even the old cartridges which, in common with the whole Bengal army, they had used for years."

Letter from George Barnes, Commissioner and Superintendent of the Cis-Sutlej states to Robert Montgomery, judicial commissioner for the Punjab, February 1858

Document 6““Without the spread of British rule around the world, it is hard to believe that the structures of liberal capitalism would have been so successfully established in so many different economies around the world. Today 350 million people speak English as their first language and around 450 million have it as a second language. That is roughly one in every seven people on the planet.”

Niall Ferguson, Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, 2003

Document 7“…You are in search of a remedy to suppress this rising ebullition of national feeling. I venture to suggest to you that the only way to suppress it is to remove the causes. You have yet the power. You can repent of the wrongs done to Indians. You can compel Mr. Lloyd George [Prime Minister] to redeem his promises. I assure you he has kept many escape doors. You can compel the viceroy to retire in favour of a better one, you can revise your ideas about Sir Michael O'Dwyer and General Dyer. You can compel the government to summon a conference of the recognized leaders of the people duly elected by them and representing all shades of opinion so as to devise mans for granting Swaraj in accordance with the wishes of the people of India.

But this you cannot do unless you consider every Indian to be in reality your equal and brother. I ask for no patronage. I merely point out to you, as a friend, an honourable solution of a grave problem. The other solution, namely, repression is open to you. I prophesy that it will fail. It has begun already. The Government has already imprisoned two brave men of Panipat for holding and expressing their opinions freely. Another is on his trail in Lahore for having expressed similar opinions. One in the Oudh District is already imprisoned. Another awaits judgment. You should know what is going on in your midst. Our propaganda is being carried on in anticipation of repression. I invite you respectfully to choose the better way and make common cause with the people of India whose salt you are eating. To seek to thwart their aspirations is disloyalty to the country.”

I am, Your faithful friend,.M.K. Gandhi, 1920

G. A. Natesan & Co, Speeches and Writings of Mahatma Gandhi. Madras:, 1933

WEDNESDAY (start new Unit WWI and the 1920s) Explain the causes of World War One (INT-8,9,11) (SP-6,13,14,17,18) (IS-8)

Materials Strategy/FormatPPT and video clips

Introduction As we discussed at the end of the last unit, tensions in Africa between the imperial powers would start the

ticking time bomb that led to World War One. Some of the information below is review.The Alliance system develops

1. At this point, it would seem that the British had just as much to fear from France as they did from Germany. In fact, as we have seen Russia was always a constant concern. We saw the Fashoda incident in 1902 almost resulted in a war between France and Britain. The British had already quite unwillingly been forced to declare war on Russia in the 1850s over the “line of communication” to India. But now Germany was on Britain’s radar for several reasons.

a. The Kruger Telegram had stoked anti-German feelings because not only was the Boer War an unpopular conflict, it seemed obvious that Germany was meddling in affairs outside of their own spheres of influence in Africa.

b. The rise of Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1888 introduced a new era of colonial plans for Germany and a far more aggressive foreign policy. We already mentioned that Bismarck had generally been against the idea but organized the Berlin Conference because he feared what might happen if there was no planning.

c. But what really concerned Britain was the escalation in construction of a German Navy (Kriegsmarine) that might one day compete with the British Royal Navy. Once again Bismarck was against the idea believing that it was unnecessary to generate unwanted hostilities. In 1894 Bismarck was dismissed and would die four years later.

2. In the 1890s Alliances were already starting to form. IN some cases, these agreements were based on secrecy and assumptions

a. By 1894 a political and military pact between France and Russia that was one of the basic European alignments of the pre–World War I era. In the event of war, France wanted support against Germany, and Russia against Austria-Hungary. The alliance was formalized through an exchange of letters in order to preserve secrecy, and it was to be in force as long as the opposing Triple Alliance. The alliance was renewed and strengthened in 1899 and 1912

b. French fears and anger over 1870-71had led in part to the formalization of this agreement. They understood that at all cost Germany would likely not want to face a two-front war. Clearly their logical conclusion was a failure.

c. For the Russians their anger was partly over the over the “Eastern Question” and lands that they coveted from the dying Ottoman Empire. Even though fifty years before France had been against them on this question the Franco-Prussian War and an independent Italy had reshuffled the deck.

d. In a related move Italy would be used to threaten France with a two-front conflict. Like some of the other European powers, it wanted to set up colonies and build up an overseas empire. With this aim in mind, Italy joined the Austro-German alliance to form the Triple Alliance, partly in anger at the French seizure of Tunisia in 1881, which many Italians had seen as a potential colony, partly to guarantee herself support in case of foreign aggression: the main alliance compelled any signatory country to support the other parties if two other countries attacked. At the time, most European countries tried to ensure similar guarantees, and because of the Tunisian crisis Italy found no other big potential ally than her historical enemy, Austria–Hungary. That power stood in the way of Italia Irredentia particularly related to the important Adriatic port city of Trieste.

3. The First Morocco Crisis 1905 a. The defeat and Revolution of 1905 in Russia emboldened Kaiser Wilhelm II to attempt to

weakened French imperial ideas in Africa. Germany's first attempt to capitalize on this situation was the first Moroccan crisis of 1905. In January 1905, the French sought to impose reforms on Morocco, thus seeking to turn Morocco into a French protectorate (more direct form of control). Since this could damage German commerce in the region the Germans had a legitimate concern - but this did not justify the Kaiser going there in person, and landing at Tangier in March 1905. In April, the Germans called for an international conference on Morocco, and a guarantee of German commercial freedom in Morocco.

b. This was aimed at France but it unintentionally hit Britain too. The Morocco Crisis disrupted the Anglo-French Entente, formed in April 1904. The Entente Cordiale, as it was known, was originally intended not as an alliance against Germany but as a settlement of long-standing imperialist rivalries between Britain and France in North Africa. By its terms, Britain could pursue its interests in Egypt, while France was free to expand westward from Algeria into Morocco, the last territory that remained independent in the region. France subsequently signed an agreement with Spain dividing Morocco into spheres of influence, with France receiving the greater part.

c. This cemented what had been a general agreement of aims. The British decided in 1907 to formalize a treaty of cooperation with Russia (though not a military alliance). This was very important because this is what created the Triple Entente (called the Allies in US History)

The Second Morocco Crisis (also known as the Agadir Crisis)

1. In n the wake of the Kaiser’s appearance, an international conference convened in Algeciras, Spain, in January 1906 to conclude an agreement about Morocco. The resulting convention awarded France a controlling interest in Moroccan affairs, but guaranteed equality of trade and economic freedom for every nation and limited any colonial action by any nation without consultation with the other signatories. A Second Moroccan Crisis flared in April 1911, when the French pushed troops into the country, claiming to be defending the sultan against riots that had erupted in Fez but actually violating the terms of the Algeciras convention. In response, Germany sent its own warship, the Panther, which arrived in the port of Agadir on May 21, intensifying the enmity between the two nations and, by extension, their allies

2. Coming only about three years before the eruption of war, this event was seen as an important precursor toward tensions. Even the U.S. started to see Germany as a potential aggressor. (tensions between the US and Germany had already briefly flared over control of the Samoan Islands in 1899).

The Spark that Ignites the War

World War One erupted because of tensions in the Balkans. Order in the region depended on the cooperation of two competing powers, Russia and Austria-Hungary. The slumping Austria-Hungary--in which small minorities (Germans in Austria, Magyars in Hungary) attempted to control large populations of restless Slavs--worried for its future as a great power, and in 1908 it annexed the twin Balkan provinces of Bosnia-Herzegovina. This grab for territory and control angered the newly independent Balkan nation of Serbia--who considered Bosnia a Serb homeland. Upstart Serbia then doubled its territory in back-to-back Balkan wars against the Ottomans (1912 and 1913), further threatening Austro-Hungarian supremacy in the region. Previously Russia had agreed to pr0tect Serbian independence.

Russia had entered into an alliance with France--angry over German annexation of their lands in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870-71--and Great Britain, whose legendary naval dominance was threatened by Germany's growing navy. This Triple Entente, squared off against the German-Austro-Hungarian alliance, meant that any regional conflict had the potential to turn into a general European war.

Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand, a great friend of Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany and heir to the Austrian throne from his aging father Franz Joseph, met with him in mid-June 1914 to discuss the tense situation in the Balkans. Two weeks later, on June 28, Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, were in Sarajevo to inspect the imperial armed forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina. When 19-year-old Gavrilo Princip and his fellow members of the nationalist Young Bosnia movement learned of the archduke's planned visit, they

took action: Supplied with weapons by a Serbian terrorist organization called the Black Hand, Princip and his cohorts traveled to Sarajevo in time for the archduke's visit.

The royal couple was touring the city in an open car, with surprisingly little security; one of the nationalists threw a bomb at their car, but it rolled off the back of the vehicle, wounding an army officer and some bystanders. Later that day, the imperial car took a wrong turn near where Princip happened to be standing. Seeing his chance, Princip fired into the car, shooting Franz Ferdinand and Sophie at point-blank range. He then turned the gun on himself, but was tackled by a mob of bystanders who restrained him until the police arrived. The archduke and his wife were rushed away to seek medical attention, but both died within the hour.

Conclusion In order to maintain its credibility as a force in the Balkan region (let alone its status as a great power),

Austria-Hungary needed to enforce its authority in the face of such an insolent crime. However, with the threat of Russian intervention looming and its army unprepared for a large-scale war, it required Germany's help to back up its words with force. Emperor Franz Josef wrote a personal letter to Kaiser Wilhelm requesting his support, and on July 6 German Chancellor Theobald Bethmann Hollweg informed Austrian representatives that Vienna had Germany's full support (sometimes known as the “blank check”)

On July 23, the Austro-Hungarian ambassador to Serbia delivered an ultimatum: The Serbian government must take steps to wipe out terrorist organizations within its borders (sounds familiar huh), suppress anti-Austrian propaganda and accept an independent investigation by the Austro-Hungarian government into Franz Ferdinand's assassination, or face military action. The Serbians acquiesced to nearly all of these demands. But that was not enough. After Serbia appealed to Russia for help, the czar's government began moving towards mobilization of its army, believing that Germany was using the crisis as an excuse to launch a preventive war in the Balkans. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on July 28. On August 1, after hearing news of Russia's general mobilization, Germany declared war on Russia. The German army then launched its attack on Russia's ally, France, through Belgium, violating Belgian neutrality and bringing Great Britain into the war as well.

Synthesis Point: Meanwhile in the U.S. Isolation was a long American tradition. Since the days of George Washington, Americans struggled to

remain protected by the mighty oceans on its border. When European conflicts erupted, as they frequently did, many in the United States claimed exceptionalism. America was different. Why get involved in Europe's self-destruction?

In the early days of the war, as Britain and France struggled against Germany, American leaders decided it was in the national interest to continue trade with all sides as before. A neutral nation cannot impose an embargo on one side and continue trade with the other and retain its neutral status. In addition, United States merchants and manufacturers feared that a boycott would cripple the American economy. Great Britain, with its powerful navy, had different ideas. A major part of the British strategy was to impose a blockade on Germany. American trade with the Central Powers simply could not be permitted. The results of the blockade were astonishing. Trade with England and France more than tripled between 1914 and 1916, while trade with Germany was cut by over ninety percent. It was this situation that prompted submarine warfare by the Germans against Americans at sea. In 1916 Woodrow Wilson campaigned that if he were re-elected then he could keep the U.S. out of the war…. however, he knew it would be hard to do.

HomeworkComplete the DBQ on Imperialism

THURSDAY Examine the escalation of the conflict 1914 - 1916 (INT-9, 11)(SP-6, 13, 14, 17, 18)(IS-8)

Materials Format/StrategyPPT Lecture-discussion L.CCR.2-3

Student Skill TypesChronological Reasoning (1,2,3)Comparison and Context (4)Historical Arguments (6)Historical Interpretation (8)

Introduction

1. We have seen that the scope and scale of this conflict became immense over time because of the alliance system. The number of troops involved made the death toll potentially high.

2. However, to sum up the major reason for a death toll in the 20,000,000 range we really have to analyze several other factors

a. The expansion of technology (The Vertical Battlefield)b. The stalling of tactics (poor training, leadership, and strategies)

3. We will start our discussion of this subject with a look at the basic war plans for each side and then look at the new technology available.

ProcedureThe Western Front and the Von Schlieffan Plan1. “Let the last man on the right brush the English channel with his sleeve.”

Von Scheiffen

2. While Bismarck was still chancellor of Germany he had commissioned the army to formulate a plan to fight a potential two-front war involving both Russia and France simultaneously. His plan was quite simple. Fight a delaying action against the Russians in the east while launching a huge offensive against France through the Low Countries. Do you see any flaws in this plan? By the turn of the century, the plan had been formalized to include the realities of the new alliances with Austria-Hungary and Italy

3. The Austrians and Italians should force the French to protect part of the frontier thus opening up a front on the Low Countries. The Germans understood that this action would possibly bring Britain into the war (treaties with the Benelux nations) but figured that the war would end as soon as they threatened Paris

4. Von Schlieffan’s plan called for speed and surprise coupled with the traditional slowness of the Russians. As it turned out the commander of the German Army von Moltke made a serious error as he strengthened the left wing of the invasion force by taking troops from the right. This would allow the bulk of French and then British forces to plug the gap in the line. German forces got to within about 40 miles of Paris! However one of the coolest events in military history saved France. The “Taxi Cab Army” saved Paris at the Battle of the Marne in September 1914. The failure of this advance created trench warfare and the static nature of war on the western front.

The Eastern Front and Southern Front

1. Russia mobilized much faster than expected. This forced the Germans to move more troops to the east. Despite initial successes against the A-H forces the Russian offensive stalled for predictable reasons: poor leadership and lack of supplies.

2. The Battles of Tannenburg and Mausurian Lakes crushed the Russians and effectively limited their ability to fight in 1915. The Ottomans seeing an opportunity gained from a weakened Russia joined the Central Powers. This fateful decision would result in the end of one of the old empires in history and bring lasting tensions to the Middle East.

3. The Italians though they had treaties with both A-H and Germany never really entered the war and both sides tried to sway the Italians. In 1915, Italy had signed the secret Treaty of London. In this treaty Britain had offered Italy large sections of territory in the Adriatic Sea region (Tyrol, Dalmatia and Istria). Such an

offer was too tempting for Italy to refuse. Britain and France wanted Italy to join in on their side so that a new front could open up t the south of the Western Front. The plan was to split still further the Central Powers so that its power on the Western and Eastern Fronts was weakened. The plan was logical. The part Italy had to play in it required military success. This success was never forthcoming. But in October 1917 came the disaster of Caporetto. In this battle, in fact a series of battles, the Italians had to fight the whole Austrian Army and 7 divisions of German troops. The Italian Army lost 300,000 men. By the end of the war in 1918, 600,000 Italians were dead, 950,000 were wounded and 250,000 were crippled for life. The war cost more than the government had spent in the previous 50 years – and Italy had only been in the war three years.

The Middle East

1. In a move similar to the Italians switching sides, the Allies had hoped to attack and quickly defeat the Ottomans forcing Germany and A-H to further divide their army. The Battle of Gallipoli was planned to bring about a swift victory. Allied leaders, including Winston Churchill and Lord Kitchener, scoured their maps to find a way around the impasse. The Dardanelles Strait leading from the Mediterranean to Istanbul caught their eye. A successful attack in this area could open a sea lane to the Russians through the Black Sea, provide a base for attacking the Central Powers through what Churchill described as the "soft underbelly of Europe", and divert enemy attention from the Western Front. (He will say the same thing in WWII about North Africa).

2. The Campaign was a fiasco, poorly planned and badly executed; it called for an amphibious landing but with the Turks occupying the high ground. It began in February 1915 with an unsuccessful naval attempt to force a passage up the Dardanelles. The flotilla retreated after sustaining heavy damage from Turkish guns lining both shores and from mines strewn across the channel. Casualties were high - approximately 252,000 or 52% for the British/French while the Ottoman Turks suffered about 300,000 casualties or a rate of 60%. The failed campaign gained little and badly tarnished both Churchill's and Kitchener's reputations.

3. The British then tried to use an unusual approach for an imperialist power, fomenting a revolution among subjected peoples. The Arab peoples had long chaffed under Ottoman rule (largely ineffective and very corrupt). The British supported a plan formulated by T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) who helped to organize a rebellion that split Turkish control and eventually captured Damascus. The promise to the Arabs was self-determination but this as we shall see was largely denied at the war’s end.

The Technology of War

One of the reasons why WWI was so much more devastating was the nature of technology versus the slowness of tactics. To some degree the major powers were fighting tactics pioneered by Napoleon in an era of automatic weapons.

1. The Machine Gun (Mauser and Maxim Guns) was the most devastating weapon of the war. Never before could a single machine gun crew (2-3 men) wipeout whole regiments. This is one of the reasons why trench warfare developed.

2. Heavy Artillery was nothing new in war but the size of the guns dwarfed all others. The Paris Gun dubbed Big Bertha by the Brits could hurl a ton and half shell almost 80 miles in certain conditions. They were not very effective but they were more a psychological weapon.

3. Most of the weapons invented involved breaching the enemy’s trench. The Germans developed chlorine gas and mustard gas and first unleashed it at the Battle of Ypres. The weapon was more effective than anyone realized. The Germans, had they been more prepared could have drove right through the breaks in the lines. But they didn’t attack with enough men. The British invented tanks called Matilda but it was too slow to be effective. However, just like the poison gas attack it was successful but the attacks failed. The next war would see great improvements.

4. For the first time aircraft were used as weapons of war. Fighter planes first developed as scout planes and the first actual air to air dog fight was really more of a “flyby shooting” as one pilot took out a rifle and shot the other pilot. For the purpose of bombing, blimps (dirigibles or zeppelins) and bombers. Like the tank, aerial bombing would have to wait for the next war.

5. The War at Sea was marked by only one real naval battle using a powerful class of ships called dreadnoughts, the Battle of Jutland. In this fight, the Germans actually sank more British vessels. However, what Germany lost could not be replaced. Instead, the Germans pioneered tactics with U-boats (submarines) than would nearly break the British ability to get supplies from the U.S. (more on this next week)

Conclusion So, as we see the inability of the forces to cope with changes played a large role in developing trench warfare. Next week will see the impact of the pivotal year 1917 in the conflict.

Homework Study for Quiz tomorrow on the causes of World War One

FRIDAY Review quiz on WWI causes

Materials Strategy/FormatQuiz forms SA format assessment and review

Weekend HomeworkRead All Quite on the Western Front (remember that the review is due at the end of this month)