Topic 7.

1: Shifting Power
Introduction
The early 20th century marked a turning point in global political dynamics, as
long-established empires and political systems began to unravel under immense
internal and external pressures. This period witnessed a series of revolutions and
reforms that restructured the political order in countries like Russia, China,
Mexico, and the Ottoman Empire. These transformations were driven by a mix
of internal discontent, economic stagnation, social unrest, and external
pressures like imperialism and war. As new ideologies such as communism,
nationalism, and self-determination gained traction, they deeply reshaped
state systems and influenced global politics for the rest of the century.

Revolution in Russia
By the early 20th century, Russia was economically and politically behind other
industrial powers such as Europe, the United States, and Japan. Internally, the
tsarist regime resisted reforms, lagged in education, transportation
infrastructure, and support for industrial entrepreneurs. The failure to modernize
weakened the military, leading to humiliating losses in the Crimean War and
the Russo-Japanese War. The most dramatic internal upheaval came with the
Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, when the Bolsheviks, under Vladimir Lenin,
seized control and implemented communist rule. The new government sought
to abolish private trade, nationalize industry, and distribute food to the working
class.
Key moments of revolutionary pressure included Bloody Sunday in 1905,
where peaceful protesters were massacred by the tsar’s forces, and the
Revolution of 1905, when 400,000 workers went on strike. Externally, World
War I exposed Russia’s military weaknesses and deepened civilian suffering,
leading to revolution. The success of the Bolsheviks was globally significant—
it was the first time a communist regime governed a major country, deeply
alarming capitalist nations and contributing to a new global divide between
capitalism and communism.
Self-Determination and the Collapse of the Ottoman Empire
By the early 20th century, the Ottoman Empire had become known as "the sick
man of Europe" due to economic decline and loss of territorial control. As the
empire weakened, the Young Turks, a reformist group, sought to modernize the
empire by pushing for a constitution and promoting Turkification—the
assimilation of all ethnic groups under Turkish Islamic culture. This campaign
had devastating effects, particularly on Armenians, who were predominantly
Christian and became scapegoats during this time.
Resentment towards British and French economic influence also drove the
Ottomans to secretly ally with Germany in World War I. Following the war and
Germany’s defeat, the empire was dismantled. The Turkish National
Movement, led by Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk), emerged victorious in resisting
Allied occupation. In 1923, the Republic of Turkey was established with
Kemal as its first president. Though he was a secular reformer who
implemented public education, banned polygyny, expanded women’s suffrage,
and promoted Western dress, Atatürk ruled as a dictator until his death in
1938.

Conclusion
The early 20th century was marked by monumental political upheaval, driven
by a combination of internal failures, foreign pressure, and the widespread
appeal of new ideologies. In Russia, communism offered an alternative to
tsarist autocracy; in China, republicanism and nationalism challenged imperial
rule; in the Ottoman Empire, ethnic tension and imperial entanglements
catalyzed the emergence of modern Turkey; and in Mexico, revolution
restructured land ownership and political institutions. Each case illustrates how
internal and external forces intertwined to dissolve empires and birth new
systems. These transformations fundamentally redefined global power
structures, set the ideological stage for the Cold War, and reshaped national
identities across continents.
Topic 7.2: Causes of World War I
Introduction
The early 20th century was characterized by an escalating buildup of tensions in
Europe, rooted in growing nationalism, military competition, imperial rivalries,
and complex alliances. These developments created a political atmosphere ripe
for conflict. While the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand acted as
the immediate trigger for war, deeper long-term causes had been simmering for
decades. This topic explores both the short-term catalysts and structural
causes that led to the outbreak of World War I, a devastating global conflict
that fundamentally altered the global political order and set the stage for future
instability.
Immediate Causes of the War
The spark that ignited the conflict was the assassination of Archduke Franz
Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife, Sophie, on
June 28, 1914, in Bosnia. The assassin, Gavrilo Princip, was a Serbian
nationalist and member of the Black Hand, an organization committed to
ending Austro-Hungarian control in the Balkans. While many in Serbia
viewed the Black Hand as a nationalist group, Austria-Hungary classified it as
terrorist.
In retaliation, Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia. When Serbia
failed to fully comply, Austria-Hungary declared war on July 28, 1914. This
regional incident rapidly escalated due to the web of alliances binding
European powers. Germany backed Austria-Hungary; Russia backed Serbia;
soon France, Britain, and Japan joined in. By August 1914, the conflict had
become a full-scale world war.
Long-Term Causes: The MAIN Factors
The complex origins of World War I can be captured by the acronym MAIN—
Militarism, Alliances, Imperialism, and Nationalism—each of which played
a crucial role in destabilizing Europe.
Militarism
Defined as aggressive military preparedness, militarism encouraged
glorification of war and prioritized military buildup. Countries like Great
Britain and Germany poured massive resources into expanding their armies
and navies. The Industrial Revolution enabled rapid mass production of
weapons. Public sentiment in many countries viewed war as exciting and
honorable, fueling the willingness of young men to enlist with enthusiasm.
Alliances
European powers formed secret mutual defense alliances, which expanded the
scope of any potential conflict. The Triple Entente—France, Russia, and
Great Britain—rivaled the Triple Alliance—Germany, Austria-Hungary,
and Italy. These alliances obligated member states to support one another
militarily. When the war began, the Triple Entente became the Allies, joined by
Italy, Japan, China, and the United States. The former Triple Alliance
evolved into the Central Powers, consisting of Germany, Austria-Hungary,
the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria.
Imperialism
As Western European powers expanded globally, imperial rivalries
intensified. Nations scrambled for overseas colonies, particularly in Africa, to
assert global power and economic strength. Once most colonies were claimed,
competition shifted into conflict over control. Imperialism fuelled resentment
and rivalry, heightening tensions that eventually spilled into war.
Nationalism
Perhaps the most potent long-term cause, nationalism drove ethnic groups
within multinational empires, such as the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian,
to seek self-determination—the right of people sharing common ethnicity,
language, or culture to form their own nation-state. Serbian nationalists, like
Princip, sought to break free from Austro-Hungarian dominance, while
Arabs under Ottoman rule were also demanding independence. These
nationalist movements injected volatility into already fragile empires, making
conflict inevitable.
Consequences of World War I
The war’s consequences were enormous and far-reaching. It resulted in the
collapse of four major empires: Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the
Ottoman Empire. It redrew the political map of Europe and the Middle
East, and German colonies were distributed among Allied nations. Former
Ottoman territories—such as Iraq, Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon—came
under the control of Britain and France.
The war also introduced new military technologies and combat tactics that
made it the most lethal war in human history to that point. Its aftershocks led
to communist revolutions, economic collapses, the rise of fascist regimes, and
movements for colonial independence. The United States emerged as a
dominant power, shifting the global balance from Europe to America.
Finally, Germany was forced to accept full blame for the war through postwar
treaties, including the Treaty of Versailles. The resulting reparations and
humiliation sowed the seeds for future resentment, directly contributing to the
rise of authoritarian regimes and the eventual outbreak of World War II.
Conclusion
The outbreak of World War I was not merely the result of a single
assassination, but rather the culmination of decades of militarism, alliances,
imperialist ambition, and nationalistic fervor. These underlying forces
created a fragile, volatile political system, where even a small regional incident
could ignite global catastrophe. The war’s consequences were catastrophic,
permanently altering the political, economic, and social fabric of the world
and laying the groundwork for even greater conflict in the decades to follow.
Topic 7.3: Conducting World War I
Introduction
The conduct of World War I marked a watershed in military history and global
society, representing a transition into a modern era of industrial warfare, total
societal mobilization, and global engagement. As nations grappled with the
scale of destruction and length of the conflict, their strategies extended far
beyond traditional battlefield maneuvers. Governments turned to radical means,
both material and psychological, to sustain their war efforts. Technological
innovations, evolving tactics, the entry of the United States, and the
deployment of propaganda and economic planning all played significant roles
in transforming not only the battlefield but civilian life. The war’s reach was
truly global, drawing in colonies and civilians across continents. Understanding
how World War I was conducted reveals not only the military evolution of the
early 20th century but also how deeply warfare reshaped societies and
governments.
Industrialized Warfare and Trench Tactics
World War I introduced a grim, mechanized style of combat that horrified those
who had entered the war with patriotic fervour. In the early months, European
societies embraced the conflict with enthusiasm, seeing it as a noble pursuit.
However, the actual experience was gruesome and dehumanizing. Soldiers
faced horrific conditions in trench warfare, characterized by cold, mud,
disease, and psychological trauma. These trenches, stretching across Western
Europe, offered minimal protection and became symbolic of the war’s lethal
stalemate.
Technological advances intensified the horror. The use of poison gas, including
chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas, inflicted long-term health consequences
even when not fatal. Though gas masks were eventually issued, the suffering
was immense. The introduction of machine guns, firing hundreds of rounds per
minute, contributed to massive casualties and made territorial advances nearly
impossible. Submarines, particularly German U-boats, played a major role in
naval warfare, targeting military and civilian vessels and turning the oceans
into battlefields. Airplanes, although initially used for reconnaissance, were
soon equipped with machine guns, leading to aerial combat or “dogfights.”
These flying machines also marked the beginning of air-based military
strategy. Finally, the British introduction of tanks, first referred to as
landships, allowed for limited advances across difficult terrain, although they
were still in developmental stages.
The United States and the Globalization of the War
The eventual entry of the United States in 1917 dramatically altered the
dynamics of the war. Although initially committed to neutrality, the U.S. had
strong economic ties with the Allied Powers and increasingly saw itself aligned
with democratic values against autocratic regimes. American public opinion
shifted decisively following Germany’s submarine warfare, especially the
sinking of the Lusitania, which killed more than 100 Americans. The final
blow came with the Zimmermann Telegram, in which Germany promised to
assist Mexico in reclaiming lost U.S. territory if it entered the war against the
Allies. These events stirred nationalist sentiments and led to U.S. mobilization,
which infused the Allied cause with fresh troops and vast industrial resources,
helping to tip the balance of power.

Total War and the Mobilization of Society

World War I is widely regarded as the first instance of total war, where the
lines between military and civilian effort blurred entirely. Governments
redirected all aspects of their domestic economies toward the war effort.
Factories were converted for military production, and millions of civilians,
including women, replaced men in the workforce. Planning boards set quotas
and regulated prices, while rationing systems ensured resource allocation for
soldiers. In Britain, France, and Russia, labor shortages led to the recruitment
of Chinese workers to support industrial and logistical needs.
Alongside material mobilization came psychological warfare in the form of
propaganda. Governments across the spectrum—Allied and Central Powers
alike—invested heavily in campaigns designed to stir patriotic fervor,
demonize the enemy, and control public opinion. Posters, films, and
newspaper stories offered emotional and often misleading portrayals of the
conflict. The British and American press exaggerated German atrocities,
while Germany depicted the Allies as morally corrupt. Propaganda served to
unify societies under nationalistic banners but also sowed lasting animosity and
xenophobia.

A Truly Global War

Although much of the combat took place in Europe, World War I’s impact
stretched across the globe. It involved fighting in Asia, Africa, the Pacific
Islands, and on the Atlantic Ocean. The imperial ambitions of European
powers drew their colonies into the conflict. Japan joined the Allies to seize
German colonies in the Pacific and a German-held port in China. Britain
gained control over Germany’s African territories, and the Ottoman Empire,
aligned with the Central Powers, attempted to strike at British-held regions like
the Suez Canal.
Colonial soldiers played a crucial role in sustaining the war effort. Over 1.3
million Indian soldiers fought for Britain in Europe and Southwest Asia,
while France deployed 450,000 African troops, mostly from West Africa and
Algeria, and additional forces from Indochina. Australian and New
Zealander forces, known as ANZACs, fought in the bloody and ultimately
unsuccessful Gallipoli Campaign in Turkey. These troops, drawn from
faraway lands, often served with the hope of securing self-rule for their home
countries. Arab fighters, under British encouragement and with promises of
independence, revolted against the Ottoman Empire, capturing Baghdad,
Damascus, and Jerusalem.

Women’s Role in the War

The war created transformative opportunities for women, who entered public
and industrial life in unprecedented numbers. They worked in factories, farms,
and served as nurses, ambulance drivers, and switchboard operators.
Although most nations prohibited women from engaging in combat, some—
Russia, Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria—made exceptions.

Conclusion
The conduct of World War I was as transformative as it was devastating. The
war ushered in a new era of industrialized, mechanized combat, blurring the
lines between soldiers and civilians and drawing entire populations into the
war effort. The concept of total war mobilized economies, redefined gender
roles, and revolutionized media through propaganda. With colonies and global
alliances drawn into combat, World War I became a truly international war,
reshaping global relations and further entrenching colonial grievances. The
experiences and strategies employed during the war not only determined the
outcome but also deeply influenced the political, economic, and cultural
structures of the postwar world, paving the way for the conflicts and
transformations that would define the 20th century.
Topic 7.4: Economy in the Interwar Period
Introduction
The years following World War I were marked by severe economic instability
and widespread social unrest across much of the world. Despite initial hopes for
peace and prosperity, the global economy was soon thrown into crisis by the
Great Depression. While the war had already strained national finances and
economies, it was the economic collapse of the 1930s that pushed societies
toward drastic political and economic experiments. These varied dramatically
in different regions: some turned toward government intervention and
reformist policies, while others gravitated toward totalitarianism, fascism, or
state-led collectivization. The interwar period thus became a testing ground for
competing economic ideologies, all of which were responses to the profound
failures of market capitalism and the unprecedented demands of the postwar
world.
The Great Depression and Global Impact
Following the devastation of World War I, particularly in Europe, people hoped
for a return to stability. However, economic exhaustion, inflation, and
unfulfilled wartime promises led to significant disillusionment. The Treaty of
Versailles demanded billions of dollars in reparations from Germany, which
the war-torn nation could not pay. To cover these obligations, the German
government printed more paper currency, resulting in hyperinflation that
rendered the currency almost worthless. German citizens found themselves
unable to afford basic goods, and images of currency being used as wallpaper
captured the absurdity of the crisis.
Compounding Germany’s difficulties, France and Britain struggled to repay
their war debts to the United States, and the Soviet Union refused to honor
debts incurred before the Bolshevik Revolution. The stock market crash of
1929 in the United States sent shockwaves around the globe, leading to the
Great Depression. The crash triggered bank failures, industrial collapse, and
massive unemployment—over 30 million people were jobless by 1932. The
global interdependence created through imperial networks and trade ensured
that Africa, Asia, and Latin America suffered alongside industrialized nations.
Particularly vulnerable were nations like Germany, which relied heavily on
American investment, and Japan, which depended on foreign trade. Between
1929 and 1931, Japanese exports were cut in half. Germany, already battling
hyperinflation and postwar debt, now faced a full-blown economic disaster as
American investors pulled their money out.
Keynesian Economics and the New Deal
The economic crisis prompted thinkers and policymakers to question laissez-
faire capitalism and seek alternative solutions. One of the most influential
responses came from British economist John Maynard Keynes, who rejected
the notion that the market could naturally recover. He argued that in times of
economic downturn, governments should practice deficit spending—that is,
spend more than they collect in taxes—to stimulate demand and promote
recovery. This theory became known as Keynesian economics, and it would
profoundly shape economic policy throughout the 20th century.

Decline in Trade and Global Economic Policy

As the depression deepened, many countries responded by turning inward.
Governments imposed tariffs on foreign goods to protect domestic industries
and jobs, but this protectionism further decreased global trade.
In contrast to many Western nations, Japan recovered relatively quickly. The
Japanese government devalued its currency, making its exports more
competitive. Additionally, its expanding imperialist ambitions in East Asia
spurred military and industrial spending, stimulating its economy in ways
that other nations, particularly those restrained by democratic checks or debt
obligations, could not match.

Authoritarian Economic Responses: The Soviet Union

While the United States and Western Europe sought to preserve capitalism
through reforms, other nations turned to radically different economic models.
In the Soviet Union, the Bolshevik Revolution had already brought about a
communist regime. Although Vladimir Lenin initially allowed limited private
trade under the New Economic Plan (NEP) to ease suffering during the
Russian Civil War (1918–1921), this system was abandoned after his death in
1924.
His successor, Joseph Stalin, seized total control and implemented the Five-
Year Plans—a state-led strategy to rapidly industrialize the USSR and
transform it into a global power. Private land ownership was abolished, and
farms were forcibly collectivized into units called kolkhozes. These collectives,
though idealized as cooperative ventures, were in reality enforced by the state,
which confiscated food and dictated production. The consequences were
disastrous: millions starved, especially in Ukraine, and many farmers burned
crops and killed livestock in protest. Despite the catastrophic human toll,
Soviet heavy industry expanded rapidly during the 1930s, and urban
employment grew, albeit under harsh and repressive conditions. Stalin's
brutality, including mass executions and labor camps (gulags), remained
hidden from much of the world due to strict media control. Nevertheless,
observers in the economically struggling West saw the Soviet model as an
unsettling but effective alternative to failing capitalism.
The Rise of Fascism in Italy
Economic hardship also paved the way for authoritarian nationalism,
especially in countries like Italy, where discontent over the meager territorial
gains from World War I and ongoing economic struggles gave rise to fascism.
Benito Mussolini, who coined the term, envisioned a totalitarian state where
all sectors of society—employers, unions, and government—would operate as
part of a unified national body. This corporatist theory emphasized unity and
strength but in practice gave the state total control.
Militaristic propaganda and nationalist fervor were integral to Mussolini’s
rule. Schools indoctrinated youth with pride in “Il Duce”, and the government
glorified conquest as a national necessity. In the 1930s, Italy resumed its
imperial ambitions by launching a campaign to conquer Abyssinia (modern-
day Ethiopia)—a retaliatory effort for a past defeat. Mussolini's rise reflected
how economic instability, combined with national humiliation, created fertile
ground for extremist ideologies.

Conclusion
The interwar period was defined by economic catastrophe and
experimentation. From the Great Depression to hyperinflation, to the collapse
of global trade, the world faced a crisis that capitalism alone seemed unable to
fix. In response, nations adopted a spectrum of strategies: from Keynesian
reforms and public spending in the United States, to state socialism and
brutal collectivization in the USSR, to fascist corporatism in Italy. These
policies did not merely reflect national economic needs; they were shaped by
ideologies and ambitions that would soon clash violently in World War II. The
interwar economic landscape, therefore, was not just about survival—it was
about choosing the future of global society.
Topic 7.5: Unresolved Tensions After World War I
Introduction
Although the guns fell silent in 1918, the peace that followed World War I
proved fragile and fleeting. The Treaty of Versailles and other postwar
arrangements failed to resolve underlying tensions and in many cases
exacerbated them. The victors imposed harsh terms on the defeated, redrew
borders without regard for local populations, and neglected to address the hopes
of colonial subjects, many of whom had fought in the war. The result was a
world still simmering with resentment, nationalism, and political instability.
This period between the world wars was defined not only by diplomatic
failures but also by rising movements for self-determination, growing ethnic
violence, and the seeds of future global conflict.

Reparations and German Resentment

Perhaps the most destabilizing outcome of the postwar treaties was the harsh
treatment of Germany. The Treaty of Versailles required Germany to accept
full responsibility for the war and pay billions in reparations to France and
Britain. These payments, combined with hyperinflation and the loss of
territory, humiliated the German population and left the economy in ruins. This
deep sense of injustice and economic devastation made many Germans
receptive to radical ideologies, such as fascism, and fueled nationalist
movements seeking revenge and restoration.
Germany’s colonies were also stripped away and handed over to the League of
Nations, which redistributed them as mandates to Allied powers like Britain
and France. While these mandates were officially under League supervision,
they were essentially new forms of imperial control, undermining the promise
of self-determination for colonized peoples.

The League of Nations and Its Limitations

The postwar world also witnessed the creation of the League of Nations,
envisioned by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson as a body to ensure lasting
peace. Though ambitious, the League suffered from critical weaknesses. The
United States never joined, weakening its authority and influence.
Additionally, the League had no armed forces to enforce decisions, making it
ineffective in preventing aggression or resolving disputes. Its structure reflected
the power dynamics of its creators more than the aspirations of the global
community. As a result, the League became a symbol of idealism unmet by
practical means, and its failures further undermined confidence in international
cooperation.

Colonial Tensions and Broken Promises

World War I had raised expectations among colonized peoples, many of whom
had contributed manpower and resources to the war effort with the belief that
self-determination would follow. Instead, their hopes were crushed. The
Allied Powers showed little intention of relinquishing control over their
empires, leading to widespread disillusionment and resistance.
In India, the British failure to fulfill promises of greater autonomy sparked
widespread protest. Amritsar, a city in Punjab, became the site of a horrific
massacre in 1919 when British troops opened fire on a peaceful gathering,
killing hundreds. This massacre galvanized Indian nationalists and turned
figures like Mohandas Gandhi into leaders of mass resistance. Gandhi
promoted civil disobedience—a nonviolent refusal to obey unjust laws—as the
cornerstone of the independence movement.

Ethnic Tensions and Population Shifts

The redrawing of national boundaries and collapse of empires led to significant
ethnic conflict in the postwar era. Multinational empires like Austria-
Hungary and the Ottoman Empire fractured into smaller nation-states, many
of which included ethnic minorities who felt marginalized or oppressed. The
principle of self-determination, applied inconsistently by the victors, created as
many new grievances as it solved.
In the Middle East, Arab nationalists who had supported the Allies during the
war were betrayed by secret agreements like the Sykes-Picot Agreement,
which divided the Ottoman lands between Britain and France. The resulting
mandates in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestine were governed without
genuine local input, sparking anti-colonial revolts and lasting regional
instability.
Additionally, the Armenian Genocide carried out by the Ottoman Empire
during the war—where approximately 1.5 million Armenians were killed—set
a grim precedent for state-sponsored ethnic violence. The international
community largely failed to respond effectively, foreshadowing future atrocities
in the 20th century.
Conclusion
Although World War I ended in 1918, its consequences continued to reverberate
throughout the interwar period. The punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles,
the failure of the League of Nations, and the betrayal of colonial subjects’
aspirations left the world in a fragile state. Economic hardship, ethnic
conflict, and imperial exploitation all contributed to growing global instability.
Rather than ushering in a lasting peace, the postwar years exposed the
limitations of diplomatic idealism and revealed how unfinished business from
World War I would lead directly into the next global conflict. The unresolved
tensions of this era—between colonizer and colonized, victor and
vanquished, ethnic majority and minority—would ignite the ideological
battles and revolutionary movements that defined the remainder of the 20th
century.
Topic 7.6: Causes of World War II
Introduction
The outbreak of World War II in 1939 was not an isolated event but the
culmination of unresolved political, economic, and ideological tensions that had
been building throughout the interwar period. The world had failed to fully
recover from the devastation of World War I, and the mechanisms meant to
maintain peace—such as the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations—
proved insufficient or outright harmful. In this volatile atmosphere, fascist
regimes exploited national grievances, imperial ambitions, and economic
despair to gain power. As leaders like Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and
Hideki Tojo rose to prominence, they rejected the postwar international order
and aggressively pursued expansionist policies. Understanding the causes of
World War II requires analyzing the failures of peace, the appeal of
authoritarian ideologies, and the systemic weaknesses that allowed militarism
to flourish unchecked.

Failure of the Treaty of Versailles and German Resentment

The seeds of World War II were deeply embedded in the punitive and
humiliating terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Forced to accept full blame for
World War I, Germany suffered the imposition of severe reparations,
territorial losses, and military restrictions. The economic consequences were
devastating: reparations contributed to hyperinflation, unemployment, and
political instability. Germany’s national identity was wounded, and many
Germans viewed the treaty as a “Diktat”—an imposed settlement, not a
negotiated peace.
This environment became fertile ground for the rise of extremist ideologies,
particularly fascism and Nazism. Adolf Hitler, leader of the National Socialist
German Workers’ Party (Nazi Party), capitalized on these grievances by
promising to restore national pride, rebuild the military, and reclaim lost
territories. The Nazi platform also appealed to widespread anti-communist
and anti-Semitic sentiments, which were exacerbated by economic despair. The
treaty, rather than securing long-term peace, effectively laid the groundwork for
a far more destructive conflict by alienating and radicalizing one of Europe’s
major powers.
Rise of Fascism and Militarist Ideologies
In the years following World War I, several countries witnessed the emergence
of authoritarian regimes that prioritized nationalism, militarism, and territorial
expansion. The Great Depression had discredited liberal democracies in the
eyes of many, and the promises of stability and national strength made fascist
ideologies increasingly attractive.
In Italy, Benito Mussolini established the first fascist regime in the early
1920s. His government suppressed dissent, centralized power, and pursued
imperial expansion. Mussolini claimed that conquering territory was essential to
revitalize Italy’s status and satisfy its need for resources. In 1935, Italy invaded
Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in a brutal campaign of conquest that demonstrated the
inefficacy of the League of Nations and emboldened other expansionist
powers.
In Germany, Hitler took Mussolini’s model further. Upon becoming
chancellor in 1933, he swiftly dismantled democratic institutions and built a
totalitarian state rooted in racist, militarist, and ultranationalist ideologies.
Hitler defied the Treaty of Versailles by rebuilding Germany’s military,
reoccupying the Rhineland in 1936, and later annexing Austria through the
Anschluss in 1938. These moves were met with little resistance from the
international community, signaling to Hitler that appeasement, rather than
confrontation, would be the global response.
In Japan, a powerful military elite emerged within the imperial government.
Motivated by the need for natural resources, living space, and strategic
dominance, Japan embarked on aggressive territorial expansion. Its invasion of
Manchuria in 1931 and full-scale war with China in 1937 highlighted the
failure of the League and the growing threat of militarism in East Asia. The
Japanese military, operating with near-autonomy from civilian government,
viewed expansion as both a strategic and moral necessity—justified by a belief
in Japanese racial and cultural superiority.

The Policy of Appeasement and International Paralysis

One of the most controversial aspects of the pre-war period was the policy of
appeasement, most associated with British Prime Minister Neville
Chamberlain. Rather than confront Hitler’s early violations of the Treaty of
Versailles, Western democracies made concessions, believing that a stronger
Germany would prevent the spread of communism from the Soviet Union and
avoid another large-scale war.
The most infamous act of appeasement occurred in 1938, when Britain and
France allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland—a region of
Czechoslovakia with a large German-speaking population—under the Munich
Agreement. Though Chamberlain claimed this brought “peace for our time,”
Hitler soon invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia, proving that appeasement had
only delayed the inevitable.
From the perspective of the appeasers, the trauma of World War I made
confrontation unthinkable, and many leaders believed Hitler’s demands were
legitimate corrections to an unjust treaty. However, their failure to act decisively
emboldened fascist leaders, undermined collective security, and left smaller
nations vulnerable to conquest.

Expansionism and Alliance Systems

The Axis Powers—Germany, Italy, and Japan—formed an informal alliance
rooted in shared ambitions to expand their territories and revise the existing
world order. These powers viewed liberal democracies and Soviet communism
as existential threats and sought to replace the fragile post-Versailles system
with one built on military strength and imperial dominance.
Hitler’s ultimate goal was to create a vast German empire in Eastern Europe,
which would require the conquest of Poland and war with the Soviet Union.
In a strategic move, Germany signed the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact in
August 1939, in which both powers agreed not to attack one another and
secretly divided Eastern Europe between them. This pact shocked the world,
particularly given Hitler’s vehement anti-communism, and removed the final
obstacle to Germany’s invasion of Poland.
On September 1, 1939, German forces invaded Poland, using blitzkrieg
tactics—fast-moving, coordinated attacks involving tanks, aircraft, and
infantry. Two days later, Britain and France declared war, marking the
official start of World War II. The conflict would soon spread across continents,
involving all major powers and causing unprecedented destruction.

Conclusion
World War II was not an accident, but the result of a series of deliberate actions,
systemic failures, and global complacency. The harsh terms of the Treaty of
Versailles, the rise of fascist and militarist regimes, the weakness of
international institutions, and the misguided policy of appeasement all
combined to create an environment where war became not only possible, but
inevitable. The period leading up to the conflict reveals the danger of
unresolved grievances, unchecked aggression, and international inaction.
Ultimately, World War II would prove far more devastating than the conflict it
sought to avenge, and it would fundamentally reshape global power, ideologies,
and borders in its aftermath.
Topic 7.7: Conducting World War II
Introduction
The conduct of World War II marked a significant evolution in global
warfare—expanding upon the technological, strategic, and ideological shifts
introduced during World War I. From 1939 to 1945, this conflict engulfed
nearly every region of the world and redefined the very meaning of total war,
demanding unprecedented levels of human, material, and psychological
mobilization. Not only did military innovations shape the nature of battle, but
the blurring of lines between civilian and military targets transformed the
social and moral landscape of warfare. Propaganda became essential, civilian
labour was weaponized, and ideologies—including fascism, communism, and
liberal democracy—framed the war as an existential struggle. This topic
explores how WWII was fought—on the battlefield, at home, and through the
lens of ideology and identity.

Military Strategies and Technological Developments

World War II introduced even more complex and destructive methods of
warfare than its predecessor. The German military, having perfected its
doctrine of blitzkrieg or “lightning war,” used coordinated attacks by
infantry, tanks, and aircraft to overwhelm enemy positions quickly. This
strategy led to swift victories across Poland, France, and parts of Eastern
Europe in the early stages of the war.
On the other side of the world, Japan’s military strategy emphasized rapid
conquest of Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands, capturing territories rich in
natural resources, which the empire needed for continued expansion. Their
attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 aimed to incapacitate the United
States Pacific Fleet, believing that such a blow would keep America out of the
war long enough for Japan to consolidate its empire. Instead, the surprise attack
pushed the U.S. into full-scale war.
The Allied Powers responded with new military tactics, including massive
aerial bombardments. Both Germany and the Allies targeted civilian
populations in bombing raids intended to cripple morale and disrupt industrial
production. The most infamous example of this strategy was the firebombing
of Dresden, which killed tens of thousands of civilians. The U.S. also employed
island hopping in the Pacific—capturing strategic islands while bypassing
heavily fortified Japanese positions to inch closer to the mainland. These tactics
demonstrated a complete embrace of total war, in which civilians were no
longer spared from military objectives.

Civilians and Total War: Mobilization, Labor, and Propaganda

As in World War I, the conduct of World War II required the mobilization of
entire populations. Civilians were crucial to the war effort not only through
factory labor, agricultural production, and rationing, but also by
participating in national propaganda campaigns that maintained morale and
ideological commitment.
In the Soviet Union, the state used intense propaganda to rally citizens in the
defense of their homeland. Factories were moved east of the Ural Mountains to
avoid German occupation, and both men and women worked under brutal
conditions to produce weapons. Stalin’s government portrayed the war as a
Great Patriotic War, emphasizing national survival and unity.
In the United States, the government mobilized through the War Production
Board, which directed the economy toward military output. Women, under the
iconic image of “Rosie the Riveter,” entered the workforce in large numbers,
performing tasks previously reserved for men. This not only sustained the
military effort but also catalyzed future movements for women’s rights.
African Americans, too, found new employment opportunities, although they
faced discrimination and segregation in the military and workplace. These
homefront dynamics showcased how deeply the war reshaped social norms and
the structure of national economies.
Propaganda played a central role in maintaining public support. Governments
depicted the enemy in dehumanizing terms, framed the war as a battle between
good and evil, and encouraged citizens to conserve resources, buy war bonds,
and report spies. This psychological aspect of warfare was key in keeping
domestic populations engaged and willing to sacrifice.

Mass Atrocities and the Holocaust

One of the most horrific elements of World War II was the use of war as a cover
for genocide and mass atrocities. Under Nazi rule, Germany implemented the
Final Solution, a systematic plan to exterminate Jews across Europe. This
genocide, known as the Holocaust, resulted in the deaths of approximately six
million Jews, along with Roma, disabled individuals, homosexuals, political
dissidents, and others deemed “undesirable.”
Victims were transported to concentration camps and extermination camps
such as Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Sobibor, where they were subjected to
forced labor, medical experiments, and mass execution, often in gas chambers.
The scale and bureaucratic efficiency of the Holocaust were unprecedented, and
it marked one of the darkest chapters in human history. Many countries and
individuals later expressed guilt over their failure to act sooner or more
decisively in response to early evidence of atrocities.
Beyond the Holocaust, other atrocities also occurred. The Japanese army
committed widespread war crimes in China, including the Rape of Nanjing,
where hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed and women were
systematically raped. The brutality of these actions demonstrated the extent to
which racial ideologies and military objectives merged to justify atrocities.

Atomic Warfare and the End of the War

As the war neared its end, the United States, having developed the atomic
bomb through the secretive Manhattan Project, dropped nuclear weapons on
the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. These
bombings killed approximately 140,000 and 70,000 people, respectively, and
left tens of thousands more injured or suffering from long-term radiation
exposure.
The U.S. government justified the use of atomic bombs by arguing that it would
force Japan’s surrender and save American lives by avoiding a full-scale
invasion. Critics, however, have questioned whether Japan—already
significantly weakened—would have surrendered without such extreme
measures. From a Japanese perspective, the bombings were catastrophic acts of
destruction, while for Americans, they became symbolic of technological
superiority and a decisive end to the war.
Following the bombings, Japan surrendered, marking V-J Day (Victory over
Japan Day) and bringing the most devastating conflict in human history to a
close. The use of nuclear weapons also inaugurated a new era of nuclear
diplomacy and the Cold War, as the world now had to grapple with the ethical
and political consequences of atomic power.

Conclusion
World War II was fought not only with weapons and armies but with ideologies,
populations, and industries. It blurred the boundaries between soldiers and
civilians, turned cities into battlefields, and made genocide a central feature of
conflict. The war's conduct reflected both the technological progress and
moral regress of the 20th century. Civilian contributions, propaganda, and total
state control were as vital as battlefield tactics. At the same time, the horrors of
the Holocaust and the use of atomic weapons revealed how profoundly
destructive war had become. The war’s conclusion did not just end a global
conflict—it redefined international politics, ethics, and the rules of warfare for
generations to come.
Topic 7.8: Mass Atrocities
Introduction
The 20th century, despite being marked by technological progress and
international diplomacy, also bore witness to some of the most horrific mass
atrocities in human history. These acts of violence targeted not just soldiers, but
civilians—often motivated by ideological extremism, ethnic hatred, religious
persecution, or state control. In many cases, the line between war and
genocide was blurred, as governments used wartime conditions to justify the
systematic destruction of entire populations. From genocides to forced
displacements, these atrocities highlight the profound human cost of unchecked
power and the failure of international communities to prevent or stop them in
time. This topic focuses on the underlying causes, unfolding, and consequences
of mass atrocities committed during and after World War I, World War II, and
other political upheavals of the century.

The Armenian Genocide During World War I

One of the earliest mass atrocities of the 20th century occurred during World
War I, when the Ottoman Empire carried out a systematic campaign of
extermination against its Armenian Christian minority. The Ottomans, facing
internal and external threats, accused the Armenians of collaborating with
Russia and being disloyal. Under the cover of war, the Ottoman government
organized mass deportations, forced marches, and mass killings.
Approximately 1.5 million Armenians perished.
This genocide was not only devastating in its immediate impact but also in its
broader historical significance. It marked one of the first modern uses of the
term genocide, although the word itself would not be coined until later. The
failure of international powers to intervene or hold perpetrators accountable set
a dangerous precedent for future atrocities, signaling that such crimes might go
unpunished if they occurred during the chaos of war.

The Holocaust and Nazi Genocide in World War II

The most infamous mass atrocity of the 20th century remains the Holocaust,
carried out by Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler. Rooted in anti-Semitic
ideology and the belief in racial superiority, the Nazis implemented a plan
known as the Final Solution—a deliberate, state-sponsored program to
exterminate the Jewish people in Europe.
Over six million Jews were systematically murdered through gas chambers,
firing squads, forced labor, and starvation. The Nazi regime also targeted
Roma people, disabled individuals, homosexuals, Slavs, and political
dissidents. Victims were transported in cattle cars to concentration camps like
Auschwitz, Buchenwald, and Treblinka, where they faced inhumane treatment
and certain death.
The Holocaust’s scale and bureaucratic precision revealed the terrifying
capacity of a modern state to organize mass murder. The ideological conviction
that Jews were subhuman and a threat to society turned ordinary citizens into
perpetrators or passive bystanders. The failure of other nations to take in
Jewish refugees or respond quickly enough to the warning signs underscored
the global complicity and silence that enabled genocide to proceed.

Japanese Wartime Atrocities in East Asia

During its imperial expansion, Japan committed widespread atrocities, most
notoriously during the Rape of Nanjing in 1937. After capturing the Chinese
capital, Japanese soldiers engaged in six weeks of mass murder, rape, and
destruction. Estimates suggest that 200,000 to 300,000 civilians were killed,
and tens of thousands of women were systematically raped, often in front of
their families.
The massacre was fueled by an ideology that regarded the Chinese as racially
inferior and the belief that total domination justified total brutality. The
Japanese military’s behavior was further enabled by a lack of accountability
within its command structure and a cultural disdain for surrender, which was
extended to its enemies. These atrocities went largely unpunished during the
war, and their legacy continues to affect Sino-Japanese relations to this day.

Mass Deaths Under Stalin and Soviet Repression

In the Soviet Union, mass atrocities were committed not during war, but in the
pursuit of totalitarian political control. Under Joseph Stalin, policies like
collectivization and the Five-Year Plans resulted in widespread suffering,
particularly in Ukraine, where the Holodomor, a man-made famine, killed
millions. Food was seized from peasants to feed industrial workers and fund
exports, while dissent was punished with execution or exile to gulags, harsh
labor camps in remote [Link]’s purges targeted political opponents,
intellectuals, and military leaders—anyone suspected of disloyalty. Estimates
of those killed or imprisoned under Stalin’s regime vary, but they often reach
tens of millions. These atrocities were justified in the name of progress, class
struggle, and state security, but they ultimately revealed the extreme human
cost of authoritarian rule and ideological absolutism.

Forced Displacement and the Partition of India

While not a genocide in the traditional sense, the Partition of British India in
1947 resulted in one of the largest mass migrations and humanitarian crises in
modern history. As India gained independence, the subcontinent was divided
into Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan, based on religious
identity.
This division triggered violent riots, massacres, and reprisals, as Hindus,
Muslims, and Sikhs were displaced from their ancestral homes. Approximately
8 to 10 million people were forced to migrate across the new borders, and
500,000 to 1 million people were killed in the ensuing violence. Women were
abducted, raped, and forcibly converted, and entire communities were wiped
out.
Though the goal was to create peaceful, religiously homogeneous states, the
Partition revealed the dangers of political division along identity lines,
especially when not accompanied by adequate preparation or protection. The
trauma of Partition continues to shape India-Pakistan relations, and its
memory haunts survivors and their descendants to this day.

Conclusion
The mass atrocities of the 20th century demonstrate that war, ideology, and
identity can intersect in terrifying and destructive ways. Whether rooted in
ethnic hatred, religious division, authoritarian control, or imperialist
ambition, these crimes were often enabled by state power, propaganda, and
international silence. The victims of the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust,
the Rape of Nanjing, Soviet purges, and the Partition of India, among others,
remind us of the profound vulnerability of civilian populations when systems of
accountability break down. Understanding these atrocities is essential not only
to honor their memory but to recognize the warning signs of future violence.
History does not just record these crimes—it challenges us to prevent them.
Topic 7.9: Causation in Global Conflict
Introduction
The global conflicts of the 20th century—World War I and World War II—
were not merely accidents of diplomacy or expressions of aggression; they were
rooted in deep structural causes, ideological movements, and long-standing
tensions across nations and empires. Each war emerged from a distinct context
but was shaped by overlapping forces such as imperial ambition, economic
rivalries, nationalism, and the failure of international systems to prevent
escalation. By examining the causes and consequences of these wars side-by-
side, historians can better understand patterns of continuity and change, the
evolution of military strategy, the role of technology, and the impact on
civilians. This comparison also highlights how wars of the 20th century
reshaped the global order, redrew borders, and introduced ideologies and
international institutions that would dominate the postwar world.

Comparing the Causes: WWI vs. WWII

While World War I and World War II differed in scale and context, both arose
from a convergence of political, economic, and ideological tensions. The causes
of World War I can be summarized through the acronym MAIN—Militarism,
Alliances, Imperialism, and Nationalism. The war was triggered by the
assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, but its roots lay in a web of
alliances, arms races, and a widespread belief in the glory of war. Empires were
jockeying for dominance, and rising nationalist movements within
multinational states like Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire pushed
against imperial control.
In contrast, World War II had more defined ideological causes, rooted in the
rise of fascist regimes, especially in Germany, Italy, and Japan, and their
efforts to overturn the post-World War I international order. Adolf Hitler’s
militaristic ambitions, racial ideologies, and desire for Lebensraum (living
space) directly challenged the fragile peace imposed by the Treaty of
Versailles. Meanwhile, Japan’s invasion of Manchuria and Italy’s conquest of
Ethiopia revealed how fascist powers sought expansion through force, justified
by racial and nationalist rhetoric. The global failure to stop these aggressions,
largely due to appeasement and the weakness of the League of Nations,
emboldened authoritarian leaders.
Though both wars shared themes of imperial competition, military expansion,
and nationalistic fervor, World War II was far more ideologically driven. It
was a war between fascism, liberal democracy, and communism, with stark
moral dimensions that deeply affected how the conflict was remembered and
interpreted.

Conducting the Wars: Total War and Civilian Involvement

Both wars were defined by the concept of total war, where the entire society—
not just the military—was mobilized for combat. In World War I, the scale of
destruction was immense, but technology was still evolving. Trench warfare,
machine guns, gas attacks, and naval blockades created widespread suffering.
Civilians contributed through industrial production, food rationing, and war
bonds, but battles were largely confined to the front lines.
In World War II, the boundaries between front lines and the home front
disappeared entirely. Civilians became primary targets, especially during
strategic bombing campaigns, such as the firebombing of Dresden and
Tokyo, and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The scale of
death was far greater: 60–85 million people died in WWII, compared to 16
million in WWI. The mobilization of women, colonial troops, and minority
workers reached new levels. Governments also used propaganda, censorship,
and state control of the economy to sustain war efforts, and in many cases, to
suppress dissent.
This shift in warfare reflected changes in military technology, including tanks,
planes, submarines, and nuclear weapons, as well as the rise of totalitarian
governments that prioritized war at any cost. The conduct of WWII also
included mass atrocities, such as the Holocaust, the Rape of Nanjing, and
Stalin’s forced collectivization and purges, showing how warfare became a
vehicle for genocide and political repression.

Consequences and Impact

The aftermaths of the two wars were equally transformative but led to very
different global arrangements. World War I led to the collapse of empires—
Ottoman, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and German—and introduced the
flawed experiment of the League of Nations, which ultimately failed to prevent
further aggression. The war also left Germany humiliated and economically
broken, laying the groundwork for extremism and a second, more devastating
conflict.
World War II, on the other hand, completely restructured the global balance of
power. The defeat of the Axis Powers gave rise to two superpowers—the
United States and the Soviet Union—and set the stage for the Cold War. The
United Nations was created in 1945 to replace the League and promote
international cooperation and peacekeeping. Decolonization movements gained
momentum as colonized peoples pointed to their contributions during the war
and demanded independence. The horrors of the Holocaust also led to the
establishment of human rights frameworks and the Genocide Convention,
though atrocities would still continue globally.
Additionally, both wars had profound economic consequences. After WWI,
the Great Depression further destabilized Europe and enabled extremist
ideologies to thrive. After WWII, however, the Marshall Plan helped Western
Europe rebuild, and Japan’s economy was transformed under U.S. occupation.
New economic institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary
Fund (IMF) were established to foster global stability and growth.

Continuities and Changes in Warfare and Global Politics

Across both wars, we see continuity in the causes—nationalism, imperial
competition, and the struggle for dominance—yet also significant change in
how wars were fought and resolved. In both cases, wars led to the redrawing of
borders, the creation of new nations, and the emergence of new ideologies on
the global stage. However, the introduction of nuclear weapons in World War
II and the subsequent arms race marked a turning point in the history of
conflict, shifting the focus from direct confrontation to deterrence and proxy
wars.
Moreover, the use of technology, propaganda, and state-directed economies
became common features of 20th-century warfare. The wars also changed
perceptions of civil liberties, gender roles, and the responsibilities of the
international community. Both wars demonstrated the fragility of peace and
the cost of failing to respond to rising threats before they spiral into catastrophe.

Conclusion
World War I and World War II were defining moments of the 20th century, and
their causes, conduct, and consequences offer crucial insights into how global
conflict unfolds. While both wars stemmed from political tension and imperial
ambition, World War II was distinguished by its ideological intensity, global
reach, and human cost. The comparison between the two illustrates both
recurring patterns and historical transformations—in diplomacy, warfare,
technology, and civilian life. By examining causation across both wars, we
come to understand not only how wars start, but also how peace must be
actively constructed, maintained, and defended through systems that are both
just and inclusive.
Essay 1: Causes of Global Conflict (1900–Present)
From 1900 to the present, global conflicts have been triggered by a range of
causes, including political instability, ideological extremism, imperial ambition,
and economic crises. However, the most significant cause of global conflict
during this period has been the convergence of political and ideological
extremism with unresolved grievances from previous wars. While economic
factors and territorial disputes played important roles, it was the ideological and
political exploitation of those conditions—particularly in the interwar period—
that ultimately escalated localized tensions into global warfare.
The broader historical context of the early 20th century reflects a world reeling
from the Industrial Revolution, grappling with imperial competition, and
navigating the fall of long-standing empires such as the Ottoman, Austro-
Hungarian, and Russian Empires. The end of World War I in 1918 left many
nations economically crippled and politically fractured, especially Germany,
which bore the brunt of blame through the Treaty of Versailles. These conditions
planted the seeds for future global conflict.
The first major global conflict of the century, World War I, was caused by a
combination of militarism, alliances, imperialism, and nationalism (MAIN). The
assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the immediate trigger, but long-
term militaristic buildup and nationalist fervor—especially among Balkan
ethnic groups under Austro-Hungarian control—made war inevitable. However,
while these structural causes created a volatile environment, it was the political
decisions and diplomatic failures of leaders that allowed a regional event to
spiral into a global war.
The most destructive conflict of the 20th century, World War II, was even more
rooted in political extremism and ideological ambition. The rise of fascism in
Germany, Italy, and Japan reflected how the Great Depression and the
unresolved fallout of World War I fostered support for authoritarian regimes that
promised national renewal through military conquest. Adolf Hitler’s ideology of
racial purity, combined with Germany’s desire to overturn the Treaty of
Versailles, led to expansionist policies that directly provoked conflict. Similarly,
Japan’s militarist government sought imperial dominance in East Asia, invading
Manchuria and later China, citing economic need and racial superiority.
While economic collapse—such as the Great Depression—provided the
conditions for radical movements to gain support, it was not the economic
suffering alone that caused war. The ideological manipulation of that suffering
by fascist leaders was the more critical catalyst. For example, in Germany,
hyperinflation and mass unemployment helped Hitler rise to power, but it was
his aggressive nationalism and pursuit of Lebensraum that led to actual conflict.
The Cold War that followed WWII also demonstrates how political ideology—
this time between capitalism and communism—drove global tensions, proxy
wars, and arms races throughout the 20th century. While not always erupting in
direct war between superpowers, the ideological division shaped nearly every
major conflict from Korea to Vietnam.
In conclusion, while economic hardship and territorial disputes created fertile
ground for global conflict in the 20th century, the primary cause was the
political and ideological exploitation of those conditions. It was the combination
of unresolved grievances, radical leadership, and nationalistic or ideological
fervor that most significantly contributed to global wars and international
instability from 1900 to the present.
Essay 2: The 1919 Paris Peace Conference—Success or Failure?
The 1919 Paris Peace Conference, which formally ended World War I, was
intended to create lasting peace and prevent future global conflict. While the
conference succeeded in ending the war and establishing new frameworks for
international diplomacy, it ultimately failed to achieve its long-term goals. Its
harsh treatment of Germany, the marginalization of colonial voices, and its
inability to enforce its ideals led to the resurgence of conflict just two decades
later, making the conference more of a short-term diplomatic success and a
long-term geopolitical failure.
In the broader context, Europe in 1919 was physically devastated and politically
unstable. The Great War had killed over 16 million people, collapsed four major
empires, and left millions disillusioned with the ideals of nationalism and
imperial glory. The Allied victors sought to rebuild the world order under new
principles—most notably U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points,
which emphasized self-determination, open diplomacy, and a League of Nations
to mediate future conflicts.
Despite these lofty goals, the resulting Treaty of Versailles placed the entire
blame for the war on Germany and imposed crushing reparations. Germany lost
territory, including Alsace-Lorraine and overseas colonies, was forced to reduce
its military, and had to accept the controversial "war guilt clause." Rather than
fostering reconciliation, this treatment humiliated Germany and created deep
resentment that facilitated the rise of fascism and Adolf Hitler in the 1930s.
Although the treaty legally ended the war, it politically planted the seeds for
World War II.
The Paris Peace Conference also failed in its approach to colonial issues. While
Wilson spoke of self-determination, colonial peoples—such as Indian
nationalists and Arab leaders—were excluded from the negotiation process. The
League of Nations distributed former German and Ottoman colonies as
"mandates" to Allied powers, essentially maintaining imperial control under a
new label. In India, this hypocrisy triggered growing resistance, especially after
events like the Amritsar Massacre in 1919. Similarly, Arab hopes for
independence were crushed by the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the division of
Ottoman lands into British and French mandates, fostering long-term instability
in the Middle East.
One success of the conference was the creation of the League of Nations, the
first international organization designed to maintain peace. However, the
League’s effectiveness was immediately undermined by the absence of the
United States, as Congress refused to ratify the treaty. Without U.S.
participation and lacking military power, the League was unable to prevent
aggression from Italy, Japan, or Germany in the 1930s.
In conclusion, while the Paris Peace Conference achieved short-term peace and
introduced innovative ideas about international cooperation and self-
determination, its punitive terms, imperial hypocrisies, and weak enforcement
mechanisms made it a failure in the long run. The conference laid the
groundwork for renewed global conflict by creating a fragile peace rooted more
in vengeance than justice.
Essay 3: Continuity and Change in European Anti-Semitism
Anti-Semitism in Europe has deep historical roots, stretching from medieval
discrimination and religious scapegoating to the genocidal racial ideology of the
20th century. While the nature of anti-Semitism changed dramatically between
the Middle Ages and World War II—from religious intolerance to racial
hatred—the persistence of Jewish persecution shows strong continuity. The
Holocaust, though unparalleled in its systematic violence, was the culmination
of centuries of prejudice that had evolved rather than disappeared.
In the medieval and early modern period, Jews in Europe were frequently
targeted as outsiders and scapegoats for societal crises. They were often accused
of heresy, blamed for plagues or economic hardship, and expelled from
countries like England (1290) and Spain (1492). Forced to live in segregated
ghettos, Jews were prohibited from owning land or joining many professions,
leading to a concentration in moneylending and trade—occupations that further
fueled stereotypes of greed and exploitation. Anti-Jewish pogroms and legal
restrictions reinforced their marginalization.
With the Enlightenment and the spread of liberal ideas in the 18th and 19th
centuries, some European Jews gained legal rights and social mobility.
However, this integration sparked a new form of resentment. In the late 19th
century, pseudo-scientific theories of race replaced religious prejudice as the
main justification for anti-Semitism. Jews were now portrayed not as religious
heretics, but as biologically inferior or dangerous to national purity. In countries
like Germany, Austria, and Russia, political parties and nationalist groups
openly promoted anti-Semitic agendas.
By the 1930s, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi ideology brought these racist theories to their
logical extreme. In Hitler’s view, Jews were not only inferior, but an existential
threat to the German race and nation. This ideology was institutionalized in the
Nuremberg Laws, which stripped Jews of citizenship and prohibited
intermarriage. Eventually, it culminated in the Final Solution, the plan to
exterminate European Jews entirely. The Holocaust, in which six million Jews
were murdered, represented a terrifying shift from discrimination to genocide—
but one rooted in centuries of anti-Jewish hatred.
While the scale and organization of the Holocaust were unprecedented, there
was historical continuity in the ways Jewish identity was constructed as a threat.
However, the change in rationale—from religious to racial—and the
industrialized methods of extermination marked a profound transformation in
the nature of persecution. This shift was facilitated by modern technology, state
bureaucracy, and wartime dehumanization.
In conclusion, anti-Semitism in Europe demonstrates both continuity and
change. The persecution of Jews evolved from religious and cultural prejudice
to racial and political extermination. The Holocaust was not a sudden rupture,
but a catastrophic culmination of long-standing European hostilities,
transformed by modern ideologies and tools of mass violence.
Essay 4: Territorial Conflict and Self-Rule (1900–Present)
From 1900 to the present, global history has been shaped by a dual dynamic: the
persistence of territorial conflict and the rise of movements for self-rule.
While the 20th century witnessed two world wars driven by disputes over
territory and power, the same century also gave rise to successful
decolonization movements and demands for self-determination. Thus,
territorial holdings from 1900 to the present show both continuity—in the
causes and consequences of territorial conflict—and significant change,
particularly in the decline of empires and the emergence of independent nation-
states.
At the beginning of the 20th century, European empires dominated the globe.
The major powers competed for overseas colonies in Africa, Asia, and the
Pacific, often leading to imperial tension. The territorial competition among
European nations was one of the key causes of World War I. The decline of the
Ottoman Empire further exacerbated the struggle for influence in the Balkans
and the Middle East, where nationalist groups sought independence while
European powers sought control. Similarly, the postwar mandates system,
established after World War I, allowed Britain and France to maintain imperial
authority under League of Nations supervision in regions like Iraq, Palestine,
and Syria, showing continuity in imperial control despite the rhetoric of self-
determination.
However, the mid-20th century marked a major shift. The devastation of World
War II, combined with growing nationalist sentiment, led to the collapse of
empires and the emergence of independent states. India’s independence in
1947, though marred by Partition violence, signaled the beginning of a global
wave of decolonization. Over the next decades, dozens of African, Asian, and
Caribbean nations gained self-rule. The United Nations, founded in 1945,
helped legitimize new states and supported the right of peoples to govern
themselves. This was a significant change from the imperial norms of the early
1900s.
Yet, continuity remains. Territorial disputes have continued into the 21st
century—over Kashmir, Palestine, the South China Sea, and Ukraine, among
others. Some postcolonial borders, hastily drawn during decolonization, have
led to ethnic conflict and civil wars. The territorial legacy of colonialism
continues to shape conflict, but now the struggle is often between independent
states or within newly formed nations rather than between colonizer and colony.
In sum, territorial issues have remained central to global conflict from 1900 to
the present, but the context and actors have changed. Where once empires
clashed over colonies, now independent states assert their sovereignty and seek
self-determination. Thus, territorial holdings show both continuity in their
centrality to conflict and profound change in who controls them and why.