Which of the following examples could be used in support of the claim that nationalism contributed to World War I.
A. France considered Alsace and Lorraine to belong to France rather than Germany.
B. When Austria declared war on Serbia, it was also indirectly declaring war on Russia.
C. German soldiers began to occupy Belgium, which had declared its neutrality.
D. The United States sent money and supplies to its English allies.
My Answer: B
(honors, some answers may differ)
1. France considered Alsace and Lorraine...
2. Rival alliances had promoted...
3. Serbian nationalism
4. Rivalry over overseas territories...
5. The alliance between France and Russia
6. offensive operation against...
7. it increased the number of casualties
8. all members of society must...
9. trench warfare did not develop...
10. unrestricted submarine warfare...
11. Germany had to fight the war on both the Eastern and Western front
12. Harsh restrictions...
13. the promise of "peace...
14. Russia experienced a revolution...
15. the death of millions of people
16. They worked in war industries...
17. women went back...
18. a small group of loyal...
19. Tsar Nicholas II failed to solve...
20. Statement 2 only
21. He was a marxist...
thanks perfect
anonymous is 100% correct :))
Do you have the answers to the rest of the test? Unit 6: World War 1 and the Russian Revolution
The answer is A, I took the test
21: I will choose the rapid-fire machine gun as the technology to discuss.
If the rapid-fire machine gun did not exist during World War I, the war would have been fought in a very different way. The machine gun was a game-changing technology that drastically altered the dynamics of battlefield warfare. Here are two examples to support this argument:
Firstly, the machine gun made traditional infantry charges almost impossible. In the past, soldiers would charge across no-man's land and try to overwhelm their enemy with sheer numbers. However, with the advent of the machine gun, it became much easier for a smaller force to defend against a larger one. The firepower of the machine gun was so great that it could easily cut down waves of charging soldiers. This led to the development of new tactics, such as trench warfare, where soldiers would hunker down in fortified positions and try to wear down their enemy with artillery and other long-range weapons. Without the machine gun, it is possible that World War I would have been fought in a more traditional manner, with more emphasis on massed infantry assaults.
Secondly, the machine gun also had a profound impact on the casualty rates of the war. The machine gun was responsible for a huge number of deaths and injuries on both sides of the conflict. For example, during the Battle of the Somme, British forces suffered almost 60,000 casualties on the first day alone, with a significant proportion of those caused by machine gun fire. If the machine gun did not exist, it is likely that casualty rates would have been lower, and the war may not have been as devastating as it was.
In conclusion, the rapid-fire machine gun was a crucial technology during World War I that had a significant impact on the way the war was fought. Without it, the war may have been fought in a more traditional manner, with more emphasis on massed infantry assaults. Additionally, casualty rates would likely have been lower, and the war may not have been as devastating as it was.
22. It is impossible to know for sure whether World War I would have occurred if Gavrilo Princip's gun had jammed and Archduke Ferdinand had survived. However, I believe that the war would still have occurred, although the timing and circumstances may have been different.
One example that supports this claim is the complex web of alliances and rivalries that existed between the major European powers at the time. These alliances and rivalries were one of the key factors that contributed to the outbreak of the war. Even if Archduke Ferdinand had survived, tensions between these powers would still have remained high, and it is possible that another event could have triggered a war. For example, the naval arms race between Britain and Germany, which was a major source of tension in the years leading up to the war, could have escalated into a full-blown conflict.
Furthermore, the political and economic systems of the major European powers were also contributing factors to the outbreak of the war. The system of alliances was created to maintain a balance of power, but it also encouraged aggressive behavior and militarism. Similarly, the economic competition between the major powers, particularly Germany and Britain, created tensions that could have led to war regardless of the specific incident that triggered it.
In conclusion, while the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was a significant event that helped to trigger World War I, the underlying factors that contributed to the war were so complex and multifaceted that it is likely that another event could have led to war if the assassination had not occurred.
p.s.
Hope this helps guys. Sorry for not posting for a while I've had a lot going on in my life, still missing the way this website used to be.
Thanks anonymous!!! <3
To determine which of the examples could be used in support of the claim that nationalism contributed to World War I, we need to analyze each option.
A. France considering Alsace and Lorraine to belong to France rather than Germany is an example of territorial disputes or irredentism, but it does not directly demonstrate the role of nationalism in causing the war.
B. When Austria declared war on Serbia, it indirectly declared war on Russia due to the system of alliances and the idea of defending fellow nationalities from aggression. This shows how nationalism played a significant role in escalating the conflict.
C. German soldiers occupying Belgium, which had declared its neutrality, is an example of a violation of national sovereignty. While it shows aggression and expansionism, it does not specifically emphasize nationalism.
D. The United States sending money and supplies to its English allies during World War I does not directly relate to nationalism causing the war. It displays alliances and international relationships, but not necessarily nationalism.
Based on this analysis, option B is the strongest example supporting the claim that nationalism contributed to World War I.