History 309 – Contemporary Europe – August 31, 2005  

THE GREAT WAR  

Note:  Winston Churchill remarked that as a result of the Great War, “injuries were wrought to the structure of human society which a century will not efface” (43).  As you study our chapter, consider: what was it about World War I that so profoundly shook European society?   

I.                    EMPIRICAL DATA.  Be sure you can define the following:  

From: W & H:

1. Entente Powers.
2. Central Powers.
3. Schlieffen Plan.
4. 1^st Battle of the Marne (1914).
5. Trench warfare.
6. Hindenburg & Ludendorff.
7. Tannenberg.
8. Treaty of London (1915).
9. Gallipoli.
10. T. E. Lawrence.
11. British Blockade.
12. Lusitania.
13. “war socialism.”
14. Verdun.
15. The Somme.
16. Turnip Winter.
17. “Decadence of democracy.”
18. French Army mutiny (1917).
19. Peace Resolution of 1917.
20. 1^st Russian Revolution (March 1917).
21. US entry into World War I.
22. Caporetto (1917).
23. Cambrai (1917).
24. 2^nd Russian Revolution (Nov. 1917).
25. Treaty of Brest Litovsk.
26. 2^nd Battle of the Marne.
27. “newspaper language.”

 

II.                CRITICAL THINKING.    

1. In 1864, in the middle of the U.S. Civil War, Abraham Lincoln sadly remarked that neither side, in 1861, had any idea of how the war would actually play out.  It seems, in fact, that wars almost always contradict peoples’ expectations.  During World War I, the clash between “illusion” and “reality” was especially powerful.  Identify several of these clashes.  Why was there such a gap between “illusion” and “reality”?  (Note that this is a kind of “compare/contrast” question.  Compare what people expected with what actually occurred.  Where there is a difference, explain why the difference occurred).

2. Historians are fascinated by TIME, by the ways in which past- present – and future intersect.  Consider, for instance, W & H’s claim that World War I “stacked the cards for the future” (39).  In what ways did the events of 1914 – 1918 actually shape what happened in, say, 1924 – 1928?   Even though we haven’t yet discussed Europe’s 1920s, from what you know about the War, you can guess the sorts of issues Europe had to deal with in the ‘20s.  

3. Historians are interested in “forces,” that is, abstract, collective dynamics, like “economic growth,” or “legal developments.”  But historians are also interested in “actors,” too, that is, real people, who make real decisions, based on their personal psychologies.  Consider the “people” side of World War I.  How did the war shape peoples’ values?  Their hopes for the future?  Their trust in government?  Their religious faith?  Make a list of attitudes you think the war triggered – be sure you can connect specific qualities of the war to specific psychological attitudes. (Note that this is a mix of “actor/motivation” issues with “cause/effect” issues.  What about the War “caused” specific “motivations in actors”?).

4. Wars are notoriously easy to start and hard to end.  By 1917, there were plenty of indications that lots of Europeans wanted to end the war (identify and describe several of them).  By why did these peace-making efforts fail?  Why didn’t the pro-peace people able to pressure their governments to end the war?  Why would anyone, in 1917, continue to be pro-war?  (Note: this is a sort of “cause/effect” question – “what caused the failure of the ‘peace-offensive’?” mixed with a bit of speculation – what “could” have happened?  Why didn’t it happen?).

Queens University of Charlotte  1900 Selwyn Avenue  Charlotte, NC  28274
Modified by:  H.  Kamerling