Course:HIST432/Final Exam

Guiding Questions The following is a compilation of Guiding Questions which are attached to each of the Lessons, and which serve also as essay topics and examination questions:

What are the principal functions or objectives historians of international relations seek to fulfill? 1. describe (what has happened?) = recount the events which took place, when/where it was, who was involved, what actually occurred > this includes date/specifics which are an important part of historical accounts 2. explain (why it has happened?) = examine the past events which created/influenced the current situation > see how the past events created the relationships which then effect the current situation 3. interpret (what does this mean?) = examine the meaning of these events > will this have an effect on the future > what do current events means for future interactions btw individuals/nations

What are some of the differences which distinguish historians from political scientists in the study of international relations? The political scientist is most concerned with historical events in an attempt to gain knowledge of a general theory about the way politics and international relations occur. They may look at the events as evidence for or against a particular theory. On the other hand, historians of international relations or more concerned with the separate events in and of themselves. They want to create a story which includes all the various reasons why the event took place, what happen during the event, the various relations which were a cause of the event, as well as how these relationships changed, they also want to understand the meaning of these events, for those involved directly and indirectly.

What were the principal elements making for peace and order in the international system of the early 20th century? What were the most dangerous weaknesses in this system according to its critics and your assessment?

The diplomatic system from 19th century was still working based on the "Concert of Europe" bringing leaders together, int. laws being recognized, int. court est. at The Hague, tech was beginn'g to facilitate communication, travel, functional co-op (post, sci advancem't, health) increased inter-state econ dependance, cost of war too great for victory.

Where did the principle of national self-determination have its origins and what were its goals?

First signs of poli self-det seen in Mesopotamia & Greek city-states. Modern self-det. influenced by imperialism, poli sov. (as developed thru Treaty of Westphalia). The goal of poli self-determination = autonomy, independence, representation of group identity and needs How did the imperialisms of Britain, the United States, and Austria-Hungary differ from, and resemble, each other? Britain served at THE one great power with its naval supremacy, vast Empire and econ resources, its imperialism was world-dominant and included vast colonies under oppressive Brit control. The U.S. had secured continental dominance and American imperialism was exercised through the subordination of aboriginal groups. U.S. imperialism was not like Brit imperialism where it maintained a number of colonies, the U.S. instead focused on the controlling nearby states through econ dominance. Aust-Hung imperialism was less aggressive than US and Britain as it recognized different nationalism within its Empire and tried to reconcile differences of representation. However, Hung was less willing to accommodate minorities than Aust and tensions persisted because the majority pushed its principles on the peolple, without aggressive Imperialism, tensions eventually became strong enough to successfully weaken the Empire and eventually ignite WWI with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand (heir to the throne) who sought to limit the (imperialistic) power of the Magyar aristocracy that had dominated Aus-Hung.

What were the main weaknesses with the Concert of Europe as a diplomatic institution for resolution of international disputes? The European Concert seemed able to deal successfully with the potentially explosive overseas imperialist competitions, and to put some restraints on the arms race at least as between the German and British navies. But the volatile condition of international relations included several particularly menacing issues. Germany's rise to power and aggressive militarism and the rise of nationalisms in the Balkans threatening the power of Aus-Hung, which influenced Aus-Hung alliance with Germany in anticipation of conflict with Russia were beyond the scope of what the Concert of Europe could mediate. The Concert of Europe was outdated in the new era of power struggles, increased tech and national sentiment.

Has a convincing historical case been made for the primary responsibility of Germany for the coming of war in 1914? (This answer begins with a segway about how the war started and the facts, therefore the question is separated by a part 1 and 2)

PART 1: The explosive that was World War One had been long in the stockpiling; the spark was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914.

Austria-Hungary's Reaction Arguing that the Serbian government was implicated in the machinations of the Black Hand (whether she was or not remains unclear, but it appears unlikely), the Austro-Hungarians opted to take the opportunity to stamp its authority upon the Serbians, crushing the nationalist movement there and cementing Austria-Hungary's influence in the Balkans. It did so by issuing an ultimatum to Serbia which, in the extent of its demand that the assassins be brought to justice effectively nullified Serbia's sovereignty. Austria-Hungary's expectation was that Serbia would reject the remarkably severe terms of the ultimatum, thereby giving her a pretext for launching a limited war against Serbia. However, Serbia had long had Slavic ties with Russia, an altogether different proposition for Austria-Hungary. Whilst not really expecting that Russia would be drawn into the dispute to any great extent other than through words of diplomatic protest, the Austro-Hungarian government sought assurances from her ally, Germany, that she would come to her aid should the unthinkable happen and Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary. Germany readily agreed, even encouraged Austria-Hungary's warlike stance. Austria-Hungary, unsatisfied with Serbia's response to her ultimatum (which in the event was almost entirely placatory: however her jibbing over a couple of minor clauses gave Austria-Hungary her sought-after cue) declared war on Serbia on 28 July 1914. Russia, bound by treaty to Serbia, announced mobilisation of its vast army in her defence, a slow process that would take around six weeks to complete. Germany, allied to Austria-Hungary by treaty, viewed the Russian mobilisation as an act of war against Austria-Hungary, and after scant warning declared war on Russia on 1 August. France, bound by treaty to Russia, found itself at war against Germany and, by extension, on Austria-Hungary following a German declaration on 3 August. Germany was swift in invading neutral Belgium so as to reach Paris by the shortest possible route. Britain allied to France by a more loosely worded treaty which placed a "moral obligation" upon her to defend France, declared war against Germany on 4 August. Her reason for entering the conflict lay in another direction: she was obligated to defend neutral Belgium by the terms of a 75-year old treaty. With Germany's invasion of Belgium on 4 August, and the Belgian King's appeal to Britain for assistance, Britain committed herself to Belgium's defence later that day. Like France, she was by extension also at war with Austria-Hungary.

PART 2: Fritz Fischer’s reassertion of Germany’s guilt was taken as controversial as it was going against the popular sentiment in Germany.

The broad agreement on the diffuse responsibility and causes of the First World War was shattered in the early 1960s by the work of Fritz Fischer. He claimed that Germany had the greatest responsibility for the coming of the war. Basing his findings on copious new research, Fischer argued that the elites of the Kaiser's Germany, economic, intellectual, as well as political and military, shared a dangerously expansionist and aggressive national agenda, and that they and the Chancellor, Bethmann-Hollweg, consciously chose war in 1914 to realize this agenda. What were the principal war aims of the Allied Powers, 1914-1916? What were the principal ideals of Wilson's liberal internationalist program, and who were the major supporters of his program? What were the central themes in Lenin's international political agenda in 1917-1918, and where did he find his greatest support? What were the major consequences of 'total war' for the social and political structure of Europe? What were the principal objectives of Britain, France, and Italy at the Paris Peace Conference? How did Wilson's program for the peacemaking differ both from his European partners' objectives and Lenin's agenda for world politics? Did the ideal of national self-determination offer a viable principle to guide the territorial settlement of 1919 in Europe? What effects did the First World War have on the imperialism of the European Great Powers? What were the main features of the Rhineland question of 1919? How did the settlement of this question relate to the Anglo-American guarantee to France? Why did the Paris allies fail to intervene decisively to destroy Bolshevism in Russia, and what were the consequences of their interventionist policies? What were the policies of Britain, France, and America on the question of reparations? What is entailed in a system of collective security? What features of the League of Nations Covenant attempted to institute collective security? What are the principal attractions of a system of collective security? What weaknesses did British and American critics identify in proposals for collective security? Why did the American government refuse to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and join the League of Nations? What consequences did the American defection have for the League of Nations? What does the ratification struggle in American politics tell us about the quality of Wilson's statesmanship? Why did Britain and France fail to negotiate an alliance in the period 1919-1924? What were the principal policies followed by France to achieve security in the period after World War I? What were the consequences of the Franco-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr in 1923? What were the principal features of the Draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance of 1923, and the Geneva Protocol of 1924? Why were British governments so reluctant to adopt these proposals? What were the central agreements embodied in the Locarno treaties? What were the principal strengths and weaknesses of the Locarno system? What were Stresemann's leading objectives as Foreign Minister of Weimar Germany? How successful was he in realizing these objectives? What role did the United States play in the world economy in the 1920's? What were the forces in Japanese society which led to the invasion of Manchuria in 1931? Why did the League of Nations fail to resist this attack on Chinese territory? What were the major foreign policy themes in Nazi ideology? How did these themes differ from both conservative and liberal approaches to international order? Did the German-Polish agreement of 1934 illustrate the opportunism and flexibility of Hitler's leadership of German foreign policy, or was the move part of a long-term, ideologically grounded program which included the inevitable destruction of Poland? What were the principal objective of the American Congress in passing the Neutrality Bills during the Roosevelt administration? What consequences did this legislation have on the course of European affairs? What were the principal hopes and weaknesses of the Franco-Soviet alliance of 1936? Why did the Locarno powers fail to resist Hitler's move to remilitarize the Rhineland in 1936? What were the consequences of Hitler's policy? Why did Litvinov become such a devoted supporter of collective security in Soviet foreign policy after 1934? Why did the League and its system of collective security fail to prevent the Italian aggression against Ethiopia in 1935-36? Did this failure illustrate the dilemmas of the collective security ideal as a path to peace? What were the reasons for the German and Italian interventions in the Spanish Civil War? What were the major consequences of the war for Europe? Was Hitler's foreign policy based on the objectives of Nazi ideology, following a plan of racial struggle which necessarily involved war, or were his manoeuvres largely a matter of opportunism, responding to the openings and chances offered by the weaknesses of other states? What does the Hossbach Memorandum tell us about the nature and objectives of Hitler's foreign policy as of late 1937? What tactics did Hitler follow through 1938 in addressing the problems of Austrian anschluss, and the break-up of Czechoslovakia? What were the major concerns identified by military advisers in the strategic position of Britain in 1938? Did this position dictate a policy of appeasement? What were Chamberlain's principal objectives in pursuing a policy of appeasement? Did the Munich settlement realize these objectives? Would it have been better for France and Britain to have resisted Nazi aggression in 1938? Had their defenses improved, relative to Germany's, by the fall of 1939? What were the objectives of both Hitler and Stalin in negotiating the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of August, 1939? What were the principal themes of the Atlantic Charter? To what degree did these ideals, as embodied in the United Nations Declaration of January 1942, reflect the interests and war aims of America, Britain, and the Soviet Union? Why did it take so long to establish the 'second front' in Western Europe? What political consequences did this delay have for Soviet relations with the Western allies? Did the use of deciphered intelligence give a major advantage in British military operations against the Axis forces? How did the future boundaries and political make-up of the Polish post-war government illustrate the differing approaches of America and the Soviet Union concerning the Eastern European settlement? What were the major objectives of American leaders in planning for the reconstruction of the international economy at the Bretton Woods conference of 1944? What were Britain's principal objectives in the preparations for the post-war peace settlement? How much influence and power did Britain still possess by the end of the Second World War? What were the objectives of the United States in the creation of the United Nations Organization? How did the U.N. Charter differ in its approach to security functions from the League of Nations Covenant? In what ways did the security system projected by the United Nations Charter differ from the League of Nations Covenant? Why was the United Nations so ineffective in international politics in the period 1945-1949? What were the official American reasons given for the use of Atomic bombs against Japan in August, 1945? Do you think these explanations provide the full truth in light of the evidence we now possess on American policy-making? What were the principal objectives of the United States and the Soviet Union in discussing plans for international control of atomic energy in 1946? Was there any realistic hope for an international agreement? What role did espionage play in the Soviet program to develop atomic technology and weapons, 1942-1949? In what ways did Soviet and American interpretations of the Yalta accords differ? What do these difference tell us about the origins of the Cold War? Why was Poland the earliest and most dramatic test of the limitations of post-war cooperation among the senior partners of the Grand Alliance? What were the principal American economic objectives in planning for the post-war world? To what degree were these objectives and American economic policies responsible for generating the Cold War? How have 'revisionist' historians challenged and changed our understanding of the origins of the Cold War? What were the principal objectives of Stalin's foreign policy as the Second World War ended? How successful was Stalin in realizing these objectives? Did the Soviet Union and the United States both function as empires in the post-World War Two period? What were the differences in the nature and instruments of their imperialism? Compare the interests of the US and the USSR in China, 1945-1949. Did America 'lose' China to a Soviet-led world communist movement? How was Korea divided along the 38th parallel in the post-war period? Why did the North Koreans invade the South in June, 1950? Did the Truman administration welcome a war against communism in Korea for reasons which had little to do directly with the Koreans? Was the Korean War an exercise in United Nations 'collective security' as countries like Canada believed, or an early engagement by America in a much larger counter-revolutionary struggle? Did Stalin and the Soviet leadership promote communist victories in the Chinese revolution and more broadly in Asian politics? Did the Soviets encourage the North Koreans to attack in 1950? What policy issues divided President Truman from General MacArthur and led to the latter's firing in April 1951? Did MacArthur have aspirations to become 'An American Caesar'? How did the experience of the Korean War contribute to the phenomenon of McCarthyism in America? In what ways did the Korean War influence the scale of American defense expenditure and the strategic development of NATO? What are the essential elements of an imperial relationship? How did American, and Soviet forms of imperialism differ as between themselves, and as contrasted with the colonial imperialism of European empires? What are the principal ideological justifications and critiques of imperialism which were expressed in the post-World War II era? How did the Soviet and American empires attempt to advance their influence and control through covert operations? How did Third World countries get caught up in the confrontations of the Cold War despite the efforts to form a coalition of non-aligned states? What were the central features of the bi-polarized structure of world politics by the 1950's? What were the principal challenges faced by Soviet foreign policy in the years after Stalin's death, 1953-1958, in Europe, Asia, and in relations with America? What did Khrushchev mean by a policy of 'peaceful coexistence'? What results did this policy have in Soviet -American relations? How did the Soviet Union and the United States differ in their policies and programs regarding Third World countries? How did the imperialism of The United States in Latin America differ from Soviet imperialism in Eastern Europe? What were the principal dangers that the German problem presented to the Soviet Union, 1953-1961? How was this problem resolved? What were the major instruments of America's global power in the 1950's and early 1960's? What were the principal objectives of the Soviet Union in deploying nuclear missiles in Cuba during 1962? How did Khrushchev explain the 'success' of this action? What were the principal alternatives available to the Kennedy administration in responding to the discovery of Soviet missiles in Cuba in October 1962? Why was the policy of naval 'quarantine' chosen? How was the Cuban missile crisis resolved in Soviet-American relations? What were the most important consequences of the crisis? In what ways did nuclear weapons change the nature of strategy and defense in the period 1945-1953? What criticisms did professional strategists make of Dulles' 'New Look' policy in the 1950's? What were the principal features of the American strategy of deterrence in the 1960's? What were the principal criticisms made by the opponents of nuclear strategic theory and the doctrine of deterrence? What were the main forces making for Soviet-American detente in the 1960's and 1970's? How did detente change the nature of the Cold War? What were the most important goals of the Helsinki 'Final Act'? To what degree were these goals reached in the 1970's? What were the principal reasons for the initial American involvement in the war in Vietnam? What factors led the Americans to escalate their military commitment to support the Saigon regime in Vietnam? To what degree was the Vietnam war part of the larger theatre of the Cold War? Why did the ideological agenda of American liberalism have such limited appeal to Vietnam society, compared to the program of the communist leaders? What convinced the American government to seek a negotiated retreat from the Vietnam quagmire? How successful were these negotiations? What were the principal consequences for American foreign policy drawn by Nixon and Kissinger from the experience of the Vietnam war? What dangers did the Czechoslovak challenge present to Soviet hegemony in 1968? How did the Brezhnev government attempt to legitimate its military intervention? What were the objectives and results of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979? What are the similarities and differences which can be drawn by comparing Soviet and American experiences of military intervention in Afghanistan and Vietnam? What were the main challenges facing the Soviet Union in maintaining its super power status and role by the end of the 1970's? What were the principal foreign policy objectives of the Reagan administration in 1981 as the new President took office? How did the Reagan administration justify the costs of the Strategic Defense Initiative? What were the factors both in America and in the Soviet Union which led to the INF treaty and other reductions of armaments? What factors brought about the decision by the Soviet government to withdraw militarily from Afghanistan in 1989-1990? Did the United States 'win' the Cold War as claimed by the Republican administrations of Presidents Reagan and Bush? What were the principal causes, long-range and short-range, which led to the ending of the Cold War? Was the United States-led United Nations application of economic and military sanctions against Iraq during the Gulf War an example of 'collective security' as written into the UN Charter? What have been the principal consequences of the ending of the Cold War for the countries of the Third World? What framework of historical interpretation do you discern behind the instructors concluding commentary? How has your own interpretive framework been challenged, changed or confirmed by studying this course? Are ideological commitment and diplomatic skill incompatible in successful statesmanship?