Global Implications of World War I Packet
Global Implications of World War I Packet
Read Bentley chapter 34 plus pages 896-899, 902-908 and the articles attached. Answer the following ON ANOTHER SHEET OF PAPER!
Bentley: 1. What are the three reasons for the globalization of the war? 2. Why did Japan enter the war? What were her goals? 3. Explain the significance of the Twenty-one Demands. 4. Where and why was the war fought outside of Europe? 5. What was the impact of Gallipoli on the British Empire? 6. What were the people of the Middle East fighting for and who fought with the British? 7. How would each of these things stand in the way of Woodrow Wilson's plan for a peace that would prevent future wars? a. the meeting place for the conference b. the absence of Germany and Russia c. the small nations were excluded from the real negotiations d. the most decisions were arrived at by the "Big 4" in a summit level conference e. Wilson's political mistakes: there were no Republicans or Senators among the American delegation f. Italy left the conference early in anger 8. Was Wilson's promise of independent nationhood for all national groups an achievable goal? 9. What happened to the Ottoman Empire? Explain the mandate system. 10. Why did collective security, the concept behind the League of Nations, fail? 11. What were the post war conditions like in Europe? How will they contribute to the developments of dictatorship and war in the future? Putting the World in World War: 1. What is the difference between total war and global war? 2. Where was the war fought? 3. Why did the nations of Latin America enter the war? 4. What happened to the Armenians? K.M. Panikkar: 1. In what ways did Asians participate in the war? 2. Why were many Asians pro-German? 3. Why did most Asians fight with the allies if they were pro-German? 4. What effect did colonial participation and Wilsonian Idealism have on the colonies? 5. How did India and Japan benefit economically from the war? Husain Letter and Balfour Declaration: 1. What does Husain think the Arabs will get for helping the British against the Ottoman Empire? What does Lord Rothschild think he will get? 2. What were the limits to the British promises made in the Husain Letter? 3. How might Palestinians and Jews view the Balfour Declaration differently? Wilson's 14 points, the Treaty of Versailles, Syrian Congress and German Response
1. What position is taken in each document on Alsace-Lorraine, disarmament, colonies, Poland, the creation of nation states, war guilt and reparations? 2. To what extent did the Treaty of Versailles incorporate the 14 points? To what extent were they ignored? 3. A treaty can either establish peace by removing the causes of war or it can punish the loser of the war. What do you thing should have been included in a treaty that would remove the causes of the war? 4. What approach to establishing a peace did each of the two documents use? Support your answer. 5. Explain the Syrian and German responses to the treaty?
With the help of 50,000 South Africans, the English imperialists Botha and Smuts put down this rebellion and defeated the Germans in German South West Africa. Defeating the Germans in East Africa was not so easy. The Germans managed to hold out in a series of campaigns and still had forces in the field on Armistice Day. On August 15th 1914 a New Zealand expedition of about 1000 men sailed for German Samoa and took it without resistance. An Australian expedition of 1600 men landed in September on New Pommern (off the coast of New Guinea); the Germans offered resistance, however, they shortly submitted to unconditional surrender. The campaign by the British against the Ottoman Empire was not only the most extensive outside Europe, but it was also the most complex: -Indian, Australian and New Zealand units, as well as many Arabs, participated alongside British troops. -In the north, there was catastrophe-the Gallipoli campaign was a failure and resulted in 500,000 casualties. The Anzac (Australian and New Zealand) troops felt they had been led into senseless slaughter by their British officers as a result, a sense of Australian nationalism emerged. -The Armenians in the empire chose to sympathize with the Russians. The Turks rounded up and deported Armenians males as labor battalions. The Turks burned the villages. Men, women, the aged, and children were carried off to unknown destinations in the mountains. In areas where the Armenians were in the majority, the populace was massacred. The Turks sent convoys of other Armenians south into Syria. The weak died en route, the survivors arrived exhausted and were sent into the desert, where most of them starved to death. (The Holocaust of World War II was not the first genocide of the 20th century). -On the other end of the Ottoman Empire, things went better, at least for the British. The British from the Indian, Egyptian and London foreign offices encouraged the Arabs to rebel, promising each tribal group independence for their help. The most famous of these campaigns was that led by T. H. Lawrence in Arabia. With the help of Bedouins, he captured Aqaba (on the edge of the Sinai and critical for protecting the Suez Canal and Red Sea). The British also took Mesopotamia, protecting the oil pipeline, and the Persian Gulf. Then successfully took Baghdad. Under Sir Edmund Allenby, the British took Palestine and by 1918 were in Damascus. -Under the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, the British and French secretly agreed to divide the spoils of the Ottoman Empire despite the promises of an independent Arab state made by the British to the Arabs in the McMahon and Husein letters. A statement made by Lord Arthur Balfour, Foreign Minister of Great Britain, known as the Balfour Declaration, which supported the European Zionist movement's demands for a homeland in Palestine further complicated the post war situation.
From an Asian perspective, according to this Indian historian and diplomat, World War I was a European civil war. But the involvement of African and Asian soldiers and colonial subjects made the war a major turning point in world history. The Great War of 1914-18 was from the Asian point of view a civil war within the European community of nations. The direct participation of Asian countries, during some stages of this conflict, was at the invitation and by the encouragement of one of the parties, the entente Powers, and was greatly resented by the Germans. It is necessary to emphasize this internal character of the European conflict to realize its full significance on the development of events in Asia. We have already noticed that at the beginning of the twentieth century the European nations, in the enjoyment of unprecedented economic prosperity and political prestige, remained unshakably convinced that they had inherited the earth, and that their supremacy in Asia was permanent and was something in the nature of a predetermined Divine Order. It was the age of Kipling and the white man's burden, and it seemed the manifest destiny of the white race to hold the East. In 1914, when the German invaders had reached the Marne, divisions of the Indian Army under British officers had been rushed to France and had helped at the critical moment to stem the German tide. Later, they were extensively used in the defense of the Suez Canal and the Middle East and in campaigns elsewhere in Africa. In 1917, Siam declared war on Germany. An Indo-Chinese labor force had been recruited and was working in France. On August 14, 1917, China also joined the Allies. Thus all the nations of Asia were brought into the European Civil war. However, opinion in India, China and even in Japan was at the time more proGerman than pro-Ally. In India, except among the ruling princes, there was no pro-British feeling, and public opinion rejoiced at every report of German victory and felt depressed when the Allies were winning. China declared war only with the greatest reluctance and for the express purpose of checkmating Japanese plans of aggression. In Japan itself, after the Shantung Campaign, feeling against the Allies was most marked, and a Press campaign of great virulence was conducted against Britain at the end of 1916. Actually, though the Asian countries fought on the side of the Allies, public opinion in the East looked upon the conflict as a civil war in which neither party had a claim to the friendship of the peoples of Asia, and if any party could appeal to the sympathy of Asians it was the Germanic alliance which had no tradition of Asian conquest and was allied with the chief Muslim Power, Turkey. But the participation of Asian people in the war had far-reaching consequences. The Indian soldier who fought on the Marne came back to India with other ideas of the Sahib than those he was taught to believe by decades of official propaganda. Indo-Chinese Labor Corps in the South of France returned to Annam (Vietnam) with notions of democracy and republicanism which they had not entertained before. Among the Chinese who went to France at the time was a young man named Chou En-lai, who stayed on to become a Communist and had to be expelled for activities among the members of the Chinese Labor Corps. More important than these influences was the fact that the French and British administrations in Asia had to appeal to their subjects for moral support. To ask Indians and Indo-Chinese to subscribe to war loans for the defense of democracy and to prevent the world being overwhelmed by German Kultur (culture), would have sounded as strange and callous irony unless accompanied by promises of democracy for themselves and freedom for their own cultures. When, besides subscriptions for war loans, Indians and Indo-Chinese were pressed to join up and fight to save democracy, the contradictions of the position became too obvious even for
the colonial administrators. In India the demand was made openly by the nationalist leaders that prior agreement on political problems was necessary before support of the war could be considered a national program. Politically, a further weakening of the colonial and imperialist position came about as a result of President Wilson's declaration of fourteen points. In 1917, the doctrine of the "self-determination of peoples" had the ring of a new revelation. Whatever its effect was on the suppressed nationalities of Europe, in Asia it was acclaimed as a doctrine of liberation. As every Allied Power hastened to declare its faith in the new formula of Wilson (and it was soon raised to the position of an accepted "war aim" in the propaganda campaign against the Germans), the colonial Powers found it difficult to oppose openly or resist publicly the claims of Asian nations based on this formula. It became difficult to proclaim self-determination of people as a great ideal for the establishment of which Asian peoples should co-operate with Europeans and fight and lose their lives in distant battlefields, but which, however excellent, could not be applied to themselves. Self-government for colonial countries had thus to be accepted, and the claim to it could no longer be brushed aside as premature or stigmatized as sedition. Apart from these political considerations economic forces generated by the war were also helping to undermine the supremacy of the West. Japan utilized the four years of war for a planned expansion of her trade in the East. German competition had been eliminated. Britain and France engaged in a mortal struggle when their entire resources of production bad to be directed towards victory, had also left the field fairly open. India gained her first major start on the industrial road and, with the strain on British economy; Indian national capital was placed in a position of some advantage. In fact the full results of the weakening of European capitalism became evident only after the war when the pre-eminence of London was challenged by America, and British capital; though still powerful, began to be on the defensive in India. The growth of capitalist enterprise in India, and the development of industries and participation by Indian capital in spheres so far monopolistically held by Britain, like jute [a plant fiber used in making burlap], resulted directly from the weakening of the economic position of Britain. Two other results of a general character may be indicated. The first, the growth of a powerful left-wing movement in the countries of Western Europe had a direct effect on shaping events in the Eastern Empire. The Labour Party in England during the days of its growth had been closely associated with the nationalist movement in India. In fact, Ramsay MacDonald, the leader of the Socialist party after the war, had been one of its champions from the earliest days. Similarly, Annamite nationalism had worked hand in hand with left-wing parties in France. In the period that immediately followed the war these parties had come to possess considerable influence in national affairs and, as we shall see, were instrumental in giving effect to policies which loosened the old bonds of political domination. . The second factor was, of course, the influence of the Russian Revolution. Imperialism meant something totally different after Lenin's definition of it as the last phase of capitalism and his insistence that the liberation of subject peoples from colonial domination was a part of the struggle against capitalism. Russia called for the practice of racial equality and abolition of special privileges.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------