World War I DBQ

**Ever since the period of nationalism, countries in Europe had felt a very strong sense of who they were as nations.  They were proud of their heritages just like they were proud of their religions, and many thought they were superior to others because of this.  These ethnicities and religions also brought countries that shared these characteristic together, forming alliances.  With these prejudices against other ethnicities, nationalities, and religions came much tension.  With every country striving for superiority, war was almost inevitable.  Though the Black Hand murdering Franz Ferdinand is considered the thing that began WWI, that was only the spark to start the fire.  The kindling that had been building up over the years was really these prejudices.  The alliances between all the countries that fought in WWI were built previously based on ethnicity and religion, and these alliances were why the war happened as it did.
**One of the two big alliances that was formed was the Triple Alliance.  This alliance was between Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Italy.  Austria first formed the alliance with Germany, based on ethnic similarities between the two.  It states in the Dual Alliance Between Austria-Hungary and Germany, "Should one of the High Contracting Parties be attacked by another Power, the other High Contracting Party binds itself hereby, not only not to support the aggressor against its high Ally, but to observe at least a benevolent neutral attitude towards its fellow Contracting Party" (doc. 1). This states almost exactly what would happen during WWI; "Austria-Hungary consequently considers herself henceforward in state of war with Serbia"(doc. 7), officially starting WWI by declaring war on Serbia, and Germany would be required to come to their aid to overcome the opposing party. This alliance formed because of ethnic similarities would be a deciding factor in the way the war would play out. This effect can be seen to its greatest extent in a telegraph between ruler of Germany William II and tsar of Russia Nicholas II. In their conversation, William II signs his message "You most sincere and devoted friend and cousin" (doc. 8). In response, Nicholas II begs, "I urge You in the name of our old friendship to do all in Your power to restrain Your ally [Austria-Hungary] from going too far" (doc. 8). But despite this plea and because of the alliance between Germany and Austria, Germany still must do all in its power to assist its ally. In Germany's declaration of war against Russia, this is addressed: "In compliance with a wish expressed to him by His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, the German Emperor had undertaken, in concert with Great Britain, the part of mediator between the Cabinets of Vienna and St. Petersburg; but Russia, without waiting for any result, proceeded to a general mobilization of her forces both on land and sea" (doc. 9). The Germans, though, wanted to seem like they had a true cause for war, so they tried to appear to have as peaceful intentions as possible, though this might not be completely true.
**Pan-Slavism, a movement in the mid-1800s, would also have a big effect on the war.  This movement was an attempt to unite all the Slavic ethnicities, such as the Serbs, Croats, and Slavs with the Austro-Hungarians. Though this did not fully work out in the case of Austria-Hungary, the smaller Balkan nations were still united. Serbia, Romania, and their neighbors all banded together because of their shared Slavic roots. In Serbia, this sense of teogetherness was especially strong, and they strove to ostracize anyone who was not Slavic. The by-laws of the organization of the Black Hand states, "Beyond the frontiers of Serbia, fight with all means the enemies of the Serbian national idea"  (doc. 6)  They were prepared to defend themselves and their fellow Slavs at any cost, and so when war broke out, the South-Slavic countries were quick to band together against Austria-Hungary.
**Similar characteristics not only brought countries together, but they also pitted nations against one another.   Howard Stewart Chamberlain writes, "Certain anthropologists would fain teach us that all races are equally gifted; we point to history and answer: that is a lie!"  (doc. 3).  Presumably German, Chamberlain, as many other Germans of that time, believed his race above all others. This superiority complex led Germans to even despise other nations who also thought they were the best nation. Eyre Crowe also discusses how the Germans feel about themselves in saying, "And as it is an axiom of her political faith that right, in order that it may prevail, must be backed by force, the transition is easy to the belief that the "good German sword," which plays so large a part in patriotic speech, is there to solve any difficulties that may be in the way of establishing the reign of those ideals in a Germanized world"  (doc. 4).  Germans believed that they themselves could overcome any sort of problem that was to arise in the world, they were smart enough, and were generally superior to everyone.
**Through the entire time before the First World War, tensions among all the countries of Europe had been brewing.  These tensions turned into bitter disputes and arguments, while similar characteristics between countries turned into alliances.  These alliances were what determined the outcome of WWI, and what actually allowed the war itself to happen and become as large as it did.

Term Paper Second Rough Draft

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UZRlMJrP_T_3MDS0cyIFipGyJi6sUZZIyqh-g7P7FBM/edit?authkey=COLW6p4I&hl=en#

Animal Farm Discussion

Marx:  Major
Stalin:  Napoleon
Trotsky: Snowball
Lenin:  Major/Napoleon

- Do you think that people living in any community can even truly be equal?
Martha Schick: There will always be people that are going to take power if the opportunity is available, and there will always be people with a greater amount of more valuable skills. If, let's say, this class overthrew Wojo and started teaching our own class, I would be the first to try and organize it. I would be a Napoleon.
Brianna Glase: I agree that it would be impossible for everyone to be equal after a period of time, because power is tempting and corrupting and someone would definitely want to take control.
Becca Kotula: People could never be truly equal because everyone's just different already.

- Do communities need leaders, or do leaders cause more trouble than they are worth?
Martha Schick: Communities need leaders or else people will come about power in a way that people will take advantage of. In general, any leader can take advantage of power, but if leaders are elected fairly instead of pretending that they don't exist there's less of a chance that they'll try to take over.
Becca Kotula: I don't think you can be with or without a leader, kind of. You need a leader, because if you don't have a leader nothing will get done and everyone will just do what they want, but if you have a leader they'll end up making some bad decisions and there will be people who don't like him. But communities need leaders because eventually they'll please most of the people.
Brianna Glase: Leaders are important because without them there wouldn't really be any control over all the people.

- What is more important: the rights of the community or the rights of the individual?
Martha Schick: The rights of the individual are more important. Without rights of an individual, there wouldn't be able to be any change. You can't get an entire community to agree, especially if you're not allowed to try and get the community to agree.
Brianna Glase: I say that the rights of the community are more important because of the idea of the greater good and the benefit for an entire group of people as opposed to just one person.
Becca Kotula: I think that the rights of the individual are important because if individuals don't have rights then everyone will be angry and just try and fight for their rights.
Brianna Glase: If there's too big a focus on individual rights that could lead to the idea that everyone's equal, but some people are more equal and others and they think that their rights are more important than everyone else's, which could lead to divisions and inequality.

- If it benefits society, should bad things be allowed to happen to good people?
Martha Schick: No. I mean, take Libya for example. You can't look at it as obviously everyone thinks Gaddafi is insane but the way he thinks about it he thinks that if he puts down the rebels then everything will return to normal, but if the community was doing well then you wouldn't have to kill all these people anyway.
Becca Kotula: No, nothing should be allowed to happen to the individual because then the community could be scared if they start killing people, and then they won't like their leader more and more. If you hurt one individual for the community, then everyone will be affected.
Brianna Glase: I disagree again, and I think that the greater good is more important than just one person. Say there was a crazy ax murderer killing a bunch of people, would you rather put that one guy to death or let him go on a rampage and kill a bunch more people or just kill the one guy and save everyone else?
Martha Schick: You could put him in jail for life. It costs less money to put someone in jail for life than to kill him, so putting him to death would be less money for the community anyway.
Brianna Glase: But it's not like they would take a collection for his death, they have the tax money anyway.
Martha Schick: Yeah, but if they put a bunch of people to death they'd have to raise taxes, especially in a small community.
Brianna Glase: That's true. But still, what if he was rich and could bail himself out of jail?
Martha Schick: If he committed a bad enough felony, the judge wouldn't allow bail.
Brianna Glase:For purpose of debate, what if he didn't kill that many people and he could afford the bail?
Martha Schick: Don't you think the judge would be aware of the fact that he had a lot of money? The judge is not gonna give him the option to easily walk back out on the street and kill more people.

- Explain whether or not you think this is true:  all John Carroll students are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Martha Schick: That is completely true. Regardless of whether you divide it by student government, the classes, student popularity, whether they're in AP or honors classes, there will always be students who are better than others at something. The people who are good at sports, the people who are in student government, the people who are unmotivated won't get the same opportunities as others. This class isn't equal to a regular history class, but there might be sports people in that other class who are headed to the Junior Olympics. There will always be people who are better than others at something.
Becca Kotula: I agree with the some are more equal than others. We're all students, but there are different ways of measuring how equal we are. There's different levels of equality.
Brianna Glase: I agree with both of you, because to a certain extent we're all equal, like we're all American citizens mostly and we have American rights, and we're mostly all in the middle class area, but within the school there are divisions and differences between us all.