AP® European History—Semester B

Sample Lesson - Introduction

Lesson 10.01: Authoritarianism + Technology = Nothing Good

He's got the whole world in his hands.
(Source)

While Britain, France, and the United States were going about their democratic business during the interwar years, a whole handful of other nations were fighting tooth and nail to figure out if democracy was even in the cards. Weimar Germany was a perfect example. Could Germany sustain a Republic, even in the face of hyperinflation, increased nationalism, and Adolf Hitler?

The answer, tragically, is no.

But of the big three non-democratic states—Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union—Germany was actually last to take on the mantle of "Not a Democracy." While Italian fascism and Soviet Communism were on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum, they shared one important detail: totalitarianism. And what's totalitarianism? Think authoritarianism plus technology; in other words, nothin' good.

The rise of totalitarian states in the 1930s was unprecedented, and that's because its context was so unique. Never before had technology allowed for mass communication. Never before had weapons had the power to decimate whole swaths of cities and towns. Never before had state-controlled systems of economics and industry seemed de rigeur, thanks to total war. Totalitarianism was new in the 1930s. Unfortunately, today it's old news.

Sigh. *shaking our fist at whatever twists of fate allows bad things to happen*

Sample Lesson - Reading

Reading 10.10.01a: Totally Totalitarian

Freedom of speech, civil rights, and a fair and free election are just a few of the selling points of democracy. Throughout the European history we've studied, it's seemed like democracy was the ultimate goal of most forward-thinking philosophers. In the years before World War I, there was this idea that progress was inherently positive, and every innovation would lead humanity closer to a better society.

The war kinda blew that one out of the water, but hey—we can try to be optimistic, right? Maybe World War I really was what Woodrow Wilson tried to tell us it was: a war against autocracy and nationalism. And if so, the "good" side won. Right? Right?!

Unfortunately, it seems that the philosophers were wrong: progress doesn't always move us towards a better society, at least not in the short term. That war against autocracy Europe fought from 1914 to 1918? It wasn't the war to end all wars—there was another one comin' right up.

Before we can talk about the rise of the new European leaders, we have to define their style, 'cause it was brand new. Monarchy? Old school. Autocracy? So yesterday. Bolshevism? Long time, no see, Unit 9. The mid-20th century introduced the hip new version of the "I'm the captain now" power grab. Say hello to totalitarianism.

First things first: in order to better see what made totalitarianism unique, let's look at the kinds of governments we're already familiar with.

Next, check out The Atlantic's breakdown of totalitarianism here. Read from the line "But I found the classic definition helpful" to "Then democracy is subverted;" and as you do, consider:

• How does totalitarianism differ from autocracy?
• What programs does the United States (a democratic republic) have that a totalitarian government would not?

It's My Party, I Can Do What I Want To

Totalitarian governments feature six elements, which work together:

1. A guiding ideology
2. A single party, often led by a dictator
3. A system of terror to keep people in line
4. A monopoly on weapons
5. A monopoly on tools of communication
6. State-controlled economics

(Source)

Totalitarianism differed from any previous forms of sole governance because in order for it to work, a dictator needs the ability to control large groups of people through propaganda, messaging, and violence. No dictator can control an entire state without a system of control, something modern technology could provide in the 1930s (once again proving that progress isn't always progressive).

We can't talk about totalitarianism without talking about fascism, and we can't talk about fascism without talking about Benito Mussolini (1883—1945), and we can't talk about Mussolini without a quick check-in with Spielvogel. Read from "The Authoritarian and Totalitarian States" on page 805 to the end of "Fascist Italy" on page 809. As you read, consider:

• What factors weakened social cohesion in many European nations between the wars?
• What does a totalitarian state require from its citizens?
• How did Italy suffer both during and after World War I?
• How did Mussolini gain the support of the middle class?
• What were Mussolini's principles of Italian fascism?
• How did Mussolini strengthen fascism's control over Italy?
• What were the attributes of the ideal Italian fascist male? What about Italian fascist female?

The squadristi in fascist Italy were a lot like the Freikorps in Weimar Germany—they were nationalists who focused almost entirely on destroying socialists and union groups, and were generally accepted by the government. What's more, many members were veterans of the bloody battles of World War I. Both the squadristi and the Freikorps used violence and terror to gain political capital, and in doing so, helped birth fascism in both Italy and Germany.

So here's the thing about violence: while it's not always effective in general (quick reminder to use your words, not your fists), it's absolutely crucial for totalitarianism to work. That violence doesn't even have to be specific: it just has to be scary. Squadristi started their reign of terror by wreaking havoc in cities, where they destroyed socialist newspaper offices and labor centers. However, it was ultimately the coordinated, high-terror, locally-based attacks on individuals that built the foundation of Italian fascism.

For many squadristi, these acts were merely a continuation of the Great War. Men who had suffered tremendously on the battlefield struggled to fit back into normal life. In a fascist squad, they had a family who understood them. These tight-knit, localized groups tended to center around charismatic leaders, who encouraged camaraderie and self-congratulation.

Conducting acts of violence prompted further interdependency between squadristi, and in order to remain one step ahead of legal or psychological trauma—as well as to avoid the loss of their new squadristi family—they had to keep going. Thus the cycle of violence was perpetual and self-sustaining.

As Mussolini watched these squadristi conjure up chaos throughout Italy, he figured that there had to be a way to use this wild energy to build up a new kind of state. As he gained power in the early 1920s, and the fascists began to take parliamentary seats, he further developed his vision of fascism. By 1926, Mussolini had become Il Duce ("the Chief"), and brought Italy into full-fledged fascism.

Benito Mussolini's brand of fascism was kind of a throwback to the late 19th century. Its four main principles were nationalism, expansionism, and Social Darwinism. Italian fascism insisted on the idea of communalism within a nation, (i.e. nationalism) rather than communalism within class (i.e. socialism). Further, Mussolini claimed that Italy had never fully unified in the 19th century—there were territories that belonged to her that she had historically failed to fight for, like Corsica, Albania, and other places that definitely don't seem like a part of "Italy" to us.

The fascists argued that any people in those territories, or foreign nationals within Italy, should "Italianize," i.e., assimilate with Italy. Mussolini drew on Social Darwinism's notion of a natural cultural hierarchy to support this argument, claiming that it was crucial for the Italian people to reclaim their Aryan-Mediterranean race and take power. "Survival of the fittest" or whatever.

Just the Worst

But Mussolini was only the appetizer to the rise of another fascist…yep, we mean him. That one. Started as a failed art student, turned into a political rabble-rouser, and, slowly but surely, became the face of fascism as the leader of the German Nazi Party. It only took Adolf Hitler (1889—1945) ten years to seize total power of Germany and transform Europe (and the world) forever.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves.

In order to understand what happened during World War II, we have to understand how Hitler happened before it. By 1926, the Weimar Republic was a struggling, broken-down attempt at a democracy, and it was failing. Badly. Postwar bitterness and devastating economic circumstances left many Germans searching for a new voice to lead them out of their misery. Centrism was failing, clearly, so that "new voice" would either come from the far left or the far right. And just like Mussolini's Italian fascists, the German Nazis knew exactly how to use violence and terror to capitalize on this sociopolitical unrest, and silence the other side.

Spielvogel will take us through the rise of Hitler and the tactics of the Nazi fascists (they make us really, really bummed, but it's history, so….). Please read "Hitler and Nazi Germany" from page 809 till you reach "Soviet Union" on page 815. As you read, consider:

• What influence did World War I have on Hitler's ideology?
• What tools and tactics did Hitler use to gain followers?
• How did Hitler use principles of Social Darwinism in developing his ideology?
• Why did extreme anti-Semitism flourish in Weimar Germany?
• How did Hitler's strategy change in 1929? What electioneering techniques did Hitler and his followers utilize?
• What was the difference between Hitler's "total state" and the Weimar parliamentary state?
• How did the Nazis manipulate social norms and the roles of German men, women, and children to support their cause?

Like Mussolini, Hitler was a nationalist, expansionist, and Social Darwinist. He believed that Aryan Germans were the most evolved, and therefore, the most worthy race. His plan was to push non-Aryans, including the Slavs and the Bolsheviks, past the Ural Mountains, in order to provide Germany Lebensraum, or "living space," in Eastern Europe.

Germans deserved this, Hitler believed, since the "racially inferior" inhabitants of these areas could not take advantage of the great natural resources in their regions. As one 1916 German pamphlet put it, "we Germanic people build up—create—the Slav broods and dreams—like his earth." (Source)

Hitler couldn't do it alone, though, and in 1936, he headed to Rome to meet the other famous European fascist: Mussolini. As we've seen, these two dudes had similar interests—and we're not talking about baseball or needlepoint. They shared two ultimate desires:

• To rid the world of Soviet Communism
• To expand territorially in a kind of fascist "Manifest Destiny"
• To destroy the existing world order that emerged from the Treaty of Versailles after World War I

In November 1936, Hitler trekked from Berlin to Rome, where they signed a Rome-Berlin Axis, forming the first alliance of the Second World War. Two fascists is scarier than one, and these two fascists were ready for war.

Sample Lesson - Reading

Reading 10.10.01b: Not-So Successful States

At the same time that Hitler was plotting to push the residents of Eastern Europe over the Urals and into Russia so that he could claim Germany's "rightful" "land," the nations in Eastern Europe were fitfully struggling to maintain a steady political system.

The Treaty of Versailles had split Austria-Hungary into Austria and Hungary, two separate nations. In two later treaties, also passed during the Paris Peace Conference (the Treaty of San-Germain and the Treaty of Trianon, for you foreign policy nerds out there), a handful of brand new territories—the successor states—were scooped out from the former territories of Austria-Hungary. These included:

• Czechoslovakia
• Yugoslavia
• Poland
• Ukraine
• Romania

Many of these states adopted parliamentary systems following their creation, a concept that—despite its good intentions—was brand new to the region. Furthermore, the borders between regions didn't always mesh with the ethnic makeup of each state, creating conflict that threatened to bloom into all-out ethnic nationalism. Primarily agrarian, many landowners in the region feared socialist uprisings along the lines of what had happened in Russia—and no one wanted that.

So, in the 1920s, the democratic systems in these successor states had begun to crumble and collapse. In their place came a handful of military dictatorships and coup d'états that led to authoritarian rule. Authoritarianism is slightly different from totalitarianism, so before we dive into the details of the authoritarian rule in Eastern Europe, let's look at the differences.

Spielvogel will take us deeper into this mire, as we explore the failure of the successor states to maintain democracy for more than ten years. Please read "Authoritarianism in Eastern Europe" on page 819; as you do, consider the following questions:

• What is the difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism?
• How did Czechoslovakia manage to avoid authoritarianism?

Espana in Trouble

You know what nation we haven't talked about in a while? Spain. What's goin' on, Spain? What have you been up to? Done anything fun over your summer vacation?

Well, while everybody else in Europe was fighting the Great War, Spain remained neutral. The Spanish-American War in 1898 had pretty much decimated the Spanish navy and army resources, and were totally humiliated by their loss to the United States. With no military to speak of, no alliances with the major powers, and, thanks to the loss in 1898, no colonial holdings outside of North Africa, Spain was in no place to fight in 1914.

Within the nation, opinion was split between pro-Allies and pro-Central Powers. Like everywhere else in Europe, Spain was divided into two categories: those who supported the existing political system (the Bourbon monarchy, in Spain), and those who wanted to destroy it.

The pro-system folks, who were generally made up of members of the aristocracy, Church, and the military, supported the Central Powers. The tear-it-down-and-built-it-new folks, comprised of political reformers, middle class professionals, intellectuals, and left-wing, threw their weight behind the Allies. Despite Spain's "neutrality," she found herself caught up in an internal battle of values that would leave her hopelessly divided by 1918.

There was one major benefit to Spain's neutrality: she managed to make bank by selling agricultural and industrial products to the warring nations, who had no ability to manufacture much beyond machine guns and grenades.

Spain's economic boom would quickly go bust after the war, though, as there was little need (or ability) to purchase expensive foreign goods during an economic depression. Spain found itself not only rebuffed economically, but also politically—despite her attempts to gain a seat at the table at the Paris Peace Conference or membership in the League of Nations, Spain failed to do so.

We feel for Spain. We really do. But things didn't get better from here. They got, well… authoritarian. Say hello to Francisco Franco (1892—1975). A longtime soldier who ascended to the rank of brigadier general in 1926 (the youngest of that rank in Europe at the time), Franco found the fall of the Spanish monarchy in 1931, and the establishment of a republic, immensely frustrating. Republics, Franco believed, were a weak man's government.

The thing is, there was a fair chunk of Spaniards who agreed with Franco, enabling Franco to lead an insurrection against the brand-new left-leaning Spanish Republic in 1936. This was the beginning of a great big mess—we're talking civil war, dictatorships, and a nasty alliance with the nastiest Axis that ever did Axis.

Spielvogel will guide us through the rise of Spain's disappointing dictatorial demise. Please read "Dictatorship in the Iberian Peninsula" from page 819 to the end of the section on page 822. As you read, consider:

• What factors led to social unrest in Spain between the wars?
• Which other European countries intervened in the Spanish Civil War, and what effects did those interventions have?
• What distinguished Franco from the Falange movement?

Blitz and No Glamour

While the Spanish Civil War was obviously devastating to Spain, it also had a major impact on everything else that was happening in Europe. Quick recap: Mussolini and Hitler were fascists, and they allied themselves with Franco. Ring a bell? At this point, it should be fairly obvious that fascists don't pay much attention to national borders. It should also be pretty dang clear that if Western democracies don't intervene, fascism can spread. Fast. Case-in-point: Spain in the 1930's.

We're not arguing that the Spanish Civil War was part one of World War II. Instead, we see the events in Spain as a kind of test run for fascist warfare. The result of Hitler and Mussolini's involvement in the Spanish Civil War not only helped install an authoritarian regime in Spain that would last until the 1970s (seriously, y'all), but it also helped them fine-tune their propagandist message, pressure other nations into alliances, and, particularly devastatingly, test-run Blitzkrieg.

The English translation for the German word Blitzkrieg is "lightning war," and by "lightning," we mean "fast, devastating, and electrical." In other words, Blitzkrieg is a tactic whereby a heavily armed infantry, supported by mechanized tools like tanks and bomber planes, uses short, intense bursts of violence to disarm, disable, and distract an enemy. Blitzkrieg continues until Vernichtungsschlacht, a decisive annihilation of the enemy.

If Blitzkrieg sounds familiar, it should, as it was tested out to devastating effect during the Spanish Civil War at Guernica. It's optional, but we recommend you check out the following article from Der Spiegel, which tracks the way Nazi Blitzkrieg influenced what happened at Guernica, and how Guernica influenced the approaching World War. As you read, consider:

• What specific tactics used in Guernica are elements of a Blitzkrieg attack?
• What was the objective of the attack at Guernica?
• How did the German military react following the Guernica attack?

Sample Lesson - Activity

Activity 10.01a: Build-a-Quiz Workshop

This unit's a biggie, and it's a baddie. We're only one day in, and we've already been introduced to both Mussolini and Hitler: two of modern history's worst dictators. So, 'cause we care about your AP Euro exam score and your mental health, we're gonna start with a straightforward first activity: answering multiple choice questions and writing some of your own.

Step One

We'll begin exactly as the AP Euro exam does: with a multiple choice section. This is a perfect opportunity to practice your MCQ skillz, since we haven't been hittin' those as hard recently as the more extended and extensive LEQs and DBQs.

Navigate yourselves over to Shmoop's site here. Then, please complete both drills in "Period Three" and the first drill in "Period Four." Though there may be a straggler or two of a question we haven't covered in Period Four's drill, you can use your knowledge to make a solid guess. Just like on the real exam!

Step Two

Multiple choice questions can be a little tedious, don'tcha think? But most tedious things, like waiting for the traffic light to change or watching paint dry, are actually more interesting if you dig deep into what's actually happening (when you pull up to a stoplight, pavement sensors detect your car and send that information to the traffic controller, and paint dries when the solvent, usually water or oil, evaporates). So, in this here Step Two, you're gonna dive headfirst into creating your very own MCQs.

As you know, all of the AP Euro exam's MCQs are attached to stimulus materials, like documents, images, or data charts. So, in creating your MCQs, you'll need to select stimulus material that will inspire your questions. Since you're probably thinking, "How do I pick a primary source out of all of European History after 1450?!" we'll make it easier for you:

1. Pick any two primary sources from pages 805 to 816 of Spielvogel, under the section "The Authoritarian and Totalitarian States.".
2. Then using your understanding of the source and its history, write four multiple choice questions per source. Your MCQs must
   • relate to the source in some way.
   • test content we've covered so far.
   • have four answer options, none of which are obviously wrong.
   • have the correct answer marked.

Here's an example from Shmoop:

Source: Excerpt from Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler on page 811.

1. All of the following are reasons Nazi ideologues targeted the Jews , EXCEPT:

   A. Anti-Semitism had a long history in Europe, which had never been fully eradicated.
   B. The Jews were blamed for Germany's loss in World War I.
   C. Stereotypes about Jewish moneylenders and greed led Nazis to blame them for the Great Depression.
   D. The SPD, the leading political party in the Weimar Republic, was disproportionately Jewish.

When you're done, upload your questions in a Word doc below.

Sample Lesson - Activity

Activity 10.01b: Rise and Demise

Have you ever woken up in the middle of the night, looked around, and thought, "Where am I?!" before realizing that you're on vacation? It's often disconcerting to find ourselves in a totally new environment, even if we took all the steps to get there ourselves. To have any understanding of where we are in the middle of the night in a strange room, we have to remember the steps that got us there.

And whaddayaknow, the same can be said for moments in history: in order to understand where we are, we need to know how we got there.

Take the rise of Adolf Hitler, for example. We can't just jump from "failed art student" to "Chancellor of Germany," after all. So in this activity, we'll be tracing the rise of Adolf Hitler—specifically, the unique events, decisions, and actions that allowed the National Socialists to gain power in the 1930s.

Understanding the economic, social, and political circumstances that allowed the Nazis to take over Germany not only helps us understand the context for the rest of the unit, but also reminds us that all this jazz wasn't accidental. Sure, the Nazis got lucky here and there in their journey to power, but many of the decisions they made were calculated and purposeful. If we don't acknowledge that, then what are we even doing studying history?

Step One

First things first: we have to figure out what events, decisions, and actions we think were most important in years leading up to Hitler's seizure of power in 1933. We'd like you to pick at least twelve that demonstrate each of the following "Requirements of Totalitarian Takeover":

• A guiding ideology
• Economic dysfunction
• Blaming enemies
• Legal loopholes
• Propaganda
• Violence

In other words, we're not looking for a timeline that says:

1889: Adolf Hitler is born.
1945: Hitler dies.

Nah, we're looking for something far more analytical. The timeline of Hitler's birth and death isn't nuanced—it's just a set of dates. The Nazi rise to power, though, was much more than that: it was a series of interwoven bits of planning and luck. What we're interested in is where the planning met the luck and turned into totalitarianism.

So, for example, we might pick some of the following dates:

1923: Hitler dictates his memoir Mein Kampf to Rudolf Hess while he is in prison in Landsberg. In it, he laid out his political ideology. (A guiding ideology)

1929: The American stock market crashes, leading to a global depression. (Economic dysfunction)

1933: The Reichstag is set on fire. Hitler blames the Communists. (Blaming enemies)

You can use pencil and paper or an online tool to create your timeline. We used Microsoft Word's SmartArt feature, but we'd also recommend tiki-toki.com or timeglider.com. A few specs to keep in mind:

• You must have at least twelve events on your timeline.
• You must touch on each of the "Requirements of Totalitarian Takeover," though you can arrange those however you like (for example, you might choose two examples in each category, or one example from five of the categories and seven from another).
• Keep the dates between 1889 (Hitler's birth) and 1934 (Hitler's rise to Fuhrer), just to simplify things.
• Feel free to be creative (you might use color-coding or primary source images, for example), but keep it serious, too.
• Describe each event in three to five sentences.

Here's an excerpt from Shmoop's timeline, to help you get started:

Step Two

Now that you've got a detailed, analytical timeline of the Nazi rise to power, we're gonna ask you to dig even deeper, using your historical thinking skills. Select one of the events you chose for your timeline, and mull over the following question:

How does this event help you understand how the Nazis became the totalitarian leaders of Germany?

Done mulling? Now write a 200 to 250 word analytical response answering that question, with respect to your chosen event.

For example, Shmoop might select the 1933 Reichstag fire. Our response might begin:

By the time of the Reichstag fire in 1933, Hitler was already the Chancellor, and the Nazis had a strong hold on President von Hindenburg. While the fire was partly another opportunity for the Nazis to place their enemies—in this case, the Communists—on the chopping block, it was also a propagandist tool, used to manipulate the president.

When you're done, upload your timeline and analytical response below.