Congratulations - you have completed .
You scored %%SCORE%% out of %%TOTAL%%.
Your performance has been rated as %%RATING%%
Your answers are highlighted below.
Question 1 |
Questions 1–3 refer to the passage below:
“Germany pursued no aim ether in Europe or elsewhere which could only be achieved by means of war.
Austria-Hungary’s only aim was to maintain the status quo. Her first intention of rectifying her frontiers at Serbia’s expense was immediately abandoned at Germany’s insistence, and even Sazanov was convinced of her territorial déintéressement by her definite statements. . . .
France aimed at recovering Alsace Lorraine, and many leading French politicians also hoped to annex the Saar basin, whilst Russia aspired to possession of Constantinople and the Straits, both Powers knowing well that these aims could not be achieved without a European war.
Germany’s preparations for war were on a considerably smaller scale than those made by France, having regard to the political constellation, her geographical position, the extent of her unprotected frontiers, and the number of her population. From 1913 onwards, even her actual numerical piece strength was less, in respect of white troops, quite apart from the steadily increasing strength of the French coloured troops.
As compared with Russia’s armaments, those of Austria-Hungary were absolutely inadequate.
The Franco-Russian allies were far superior to the Central Powers as regards to the amount of war material, as well as the man power at their disposal.”
Count Max Monteglas, sometime after World War I
Austria-Hungary’s only aim was to maintain the status quo. Her first intention of rectifying her frontiers at Serbia’s expense was immediately abandoned at Germany’s insistence, and even Sazanov was convinced of her territorial déintéressement by her definite statements. . . .
France aimed at recovering Alsace Lorraine, and many leading French politicians also hoped to annex the Saar basin, whilst Russia aspired to possession of Constantinople and the Straits, both Powers knowing well that these aims could not be achieved without a European war.
Germany’s preparations for war were on a considerably smaller scale than those made by France, having regard to the political constellation, her geographical position, the extent of her unprotected frontiers, and the number of her population. From 1913 onwards, even her actual numerical piece strength was less, in respect of white troops, quite apart from the steadily increasing strength of the French coloured troops.
As compared with Russia’s armaments, those of Austria-Hungary were absolutely inadequate.
The Franco-Russian allies were far superior to the Central Powers as regards to the amount of war material, as well as the man power at their disposal.”
Count Max Monteglas, sometime after World War I
The writer primarily addresses which of the following causes of World War I?
Alliances | |
Imperialism | |
Militarism | |
Nationalism |
Question 1 Explanation:
The correct answer is (C). While the Monteglas hints at the alliances, the text, especially the second half, is about the military buildup or militarism. Imperialism and nationalism are not mentioned.
Question 2 |
Questions 1–3 refer to the passage below:
“Germany pursued no aim ether in Europe or elsewhere which could only be achieved by means of war.
Austria-Hungary’s only aim was to maintain the status quo. Her first intention of rectifying her frontiers at Serbia’s expense was immediately abandoned at Germany’s insistence, and even Sazanov was convinced of her territorial déintéressement by her definite statements. . . .
France aimed at recovering Alsace Lorraine, and many leading French politicians also hoped to annex the Saar basin, whilst Russia aspired to possession of Constantinople and the Straits, both Powers knowing well that these aims could not be achieved without a European war.
Germany’s preparations for war were on a considerably smaller scale than those made by France, having regard to the political constellation, her geographical position, the extent of her unprotected frontiers, and the number of her population. From 1913 onwards, even her actual numerical piece strength was less, in respect of white troops, quite apart from the steadily increasing strength of the French coloured troops.
As compared with Russia’s armaments, those of Austria-Hungary were absolutely inadequate.
The Franco-Russian allies were far superior to the Central Powers as regards to the amount of war material, as well as the man power at their disposal.”
Count Max Monteglas, sometime after World War I
Austria-Hungary’s only aim was to maintain the status quo. Her first intention of rectifying her frontiers at Serbia’s expense was immediately abandoned at Germany’s insistence, and even Sazanov was convinced of her territorial déintéressement by her definite statements. . . .
France aimed at recovering Alsace Lorraine, and many leading French politicians also hoped to annex the Saar basin, whilst Russia aspired to possession of Constantinople and the Straits, both Powers knowing well that these aims could not be achieved without a European war.
Germany’s preparations for war were on a considerably smaller scale than those made by France, having regard to the political constellation, her geographical position, the extent of her unprotected frontiers, and the number of her population. From 1913 onwards, even her actual numerical piece strength was less, in respect of white troops, quite apart from the steadily increasing strength of the French coloured troops.
As compared with Russia’s armaments, those of Austria-Hungary were absolutely inadequate.
The Franco-Russian allies were far superior to the Central Powers as regards to the amount of war material, as well as the man power at their disposal.”
Count Max Monteglas, sometime after World War I
The writer contradicts which of the prevailing theories of the causes of World War I?
The Central Powers and Allies stumbled into war | |
Germany was completely at fault for World War I | |
The war was intended to make the world safe for democracy | |
The war was primarily between capitalists who exploited the proletariat |
Question 2 Explanation:
The correct answer is (B). The writer blames the Allies for the war, which means (A), which is a neutral statement, is incorrect. Answer (C) addresses American involvement in the war, and (D) addresses communist opinion of the war.
Question 3 |
Questions 1–3 refer to the passage below:
“Germany pursued no aim ether in Europe or elsewhere which could only be achieved by means of war.
Austria-Hungary’s only aim was to maintain the status quo. Her first intention of rectifying her frontiers at Serbia’s expense was immediately abandoned at Germany’s insistence, and even Sazanov was convinced of her territorial déintéressement by her definite statements. . . .
France aimed at recovering Alsace Lorraine, and many leading French politicians also hoped to annex the Saar basin, whilst Russia aspired to possession of Constantinople and the Straits, both Powers knowing well that these aims could not be achieved without a European war.
Germany’s preparations for war were on a considerably smaller scale than those made by France, having regard to the political constellation, her geographical position, the extent of her unprotected frontiers, and the number of her population. From 1913 onwards, even her actual numerical piece strength was less, in respect of white troops, quite apart from the steadily increasing strength of the French coloured troops.
As compared with Russia’s armaments, those of Austria-Hungary were absolutely inadequate.
The Franco-Russian allies were far superior to the Central Powers as regards to the amount of war material, as well as the man power at their disposal.”
Count Max Monteglas, sometime after World War I
Austria-Hungary’s only aim was to maintain the status quo. Her first intention of rectifying her frontiers at Serbia’s expense was immediately abandoned at Germany’s insistence, and even Sazanov was convinced of her territorial déintéressement by her definite statements. . . .
France aimed at recovering Alsace Lorraine, and many leading French politicians also hoped to annex the Saar basin, whilst Russia aspired to possession of Constantinople and the Straits, both Powers knowing well that these aims could not be achieved without a European war.
Germany’s preparations for war were on a considerably smaller scale than those made by France, having regard to the political constellation, her geographical position, the extent of her unprotected frontiers, and the number of her population. From 1913 onwards, even her actual numerical piece strength was less, in respect of white troops, quite apart from the steadily increasing strength of the French coloured troops.
As compared with Russia’s armaments, those of Austria-Hungary were absolutely inadequate.
The Franco-Russian allies were far superior to the Central Powers as regards to the amount of war material, as well as the man power at their disposal.”
Count Max Monteglas, sometime after World War I
Monteglas is probably from
England | |
France | |
Germany | |
Italy |
Question 3 Explanation:
The correct answer is (C). Monteglas was from Germany. That may be deduced by him being a count and by his defense of Germany. Someone from England or France would have likely blamed Germany for the war.
Question 4 |
Questions 4–6 refer to the passage below:
“The situation is critical in the extreme. In fact it is now absolutely clear that to delay the uprising would be fatal.
With all my might I urge comrades to realize that everything now hangs by a thread; that we are confronted by problems which are not to be solved by conferences or congresses (even congresses of Soviets), but exclusively by peoples, by the masses, by the struggle of the armed people.
The bourgeois onslaught of the Kornilovites show that we must not wait. We must at all costs, this very evening, this very night, arrest the government, having first disarmed the officer cadets, and so on.
We must not wait! We may lose everything!
Who must take power?
That is not important at present. Let the Revolutionary Military Committee do it, or “some other institution” which will declare that it will relinquish power only to the true representatives of the interests of the people, the interests of the army, the interests of the peasants, the interests of the starving.
All districts, all regiments, all forces must be mobilized at once and must immediately send their delegations to the Revolutionary Military Committee and to the Central Committee of the Bolsheviks with the insistent demand that under no circumstances should power be left in the hands of Kerensky and Co.... not under any circumstances; the matter must be decided without fail this very evening, or this very night.
History will not forgive revolutionaries for procrastinating when they could be victorious today (and they certainly will be victorious today), while they risk losing much tomorrow, in fact, the risk losing everything.
. . .
It would be an infinite crime on the part of the revolutionaries were they to let the chance slip, knowing that the salvation of the revolution, the offer of peace, the salvation of Petrograd, salvation from famine, the transfer of the land to the peasants depend upon them. The government is tottering. It must be given the death-blow at all costs.”
Vladimir Lenin, “Call to Power,” October 24, 1917
With all my might I urge comrades to realize that everything now hangs by a thread; that we are confronted by problems which are not to be solved by conferences or congresses (even congresses of Soviets), but exclusively by peoples, by the masses, by the struggle of the armed people.
The bourgeois onslaught of the Kornilovites show that we must not wait. We must at all costs, this very evening, this very night, arrest the government, having first disarmed the officer cadets, and so on.
We must not wait! We may lose everything!
Who must take power?
That is not important at present. Let the Revolutionary Military Committee do it, or “some other institution” which will declare that it will relinquish power only to the true representatives of the interests of the people, the interests of the army, the interests of the peasants, the interests of the starving.
All districts, all regiments, all forces must be mobilized at once and must immediately send their delegations to the Revolutionary Military Committee and to the Central Committee of the Bolsheviks with the insistent demand that under no circumstances should power be left in the hands of Kerensky and Co.... not under any circumstances; the matter must be decided without fail this very evening, or this very night.
History will not forgive revolutionaries for procrastinating when they could be victorious today (and they certainly will be victorious today), while they risk losing much tomorrow, in fact, the risk losing everything.
. . .
It would be an infinite crime on the part of the revolutionaries were they to let the chance slip, knowing that the salvation of the revolution, the offer of peace, the salvation of Petrograd, salvation from famine, the transfer of the land to the peasants depend upon them. The government is tottering. It must be given the death-blow at all costs.”
Vladimir Lenin, “Call to Power,” October 24, 1917
In this speech, Lenin is acting as leader of the
Bolsheviks | |
Mensheviks | |
Revolutionary Army | |
Soviets |
Question 4 Explanation:
The correct answer is (A). This is a memorization question. The Mensheviks did not want to push the revolution as far as Lenin wanted. The revolution was from common people not an army. Lenin speaks of the soviets but not to the soviets.
Question 5 |
Questions 4–6 refer to the passage below:
“The situation is critical in the extreme. In fact it is now absolutely clear that to delay the uprising would be fatal.
With all my might I urge comrades to realize that everything now hangs by a thread; that we are confronted by problems which are not to be solved by conferences or congresses (even congresses of Soviets), but exclusively by peoples, by the masses, by the struggle of the armed people.
The bourgeois onslaught of the Kornilovites show that we must not wait. We must at all costs, this very evening, this very night, arrest the government, having first disarmed the officer cadets, and so on.
We must not wait! We may lose everything!
Who must take power?
That is not important at present. Let the Revolutionary Military Committee do it, or “some other institution” which will declare that it will relinquish power only to the true representatives of the interests of the people, the interests of the army, the interests of the peasants, the interests of the starving.
All districts, all regiments, all forces must be mobilized at once and must immediately send their delegations to the Revolutionary Military Committee and to the Central Committee of the Bolsheviks with the insistent demand that under no circumstances should power be left in the hands of Kerensky and Co.... not under any circumstances; the matter must be decided without fail this very evening, or this very night.
History will not forgive revolutionaries for procrastinating when they could be victorious today (and they certainly will be victorious today), while they risk losing much tomorrow, in fact, the risk losing everything.
. . .
It would be an infinite crime on the part of the revolutionaries were they to let the chance slip, knowing that the salvation of the revolution, the offer of peace, the salvation of Petrograd, salvation from famine, the transfer of the land to the peasants depend upon them. The government is tottering. It must be given the death-blow at all costs.”
Vladimir Lenin, “Call to Power,” October 24, 1917
With all my might I urge comrades to realize that everything now hangs by a thread; that we are confronted by problems which are not to be solved by conferences or congresses (even congresses of Soviets), but exclusively by peoples, by the masses, by the struggle of the armed people.
The bourgeois onslaught of the Kornilovites show that we must not wait. We must at all costs, this very evening, this very night, arrest the government, having first disarmed the officer cadets, and so on.
We must not wait! We may lose everything!
Who must take power?
That is not important at present. Let the Revolutionary Military Committee do it, or “some other institution” which will declare that it will relinquish power only to the true representatives of the interests of the people, the interests of the army, the interests of the peasants, the interests of the starving.
All districts, all regiments, all forces must be mobilized at once and must immediately send their delegations to the Revolutionary Military Committee and to the Central Committee of the Bolsheviks with the insistent demand that under no circumstances should power be left in the hands of Kerensky and Co.... not under any circumstances; the matter must be decided without fail this very evening, or this very night.
History will not forgive revolutionaries for procrastinating when they could be victorious today (and they certainly will be victorious today), while they risk losing much tomorrow, in fact, the risk losing everything.
. . .
It would be an infinite crime on the part of the revolutionaries were they to let the chance slip, knowing that the salvation of the revolution, the offer of peace, the salvation of Petrograd, salvation from famine, the transfer of the land to the peasants depend upon them. The government is tottering. It must be given the death-blow at all costs.”
Vladimir Lenin, “Call to Power,” October 24, 1917
The government that is “tottering” is the
Communist government | |
German government | |
Provisional Government | |
Tsar’s government |
Question 5 Explanation:
The correct answer is (C). Lenin wanted to establish a communist government. He was not predicting the end of one, so (A) may be eliminated. The German government (B) is irrelevant. The Provisional Government (C) replaced the tsar’s government (D), which eliminates (D).
Question 6 |
Questions 4–6 refer to the passage below:
“The situation is critical in the extreme. In fact it is now absolutely clear that to delay the uprising would be fatal.
With all my might I urge comrades to realize that everything now hangs by a thread; that we are confronted by problems which are not to be solved by conferences or congresses (even congresses of Soviets), but exclusively by peoples, by the masses, by the struggle of the armed people.
The bourgeois onslaught of the Kornilovites show that we must not wait. We must at all costs, this very evening, this very night, arrest the government, having first disarmed the officer cadets, and so on.
We must not wait! We may lose everything!
Who must take power?
That is not important at present. Let the Revolutionary Military Committee do it, or “some other institution” which will declare that it will relinquish power only to the true representatives of the interests of the people, the interests of the army, the interests of the peasants, the interests of the starving.
All districts, all regiments, all forces must be mobilized at once and must immediately send their delegations to the Revolutionary Military Committee and to the Central Committee of the Bolsheviks with the insistent demand that under no circumstances should power be left in the hands of Kerensky and Co.... not under any circumstances; the matter must be decided without fail this very evening, or this very night.
History will not forgive revolutionaries for procrastinating when they could be victorious today (and they certainly will be victorious today), while they risk losing much tomorrow, in fact, the risk losing everything.
. . .
It would be an infinite crime on the part of the revolutionaries were they to let the chance slip, knowing that the salvation of the revolution, the offer of peace, the salvation of Petrograd, salvation from famine, the transfer of the land to the peasants depend upon them. The government is tottering. It must be given the death-blow at all costs.”
Vladimir Lenin, “Call to Power,” October 24, 1917
With all my might I urge comrades to realize that everything now hangs by a thread; that we are confronted by problems which are not to be solved by conferences or congresses (even congresses of Soviets), but exclusively by peoples, by the masses, by the struggle of the armed people.
The bourgeois onslaught of the Kornilovites show that we must not wait. We must at all costs, this very evening, this very night, arrest the government, having first disarmed the officer cadets, and so on.
We must not wait! We may lose everything!
Who must take power?
That is not important at present. Let the Revolutionary Military Committee do it, or “some other institution” which will declare that it will relinquish power only to the true representatives of the interests of the people, the interests of the army, the interests of the peasants, the interests of the starving.
All districts, all regiments, all forces must be mobilized at once and must immediately send their delegations to the Revolutionary Military Committee and to the Central Committee of the Bolsheviks with the insistent demand that under no circumstances should power be left in the hands of Kerensky and Co.... not under any circumstances; the matter must be decided without fail this very evening, or this very night.
History will not forgive revolutionaries for procrastinating when they could be victorious today (and they certainly will be victorious today), while they risk losing much tomorrow, in fact, the risk losing everything.
. . .
It would be an infinite crime on the part of the revolutionaries were they to let the chance slip, knowing that the salvation of the revolution, the offer of peace, the salvation of Petrograd, salvation from famine, the transfer of the land to the peasants depend upon them. The government is tottering. It must be given the death-blow at all costs.”
Vladimir Lenin, “Call to Power,” October 24, 1917
This passage differs from traditional Marxism because
Marx predicted slow, gradual change, not revolution | |
Lenin predicted a counterrevolution, but Marx did not | |
Marx predicted the revolution would being in Germany, not Russia | |
Marx predicted a worldwide revolution. Lenin’s Revolution happened in Russia only |
Question 6 Explanation:
The correct answer is (D). Marx predicted a revolution and counterrevolution, so (A) and (B) are wrong. Lenin addresses the counter revolution in the third paragraph. Marx, though he was German, predicted a worldwide revolution, not a revolution in Germany, so (C) may be eliminated.
Question 7 |
Questions 7–8 refer to the image below:
What is the main point of the cartoon?
The Nazis supported the Treaty of Versailles | |
Adolf Hitler was a major contributor to the Treaty of Versailles | |
The Treaty of Versailles restructured the German government, which made it possible for Adolf Hitler to rise to power | |
Germany was punished too severely by the Treaty of Versailles. That treatment fostered hostility that led to the rise of Adolf Hitler |
Question 7 Explanation:
The correct answer is (D). Adolf Hitler was a corporal during World War I, which means he could not have contributed to the Treaty of Versailles, so (A) may be eliminated. The Nazis strongly objected to the Treaty of Versailles, so (B) may be eliminated. Germany became a republic on its own, which means (C) is incorrect. The Nazis capitalized on a wave of hostility toward the Treaty of Versailles to rise to power. Therefore, (D) is correct.
Question 8 |
Questions 7–8 refer to the image below:
According to most historians, the key objection to the Treaty of Versailles was
decolonization | |
disarmament | |
high war reparations | |
removal of the kaiser |
Question 8 Explanation:
The correct answer is (C). The kaiser abdicated at the end of the war and before the treaty was negotiated, so (D) may be eliminated. Decolonization (A) and disarmament (B) were part of the treaty but we not the main objections. The high war reparations severely punished Germany and destroyed its economy.
Question 9 |
Questions 9–10 refer to the image below:
The handshake is between British prime minister Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler. What occurred after the photograph was taken?
Germany rearmed | |
Germany’s war debt was forgiven | |
Germany annexed the Sudetenland | |
Germany and Britain formed an alliance |
Question 9 Explanation:
The correct answer is (C). The photograph is of the Munich Agreement, which gave the Sudetenland to Germany. The agreement does not mean Germany and Britain were allies, and in fact, they did not become so. Therefore, (D) may be eliminated. (A) and (B) do not relate to the photograph.
Question 10 |
Questions 9–10 refer to the image below:
The photograph would best be used to refute
appeasement | |
imperialism | |
militarism | |
nationalism |
Question 10 Explanation:
The correct answer is (A). Chamberlain said the Munich Agreement represented “peace in our time.” He was wrong. Adolf Hitler was not appeased and attempted to conquer all of Europe. The other choices are more closely related to World War I than World War II.
Question 11 |
Questions 11–13 refer to the image below:
Pablo Picasso, Guernica, 1937
The painting above is
Abstract Expressionist | |
Cubist | |
Romantic | |
Surreal |
Question 11 Explanation:
The correct answer is (D). Surrealism appears dreamlike or connected to unconsciousness. Abstract expressionism was after World War II and Romanticism was in the nineteenth century. There are no cubes present, so it is not Cubism.
Question 12 |
Questions 11–13 refer to the image below:
Pablo Picasso, Guernica, 1937
Picasso was reacting to the
conquest of France | |
Great Depression | |
rise of Mussolini | |
Spanish Civil War |
Question 12 Explanation:
The correct answer is (D). Even if one does not recognize the subject matter, the obvious clue is that Picasso was a Spanish painter and would logically paint a Spanish subject.
Question 13 |
Questions 11–13 refer to the image below:
Pablo Picasso, Guernica, 1937
The painting is influenced by the work of
Albert Einstein | |
Sigmund Freud | |
George Maynard Keynes | |
Karl Marx |
Question 13 Explanation:
The correct answer is (B). Surrealism was heavily influenced by Freud’s research on dreams. Einstein was physicist, Keynes was an economist, and Marx was a socialist.
Question 14 |
Questions 14–17 refer to the map below:
The primary goal of the organization on the map was
defense | |
economic integration | |
political integration | |
a single currency |
Question 14 Explanation:
The correct answer is (B). The European Economic Community’s primary goal was economic integration. NATO’s primary goal is defense. The European Union adopted a single currency in 1999 and has taken steps toward political integration.
Question 15 |
Questions 14–17 refer to the map below:
All the countries on the map practiced
capitalism | |
communism | |
fascism | |
socialism |
Question 15 Explanation:
The correct answer is (A). Communism was practiced in eastern Europe. Fascism was in Italy and Germany during World War II. Socialism is a better fit for northern Europe than it is for western Europe.
Question 16 |
Questions 14–17 refer to the map below:
The Eastern European equivalent of this organization was
COMECON | |
Comintern | |
The Commonwealth of Independent States | |
The Warsaw Pact |
Question 16 Explanation:
The correct answer is (A). The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) was an economic organization that operated under the leadership of the Soviet Union from 1949 to 1991. It comprised the countries of the Eastern Bloc along with a number of communist states in other parts of the world. Comintern was an international communist organization that advocated world communism. The Commonwealth of Independent States was created in 1991 as a loose economic union between most of the former soviet states. The Warsaw Pact was Eastern Europe’s version of NATO.
Question 17 |
Questions 14–17 refer to the map below:
The EEC evolved into the
European Coal and Steel Community | |
European Free Trade Association | |
European Union | |
North Atlantic Treaty Organization |
Question 17 Explanation:
The correct answer is (C). In 1993 the EEC was renamed as the European Community and in 2009 its institutions were absorbed into the European Union. The European Coal and Steel Community existed at the same time as the EEC and had many of the same members. The European Free Trade Association was a rival organization of non-EEC members led by Great Britain. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is for defensive purposes.
Question 18 |
Questions 18–20 refer to the passage below:
“Your Majesty, Honourable Representatives of the Norwegian people,
You are aware of the reasons why I could not come to your Capital city and receive personally this distinguished prize. On that solemn day my place is among those with whom I have grown and to whom I belong — the workers of Gdansk.
Let my words convey to you the joy and the never extinguished hope of the millions of my brothers — the millions of working people in factories and offices, associated in the union whose very name expresses one of the noblest aspirations of humanity. Today all of them, like myself, feel greatly honoured by the prize.
. . .
For the first time a Pole has been awarded a prize which Alfred Nobel founded for activities towards bringing the nations of the world closer together. The most ardent hopes of my compatriots are linked with this idea — in spite of the violence, cruelty and brutality which characterise the conflicts splitting the present-day world.
We desire peace — and that is why we have never resorted to physical force. We crave for justice — and that is why we are so persistent in the struggle for our rights. We seek freedom of convictions — and that is why we have never attempted to enslave man’s conscience nor shall we ever attempt to do so.
We are fighting for the right of the working people to association and for the dignity of human labour. We respect the dignity and the rights of every man and every nation. The path to a brighter future of the world leads through honest reconciliation of the conflicting interests and not through hatred and bloodshed. To follow that path means to enhance the moral power of the all-embracing idea of human solidarity.
. . .
May I express to you — the illustrious representatives of the Norwegian people — my most profound gratitude for confirming the vitality and strength of our idea by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the chairman of “Solidarity.”"
Lech Walesa, acceptance speech read by Danuta Walesa, December 10, 1983
You are aware of the reasons why I could not come to your Capital city and receive personally this distinguished prize. On that solemn day my place is among those with whom I have grown and to whom I belong — the workers of Gdansk.
Let my words convey to you the joy and the never extinguished hope of the millions of my brothers — the millions of working people in factories and offices, associated in the union whose very name expresses one of the noblest aspirations of humanity. Today all of them, like myself, feel greatly honoured by the prize.
. . .
For the first time a Pole has been awarded a prize which Alfred Nobel founded for activities towards bringing the nations of the world closer together. The most ardent hopes of my compatriots are linked with this idea — in spite of the violence, cruelty and brutality which characterise the conflicts splitting the present-day world.
We desire peace — and that is why we have never resorted to physical force. We crave for justice — and that is why we are so persistent in the struggle for our rights. We seek freedom of convictions — and that is why we have never attempted to enslave man’s conscience nor shall we ever attempt to do so.
We are fighting for the right of the working people to association and for the dignity of human labour. We respect the dignity and the rights of every man and every nation. The path to a brighter future of the world leads through honest reconciliation of the conflicting interests and not through hatred and bloodshed. To follow that path means to enhance the moral power of the all-embracing idea of human solidarity.
. . .
May I express to you — the illustrious representatives of the Norwegian people — my most profound gratitude for confirming the vitality and strength of our idea by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the chairman of “Solidarity.”"
Lech Walesa, acceptance speech read by Danuta Walesa, December 10, 1983
Walesa’s speech indicates that Solidarity is a movement of __________ against __________.
professional organizers; capitalism | |
professional organizers; communism | |
workers; capitalism | |
workers; communism |
Question 18 Explanation:
The correct answer is (D). The solidarity movement was made up of workers, and Walesa was not a professional organizer. One might be tempted to think that workers would organize against capitalism, but Poland was a communist country, and its government suppressed worker organization.
Question 19 |
Questions 18–20 refer to the passage below:
“Your Majesty, Honourable Representatives of the Norwegian people,
You are aware of the reasons why I could not come to your Capital city and receive personally this distinguished prize. On that solemn day my place is among those with whom I have grown and to whom I belong — the workers of Gdansk.
Let my words convey to you the joy and the never extinguished hope of the millions of my brothers — the millions of working people in factories and offices, associated in the union whose very name expresses one of the noblest aspirations of humanity. Today all of them, like myself, feel greatly honoured by the prize.
. . .
For the first time a Pole has been awarded a prize which Alfred Nobel founded for activities towards bringing the nations of the world closer together. The most ardent hopes of my compatriots are linked with this idea — in spite of the violence, cruelty and brutality which characterise the conflicts splitting the present-day world.
We desire peace — and that is why we have never resorted to physical force. We crave for justice — and that is why we are so persistent in the struggle for our rights. We seek freedom of convictions — and that is why we have never attempted to enslave man’s conscience nor shall we ever attempt to do so.
We are fighting for the right of the working people to association and for the dignity of human labour. We respect the dignity and the rights of every man and every nation. The path to a brighter future of the world leads through honest reconciliation of the conflicting interests and not through hatred and bloodshed. To follow that path means to enhance the moral power of the all-embracing idea of human solidarity.
. . .
May I express to you — the illustrious representatives of the Norwegian people — my most profound gratitude for confirming the vitality and strength of our idea by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the chairman of “Solidarity.”"
Lech Walesa, acceptance speech read by Danuta Walesa, December 10, 1983
You are aware of the reasons why I could not come to your Capital city and receive personally this distinguished prize. On that solemn day my place is among those with whom I have grown and to whom I belong — the workers of Gdansk.
Let my words convey to you the joy and the never extinguished hope of the millions of my brothers — the millions of working people in factories and offices, associated in the union whose very name expresses one of the noblest aspirations of humanity. Today all of them, like myself, feel greatly honoured by the prize.
. . .
For the first time a Pole has been awarded a prize which Alfred Nobel founded for activities towards bringing the nations of the world closer together. The most ardent hopes of my compatriots are linked with this idea — in spite of the violence, cruelty and brutality which characterise the conflicts splitting the present-day world.
We desire peace — and that is why we have never resorted to physical force. We crave for justice — and that is why we are so persistent in the struggle for our rights. We seek freedom of convictions — and that is why we have never attempted to enslave man’s conscience nor shall we ever attempt to do so.
We are fighting for the right of the working people to association and for the dignity of human labour. We respect the dignity and the rights of every man and every nation. The path to a brighter future of the world leads through honest reconciliation of the conflicting interests and not through hatred and bloodshed. To follow that path means to enhance the moral power of the all-embracing idea of human solidarity.
. . .
May I express to you — the illustrious representatives of the Norwegian people — my most profound gratitude for confirming the vitality and strength of our idea by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the chairman of “Solidarity.”"
Lech Walesa, acceptance speech read by Danuta Walesa, December 10, 1983
Which of the following techniques does Walesa use to achieve his goals?
Accepting aid from other countries | |
Peaceful protest | |
Negotiating with the Soviet Union | |
Violent uprising |
Question 19 Explanation:
The correct answer is (B). Walesa used peaceful protest. He did not ask for aid from other countries (A) in this speech. Negotiating with the Soviet Union (C) is wrong because Walesa was in Poland, not the Soviet Union. Violent uprising (D) is the opposite answer.
Question 20 |
Questions 18–20 refer to the passage below:
“Your Majesty, Honourable Representatives of the Norwegian people,
You are aware of the reasons why I could not come to your Capital city and receive personally this distinguished prize. On that solemn day my place is among those with whom I have grown and to whom I belong — the workers of Gdansk.
Let my words convey to you the joy and the never extinguished hope of the millions of my brothers — the millions of working people in factories and offices, associated in the union whose very name expresses one of the noblest aspirations of humanity. Today all of them, like myself, feel greatly honoured by the prize.
. . .
For the first time a Pole has been awarded a prize which Alfred Nobel founded for activities towards bringing the nations of the world closer together. The most ardent hopes of my compatriots are linked with this idea — in spite of the violence, cruelty and brutality which characterise the conflicts splitting the present-day world.
We desire peace — and that is why we have never resorted to physical force. We crave for justice — and that is why we are so persistent in the struggle for our rights. We seek freedom of convictions — and that is why we have never attempted to enslave man’s conscience nor shall we ever attempt to do so.
We are fighting for the right of the working people to association and for the dignity of human labour. We respect the dignity and the rights of every man and every nation. The path to a brighter future of the world leads through honest reconciliation of the conflicting interests and not through hatred and bloodshed. To follow that path means to enhance the moral power of the all-embracing idea of human solidarity.
. . .
May I express to you — the illustrious representatives of the Norwegian people — my most profound gratitude for confirming the vitality and strength of our idea by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the chairman of “Solidarity.”"
Lech Walesa, acceptance speech read by Danuta Walesa, December 10, 1983
You are aware of the reasons why I could not come to your Capital city and receive personally this distinguished prize. On that solemn day my place is among those with whom I have grown and to whom I belong — the workers of Gdansk.
Let my words convey to you the joy and the never extinguished hope of the millions of my brothers — the millions of working people in factories and offices, associated in the union whose very name expresses one of the noblest aspirations of humanity. Today all of them, like myself, feel greatly honoured by the prize.
. . .
For the first time a Pole has been awarded a prize which Alfred Nobel founded for activities towards bringing the nations of the world closer together. The most ardent hopes of my compatriots are linked with this idea — in spite of the violence, cruelty and brutality which characterise the conflicts splitting the present-day world.
We desire peace — and that is why we have never resorted to physical force. We crave for justice — and that is why we are so persistent in the struggle for our rights. We seek freedom of convictions — and that is why we have never attempted to enslave man’s conscience nor shall we ever attempt to do so.
We are fighting for the right of the working people to association and for the dignity of human labour. We respect the dignity and the rights of every man and every nation. The path to a brighter future of the world leads through honest reconciliation of the conflicting interests and not through hatred and bloodshed. To follow that path means to enhance the moral power of the all-embracing idea of human solidarity.
. . .
May I express to you — the illustrious representatives of the Norwegian people — my most profound gratitude for confirming the vitality and strength of our idea by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the chairman of “Solidarity.”"
Lech Walesa, acceptance speech read by Danuta Walesa, December 10, 1983
Which of the following would NOT have supported Walesa?
Mikhail Gorbachev | |
Pope John Paul II | |
Ronald Reagan | |
Margaret Thatcher |
Question 20 Explanation:
The correct answer is (A). While Gorbachev was a reformer, he did not support democracy and capitalism or a fully independent Poland. Pope John Paul II, who was from Poland, was an ardent critique of communism. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were both critical of organized labor movements. But Solidarity was an organized movement against communism, so they praised it.
Once you are finished, click the button below. Any items you have not completed will be marked incorrect.
There are 20 questions to complete.
|
List |
Next Practice Test:
AP European History Main Menu >>