Jump to content


Photo

Germany's Colonies After Ww1


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 girl_in_black

girl_in_black
  • Student
  • 20 posts

Posted 30 May 2007 - 04:19 PM

What were the colonies that Germany lost due to the treaty of Versailles? Am I right in thinking that Tanzania was one of them?

#2 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,339 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 31 May 2007 - 12:10 AM

Article 119 "Germany renounces . . all her rights and title over her overseas possessions"

German colonies in 1918 included:
Kamerun (nowadays Cameroon) and other small territories in what are now parts of the Central African Republic, Congo, Gabon and Nigeria.
German East Africa (nowadays Tanganyika*)
German South-West Africa (nowadays Namibia)
Togoland (nowadays Togo) and the eastern part of Ghana
Kiaochao (a port in China)
and some small islands in the Pacific:
- Carolinas Islands (nowadays the Federated States of Micronesia)
- German New Guinea (nowadays the northern half of Papua New Guinea)
- Marianas Islands (nowadays Northern Marianas)
- Nauru
- Palaos Islands (nowadays Palau)
- Ralik Islands (nowadays Marshall Islands)
- Samoa

* German East Africa was renamed Tanganyika by the British, who took it over as a 'mandate' of the League of Nations. Tanganyika became indepedent in 1961, and in 1964 it united with Zanzibar, and changed its name to Tanzania.

#3 girl_in_black

girl_in_black
  • Student
  • 20 posts

Posted 31 May 2007 - 12:13 PM

Thanks for that. Our teracher told us there were only three, so I was going to memorise them just in case but now I don't think I'll bother because I don't think I can remember that many :). Oh well, thanks anyway.

#4 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,339 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 31 May 2007 - 01:28 PM

I don't think I'll bother because I don't think I can remember that many :). Oh well, thanks anyway.

Ha! I sympathise.

the important ones are:
Kamerun,
German East Africa (nowadays Tanganyika*)
German South-West Africa
Togoland
and some little islands in the Pacific.

Posted Image

Can you remember that?

#5 girl_in_black

girl_in_black
  • Student
  • 20 posts

Posted 01 June 2007 - 03:04 PM

Yes, I think I can manage that :). Thanks.

#6 girl_in_black

girl_in_black
  • Student
  • 20 posts

Posted 03 June 2007 - 04:00 PM

I have another question relating to the Treaty of Versailles.

It came to my attention that different sources say different things about the percentage of land etc. that Germany lost.

In my text book it says that Germany lost 10% of land and all of kts colonies, 12.5% of its population, 16% of its coalfields and half of its steel and iron industry, but somewhere else these figures were different.

Should I just learn what my book says and it does it matter if the figures are different?

It's the same with the figures for the number of deaths and that for the USSR and I know that even now no one knows exactly how many people were killed by Stalin and so on, but which figures do I use? :unsure:

#7 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,339 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 03 June 2007 - 05:29 PM

Well noticed!
Statistics like that are notoriously 'loose'.
I would say something like: 'Figures ary, but most historians suggest that...' and then quote one lot of statistics that strikes you as being most reliable.

#8 girl_in_black

girl_in_black
  • Student
  • 20 posts

Posted 03 June 2007 - 05:32 PM

OK, that sounds sensible, I'll do that. Thanks again :)

#9 Historygirl9

Historygirl9
  • Student
  • 22 posts

Posted 27 June 2009 - 07:02 PM

I'm in the process of writing an essay on whether the bombing of Hiroshima was justified, and the other forum posts on this website linked to this topic have proved to be very useful. However, I was just querying whether it is more appropriate to counter argue key points or group points into two separate sections (justifiable and unjustifiable).

Also, I'm trying to think of a nicer way of ending my introduction paragraph and linking it to my development then what I've currently drafted...

"().....this essay will explore the conflicting perspectives involved in this debate.

There are many strong arguments supporting the idea that the bombing of Hiroshima was unjustified."

I would really appreciate some help.

HistoryGirl9

#10 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,339 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 27 June 2009 - 07:54 PM

Actually, from what you've written, I get the impression that you're well on top of this essay, and I suspect you'll read what I've put an then make up your own mind!
Sometimes, when you're creating (which is what an essay is), and you reach an impasse, the best thing to do is to shove the matter into the back of your mind for a day or longer, and let your subconscious chew away on it for a while.
Very often, you wake up in the middle of the night suddenly realising what the 'answer' is; or at least, when you return to the matter, you will find that your thinking has sorted itself out.

I'm in the process of writing an essay on whether the bombing of Hiroshima was justified, and the other forum posts on this website linked to this topic have proved to be very useful. However, I was just querying whether it is more appropriate to counter argue key points or group points into two separate sections (justifiable and unjustifiable).

Both.
In general, this is a simple 'debate' essay: thesis (justified), antithesis (unjustified), synthesis (your solution/resolution/conclusion).
Yet, you are correct, so many of the 'points' are debatable that you will wish to argue/counter-argue individual points.
This is partly because of the nature of the topic, but also because you are growing in essay-writing skill (at University ALL essays will be like this).
Therefore, within the two sections thesis and antithesis, each individual line of argument will be in itself a mini-debate, as you reflect on the issue.
Nevetheless, it will still be the case that - at the end of each mini-debate - some points come out more for than against, whereas others turn out more against than for. In your planning therefore, you need to pre-guess these, and put those points which are more-for-than-against in the thesis (justifiable) section, and those others which you expect to turn out more-against-than-for into the antithesis (unjustifiable) section. Don't be afraid to juggle these as the essay develops; experience tells that sometimes you will think that a line of argument will turn out one way but - as you write/consider it - you decide that it isn't that way at all, but the other side of the argument ... in which case just copy and paste it to the other section.

(What happens if this happens to ALL one set of points? Then you have to redesign the essay plan. Your 'thesis' section becomes all the points for one side, your antithesis becomes all the points which at first sight seem to suggest otherwise, but actually don't!, and your conclusion is a rather smug assertion that there IS no real case against your thesis. This kind of essay is particularly satisfying to write, especially if you are emotionally drawn to the cause you have 'proved'.)

Also, I'm trying to think of a nicer way of ending my introduction paragraph and linking it to my development then what I've currently drafted...

"().....this essay will explore the conflicting perspectives involved in this debate.

There are many strong arguments supporting the idea that the bombing of Hiroshima was unjustified."

I think this is perfectly acceptable, and your final sentence of the first paragraph is positively good.
The only problem I have is your use of the word 'strong' in the next sentence, which is a loaded word, and rather gives away your personal opinion, I suspect.
If I were you, I would try very hard to remain absolutely neutral and objective as you review the arguments.

Hammer home your personal ethical standpoint instead by the force of your argument, not of your language, and the inevitability of your logic.

#11 Marx

Marx
  • Student
  • 35 posts

Posted 27 June 2009 - 08:32 PM

Perhaps for a nicer ending you could use somthing like :

only after exploring in detail all of the conflicting perspectives of the debate is it possible to draw a conclusion on wether the bombing of Hiroshima was justified or unjustified.


or maybe

The conflicting perspectives of the Hiroshima debate were varied and shall be examined fully, in an effort to show wether or not the bombing of Hiroshima was justified.


You might want to make it look nice / better than a simple "in this essay" introduction, but what really matters is the content of the essay - get the content done first then think about making it look nicer :D.

Good luck :) !

#12 Historygirl9

Historygirl9
  • Student
  • 22 posts

Posted 28 June 2009 - 06:39 PM

Sometimes, when you're creating (which is what an essay is), and you reach an impasse, the best thing to do is to shove the matter into the back of your mind for a day or longer, and let your subconscious chew away on it for a while.
Very often, you wake up in the middle of the night suddenly realising what the 'answer' is; or at least, when you return to the matter, you will find that your thinking has sorted itself out.


Thanks for the advice - you were right - it seemed that after a good night's sleep, the following morning the points seemed to have organised themselves into a clear order!

Your help has been invaluable and I feel both relieved and satisfied with my finished 'creation!' Time to e-mail it too my teacher and I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a level 8!

Thanks also to 'Marx', for providing some alternatives!

HistoryGirl9




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users