Advanced Placement European History

[timbaly]

Which of the following European nations was NOT a major imperial power from 1870 to 1914?

Great Britain
France
Germany
Belgium
Austria



I want to see if you people would get this question right if you took the European History advance placement exam. I'll post the answer in a few days. The answer stupified me and I'm sure it will do the same to you.

[kadamangudy]

from what I remember, they all held some foreign land

[timbaly]

That is true.
Belgium only had the Belgian Congo as a colony.
Germany had parts of East Africa, West Africa and Southwest Africa it also had islands in the pacific it also had parts of Poland.
Austria was an Empire at the time but had no overseas colonies.
Great Britain and France had colonies all over the world.

But the question is which was not a major imperial power not which was not an imperial power.

[Nobody]

I took AP Euro two years ago and got a 5 (does victory jig). I think the anwser in Austria, due to its lack of overseas holdings.

[timbaly]

Since nobody seems to want to answer this I'll post the answer now. Lev Trotsky is correct. It is Austria. The reason given for the answer is Austria because Austria was neither a great sea power nor, with its nationalities problem, was it interested in overseas expansion.

The answer is ridiculous to me Austria was an empire yet according to the test it was not a mjor imperial power. It dominated Hungarians, Croations, Slovenes, Slovaks, Czechs, Poles, Italians and more yet it isn't considered to be a major imperial power by the tests standards.

Reading that question reminded me of my teacher who refuses to admit that manifest destiny is imperialism. She says it isn't because the land is connected. That really angered me so I asked her if the hapsburgs and Ottomans were imperial she said yes, but I asked her what the difference was and she said that I should drop the argument because Manifest Destiny was the term used at the time and not imperialism. Then the bell rang, but the confrontation will contiue next class.

[Sasafrás]

Before I saw the answer, I thought Austria... So, I'm right! :D I hate history, but I got it!

I took AP US History my junior year... I got a 2 on the exam... <_< Damn exam...

[Marxist in Nebraska]

The question is really screwed up... clearly the Austro-Hungarian EMPIRE is an imperialist power. Imperial, empire... it&#39;s the same root&#33; Now, one could possibly argue that Austria-Hungary was not a colonial power, as overseas possessions are generally considered colonies.

timbaly,
I like how you compared Europeans fighting over their continent and how that is considered imperialism to how Americans slaughtering Natives and Mexicans to control this continent from sea to shining sea. Of course, in U.S. history class, first of all it is not readily granted that the U.S. is an empire. Aside from neo-cons bragging about the Pax Americana, Americans deny that this country has moved beyond its humble beginnings as a republic. Secondly, you have the racist and eurocentric concept that the Natives were not using the land that much. Your teacher may be subscribing to that idea, and under that premise the land merely went from neutral status to having an owner. If that was accurate, which it clearly is not but for the sake of theory, I am not sure if claiming unused and uninhabited land can be considered imperialism.

[Saint-Just]

That seems ridiculous. Surely Belgium despite holding a colony was hardly a [b]major[/i] imperial power. Austria was a strong empire that had sizeable military might and a large population and economic power, surely it would be one of the major imperial powers of that period.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 16 2003, 09:20 PM
That seems ridiculous. Surely Belgium despite holding a colony was hardly a [b]major[/i] imperial power. Austria was a strong empire that had sizeable military might and a large population and economic power, surely it would be one of the major imperial powers of that period.
I agree with Mao on this one, Austia/hungry created one of the largest land empires ever made. With strong ties to other Imperial powers such as the newly founded Germany. Belgium admittedly did have some colonies, but they were miniscule compaired to the imperial "possesions" of the other&#39;s in that list.

[Nobody]

You want to do well on the test you got to play the game. La Rain, I got a 5 on the American test too. Hahahahhaha.

[timbaly]

Today in history we talked about native tribes within US territory. My teacher didn&#39;t even mention the fact that the tribes were like thier own countries. She also told me not to classify the taking over of native lands as imperial because the land was connected too the US and it was in US territory I&#39;m really getting anoyed in that class. My teacher seems to be favoring justification of manifest destiny rather than believing it&#39;s wrong. She teaches it as if it was the right thing to do.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

The land European-descended Americans seized from the Natives was NOT American territory. As James Loewen, an honest historian, points out: U.S. history treats Jefferson like a genius for "buying Louisiana from the French"... but "Louisiana" belonged to the Indians. Jefferson merely bought France&#39;s claim to that Indian land--the people who actually owned and lived on that land were not paid. Of course, American imperialists did not care...

Manifest Destiny really is not utterly condemned as it should be in history classes. The idea is arrogant and racist... and how about illogical? How can you know God intended you to conquer this or that when the Bible does not even mention the existance of America?