War & Terrorism - AP Human Geography

“Lebensraum” is the name of Hitler’s expansionist policies in the years leading up to, and including the beginning of, the Second World War. Hitler believed that the German people needed more room to settle to ensure the continued growth of the German nation. To that end, he was willing to invade surrounding countries and massacre or forcibly remove the population.

Autocracies often face political strife due to being run according to the interests of the ruler rather than hearing and fulfilling the needs and desires of the people. Whether the ruler inherits or is elected into their office, they rule in a way that does not cater to the needs of their people.

Here is the explanation for why the incorrect answers are incorrect:

1.) A King is not elected, they inherit the throne.

2.) A government with a Parliament has a process of election in which the Parliament is elected to bring the people's needs and concerns to the governemnt and take them into account.

3.) While a ruling class may have more influence in how a government runs a country, an autocracy does not necessarily favor the ruling class as a whole and sometimes even goes against the interests of that class.

The policy of “lebensraum” is most closely associated with territorial expansion. It was the policy of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler. It involved the expansion of German territory into the sovereign territory of other nations so that the German people would have more room in which to settle so as to ensure the continued growth of the German nation. Although it is quite closely associated with eugenics, and a little less so with cultural homogenization, it is directly associated with territorial expansion. “Lebensraum” is a German word that means living space.

Nicholas Spykman developed the Rimland Theory in response to Halford Mackinder’s Heartland Theory. According to the Heartland Theory, whoever controlled Central Eurasia would eventually come to control the whole of the world. Spykman, like most geographers, disagreed with this hypothesis and argued that the “Rimland” area, the coastal regions of Eurasia, was the logical base for world conquest because it allowed access to the seas.

The Heartland Theory was first proposed by Halford Mackinder. According to Mackinder’s theory any government that was able to control central Eurasia would eventually amass enough power to dominate the world. It has been widely criticized due to a rather overwhelming lack of historical evidence, yet it remains somewhat influential in the field of political geography.

A buffer state is a state that lies between two much larger and more powerful states. It is so named because it serves the function of preventing conflict between the two larger states by minimizing territorial squabbles. Uruguay’s status as a buffer state between the dominant South American powers of Brazil and Argentina is just one such historical example. Another prominent one is Hungary, which once acted as a buffer state between Austria and the Ottoman Empire.

“Subsequent boundaries” are political barriers established after an area has already been settled. The same is true of “superimposed boundaries”; however, they differ from one another in one crucial way: “subsequent boundaries” take into the account the cultural, ethnic, or religious differences of people living in a region, whereas “superimposed boundaries” are created without any consideration given to cultural divisions in the population.

In an “anarchic state,” there is no government, no laws, no enforcement of laws, and no political life whatsoever. “Anarchy” is the absence of government, the absence of rules and control. In terms of the modern world, the closest state to an “anarchy” is probably a country like Somalia where there is no centralized government and where the “rule of law” has little significant impact.

In a “police state,” the government has absolute control over every aspect of the lives of its citizens. The goal of a police state is to regulate every aspect of an individual's life so as to prevent sedition and insurrection. It is very common for an autocratic government to go hand-in-hand with a “police state,” but it is not confined to autocracy.

All of these countries have either hostile relations currently or they have had hostile relations recently. Relations between North and South Korea, however, are particularly extreme. Despite having not been at war since the 1950s the countries are still technically in an “armistice” which loosely means temporary peace. The Demilitarized Zone is a sort of unnatural buffer zone forced into existence to try and prevent the outbreak of further hostilities. It lies between the territory of North and South Korea.

The biggest clue here is the name “Franco-Prussian.” “Franco” means relating to France, of France and “Prussia” was the largest German state of the nineteenth century (before German unification in 1871). Both the Franco-Prussian War, fought in 1870-1, and World War I, fought between 1914-1918 were caused or partially caused by territorial animosity and disputes between France and Germany.

The Boer people were settlers who arrived in what is now called South Africa in the seventeenth century. Following the arrival of the British in the nineteenth century the Boers migrated north to avoid direct control by the British government; however shortly thereafter gold and diamonds were discovered in unprecedented quantities in the territory of the Boer Republic. This led to a brutal war of suppression being waged by the British army against the Boer Republic that ended with the Cape Colony and the Boer Republic being combined into the Union of South Africa -under British control.

The Taliban first came to power in Afghanistan following the failed invasion of the Soviet Union during the 1980s. During the war the United States provided weapons and supplies to the Afghan resistance fighters known as the “Mujahideen.” These weapons have been used against the American army in recent American occupations of Afghanistan. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan has had far reaching consequences including contributing to the breakup of Soviet Union, the rise of the Taliban, and the continued destabilization of the region.

Both terms refer to an event in which there was a mass killing and both can be in relation to an ethnic conflict. However, the term "Ethnic Cleansing" is more specific than the term "Genocide". An "Ethnic Cleansing" is when a people group commits mass expulsion or mass killing of a particular ethnic group whom they do not want to exist either in a particular region or in the world as a whole. A "Genocide" can be an "Ethnic Cleansing" but it can also be a mass killing for reasons other than ethnicity. A "Genocide" can refer to a people group committing a mass killing of people within their same ethnicity which is not considered ethnic conflict but a different type of conflict such as religious conflict or perhaps economic conflict.

Here is an explanation how each of the incorrect answers are incorrect:

1.) There is no statistic that makes the difference between labeling a mass killing event as a "Genocide" or "Ethnic Cleansing". Both have a high death toll.

2.) Ethnicity and Race are not interchangeable terms. Ethnicity is someone's ethnic background, i.e. where their ethnic heritage is from. We often group that with a nationality, although that is also a slightly different term. Race, on the other hand, means the color of your skin. You may have the same color of skin as someone from a different ethnic background, or you can have a different color of skin as someone from the same ethnic background.

3.) Both terms, "Ethnic Cleansing" and "Genocide" can be used to explain the Holocaust of WWII. It can be classified with the more general term of "Genocide" as it was a mass killing. Because about 6 million Jews were killed with the purpose of removing them from a particular region, if not the world as a whole, it can also be more specifically classified as an "Ethnic Cleansing."

Autocracies often face political strife due to being run according to the interests of the ruler rather than hearing and fulfilling the needs and desires of the people. Whether the ruler inherits or is elected into their office, they rule in a way that does not cater to the needs of their people.

Here is the explanation for why the incorrect answers are incorrect:

1.) A King is not elected, they inherit the throne.

2.) A government with a Parliament has a process of election in which the Parliament is elected to bring the people's needs and concerns to the governemnt and take them into account.

3.) While a ruling class may have more influence in how a government runs a country, an autocracy does not necessarily favor the ruling class as a whole and sometimes even goes against the interests of that class.

The policy of “lebensraum” is most closely associated with territorial expansion. It was the policy of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler. It involved the expansion of German territory into the sovereign territory of other nations so that the German people would have more room in which to settle so as to ensure the continued growth of the German nation. Although it is quite closely associated with eugenics, and a little less so with cultural homogenization, it is directly associated with territorial expansion. “Lebensraum” is a German word that means living space.

Nicholas Spykman developed the Rimland Theory in response to Halford Mackinder’s Heartland Theory. According to the Heartland Theory, whoever controlled Central Eurasia would eventually come to control the whole of the world. Spykman, like most geographers, disagreed with this hypothesis and argued that the “Rimland” area, the coastal regions of Eurasia, was the logical base for world conquest because it allowed access to the seas.

The Heartland Theory was first proposed by Halford Mackinder. According to Mackinder’s theory any government that was able to control central Eurasia would eventually amass enough power to dominate the world. It has been widely criticized due to a rather overwhelming lack of historical evidence, yet it remains somewhat influential in the field of political geography.

A buffer state is a state that lies between two much larger and more powerful states. It is so named because it serves the function of preventing conflict between the two larger states by minimizing territorial squabbles. Uruguay’s status as a buffer state between the dominant South American powers of Brazil and Argentina is just one such historical example. Another prominent one is Hungary, which once acted as a buffer state between Austria and the Ottoman Empire.