please do as attached

There will be two parts to this exam, each worth 50% of your exam score. Part I Choose five pairs of terms from this list: Comintern National Youth Welfare Act (German) Putilov factory Strength through Joy Kadets Kronstadt Uprising Zhenotdel Law for the Protection of the People and

the State Socialist Realism Béla Kun Leon Blum

Magnitogorsk Law for the Prevention of Hereditary

Diseases Fasci femminili Friedrich Ebert Freikorps Wolfgang Kapp Lateran Treaty Horseshoe Settlement Ramsay MacDonald Nuremberg Laws

For each pair: 1) Explain what each term meant/was, and when and where it was significant (3 points). 2) Explain how the two terms are related (2 points). The two terms may be examples of the same phenomenon in different countries; or they may be examples of opposing sides in a particular struggle (war, policy debate, philosophical difference, etc.); or one may follow from the other as effect follows from cause; or there may be some other relationship that you discern. 3) Explain what larger trends or developments these terms illustrate or exemplify (5 points). Usually, this will mean making a connection between these terms in their national context(s) and broader European trends. Please note:

You answers will be assigned up to ten points each. do NOT get sidetracked into narrative or factual detail regarding each term! Use

facts regarding each term and the broader European context to support your interpretation.

Each answer should be NO LONGER THAN 200 WORDS. Part II Write a short essay that answers ONE of the following two questions:

EITHER 1. Did violence, or did innovation (destruction, or creation) generate the more important discontinuities in European history between the middle of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century (say 1939)? OR 2. Were the most important continuities in European history between 1870s and 1930 created by stability (things that did not change), or were they instead continuing processes of change?

This essay should be a focused brief argument for a particular interpretive standpoint. It should not be a “data-dump.” Nevertheless, you must use concrete examples to support your argument. PLEASE NOTE that your response must address BOTH violence and creativity (question 1) or BOTH stability and change (question 2), explaining why you view one or the other as more important. PLEASE NOTE that you do not have to give an either/or answer—you might instead choose to discuss the relationships between innovation and violence (question 1), or between stasis and change (question 2). Your response should be NO LONGER THAN 1,000 WORDS, and no shorter than 750 words. Policy on Collaboration: Your work on this exam should be your own; that is to say, you should write the exam, not cut and paste answers. If you wish to collaborate with others by discussing terms, or discussing potential argument and evidence for the essay, that is fine. Answers that are verbatim identical with at least one other student's answers will be discounted. I have adopted this policy because it is in the best interest of students in the course. In past years, exam scores for students who sought to save time by sharing/cutting and pasting answers were significantly lower than for students who wrote their own exams. In other words, sharing cut-and-pasted answers may save a little bit of time, but it results in lower grades . . . and of course inferior learning outcomes.