Sign Up

Have an account?

Sign In

Don't have account,

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.


Have an account?

Sorry, you do not have permission to ask a question, You must login to ask a question.

Need An Account,

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Search
Ask A Question

World History

Share
Followers
142 Answers
691 Questions
Home/World History/Page 2

Mains Answer Writing Latest Questions

Sanjay Nambiar
  • 2
Sanjay NambiarBegginer
Asked: July 12, 2024In:
  • 2

The collection of World War I peace treaties was not a notable success; rather, it had an impact on the division of Europe into governments who desired to amend the settlement and those that desired to uphold it. Describe.

upsc: world war i
  1. Pritma Sharma
    Pritma Sharma Begginer

    World War I was a global war originating in Europe that lasted from 28 July 1914 to 11 November 1918. After the war, the Paris Peace Conference imposed a series of peace treaties on the Central Powers officially ending the war. Following the signing of the armistices, the Paris Peace Conference of 1Read more

    World War I was a global war originating in Europe that lasted from 28 July 1914 to 11 November 1918. After the war, the Paris Peace Conference imposed a series of peace treaties on the Central Powers officially ending the war. Following the signing of the armistices, the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 brought together the diplomats of twenty-nine countries to draft a series of peace treaties. But these treaties were strongly in favour of one party and another party was in clear loss.

    The Collection Of Peace Treaties Out Of World War I And Discontent Over Them:

    TREATIES DISCONTENT AND OBJECTIONS
    Treaty of Versailles:

    1. Germany had to lose territory in Europe, Germany’s African colonies were taken away and became ‘mandates’ under League of Nations supervision.
    2. German armaments were strictly limited to a fixed number of soldiers and no tanks, submarines etc.
    3. The War Guilt clause fixed the blame for the outbreak of the war solely on Germany. Germany was to pay reparations for damage done to the Allies.
    		 Why did the Germans object?

    1. It was a dictated peace; they were simply presented with the terms and told to sign.
    2. Many provisions were not based on Wilson’s 14 Points as promised.
    3. Objection to territorial loss and loss of African colonies is obvious.
    4. Fear that the reparation payment will cost the collapse of the German economy.
    Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine:

    1. The Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine was a peace treaty signed by Bulgaria and the Allied Powers at the end of World War I.
    2. Besides making territorial reparations, it required Bulgaria to reduce its army and pay £100 million to the Allies.
    		 Why did Bulgaria object?

    1. They felt that it was a deliberate attempt to put them in a vulnerable position.
    2. Monetary losses were huge, as her economy was already suffering from war losses.
    Treaty of Trianon and the Treaty of Saint-Germain

    1. The Treaty of Trianon, signed on June 4, 1920, between Hungary and the Allied Powers, delimited Hungarian frontiers. This led to damaging territorial losses for Hungary.
    2. Austria-Hungary was partitioned into several successor states largely but not entirely along ethnic lines. The details were contained in the Treaty of Saint-Germain and the Treaty of Trianon. As a result of the Treaty of Trianon, 3.3 million Hungarians came under foreign rule.
    		 Why did Hungary object?

    1. Due to partition, the population of Hungary reduced drastically from 21 million to 7.5 million.
    2. Some of its rich corn lands were lost to Romania.
    Treaty of Sèvres and the Treaty of Lausanne

    1. The Ottoman Empire disintegrated, with much of its Levant territory awarded to various Allied powers as protectorates.
    2. The Turkish core in Anatolia was reorganised as the Republic of Turkey. The Ottoman Empire was to be partitioned by the Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.
    		 Why did Turkey object?

    1. Turkey lost all her dominions outside proper Turkey.
    2. Due to many of its clauses, this treaty was never ratified by the Sultan and was rejected by the Turkish National Movement, leading to the victorious Turkish War of Independence and the much less stringent 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

    States Which Wanted To Revise The Settlement And States Which Wanted To Preserve It

    1. Mostly all countries belonging to central powers were discontent regarding all the treaties signed in favour of Allied powers.
    2. Most of the countries belonging to Allied powers wanted to preserve these treaties because they were in economic and territorial interests of themselves.
    3. States belonging to Allied powers too were divided, some of them were discontent against others.
    4. The USA failed to ratify the settlement and never joined the League of Nations. This in turn left France completely disenchanted with the whole thing because the Anglo-American guarantee of her frontiers given in the agreement could not now apply.
    5. Italy felt cheated because it had not received all the territory promised to her.

    After all the criticism, what Gilbert said is also right that given the intricacy of problems involved, it is not surprising that they made a bad peace, what is surprising is that they managed to make peace at all. This bad peace eventually contributed to the reasons due to which all the old hostilities and suspicions surfaced again, and authoritarian regimes came to power, which was prepared to risk aggression and this led to the Second World War just after a few years of the first great war.

    See less
anubhuti gurdekar
  • 2
anubhuti gurdekarBegginer
Asked: July 11, 2024In:
  • 2

What led to the movement? what were the after effects?

  1. Pallavee Pandey
    Pallavee Pandey Begginer

    On January 9, 1905, a brutal massacre took place in Petersburg Russia, which is also known as Bloody Sunday. On January 9, 1905, a peaceful protest of workers, led by Father Gapon,  marched to the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg to present a petition to Tsar Nicholas II, asking for reforms and improRead more

    On January 9, 1905, a brutal massacre took place in Petersburg Russia, which is also known as Bloody Sunday.

    On January 9, 1905, a peaceful protest of workers, led by Father Gapon,  marched to the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg to present a petition to Tsar Nicholas II, asking for reforms and improvements in  workers ‘ lives. The demands  of the petitions were for better working conditions, higher wages, and greater political freedoms.

    The protest was going peacefully, people were peacefully carrying religious icons, pictures of Nicholas, and petitions demanding their grievances and desired reforms toward the square. Nicholas was not in the city. The chief of the security police Grand Duke Vladimir tried to stop the march and then ordered his police to fire upon the protesters. More than 100 people were killed, and several were wounded.

    Later the event known as Bloody Sunday because of the senseless brutality and violence used by the government against unarmed civilians took place on Sunday. The massacre sparked widespread outrage and protests throughout Russia and led to the development of the Russian Revolution of 1905. 

    Hence the Bloody Sunday highlighted the brutal suppression of dissent and the need for reforms  and led to the creation of the first Russian parliament, the Duma. 

    See less
Arshpreet Kaur
  • 2
Arshpreet KaurBegginer
Asked: July 10, 2024In:
  • 2

  1. Sahana S Reddy
    Sahana S Reddy Begginer

    The attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese Imperial Navy on December 7, 1941, signaled a turning point in World War II, effectively changing the direction of the war. It was meant to eliminate the U.S. military force in the Pacific region by the surprise military strike conducted by the Japanese ImpRead more

    The attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese Imperial Navy on December 7, 1941, signaled a turning point in World War II, effectively changing the direction of the war. It was meant to eliminate the U.S. military force in the Pacific region by the surprise military strike conducted by the Japanese Imperial Navy. It cost many lives, ships, and aircraft when 2400 Americans and ships full of hundreds of airplanes were lost to this act of destruction committed by the Japanese Imperial Navy.

    The instant result was the galvanization of divided American public opinion on the issue of entering into the war. It made the nation to be one and resulted in a speedy declaration of orders against Japan on 8 December 1941. This made Germany and Italy, in their turn, declare war on America hence the involvement of the USA in global conflict alongside their allies.

    The attack failed to achieve its long-term objectives strategically. Not all key American aircraft carriers were inside the harbor at that time consequently they were not destroyed enabling the U.S. Navy to bounce back and eventually take over in the Pacific Theatre. Pearl Harbor changed America from being just a spectator into a serious partaker who contributed greatly towards winning the Second World War through the final fall of the Axis powers.

    See less
Nitin Malhotra
  • 2
Nitin MalhotraLearner
Asked: July 12, 2024In:
  • 2

What does the “Policy of Appeasement” mean to you? To what degree did it contribute to the start of World War II?

upsc: world war ii
  1. Raju Gentleman
    Raju Gentleman Begginer

    The policy of Appeasement was a policy followed by the British and later French, to avoid another war with aggressive powers such as Japan, Italy, Germany by giving way to their demands provided they were not too unreasonable. The beginning of appeasement policy can be seen in British policy duringRead more

    The policy of Appeasement was a policy followed by the British and later French, to avoid another war with aggressive powers such as Japan, Italy, Germany by giving way to their demands provided they were not too unreasonable. The beginning of appeasement policy can be seen in British policy during the 1920s with Dawes and Young plans. This policy reached its peak at Munich where the UK and France so determined to avoid war presented Hitler with Sudetenland setting in motion the destruction of Czechoslovakia.

    Some Examples Of Policy Of Appeasement

    1. No action was taken to check the obvious German rearmament.
    2. Anglo-German Naval Agreement, condoning German rearmament was done without consulting France or Italy.
    3. Only half-hearted action by the UK when Italy invaded Abyssinia.
    4. Neither Britain nor France intervened in the Spanish civil war despite Italy and Germany sending decisive help.
    5. When Nevile Chamberlain became PM in 1937, this policy achieved its peak. The Munich conference was seen as a major event, where Sudetenland was handed over to Germany, and also as a result of this agreement Czechoslovakia lost nearly 70 percent of its territory mostly to Germany.

    How Did The Policy Of Appeasement Cause War?

    1. Some historians have suggested that appeasement was largely responsible for the situation deteriorating into war. They argue that Britain and France should have taken a firm line with Hitler before Germany had become too strong.
    2. An Anglo-French attack on western Germany in 1936 at the time of the Rhineland occupation would have taught Hitler a lesson and might have toppled him from power.
    3. By giving way to him, the appeasers increased his prestige at home. ‘success and the absence of resistance tempted Hitler to reach out further, to take bigger risks.
    4. Hitler may not have had definite plans for war, but after the surrender at Munich, he was so convinced that Britain and France would remain passive again, that he decided to gamble on war with Poland.
    5. Another reason why this policy is blamed is the way the appeasers, especially Chamberlain choose to implement this policy. For example, the UK took a stand against Germany’s reasonable demand on Danzig rather than taking a stand against Sudetenland which contained a million non-Germans.
    6. The UK and France declaring war against Germany for its occupation of Poland which was militarily weak and difficult to defend was a wrong decision. An appropriate stand would have been Chamberlain making his stand at Munich and backing militarily strong Czechs.

    Appeasement Policy Cannot Be Completely Blamed For War

    1. Many historians believe that this policy was one of the main reasons for delaying the war, and also by providing enough time for allied powers to continue their rearmament.
    2. Historians argue that any normal leader of Germany would have responded positively to these appeasement policies, but unfortunately, Hitler was not a typical German leader.
    3. Many historians believe that Hitler intended a major war right from the beginning. They argue that he hated communism and wanted to destroy Russia and control it permanently. Moreover, Hitler also said so on innumerable occasions, that Germany’s future could only be determined through war.
    4. Based upon these observations appeasement cannot be blamed as a cause of war, except that it made things easier for Hitler.
    5. Another reason which made war inevitable was Russia signing a non-aggression pact with Germany, which also included a secret agreement to partition Poland between Germany and USSR. Had Stalin allied with the west, it would have frightened Hitler into keeping the peace.

    The policy of Appeasement by giving too much leeway to Hilter which emboldened him and also by not taking a stand when needed, this policy played a huge role in precipitating the war. But there are numerous other factors that led to the outbreak of war. In Fact, most historians strongly believe that the seeds of this war were sown in 1919 itself in front of the Versailles agreement.

    See less
Ravi Chopra
  • 2
Ravi ChopraBegginer
Asked: July 12, 2024In:
  • 2

The Spanish civil war was sometimes referred to as the “dress rehearsal” of the Second World War since it involved threats of fascism and aggression against the entire world. Explain.

upsc: world war ii
  1. Pranjal shekh
    Pranjal shekh Begginer

    The Spanish civil war of 1936-39, was a military revolt, supported by the conservative elements in the country against the elected republican government. The failure of the initial military coup ensued a bloody civil war. Though an internal issue of Spain, the civil war was looked upon by major poweRead more

    The Spanish civil war of 1936-39, was a military revolt, supported by the conservative elements in the country against the elected republican government. The failure of the initial military coup ensued a bloody civil war. Though an internal issue of Spain, the civil war was looked upon by major powers of the time through their lenses and treated this as a dress rehearsal for the second world war.

    Spanish Civil War And Its Causes

    The great depression acted as a precursor for the civil war, it ruined Spain’s economy. Created huge unemployment and resentment against the rule of General Rivera who came to power with the support of the army. With depression destroying the economy of Spain, the army withdrew support to Rivera, and the new Spanish republic was proclaimed which faced serious issues from its conception that led to the civil war.

    1. Catalonia and Basque provinces asserted their right to separate, the Catholic church was bitterly opposed to the republic and wanted the return of the king, Economic crisis ruined Spain’s wine and olive export markets, Unemployment rose and there was general apathy towards the new rulers.
    2. The civil war is also the outcome of polarization of Spanish life and politics that had developed over previous decades. On one hand nationalists -as rebels were called- were mostly Roman Catholics, important elements of the military, most landowners, and many businessmen. On the other side, the Republicans, were urban workers, most agricultural labourers, and many of the educated middle class.
    3. A succession of governmental crises culminated in the elections of February 16, 1936, which brought to power a Popular Front government supported by most of the parties of the left and opposed by the parties of the right and what remained of the centre.
    4. On July 18, 1936, the Spanish Civil War began as a revolt by right-wing Spanish military officers in Spanish Morocco and spread to mainland Spain. From the Canary Islands, General Francisco Franco broadcasts a message calling for all army officers to join the uprising and overthrow Spain’s leftist Republican government.
    5. The Nationalists and Republicans proceeded to organize their respective territories and to repress opposition or suspected opposition. Republican violence occurred primarily during the early stages of the war before the rule of law was restored, but the Nationalist violence was part of a conscious policy of terror.
    6. The captaincy of the Nationalists was gradually assumed by General Franco, leading forces he had brought from Morocco. On October 1, 1936, he was named head of state and set up a government in Burgos.

    Threat Of Fascist Aggression During Civil War Period

    The Spanish civil war also coincided with the period where the majority of Europe was under threat from aggressive military policies and fascist policies from Hitler and Mussolini and Asia was under threat from expansionist Japan. The events that took place during this period made it apparent that the world is heading towards another war.

    1. On one hand, this is the time where Mussolini is making aggressive moves like his invasion of Abyssinia, the last remaining independent state of Africa.
    2. Economic suffering of Italy due to the great depression also prompted Mussolini to divert people’s attention from domestic issues. A war victory would achieve that and also provide export markets for Italy.
    3. Another alarming event of this period was the joining of hands between Hitler and Mussolini. Mussolini, irked by sanction imposed by the League of Nations over the invasion of Abyssinia, came close to Hitler and under his influence became more aggressive.
    4. Hitler’s rise is another major concern for world powers. Not prepared for the war France and Britain started appeasing Hitler while he went on to blatantly violate clause after clause of Versailles treaty.
    5. Hitler began massive rearmament and development of the German military, recovered Saar territory and polish border, broke the Versailles treaty and introduced conscription, remilitarized Rhineland, and made a pact with Mussolini.

    Spanish Civil War A Dress Rehearsal For World War

    The blatant violation of the Versailles treaty and aggressive warlike postures of Hitler and Mussolini alarmed the world. It was in this backdrop the Spanish civil war started. The internal affair of Spain soon saw the involvement of all major powers of the world and thus served as a dress rehearsal of war that was sure to come.

    1. Both the Nationalist and Republican sides, seeing themselves as too weak to win a quick victory, turned abroad for help. Germany and Italy sent troops, tanks, and planes to aid the Nationalists.
    2. The Soviet Union contributed equipment and supplies to the Republicans, who also received help from the Mexican government. During the first weeks of the war, the Popular Front government of France also supported the Republicans, but internal opposition forced a change of policy.
    3. In August 1936, though France, Britain, USSR, Germany and Italy signed a nonaggression pact, it was largely ignored by Germany, Italy and Soviets.
    4. About 40,000 foreigners fought on the Republican side in the International Brigades largely under the command of the Comintern, and 20,000 others served in medical or auxiliary units. In addition to soviet troops, thousands of communists and other radicals from France, the USSR, America, and elsewhere formed the International Brigades to aid the Republican cause.
    5. Many countries saw the civil war as an international conflict between either tyranny and democracy, fascism and freedom or communism and civilization depending on their point of view.
    6. For Germany and Italy, Spain was a testing ground for new methods of the tank and air warfare. For Britain and France, the conflict represented a new threat to the international equilibrium that they were struggling to preserve.

    Though all major powers of Europe participated in the civil war, Britain and France once again failed the world by not taking strict action against Hitler and Germany. Some British officials preferred a fascist -leaning Nationalist regime to a leftist one. Britain and France imposed an arms embargo on both sides, but with the Nationalists receiving German and Italian weapons, the freeze only hurt the Republicans. Spanish civil war served as proving ground to Hitler’s and the Soviet’s army. The civil war itself ended in 1939, when Republicans finally surrendered Madrid, bringing the Spanish Civil War to an end. Franco assumed power as dictator of Spain and ruled till 1975.

    See less
Pranav Shah
  • 2
Pranav ShahLearner
Asked: July 12, 2024In:
  • 2

Comment: “The dissolution of empires was caused by decolonization.”

upsc: decolonization
  1. Raju Gentleman
    Raju Gentleman Begginer

    The end of world war ushered in the world which was filled with ideas like self-determination, national sovereignty and equality, and cooperation in international relations. Thus the efforts to maintain colonial rule were no longer popular with the people even of the imperialist countries. These facRead more

    The end of world war ushered in the world which was filled with ideas like self-determination, national sovereignty and equality, and cooperation in international relations. Thus the efforts to maintain colonial rule were no longer popular with the people even of the imperialist countries. These factors led to the breakup of Empires. Decolonization was one of the most significant events in modern world history. At the dawn of the twentieth century, most of the globe was ruled from Europe. By 1963, the overseas empires had seemingly evaporated and by 1975 the process of decolonisation was almost complete.

    Factors That Led To Decolonization

    1. Nationalistic movements in the colonies over the years created an anti-imperialistic and strong nationalistic fervour among the masses. INC of India, Vietnamese nationalists, etc waged huge movements to get rid of foreign powers.
    2. However, it was only after the world war 2 the real impetus for decolonization started. Though these national movements created pressure on imperial powers for decades, the war weakened the colonial powers’ resolve to face the resistance and also their economy and military.
    3. The war also created more awareness among Africans and Asian people. Soldiers recruited in the armies and went abroad to fight the war were appalled by the stark contrast between conditions in their homeland and European nations.
    4. Another important development especially in Africa which hastened the decolonization process was the idea of Pan-Africanism. This thought process not only provided the impetus to decolonization but also aspired for united Africa without artificial frontiers set up by European powers.
    5. There are several outside pressures too which contributed to decolonisation. The USA and USSR, the two superpowers of the postwar world, were against imperialism. FDR made it clear that the Atlantic charter is applied to all people, not just those taken over by Germany. Another factor that compelled the US to demand decolonization was to prevent the spread of communism in colonies mainly in Asia.
    6. The UNO too came out with many declarations denouncing imperialism. UNO, US and USSR stood against colonialism and encouraged nationalists all over the world to intensify their campaign.

    Break Up Of Empires Due To Decolonization Break Down Of Empires In Asia

    1. In the late 1940s, there was a wave of decolonization in Asia and the Middle East. French forces left Syria and Lebanon in 1946. The Philippines was given independence from the USA in 1946.
    2. The Dutch tried to fight nationalists in the Dutch East Indies but by 1948 the Dutch admitted defeat and granted independence to a new state known as Indonesia.
    3. The French tried to keep their old colonies in Indo-China, which included the modern countries of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Local communists fought a war against the French. The Vietnamese communists defeated French forces in 1954 and won control of northern Vietnam.
    4. Perhaps the biggest event in the saga of decolonization was the independence of India. India was the biggest colonized state at this point of time and the crown jewel of the British Empire. After a series of hard-fought national movements led by Gandhiji and INC, the British finally granted Independence to India in 1947. With these two new nations of India and Pakistan came into existence.

    Break Down Of Empires In Africa And Caribbean Countries

    1.Independence came a little later for African and Caribbean countries. Most French and British colonies were given independence in the early 1960s. The end of European colonialism was complicated in those countries where a large number of European people had settled permanently. 2.The government of Portugal was extremely reluctant to grant independence to its African colonies of Angola and Mozambique. There was fierce fighting between nationalists and the Portuguese before independence was granted in 1975. 3.France has a vast empire in Africa which was decolonized in stages.

    1. A bitter war was fought in Algeria from 1954 to 1962 between French forces and Algerian nationalists before Algeria became independent in 1962. b.
    2. France granted Independence to Tunisia in 1956 after long drawn Guerrilla warfare.
    3. The situation in Morocco, which got independence in 1956 was similar to Tunisia, where king Mohammed V himself led the opposition to French rule along with trade unions playing an important role.
    4. The rest of the French colonies in West and Equatorial Africa and Cameroon and Togo were granted independence in stages starting from self-rule in 1958 to complete independence in 1960.

    4.The Belgian African empire in Cango and Ruanda-Urundi was also broken up after a series of riots and protests. Congo was granted ill-timed independence in 1960, whereas Ruanda-urundi was divided into two countries of Rwanda and Burundi and given independence in 1962. 5.Another major European power which had a huge empire in Africa was the British. British colonies in Africa can be divided into three groupings I,e colonies of West Africa, colonies of East Africa and Colonies of central Africa. The pattern that followed in the decolonization of all these colonies were mostly similar. Violent protests, demonstrations, and strikes. 6.The British started the decolonization process with the gold coast which became Ghana after independence in 1957. This was followed by independence for many African nations like Nigeria in 1960, Tanzania in 1964, Uganda in 1962, Kenya in 1963 and finally Zimbabwe in 1980. The process of decolonization which started after the war gained momentum in the 1950s and 60s, which saw the emergence of many newly independent nations mainly in Africa. However, this process was not done in a planned manner and with good intentions. The colonial powers wanted to give independence as they failed to confront the rising resistance to their rule. But at the same time, they also wanted to retain their influence in their former colonies. Thus the deliberate ill-timed decolonization resulted in numerous civil wars and bloodshed. But at the same time decolonization also ended the subordination of Asian and African nations to European powers and ushered in an era of progress, development in the newly independent colonies.

    See less
Anonymous
  • 1
Anonymous
Asked: July 13, 2024In: , , , , , , , , , , ,
  • 1

ANSWERS PLZZZ!!

developing countriesethicsgovernmentindiamoralspoliticsspeakupworld
  1. Bhargavi Saraf
    Bhargavi Saraf Begginer

    India is still considered a developing country primarily due to several key factors that hinder its progress towards becoming a developed nation. Firstly, despite rapid economic growth and advancements in various sectors, India faces persistent challenges such as poverty, income inequality, and lackRead more

    India is still considered a developing country primarily due to several key factors that hinder its progress towards becoming a developed nation.

    Firstly, despite rapid economic growth and advancements in various sectors, India faces persistent challenges such as poverty, income inequality, and lack of widespread access to basic services like healthcare and education. These disparities are significant and continue to widen the gap between the affluent and the marginalized populations.

    Secondly, infrastructure development remains inadequate in many parts of the country. While urban centers showcase modern infrastructure, rural areas often lack basic amenities like roads, electricity, and sanitation facilities, which are crucial for sustainable development.

    Thirdly, India’s demographic dividend, characterized by a large and youthful population, presents both opportunities and challenges. While the youth population can drive economic growth and innovation, issues such as unemployment and underemployment remain prevalent, indicating a mismatch between skill development and job market needs.

    Moreover, governance issues, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and corruption have historically impeded effective policy implementation and economic progress. These factors, combined with environmental challenges and regional disparities, contribute to India’s classification as a developing nation despite its economic potential and global influence.

    In essence, while India has made significant strides in various domains, addressing these multifaceted challenges comprehensively is essential to transitioning from a developing to a developed country status.

    See less
Bhavana
  • 1
BhavanaBegginer
Asked: July 15, 2024In:
  • 1

How did Hockey become the National Sport of India instead of any other sport?

question
  1. Mehul Rawat
    Mehul Rawat Begginer

    The Government of India designates titles to define its heritage and identity. The Royal Bengal Tiger has been designated as the national animal, the Indian Peacock as national bird and the Lotus as national flower. Similar titles have been attributed to the sport of hockey, given the honour it hasRead more

    The Government of India designates titles to define its heritage and identity. The Royal Bengal Tiger has been designated as the national animal, the Indian Peacock as national bird and the Lotus as national flower.

    Similar titles have been attributed to the sport of hockey, given the honour it has brought to India. The period between 1928 and 1956, famously dubbed as the Golden Era of Indian Hockey, witnessed the homecoming of 6 consecutive Olympic wins. Now with 8 titles to its name, India has been the most successful side in the sport.

    Although India has won the title a record 8 times, Hockey hasn’t officially been declared the national sport. The Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports asserts that the Government of India encourages all sport disciplines, regardless of popularity.

    Till the time the government officially designates a national sport, calling Hockey one is a misnomer.

    See less
Nabilah Qureshi
  • 1
Nabilah QureshiBegginer
Asked: July 17, 2024In:
  • 1

historyquestionworld war
  1. Blessy Tadepalli
    Blessy Tadepalli Begginer

    The Treaty of Versailles and World War I had several common effects on Germany, profoundly impacting the nation. Firstly, both events devastated Germany's economy. World War I left Germany in financial ruin, with massive debts from war expenses. The Treaty of Versailles exacerbated this by imposingRead more

    The Treaty of Versailles and World War I had several common effects on Germany, profoundly impacting the nation.

    Firstly, both events devastated Germany’s economy. World War I left Germany in financial ruin, with massive debts from war expenses. The Treaty of Versailles exacerbated this by imposing heavy reparations payments, further crippling the economy.

    Politically, the effects were equally destabilizing. The war ended with the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II and the collapse of the German Empire, leading to the fragile Weimar Republic’s formation. The Treaty of Versailles undermined this new government by creating a sense of humiliation and betrayal among Germans, contributing to political instability and extremist movements.

    Socially, the war and the treaty fueled widespread discontent and resentment. The harsh conditions of the treaty, particularly the “war guilt” clause, which placed full blame for the war on Germany, intensified national humiliation. This collective resentment became a fertile ground for the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, who promised to restore Germany’s pride and overturn the treaty’s terms.

    In summary, both the war and the treaty left Germany economically devastated, politically unstable, and socially resentful, setting the stage for further turmoil and the eventual rise of World War II.

    See less
Ashwini Kumar Singh
  • 1
Ashwini Kumar SinghBegginer
Asked: July 18, 2024In: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
  • 1

What is the timeline of development of Aryan Invasion Theory? Has it really being debunked or does it still subsist? What evidences do we have regarding the alleged Aryan migration into India? Why is it such a volatile and controversial ...

artsculturehinduismhistoryindia
  1. Kartik Sharma
    Kartik Sharma Begginer

    The Aryan Invasion Theory has a complex and controversial history of development and interpretation. Here is an overview of the timeline and key points regarding this topic: Timeline of Aryan Invasion Theory Development: 19th Century: The theory first emerged in the 19th century, proposed by EuropeaRead more

    The Aryan Invasion Theory has a complex and controversial history of development and interpretation. Here is an overview of the timeline and key points regarding this topic:

    Timeline of Aryan Invasion Theory Development:

    1. 19th Century: The theory first emerged in the 19th century, proposed by European scholars who suggested a migration of Indo-European “Aryan” people into the Indian subcontinent and their subjugation of the indigenous population.
    2. Early 20th Century: The theory was further developed and popularized, associating the Aryans with the decline of the Indus Valley Civilization and the rise of Vedic culture in India.
    3. Mid-20th Century: The theory faced increasing criticism and scrutiny, with scholars questioning the linguistic, archaeological, and genetic evidence used to support it.
    4. Late 20th Century: Many scholars began to reject the Aryan Invasion Theory, proposing alternative models such as the Aryan Migration Theory or the Indigenous Aryan Theory.

    Debate and Controversy:

    1. Debunking the Theory: While the Aryan Invasion Theory has been largely discredited by mainstream scholarship, there is still an ongoing debate about the nature and timing of any potential Aryan migration into India.
    2. Linguistic Evidence: The linguistic connections between Indo-European languages, including those spoken in India, are well-established. However, the interpretation of this evidence and its implications for population movements remain contested.
    3. Archaeological Evidence: The archaeological record does not show evidence of a large-scale invasion or sudden cultural change in the Indian subcontinent. Instead, it suggests a gradual process of cultural development and exchange.
    4. Genetic Evidence: Genetic studies have not provided conclusive evidence for a large-scale, sudden migration of people into India. The data suggests a more complex and gradual demographic history, with multiple waves of migration and admixture.
    5. Ideological Implications: The Aryan Invasion Theory has been used to justify racial and nationalist ideologies, which has made it a highly contentious and politically charged topic, particularly in India.

    In summary, while the Aryan Invasion Theory has been largely debunked by mainstream scholarship, the nature and timeline of any Aryan migration into India remains an active area of research and debate, with ongoing discussions about the linguistic, archaeological, and genetic evidence.

    See less
Load More Questions

Resources & Suggestions

Mains Answer Writing Latest Articles

On: March 8, 2025

Daily Answer Writing Practice Questions (8 March 2025)

Examine the key issues that obstruct the development of port infrastructure in India and outline the recent measures taken by the government to address these challenges. (Answer in 200 words) भारत में बंदरगाह अवसंरचना के विकास में आने वाली विभिन्न ...

On: March 7, 2025 Comments: 0

मानव-वन्यजीव संघर्ष का प्रबंधन

प्रधानमंत्री की घोषणा: मानव-वन्यजीव संघर्ष प्रबंधन के लिए एक समर्पित केंद्र की स्थापना। चुनौतियाँ: जनसंख्या वृद्धि और संसाधनों की प्रतिस्पर्धा। वन्यजीव संरक्षण का महत्व पारिस्थितिक संतुलन और जलवायु अनुकूलन: वन्यजीव पारिस्थितिकी तंत्र को बनाए रखने और जलवायु पैटर्न को विनियमित ...

On: March 7, 2025 Comments: 0

Safeguarding Wildlife, Securing Harmony”

Context: Based on the editorial “Living with animals – the challenges and the solution” published in The Indian Express. Announcement: PM announced a center for managing human-wildlife conflict. (Press Information Bureau (PIB) release or official government announcement.) Importance of Wildlife ...

Explore Our Blog