u/Able-Independent2959 — reddlx

hello everyone. I'm very worried for the dbq section of the ap test. I can make a thesis, and write well, but I have trouble structuring all the docs into paragraphs. I try and be like a robot and follow this structure
context-thesis(although Y, X because A and B), b1 b2 small complexity paragraph or add it into somewhere else, and no conclusion. I added some practice dbq's i wrote if you wanna take a look at them.

can anyone grade these?

2025 AP European History Free-Response Questions: Set 1
Evaluate whether or not the French government upheld the ideals of the Revolution during the period 1789 to 1794

During the Enlightenment, thinkers grappled with ideas about the natural state and the form of government to match the natural state. Locke believed the government must uphold the natural rights of humans, life liberty and property. He claimed that if it didn’t the people were obligated to form a new government that did. Ideas such as this influenced the American revolution against England, where the French played a key role in supporting the rebels. The French saw this, and combined with their anger at unfair political representation and economic inequality, sparked a revolution. Although there was initial social progress for many minorities, the French Government did not uphold the ideals of the revolution because of its exclusion of women and the transition to despotism during the reign of terror.
There was a good amount of social progress made by the revolution, meaning it wasn’t purely negative, but these ideals are largely overstated and biased. The declaration of rights of man (doc 1) sets in stone what french ideals are. Religious freedom, natural rights, and more. The constitution very explicitly supports this. For example, the Constitution (doc 3) allows people to practice any religious faith, a major shift from Louis XIV, a shift that initially upheld the original ideals. Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes and persecuted anyone who was not Catholic. Therefore the shift from religious persecution to tolerance is a positive shift, proving how the revolution initially benefited people. This satisfied many minorities, such as the French Jew Berr. Berr wrote a letter to other jews reflecting very positively on the revolution and its developments (doc 4). He also pleads with them to support the revolution with deeds and patriotism. This does show how there was benefit to religious minorities, but it may be overstated here. As a merchant in a position to be writing public letters to other people, he is fairly educated and wealthy. This is relevant because the revolution gave wealthy people like him more economic and political power, whereas previously, even if they had money and education, they had very limited power. The constitution changed this, so even if there was religious toleration, there was almost certainly an economic bias behind his words. Another example of the overstating of the ideals of the revolution is the print showing the abolition of slavery in French colonies (doc 7). It was created by a French artist with no slave input. Even if there were benefits to these people, the depiction of the African man shows a clear racial prejudice in thinking they are more primitive. Given the source, that it was a french artist, the impact of this action is overstated. After the French Revolution, there was a Haitian revolution on the same basis: liberty, equality, and fraternity, showing how the French did not grant these to their slaves.
Even after the initial progression of rights, the fact that women were excluded from these freedoms and that it progressed into despotism shows inconsistency in the ideals of the revolution and that they were not upheld by the Government. For example, Olympe de Gouges (doc 2) calls women to see that they should not be content with being subordinate to men. She claims that women have gained no advantage from the revolution, but that man has become free. This shows a clear gap in revolutionary ideas, that they don’t apply to women. Therefore, the Government cannot be considered to uphold ideas of equality if it declares half of France’s population to be lesser and does nothing to ever fix that. Next, another woman, Corday, plans to assassinate a Jacobin leader (doc 6). As a woman, she is witnessing firsthand how little the revolution did to uphold its founding ideas. In addition, she looks at the actions of the Jacobins and realizes that those actions aren’t benefiting the people, but the Jacobins. She even calls them monsters, and drenched with the people’s blood, since they kill so many dissidents. Therefore, the revolution is not upholding its original ideals as it does not focus on the people. This is seen more clearly in a speech to the French legislature (doc 5). The speaker notes that despite them claiming to uphold liberty, the Jacobins force people to assimilate into their beliefs. He even notes that it would possibly lead to despotism (which it did). If the revolution was built on liberty, and the people of France aren’t even able to choose their beliefs from fear of execution by the Jacobins, the government couldn’t have possibly upheld its original ideals.

___________
Before world war 1, two major players joined the concert of europe after their unification: italy and germany. As a result of this shift in power, nations began to form alliances, with germany sending a blank check to austria. Britain and Germany started engaging in an arms race, especially with the naval power of dreadnoughts. Germany wrote a blank check to austria, and they had to act on it when they acted against serbia. Although popular nationalism was a factor for the enthusiasm for ww1, ww1 was caused primarily by the decisions of govt leaders because of the limitations of nationalism and the alliance system.
The decisions of officials forced cournties to enter ww1. After german unification, bismarck belived germany to be a ‘satisfied country’ with its territory and alliances with austria hungary and russia. However, kaiser wilheim II wanted more territorial gain and power, so he got rid of bismarck and roused the people into nationalistic frenzy. In a french ambassador to germany’s report, he remarks that the kaiser, every day, reminds the people of past glory and anti french sentiment. This implied that it was the kaiser who initiated poplar nationsim in germany in the first place, meaning that the decision to rouse the people made it easier for him to initiate war. In france, however, the same ambassador claims they are secretly unhappy. Even though they put on a patriotic face, they are worried about setting precedent for the future about building up arms. Even despite them being patriotic, they still are not looking for war. This war still happnes, though, because of serbian nationalsinst. However, only a small group of extremist carried out this assaisnation, so why would the entire country go to war? This is because the austrian government blamed the entirety of serbia for the assasination, even though a small group of people dedicated to controlling serbian ideas carried it out. This shows the extent to which officials had in making these decisions. Even if there was pressure from the people to go to war, the final decision was made by the official, who had no obligation or even responsibility to listen to the people, as austria was not a democracy. Next, we see more countries joining ww1 not because of nationalism, but because they entered into alliances and so they must fight. For example, tzar nicholas II tells kaiser wilheim that he has an obligation to mobilize his armies because of the alliance but is afraid of conflict. There is no mention of nationalism, but only old alliances and obligations. The prior decisions of the officials to enter into alliances and germany to send a blank check to austria meant that war was happening whether the people wanted it or not. In this case, they happened to want it. Additionally, the people of russia and germany may not even know how close ‘nicky’ and ‘willy’ are. Since the audience in these telegrams is only each other, nicholas II and wilheim express affection, something they would not do in front of the people so as to prevent the thought that russia and germany are alliances because of the personal relationship of the government officials.
While popular nationalism was a factor in the notion of war gaining support, it was not the primary reason. WW1 was set off by the assasination of archduke franz ferdinand II by serbian nationalists, but it’s important to keep in mind that these nationalists arent popular nationalists, they’re a secret group. Their own constitution declares that they are a group of people committed to the liberation of serbian people everywhere. This isn’t popular nationalism. The people writing this are trying to influence the state of serbia and peoples views on other groups. Popular nationalism focuses more on the glory on one’s nation--not trying to control it. Therefore the immediate catalyst wasn’t popular nationalism, but extremist nationalism. That being said, it’s important to note that popular nationalism did facilitate going to war, even if it didn’t cause it. In the photograph, every single soldier in sight is smiling as he marches off to war. Even the women who’s husbands are leaving to fight and possible die are proud and happy, even glowing. Happy soldiers are easier to conscript than mad ones, but this does not mean that the war was caused by enthusiasm. In fact, we see that even as enthusiasm dies out, war drags on. Total war quelled the nationaism in europe because of ‘mass slaughter’. Even though people are extremely unhappy, as luxembourg notes, war doesnt end. If popular nationalism was the true cause of ww1, then it should have stopped soon after it died out.