The atrocities committed during the Second World War by the National

Question

The atrocities committed during the Second World War by the National Socialists are well known and have been meticulously documented by historians. Far less known, however, are the mass deportations that took place almost two years after the conclusion of the war, this time orchestrated by the Allied governments. In the years after 1945, over 12 million German-speaking citizens of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Poland were dispossessed, packed into trains, and left to fend for themselves in newly defeated and impoverished Germany. What allowed for this mass exile—the largest forced migration in history—was the confluence of political motivations on the part of the key players. The expelling countries of Eastern and Central Europe were especially keen on punishing Germans for the horrors of the war—though, of course, their own German-speaking populations were hardly responsible for Germany’s actions—and on increasing the ethnic homogeneity within their borders. The Allied powers, too, had something to gain. The Soviet Union, intent on capitalizing politically on German’s defeat, aimed to irrevocably undermine relations between Germany and Poland, especially by ceding German territory to Poland and emptying it of its inhabitants. Britain, weary from the war, hoped the resulting mass suffering would reinforce the completeness of Germany’s defeat. And the United States, in turn, was attempting to cozy up to the nations of Eastern and Central Europe in the hopes of keeping them away from Soviet influence.

The result of the deportations, however, was the death of at least 500,000 people and Germany’s acquisition of a homeless population far greater than that of any other industrialized country. The death toll was not far worse, furthermore, only because the Soviets’ ambition to cripple Germany was unsuccessful. Following the war, Germany underwent what is known as its “economic miracle,” which made it possible to house, feed, and employ the mass of exiles. That this episode is practically excised from the history books in some countries, however, is surely corroboration of the platitude that history is written by the victors.

The result of the deportations, however, was the death of at least 500,000 people and Germany’s acquisition of a homeless population far greater than that of any other industrialized country. The death toll was not far worse, furthermore, only because the Soviets’ ambition to cripple Germany was unsuccessful. Following the war, Germany underwent what is known as its “economic miracle,” which made it possible to house, feed, and employ the mass of exiles. That this episode is practically excised from the history books in some countries, however, is surely corroboration of the platitude that history is written by the victors.    1 
 1. Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?

I. Some events that occurred during World War II do not appear in history books.
II. The Allied powers included the Soviet Union, Britain, the United States, and Poland.
III. The Allied powers were not entirely unified on political matters.

A. I Only
B. III Only
C. I and III Only
D. II and III Only
E. I, II, and III

2 
 2. Which of the following, if true, would weaken the claim that the Allied powers had something to gain from the deportations?

I. The United States believed that the Eastern and Central European powers hoped to create more multicultural, ethnically mixed societies.
II. The Soviet Union wanted to profit from post-war trade between Germany and Poland.
III. Britain, weary of the killing during the war, pledged itself to preventing suffering.

A. I Only
B. III Only
C. I and III Only
D. II and III Only
E. I, II, and III

RC Butler 2023  -  Practice Two RC Passages Everyday.   
Passage # 141 Date: 10-May-2023
 This question is part of RC Butler 2023 .  Click here for Details

Manhattan GRE 5lb.

SCismynightmare · Accepted Answer

In question no. 2, how is statement 1 a weakener? I eliminated the first statement because I according to me the "belief" that eastern and central European powers were in fact hoping to create more multicultural societies is not a strong weakener, also it directly goes against a fact mentioned in the passage.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

1. Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?

Explanation

The last sentence tells you that the deportation of German-speaking citizens by the Allied powers is excised from history books because history is written by the victors — this makes the first statement look attractive, but the statement says  during World War II . The passage is clear that the deportations  took place almost two years after the conclusion of the war.  The third answer choice can be inferred from the claim that the United States hoped to keep Eastern and Central European nations away from Soviet influence, meaning that the United States and the Soviet Union were not fully aligned in their views. After you are told that the  Allied powers , too, had something to gain, the powers listed are the Soviet Union, Britain, and the United States. Poland, however, is listed among countries before the  “too,”  which means you cannot infer that it was an Allied power. (Make sure not to bring outside information into these types of questions. This is not a question about what you know about World War II — it’s a question about whether certain things are actually written down in the passage.)

Answer: B

pratishtha27 · Answer

for question 1, why is b the correct answer instead of c? statement 1 is stated in the last para of the passage

SCismynightmare · Answer

I thought it was C at first too, but then I noticed that statement 1 says "Some events that occurred   during   World War II do not appear in history books."

This has a different meaning from what's mentioned in the passage - "Far less known, however, are the mass deportations that took place almost two years   after   the conclusion of the war."

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

2. Which of the following, if true, would weaken the claim that the Allied powers had something to gain from the deportations?

Explanation

The second half of the first paragraph lists the reasons why the Soviet Union, Britain, and the United States, respectively, had something to gain from the deportations. Each of the answer choices above undermines one of these reasons. Note the  “if true”  in the question stem. You are being asked to momentarily take each answer choice as a fact, and then determine whether that fact would weaken an argument from the passage.  “If true”  questions can sometimes ask you imagine that wacky or unlikely things are true — don’t let that distract you from the task at hand.

Answer: E

kop18 · Answer

I still have a doubt in question 1,

The statement given in the OE to justify how we can infer the 3rd statement is still unclear to me.  The third answer choice can be inferred from the claim that the United States hoped to keep Eastern and Central European nations away from Soviet influence, meaning that the United States and the Soviet Union were not fully aligned in their views.

I think that America wanting to keeping the European nation's away from Soviet's influence does not necessarily mean that Soviet's and USA's political views do not fully align. It could also mean that maybe USA wants to influence these counties itself? Hence, while I understand the explanation provided I still think that the manner in which the 3rd statement is drafted is not airtight. It says "not fully aligning their political view" but America wanting to keep soviet's influence may just be its personal agenda or tactic which may not have anything to do with political matters?

Please can anyone help me understand why that statement must be true or maybe tell me if I am reading a bit too much into this statement?

Sajjad1994

Abhishektarget750 · Answer

CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW E IS CORRECT, MEANING HOW ALL THREE ARE WEAKINING THE FACT ALLIED GOVT. HAD TO GAIN FROM DEPORTATION??

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

2. Which of the following, if true, would weaken the claim that the Allied powers had something to gain from the deportations?

Difficulty Level:   750

I. The United States believed that the Eastern and Central European powers hoped to create more multicultural, ethnically mixed societies.  
This statement, if true, suggests that the Eastern and Central European powers had different motivations for the deportations than those attributed to them in the passage. If these powers were aiming for more multicultural and ethnically mixed societies, it contradicts the idea that they were primarily focused on ethnic homogeneity. This weakens the claim that the deportations were driven solely by a desire to punish Germans and increase ethnic homogeneity.

II. The Soviet Union wanted to profit from post-war trade between Germany and Poland.  
This statement, if true, introduces an alternative motivation for the Soviet Union's actions. If the Soviet Union was primarily interested in economic gains from trade, it weakens the claim that their main goal was to undermine relations between Germany and Poland through the deportations.

III. Britain, weary of the killing during the war, pledged itself to preventing suffering.  
This statement, if true, suggests that Britain's motivation for supporting the deportations was not to reinforce the completeness of Germany's defeat, but rather to prevent suffering. This contradicts the idea that Britain had something to gain from the deportations and weakens the claim that they were solely interested in causing suffering.

Overall, if any of these statements are true, they provide alternative explanations for the motivations of the Allied powers, which weakens the claim that they had something to gain from the deportations. Since all three statements (I, II, and III) provide such alternative explanations, the correct answer is (E) I, II, and III.

Answer: E

Harshit2774 · Answer

Can this also be an reason for the STATEMENT 1 “ ” in QUESTION 1 to be wrong- that it did appeared on some history books which can be inferred from the last para “  … or i am inferring wrong?

Posted from my mobile device

vikg007 · Answer

And the United States, in turn, was attempting to cozy up to the nations of Eastern and Central Europe in the hopes of keeping them away from Soviet influence. - This statement shows that the US supported deportation being pushed by the Eastern and Central Europe countries to cozy up to these countries enforcing the deportation.

However, if Statement 1 were true, it would suggest that United States was not motivated by self-interest rather than it truly believed in the cause being advocated by the countries, which is not the case in reality.

As an allied power, US's shift in motivations, as per Statement 1, would directly weaken the argument made against the decisions of the allied powers.

Hence, Statement 1 would be a weakener.

Bee99 · Answer

Statement 2: Wouldnt that still mean that the Soviet Union had something to gain from the deportation, even if its economic gains?

Sanoshmishra · Answer

All these are just alternative motives from what are presented in the paragraph. How do "alternative motivations" weaken the fact that allied govt.(s) had something to gain from the deportations? At best C could be right because it is implying that Britain was being selfless. Please explain how 1 and 2 weaken

The atrocities committed during the Second World War by the National

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

The atrocities committed during the Second World War by the National

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards