Download Chapter 5: Who won the Cuban missile crisis?

Unit 1: Aspects of International Relations, 1919-2005
Chapter 1: Were the peace treaties of 1919-1923 fair?
Page 16
1. How far were the German people dissatisfied with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles?
(10 marks)
Sample answer: The treaty presented to the German Delegation was imposed on them. They
had not been allowed to take part in the Conference and considered the Treaty a ‘Diktat’. Some
German delegates even considered refusing to sign it.
There were many aspects of the treaty that were hated. The Loss of territory including AlsaceLorraine, for example angered many ordinary Germans. Other countries were allowed selfdetermination but the Treaty of Versailles forced some Germans to live under foreign rule (e.g.
Polish rule in the East). Germany was also not allowed to unite (Anscluss) with Austria. Military
restrictions were also placed on Germany and many Germans felt vulnerable to future attack as
well as loss of pride. Members of the German armed forces felt particularly angry about this
aspect of the Treaty.
The new Weimar Government had to pay the Allies huge reparations. Many Germans, including
business leaders and politicians thought this was unfair and designed to bankrupt the German
economy and keep it weak. Germany was also not allowed to join the League of Nations (finally
joined in 1926) and many Germans considered this a further insult to their pride.
Germany was forced to accept responsibility for starting the War. Most Germans did not accept
this and many in the German Army did not think they had been beaten but betrayed by
politicians in Berlin who seemed to accept defeat and signed the Treaty of Versailles. This was
possibly the most hated part of the treaty.
Finally, most of the German people hated the treaty of Versailles and many blamed their own
politicians for signing. Most of the German Army thought that France had had its revenge and
some even wanted to restart the war. Germany had been forced to take responsibility for
starting the war, been humiliated by the victorious powers, made to pay reparations, lost one
tenth of its territory, most of its military strength and could not unite with Austria.
Comment: The candidate shows that the Germans hated the Treaty of Versailles but is able to
demonstrate how different groups in German society resented certain aspects of the treaty more
than others – e.g. the loss of territory, or reduction in armed forces.
Chapter 2: To what extent was the League of Nations a success?
Page 28
1. How far can the failure of the League of Nations in the 1930s be blamed on the Great
Depression? (10 marks)
1
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Sample answer: The Great Depression created severe economic problems across the world and
leading democratic countries such as Britain and France felt unable to spend money on military
actions supporting the League. The world-wide economic problems caused by the Wall Street
crash and the Depression that followed meant that millions of ordinary people lost their jobs and
ability to support their families. Many blamed the democratic system of government for the
problems and turned their support to extreme political parties such as the Nazis in Germany and
militarists in Japan who did not support the League of Nations.
There were several key factors which severely weakened the League. Japan, for example was
badly affected by the Depression. It has no natural resources and heavily relied on world trade
which had collapsed by the early 1930s. Facing ruin, the government ordered the military to
invade Manchuria (part of China), to distract the Japanese population and find new coal reserves
to solve their economic problems. The League failed to act against Japan and this encouraged
Mussolini to attack Abyssinia.
Britain’s self-interest was also a factor in the League’s failure. The Italian dictator Mussolini
invaded Abyssinia in 1935 in order to distract the Italian people from the effects of the
Depression, find new sources of wealth and show that Italy was one of the great powers who
could ignore the League. Britain opposed sanctions on coal supplies to Italy despite the Abyssinia
crisis because Britain wanted to protect jobs in the coal industry. In addition, Britain and France
were concerned about Hitler in 1935. They had already agreed the Stresa Front with Mussolini
and did not want to clash with him in case he joined forces with Hitler. They even tried to make
another deal with Mussolini (Hoare Laval Pact) but this failed. Since the USA never joined the
League, Britain and France did not feel they could act alone in opposing Italy, Japan and later
Germany.
Finally, fascist governments, particularly in Germany, Italy and Japan used the effects of the
Depression to expand their territories or areas of influence confident that the League would not
act to stop them. The League could not stop these actions because by not acting against Japan
over its invasion of Manchuria, its key members had shown that they were not willing to go to
war in order to protect member countries who had been attacked or invaded. The Depression,
therefore, created the climate for extremists to take advantage of the League’s weaknesses.
Comment: The candidate explains the reasons for the failure of the League and is able to
evaluate the importance of the Depression in its failure.
Chapter 3: Why had international peace collapsed by 1939?
Page 39
1. Study Source A carefully and then answer the questions which follow.
b. Explain why Hitler and Stalin signed a non-aggression pact in 1939. (6 marks)
Sample answer: The signing of the Nazi–Soviet non-aggression pact (also known as the
Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) on 23 August 1939 stunned the world. Britain and France had been
2
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
negotiating an anti-German alliance with USSR throughout the late 1930s but they had not been
able to agree terms.
There were major advantages for Stalin and Hitler to come to an agreement. Stalin saw an
opportunity to divide Eastern Europe between Germany and the USSR and in particular, regain
part of Eastern Poland. A pact with his arch rival Hitler, also gave Stalin time to rebuild the Soviet
army and expand its forces in case of future German attack.
Hitler had the most to gain from a pact with the USSR. Poland, whose government signed a
defensive agreement with Britain in 1939, would be isolated and defenceless in the face of a
Nazi–Soviet Pact. An agreement with Stalin meant Hitler would be able to invade Poland, restore
German territory in Eastern Europe and destroy the Treaty of Versailles, without Soviet
interference and a war on two fronts.
Finally, the signing of the Nazi Soviet non-aggression pact in August 1939 stunned a humiliated
Britain and France and gave Hitler and Stalin key military and foreign policy successes and
accelerated the prospects of a European War.
Comment: The candidate will explain several reasons why the pact had advantages for Hitler
and Stalin and evaluate who had most to gain and why.
Chapter 4: Who was to blame for the Cold War?
Page 49
1. How far was the USSR able to dominate Europe by 1955? (10 marks)
Sample answer: Since the end of the Second World War, the Soviet Union had attempted to
dominate most of Eastern Europe and despite Stalin’s death in 1953, Soviet domination
remained firm and secure.
The Soviets dominated Eastern Europe economically, politically and militarily. Whilst many
British and American troops returned home at the end World War Two, the Soviet Union kept
millions of its soldiers in countries it had liberated from the Nazis. In most of these countries,
(Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and East Germany) Stalin
imposed communist governments that supported the USSR. In Albania, for example, Communists
took power after the war. In Romania, a left wing coalition was elected in 1945 and Communists
banned all other parties in Czechoslovakia in 1948. In Poland, the pro-Western government that
had fled to London during the war was not allowed back into power by Stalin, despite opposition
from the Americans and British. In Hungary, although elections took place, the Communist leader
Rakosi had successfully gained power by 1947. Similarly, a Communist government turned the
Soviet zone of East German into the German Democratic Republic in 1949.
Stalin’s creation of the Cominform in 1947 and Comecon in 1949 strengthened Soviet economic
control over Eastern Europe. Stalin set up the Warsaw Pact military alliance in May 1955 in
response the West’s creation of NATO which had just admitted West Germany. In a speech at
3
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Fulton Missouri USA in March 1946, Winston Churchill referred to the Soviet domination of
Eastern Europe in what became known as his ‘Iron Curtain’ speech.
“From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the
continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe.
Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities
and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in
one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in many cases,
increasing measure of control from Moscow.” Winston S Churchill, Fulton, 5 March 1946. (You
would not be required to quote from this speech in your answer)
The Soviets, however, were not always successful Communists attempted to seize power in
Greece in 1948 but failed and the Soviets agreed to withdraw troops from Austria in October
1955. In addition, Yugoslavia’s President Tito, a Communist, fell out with Stalin and even
received some aid from America. Yugoslavia became a leading member of the non-aligned group
of countries until Tito’s death in 1980. Despite occupying much of Eastern Germany, including
Berlin, by the time the Nazis had surrendered in May 1945, Stalin allowed Britain, USA and
France to set up military zones in West Berlin. Berlin would remain a ‘flash point’ throughout the
Cold War and a focal point for Cold War tensions including the Berlin Airlift in 1948 when the
Soviets tried unsuccessfully to stop supplies reaching West Berlin.
Finally, despite American and British successes in preventing communist control in West Berlin
and Greece, by 1955, the Soviet Union had complete political, economic and military control of
its satellites in Eastern Europe and there was no prospect that this would change in the
immediate future.
Comment: The candidate explains and evaluates the extent of Soviet domination, politically,
economically and militarily over Eastern Europe and gives examples to illustrate to support
his/her argument.
Chapter 5: Who won the Cuban missile crisis?
Page 57
1. ‘The Cuban Missile Crisis was won by the United States of America?’ How far do you
agree with this statement? Explain your answer. (10 marks)
Sample answer: The Cuban Missile Crisis was probably the most serious and dangerous incident
of the Cold War because a nuclear exchange became a very real possibility. Whilst in public it
seemed that President Kennedy forced the Soviet leader Khrushchev to back down, closer
analysis shows that Khrushchev may have been the private victor.
Kennedy, Khrushchev and Castro can all claim to have won the Missile Crisis. Kennedy was
immediately seen as the winner. He had been seen to stand up to the Soviets by enforcing a
blockade of Cuba making them back down and remove the missiles. Kennedy had also
successfully stood up to some of his hard line military advisers who wanted to invade Cuba. The
crisis showed how dangerous their ideas were. However, Kennedy also agreed in secret not to
invade Cuba and more controversially, to remove NATO missiles from Turkey at a later date.
4
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Castro remained in power in Cuba and so the Communist threat remained. Kennedy had also
made plenty of enemies. He was now distrusted by some key generals who thought he was not
really prepared to fight the spread of Communism. He was hated by Cuban exiles in the US since
Castro had survived the Bay of Pigs and the Missile Crisis.
Khrushchev had prevented a US invasion of Cuba and had a guarantee that no further invasion
attempts would take place. In public, he could claim to have acted reasonably and as a
peacemaker by agreeing to remove the missiles from Cuba. Khrushchev had US agreement that
NATO missiles in Turkey would also be removed although this was a secret agreement and
unknown at the time. However, the USSR was shown to have lied to the UN about the existence
of nuclear missiles in Cuba. Khrushchev had been forced to back down in public in the face of US
pressure. The Soviet missiles were removed and this was seen as humiliating by many in the
Soviet military. Finally, Khrushchev was unable to make his secret agreements with the US public
and in 1964 he was replaced as Soviet leader so historians consider the outcomes of the missile
crisis contributed to his downfall.
Castro remained in power and the US promised not to attempt further invasions. Cuba remained
heavily armed although not with nuclear weapons and became a focus for other Communists in
South America. Moreover, the Cuban revolution survived and Castro maintained his control of
former US industries. However, Cuba remained poor and isolated in the western hemisphere,
unable to trade with the US and therefore more dependent on the USSR for supplies and
equipment.
In conclusion, Khrushchev’s private agreement had secured the removal of obsolete Jupiter
American missiles from Turkey, and Cuba was safe from American attack and a useful Soviet
base in the western hemisphere. In public, however, Kennedy was the winner. His actions had
seemingly made Khrushchev publically back down and the missiles from Cuba were withdraw.
Khrushchev’s credibility was also damaged and he was removed from power in 1964.
Comment: The candidate explains and evaluates what Kennedy, Khrushchev and Castro won and
lost as a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis and gives examples to support his/her argument.
Chapter 6: Why did the USA fail in Vietnam?
Page 60
1. Study Source A carefully and then answer the questions which follow.
b. Explain briefly why the USA became involved in Vietnam. (6 marks)
Sample answer: US foreign policy in the 1950 and 1960s was based on stopping the spread of
Communism. The Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and increasing Chinese influence in South
East Asia (e.g. Korea) had caused more and more countries to become Communist. It was in
order to prevent the domino theory that the US became involved in Vietnam.
There were other specific reasons for US involvement in Vietnam. During the early 1950s the fear
of the spread of communism (Red Scare) swept across the USA and this was fuelled by the
influential Senator Joseph McCarthy who led hearings in Congress trying to identify Communists
5
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
in American society. With American troops fighting to prevent a Communist take-over in Korea,
US advisers were sent to help French forces maintain control of Vietnam.
With the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu by the Communist forces of Ho Chi Min in 1954,
President Eisenhower had the choice of abandoning Vietnam to the Communists or supporting
the new government in South Vietnam. The US now became directly involved and despite the
corruption of the South Vietnamese government lead by Ngo Dinh Diem, the number of
American military advisers in Vietnam steadily increased to 12,000 by 1962. Diem was
assassinated in a military coup in 1963 several weeks before US President Kennedy was shot and
killed in Dallas. Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy’s successor, was keen to show that he would stand up
to the Communists attempting to take over South Vietnam and deployed US combat troops on
the ground. By 1965, 500,000 US soldiers were actively fighting Communist guerrillas in the
jungles of South Vietnam.
In conclusion, the USA saw the war in Vietnam as a war against Communism and a war fought to
defend American pride and interests in South East Asia. The USSR and China were threatening to
extend communist influence across the world and US policy was designed to prevent this,
including in Vietnam.
Comment: The candidate explains the general and specific reasons for US involvement in
Vietnam and how this linked to preventing the further spread of Communism anywhere in the
world.
Unit 2: Studies in Depth
Chapter 7: Germany, 1918–1945
Page 75
1. ‘The main reason for the fall of the Weimar Republic was the rise of the Nazi party.’ How
far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. (10 marks)
Sample answer: The collapse of the Weimar government was caused by a combination of factors
including the rise of the Nazi party. The severe economic crisis caused by the Great Depression,
however, created the climate and opportunity for extremist parties such as the Nazis to thrive.
The increased support for moderate parties in the 1928 general election seemed to show that
the Weimar Government had successfully overcome the challenge from extremist parties. The
Nazis, for example won only 12 seats in the elections to the Reichstag that year. The economic
depression however, caused by the Wall Street Crash in October 1929 brought about large scale
unemployment, the collapse of the banking system and the spread of widespread hardship for
the German people. The Weimar government was also very dependent on American loans and
tried to deal its problems by cutting government spending and welfare benefits.
The increasing unpopularity of moderate parties reminded many Germans that the creators of
the Weimar government had signed the hated Treaty of Versailles and agreed to make
6
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
reparation payments to the Allies. Hitler was a very effective speaker and he used the anger
caused by the peace treaties to further undermine the government as economic problems
increased. Unemployment remained a major problem in Germany and the measures to tackle it
made the government increasingly unpopular. In the election of 1930 the Nazis won 112 seats
rising to 230 seats in the election of July 1932.
In conclusion, from its beginnings, the Weimar Government was associated with defeat and
humiliation. By 1928 it seemed to have overcome these difficulties, but the effects of the Great
Depression undermined its achievements and caused widespread hardship leading many
Germans to support extremists such as Hitler, whose brilliant oratory promised a new, more
prosperous and greater Germany.
Comment: The candidate evaluates the challenges facing the Weimar Government and explains
the importance of each factor, including the rise of the Nazi Party in assessing the reasons for
Weimar’s collapse.
Chapter 8: Russia, 1905–1941
Page 87
1. ‘The main reason for the success of the Russian Revolution in October 1917 was the
quality of Lenin’s leadership.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your
answer. (10 marks)
Sample answer: The Russian Revolution was not inevitable and the Bolsheviks had to work hard
to secure power in October 1917 after the failure of Karensky’s provisional government.
The main reason for the outbreak of the Russian Revolution in February 1917 was the effect of
Russian defeats in the First World War and the removal of men from the land to fight in the army
causing food shortages and famine in Russian cities. Tsar Nicholas blamed his commanders for
Russian defeats and in August 1916 took over personal leadership of the army and left his
German born wife, under the influence of the ‘mad monk’ Rasputin in charge in St Petersburg.
By February 1917, Russia was in a state of collapse, the army and Duma abandoned the Tsar and
he abdicated on March 15th and a provisional government led by Karenski took over. The
provisional government, however, failed to tackle the crisis facing Russia. Food shortages and
famine continued, and the war against Germany, executions for desertion and further defeats
undermined the new government. In addition, freedom of speech allowed the Bolsheviks to
campaign against the provisional government.
The failure of the provisional government to win popularity allowed Lenin to demonstrate his
brilliant leadership skills and overthrow Karensky in October 1917. Under Lenin, the Bolsheviks
were extremely well-organised (with their own army led by Trotsky), supported by German
money (the Kaiser knew Lenin would end Russia’s involvement in the First World War) and able
to use propaganda (newspaper – Pravda) to gain support. Lenin also had a simple appealing
message for the Russian people: ‘Peace, Bread and Land’.
7
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
In conclusion Lenin was a highly effective orator, organiser and leader who used the failings of
the provisional government to offer the Russian people hope for a brighter Bolshevik future, free
from war, famine and injustice.
Comment: The candidate explains the reasons for the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, why
the Tsar’s regime collapsed and how Lenin was able to use the failings of the provisional
government to lead the Bolsheviks to power.
Page 95
1. Stalin made changes both in industry and agriculture. Which were the more important –
the industrial or agricultural changes? Explain your answer. (10 marks)
Sample answer: Stalin ruled a huge and highly under-developed country. He faced significant
challenges in modernising industry, ensuring sufficient food was produced to feed the Soviet
people and creating armed forces that could defend the USSR from potential attack. These
objectives could only be achieved with major agricultural and industrial reform.
Collectivisation was important because it affected so many people. In terms of improving food
production, it was not very successful. On the other hand, Stalin managed to collectivise virtually
all Soviet land that could be cultivated with the use of tractors and other modern methods. The
most important aspect of collectivisation was the devastating effect on the peasant population.
Thousands of peasants, especially, Kulaks, were killed or sent to labour camps. The peasants
bitterly resisted and many of them destroyed their own farms. Finally, however, they were
beaten and no longer a threat to Stalin.
Stalin’s Five-Year Plans were vital to the modernisation of the Soviet Union and helped turn the
USSR into a major world power by 1941. Oil, coal, iron, steel and electricity all achieved amazing
increases in production. The industrial changes were also important because of the effect on the
Soviet people. Thousands died in labour camps building new dams, factories and even cities in
terrible conditions and ordinary workers had to put up with long hours and poor wages as well.
The Five Year Plans were designed to produce essential industrial goods and luxury items for
ordinary people were in short supply. Nonetheless, there were some significant achievements
such as the building of the Moscow Metro (underground system), the construction of the Dnieper
Dam and the rapid growth of key industries.
The modernisation of agriculture and development of industry were both vital to the survival of
the Soviet Union. Agriculture was important because it affected all of the people. Industry, on the
other hand, was also important because it made the USSR powerful and able to defeat Hitler in
1945. Industrial achievements were particularly significant since by 1940 the USSR had become
one of the world’s leading industrial powers alongside Britain, Germany and the USA. This
economic benefit, however, was achieved at a significant cost in terms of poor labour and
working conditions for Soviet workers. Many of the workers who build up industry were peasants
who had either fled the land or were forced to work on industrial projects because they were in
labour camps. In addition, the effects of collectivisation were very mixed but it was on the whole
less successful that the Five Year Plans. Food output fell dramatically and the production of grain
fell from 73 million tonnes in 1928 to 69 million tonnes in 1933 and there was a famine in the
8
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Ukraine. The aim of collectivisation was to provide food and cash to support industrialisation and
it had limited success.
Comment: The candidate explains the successes and failures of collectivisation and
industrialisation in the Soviet Union under Stalin and evaluates the importance of each policy.
Chapter 9: The USA, 1919–1941
Page 107
1. Study Source 6. ‘The New Deal was an unnecessary experiment that wasted millions of
dollars.’ How far do you agree with this interpretation? Use the source and your own
knowledge to explain your answer. (7 marks)
Sample answer: There are differing views about the success of the New Deal depending on
which objective is being assessed and who is making the judgement. There is little doubt that the
USA was experiencing major economic problems when FDR was elected in 1932 with millions out
of work and industrial production at an all-time low so it is difficult to argue that action was
‘unnecessary.’
The message of Source 8 is clear. It shows the New Deal is costly (16 billion dollars of taxpayers’
money spent), suggests the plan is an experiment (“I hope this will make ’er work” says FDR) and
is wastes money because of the numerous leaks shown in the cartoon. The cartoon, however, is a
one-sided view of the New Deal. Economically, the New Deal was hugely expensive, but created
millions of jobs, cut the number of business failures and stabilised the American banking system.
It did not, however, solve America’s underlying economic problems. The US economy took longer
to recover than most European countries and when FDR cut the New Deal in 1927 the US
economy went back into recession.
For US workers, the NRA and Second New Deal measures strengthened the position of labour
unions and some combined forces to create the Committee for Industrial Organisation in 1935.
Big business, however, remained very powerful and many strikes were broken up with violence.
Some women achieved prominent positions because of the New Deal. Mary Macleod, for
example headed the National Youth Administration and Frances Perkins became Labour
Secretary. Most New Deal programs however, were designed to help male manual workers
rather than women, and local governments tried to avoid paying out social security payments to
women. About 200,000 African Americans gained benefits from the Civilian Conservation Corps
and other New Deal agencies including those dealing with slum clearance. Many African
Americans, however, continued to experience discrimination and Roosevelt failed to pass laws
against lynching.
In conclusion, The New Deal divided America, cost billions of dollars but restored the faith of the
American people in their government and ensured the continuation of democracy. This did not
happen in some European countries. The New Deal was an experiment in the sense that no US
government before Roosevelt had spent taxpayers’ money on such a scale in support of the
economy.
9
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Comment: The candidate uses the source and other evidence to evaluate the successes and
failures of the New Deal.
Chapter 10: The causes and events of the First World War, 1890–1918
Page 115
1. ‘The system of Alliances made war more likely.’ How far do you agree with this
statement? Explain your answer (10 marks)
Sample answer: Historians still disagree about the causes of the First World War. The alliance
system was only one of the factors which led to war in 1914. Rivalry between the Great Powers,
an arms race and problems in the Balkans all contributed to the collapse of peace.
The Great Powers (Britain, France, Germany, Russia and Austro-Hungary) were determined to
maintain their position and influence over European affairs. An arms race had begun the early
years of the twentieth century as each country attempted to maintain its military strength. The
launch of the new Dreadnaught battleship by the British in 1906, for example encouraged the
German Kaiser to compete with Britain in a naval arms race. Tensions between the Great Powers
also increased prior to 1914. There were a series of crises over Morocco in 1906, Bosnia in 1908
and Agadir in 1911 which increased international tension and international rivalry.
The alliance system (1882 Triple Alliance between Germany, Austro-Hungary and Italy / 1907
Triple Entente between Britain, France and Russia) was believed to be a deterrent to war but
seemed to create two huge armed camps instead. Whilst the Triple Alliance was a firm
agreement of support during war, the Triple Entente was an ‘understanding’ and did not actually
commit Britain to support France or Russia if war broke out. Despite this, the perception
remained that each of the rival camps would support each other if war started.
The Balkan crisis that finally ended with Europe at war was the assassination of Archduke Franz
Ferdinand, heir the Austrian throne and his wife on 28 June 1914 by members of the Serbian
Black Hand nationalist group in Sarajevo. Austria was determined to punish Serbia (a Russian
ally) for the assassination and although the Serbian Government agreed to all Austria’s
demands, Austria declared war on Serbia (probably with German support) on 28 July. The
following day, Russia (Serbia’s ally) mobilised her troops in support of Serbia and gave an
assurances to Germany that she did not want war. However, the German war plan (Schlieffen
Plan) was designed to prevent Germany having to fight a war on two fronts at the same time
and required an immediate attack on France via Belgium. On 3 August, Germany invaded
Belgium and the following day Britain declared war on Germany.
In conclusion, there remains disagreement amongst historians about who or what was to blame
for the outbreak of the First World War. The alliance system was only one factor. Many believe
that Germany encouraged Austria to declare war on Serbia and risk war with Russia in 1914
rather than wait until Russia had time to become stronger later. The Schlieffen Plan required
Germany to attack France first and quickly if Russia was to be defeated.
10
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Comment: The candidate explains the factors that contributed to the outbreak of the First World
War and assesses the role of the alliance system in causing war.
Page 121
3. The following were equally important reasons why the USA entered the First World
War in 1917:
i.
The sinking of the Lusitania
ii.
Germany’s use of U-boats
iii.
The Zimmermann Telegram.
Which do you think was the most important reason for US entry into the First World
War? Explain your answer referring only to i, ii and iii.
Sample answer: Woodrow Wilson was narrowly re-elected as President in 1916 on the slogan
‘he kept us out of the war.’ America had remained neutral in 1914 but two and a half years later,
German diplomatic and military tactics caused the US to rethink its policy of neutrality.
On 7 May 1915, the British Cunard Liner RMS Lusitania was torpedoed by German U Boat U20
and sank in less than 20 minutes. The Germans claimed that she was carrying ammunition and
therefore a legitimate target but of the approximately 1200 dead, over 120 were Americans.
Whilst the sinking of Lusitania did not immediately cause US entry into the War, many Americans
were outraged at the sinking of this passenger liner by the Germans.
On 16 January 1917, the German foreign minister, Arthur Zimmermann sent the Mexican
Government a telegram inviting them to join in a war against the USA. Germany promised to pay
for the costs of a Mexican war against the USA and help them recover land lost to the USA in
1848. British intelligence intercepted and decoded the telegram and handed it to President
Wilson who made it public in February 1917. Whilst the telegram did not cause immediate
American entry into the First World War, it caused a significant worsening of US–German
relations.
This was the main reason for US entry into the First World War. In an attempt to blockade
Britain, the Germans sunk merchant shipping in the Atlantic but this also caused American
casualties as in the sinking of the Lusitania. In early 1917, the German high command believed
that a sustained blockade might force Britain to surrender. They had calculated that even if the
USA entered the war, it would take twelve months for troops to arrive in Europe and by that time
the British would be defeated. So unrestricted submarine warfare was re-introduced and five
American ships were sunk in March 1917. US public opinion now swung against Germany and
President Wilson had little problem persuading the US Congress to declare war on Germany, 6
April 1917.
Comment: The candidate considers the three factors mentioned in the question and explains
how each contributed to American entry into the First World War.
11
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Chapter 11: The USA, 1945–1975: land of freedom?
Page 131
1. ‘The main reason for the end of McCarthyism was because many Hollywood stars
criticised Senator Joseph McCarthy.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain
your answer. (10 marks)
Sample answer: Senator Joseph McCarthy had a significant impact on US politics in the late
1940s and early 1950s as he attempted to expose Communists in all sectors of American society.
His decline, however, had much more to do with the increasing influence of television and his
aggressive and hostile TV appearances than the opposition he faced from ‘stars’ in Hollywood.
McCarthy’s attack on suspected Communists in Hollywood’s film industry was generally
successful. In 1947, Hollywood actor, Ronald Regan, who later became US President, and Walt
Disney, even suggested that Communist infiltration of the film industry was a serious one. By
1952 the Screen Writers Guild had even blacklisted those stars who had not been cleared by
Congress.
By the early 1950s, however, the American public were beginning to tire of McCarthy’s witchhunt of American society. In June 1953, McCarthy's research director, J. Matthews published an
article called "Reds in our churches" in which he suggested that there were thousands of
Communists at work in American churches. The result was a public outcry which damaged
McCarthy’s reputation. Also in 1953, McCarthy began a quarrel with the US army over its
investigation of workers at the Army Signals Corps at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. McCarthy
continued this dispute with the Army despite their examination of the entire workforce.
McCarthy’s actions were seen by the public as anti-military.
In the mid-1950s the US Supreme Court also made a series of rulings which undermined
McCarthyism. For example, the dismissal of Professor Slochower from Brooklyn College when he
refused to deny he had been a Communist, was overturned. In addition, in the case of Watkins v
the United States, the Supreme Court stopped Congress for punishing unco-operative witnesses.
In conclusion, the increasing influence of television more than the influence of Hollywood played
a key role in the decline of McCarthy. When in 1954, McCarthy again turned on the Army and
accused 45 officers of being Communist agents, his confrontational and bullying style contrasted
sharply with his opponent’s calm and polite manner. TV audiences began to tire of McCarthy’s
behaviour and his influence faded. He died three years later.
Comment: The candidate explains the factors that led to the decline of McCarthyism and
evaluates the significance of Hollywood in McCarthy’s downfall.
Page 135
3
12
How successful was President Johnson in improving civil rights between 1963 and 1968?
(10 marks)
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Sample Answer: President Lyndon Johnson has been seen by some as one of the most important
figures in improving civil rights in the USA although the impact of his reforms were not realised
until well after the 1960s. In contrast, some have also suggested that he was only interested in
civil rights when he realised the political benefits of obtaining the black vote.
Even before he became Vice President under John Kennedy and later as President, Lyndon
Johnson had championed civil rights and was one of the few southern Senators who supported
the BROWN decision by the Supreme Court in 1954. As Vice President, he chaired the Committee
on Equal Employment Opportunity (CEEO) and after the assassination of President Kennedy in
November 1963 he announced his vision of a ‘Great Society’ for America by removing
discrimination and injustice. Despite obstruction and delaying tactics from some southern
Senators, Johnson, who was much more successful than his predecessor in getting measures
passed by Congress, signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. The Act originally inspired by President
Kennedy, outlawed racial segregation in schools and the workplace and made racial
discrimination in public places such as restaurants illegal.
A year later in 1965, Johnson urged Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act which ensured all US
citizens had the right to vote and made illegal actions which had previously discouraged African
Americans from voting.
The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were two of the most important changes in American
law in modern times and resulted in improved civil rights in later years rather than the 1960s.
Immediate reaction to civil rights legislation led to riots in major American cities in 1965 and
1966. Whilst there was a white backlash against the changes, for some African Americans, civil
rights had not gone far enough. Over time, however, conditions improved. Between 1964 and
2012, for example, the percentage of African American students graduating from high school
rose from 25% to 85%. Similarly, over the same period, the percentage of African American
students with a college degree rose from 4% to 21%. In contrast, by 2012 twice as many African
Americans lived in poverty compared to 13% of white Americans.
During his five years as president, Lyndon Johnson also ensured the passing of the Immigration
Act (1965) which ended the system of racial quotas for immigrants, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (1965) which gave federal funding to poorer areas and appointed the
first African American to the White House Cabinet and Supreme Court. In conclusion, whilst
Johnson had his critics, he successfully guided some of the most important changes in a
generation through Congress and ensured that Kennedy’s vision to improve civil rights was
achieved.
Comment: The candidate explains and evaluates the impact of Johnson’s achievement in
improving civil rights during his term of office as president. The candidate also shows a thorough
understanding of the period and demonstrates that improvements in civil rights took many years
to achieve.
13
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Unit 3: British Depth Studies
Chapter 12: How was British society changed, 1890–1918?
Page 151
3
Study Sources 5–10. ‘Women’s work in industry was the most important reason they
won the vote in 1918.’ How far do you agree with this interpretation? Use your
knowledge of British Society 1890–1918 and the sources to explain your answer. (16
marks)
Sample answer: It is widely argued that the work of women during the First World War in
industry and on farms did more than anything else to convince members of Parliament to give
women the vote in 1918. The extension of the franchise (vote) in 1918, however, is more
complicated than would first appear and suggests that a series of factors played a role in
extending the vote to women.
Before 1918, 40 per cent of men as well as all women did not have the vote. At the end of the
First World War, therefore, when ruling monarchies in Austria, Russia and Germany had been
deposed by ordinary citizens, Members of Parliament in Britain had to decide whether to extend
to the vote to millions of working class men who had fought for Britain in the trenches as well as
women who had worked in industry to support the war.
The majority of the sources in the above question show the significant contribution of women to
the war effort, particularly Source 10 which is a primary source showing conditions in a factory
and Source 8 which shows the varied industries in which women worked. Other sources support
the Suffragist and Suffragette campaign waged before the war to persuade by peaceful or
violent means to gain the vote for women. Source 5 shows the reasons why women deserved the
vote and this was frequently used by Suffragists to justify their campaign. Similarly, Source 7 was
used by the Suffragettes to show the how women who fought for the vote were treated in prison.
The effectiveness of the Suffragette campaign in particular is difficult to assess. Leading
Conservative politicians before 1914 were completely against giving women the vote and
pointed to the violent acts of the Suffragettes including the disruption of the Derby in 1913 when
Emily Davison died bringing down the King’s horse. Even leading Liberal politicians such as Lloyd
George were doubtful of Suffragette actions which included the burning of property. There is
little doubt that the First World War changed everything and it is likely that women gained the
vote, not because of the Suffragette campaign but because the world had changed and in order
to maintain political stability, changes would be needed to avoid the risk of revolution and
violence as had occurred in other European countries such as Germany, Austria and Russia.
The extension of the vote to women, therefore, must be seen alongside the extension of the vote
to all men. With revolution just having occurred in Russia in 1917, it was inevitable that the vote
should be extended to all men since most of them had fought for their King and country. If all
men had the vote it was inconceivable to deny the vote to at least some women. Members of
Parliament recognised that extending the vote to women over the age of 30 would provide more
14
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
stability for British democracy and avoid the risk on instability by giving the vote to all women
not knowing who they would vote for.
It was the effects of the First World War on society and the need to provide political stability in
an uncertain world that gave the vote to women rather than political campaigns or work in the
factories.
Comment: The candidate explains and evaluates the reasons why women were given the vote in
1918. The sources are evaluated and used to support the argument presented. The candidate
also shows a thorough understanding of the period and is able to arrange the evidence to
produce a convincing argument.
Chapter 13: How much did British society change, 1939–1975?
Page 159
4
Study Sources 1–6. ‘The Second World War had a significant effect on the lives of
women and young people.’ How far do you agree with this interpretation? Use your
knowledge of British Society 1890–1918 and the sources to explain your answer. (16
marks)
Sample answer: The Second World War was a total war. This means it involved and affected
every man, woman and child in Britain. In previous wars, apart from experiencing rationing and
shortages, most civilians were unaffected by war. Unless loved ones were killed or injured, those
left at home had little idea about what war was actually like. The Second World War changed all
that. The relentless bombing of British towns and cities, the constant threat of invasion and
regular film news of military events on the battlefield, in the air and at sea, meant that all
citizens’ lives and future changed because of war.
For young people, the effect of war can be seen in the large scale numbers who were evacuated
in 1939 and 1940 from major towns and cities across Britain. Source 4 shows the extent of
evacuation at the beginning of the war whilst Sources 5 and 6 are typical of the different
experiences many young people had of evacuation. Most sources of this type indicated that the
overwhelming majority of children evacuated were treated well by their new families but some
suffered significant hardship.
For parents in particular, the prospect of bombing provided a difficult choice; keep children at
home and risk death or injury in a bombing raid or send them away from home. This difficult
choice is shown in Source 3 but Source 4 shows that over 500,000 mothers also accompanied
their children upon evacuation.
The Second World War, just like the First, brought significant changes to the lives of women.
Service in the armed forces was very common and millions of women worked in factories and on
farms replacing men who had been conscripted to fight. Many women found a new
independence as illustrated in Source 1 but some saw changes in lifestyle to be temporary and as
in Source 2 looked forward to returning to a more traditional way of life.
15
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
For women and young people, the Second World War brought many new challenges and
experiences. Millions of Americans and people of other nationalities were based in Britain and
many young women found themselves with foreign husbands.
The greatest effect of the Second World War however, was on what women and young people
would experience at the end of six years of conflict. With so many cities destroyed by bombing,
the new post-war government in Britain set about building new homes with comforts such as
electricity, bathrooms and indoor plumbing. A National Health Service was created in 1948, free
at the point of need, and secondary education was extended to give more young people
opportunities that had been denied to their parents. New nationalised industries such as the
railways gave people new jobs and the welfare state was created to remove the pre-war evils of:
disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness.
Comment: The candidate explains and evaluates the reasons why women were given the vote in
1918. The sources are evaluated and used to support the argument presented. The candidate
also shows a thorough understanding of the period and is able to arrange the evidence to
produce a convincing argument.
16
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited