Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
· a) For 3 marks note you have to include 3 answers. The failure to agree on political questions – isn't enough but you have to exaplify with e.g disarmament or security. Titel: mar 27-11:21 AM (Sida 1 av 22) b) As it is a cartoon published in an american newspaper one can assume it's very critical towards the LoN. Look for 2 weaknessess. The senate's view expressess the american critisism. Titel: mar 27-11:21 AM (Sida 2 av 22) · Easier if you list a) Similarities, b) Differences Titel: mar 27-11:21 AM (Sida 3 av 22) · List A D Origin Purpose Value Limitations Note; both sources beeing speeches. Speeches always has some hidden objective which never makes these neutral. Difference between president and journalist (title). Make sure you analyse correct sources! Titel: mar 27-11:22 AM (Sida 4 av 22) · Using the sources – at least 3 sources have to be quoted or referred to! At least 3 pieces of external knowledge. Note the focus ' analyse the impact of the absence of major powers on the LoN! The focus indicates a broad time-span 1919-1939. Titel: mar 27-11:22 AM (Sida 5 av 22) 6. Assess the importance of each of the following in causing the First or the Second World War: nationalism; alliances; economic factors. The basic structure for the essay is established by the task itself. Candidates are not required to deal with this as a “to what extent” question – there is no need to address other factors . The task is to identify and assess the nature, and hence the importance of the stated factors in explaining the cause of either war. This could include dealing with origins and outbreak of the conflict. Candidates might do well to clarify/define the factors to aid in their “assessment” task – for example “nationalism” depending on the war chosen, could be interpreted and dealt with in a variety of ways: aggressive nationalism which sought to expand the nation’s political and territorial spheres of influence; revanchist–based based nationalism which sought to gain vengeance for past losses or defeats; thwarted nationalism (attempts to achieve selfdetermination); the attempt by empires to suppress nationalism to ensure self–preservation etc. Similarly, the “alliances” can be dealt with as both symptoms and also precipitants of war in either case. Whether alliances and alliance systems were responsible for exacerbating tensions or allowing for the extension of regional into continental or global conflicts could be addressed. “Economic factors” may be interpreted as the desire of particular states to achieve economic gains (raw materials, markets etc.) through a policy of war and aggrandisement – or possibly as solutions, in the case of some states, to existing socio – economic crises, which could be solved (war of distraction?) by resort to war. Most candidates who choose to deal with the Second World War will probably identify 1939 as the start of the conflict. However if candidates comment on, for example, Germany’s war against the USSR or Japan’s attack on the USA in 1941 in an attempt to deal with nationalism – or more likely – economic factors in determining the causes for conflict, accept. Between 1939 and up to June and December 1941, there is a case to be made that the conflict was not arguably a world war. If only one factor is addressed, mark out of a maximum of [7 marks]. If only two factors are addressed, mark out of a maximum of [14 marks]. Alliances-the fatally committing clauses of the franco-rusian and the Austro-German alliances. Nationalism-darwinism, imperialism, fear, panslavism, military pride/humiliation. Economy-rivalry, colonialism, protectionism, rearmarment. 2:nd WW; Axis powers vs. western democracies, a global approach (the Pacific scene, Worlddepression. Titel: mar 27-12:31 PM (Sida 6 av 22) 16. Analyse the methods used by one single-party ruler to establish totalitarian control. “Totalitarian control” refers not merely to the existence of a one-party state but also to the attempt of that singleparty ruler to implement policies and use methods to ensure control over all aspects of the lives of the population. Whether this could ever be completely realised was doubtful, but candidates could explore and comment critically upon the methods of their selected ruler to achieve this goal. N.B. This is a question on the ruler “in power” and not a “rise to power” question. Answers which focus only on “rise” cannot be credited. Methods used could include investigation of the use of force to ensure the leader and the party’s dominance – through the suppression of rival parties which could form a potential opposition base, purges of specific institutions (civil service, religious, the military – even the party itself – when leaders perceived an internal threat to their power base). Intimidation or the use of violence – through the establishment of a police state and the encouragement of a culture of denunciation/informing can also be investigated and commented upon critically. Other methods can be addressed such as: the use of propaganda; the establishment of a “cult of personality”; media censorship, the control of education and the establishment of youth movements to indoctrinate the population; the establishment of “scapegoats” to divert the population and provide a form of “negative cohesion”. Not all methods are necessarily linked to force or violence however. The implementation of schemes to address economic problems (reduce unemployment), to redistribute resources, to offer the population “rewards” in the form of access to organised leisure activities, to provide health care, gender equality etc. can also be seen as methods to win over the population and make it favourable to the totalitarian regime. Although foreign policy is not included as a focus point in this Topic area, some candidates may point out that the pursuit of a successful foreign policy which restores national pride or honour can also be a method whereby leaders sought to secure acceptance of, and obedience to, totalitarian rule. This should where relevant to the answer, be credited. The time-span; Hitler was in power 1933-45 but Stalin was in power 1927-53. Note the changes of totalitarian control dependent of foreign/domestic threat. Define totalitarianism Titel: mar 27-1:48 PM (Sida 7 av 22) 25. Assess the role of Truman and Stalin in the origins and development of the Cold War. Truman’s presidential period extends from 1945 till 1952. Stalin died in 1953 but was ruler of the USSR from 1928/9 arguably. The period under discussion in the question is likely, for most candidates, to be interpreted as the years 1945–1953. There is much material available for consideration in this period, which should allow for answers to go beyond the “historiographical” responses which are still produced by too many candidates. *(See comment below in italics) Origins Could refer to the events of the year 1945: Yalta Conference (and Roosevelt), Germany’s surrender; Potsdam Conference (the differing stance of Truman – and why); the contrasting views as to what constituted “security” for the members of the Grand Alliance; issues relating to Germany, Poland etc. Some candidates will doubtless go back to 1917 and the Bolshevik revolution as their starting point, then work through the interwar years up to 1945. While this may be acceptable, the focus should be on Truman and Stalin and the period 1945 onwards should be the main focus. Development Could deal with the course of events from 1945/6 up till the Korean War as the conflict between East and West moved from Europe to East Asia. The flashpoints and issues in this period are numerous and provide sufficient detail for selection and deployment to support arguments: possession of atomic capability and arms race; the clash over the future of “liberated Europe”; confrontation over Iran; Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan and Soviet reactions; Germany and the Berlin crisis of 1948/9; Korea etc. The question asks about the role of two leaders so credit candidates who attempt to focus on the role of each. Stalin, given the continuity of his period of rule and his control of Soviet policy over a longer term was arguably at a greater advantage in being able to articulate Soviet foreign policy and goals. As a single-party ruler he faced few challenges to implementing domestic or foreign policy. Soviet policy was much more Stalin’s policy than US policy could be said to be Truman’s policy. Truman came into office with little experience after Roosevelt’s death: he was more reliant on foreign policy advisors – whether Kennan or those who advocated the “Riga Axioms” – upon whom Roosevelt had not been dependant. To what extent was the conflict– in terms of origins or development– linked to the decisions arrived at by each leader, or were there other factors or individuals guiding foreign policy and determining the path pursued by US and the USSR? Titel: mar 27-2:11 PM (Sida 8 av 22) Titel: mar 28-10:40 AM (Sida 9 av 22) Treaty of Vienna 1. Preventing future French aggression by placing stronger states on its borders · · · · Austrian Netherlands merged with Holland Prussia gained Rhineland states Piedmont obtained Savoy and Genoa Creating the German Confederation (38+1) 2. Rewarding the Allies who had fought Napoleon. · Austria obtained Venetia and Lombardy · Prussia obtained 2/5 of Saxony, Swedish · · Pomerania, and other North German lands Russia gained control of Finland and Poland Britain obtained European islands; Heligoland, Ionian islands, Malta. West Indian islands; St. Lucia, Tobago, Trinidad, Cape of Good Hope, Ceylon and Guyana. Indian Ocean islands; Mauritius, Seychelles. Titel: mar 28-10:40 AM (Sida 10 av 22) 3. Restoration of legitimate rulers · · Bourbon kings restored in Naples Habsburg rulers restored in Tuscany and Modena · Papal states re-established 4. FURTHER CLAUSES · · Norway transferred from Denmark to Sweden International declaration against the slave trade Titel: mar 28-10:46 AM (Sida 11 av 22) A. THE POLITICAL PRINCIPLES OF THE CONGRESS: Though the Vienna settlement was a compromise between the rival aims and ambitions of the great powers, there was also a considerable degree of general agreement at the congress about its purpose and the principles by which this should be achieved. The statesmen of the Great Powers (France included) wanted a settlement which would provide stability in Europe and prevent the outbreak of another general war. This benefited Austria - The state would be in grave danger of collapse and disintegration without this - The allies were ready to preserve and strengthen the Austrian empire. Titel: mar 28-10:47 AM (Sida 12 av 22) 1)Restauration, of the political situation of 1792. Both Russia and Britain shared the common wish to settle the problems of Europe as a whole - other states (especially France and Austria) could and did benefit from this. Metternichs idea to reach a balance of powers was in danger to collapse already before the congress while Russia wanted to annex Poland and Prussia Saxony. As a result of Metternich's mediation (1813), and esp. under the impact of Napoleons return from Elba, the powers reached a compromise. The balance of power between the 5 great powers was restored in june 1815. Titel: mar 28-10:47 AM (Sida 13 av 22) The German confederation - 39 states (38 + Austria). The purpose was to prevent the smaller states falling under French influence. Although Austria received quite a lot of influence (Metternich's objective) it was bound to be rivalled by Prussia. INTERNATIONAL PEACE - would best be maintained if no state was in a position to threaten the independence of the rest - A rule to guide the decisions made in Vienna. (Important when decisions upon territorial settlements were made, for example both Austria and France accepted the settlements in Germany and Italy, though they both had interests there) The statesmen of Vienna thought that revolutions comes from wars not viceversa. Titel: mar 28-10:48 AM (Sida 14 av 22) 2) Legitimacy - justification of the dynastic claims of the old rulers actually Talleyrands idea to justify the claims of the Ancien Régime. FRANCE When Napoleons defeat was obvious Foreign minister Talleyrand managed to restore the old monarchial rule in France and got the acceptance by the allied leaders - the restauration of the Bourbons. The First Treaty of Paris (may 1814) was lenient because the alliance didn't want to make it difficult for the new monarchy. The principle of Legitimacy was never of supreme importance in making of the settlement. Frontiers were redrawn and previously independent states extinguished in defiance of it - The principle of Legitimacy was definetely subordinate to the more important principle of the balance of power. Titel: mar 28-10:48 AM (Sida 15 av 22) 3) Solidarity, common policies of the legitimate princes against the revolutionary ideas and movements. The HOLY ALLIANCE was used by Metternich as an effective weapon to enforce his conservative policies. Both Britain and Austria feared an extension of Russian influence (Austria in Balkan and the german states, Britain - maritime and colonial powers, a Russian challenge to the Brittish commands of the seas). THE QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE - Uphold the settlement with France, prevent the return of Napoleon and maintain the army of occupation. This included the idea of possible meetings to settle international questions quickly and peacefully. Titel: mar 28-10:48 AM (Sida 16 av 22) 4. Assess the contribution made by other powers to the unification of Italy (1848–1871). Many candidates will no doubt wish to focus on Cavour and his policies. However this should be linked to other European powers, actions and influence. E.g. Piedmont’s involvement in the Crimean War raised awareness of the question of Italy. France in particular was interested in reducing Austrian influence and gaining an ally – Pact of Plombiéres and 1859 war followed as Cavour was aware that Piedmont was unable to deal with Austria alone. The consequences were an enlarged Piedmont and in 1860 Britain exerted pressure on Napoleon III to accept annexation of the Central Duchies. In 1860 the presence of the British Navy seemed to be supporting Garibaldi’s expedition to Sicily. Some dispute over this: Cavour’s protection of Rome from Garibaldi prevented French intervention; in 1861 Kingdom of Italy established without Rome and Venetia. In 1866 Austria was defeated in the Seven Weeks War. Italy was rewarded with Venetia for her alliance with Prussia. In 1870 the withdrawal of the French garrison allowed the absorption of Rome into the Kingdom of Italy. Thus despite Cavour’s strengthening of Piedmont, other powers were very important at key points in the Unification process. Note the timeframe; indicates a start with the 'crazy year of Europe' and ending with the FrancoPrussian clash. List foreign powers more or less involved; Austria, France, Prussia, Britain, Russia, Ottoman Empire (Crimean War). Titel: mar 28-1:10 PM (Sida 17 av 22) 9. Compare and contrast the domestic policies of Alexander II (1855–1881) and Alexander III (1881–1894). Alexander II’s reign will probably be known in more detail and most candidates are likely to focus more on the contrasts – Alexander II as the Reforming Tsar and Alexander III’s as the Reactionary Tsar. Analysis of contrasts should be supported by reference to specific policies e.g. Alexander III’s reversal of Zemstva power by the appointment of Land Commandants, increasing control of education, support for the Church, etc. Comparisons could include the key point that both were determined to maintain the monarchy, that both pursued Russian dominance and that both sought economic growth – it is often forgotten that Alexander III appointed Witte as finance minister. If only Alexander II or Alexander III is addressed, mark out of a maximum of [8 marks]. This is a typical questions in which your knowledge of Finnish history could be used. The first signs of russification can clearly be noticed during the regime of Alexander III. 'The reformist' and 'the reactionist' but when it came to economical development they adopted the same policy encouraging investments and a modernisation of Russia. Titel: mar 28-1:09 PM (Sida 18 av 22) Why were the Central Powers defeated by 1918? Candidates should attempt to give an overview of the whole war and focus on key issues which contributed to failure. The main focus will no doubt be on Germany and those candidates who address the problems of her allies as well as Germany should be well rewarded (e.g. internal tensions in Austria such as Czech nationalism, the success of the British campaigns in the Middle East). Key factors include: the failure of the Schlieffen Plan which led to a war of attrition; the imbalance between the sides; the Allies included Britain and the Commonwealth and her European Allies plus the US from April 1917 – which brought huge reserves of manpower and resources; the impact of the Naval Blockade and control of the seas; poor decisions on the part of the Germans e.g. unrestricted submarine warfare, internal problems within Germany; labour unrest and the threat of revolution – the failure of the Ludendorff Offensive 1918 increased internal problems in Germany and led to the request for an armistice which was an admission that Germany could no longer continue fighting. Note! The Central Powers include Austria, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire. Weaknessess of the Central Powers; The Schlieffen plan, Insignificant navy and the U-boat warfare, Weak allies, Resources, The Spanish flu, The political leadership. Allied strengths; Resources (USA), The political and military leadership in the end of the war, Naval superiority. Titel: mar 28-11:01 AM (Sida 19 av 22) 16. ―The policy of appeasement was a major cause of the outbreak of war in 1939.‖ To what extent do you agree with this statement? This is a “causes of the Second World War” question and will allow candidates to use their knowledge of the historical debate on appeasement. It is not a “failure of the League of Nations” question and answers which focus on this should not score highly. Although appeasement is most closely associated with Chamberlain it could be argued that it was followed earlier on issues such as rearmament and the reoccupation of the Rhineland and the Anschluss. However Chamberlain was more definite in his pursuit of appeasement as was seen in his willingness to negotiate over the Czech crisis in 1938. He even accepted the German occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1939 as Czechoslovakia had not technically been invaded. The Nazi–Soviet Pact could also be seen as Stalin temporarily appeasing Hitler. Candidates could argue that war was inevitable as a consequence of Hitler’s goal of Lebensraum in the east. However they could also argue that appeasement allowed Hitler to gain confidence in pursuit of that goal and undermined potential military opposition in Germany who were satisfied with the gains of German foreign policy up to 1938. In that sense it was a cause of war as Hitler remained in power. If there is reference to historians’ views then they should be discussed, challenged or supported. Define appeasement. Should it include only policies towards Germany or should it be discussed more generally as weaknessess shown towards agressor between the two World wars? The impact of the Münichconference should be analysed. Who appeased who with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? As this is paper 3 one can approach the question from an European point of view (not a global paper eventhough the question is about the outbreak of the 2:nd WW). As nothing is said about the assault on Poland the year 1939 could include all military aggressions during this year e.g. the Winter war. Titel: mar 28-11:42 AM (Sida 20 av 22) 17. Analyse the reasons for Stalin’s emergence as Lenin’s successor by 1929. Balanced answers should consider Stalin’s strengths as well as the weaknesses of his opponents and make a judgement as to which factors were most important. Stalin’s strengths: his position as party secretary allowed him to build a power base within the party – the 1924 Lenin Enrolment led to a more manageable membership. His positioning of himself as Lenin’s Apostle and chief mourner also allowed him to gain support. Shifting alliances (first with Zinoviev and Kamenev – later Bukharin). His flexibility on policy – posing first as a moderate and later adopting the radical policy of rapid industrialization and Socialism-in One -Country could be seen as political cunning or flexible responses to changing situations such as the grain crisis of 1927. Opponents’ weaknesses: Trotsky was regarded with suspicion by many – because of his Menshevik past, his apparent disrespect for Lenin – not at the funeral, questioning Lenin’s policies, etc. Agreeing with the Politburo not to publish Lenin’s Testament meant Stalin remained in place. Kamenev and Zinoviev left it too late to form the Left Opposition with Trotsky. By then Stalin had a strong grip on the party – they were accused of factionalism. Bukharin was never a major threat, he was too “capitalist” in his ideas. Chronology; The position as Party Secretary, placing personal spies as Lenin's secretaries (knowledge of the political Last Will), The funeral (lit de parade), The first triumvirate (Sinovjev, Kamenev). Trotskies weaknessess (Stalin using all methods while Trotsky acting as a gentleman). Explain 1929. Titel: mar 28-10:48 AM (Sida 21 av 22) Titel: maalis 29-10:13 (Sida 22 av 22)