Download Titel: mar 27-11:21 AM (Sida 1 av 22)

·
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)