Think Critically PROVIDE EVIDENCE ANSWER THE QUESTION. Give explanations

Transcription

1 Name: Class: Date: CHESTNUT DRIVE SECONDARY SCHOOL DEPARTMENT OF HUMANITIES SECONDARY 3 HISTORY ELECTIVE (COMBINED HUMANITIES) MIDYEAR EXAMINATION PREPATORY NOTES E1 Think Critically Give explanations PROVIDE EVIDENCE ANSWER THE QUESTION In this EXAM PACK, you will find: 1. Powerpoint handout on MYE format 2. Sample exam papers modified for the new 2014 syllabus 3. A guide to answering source- based questions: a. Inference b. Purpose c. Comparison d. Testing Assertions 4. SUGGESTED essay answers and a guide to answering structured- essay questions including key points, explanations and examples

2 INFERENCE What is the message of this cartoon/poster? What can you infer from Source A about? What can you learn from Source A about? What does Source A tell you about? 1. POINT: Make an inference (SMART GUESS): a. Start with, I can infer that <your inference> or the message of the source is that b. Answer the question directly if it asks what can you learn, write I can learn that 2. EVIDENCE: SUPPORT your inference with evidence a. The evidence from the source is that <quote: copy a key phrase from the source> 3. EXPLAIN: What does your evidence tell you? a. This suggests that <explain what this phrase tells you>. 4. More tips: a. What is the message infer the message of the whole source. Only 1 inference combining and using the entire source is required. b. What can you learn/what does this suggest/what does Source A tell you about/etc. give 2 inferences to score the top mark EXAMPLE QUESTION: What can you learn from this source about the Soviet Union? Explain your answer. The Communist Party kept a strict watch on the Soviet Union's creative artists - its writers, painters, composers, etc - to make sure that they supported the Party and the government. All writers had to belong to the Union of Soviet Writers, and members were expected to follow a policy of 'socialist realism' in their writings. This meant that novels, filmscripts, poems, plays and journalism had to deal with the lives of ordinary working people and to show the progress of Communism. Soviet people were therefore able to read only books that supported the ideas of Communism. SUGGESTED ANSWER: [POINT inference 1] I can learn that life in the Soviet Union was controlled as the Communist Party had strict control over their lives. [EVIDENCE] The evidence is that The Communist Party kept a strict watch on the Soviet Union's creative artists, [EXPLANATION] which suggests that they were not free to express themselves and had to follow government views strictly. [POINT inference 2] I can also learn that art in the Soviet Union was used to gain support for the government. [EVIDENCE] The evidence is that Soviet people were therefore able to read only books that supported the ideas of Communism and films and plays were made to show the progress of Communism. [EXPLANATION] This suggests that the government made sure everything about communism was very positive so as to ensure continued support from Russians. EXAMPLE QUESTION: What is the message of this source? Explain your answer. O Stalin, O leader of the peoples, you who have brought man to birth. You who makes the earth bear fruit, You who makes the spring bloom, you who make vibrate the musical chords.. O you are the sun, loved and reflected by millions of hearts. SUGGESTED ANSWER: [POINT] The message of the source is that Stalin brought a lot of good to Russia and thus was well liked by the Russian people. [EVIDENCE] This can be inferred from the phrase that says, you have made the earth bear fruit you have make the spring bloom. [EXPLAIN] The poet is associating Stalin with all the good things in life, implying that he has done a lot of good for the Russian people. Furthermore, this source suggests he is loved by Russians, [EVIDENCE] which can be seen when the poet calls Stalin the sun loved and reflected by millions of hearts. [EXPLAIN] He is trying to imply that Stalin is like the sun who provides light to people and the millions of hearts are the Russia people who love him and benefit from him.

3 COMPARISON In what ways are the sources similar/different as evidence of? Explain your answer. In what ways are the sources similar/different? Explain your answer. To what extent are the sources similar/different? Explain your answer. Comparisons MUST have a common criterion or MATCH between the 2 sources Use the OVERARCHING SOURCE- BASED CASE STUDY QUESTION to guide you o What is Source A s answer to the question? o What is Source s B s answer to the question? o Now, compare the 2 answers. How are they similar/different? SUPPORT by providing evidence for the similarity/difference Question types: o In what ways you can give similarities OR differences o To what extent or How far you must give similarities AND differences 1. POINT: State the common criterion/feature of the sources a. Start with, Both sources are similar/different because <common criterion> 2. EVIDENCE: SUPPORT your comparison with evidence from the 1st source a. The evidence from Source A is that <quote: copy a key phrase from the source> 3. EXPLAIN: What does your evidence from the 1st source tell you? a. This suggests that in Source A <explain what this phrase tells you>. 4. EVIDENCE: SUPPORT your comparison with evidence from the 2nd source a. The evidence from Source B is that <quote: copy a key phrase from the source> 5. EXPLAIN: What does your evidence from the 2nd source tell you? a. This suggests that in Source B <explain what this phrase tells you>. 6. Give TWO comparisons. EXAMPLE QUESTION: To what extent are the two sources similar? Explain your answer. Source A: From a Soviet school textbook published in The Soviet people achieved so much in such a short time. This happened because all the country's wealth belongs to the working people who create this wealth. Thousands of workers produced more than their quota. Miracles were created by the enthusiastic work of the Soviet people. Source B: An extract from a historian published in a history textbook In one sense, Stalin could claim that collectivization was a success. New methods of farming were introduced which did achieve a substantial increase in production in Yet one and three- quarter million tons of grain were exported in 1932 while over 5 million peasants died of starvation. So many animals had been slaughtered that it was in 1953 before livestock production recovered to the 1928 figure. The cost in human life and suffering was enormous. SUGGESTED ANSWER: [POINT] Both sources agree that collectivization was a success because it increased production. [EVIDENCE FROM SOURCE A] Source A states that Thousands of workers produced more than their quota, [EXPLANATION] which suggests that food production in Russia must have increased. [EVIDENCE FROM SOURCE B] Source B also reports a substantial increase in production in 1937, [EXPLANATION] which indicates that collectivisation was successful because of this increase in production. [POINT] However, Source A suggests that collectivisation benefited the Soviet people, whereas Source B states that it was ultimately a failure as it made the Soviet people suffer. [EVIDENCE FROM SOURCE A] The evidence from Source A is that Miracles were created by the enthusiastic work of the Soviet people [EXPLANATION] which suggests that Russians were happy under the policy of collectivisation. [EVIDENCE FROM SOURCE B] On the other hand, B states that The cost in human life and suffering was enormous. [EXPLANATION] This shows that many people suffered under collectivisation, and thus their lives did not benefit.

4 purpose Why was this source (poster/cartoon/textbook/newspaper article) published? Explain your answer. Why did Stalin/Trotsky/etc. make this speech? Explain your answer. Infer the purpose or the motive of the person creating the source This requires you to figure out 3 things: o The MESSAGE of the source (what is the source trying to say?) o The AUDIENCE of the source (who is the source talking to?) o The IMPACT of the source on the AUDIENCE (what should the audience do after?) Next, give evidence: Quote from the source, use the provenance (who said the source) AND/OR use your background knowledge Refer to textbook pg for more detailed explanation HELPING WORDS POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE Portray Highlight Condemn Support Bring to attention Criticise Defend Convey Accuse Assure Confirm Question Appeal Convince Blame Cast in a positive light Persuade Shame Create a good impression Justify Cast in a negative light Glorify Demand Attack Gain support for Make aware Threaten Praise Sensationalise Warn Commend Emphasise Reject 1. POINT: State the message, audience and impact of the source. a. E.g. Stalin made this speech to glorify collectivisation by saying it had brought many Russians prosperity [MESSAGE], and thus convince Russian peasants [AUDIENCE] to join the collective farms [IMPACT] 2. EVIDENCE: SUPPORT your answer with evidence a. The evidence from Source A is that <quote: copy a key phrase from the source> b. Use the provenance (who wrote the source) to help you support your answer 3. EXPLAIN: What does your evidence from the source tell you? a. This suggests that in Source A <explain what this phrase tells you>. EXAMPLE QUESTION: Why did Dr Kiselev publish this report? Explain your answer. Source A: [PROVENANCE] A report by a Russian regional health inspector, Doctor Kiselev, March 25, 1932 I have driven around several collective farms [kolkhozes] and consider it necessary to inform you about a few items. I was in various kolkhozes, the not productive and relatively unproductive ones. Everywhere there was only one sight - that of a huge shortage of seed, famine, and extreme lacking of livestock. There is no nourishment - only some flour and bread.. Almost in every home either children or mothers were ill, due to starvation. Their faces and entire bodies were swollen SUGGESTED ANSWER: Dr Kisilev published this report as he wanted to reveal the truth about how collectivisation caused huge suffering [MESSAGE] to the government of Russia [AUDIENCE] and thus warn them about the damage caused by collectivisation [IMPACT]. [EVIDENCE] He mentions a huge shortage of seed, famine, and extreme lacking of livestock and that almost in every home either children or mothers were ill, which shows that collectivisation caused many Russians to suffer. [EVIDENCE + EXPLANATION] As he was a regional health inspector [PROVENANCE], this report was probably intended for the government to read as a warning. Even though some farms were productive, the situation on unproductive farms was causing a great deal of human suffering.

5 TESTING ASSERTIONs Study all sources. Stalin s rule was a nightmare for all Russians. Do all the sources support this statement? Explain your answer. Study all sources. Stalin s policies greatly benefited Russia s economy. How far do the sources agree with this statement? Explain your answer. An assertion is a statement without support or evidence (it is also known as a hypothesis in science) To test an assertion, you need to find sources that support AND do not support the statement Explain the reason why the sources support/do not support the statement Give evidence (QUOTE) from the source to support your argument. 1. POINT: Choose ONE source that supports the statement. Give 1 reason why. a. E.g. Source SUPPORTS the statement because it suggests that 2. EVIDENCE: SUPPORT your answer with evidence a. The evidence from Source is that <quote: copy a key phrase from the source> 3. EXPLAIN: What does your evidence from the source tell you? a. This suggests that in Source <explain what this phrase tells you>. 4. POINT: Choose ANOTHER source that DOES NOT supports the statement. Give 1 reason why. a. E.g. Source DOES NOT SUPPORT the statement because it suggests that 5. EVIDENCE: SUPPORT your answer with evidence a. The evidence from Source is that <quote: copy a key phrase from the source> 6. EXPLAIN: What does your evidence from the source tell you? a. This suggests that in Source <explain what this phrase tells you>. 7. POINT : Continue with other sources that support/do not support the statement. EXAMPLE QUESTION: Study all the sources. Collectivisation was a great success. Do all the sources support this statement? Explain your answer. Source C: An extract from a novel written by a popular Communist author, published in the Soviet Union in He is describing the reaction of wealthy peasants (kulaks) in one village to Stalin s forced policy of collectivization. Men began killing their cattle every night. As soon as it was dark, you could hear the muffled bleating of a sheep, the death squeal of a pig, the whimper of a calf. In two nights, half the animals in the village were killed. People said, kill, it s not ours any more, kill, they ll take it away from you, kill, you won t get meat on the collective farm. Source E: Description of life in the collective farms in the Soviet Union by an American historian The collective farms, despite their inefficiencies, did grow more food than in the past. For example, 30 to 40 million tons of grain were produced every year. Collectivisation also meant the introduction of machines into the countryside. Now 2 million previously backward peasants learnt how to drive a tractor. New methods of farming were taught by the experts. The countryside was transformed. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Source E supports the statement that collectivisation was a success, as it suggests that food production increased and technology on farms improved. It gives examples like how 30 to 40 million tons of grain were produced every year and 2 million previously backward peasants learnt how to drive a tractor. These examples show how collectivisation was a success. However, on the other hand, Source C does not support the statement. Instead it shows that collectivisation was a failure as it caused the loss of livestock and also because many peasants did not support collectivisation. The evidence is that kulaks resisted collectivisation by killing their cattle every night and furthermore, food production probably decreased as half the animals in the village were killed.

6 Essay: describe How did the Treaty of Versailles punish Germany? PUNISHMENT ONE in the Treaty of Versailles: REDUCTION IN ARMY Germany was forced to reduce its army. It was only allowed to have 100,000 soldiers, 6 battleships and no airforce. [supporting info] Conscription was also banned, so the army could only recruit volunteers. [supporting info] It had to hand over its airforce and battleships to its previous enemies in World War 1, the British and French. [supporting info] PUNISHMENT TWO in the Treaty of Versailles: LOSS OF TERRITORIES Germany was also punished through being forced to give up its territories. For example, Germany lost Alsace- Lorraine to France [supporting info] and also lost all its overseas colonies. [supporting info]. This caused Germany to lose a lot of resources like factories and raw materials that were in these territories that were lost. PUNISHMENT THREE in the Treaty of Versailles: REPARATIONS Germany was also forced to pay reparations. These reparations were to be paid to France and Britain [supporting info] to repay all the damage caused by the war. The reparations cost 6600 million pounds [supporting info], a huge sum to be paid in annual installments. What were the intentions of Britain and France at the Paris Peace Conference? INTENTIONS OF BRITAIN: To punish Germany, but moderately Britain s intentions at the Paris Peace Conference was to punish Germany, but only moderately. After 4 years of fighting, the British public wanted Germany to be punished severely. Many British lives had been lost fighting Germany and the British wanted to Make Germany Pay. However, Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister, realised that if Germany was punished too harshly, Germany would not be able to contribute as an ally of Britain in the future. Germany would also want to seek revenge against Britain. Therefore, Britain wanted to punish Germany for the damages it had done, but not too harshly. INTENTIONS OF FRANCE: To punish Germany very harshly France s intentions at the Paris Peace Conference were different, as France wanted to punish Germany severely. France suffered huge damage to its land and people as over 2/3 of the army were killed or injured in the war. As Germany was France s neighbour, France wanted to make sure that Germany would never again be able to threaten France. The punishment therefore had to completely cripple and crush Germany so that Germany would not rise again to threaten France. What were the steps that Stalin took to rise to power? STEP ONE: Pretend to be close to Lenin One step that Stalin took to rise to power was to pretend to be close to Lenin. He was the chief mourner at Lenin s funeral and also managed to trick Trotsky into missing the funeral, so that Trotsky looked disloyal to Stalin. He was also able to appear close to Lenin as Lenin s last will and testament was not read out after Lenin died. This testament actually contained criticism of Stalin. Lenin s criticism of Stalin was thus not made public. STEP TWO: Get rid of all his rivals Another step that Stalin took was to get rid of all his rivals. He allied with Kamenev and Zinoviev to get rid of Trotsky. With their help, he was able to get Trotsky removed from all his positions, such as Commissar for War. Next, Stalin allied with other Communists to get rid of Kamanev and Zinoviev and expel them from the Communist Party. After that, Stalin was able to become the main choice for leader of the Soviet Union. STEP THREE: Use his position as Secretary- General A third step was that Stalin used his position as Secretary- General. Stalin had powers to organise meetings and appoint people to jobs in the Communist Party. He used his powers to organise meetings to fill an important meeting in 1925 with all his supporters. With his supporters help, they were able to vote Trotsky out of all his important positions, including Commissar for War.

7 What were the effects of collectivization and industrialization? NEGATIVE EFFECT: Caused human suffering One of the main effects of collectivisation and industrialisation is that both policies caused a lot of human suffering in the Soviet Union. For example, peasants resisted collectivisation and rioted rather than handover their crops and livestock. They also killed their own livestock and burned their crops. This resulted in lower food production and made natural disasters such as droughts much worse. Thus, famines occurred which resulted in mass starvation and millions of death. Similarly, industrialisation set very high targets for many factories and workers. In order to meet these targets, the workers had to work very hard. They were punished for not meeting targets. Their working conditions were also very bad. Due to the focus on heavy industry, there were also not enough consumer goods to ensure that workers had a decent standard of living. Thus, many workers and peasants suffered through collectivisation and industrialisation. POSITIVE EFFECT: Increased production in Russia However, there were positive effects of collectivisation and industrialisation. In the long term, at the end of the 1930s, both industrial and agricultural production in Russia had increased dramatically. For example, the Soviet Union was able to produce much more wheat by the end of the 1930s. Over 90% of all farms were also collective farms by 1937 and most farmers worked on collective farms. Similarly, in factories, the output of important resources like coal, oil, steel and electricity increased hugely by the end of the 1930s. The increase in production was also due to the rapid construction of new cities and towns to provide workers for the new factories that were built. One example of such a city is Magnitogorsk, where a huge steel plant was built in less than 5 years. Describe the methods that Stalin used to control Russia. METHOD ONE that Stalin used to control Russia: PROPAGANDA One way he controlled Russians was through propaganda. Stalin portrayed himself as the father of the people. He developed this image through the use of artists to create images of himself leading Soviet Russia. These images and posters were placed everywhere. Offices, factories and classrooms were all required to have a picture of Stalin. METHOD TWO that Stalin used to control Russia: SECRET POLICE Another way Stalin controlled Russians was through the use of the secret police in the Great Terror. The secret police or the NKVD were used to monitor all communications and arrested and questioned anyone who showed the slightest sign of opposition to Stalin. Many intellectuals and other opponents of Stalins were executed or sent to labour camps, or gulags, where they were sentenced to hard labour. Close to 39 million were executed. Millions more died in the gulags. METHOD THREE that Stalin used to control Russia: SHOW TRIALS Another way Stalin controlled Russians was through eliminating all his political opponents through show trials. This ensured that no Communist member dared to challenge his leadership. Following the assassination of Sergei Kirov, one of Stalin s key leaders, Stalin pinned the blame for his assassination on a number of his old political rivals. Lev Kamanev and Grigori Zinoviev were arrested and put on public show trials. They were then executed, which scared off anyone else from challenging Stalin.

8 Essay: EXPLAIN Why did the Germans hate the Treaty of Versailles? Explain your answer. REASON 1 why the Germans hated the Treaty of Versailles: REPARATIONS One important reason why the Germans hated the Treaty of Versailles was because they had to pay harsh war reparations. [ POINT 1: GIVEN FACTOR] Under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany had to compensate the Allies in the form of war reparations for the damage done to the Allies. [ EXPLANATION 1: GIVEN FACTOR] The amount that they had to pay was fixed at 6,600 million pounds which was a huge amount that will take Germany many years to pay. [ EVIDENCE] Due to this, Germany had to suffer because a lot of the money that the country earned had to go towards the payment of war reparations instead of improving the lives of the country and people. [ EXPLANATION 1: GIVEN FACTOR] As a result of the compensation, Germany fell into bankruptcy and faced economic ruin. There was very little money left for redevelopment, many lost their jobs and poverty began to set in. Therefore, the Germans hated the Treaty of Versailles because the reparations made them suffer. [ LINK] REASON 2 why the Germans hated the Treaty of Versailles: WAR GUILT CLAUSE Another reason why the Germans hated the Treaty of Versailles was the War Guilt Clause. [ POINT 2: OTHER FACTOR] According to the clause, Germany had to accept full responsibility for the war although it was not the only power that fought in the war. [ EXPLANATION 2: OTHER FACTOR] Other countries like Britain and France were also involved in the start of World War 1. [ EVIDENCE] The War Guilt Clause created German unhappiness because it was this clause that justified subsequent terms like the war reparations, military reduction and land loss. [ EXPLANATION 2: OTHER FACTOR] By making Germany admit to the blame of starting WWI, the Allies were able to include the harsh punishment that Germany had to endure. Therefore, the Germans hated the Treaty of Versailles because the war guilt clause humiliated their country and forced them to accept all the harsh punishment. [ LINK] REASON 3 why the Germans hated the Treaty of Versailles: REDUCTION IN ARMED FORCES A third reason why the Germans hated the Treaty of Versailles is because it reduced Germany s armed forces. [ POINT 3: OTHER FACTOR] The Germans felt the Treaty was unfair as other countries involved in the war were not forced to disarm. [ EXPLANATION 3: OTHER FACTOR] Germany s troops were limited to 100, 000 men and Germany was not allowed to build tanks. It was not allowed to have an air force or submarines and it was only allowed to have six battleships and a few smaller ships. [ EVIDENCE] The reduction of the army was also blow to Germans national pride in the army. They felt that a weakened Germany could never be able to protect itself from their enemies. [ EXPLANATION 3: OTHER FACTOR] Therefore, the Germans hated the Treaty of Versailles because they felt that the reduction of armed forces crippled their country, so much so that they would not be able to defend themselves properly against other countries should an invasion occur. [ LINK] Adapted from CHIJ, Fajar Secondary and Junyuan Secondary MYE Why did Britain and France want to punish Germany in the Paris Peace Conference? Explain your answer. PERSPECTIVE ONE: France wanted to punish Germany harshly It was France s intention at the Paris Peace Conference to punish Germany harshly [ POINT] and not at all to make world peace. The aim to punish Germany was indeed important in guiding the terms of the TOV. This was evident from how Germany was omitted from the discussions of the treaty. This meant that Germany was unable to negotiate and had to accept whatever terms they were given. Clemenceau, France s Prime Minister, wanted Germany to be crippled. [ EXPLANATION] France had been damaged severely by the war and never wanted to be threatened by Germany again. France also needed a lot of money for rebuilding so as to recover from the war. Therefore, France demanded for Germany to pay large amounts of reparations and to restrict Germany s military severely so as never to threaten France again. [ EXPLANATION/EVIDENCE] France therefore wanted to punish Germany harshly so as to ensure it would never threaten France again. [ LINK] PERSPECTIVE TWO: Britain wanted to punish Germany, but moderately Furthermore, Britain s intention at the Paris Peace Conference was also to make Germany pay [ POINT]. However, Lloyd George was more moderate and did not want to be as harsh on Germany as France. He wanted justice to be done to Germany for having caused much destruction as so many British soldiers had died in the war. [

9 EXPLANATION/EVIDENCE] Therefore, Lloyd George wanted reparations from Germany so that Britain would have resources to recover. He also demanded for Germany to give up her territories so that Britain would again be the largest colonial power. However, he was very concerned that punishing Germany too harshly would make Germany unhappy and threaten world peace once again. [ EXPLANATION/EVIDENCE] Britain was therefore more moderate in what punishment should be dealt to Germany. Thus, while Britain largely aimed to punish Germany, Britain also wanted to maintain world peace in the long term by ensuring that Germany did not become a revengeful country. [ LINK] Not answering this question, but useful to remember PERSPECTIVE THREE: USA wanted world peace However, the USA aimed to make world peace [ POINT] at the Paris Peace Conference in Woodrow Wilson, the President of the USA, saw the Paris Peace Conference as a golden opportunity to create a system that would protect world peace. [ EXPLANATION] He therefore initiated the idea of a League of Nations [ EVIDENCE], where nations would settle disputes through consultation and discussion rather than violence. Wilson also did not want to punish Germany severely, as the USA wanted to let Germany recover and become a strong supporter of world peace through the League of Nations. [ EXPLANATION] Therefore, to some extent, there was an intention at the Paris Peace Conference to make world peace, however, this was mainly from the perspective of the USA. Why was the League of Nations weak and unsuccessful in the 1930s? Explain your answer. REASON 1 for the weakness of the League of Nations: WEAK ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE One of the reasons for the weakness of the League of Nations was that the organizational structure of the League was weak. [ POINT] The League could not enforce (force countries to follow) its decisions. This is because the League of Nations did not have an army and no member country had to provide any soldiers to the League. The League thus could not use military force to stop countries from going to war with each other, which made it weak. [ EXPLANATION] In addition, the various methods of punishment that the League could use did not work. For example, if the League condemned countries that went to war, strong countries could just ignore the League of Nations. [ EVIDENCE] Also, if the League tried to impose economic sanctions, warring countries could just leave the League and carry on trading with other countries. [ EVIDENCE] Therefore, the League failed because its structure and inefficiency meant that it could not achieve its aims of keeping peace between countries. [ LINK] REASON 2 for the weakness of the League of Nations: USA NOT A MEMBER However, there are other reasons why the League was weak. The absence of the United States (USA) [ POINT] was a big reason why the League failed to promote world peace in the 1920s. The USA did not join the League because the American policy of isolationism kept them it out. The USA wanted to stay out of European politics and any conflicts that might arise in Europe. [ EVIDENCE] The USA was then the strongest world power and its absence dealt a definite blow to the effectiveness of the League. [ EXPLANATION/EVIDENCE] The USA s reputation would have given strength to the commitments of the League. Furthermore, the USA was seen as a natural leader by many of the members of the League. It was after all the idea of US President Woodrow Wilson to set up an international organization like the League to settle disputes between nations. With the absence of the USA, the League did not have a strong driver to take action and achieve the aims of the League. [ EXPLANATION] The other League members did not take the actions of the League seriously without a strong leader, resulting in the ineffectiveness of the League. [ LINK] REASON 3 for the weakness of the League of Nations: ATTITUDES OF MEMBER COUNTRIES Another reason for the failure of the League of Nations is because of the attitudes of member countries [ POINT]. Members of the League of Nations did not support its decisions and instead supported their own interests instead. In fact, members could leave when they disagreed with the League s decisions. For example, Italy and Japan left when the League made decisions that they disagreed with. [ EVIDENCE] Since members could leave the League when they disagreed, the League was unable to force its members to cooperate and to respect the decisions of the League. [ EXPLANATION] The powerful members of the League such as Britain and France did not contribute to supporting the work of the League in trying to achieve its aims. [ EVIDENCE] If the powerful members of the League did not take the League seriously, other small countries would not either. [ EXPLANATION] Therefore, the League failed because without the support of major powers and members leaving whenever they disagreed, the League s membership was simply not strong enough to carry out the aims it wanted to achieve. [ LINK]

10 Why did Stalin rise to power? Explain your answer. REASON 1 for Stalin s rise to power: CUNNING PERSONALITY/ELIMINATION OF RIVALS One reason why Stalin rose to power is because of his cunning personality. [ POINT 1: GIVEN FACTOR] Stalin made alliances with other people and he was able to use his rivals against each other. He was able to outwit his rivals because no one saw him as a threat. By killing off potential rivals, and threats to his path to power, his rise to power met with little opposition. [ EXPLANATION 1: GIVEN FACTOR] For example, he convinced Kamenev and Zinoviev to get rid of Trotsky, before turning on Kamanev and Zinoviev in later years. [ EVIDENCE] He also pretended to be close to Lenin [ EXPLANATION 1: GIVEN FACTOR] by being the chief mourner at Lenin s funeral [ EVIDENCE]. Since people thought he was close to Lenin, more people supported him as Lenin s rightful successor and gave him more support [ EXPLANATION 1: GIVEN FACTOR]. Therefore, Stalin rose to power because he outwitted his rivals and built up support, so that more people supported him as Lenin s successor. [ LINK] REASON 2 for Stalin s rise to power: POSITION AS SECRETARY- GENERAL Another reason why Stalin rose to power was because he was Secretary- General of the Soviet Communist Party. [ POINT 2: OTHER FACTOR] As Secretary- General, Stalin had the power to organize meetings and appoint people to important jobs. He took advantage of this power to build up his support. [ EXPLANATION 2: OTHER FACTOR] For example, he appointed his supporters to important roles in the Communist Party. He also held a Communist Party meeting in 1925 to vote his main rival, Trotsky, out from all of his important positions. [ EVIDENCE]. Therefore, Stalin could use his position to gain loyal supporters and make decisions that would benefit him and get rid of his enemies. [ LINK] REASON 3 for Stalin s rise to power: TROTSKY S AND OTHER RIVALS WEAKNESSES The third reason why Stalin rose to power was because of Trotsky and other rivals weaknesses. [ POINT 3: OTHER FACTOR] Trotsky was considered arrogant by most people in the Communist Party. He thought he would succeed Lenin, so he was complacent and did not build up support like Stalin. [ EXPLANATION 3: OTHER FACTOR] Furthermore, Trotsky was a Menshevik [EVIDENCE] who switched to the Bolshevik Party, so Bolsheviks did not trust him, compared to Stalin who had been a Bolshevik from Trotsky also wanted to spread the revolution to the whole world instead of just focusing on building up Russia. Many people thought this was impractical. Stalin s idea of building up Russia was much more popular in comparison. [EVIDENCE] Therefore, Stalin rose to power because he was able to build up support where his rivals like Trotsky failed to do so. [ EXPLANATION 3: OTHER FACTOR] Thus, Stalin was more popular with the Bolsheviks and able to get more support than Trotsky. [ LINK] How did Stalin s rule improve Russia s economy? Explain your answer. REASON 1 for Stalin s success: INDUSTRIALISATION targets were met I agree to some extent that Stalin s rule over Russia was a success because through his programme of industrialisation [ POINT], Russia did become a modern industrialized country. Previously, it was only a backward agricultural country. Through his Five Year Plans [ EVIDENCE], Stalin set high production targets for many important industries. Even though these high targets were not always met, production of key resources such as oil, steel and electricity increased tremendously. [ EXPLANATION] Due to these Five Year Plans, by 1939, Russia became the second biggest industrial power in the world after USA. [ EVIDENCE] It even produced more iron and steel than Britain. In fact, industrial production improved by ten times since [ EVIDENCE] This shows that his programme of industrialisation was a great success for Russia as Stalin was able to achieve his aims and grow Russia s economy. [ LINK] REASON 2 for Stalin s success: COLLECTIVISATION targets were met Moreover, his policy of collectivization also achieved its targets successfully [ POINT]. Stalin wanted higher farming productivity to feed the workers in the rapidly expanding industrial towns. He decided on collectivisation to take all farmland and set up huge state- run farms called collectives. The peasants could only keep enough to feed themselves and sold the rest to the state at a fixed price. [ EXPLANATION] The result of this programme was that in 1940, almost all farms were collectives and 97% of all peasants lived on a collective. [ EVIDENCE] Therefore, the system of farming and food production changed dramatically under Stalin, showing that he did manage to successfully carry out his programme of collectivization. [ EXPLANATION] Stalin s rule over Russia therefore resulted in the successful increase in food production and the successful reform of the farming system. [ LINK]

11 How did his use of propaganda and the secret police help Stalin control Russia? Explain your answer. REASON 1 for Stalin s control of Russia: USE OF PROPAGANDA One way that Stalin controlled Russians was through propaganda [ POINT]. Propaganda served to create an image of Stalin that made him seem like the supreme leader for Russia. [ EXPLANATION] For example, Stalin portrayed himself as the father of the people. He developed this image through the use of artists to create images of himself leading Soviet Russia. [ EVIDENCE] These images and posters were placed everywhere. Offices, factories and classrooms were all required to have a picture of Stalin. [ EVIDENCE] The widespread us of propaganda throughout Russian society meant that Russians were only shown positive images of Stalin. [ EXPLANATION] Any criticism of Stalin s policies would not be reflected in his public image, it would instead be blamed on other members of the Russian government, not Stalin. [ EXPLANATION] Thus, Stalin could control Russia through propaganda because the control over information meant that only positive things about Stalin s government were publically communicated. [ LINK] REASON 2 for Stalin s control of Russia: USE OF SECRET POLICE Another way Stalin controlled Russians was through the use of the secret police in the Great Terror [ POINT]. The secret police terrorised the citizens of Russia and made sure that all opposition or unhappiness about Stalin was stamped out. [ EXPLANATION] This helped Stalin make sure that all of Russia was under his control. What happened was that the secret police or the NKVD were used to monitor all communications and arrested and questioned anyone who showed the slightest sign of opposition to Stalin. [ EVIDENCE] Many intellectuals and other opponents of Stalins were executed or sent to labour camps, or gulags, where they were sentenced to hard labour. Close to 39 million were executed. Millions more died in the gulags. [ EVIDENCE] With all these measures to curb opposition, Stalin was unchallenged as no one dared to voice their opposition to his policies. [ EXPLANATION] This rule of terror ensured that Stalin could force through policies like collectivisation and industrialisation despite the huge cost in human suffering. [ EXPLANATION] Thus, the secret police helped Stalin control Russia by creating a climate of fear and suspicion to stop all opposition to Stalin s policies. [ LINK]

12 Essay: EVALUATE The Treaty of Versailles was fair. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. YES: FAIR from the perspective of the Allied countries who won the war Yes, the Treaty of Versailles was a fair treaty for the Germans. In particular, from the perspective of the Allied countries that won the war, Germany had lost the war, so it was fair that they were made to pay [ POINT] for the costs. The Allies felt the treaty was fair in dealing out a harsher punishment towards Germany. Germany was the main aggressor at the start of the war. It was due to the ambitions of Germany s leaders that World War I started. [ EVIDENCE] Therefore, The treaty could not have been less harsh, as this would be unfair to the millions of people who died or were injured as a result of the war. [ EXPLANATION] The terms of the treaty were fair, as it was important for any aggressive nation to be punished to serve as a warning for other ambitious nations. Furthermore, most of the lands that the Allies took away did not belong to Germany at first. [ POINT] They were lands such as overseas colonies that Germany had taken over from other countries. It was only fair that the people from some of these regions could vote to decide if they wanted to be governed by the Germans. A third reason why the Allied countries felt that the Treaty of Versailles was fair is because the Germans themselves had forced another country, Russia, to sign a harsh treaty [ POINT]. This was the Treaty of Brest- Litovsk [ EVIDENCE], which the Germans had imposed on the Russians when Russia left the war in The Treaty of Brest- Litovsk was very harsh as the Germans made Russia give up 25 per cent of its lands. In comparison, the terms of the Treaty of Versailles were much less harsh [ EXPLANATION] as Germany was only made to give up 13 per cent of its lands NO: UNFAIR from the perspective of Germany who lost the war However, Germans of course felt that the Treaty was unfair and that the terms were too harsh. One reason was that Germany was forced to bear all the blame for the war, which was unfair [ POINT] as the Allied Powers were also participants in the war. Thus, it was not fair for them to make Germany bear the full responsibility. Germany itself also sustained major damages and loss of life from Allied attacks [ EVIDENCE] and needed to recover from the war. The Germans therefore saw putting all the blame for WW1 on Germany as very unfair. Another term of the Treaty of Versailles that the Germans found unfair were the huge reparations [ POINT] they had to pay. The reparations sum of million [ EVIDENCE] was too huge for the Germans to pay off. The debt was unfair for most of the German people, as they were not the ones who wanted the war. [ EXPLANATION] Germany fought the war because it had ambitious leaders, such as the Kaiser. The Kaiser, after starting the war, actually abdicated and left the country when Germany surrendered. A new government, the Weimar government, was formed, and yet this new Weimar government was forced to take the responsibility for Germany s loss in WW1. Many ordinary Germans therefore felt that they should not have been made to pay for their previous leaders mistakes and that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair. Furthermore, the Germans were not properly included in all the discussions of the terms of the treaty [ POINT]. They were forced to agree to terms that had already been decided upon. This was viewed as an unfair diktat by the people of Germany who were forced to fulfil the terms of a Treaty their government had no influence on but had signed. EVALUATION: Fair or unfair, based on personal judgement (no longer based on perspectives of Germans/Allied countries) In conclusion I believe the Treaty of Versailles was not fair. The Treaty of Versailles was not a fair treaty for the Germans, as it did not take into account the opinions of German representatives at Versailles. As much as the Germans had been very unfair to Russia in the Treaty of Brest- Litovsk, this did not mean that it was fair for the Allies to impose similar terms on Germany. All in all, I believe that Germany s ability to recover in its economy and become a peaceful democratic country was more important than it being punished for a war that had already happened. The ordinary Germans, like their counterparts in the Allied countries, wanted their lives back. The Treaty of Versailles was not a just treaty, because it never gave them the second chance that people in the Allied countries had. Adapted from Fajar Secondary School 2008

13 To what extent was the League of Nations successful? Explain your answer. The League of Nations was successful only to a small extent. One reason why the League was not successful is because the League was unable to prevent war between some nations. [ POINT 1: REASON 1 TO SUPPORT GIVEN OPINION] In many cases throughout the 1920s, the League did not take action against the countries which resorted to using war to settle disputes. [ EXPLANATION OF REASON 1] For example, Greece and Turkey went to war, Poland seized Vilna, the capital of Lithuania, and France and Belgium also invaded the Ruhr in Germany. [ EVIDENCE] The League did not help these countries settle their disputes by discussion, which was one of its main aims in promoting world peace. [ EXPLANATION OF REASON 1] Therefore, these examples suggest that the League failed in achieving its aim of promoting world peace in the 1920s. [LINK] Furthermore, the League was weak and could not do a good job of promoting world peace. [ POINT 2: REASON 2 TO SUPPORT GIVEN OPINION] One reason for its weakness was the absence of the USA. [ EXPLANATION OF REASON 2] The USA was a very influential country. However, it had an isolationist stance towards the world in the 1920s. [ EVIDENCE] This meant that the public did not want USA to participate in other nations conflicts. Without the USA, the League could not achieve its aim of promoting world peace. Therefore, the absence of the USA shows that the League of Nations did not have the means to succeed at promoting world peace. [LINK] However, the League had some successes in promoting world peace in the 1920s. [ POINT 3: REASON 3 TO DISAGREE WITH GIVEN OPINION] Some examples show that some countries respected the decision making powers of the League of Nations. [ EXPLANATION OF REASON 3] For example, the League conducted plebiscites in Upper Silesia. Both Germany and Poland accepted the outcome of these plebiscites and accepted the League s decision. [ EVIDENCE] The League also judged a dispute between Sweden and Finland over the Aaland Islands and both countries accepted the decision of the League. [ EVIDENCE] This shows that the League of Nations was able to achieve its aim of promoting peace between nations and negotiation rather than conflict. [LINK] In conclusion, the League of Nations was only successful to a small extent. There are many examples from the 1920s where the League of Nations failed to achieve its aims of keeping world peace, as nations disregarded its authority and went to war. Furthermore, there are good explanations for why the League of Nations was so weak the absence of the USA is a key factor in its weakness. Therefore, the failures of the League of Nations outweigh its successes, as the reasons for its failures were much more deeply rooted than the reasons for its success. To what extent did collectivisation benefit Russia? Explain your answer. One reason why collectivisation benefited Russia that Stalin did achieve the targets set in his collectivization programme and increased food production. [ POINT 1: REASON 1 TO SUPPORT GIVEN OPINION] Stalin wanted higher farming productivity to feed the workers in the rapidly expanding industrial towns. He decided on collectivisation to take all farmland and set up huge state- run farms called collectives. The peasants could only keep enough to feed themselves and sold the rest to the state at a fixed price. [ EXPLANATION OF REASON 1] The result of this programme was that in 1940, almost all farms were collectives and 97% of all peasants lived on a collective. [ EVIDENCE] Therefore, the system of farming and food production changed dramatically under Stalin, showing that he did manage to successfully carry out his programme of collectivization. [ EXPLANATION OF REASON 1] In this sense, therefore, it may be considered a victory. [LINK] However, one effect of collectivisation that shows that it did not benefit Russia is that there was widespread rioting and resistance. [ POINT 2: REASON 2 TO DISAGREE WITH GIVEN OPINION] The human cost of implementing collectivization was huge. Many, especially the Kulaks, people with the biggest farms. resisted collectivisation. [ EXPLANATION OF REASON 2] They refused to join the collectives and many of them burnt away their crops instead of giving them to the state. Stalin could not allow resistance to collectivisation. [ EXPLANATION OF REASON 2] The land of the Kulaks was confiscated and millions were sent to concentration camps. [ EVIDENCE] Therefore, collectivisation was not a total victory because it was not accepted by the people and met with a lot of resistance. [LINK] Another effect of collectivisation that shows that it was not a complete victory is that it caused a famine. [ POINT 3: REASON 3 TO DISAGREE WITH GIVEN OPINION] Collectivisation made natural disasters such as droughts worse, as peasants burning their crops and killing their livestock further decreased food production throughout Russia. [ EXPLANATION OF REASON 3] For example, in Ukraine between 1931 and 1933, the decrease in the food supply led to

14 the deaths of an estimated 10 million people. [ EVIDENCE] Therefore, collectivisation was not a total victory because it caused a great deal of human suffering and made famines and natural disasters worse for Russian people. [LINK] In conclusion, I disagree with the statement to a large extent, as collectivization was a policy that did accomplish its targets of improving farming in the Soviet Union; however, it also made many people suffer. From Stalin s perspective, he may have considered it a total victory based on his aims of changing the farming system in Russia. From the ordinary Russian peasant s perspective, however, collectivisation was clearly disastrous as it caused huge amounts of resistance, violence and suffering as Kulaks were eliminated and famines were worsened. Therefore, it is an exaggeration to say that collectivisation was a complete victory as the human cost of collectivisation and the many deaths it caused must be considered. Adapted from West Spring Secondary MYE 2008 To what extent did Stalin s rule benefit Russia? Explain your answer. REASON 1 for Stalin s success: INDUSTRIALISATION targets were met I agree to some extent that Stalin s rule over Russia was a success because through his programme of industrialisation [ POINT], Russia did become a modern industrialized country. Previously, it was only a backward agricultural country. Through his Five Year Plans [ EVIDENCE], Stalin set high production targets for many important industries. Even though these high targets were not always met, production of key resources such as oil, steel and electricity increased tremendously. [ EXPLANATION] Due to these Five Year Plans, by 1939, Russia became the second biggest industrial power in the world after USA. [ EVIDENCE] It even produced more iron and steel than Britain. In fact, industrial production improved by ten times since [ EVIDENCE] This shows that his programme of industrialisation was a great success for Russia as Stalin was able to achieve his aims and grow Russia s economy. REASON 2 for Stalin s success: COLLECTIVISATION targets were met Moreover, his policy of collectivization also achieved its targets successfully [ POINT]. Stalin wanted higher farming productivity to feed the workers in the rapidly expanding industrial towns. He decided on collectivisation to take all farmland and set up huge state- run farms called collectives. The peasants could only keep enough to feed themselves and sold the rest to the state at a fixed price. [ EXPLANATION] The result of this programme was that in 1940, almost all farms were collectives and 97% of all peasants lived on a collective. [ EVIDENCE] Therefore, the system of farming and food production changed dramatically under Stalin, showing that he did manage to successfully carry out his programme of collectivization. [ EXPLANATION] Stalin s rule over Russia therefore resulted in the successful increase in food production and the successful reform of the farming system. REASON 1 for Stalin s failure: INDUSTRIALISATION caused hardship for workers However, Stalin s rule over Russia, while a success in terms of meeting targets, was disastrous for many ordinary people [ POINT]. Industrialisation caused a lot of hardship for ordinary workers. This is because industrialisation forced many people to move to the city away from their families. The Five Year Plans also placed heavy demands on them by expecting them to meet unrealistic production targets. [ EVIDENCE] Workers who did not meet their work quotas in the industries were purged too. In factories, working and living conditions were often very poor. Due to the emphasis on heavy industries, consumer products like clothes were scarce [ EXPLANATION/EVIDENCE]. All these negative effects of Stalin s policy of industrialisation worsened peoples lives, even though it met its production targets. REASON 2 for Stalin s failure: COLLECTIVISATION caused rioting and resistance Another sign which shows that Stalin s rule was not a succes is that his policy of collectivisation caused widespread rioting and resistance [ POINT]. The human cost of implementing collectivization was huge. Many, especially the Kulaks, people with the biggest farms, resisted collectivisation. They refused to join the collectives and many of them burnt away their crops instead of giving them to the state. [ EXPLANATION/EVIDENCE] Stalin could not allow resistance to collectivisation. The land of the Kulaks was confiscated and millions were sent to concentration camps. [ EVIDENCE] Therefore, Stalin s policy of collectivisation was not accepted by the people and met with a lot of resistance, suggesting that Stalin s rule was not a great success in this respect. [LINK] REASON 3 for Stalin s failure: RULE OF TERROR controlled Russians incredibly strictly Finally, in order to achieve his success with meeting the targets of his industrialisation and collectivisation policy, Stalin had to control his people incredibly strictly [ POINT]. The Russian people lost their freedom and everything they did was dictated by the state. They lived in constant fear of being punished for disobeying state orders. [ EXPLANATION]