Q1.(a) What was agreed at the Yalta Conference of February 1945? [5]
(b) Why did the USA introduce the Marshall Plan? [7]
(c) How far was the Cold War caused by Truman’s hostility towards the Soviet Union? Explain
your answer. [8] (Nov’08)
Q2.Study the extract, and then answer the questions which follow. . (in blog 2009-11)
I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support people who are
resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by any outside pressures.
I believe that we must help free peoples to work out their own destiny in their own
way.
President Truman of the USA speaking in March 1947.
He was introducing what became known as the ‘Truman Doctrine’.
(a) What was the ‘Cold War’? [5]
(b) Why did tension between the Soviet Union and the West increase after the Potsdam
Conference? [7]
(c) ‘The main reason for the escalation of the Cold War in the years 1947– 49 was the Berlin
Blockade.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. [8] (Nov’07)
Q3.Study the extract, and then answer the questions which follow.
We fight this war because we must fight if we are to live in a world where every
country can decide its own future. And only in such a world will a future be safe. We
are in Vietnam because we have a promise to keep. Since 1945 every American
president has offered support to the people of South Vietnam. Over many years we
have made a national pledge to help South Vietnam defend its independence.
US President Johnson speaking in 1963.
(a) What did the Geneva Agreements of 1954 decide about the future of Vietnam? [5]
(b) Why did Johnson increase American involvement in Vietnam? [7]
(c) How successful was American foreign policy towards Cuba and Vietnam? Explain your
answer. [8] (June’08)
Q4.Study the extract, and then answer the questions which follow.
You are worried over Cuba. You say that it worries you because it lies ninety miles
across the sea from the shores of the United States. However, Turkey lies next to us.
You have stationed devastating rocket weapons in Turkey, literally right next to us.
This is why I make this proposal: We agree to remove the weapons from Cuba and
that the United States, on its part, will remove its similar weapons from Turkey. . . (in blog 2009-11)
From Khrushchev’s letter of 27 October 1962.
(a) Describe the response of the USA to Castro’s takeover of Cuba. [5]
(b) Why was the Bay of Pigs invasion a failure for the USA? [7]
(c) ‘The Cuban Missile Crisis was never a threat to world peace.’ How far do you agree with this
statement? Explain your answer. [8] (Jun’07)
Q5.(a) What was agreed at the Potsdam Conference? [5]
(b) Why was there continuing tension over Berlin in the years 1945-1949? [7]
(c) ‘It was Truman not Stalin who brought about the Cold War.’ How far do you agree with this
statement? Explain your answer. [8] (June’06)
Q6.
Study the extract, and then answer the questions which follow.
We must fight this war if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own future.
We are in Vietnam because we have a promise to keep. Over the years we have made a national pledge to help South Vietnam defend its independence.
President Johnson speaking to the American people in 1965.
(a) Who were the Vietcong? [5]
(b) Why did the USA get involved in the war in Vietnam? [7]
(c) How far can the American withdrawal from Vietnam be blamed on military failure? Explain
your answer. [8] (Nov’05)
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
More tips on 'How to tackle Paper 2'
Paper 2 is essentially designed to test the candidate’s ability to interpret, extrapolate from, evaluate and use historical sources. This is an intense paper and each question in the Question Paper targets at least one of the skills mentioned. Individual questions will focus on particular sources but candidates are encouraged to use any of the sources if it can be used to answer the question. This paper is essentially designed to test source skills, contextual knowledge is also required. Contextual knowledge must be used only to comment on the sources under question.
Interpreting Sources:
Students must analyze the given sources carefully and work out what each source says-this would require one to go further than understanding just the surface meaning of the source. The message of each source must be worked out. Students must use the details in the source and their contextual knowledge to work out valid interpretations of the source. When the interpretation is written they must explain how they have reached it by directly referring to details in the source and to contextual knowledge. The examiner needs to know what led the student to that interpretation. Interpretations that are informed and supported by contextual knowledge will always be better rewarded.
Extrapolating from the sources:
Students must use the sources to reach a conclusion that goes beyond what the sources actually tell you. Students must work out: the purpose, the author, the audience or the impact of the sources. Contextual knowledge must be used in their response to support the answer.
Evaluating sources:
Students could be asked to evaluate sources for (i) usefulness (ii) reliability
For (i) usefulness: It is important that students do not dismiss as useless, sources that are biased. Historical sources are biased one way or the other but they still can be useful as they provide evidence of the attitudes of the person or group that produced that source.
For (ii) reliability: It is important that students interpret the source and consider who has produced the source and the purpose of that source. They should then either check the claims made in the source against their knowledge, and /or use their knowledge to consider the possible purpose of the source and how far this makes the reliability of the source questionable. A third way of evaluating sources consists of comparing what the sources say to what other sources in the paper say. Do they support or disagree with the sources under question? This approach usually gains fewer marks than the first two strategies.
General advice here would be –give your interpretation of the source, explain what you know about the person who produced the source, explain why you think they might have a particular purpose in producing the source, explain why this makes the source questionable.
Using sources:
The final question on the question paper always asks the student to consider how far the sources support a statement about the events. Students should first check back through the sources and make a rough list of the ones that support the statement and the ones which do not support/disagree. Most of the sources will fall in the category of agree/disagree. Only a couple will not fall in this category and should be put under the column neutral. Most of the sources, but it is not absolutely necessary that all sources must be used.
Students should then take the first list and then clearly explain how each source in that group supports the statement. They must make clear which source they are writing about at any particular time (by referring to the source letter).They should then do the same with the second group of sources. Earlier in the paper they would have already have made judgments about the reliability of the sources. These can be used again here as extra marks are given for any evaluation of the sources. Students must not refer back to the earlier answers; they must do the evaluation all over again. They must decide, for example, that a source cannot be used to support the statement because it is not reliable.
Hope the points will help you to tackle Paper 2-Keep a cool head and meet the challenge head on!!
My best wishes are with each one of you!!
MORE TIPS:
1
Working With
Sources
A Guide to Paper 2
By Miss Evans
www.SchoolHistory.co.uk
2
Introduction
Paper 2 of your GCSE exam will ask questions on a certain aspect of the
‘Medicine Through Time’ section of your course, using SOURCES.
Many students think this paper is difficult. This guide is intended to
help you to develop the skills you will need to perform to your best on
the day of the exam. It includes advise on how examiners want the
questions to be answered and sample questions with worked through
answers.
It is of course impossible to cover every type of question that may be
asked in an exam, but this guide will focus on 5 main types of questions:
1) Comprehension.
2) Comprehension in context.
3) Reliability/Usefulness/Value of sources.
4) Source comparison.
5) Interpretation.
- do not worry if you do not know what all of these terms
mean yet, that is what the guide is for!
The best way to become confident with historical sources is to practise,
and your teacher will give you plenty of opportunity to do that.
What is a Source?
A source is a piece of evidence that historians use to
find out about the past.
There are many different types of sources that can be
used, such as; letters, diaries, texts from books, pictures,
cartoons etc.
3
• Always read the sources and the questions carefully.
• Make sure you relate your answer to the question, don’t get bogged
down writing everything you can think of.
• Read and use the captions underneath pictures and cartoons they can
be hugely helpful.
• Think carefully about timing yourself. Look at how many marks the
question is worth and then work out how much time you should
spend on it.
• REMEMBER. An 8 mark question does not require you to make 8
points, it is the level of analysis in your answer that gets you marks.
Whenever you see this symbol there will be essential tips and
hints. If you take notice of them, your answers will improve.
Here are some general hints to help you when working with
sources.
4
1. Comprehension
There are no ‘easy’ questions in History, but comprehension source
questions are the easiest on paper 2 - they are usually the first questions
asked and carry the lowest marks.
Comprehension questions will usually look something like this:
• What can you learn from Sources A and B about ……………
• What impression do Sources A and B give of …………
• What message does the cartoon in source C give about ……….
All you have to do is write down what the source is telling you about the
person or situation mentioned in the question.
1) Firstly read or look at the source or sources carefully and write down
the obvious things it is telling you. Make sure you keep the question
in mind.
2) Secondly look beyond the obvious and see what you can infer. What
can you work out from what you have read or seen in the source even
though it may not be immediately obvious?
3) Write down what you have inferred and use the source to back you
up.
Infer = To work something out from what you have read or seen.
Let’s have a look at a real ‘comprehension’ source
question.
Study the sources and read the question and then work
through the ‘Hints for your answer.’
5
SOURCE A: A painting showing Archie McIndoe working with his team in the
operating theatre at East Grinstead. It was painted by Anna Zinkeisen, a nurse at
the hospital, in 1944.
SOURCE B: From the book The Last Enemy, by Richard Hilary, written in
1950. In this book Richard Hilary describes his experiences as a fighter pilot.
He was shot down in the Battle of Britain in 1940 and was badly burned. In
this extract he describes what also happened to a friend.
Edmonds was placed in the bed next to mine. He was trapped inside his aircraft
when it turned over and burst into flames. He fried for several minutes before
they dragged him out. When he was first brought to Archie McIndoe he was
unrecognisable. Never once did Edmonds complain although it would take
years to build him a new face.
Three days after his operation to replace his eyelids I noticed a dribble from
under the dressings across his eyes. It was the streptococcus* at work again. It
was a bitter shame that McIndoe’s first eyelid failure was Edmonds.
(* = the deadly germ which often infected minor wounds.)
QUESTION
Study Sources A and B.
What can you learn from sources A and B about the work of Archie McIndoe?
(5)
Image unavailable due to copyright.
Cut and paste image in for school use.
6
HINTS FOR YOUR ANSWER.
1) After reading and looking at the sources carefully, ask yourself what
are the obvious things that these sources tell you about the work of
Archie McIndoe.
• Facts such as he was a plastic surgeon; he worked with a large
team; he was not always successful.
2) These facts are all fine, but will only gain you 2 marks at the most.
Now look beyond the obvious, what do these sources infer about his
work. What can you work out from what you have seen and read?
• Inferences such as he was highly skilled because eyelid
operations were complex; he was usually very successful
because a failure was unusual; he was respected because a nurse
took the trouble to paint him at work; he was dedicated because
he was prepared to spend years to rebuild the pilot’s face.
3) These are all good inferences and will gain you 3 or 4 marks. To get a
full 5 marks, you need to make sure you use both of the sources, use
several points from the sources to back up your inferences and bring
all of your points together to make a general but substantiated
comment. E.g.
• He was very highly respected as shown by the fact that a nurse
has painted him at work, that the burnt pilot was taken straight
to him and that people wanted to observe him at work.
• ‘Overall the sources tell me that Mcindoe was a highly skilled,
successful and well respected plastic surgeon who was
dedicated to the complex and difficult work that helped rebuild
many lives.’
• If a question asks you to use more than one source, you
must use more than one source.
• DO NOT paraphrase or describe everything in a source -
it is a waste of time, it will not get you any marks.
• Always keep referring to the question asked, it will help
you to avoid getting side-tracked.
7
2. Comprehension in Context
These questions require you to understand what a source tells us about a
person or situation and then link it with knowledge you already have
which is also relevant to the question.
Comprehension in context questions usually look something like this:
Use Source A and Source B and your own knowledge to explain ……….
How does Source A help you to understand …..? Use the source and
your own knowledge to explain.
1) Firstly study the source or sources - what does it tell you? Go through
the same process as you would for a straight forward comprehension
question, looking for inferences as well as the obvious.
2) Then think about what else you know about the particular issue. If it
is relevant and it would help you to understand the source better
include it in your answer.
SOURCE A: Part of a letter from a Mr Perkins to the government’s Board of
Health in 1848.
‘….my impression is that [the gases] chemically infect exposed water; and the
poorer classes using such water are consequently the greatest sufferers.’
Let’s have a look at a real comprehension in context
question.
Read the source and the question and then work through
the ‘Hints for your answer.’
By Miss Evans
www.SchoolHistory.co.uk
8
QUESTION
Use the source and your knowledge to explain what Source A tells you
about people’s understanding of the causes of disease in the early
nineteenth century. (8)
HINTS FOR YOUR ANSWER
1) Firstly read the caption and the source carefully and ask yourself what
the source tells you about people’s understanding of the causes
disease.
• For example the source tells you that some people believed that
disease was caused by the drinking of water which was infected
by gases.
2) This will only gain you a couple of marks because you have not used
your own knowledge at all in the answer. Now think about what you
know. What do you know about people’s understanding of the causes
of disease in the early nineteenth century?
• You know that the Germ Theory was not developed until 1861.
People did not know that germs caused disease in the early
nineteenth century.
• You know that many people believed in the miasma theory.
• You know that there were several cholera epidemics during this
time which made people’s search for the cause of disease more
focussed.
3) You should now be aware of what the source is telling you and what
your background knowledge is. However it is not enough to just
write down this is what the source tells me….., and this is what I know …
To gain maximum marks you need to link your knowledge with the
information in the source.
9
• You can link Mr Perkins’ comment that ‘gases chemically infect
water’ to your knowledge of the miasma theory. - give a brief
explanation.
• You can link the fact that the source was written in 1848 to your
knowledge that there was a cholera epidemic in 1848. Some
doctors suspected that dirt and poor quality water may be in
some way to blame although this was not proved until Snow in
1854.
• You can then link the two facts above, (i.e. that Mr Perkins
believed that poisonous gases infected water which then caused
disease), to your knowledge that there was no germ theory in
1848. Although people made links between dirt and disease,
nobody knew about germs until 1861.
4) Linking what you already know to what the source is telling you
creates a very good answer. Make sure it is written in a sensible way.
• If a question asks you to use the source and your own
knowledge then you must use both.
• Start with the source and then add in what you can remember
which will help you to understand the source better.
• Your own knowledge must be relevant to the question, keep
referring to the question in your answer to keep you focussed.
• Do not start writing about the usefulness or reliability of
sources in comprehension in context questions, it will gain you
nothing.
• Do not paraphrase the source.
10
3. Reliability/Usefulness/Value of Sources
You are almost guaranteed to see a question of this type on you exam
paper, so be prepared. The examiner wants you to recognise that some
sources have more value to historians than others, some are more
reliable than others, and some are more useful than others.
Reliability/Usefulness/value questions usually look something like this:
What is the value of Source A for an historian trying to find out
about……..
How useful is Source B for an historian enquiring into ………
1) The first thing to ask of the source is, is it reliable? To do this think
about:
! who wrote it?
! when was it written?
! why was it written?
2) Then you should be able to identify whether or not the source is
biased. If you believe it is biased you must be able to explain why you
believe this.
3) You should then be able to make a judgement as to the source’s
reliability. Whether or not a source is biased effects its reliability. The
more biased the source the less reliable it is, BUT sources are never
completely reliable or unreliable.
11
4) The second thing to ask of the source is, is it useful or valuable to an
historian? Remember just because a source is not very reliable does
not mean it is not useful or of value to a historian.
e.g. A source written by a male doctor that gives an unfavourable
view of a female doctor may be biased, and yet be useful in telling
an historian about male attitudes towards female doctors at that
time.
5) Usefulness/Value of sources can only be decided when you know
what the historian wants to use the source for. Once you know the
question being asked you need to make two lists.
What are the uses of this
source to answer the
question?
What are the problems of
using this source to answer
that question?
6) Finally once you have discussed all of the above in your answer, you
need to make a final judgement. Sum up how useful or valuable you
think the source is.
Reliable - can be trusted or made use of at face value.
Biased - gives a one-sided point of view.
Useful - can be used by an historian to answer a given question.
Valuable - can be used by an historian to answer a given question.
12
SOURCE B: From the book The Last Enemy, by Richard Hilary, written in
1950. In this book Richard Hilary describes his experiences as a fighter pilot.
He was shot down in the Battle of Britain in 1940 and was badly burned. In
this extract he describes what also happened to a friend.
Edmonds was placed in the bed next to mine. He was trapped inside his aircraft
when it turned over and burst into flames. He fried for several minutes before
they dragged him out. When he was first brought to Archie McIndoe he was
unrecognisable. Never once did Edmonds complain although it would take
years to build him a new face.
Three days after his operation to replace his eyelids I noticed a dribble from
under the dressings across his eyes. It was the streptococcus* at work again. It
was a bitter shame that McIndoe’s first eyelid failure was Edmonds.
(* = the deadly germ which often infected minor wounds.)
QUESTION
How useful is Source B for an historian enquiring into advances in
surgery in wartime?
(6)
HINTS FOR YOUR ANSWER
1) The first thing to ask the source is, is it reliable? The information for
this part of your answer is in the caption that introduces the source.
• Who wrote it? Richard Hilary, a fighter pilot, ordinary man with no
medical training,
• When was it written? 1950, Hilary had been an eye-witness to the
event ten years ago, had some time after the war to research for his
book.
• Why was it written? Book of memoirs, to celebrate his and his fellow
pilots’ achievements - not to give details of medical advances.
Let’s have a look at a real reliability/usefulness/value
question.
Read the source and the question and then work through
the ‘Hints for your answer.’
13
2) This initial search through the source will really help with the rest of
your answer. From this information, you can make a judgement as to
whether the source is reliable.
• Your answer could be that the pilot has no obvious motive to lie
or exaggerate, yet there may be errors as about the medical facts
involved because he is not a trained doctor.
3) Now that you have picked out all of these facts, you need to use them
to answer the specific question. How useful is the source for an
enquiry into the advances in surgery in wartime?
• It is very important that you keep the question in mind. For
example the fact that the source tells us of the bravery of pilots
in the second world war is irrelevant. If we were enquiring into
bravery then it would be useful, but we are not, we are
enquiring into advances in surgery and therefore it that question
against which we should judge the source’s usefulness.
4) At this point it would be useful to draw up a table.
(Never include such a table and include it in your answer - draw it
in rough and then cross it out. Don’t worry about it looking neat
either, you haven’t got time.)
What are the uses of this
source to tell me about
advances in surgery in
wartime?
What are the problems of using
this source to tell me about
advances in surgery in
wartime?
• An eye-witness account
gives detailed description
of plastic surgery.
• Gives the name of a plastic
surgeon able to carry out
such operations. - no
reason to doubt that name.
• Gives details of failure.
• He wrote 10 years after the
event so had time to reflect
and research
• The pilot was not medically
trained and may have made
inaccurate medical
statements, or not recognised
other advances
• It tells us more about the
emotions of surgery rather
than what was physically
done.
• It is only one account, it does
not provide details of any
other medical advances or
cover any other wars.
• It was probably written to
14
glorify the achievements of
fighter pilots not to give detail
of advances in surgery and
therefore lacks the detail
required.
• It was written only 10 years
after the event the extent of
the advances made may not
have been obvious at that
time.
5) You now have the information that you require to write out a
balanced answer as to how useful the source is. It should be quite
obvious that although the source is useful for some things it is not
very useful in this particular enquiry. You would need to write both
sides of the argument but then sum up your judgement as to it’s
usefulness at the end.
• A source is never completely useful or useless.
• Biased, unreliable sources can still be useful.
• Usefulness or value can only be judged when you know the
question you need to answer with it.
• Make sure your answer is relevant. Keep referring back to the
question.
• The planning of your answer (e.g. the table) is very important to
a good answer, nevertheless don’t waste too much time.
• It is very likely that you will be asked to compare the
usefulness(utility) or value of sources, in which case you would
go through this process for each one and state a preference as to
which is more useful.
15
4. Source Comparison
Once you are happy with the skills required to answer the 3 previous
types of questions, comparison questions are a piece of cake.
Comparison questions usually look something like this:
Compare the value of Sources H and K for an historian enquiring into….
Do you think that Source B is more useful than Source C for an enquiry
into……
In what ways do Sources D and E agree about ……….
To what extent to Sources A and B agree about ……….
In many ways there are two types of question in source comparison,
those that wish you to compare their value and those that wish you to
look for differences and similarities. You know how to tackle the former
from the last chapter.
1) The question may well ask you to compare two sources, but more
likely you will be asked, what do these sources agree on, or how do
they differ. Whichever way the question is worded, you MUST
always look for both SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES.
2) As with usefulness/value questions it is often useful to draw up a
table.
Similarities Differences
16
SOURCE G : An account of Florence Nightingale’s work from a school text
book written by John Robottom in 1991.
By 1856 most people knew of Florence Nightingale’s work from the many
pictures of the ‘Lady of the Lamp’.
The pictures of the gentle lady with the lamp were only part of the truth, but
they touched people’s imaginations. They sent the huge sum of £40 000 to the
Nightingale Fund for training nurses.
Back in England, Florence Nightingale spent three years advising the
government on changes in army hospitals. Then in 1860 she chose St Thomas’
Hospital for the first nurse-training school.
SOURCE H : An account of Florence Nightingale’s work in the Crimea, from
the Oxford Children’s Encyclopaedia’, 1991.
Florence Nightingale set sail in 1854 with 38 nurses. Within a month they had
5 000 men to look after. Florence worked 20 hours a day to improve the
nursing of ordinary soldiers. Every night she visited all the wards, and the
soldiers loved her as ‘the lady with the lamp’.
Her story was published in newspapers back home and she became a national
heroine. £45 000 was collected from the public for her to spend as she saw fit.
In 1860 she spent it on the Nightingale training school for nurses at St
Thomas’s hospital , London.
QUESTION
To what extent does Source H agree with Source G about the work of
Florence Nightingale?
(6)
Let’s have a look at a real source comparison question.
Read the source and the question and then work through
the ‘Hints for your answer.’
17
HINTS FOR YOUR ANSWER
1) Although the question asks you to look at how far the sources agree,
to answer the question fully, you must also consider the areas of
disagreement. The best way to plan your answer, would be to draw
up a table.
Agree Disagree
• She was known as the ’Lady
with the Lamp’.
• The public donated money to her
cause.
• Money was used by Nightingale
to found a training centre for
nurses at St Thomas’s hospital.
• She was well known.
• She worked in army hospitals.
• The figure donated by the public.
• Only Source G mentions she had
an advisory role to government.
2) Having completed the table you should be clear on whether the
sources agree on a great deal, on some aspects but not others, or not at
all. You can therefore now write a solid answer.
3) For a well-structured answer, first write about the points on which the
sources agree, then write about the points on which they do not agree.
Finally write a small conclusion commenting on the extent to which
they agree.
• When a question asks you to compare sources, it expects your
answer to include similarities and differences.
• Draw up a quick table to focus your thoughts.
• Even if the details are slightly different, the sources might
agree on a broader issue.
18
5. Interpretation
These questions are usually the last to be asked on Paper 2 and carry the
most marks. You should be prepared to spend more time on these
questions. They will ask you to explain or make a judgement about the
past. You are usually required to use the sources and your own
knowledge.
Interpretation questions usually look something like this:
Do you agree that there were very few advances in surgery prior to
Pasteur’s development of the Germ Theory in 1861? Use all the sources
and your own knowledge to explain your answer.
Source E suggests that Fleming played the greatest role in the
development of Penicillin. How far do you agree with this statement?
Use the sources and your own knowledge to explain your answer.
1) It would not be feasible to go through a sample interpretation
question due to the number of sources and the length of the answer.
Nevertheless the important thing to remember in answering this type
of question is to produce a balanced and well structured response.
You should also plan what you are going to say - again maybe in the
form of a table.
2) You should structure your answer like this:
1. An opening paragraph which refers to the question and suggests
your opinion.
2. Points from the sources and your own knowledge that support
the view in the question.
3. Points from the sources and your own knowledge that oppose
the view in the question
4. A closing paragraph, which again refers to the question and
sums up your opinion.
• Plan your answer and your time carefully.
• Use the sources and your own knowledge.
I am indebted to Miss Evans
www.SchoolHistory.co.uk
Interpreting Sources:
Students must analyze the given sources carefully and work out what each source says-this would require one to go further than understanding just the surface meaning of the source. The message of each source must be worked out. Students must use the details in the source and their contextual knowledge to work out valid interpretations of the source. When the interpretation is written they must explain how they have reached it by directly referring to details in the source and to contextual knowledge. The examiner needs to know what led the student to that interpretation. Interpretations that are informed and supported by contextual knowledge will always be better rewarded.
Extrapolating from the sources:
Students must use the sources to reach a conclusion that goes beyond what the sources actually tell you. Students must work out: the purpose, the author, the audience or the impact of the sources. Contextual knowledge must be used in their response to support the answer.
Evaluating sources:
Students could be asked to evaluate sources for (i) usefulness (ii) reliability
For (i) usefulness: It is important that students do not dismiss as useless, sources that are biased. Historical sources are biased one way or the other but they still can be useful as they provide evidence of the attitudes of the person or group that produced that source.
For (ii) reliability: It is important that students interpret the source and consider who has produced the source and the purpose of that source. They should then either check the claims made in the source against their knowledge, and /or use their knowledge to consider the possible purpose of the source and how far this makes the reliability of the source questionable. A third way of evaluating sources consists of comparing what the sources say to what other sources in the paper say. Do they support or disagree with the sources under question? This approach usually gains fewer marks than the first two strategies.
General advice here would be –give your interpretation of the source, explain what you know about the person who produced the source, explain why you think they might have a particular purpose in producing the source, explain why this makes the source questionable.
Using sources:
The final question on the question paper always asks the student to consider how far the sources support a statement about the events. Students should first check back through the sources and make a rough list of the ones that support the statement and the ones which do not support/disagree. Most of the sources will fall in the category of agree/disagree. Only a couple will not fall in this category and should be put under the column neutral. Most of the sources, but it is not absolutely necessary that all sources must be used.
Students should then take the first list and then clearly explain how each source in that group supports the statement. They must make clear which source they are writing about at any particular time (by referring to the source letter).They should then do the same with the second group of sources. Earlier in the paper they would have already have made judgments about the reliability of the sources. These can be used again here as extra marks are given for any evaluation of the sources. Students must not refer back to the earlier answers; they must do the evaluation all over again. They must decide, for example, that a source cannot be used to support the statement because it is not reliable.
Hope the points will help you to tackle Paper 2-Keep a cool head and meet the challenge head on!!
My best wishes are with each one of you!!
MORE TIPS:
1
Working With
Sources
A Guide to Paper 2
By Miss Evans
www.SchoolHistory.co.uk
2
Introduction
Paper 2 of your GCSE exam will ask questions on a certain aspect of the
‘Medicine Through Time’ section of your course, using SOURCES.
Many students think this paper is difficult. This guide is intended to
help you to develop the skills you will need to perform to your best on
the day of the exam. It includes advise on how examiners want the
questions to be answered and sample questions with worked through
answers.
It is of course impossible to cover every type of question that may be
asked in an exam, but this guide will focus on 5 main types of questions:
1) Comprehension.
2) Comprehension in context.
3) Reliability/Usefulness/Value of sources.
4) Source comparison.
5) Interpretation.
- do not worry if you do not know what all of these terms
mean yet, that is what the guide is for!
The best way to become confident with historical sources is to practise,
and your teacher will give you plenty of opportunity to do that.
What is a Source?
A source is a piece of evidence that historians use to
find out about the past.
There are many different types of sources that can be
used, such as; letters, diaries, texts from books, pictures,
cartoons etc.
3
• Always read the sources and the questions carefully.
• Make sure you relate your answer to the question, don’t get bogged
down writing everything you can think of.
• Read and use the captions underneath pictures and cartoons they can
be hugely helpful.
• Think carefully about timing yourself. Look at how many marks the
question is worth and then work out how much time you should
spend on it.
• REMEMBER. An 8 mark question does not require you to make 8
points, it is the level of analysis in your answer that gets you marks.
Whenever you see this symbol there will be essential tips and
hints. If you take notice of them, your answers will improve.
Here are some general hints to help you when working with
sources.
4
1. Comprehension
There are no ‘easy’ questions in History, but comprehension source
questions are the easiest on paper 2 - they are usually the first questions
asked and carry the lowest marks.
Comprehension questions will usually look something like this:
• What can you learn from Sources A and B about ……………
• What impression do Sources A and B give of …………
• What message does the cartoon in source C give about ……….
All you have to do is write down what the source is telling you about the
person or situation mentioned in the question.
1) Firstly read or look at the source or sources carefully and write down
the obvious things it is telling you. Make sure you keep the question
in mind.
2) Secondly look beyond the obvious and see what you can infer. What
can you work out from what you have read or seen in the source even
though it may not be immediately obvious?
3) Write down what you have inferred and use the source to back you
up.
Infer = To work something out from what you have read or seen.
Let’s have a look at a real ‘comprehension’ source
question.
Study the sources and read the question and then work
through the ‘Hints for your answer.’
5
SOURCE A: A painting showing Archie McIndoe working with his team in the
operating theatre at East Grinstead. It was painted by Anna Zinkeisen, a nurse at
the hospital, in 1944.
SOURCE B: From the book The Last Enemy, by Richard Hilary, written in
1950. In this book Richard Hilary describes his experiences as a fighter pilot.
He was shot down in the Battle of Britain in 1940 and was badly burned. In
this extract he describes what also happened to a friend.
Edmonds was placed in the bed next to mine. He was trapped inside his aircraft
when it turned over and burst into flames. He fried for several minutes before
they dragged him out. When he was first brought to Archie McIndoe he was
unrecognisable. Never once did Edmonds complain although it would take
years to build him a new face.
Three days after his operation to replace his eyelids I noticed a dribble from
under the dressings across his eyes. It was the streptococcus* at work again. It
was a bitter shame that McIndoe’s first eyelid failure was Edmonds.
(* = the deadly germ which often infected minor wounds.)
QUESTION
Study Sources A and B.
What can you learn from sources A and B about the work of Archie McIndoe?
(5)
Image unavailable due to copyright.
Cut and paste image in for school use.
6
HINTS FOR YOUR ANSWER.
1) After reading and looking at the sources carefully, ask yourself what
are the obvious things that these sources tell you about the work of
Archie McIndoe.
• Facts such as he was a plastic surgeon; he worked with a large
team; he was not always successful.
2) These facts are all fine, but will only gain you 2 marks at the most.
Now look beyond the obvious, what do these sources infer about his
work. What can you work out from what you have seen and read?
• Inferences such as he was highly skilled because eyelid
operations were complex; he was usually very successful
because a failure was unusual; he was respected because a nurse
took the trouble to paint him at work; he was dedicated because
he was prepared to spend years to rebuild the pilot’s face.
3) These are all good inferences and will gain you 3 or 4 marks. To get a
full 5 marks, you need to make sure you use both of the sources, use
several points from the sources to back up your inferences and bring
all of your points together to make a general but substantiated
comment. E.g.
• He was very highly respected as shown by the fact that a nurse
has painted him at work, that the burnt pilot was taken straight
to him and that people wanted to observe him at work.
• ‘Overall the sources tell me that Mcindoe was a highly skilled,
successful and well respected plastic surgeon who was
dedicated to the complex and difficult work that helped rebuild
many lives.’
• If a question asks you to use more than one source, you
must use more than one source.
• DO NOT paraphrase or describe everything in a source -
it is a waste of time, it will not get you any marks.
• Always keep referring to the question asked, it will help
you to avoid getting side-tracked.
7
2. Comprehension in Context
These questions require you to understand what a source tells us about a
person or situation and then link it with knowledge you already have
which is also relevant to the question.
Comprehension in context questions usually look something like this:
Use Source A and Source B and your own knowledge to explain ……….
How does Source A help you to understand …..? Use the source and
your own knowledge to explain.
1) Firstly study the source or sources - what does it tell you? Go through
the same process as you would for a straight forward comprehension
question, looking for inferences as well as the obvious.
2) Then think about what else you know about the particular issue. If it
is relevant and it would help you to understand the source better
include it in your answer.
SOURCE A: Part of a letter from a Mr Perkins to the government’s Board of
Health in 1848.
‘….my impression is that [the gases] chemically infect exposed water; and the
poorer classes using such water are consequently the greatest sufferers.’
Let’s have a look at a real comprehension in context
question.
Read the source and the question and then work through
the ‘Hints for your answer.’
By Miss Evans
www.SchoolHistory.co.uk
8
QUESTION
Use the source and your knowledge to explain what Source A tells you
about people’s understanding of the causes of disease in the early
nineteenth century. (8)
HINTS FOR YOUR ANSWER
1) Firstly read the caption and the source carefully and ask yourself what
the source tells you about people’s understanding of the causes
disease.
• For example the source tells you that some people believed that
disease was caused by the drinking of water which was infected
by gases.
2) This will only gain you a couple of marks because you have not used
your own knowledge at all in the answer. Now think about what you
know. What do you know about people’s understanding of the causes
of disease in the early nineteenth century?
• You know that the Germ Theory was not developed until 1861.
People did not know that germs caused disease in the early
nineteenth century.
• You know that many people believed in the miasma theory.
• You know that there were several cholera epidemics during this
time which made people’s search for the cause of disease more
focussed.
3) You should now be aware of what the source is telling you and what
your background knowledge is. However it is not enough to just
write down this is what the source tells me….., and this is what I know …
To gain maximum marks you need to link your knowledge with the
information in the source.
9
• You can link Mr Perkins’ comment that ‘gases chemically infect
water’ to your knowledge of the miasma theory. - give a brief
explanation.
• You can link the fact that the source was written in 1848 to your
knowledge that there was a cholera epidemic in 1848. Some
doctors suspected that dirt and poor quality water may be in
some way to blame although this was not proved until Snow in
1854.
• You can then link the two facts above, (i.e. that Mr Perkins
believed that poisonous gases infected water which then caused
disease), to your knowledge that there was no germ theory in
1848. Although people made links between dirt and disease,
nobody knew about germs until 1861.
4) Linking what you already know to what the source is telling you
creates a very good answer. Make sure it is written in a sensible way.
• If a question asks you to use the source and your own
knowledge then you must use both.
• Start with the source and then add in what you can remember
which will help you to understand the source better.
• Your own knowledge must be relevant to the question, keep
referring to the question in your answer to keep you focussed.
• Do not start writing about the usefulness or reliability of
sources in comprehension in context questions, it will gain you
nothing.
• Do not paraphrase the source.
10
3. Reliability/Usefulness/Value of Sources
You are almost guaranteed to see a question of this type on you exam
paper, so be prepared. The examiner wants you to recognise that some
sources have more value to historians than others, some are more
reliable than others, and some are more useful than others.
Reliability/Usefulness/value questions usually look something like this:
What is the value of Source A for an historian trying to find out
about……..
How useful is Source B for an historian enquiring into ………
1) The first thing to ask of the source is, is it reliable? To do this think
about:
! who wrote it?
! when was it written?
! why was it written?
2) Then you should be able to identify whether or not the source is
biased. If you believe it is biased you must be able to explain why you
believe this.
3) You should then be able to make a judgement as to the source’s
reliability. Whether or not a source is biased effects its reliability. The
more biased the source the less reliable it is, BUT sources are never
completely reliable or unreliable.
11
4) The second thing to ask of the source is, is it useful or valuable to an
historian? Remember just because a source is not very reliable does
not mean it is not useful or of value to a historian.
e.g. A source written by a male doctor that gives an unfavourable
view of a female doctor may be biased, and yet be useful in telling
an historian about male attitudes towards female doctors at that
time.
5) Usefulness/Value of sources can only be decided when you know
what the historian wants to use the source for. Once you know the
question being asked you need to make two lists.
What are the uses of this
source to answer the
question?
What are the problems of
using this source to answer
that question?
6) Finally once you have discussed all of the above in your answer, you
need to make a final judgement. Sum up how useful or valuable you
think the source is.
Reliable - can be trusted or made use of at face value.
Biased - gives a one-sided point of view.
Useful - can be used by an historian to answer a given question.
Valuable - can be used by an historian to answer a given question.
12
SOURCE B: From the book The Last Enemy, by Richard Hilary, written in
1950. In this book Richard Hilary describes his experiences as a fighter pilot.
He was shot down in the Battle of Britain in 1940 and was badly burned. In
this extract he describes what also happened to a friend.
Edmonds was placed in the bed next to mine. He was trapped inside his aircraft
when it turned over and burst into flames. He fried for several minutes before
they dragged him out. When he was first brought to Archie McIndoe he was
unrecognisable. Never once did Edmonds complain although it would take
years to build him a new face.
Three days after his operation to replace his eyelids I noticed a dribble from
under the dressings across his eyes. It was the streptococcus* at work again. It
was a bitter shame that McIndoe’s first eyelid failure was Edmonds.
(* = the deadly germ which often infected minor wounds.)
QUESTION
How useful is Source B for an historian enquiring into advances in
surgery in wartime?
(6)
HINTS FOR YOUR ANSWER
1) The first thing to ask the source is, is it reliable? The information for
this part of your answer is in the caption that introduces the source.
• Who wrote it? Richard Hilary, a fighter pilot, ordinary man with no
medical training,
• When was it written? 1950, Hilary had been an eye-witness to the
event ten years ago, had some time after the war to research for his
book.
• Why was it written? Book of memoirs, to celebrate his and his fellow
pilots’ achievements - not to give details of medical advances.
Let’s have a look at a real reliability/usefulness/value
question.
Read the source and the question and then work through
the ‘Hints for your answer.’
13
2) This initial search through the source will really help with the rest of
your answer. From this information, you can make a judgement as to
whether the source is reliable.
• Your answer could be that the pilot has no obvious motive to lie
or exaggerate, yet there may be errors as about the medical facts
involved because he is not a trained doctor.
3) Now that you have picked out all of these facts, you need to use them
to answer the specific question. How useful is the source for an
enquiry into the advances in surgery in wartime?
• It is very important that you keep the question in mind. For
example the fact that the source tells us of the bravery of pilots
in the second world war is irrelevant. If we were enquiring into
bravery then it would be useful, but we are not, we are
enquiring into advances in surgery and therefore it that question
against which we should judge the source’s usefulness.
4) At this point it would be useful to draw up a table.
(Never include such a table and include it in your answer - draw it
in rough and then cross it out. Don’t worry about it looking neat
either, you haven’t got time.)
What are the uses of this
source to tell me about
advances in surgery in
wartime?
What are the problems of using
this source to tell me about
advances in surgery in
wartime?
• An eye-witness account
gives detailed description
of plastic surgery.
• Gives the name of a plastic
surgeon able to carry out
such operations. - no
reason to doubt that name.
• Gives details of failure.
• He wrote 10 years after the
event so had time to reflect
and research
• The pilot was not medically
trained and may have made
inaccurate medical
statements, or not recognised
other advances
• It tells us more about the
emotions of surgery rather
than what was physically
done.
• It is only one account, it does
not provide details of any
other medical advances or
cover any other wars.
• It was probably written to
14
glorify the achievements of
fighter pilots not to give detail
of advances in surgery and
therefore lacks the detail
required.
• It was written only 10 years
after the event the extent of
the advances made may not
have been obvious at that
time.
5) You now have the information that you require to write out a
balanced answer as to how useful the source is. It should be quite
obvious that although the source is useful for some things it is not
very useful in this particular enquiry. You would need to write both
sides of the argument but then sum up your judgement as to it’s
usefulness at the end.
• A source is never completely useful or useless.
• Biased, unreliable sources can still be useful.
• Usefulness or value can only be judged when you know the
question you need to answer with it.
• Make sure your answer is relevant. Keep referring back to the
question.
• The planning of your answer (e.g. the table) is very important to
a good answer, nevertheless don’t waste too much time.
• It is very likely that you will be asked to compare the
usefulness(utility) or value of sources, in which case you would
go through this process for each one and state a preference as to
which is more useful.
15
4. Source Comparison
Once you are happy with the skills required to answer the 3 previous
types of questions, comparison questions are a piece of cake.
Comparison questions usually look something like this:
Compare the value of Sources H and K for an historian enquiring into….
Do you think that Source B is more useful than Source C for an enquiry
into……
In what ways do Sources D and E agree about ……….
To what extent to Sources A and B agree about ……….
In many ways there are two types of question in source comparison,
those that wish you to compare their value and those that wish you to
look for differences and similarities. You know how to tackle the former
from the last chapter.
1) The question may well ask you to compare two sources, but more
likely you will be asked, what do these sources agree on, or how do
they differ. Whichever way the question is worded, you MUST
always look for both SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES.
2) As with usefulness/value questions it is often useful to draw up a
table.
Similarities Differences
16
SOURCE G : An account of Florence Nightingale’s work from a school text
book written by John Robottom in 1991.
By 1856 most people knew of Florence Nightingale’s work from the many
pictures of the ‘Lady of the Lamp’.
The pictures of the gentle lady with the lamp were only part of the truth, but
they touched people’s imaginations. They sent the huge sum of £40 000 to the
Nightingale Fund for training nurses.
Back in England, Florence Nightingale spent three years advising the
government on changes in army hospitals. Then in 1860 she chose St Thomas’
Hospital for the first nurse-training school.
SOURCE H : An account of Florence Nightingale’s work in the Crimea, from
the Oxford Children’s Encyclopaedia’, 1991.
Florence Nightingale set sail in 1854 with 38 nurses. Within a month they had
5 000 men to look after. Florence worked 20 hours a day to improve the
nursing of ordinary soldiers. Every night she visited all the wards, and the
soldiers loved her as ‘the lady with the lamp’.
Her story was published in newspapers back home and she became a national
heroine. £45 000 was collected from the public for her to spend as she saw fit.
In 1860 she spent it on the Nightingale training school for nurses at St
Thomas’s hospital , London.
QUESTION
To what extent does Source H agree with Source G about the work of
Florence Nightingale?
(6)
Let’s have a look at a real source comparison question.
Read the source and the question and then work through
the ‘Hints for your answer.’
17
HINTS FOR YOUR ANSWER
1) Although the question asks you to look at how far the sources agree,
to answer the question fully, you must also consider the areas of
disagreement. The best way to plan your answer, would be to draw
up a table.
Agree Disagree
• She was known as the ’Lady
with the Lamp’.
• The public donated money to her
cause.
• Money was used by Nightingale
to found a training centre for
nurses at St Thomas’s hospital.
• She was well known.
• She worked in army hospitals.
• The figure donated by the public.
• Only Source G mentions she had
an advisory role to government.
2) Having completed the table you should be clear on whether the
sources agree on a great deal, on some aspects but not others, or not at
all. You can therefore now write a solid answer.
3) For a well-structured answer, first write about the points on which the
sources agree, then write about the points on which they do not agree.
Finally write a small conclusion commenting on the extent to which
they agree.
• When a question asks you to compare sources, it expects your
answer to include similarities and differences.
• Draw up a quick table to focus your thoughts.
• Even if the details are slightly different, the sources might
agree on a broader issue.
18
5. Interpretation
These questions are usually the last to be asked on Paper 2 and carry the
most marks. You should be prepared to spend more time on these
questions. They will ask you to explain or make a judgement about the
past. You are usually required to use the sources and your own
knowledge.
Interpretation questions usually look something like this:
Do you agree that there were very few advances in surgery prior to
Pasteur’s development of the Germ Theory in 1861? Use all the sources
and your own knowledge to explain your answer.
Source E suggests that Fleming played the greatest role in the
development of Penicillin. How far do you agree with this statement?
Use the sources and your own knowledge to explain your answer.
1) It would not be feasible to go through a sample interpretation
question due to the number of sources and the length of the answer.
Nevertheless the important thing to remember in answering this type
of question is to produce a balanced and well structured response.
You should also plan what you are going to say - again maybe in the
form of a table.
2) You should structure your answer like this:
1. An opening paragraph which refers to the question and suggests
your opinion.
2. Points from the sources and your own knowledge that support
the view in the question.
3. Points from the sources and your own knowledge that oppose
the view in the question
4. A closing paragraph, which again refers to the question and
sums up your opinion.
• Plan your answer and your time carefully.
• Use the sources and your own knowledge.
I am indebted to Miss Evans
www.SchoolHistory.co.uk
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Paper 2
You have been introduced to cartoon analysis last term.
This formed the introduction to the 'Source' based study which is what forms Paper 2.
You will begin to work out entire 'Source' based papers soon.So here come tips which you might find useful in tackling this paper.
Meaning of a 'Source' in History:
Evidence is used by historians to come to a balanced judgment on issues that concern them. The use of evidence forms the bedrock of research.
Many questions at exam level will require candidates to demonstrate their knowledge on how to handle evidence. The evidence - known as sources - presented to a candidate on an exam paper will usually be in the form of a photograph, cartoon etc. An examiner will expect the better answers to contain certain terminology which shows that a candidate does not necessarily take evidence for granted. Such terminology would include primary evidence, secondary evidence, reliable and bias.
All candidates need to know what each of these words mean.
Primary evidence is evidence that actually comes from the time being studied in the question. If you were studying the "Titanic", actual evidence that has been brought to the surface and is on display would be primary evidence. The memories of survivors would be primary evidence.
Secondary evidence is the opposite of primary. This is evidence that does not come from the time being studied. The recent film "Titanic" is secondary evidence. Historians frequently produce secondary evidence. The book "Cromwell" by Antonia Fraser has to be a piece of secondary evidence simply because Fraser was not alive at the time of Cromwell.
Historians will use a vast amount of sources - both primary and secondary - during their work. It is important for them to cross-reference all their used sources to get as balanced view as is possible.
If sources/evidence have been cross-referenced, it is safe to conclude within the realms of probability, that the finished product is reliable. If other evidence supports a specific piece of evidence, then that piece of evidence can be called reliable.
Bias is always a problem with regards to the study of evidence. Some sources are blatantly biased as would be clear in any study of Nazi Germany. Bias can be in favor of someone/something or not in favor. The sources from Nazi Germany which target the Jews were clearly not in favor of them and were biased against this group. Sources relating to Hitler were clearly in his favor and showed him in a good light - a privilege not extended to the Jews. Such evidence has to be treated with care and a knowledge of where it came from, what date it was produced and any reasons for it being produced have to be known before concluding whether the source is biased or not.
Even evidence that is clearly biased is of value to an historian. He/she should ask such questions as why it was produced ? Would there be a motive for the production of clearly biased sources ? If so, what was happening in that society, which tolerated the production of such material ?
HOW TO TACKLE PAPER 2
Source Study Questions:
Remember
The first thing to do when confronted by a Sourcework question is to establish:
1.WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS IT?
Remember
when answering:
= ALWAYS use a quote/ facts from the Sources.
= ALWAYS use your own knowledge/ FACTS - esp. when it says ‘use your own knowledge’
How do I do Sourcework?
This is a question which many students have.
What follows are suggestions only, and by far the best way to learn how to do these will be to write answers to actual questions.
REMEMBER – Do NOT ever use the word 'biased'. 'Biased' is a pejorative word, and it makes it sound as though the source is not reliable or useful - where, of course, 'biased' sources can be both. Use the word 'one-sided' instead. If you MUST use the word 'biased', at least spell it right: 'b-i-a-s-e-d'.
There are basically FIVE types of Sourcework question:
1.Extraction (ie what can we GET OUT of this source?)
eg ‘What can we learn from Source(s) A (B,C etc.)... about ?’
REMEMBER – The examiners will usually ask this about a specific issue addressed by the source, so IGNORE anything in the source which does not deal with what they are asking about.
REMEMBER – This is usually a smaller/easier question, so look at how many marks are up for grabs and don't spend too long on it.
1st Describe what the surface information says - if the question is worth 3 marks, simply list three relevant facts the source tells you.
2nd If the question is worth 5 marks, see what the source infers – is there a message ‘between the lines’/ is it trying to create ‘an impression’/ is there an underlying message/ does it tell you further things about the author/the times/the situation? Include at least two inferences. Can you 'put two things from the source together' to deduce something further?
2.Differences:
eg ‘How/Why is Source A’s interpretation different to Source B’s?’
1st If you have been asked simply HOW the content differs, look first for OBVIOUS surface differences of fact, but then study the words/ details to deduce differences in approach, emphasis or tone.
2nd If you have been asked WHY the sources are different, you will need to compare who wrote them, in what situation, and the motives/ intentions/purpose of the author - depends on the sources and the wording of the question. This is a question when it is usually vital to use your own knowledge
3rd Make sure you come to a CONCLUSION based on facts/inferences/interpretations in the sources.
3.Accuracy/Reliability:
eg ‘How accurate is Source A as a source of information...?’
REMEMBER – primary sources (from the time) are immediate and even eyewitness, but they may lack perspective/ objectivity/ may be one-sided. Secondary sources (written afterwards – eg textbooks) can be dispassionate and use a number of primary sources, but they may be guilty of misinterpreting facts (until the 1960s, history books were often written to carry a message – eg Marxist, Nazi)
REMEMBER – sometimes the question may ask you about the 'validity' of the source = accuracy!
1st Test the information/claims of the source against other sources and your own knowledge. Does it give the true facts and feelings from the time – use your own knowledge.
2nd VITAL:Look at the provenance to establish context, origin and purpose – the situation in which it was written, who wrote it, and whether it is one-sided/propaganda etc. Look at sufficiency – does it give the whole story – what has it missed? Relate what you are saying to the specific context of the source - try to talk not only about generalities such as 'it may be biased', but about the specific situation (e.g. would be biased because...')
3rd Make sure you come to aCONCLUSION based on facts.
4.Utility (utility = 'usefulness' to historians)
eg ‘How useful is Source A to…?’
REMEMBER – nothing is ever useless; even the most one-sided source full of lies reveals what that author thought. Talk most about the ways in which the source is useful.
REMEMBER – this is a question about Quantity and Quality - how much information is it telling you, and how trustworthy is the information it is telling you? A USEFUL source is a source that TELLS YOU A LOT and WHICH YOU CAN TRUST.
REMEMBER – NEVER use the word 'reliable' in a utility question; the examiner will assume you are muddling the concepts up and divide your mark by two. If the accuracy of the source is an issue, use the word 'trustworthy' instead, but make it clear that you are saying this as part of assessing the source's utility.
1st Look at what the source is telling you and compare it to what you need/would like to know – remember both surface and inferred information.
2nd Measure the sufficiency of the source – how much info/ are there gaps?
3rd Useful for what? Can you trust the author's statements? Look at accuracy, context, origin and purpose: a source which is inaccurate may be useful for revealing the author's opinions and prejudices, but it is not useful for telling us the facts. Is the author’s view objective/typical?
4 th Compare the source'sSTRENGTHS against its LIMITATIONS and come to a
5. REACHING CONCLUSIONS.
eg ‘Use all the Sources to debate . . . .’
1st Recount relevant surface/inferred information from the Sources.
2nd Realise that the sources support both sides of the argument., and that you can use the sources and your own knowledge to argue both for and against the proposition.
3rd Weigh the evidence to come down one way or the other, OR state case and prove it, discounting contrary evidence
4th VITAL:Refer to the content and utility (sufficiency/ accuracy and reliability) of the sources in debate.
This formed the introduction to the 'Source' based study which is what forms Paper 2.
You will begin to work out entire 'Source' based papers soon.So here come tips which you might find useful in tackling this paper.
Meaning of a 'Source' in History:
Evidence is used by historians to come to a balanced judgment on issues that concern them. The use of evidence forms the bedrock of research.
Many questions at exam level will require candidates to demonstrate their knowledge on how to handle evidence. The evidence - known as sources - presented to a candidate on an exam paper will usually be in the form of a photograph, cartoon etc. An examiner will expect the better answers to contain certain terminology which shows that a candidate does not necessarily take evidence for granted. Such terminology would include primary evidence, secondary evidence, reliable and bias.
All candidates need to know what each of these words mean.
Primary evidence is evidence that actually comes from the time being studied in the question. If you were studying the "Titanic", actual evidence that has been brought to the surface and is on display would be primary evidence. The memories of survivors would be primary evidence.
Secondary evidence is the opposite of primary. This is evidence that does not come from the time being studied. The recent film "Titanic" is secondary evidence. Historians frequently produce secondary evidence. The book "Cromwell" by Antonia Fraser has to be a piece of secondary evidence simply because Fraser was not alive at the time of Cromwell.
Historians will use a vast amount of sources - both primary and secondary - during their work. It is important for them to cross-reference all their used sources to get as balanced view as is possible.
If sources/evidence have been cross-referenced, it is safe to conclude within the realms of probability, that the finished product is reliable. If other evidence supports a specific piece of evidence, then that piece of evidence can be called reliable.
Bias is always a problem with regards to the study of evidence. Some sources are blatantly biased as would be clear in any study of Nazi Germany. Bias can be in favor of someone/something or not in favor. The sources from Nazi Germany which target the Jews were clearly not in favor of them and were biased against this group. Sources relating to Hitler were clearly in his favor and showed him in a good light - a privilege not extended to the Jews. Such evidence has to be treated with care and a knowledge of where it came from, what date it was produced and any reasons for it being produced have to be known before concluding whether the source is biased or not.
Even evidence that is clearly biased is of value to an historian. He/she should ask such questions as why it was produced ? Would there be a motive for the production of clearly biased sources ? If so, what was happening in that society, which tolerated the production of such material ?
HOW TO TACKLE PAPER 2
Source Study Questions:
Remember
The first thing to do when confronted by a Sourcework question is to establish:
1.WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS IT?
Remember
when answering:
= ALWAYS use a quote/ facts from the Sources.
= ALWAYS use your own knowledge/ FACTS - esp. when it says ‘use your own knowledge’
How do I do Sourcework?
This is a question which many students have.
What follows are suggestions only, and by far the best way to learn how to do these will be to write answers to actual questions.
REMEMBER – Do NOT ever use the word 'biased'. 'Biased' is a pejorative word, and it makes it sound as though the source is not reliable or useful - where, of course, 'biased' sources can be both. Use the word 'one-sided' instead. If you MUST use the word 'biased', at least spell it right: 'b-i-a-s-e-d'.
There are basically FIVE types of Sourcework question:
1.Extraction (ie what can we GET OUT of this source?)
eg ‘What can we learn from Source(s) A (B,C etc.)... about ?’
REMEMBER – The examiners will usually ask this about a specific issue addressed by the source, so IGNORE anything in the source which does not deal with what they are asking about.
REMEMBER – This is usually a smaller/easier question, so look at how many marks are up for grabs and don't spend too long on it.
1st Describe what the surface information says - if the question is worth 3 marks, simply list three relevant facts the source tells you.
2nd If the question is worth 5 marks, see what the source infers – is there a message ‘between the lines’/ is it trying to create ‘an impression’/ is there an underlying message/ does it tell you further things about the author/the times/the situation? Include at least two inferences. Can you 'put two things from the source together' to deduce something further?
2.Differences:
eg ‘How/Why is Source A’s interpretation different to Source B’s?’
1st If you have been asked simply HOW the content differs, look first for OBVIOUS surface differences of fact, but then study the words/ details to deduce differences in approach, emphasis or tone.
2nd If you have been asked WHY the sources are different, you will need to compare who wrote them, in what situation, and the motives/ intentions/purpose of the author - depends on the sources and the wording of the question. This is a question when it is usually vital to use your own knowledge
3rd Make sure you come to a CONCLUSION based on facts/inferences/interpretations in the sources.
3.Accuracy/Reliability:
eg ‘How accurate is Source A as a source of information...?’
REMEMBER – primary sources (from the time) are immediate and even eyewitness, but they may lack perspective/ objectivity/ may be one-sided. Secondary sources (written afterwards – eg textbooks) can be dispassionate and use a number of primary sources, but they may be guilty of misinterpreting facts (until the 1960s, history books were often written to carry a message – eg Marxist, Nazi)
REMEMBER – sometimes the question may ask you about the 'validity' of the source = accuracy!
1st Test the information/claims of the source against other sources and your own knowledge. Does it give the true facts and feelings from the time – use your own knowledge.
2nd VITAL:Look at the provenance to establish context, origin and purpose – the situation in which it was written, who wrote it, and whether it is one-sided/propaganda etc. Look at sufficiency – does it give the whole story – what has it missed? Relate what you are saying to the specific context of the source - try to talk not only about generalities such as 'it may be biased', but about the specific situation (e.g. would be biased because...')
3rd Make sure you come to aCONCLUSION based on facts.
4.Utility (utility = 'usefulness' to historians)
eg ‘How useful is Source A to…?’
REMEMBER – nothing is ever useless; even the most one-sided source full of lies reveals what that author thought. Talk most about the ways in which the source is useful.
REMEMBER – this is a question about Quantity and Quality - how much information is it telling you, and how trustworthy is the information it is telling you? A USEFUL source is a source that TELLS YOU A LOT and WHICH YOU CAN TRUST.
REMEMBER – NEVER use the word 'reliable' in a utility question; the examiner will assume you are muddling the concepts up and divide your mark by two. If the accuracy of the source is an issue, use the word 'trustworthy' instead, but make it clear that you are saying this as part of assessing the source's utility.
1st Look at what the source is telling you and compare it to what you need/would like to know – remember both surface and inferred information.
2nd Measure the sufficiency of the source – how much info/ are there gaps?
3rd Useful for what? Can you trust the author's statements? Look at accuracy, context, origin and purpose: a source which is inaccurate may be useful for revealing the author's opinions and prejudices, but it is not useful for telling us the facts. Is the author’s view objective/typical?
4 th Compare the source'sSTRENGTHS against its LIMITATIONS and come to a
5. REACHING CONCLUSIONS.
eg ‘Use all the Sources to debate . . . .’
1st Recount relevant surface/inferred information from the Sources.
2nd Realise that the sources support both sides of the argument., and that you can use the sources and your own knowledge to argue both for and against the proposition.
3rd Weigh the evidence to come down one way or the other, OR state case and prove it, discounting contrary evidence
4th VITAL:Refer to the content and utility (sufficiency/ accuracy and reliability) of the sources in debate.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Collapse of International Peace
Q1.Study the source and then answer the questions which follow.
Headline from an English newspaper of 7 March 1936.
GERMAN TROOPS
ENTER RHINELAND
Hitler Denounces Locarno
OFFERS AN ALL-ROUND
PEACE PACT
And Proposes to Re-enter
the League of Nations
– on Conditions
(a) In what ways did Hitler break the Treaty of Versailles between 1933 and the end of 1938? [5]
(b) Why did Britain and France follow a policy of appeasement with Germany in the 1930s? [7]
(c) ‘Hitler was a gambler rather than a planner in foreign affairs.’ Do you agree? Explain your
answer. [8] (June 2002)
Q2. Study the extract and then answer the questions which follow.
If one dictator cannot be stopped from attacking Abyssinia, nothing can stop another dictator from attacking Lithuania, Memel and Austria. If the League of Nations fails to prevent war, security will end, not only for the small nations, but for France and Czechoslovakia as well.
A British MP speaking in Parliament, 1 August 1935.
(a) What was the Hoare-Laval Pact? [5]
(b) Why was the conquest of Abyssinia by Italy not prevented by the League of Nations? [7]
(c) To what extent can the outbreak of war in 1939 be blamed upon the failure of the League of
Nations? Explain your answer. (June 2003)
Q3. Study the extract, and then answer the questions which follow.
If one dictator cannot be stopped from attacking Abyssinia, nothing can stop another dictator from attacking Lithuania, Memel and Austria. If the League of Nations fails to prevent war, security will end, not only for the small nations, but for France and Czechoslovakia as well.
A British MP speaking in Parliament, 1 August 1935.
(a) What was the Hoare-Laval Pact? [5]
(b) Why was the conquest of Abyssinia by Italy not prevented by the League of Nations? [7]
(c) To what extent can the outbreak of war in 1939 be blamed upon the failure of the League of
Nations? Explain your answer. (June 2003)
Q4.I now have to inform the House that in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their armed forces, His Majesty’s Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect.
British Prime Minister Chamberlain speaking in the House of Commons, 31 March 1939.
(a) When Hitler came to power, what did he hope to achieve in foreign policy? [5]
(b) Why did Britain go to war over Poland in 1939? [7]
(c) How far was the Treaty of Versailles to blame for the outbreak of war in 1939? Explain your
answer. [8] (Nov 2003)
Q5.Study the extract, and then answer the questions which follow.
We secured peace for our country for one and a half years, as well as an opportunity of preparing our forces for defense if Nazi Germany risked attacking our country. This was a definite gain for Russia and a loss for Germany.
Stalin speaking on the radio in 1941.
(a) What was agreed at the Munich Conference of September 1938? [5]
(b) Why was the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939 important? [7]
(c) How far was the Treaty of Versailles to blame for the outbreak of war in 1939? Explain your
answer. [8] (Nov ’06)
Q6.Study the extract, and then answer the questions which follow.
At the time we had no army worth mentioning. If the French had taken any action we
could have been easily defeated; our resistance would have been over in a few days.
And the Air Force we had then was ridiculous and we did not even have enough
bombs for them.
Hitler looking back on his gamble over the remilitarization of the Rhineland, some years after the event.
(a) Describe the remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936. [5]
(b) Why did Hitler want to unite Germany and Austria? [7]
(c) How far was the policy of appeasement followed by Britain and France responsible for the
outbreak of war in 1939? Explain your answer. [8] (Nov ’08)
Headline from an English newspaper of 7 March 1936.
GERMAN TROOPS
ENTER RHINELAND
Hitler Denounces Locarno
OFFERS AN ALL-ROUND
PEACE PACT
And Proposes to Re-enter
the League of Nations
– on Conditions
(a) In what ways did Hitler break the Treaty of Versailles between 1933 and the end of 1938? [5]
(b) Why did Britain and France follow a policy of appeasement with Germany in the 1930s? [7]
(c) ‘Hitler was a gambler rather than a planner in foreign affairs.’ Do you agree? Explain your
answer. [8] (June 2002)
Q2. Study the extract and then answer the questions which follow.
If one dictator cannot be stopped from attacking Abyssinia, nothing can stop another dictator from attacking Lithuania, Memel and Austria. If the League of Nations fails to prevent war, security will end, not only for the small nations, but for France and Czechoslovakia as well.
A British MP speaking in Parliament, 1 August 1935.
(a) What was the Hoare-Laval Pact? [5]
(b) Why was the conquest of Abyssinia by Italy not prevented by the League of Nations? [7]
(c) To what extent can the outbreak of war in 1939 be blamed upon the failure of the League of
Nations? Explain your answer. (June 2003)
Q3. Study the extract, and then answer the questions which follow.
If one dictator cannot be stopped from attacking Abyssinia, nothing can stop another dictator from attacking Lithuania, Memel and Austria. If the League of Nations fails to prevent war, security will end, not only for the small nations, but for France and Czechoslovakia as well.
A British MP speaking in Parliament, 1 August 1935.
(a) What was the Hoare-Laval Pact? [5]
(b) Why was the conquest of Abyssinia by Italy not prevented by the League of Nations? [7]
(c) To what extent can the outbreak of war in 1939 be blamed upon the failure of the League of
Nations? Explain your answer. (June 2003)
Q4.I now have to inform the House that in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their armed forces, His Majesty’s Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect.
British Prime Minister Chamberlain speaking in the House of Commons, 31 March 1939.
(a) When Hitler came to power, what did he hope to achieve in foreign policy? [5]
(b) Why did Britain go to war over Poland in 1939? [7]
(c) How far was the Treaty of Versailles to blame for the outbreak of war in 1939? Explain your
answer. [8] (Nov 2003)
Q5.Study the extract, and then answer the questions which follow.
We secured peace for our country for one and a half years, as well as an opportunity of preparing our forces for defense if Nazi Germany risked attacking our country. This was a definite gain for Russia and a loss for Germany.
Stalin speaking on the radio in 1941.
(a) What was agreed at the Munich Conference of September 1938? [5]
(b) Why was the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939 important? [7]
(c) How far was the Treaty of Versailles to blame for the outbreak of war in 1939? Explain your
answer. [8] (Nov ’06)
Q6.Study the extract, and then answer the questions which follow.
At the time we had no army worth mentioning. If the French had taken any action we
could have been easily defeated; our resistance would have been over in a few days.
And the Air Force we had then was ridiculous and we did not even have enough
bombs for them.
Hitler looking back on his gamble over the remilitarization of the Rhineland, some years after the event.
(a) Describe the remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936. [5]
(b) Why did Hitler want to unite Germany and Austria? [7]
(c) How far was the policy of appeasement followed by Britain and France responsible for the
outbreak of war in 1939? Explain your answer. [8] (Nov ’08)
Sample answers from the Half Yearly Q-Paper
Q1.(c) To what extent was the Treaty of Versailles a sensible treaty in the circumstances of the time? [8] Explain your answer. (June 2003)
Or, (c) How far could the Treaty be justified at the time? Explain your answer.
Level 1 Unsupported assertions [1]
e.g. ‘At the time it was the best that could be achieved.’
Level 2 Identifies justification [2–3]
e.g. ‘The Treaty of Versailles could have been harsher.’
‘The T of V failed to encompass the Fourteen Points.’
‘The T of V was acceptable to people in Britain and France.’
‘They blamed the wrong people.’
‘Germany had to be punished.’
Level 3 Explains agreement OR disagreement [3–5]
Level 4 Explains agreement AND disagreement [5–7]
e.g. ‘Many think a reasonable job was done as the problems faced were very complex with
strong demands for the Treaty to be even harsher against Germany as Germany had forced
a much harder peace on Russia under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.’
‘In the Armistice, the Germans agreed to reductions in their armed forces, losses of territory
and the principal of reparations. They should not have been surprised when these were
included in the peace treaty.’
‘Many at the time though it was about right. A more generous treaty would not have been
acceptable to the people of Britain and France who wanted compensation for loss of lives
and damage.’
‘The treaties left Germany very bitter and determined to get revenge. Germany could not
defend themselves and were open to political unrest.’
‘The Treaty punished the ordinary German people rather than those responsible. Would it
have been better to keep Germany relatively happy with the rise of Communism in Russia?’
‘It was wrong to put the sole blame on Germany as other countries had followed aggressive
imperialism including Britain and France.’
Level 5 Explains with evaluation of ‘how far’ [7–8]
Q2. (a) Describe the work of the Agencies of the League of Nations. [5]
Level 1 General answer [1–2]
e.g. ‘Identifies Agencies, e.g. the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the Mandates
Commission, the Minorities Commission, the Refugees Committee, the Slavery Commission,
the Health Committee.’
Level 2 Describes the work [2–5]
e.g. ‘The Mandates Commission made sure that Britain and France acted in the interests of
the people of that territory, not their own interests.’
‘The Refugees Committee helped to return refugees to their original homes after the end of
the war.’
‘The Slavery Commission worked to abolish slavery around the world.’
‘The Health Committee attempted to deal with the problem of dangerous diseases and to
educate people about health and sanitation.’
‘The ILO met once a year. Its aim was to improve working conditions throughout the world
trying to get member countries to adopt its suggestions.’
Q3.(c) How far did the structural weaknesses of the League of Nations prevent it from being
successful in the 1920s? Explain your answer. [8]
(Or, why was the structure of the League a weakness?)
Level 1 General Answer [1]
e.g. ‘It was too idealistic.’
Level 2 Identifies why [2–4]
e.g. ‘Not all nations were members.’
‘It had to rely on collective security.’
‘It was dominated by Britain and France.’
‘It was too slow to take action.’
‘Decisions had to be unanimous.’
Level 3 Explains why [4–7]
e.g. ‘Not all nations were members of the League. The USA never joined and this deprived
the League of the support of the most powerful nation in the world.’
‘The defeated nations, like Germany, were not members at first. Other nations, such as
Japan, left when they got into disputes with the League.’
‘The League had no armed forces of its own. It relied on collective security. Too often this
meant nations looking to the League to take action when they weren’t willing to act
themselves.’
‘The League was dominated by Britain and France but they never agreed on how powerful it
should be or how it should operate.’
‘The League was too slow to take action. All decisions, in the Assembly and Council, had to
be taken unanimously.’
‘The League was too idealistic. It was unrealistic to expect nations to obey the League
without giving it the power to enforce its will.’
‘All member states had equal voting rights. All decisions in Assembly and Council had to be
unanimous. This was fine when members agreed with each other, but not when they
disagreed.’
Q4.a) In what ways did the Treaty of Versailles weaken Germany’s armed forces? [5]
Level 1 General answer 1–2
e.g. ‘Germany’s armed forces were greatly reduced.’
‘It reduced the army/navy.’
Level 2 Describes terms 2–5
e.g. ‘The army was limited to 100,000 men. (1) There was to be no conscription. (1)
‘Germany was not allowed tanks, submarines or military aircraft.’ (One mark for 1; two
marks for all three)
‘The navy could only have six battleships (1) and was limited to 15,000 men.’ (1)
(No credit for Rhineland.)
Q5. Why did Clemenceau demand that a harsh peace be imposed on Germany? [7]
Level 1 General answer 1
e.g. ‘To weaken Germany.’
Level 2 Identifies why 2–4
e.g. ‘To pay for all the damage Germany had caused.’
‘To prevent future German attacks on France.’
‘To gain revenge (for all the French suffering).’
‘France lost many soldiers.’
Level 3 Explains why 4–7
e.g. ‘France had suffered enormous damage to its land, industry and people. Clemenceau
was under intense pressure from his people to make Germany pay for the suffering they had
endured both in 1870 and the Great War.’
‘Ever since 1870 France had felt threatened by its increasingly powerful neighbour,
Germany. Clemenceau saw the treaty as an opportunity to cripple Germany by breaking it
up into small, weak states so it could not attack France again.’
‘France had borrowed huge sums of money to fight the war and was faced with enormous
debt. Clemenceau wanted Germany to pay this debt.’
Or, (c) How far could the Treaty be justified at the time? Explain your answer.
Level 1 Unsupported assertions [1]
e.g. ‘At the time it was the best that could be achieved.’
Level 2 Identifies justification [2–3]
e.g. ‘The Treaty of Versailles could have been harsher.’
‘The T of V failed to encompass the Fourteen Points.’
‘The T of V was acceptable to people in Britain and France.’
‘They blamed the wrong people.’
‘Germany had to be punished.’
Level 3 Explains agreement OR disagreement [3–5]
Level 4 Explains agreement AND disagreement [5–7]
e.g. ‘Many think a reasonable job was done as the problems faced were very complex with
strong demands for the Treaty to be even harsher against Germany as Germany had forced
a much harder peace on Russia under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.’
‘In the Armistice, the Germans agreed to reductions in their armed forces, losses of territory
and the principal of reparations. They should not have been surprised when these were
included in the peace treaty.’
‘Many at the time though it was about right. A more generous treaty would not have been
acceptable to the people of Britain and France who wanted compensation for loss of lives
and damage.’
‘The treaties left Germany very bitter and determined to get revenge. Germany could not
defend themselves and were open to political unrest.’
‘The Treaty punished the ordinary German people rather than those responsible. Would it
have been better to keep Germany relatively happy with the rise of Communism in Russia?’
‘It was wrong to put the sole blame on Germany as other countries had followed aggressive
imperialism including Britain and France.’
Level 5 Explains with evaluation of ‘how far’ [7–8]
Q2. (a) Describe the work of the Agencies of the League of Nations. [5]
Level 1 General answer [1–2]
e.g. ‘Identifies Agencies, e.g. the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the Mandates
Commission, the Minorities Commission, the Refugees Committee, the Slavery Commission,
the Health Committee.’
Level 2 Describes the work [2–5]
e.g. ‘The Mandates Commission made sure that Britain and France acted in the interests of
the people of that territory, not their own interests.’
‘The Refugees Committee helped to return refugees to their original homes after the end of
the war.’
‘The Slavery Commission worked to abolish slavery around the world.’
‘The Health Committee attempted to deal with the problem of dangerous diseases and to
educate people about health and sanitation.’
‘The ILO met once a year. Its aim was to improve working conditions throughout the world
trying to get member countries to adopt its suggestions.’
Q3.(c) How far did the structural weaknesses of the League of Nations prevent it from being
successful in the 1920s? Explain your answer. [8]
(Or, why was the structure of the League a weakness?)
Level 1 General Answer [1]
e.g. ‘It was too idealistic.’
Level 2 Identifies why [2–4]
e.g. ‘Not all nations were members.’
‘It had to rely on collective security.’
‘It was dominated by Britain and France.’
‘It was too slow to take action.’
‘Decisions had to be unanimous.’
Level 3 Explains why [4–7]
e.g. ‘Not all nations were members of the League. The USA never joined and this deprived
the League of the support of the most powerful nation in the world.’
‘The defeated nations, like Germany, were not members at first. Other nations, such as
Japan, left when they got into disputes with the League.’
‘The League had no armed forces of its own. It relied on collective security. Too often this
meant nations looking to the League to take action when they weren’t willing to act
themselves.’
‘The League was dominated by Britain and France but they never agreed on how powerful it
should be or how it should operate.’
‘The League was too slow to take action. All decisions, in the Assembly and Council, had to
be taken unanimously.’
‘The League was too idealistic. It was unrealistic to expect nations to obey the League
without giving it the power to enforce its will.’
‘All member states had equal voting rights. All decisions in Assembly and Council had to be
unanimous. This was fine when members agreed with each other, but not when they
disagreed.’
Q4.a) In what ways did the Treaty of Versailles weaken Germany’s armed forces? [5]
Level 1 General answer 1–2
e.g. ‘Germany’s armed forces were greatly reduced.’
‘It reduced the army/navy.’
Level 2 Describes terms 2–5
e.g. ‘The army was limited to 100,000 men. (1) There was to be no conscription. (1)
‘Germany was not allowed tanks, submarines or military aircraft.’ (One mark for 1; two
marks for all three)
‘The navy could only have six battleships (1) and was limited to 15,000 men.’ (1)
(No credit for Rhineland.)
Q5. Why did Clemenceau demand that a harsh peace be imposed on Germany? [7]
Level 1 General answer 1
e.g. ‘To weaken Germany.’
Level 2 Identifies why 2–4
e.g. ‘To pay for all the damage Germany had caused.’
‘To prevent future German attacks on France.’
‘To gain revenge (for all the French suffering).’
‘France lost many soldiers.’
Level 3 Explains why 4–7
e.g. ‘France had suffered enormous damage to its land, industry and people. Clemenceau
was under intense pressure from his people to make Germany pay for the suffering they had
endured both in 1870 and the Great War.’
‘Ever since 1870 France had felt threatened by its increasingly powerful neighbour,
Germany. Clemenceau saw the treaty as an opportunity to cripple Germany by breaking it
up into small, weak states so it could not attack France again.’
‘France had borrowed huge sums of money to fight the war and was faced with enormous
debt. Clemenceau wanted Germany to pay this debt.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)