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.

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)

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.’