The following were equally important reasons why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941:

Worsening US-Japan relations
Desire to control Southeast Asia
Destruction of the US Pacific fleet

Do you agree with this statement? [13]


Worsening relations between Japan and the US was certainly one reason for Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Ever since Japan started to expand into China, the US habecome more wary of Japan's ambitions. As Japan imported most of its raw materials from the US, the US began to place embargoes on Japan to check its aggression. This did not affect Japan's war efforts greatly as critical resources such as oil continued to be sold to Japan. It was only when Japan took over French Indo-China in 1940 that the US placed an embargo on the sale of oil to Japan. This brought US-Japan relations to a new low. Negotiations were conducted to resolve the situation but they were unsuccessful. As a result, Japan was prepared for war against the US.

The desire to control Southeast Asia was linked to the need to acquire oil. With the supply from the US cut off, Japan needed to take over Indonesia, which was rich in oil, in order to continue the war efforts. To do so would require Japan to take over the whole of Southeast Asia, including the Philippines, which the Americans had colonised. An attack on the Philippines would lead to the Americans seeking reinforcements from their base at Pearl Harbor. The arrival of these reinforcements would effectively prevent Japan from controlling Southeast Asia quickly. Therefore, it was necessary for the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor at the same time as they were attacking Southeast Asia.

The destruction of the US Pacific Fleet was seen as a critical step to ensure Japan's dominance of the Pacific region. If the Pacific Fleet was destroyed, the Japanese believed that US confidence would be severely affected. At the same time, the US would need a long time to rebuild their strength before they would confront the Japanese. By then, Japan would have secured the areas it needed. The successful destruction of the US Pacific Fleet would also demonstrate Japan's rise as a world power and not to be underestimated by the West.

Was the desire to abolish the Treaty of Versailles the main reason for Hitler to pursue an aggressive foreign policy? Explain your answer. [12]

The abolition of the Treaty of Versailles was certainly one of the reasons for Hitler to adopt an aggressive foreign policy. Firstly, the military restrictions were unacceptable to Hitler. With no offensive weapons, Germany was militarily weak. Without military might, Hitler realised that the other aims of the his foreign policy could not be achieved. Secondly, the treaty caused Germany to lose a lot of territories in Europe, especially to Poland and Czechoslovakia. Thus, Hitler wanted to regain these territories. Finally, Hitler wanted to restore German pride, which had been destroyed with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. All these made Hitler determined to free Germany from the terms of the treaty through an aggressive foreign policy, such as the remilitarisation of Rhineland and the takeover of Austria, both of which were forbidden under the Treaty of Versailles.

Another reason had to do with Hitler's desire to achieve a Greater Germany. Hitler hoped to unite all German-speaking people under the rule of Germany and maintained the purity of the Aryan race. As such, he needed to take over those lands with substantial German-speaking populations, especially those areas given to Poland and Czechoslovakia by the Treaty of Versailles. This explained his takeover of Austria and his willingness to fight over Czechoslovakia and Poland.

The third reason was the desire for living space. This had to do with Hitler's theory on races. Believing that the Aryans belonged to a superior race, he reasoned that they deserved more land than other races, such as the Slavs in Eastern Europe and Russia. Therefore, he wanted Germany to take over the lands in Eastern Europe and Russia. In addition, attacking Russia would also serve to wipe out communism, which Hitler strongly detested. All these naturally would lead Germany to become more aggressive in its foreign policy, especially towards countries in the east.

The following were three reasons why the British practised the appeasement policy in the 1930s:

Horrors of the First World War
Communism as a greater threat
British domestic problems
Which was the most dominant reason? Explain your answer. [13]


One of the reasons for the British to adopt the appeasement policy was due to the fear of war. The First World War had a major impact on the British, who had suffered a great loss of lives and resources as a result of the war. Many British would not want another war to break out that would lead to more losses. Therefore, they were willing to give in to Hitler in order to avert another war. Furthermore, the areas that Hitler was claiming had no British stake in them and thus, fighting with the Germans over these territories would not make sense to them.

Another reason for adopting the appeasement policy was due to the threat posed by Communism. In the 1930s, Nazism and Fascism were not the greatest threat to peace. The Communists, with their declared intention of world revolution, appeared to be disrupting peace in many parts of Europe. Therefore, Communist Russia was seen as a bigger threat than Nazi Germany. In fact, Nazi Germany was staunchly anti-communist and was seen by the British as a reliable ally in stopping the spread of Communism. If the appeasement policy could strengthen Germany to resist the spread of Communism, many British felt that it was alright to appease Germany.

Finally, the British were experiencing a number of domestic problems. Economically, the British was still recovering from the effects of the Great Depression and thus, could not afford to be involved in any costly wars. Militarily, the British were hardly ready, since the weak economy had resulted in his defence expenditure being cut. The British also experienced problems in maintaining their empire, as they needed to utilise resources to deal with the independence movements in colonies like India and the Middle East. With all these problems, the British saw appeasement as the best solution, since it would not require Britain to lose anything and yet, war could be avoided.

How successful was Stalin's economic reforms? Explain your answer. [12]

Introduction:
When Stalin assumed power in the USSR by the second half of 1920s, he began to introduce economic reforms with the main intention of transforming the USSR from a backward country to a modern one.

Main Body:
Stalin's economic reforms were successful in industrialising the Soviet Union. With his Five-Year Plans, there was rapid expansion of the Soviet Union's heavy industries. For example, steel production increased from 4 million tonnes in 1928 to 17.7 million tonnes in 1937. The coal production also jumped from 35.4 million tonnes to 128 million tonnes during the same period. The Soviet Union also improved on its transport and communication networks. In addition, industries were no longer concentrated in the Western part of the country, as more factories were built on the Eastern part. All these were important for a huge country like the Soviet Union. On the whole, the Soviet Union became the second most industrialised country in the world by 1940. There was an increase in the production of consumer goods as well, especially after 1935. In agriculture, farming became modernised as the introduction of collective farms allowed the government to introduce modern farming tools to all peasants, such as tractors.

Stalin's economic reforms had less success in the area of agricultural production. As collectivisation involved a great degree of force, there were resistance from the peasants. In retaliation, uncooperative peasants were sent to labour camps or killed. In addition, the forced collectivisation also led to the large destruction of crops and livestock. These eventually led to an outbreak of famine that cost the lives of about 10 million peasants. Agricultural output also did not increase with the introduction of collectivisation. For example, grain harvest only increased slightly from 73.3 million tonnes in 1928 to 75 million tonnes in 1935. The number of cattle dropped from 70.5 million heads to 49.3 million heads during the same period. All these demonstrated the limitations brought about by collectivisation. For industrialisation, the focus on meeting the quantitative targets meant that, very often, the quality of the industrial products were not up to mark.

To what extent was Stalin's position as the Secretary-General the main reason in winning the leadership contest in the 1920s? Explain your answer.

When Lenin died in 1924, a power struggle broke out. Eventually, it was Stalin who emerged victorious, due to certain factors that were in his favour.

One of his advantages was his position as Secretary-General. As Secretary-General of the Communist Party, Stalin had the power to give out many jobs in the Communist Party. This gave the opportunity to Stalin to distribute the important posts to those whom he trusted and those who supported him. As the Secretary-General, he was even able to suppress unfavouable information, such as Lenin's notes to recommend Stalin's removal as Secret-General. As Secretary-General, he also managed to build up his power base within the Communist Party, as he was situated in Moscow most of the time.

Another reason that explained Stalin's victory in the leadership contest was his political manoeuvers. Firstly, he created the image that he was close to Lenin so that he could be perceived as his successor, especially during Lenin's funeral, when he was the chief mourner. Secondly, he collaborated with his lesser rivals, Zinoviev and Kaminev, to deal with his biggest rival, Trotsky. His idea of “Socialism in one country” won the support of more party members than Trotsky's idea of “Permanent Revolution”. Eventually, Trotsky's image was so badly damaged that he was forced out of the Communist Party. Once Trotsky was no longer the threat to his position, Stalin turned his attention to his collaborators, Zinoviev and Kaminev, and got rid of them as well.

The weaknesses of Stalin's rivals also contributed to Stalin's victory. Trotsky's background was a burden to him, as he was not a Bolshevik originally, a fact that was fully exploited by Stalin. Trotsky's absence from Lenin's funeral created a negative image of him, who was perceived as arrogant and disrespectful. His main power base was the Red Army, which did not allow him to build up his support in the Communist Party, which made all the key decisions in the USSR. As such, it was not difficult for Stalin to oust him from the leadership contest. As for Zinoviev and Kaminev, they failed to see how ruthless Stalin could be and could never really challenge Stalin in the leadership contest. By the 1930s, both of them were purged.

The Nazis used the following methods to control Germany in the 1930s:

Economic control
Use of propaganda
Use of violence

Which was most effective? Explain your answer. [13]

Introduction:
The Nazis' control of Germany in the 1930s had been very effective. This was largely due to their pervasive control over all aspects of German society.

Main Body:
The use of economic control was useful in helping the Nazis retain the support of the Germans. Bearing in mind that the Nazis were voted into power because many had believed in their ability in restoring the economy, it was critical for the Nazis to fulfill their promises in resolving the problems of unemployment and poor businesses. These were achieved when the Nazi government began a programme of rearmament and public projects. These provided jobs for the people as well as business contracts for companies. To the people, these were important to them, after years of poverty during the Great Depression. In addition, all workers were influenced by the Nazi-controlled German Labour Front, since all trade unions were banned. This further ensured that workers would be brainwashed with pro-Nazi ideas.

The second method was the use of propaganda. In schools, children were brainwashed with Nazi ideas at a very young age. Subjects were adjusted to support Nazi ideas regarding history, geography and biology. Students were expected to join youth organisations set up by the Nazis, who would instill Nazi values in them. All these resulted in future generations of Germans who would remain loyal to the Nazis. For the general public, Nazi messages were constantly sent to the people through posters and radios. Censorship was very thorough in order to ensure the people would only be influenced by pro-Nazi messages.

Violence was also used as a method of control, especially in dealing with any opposition. The secret police, known as Gestapo, was created to arrest people who were expressing any sort of dissent. Informers were planted in all aspects of society to monitor the people's loyalty. These created an environment where nobody would dare to express dissent openly. Even dissent within the Nazi Party was forbidden, as the Night of the Long Knives had proven, as the more independent-minded SA was destroyed by the SS. For those Germans who were arrested, they would be sent to concentrated camps, where living conditions were purposely kept poor so that nobody was likely to survive. All these made Germans fearful of going against the Nazis in any way.

How far do you agree that the rise of the Nazi was due to their own credit? Explain your answer. [12]

Introduction:
The Nazi came into power after becoming the most popular party in the early 1930s. This was a result of a number of factors.

Main Body:
The Nazi Party played a major part in their own rise. Its propaganda tactics were quite effective, as it captured the support of many Germans. Through posters and rallies, the Nazis came across as a group of people who knew how to restore Germany to greatness. In addition, they propagated much fear about the rise of communism, which prompted the wealthy industrialists and landowners to support the Nazis. They were also led by a very charismatic leader, Adolf Hitler, who was regarded as a saviour by many Germans. With excellent public-speaking skills, he was able to convince many Germans with promises to bring prosperity and greatness to Germany once again.

Another cause for the rise of Nazism was the weaknesses of the Weimar Republic. The Republic never had much support from the beginning in 1919. By signing the humiliating Treaty of Versailles, the Republic was always regarded as the cause for Germany's surrender. Its unpopularity was already evident from the number of putsches that broke out in the early 1920s. In addition, the Republic did not perform well. In the space of 12 years, it had experienced a number of economic crises, such as the 1923-24 hyper-inflation and the Great Depression from 1929 onwards. All these caused sufferings to the Germans, who would naturally associate democracy with economic hardships. Therefore, when the Nazis began to promise the restoration of German pride and the alleviation from economic hardships, the Germans would naturally prefer the Nazis to be in power rather than maintaining the democratic system of the Weimar Republic.

Another cause for the rise of the Nazism was the Great Depression. The Great Depression brought suffering to the German people. Many of them became unemployed and thus, resulted in poverty. In addition, it exposed the weaknesses of the Weimar Republic once again. This time, it was helpless in dealing with the economic crisis. The Germans lost all confidence in the Weimar Republic and started to search for anyone or any group who could help them. This became an opportunity for the Nazis to win more influence and gain their support, especially during elections.

The following were 3 main terms of the Treaty of Versailles:

(i)Military terms
(ii)Territorial terms
(iii)War Guilt Clause

Which was more intolerable to the Germans? Explain your answer. [13]

Introduction:
The Treaty of Versailles was signed at the end of the First World War to restore peace in Europe. However, in doing so, it angered the Germans who not only disliked the terms but were forced to accept them.

Main Body:
The military terms of the Treaty of Versailles humiliated the Germans. Once a European military power, as testified by their ability to fight against the British, the French, the Russians and the USA in the First World War, they were now reduced to a very weak power. They could no longer attack any country, as they were not allowed to have offensive weapons like submarines, tanks and air-force. In fact, with only 100,000 soldiers and Rhineland demilitarised, they probably could not even defend themselves. In other words, the country would experience a sense of insecurity.

The territorial terms angered the Germans in many ways. Firstly, the loss of colonies meant that Germany would no longer be regarded as a Great Power. This was a humiliation. Secondly, the loss of resource-rich areas like the Saar would affect Germany, which would find itself having difficulty in recovering its economy during the postwar period. Finally, the loss of lands to Poland and Czechoslovakia was intolerable, given that these lands were inhabited by Germans. The creation of Poland and Czechoslovakia was based on the concept of self-determination and yet, the Germans were deprived of their rights to self-determination. This was certainly unfair to the Germans.

The War Guilt Clause humiliated the Germans as well when Germany was forced to accept all the blame for starting the First World War. The Germans could not understand why Germany had to accept the entire blame when all the countries were involved in the war. Furthermore, Germany's involvement was due to its need to support its ally, which was the same reason why Russia was involved in the war. The amount of £6.6 billion as reparations was to deepen the sense of injustice among the Germans. Such a large sum of money would only add a heavy burden on the German economy for a long time. Thus, this would cause long-term suffering.

To what extent was the League of Nations weakened by its lack of authority? EYA. [12]

Introduction:
The League of Nations was set up in 1919 to stop the outbreak of another war. However, as its history would show, the League suffered from a number of weaknesses that would hamper its effectiveness.

Main Body:
One of the key weaknesses of the League was its membership. The absence of USA was a major blow to the credibility and reputation of the organisation. Without the strongest country in the world as a member, the League commanded less respect from potential aggressors. At the same time, any economic and military sanctions would be less effective in practice, since USA was not obliged to be involved. The absence of Germany and Russia were also regrettable. As these two countries had numerous grievances against the postwar arrangements, depriving them a place to voice their unhappiness meant that they could only seek change through war. In addition, the European dominance of the League meant that European affairs received extensive attention, compared to non-European affairs. These made non-European members less interested in supporting the League.

Another major weakness of the League was its lack of authority. As it had no international army of its own, it had to rely on its members to contribute their soldiers and equipment. This was not always forthcoming, as the members might not always be willing to commit their troops for the League's causes. With limited resources, it became difficult to deter aggression through collective security. Even for economic sanctions, the League could not enforced them, as members were not always willing to bear the economic losses resulting for the sanctions. As such, sanctions of any sort became ineffective.

The third major weakness of the League was its inability to deal with the Great Powers. As the Great Powers were usually the key members of the League, they exercised considerable influence over the decisions of the League. This would be most evident when Great Powers were involved in international conflicts. For instance, during the Ruhr Invasion and the Corfu Incident, both France and Italy were able to influence the League to make decisions favourable to them in resolving the conflict. Such tendencies to protect the interests of the Great Powers would cause a loss of faith among the weaker countries, who joined the League to seek protection in the first place.

To what extent was the desire for revenge the main objective of the Big Three at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919? Explain your answer. [12]

Introduction:
When the Big Three met at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, Europe had just experienced four years of war. As victors of the war, representatives from France, Britain and the US had a responsibility to decide what to do. However, the representatives from these 3 countries might not have the same objectives in deciding what to do.

Main body:
France was certainly bent on revenge. Much of the fighting took place in France. It suffered more losses than Britain and the USA in terms of casualties and damages. The people in France wanted a harsh treaty as a retribution for the Germans, who were regarded as being responsible for their suffering. Therefore, it was not surprising that Clemenceau, the French Prime Minister, wanted the terms in the Treaty of Versailles to be harsh. He demanded that lands be taken away from Germany. He wanted to cripple Germany as a military power. He also wanted Germany to pay large sums of reparations over many years, so that the Germans would suffer from poverty for a long time.

Britain also wanted revenge, but not to the extent that France wanted. After all, Britain did not suffered as much damage as the French. Britain's desire for revenge was also coupled with its intention to restore Europe to peace and prosperity. Permanently weakening the Germans was not regarded as a way to help Europe's recovery. Terms that were too harsh would generate German resentment and thus, not conducive to the restoration of peace. Keeping Germany economically weak would also obstruct Europe's attempts to regain its prosperity. Therefore, Lloyd George, British Prime Minister, was mainly concerned with the reduction of German military strength in order to ensure peace. His demand for huge sums of reparations was not as strong as the French.

The USA had the least desire for revenge and its main concern was to prevent war from breaking out again in the future. As it suffered the least in terms of casualties and damages, it could afford to be more forgiving to the Germans. Woodrow Wilson, the US President, came up with ideas like self-determination and collective security in the Fourteen Points in order to minimise the outbreak of conflicts. With self-determination, it was assumed that there would be less desire for conflict, since the people could choose their countries to leave in. The idea of collective security was also aimed at deterring aggression as it was assumed that the combined strength of the majority would be enough to convince aggressors the futility of their aggressive acts.

Conclusion:
When we examine the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, we can actually see that each of the Big Three did attempt to influence the direction of the treaty through their objectives. However, judging from the terms, it certainly seemed that France's desire for revenge was the dominant objective. The loss of lands, the destruction of the German military and the huge sums of reparations were the dominant features of the treaty and thus, fulfilling France's desire for revenge. While Wilson's ideas of self-determination and collective security were also reflected with the creation of various independent states and the League of Nations respectively, these were imperfect creation. The Germans were deprived of self-determination as well as membership of the League as a punishment. Thus, the desire for revenge turned out to be the dominant objective of the Big Three.

A New Hope

My Disciples,

This is to help you gain a better idea on how to write essays, not as model answers to memorise them.


Mr L.