‘The collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe could not be avoided.” How far do you agree? Explain your answer. [13]

Introduction:
The 1989 Revolutions in Eastern Europe brought the Cold War to an end. This essay will be an attempt to examine the inevitability of the factors causing the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe.

Unavoidable factors:
In order to reduce military expenditure, Gorbachev introduced the so-called Sinatra Doctrine whereby he was willing to allow the Eastern European governments to develop their countries without Soviet interference. This meant that Soviet Union would not be using the Soviet Army to support the communist governments in Eastern Europe. This was also an effective way to improve relations with the West, as the USSR would no longer be seen as an oppressive regime. However, such assurance of non-intervention gave the East European people hope that Soviet intervention that occurred during the 1956 Hungarian Uprising and 1968 Czechoslovakian Crisis would not be repeated. As such, the people began to demand for reforms. The communist governments found themselves severely weakened by the absence of Soviet support and thus, could not stop the people from ousting them from authority. Thus, the fall of communism in Eastern Europe was unavoidable.

The rising nationalist feelings of the Eastern European people were also unavoidable, as it gave the people the urge to be independent of Soviet control. Decades of Soviet control had resulted in much frustration among the people of Eastern Europe, especially with the communist systems that were imposed on them. Given the choice, many people in Eastern Europe would want to break free from Soviet control and set up democratic, capitalist countries, where they were more likely to be freer and more prosperous, just like the Western European countries. Such desires were most evident in East Germany, where the gap between the two Germanies in terms of development was huge. Thus, when the opportunity arose in 1989, most people in the Eastern European countries had no hesitation in supporting an end to the communist systems. The development of nationalist feelings in Eastern Europe could not be avoided.

Avoidable factor:
The introduction of Glasnost and Perestroika meant that there was a great deal of changes in the USSR. These meant that the Eastern European countries could introduce such changes likewise. However, the manner in which these reforms were introduced could be adjusted. Perestroika could have been introduced at a slower pace to allow the people to adjust better. In the same manner, if Glasnost was introduced in a limited form instead of full freedom, the people in Eastern Europe might not be able to organise large-scale protests to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with their respective communist governments. Thus, the communist governments would experience less pressure to step down. Thus, the collapse of communism might not have taken place the way it did.

Was the formation of NATO the greatest impact of the Cold War in Europe? Explain your answer. [12]

Introduction:
The Cold War has dominated international relations for about 45 years after the end of the Second World War. In Europe, a few key events had great impact throughout the period.

Main Body:
NATO played an important part in the history of the Cold War. It was set up in 1949 as a military alliance by the US and 11 other countries. It aimed to defend Western Europe from Soviet attack. One of the key terms in NATO was that an attack on any NATO member was regarded as an attack on all members. Thus, all members would come to the assistance of the attacked member. Under such circumstances, it ensured the security of all Western European countries. Throughout the Cold War, NATO served as a deterrence against any possible Soviet attack. However, the formation of NATO also triggered the USSR to create the Warsaw Pact in 1955. The Warsaw Pact united all the Eastern European countries under Soviet leadership. This meant that Europe was clearly divided into communist East and democratic West. Due to long boundaries separating these two blocs, tensions would always remain high and thus, NATO created a long-term impact in Europe.

The Soviet spread of communism on Eastern Europe was another event with major impact on the Cold War. Due to its fear of being attacked again, the USSR created pro-Soviet regimes in all the Eastern European countries. This ensured that the USSR had a buffer against future attacks. This also meant that Eastern Europe would be under communist rule for the next 40 years. In addition, this spread of communism triggered a major reaction from the West, who introduced the containment policy to counter the spread of communism. This policy included measures like the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. Thus, the spread of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe could actually be seen as the immediate spark for the start of the Cold War. This determined the state of international relations in Europe for the next 40 years. It also caused the division of Europe for the same period.

The introduction of the Marshall Plan was also another key event with great impact Through the Marshall Plan, the US provided US$13 billion in aid, loans and goods to the Western European countries. Not only did the Marshall Plan help the Western European countries recover economically from the ruins of the Second World War, it also ensured Western Europe remained free from communism, as the people in West Europe did not experience the poverty that would encourage them to accept communism. The Eastern European countries, on the other hand, did not accept the Marshall Plan due to Stalin’s objection. This ensured the different rate of economic development between East and West Europe. In time to come, the people in East Europe would desire to break free from communism in order to embrace the developmental model of the West in the 1980s. Meanwhile, from the late 1950s to the 1980s, the East Europeans would continue to experience a lower standard of living. Europe had divided economically as well.

‘Japan’s foreign policy in the period 1931-1941 was completely successful.’ How far do you agree? Explain your answer.

Introduction:
In the 1930s, the military became increasingly influential in the government. This had a major impact on its foreign policy

Main Body:
One of the successes of Japan’s foreign policy was its conquest of a vast area of territories. This included Manchuria, Southeast Asia and a large part of China. With these conquests, Japan had secured its supply of resources as well as expanded its markets. At the same time, this would also provide lands for its growing population. Most important of all, the conquests had created an empire for Japan. It could now be regarded as a Great Power equal to the West. In the case of Southeast Asia, Japan had even defeated the European powers to take over their colonies. This not only brought Japan closer to their objective in creating the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere’, but also freed the region from Western control. With all these aims achieved, Japan’s foreign policy between 1931 and 1941 could be seen as a success.

However, there were problems created by Japan’s foreign policy. Japan made too many enemies due to its aggressiveness. To start with, the Japanese takeover of Manchuria was not well-received by the League of Nations. Japan was criticised and this prompted Japan to leave the League of Nations. Thereafter, relations between Japan and the West were never cordial, especially between Japan and the US. When Japan violated the Washington Naval Agreement, it caused further distrust from the US. This prompted the US to provide assistance to China during the Sino-Japanese War from 1937 onwards and even initiated an oil embargo against Japan. When Japan attacked Southeast Asia in 1941, it became the enemy of the British and the Americans. By 1941, Japanese foreign policy had forced Japan to fight too many enemies in too many areas. In addition, Japan’s aggressive foreign policy had drained much of Japanese resources. All these problems demonstrated the failure of Japan’s foreign policy.

‘The lives of the Japanese people were improved by the rise of militarism in the 1930s.’ Do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.

Introduction:
The Japanese military dominated the Japanese government for the most part of 1930s. This had a major impact on the Japanese people.

Main Body:
The lives of the Japanese improved in terms of the economic recovery they experienced. With the military government adopting an aggressive foreign policy, the Japanese economy started to recover. The invasion of Manchuria in 1931 meant that there would be enough raw materials for Japanese industries. This helped in providing employment for many Japanese workers. The takeover of Manchuria also meant that Japanese industries were able to expand their markets to sell their products. This resolved the problem of protectionism caused by the Great Depression.
Socially, the Japanese people developed a stronger sense of pride towards their country. With the takeover of Manchuria in 1931-33 and large chunk of Chinese territories onwards, Japan had become a major power equal in status with powerful countries in the West. The empire built by the military government strengthened the sense of nationalism that Japanese felt for their country.

However, the people’s lives might not have benefitted entirely. While there were more resources coming from areas conquered by Japan, many of these resources were channelled back to the industries linked to the military. This was hardly surprising, since the Japanese had been constantly at war in the 1930s. However, this meant that industries that were not related to the military were neglected.
Socially, there was heavy censorship on anti-government views. Such lack of freedom in expression was most evident in the assassination of politicians who opposed the dominant influence of the military, such as Prime Minister Ki Inukai in 1932. In schools and public places, the people were expected to show full support for the military government. In addition, there was also the constant pain of losing loved ones among Japanese families. This was the result of the constant waging of wars by the military government, which meant that many families might lose their fathers, sons and husbands.

‘The lives of the German people were improved by Hitler’s dictatorship in the 1930s.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.

Introduction:
Hitler took over as Chancellor on 30 January 1933. This marked the start of the Third Reich.

Main Body:
In some ways, the German people benefitted from Hitler’s rule, especially in the economy. Unemployment, which was at its peak of 6 million in 1932, fell to less than a million by 1939. This was made possible due to massive government projects and rearmament, which gave employment to many Germans. Thus, one of the effects of the Great Depression was resolved. In addition, the lives of German workers were also improved through the German Labour Front, which provided them with cheap holidays, cruises and sporting activities. For big businesses, it was a boom for them, as they received huge government contracts resulting from rearmament. This meant that the coal, steel, chemical and transport industries all benefitted.
Socially, the German people developed a greater sense of pride. With Hitler’s constant violation of the hated Treaty of Versailles, the Germans could slowly feel proud of their country again. This was also a result of massive propaganda by the Nazis, who brainwashed the Germans to be very nationalistic since young. German achievements were exaggerated. The hosting of the 1936 Berlin Olympics was a major source of pride for many Germans. All these demonstrated how lives under Hitler’s dictatorship had improved.

However, Hitler’s dictatorship had many negative aspects as well. The economy appeared to be improving but in reality, it was unsustainable. For the workers, while wages had increased, they had to work longer hours. While unemployment dropped, this was at the expense of women and Jews. For small businesses, they hardly benefitted as they were not part of the Nazi plans in preparing Germany for war.
Socially, an atmosphere of fear developed through the use of SS, the secret police, informers and concentration camps. All opposition were removed. In schools and public places, pro-Nazi propaganda was in place. Censorship in the media meant that freedom of thought and expression was severely limited. Women and the minorities suffered official discrimination regularly. Women were forced to give up their jobs and stayed at home. The Jews suffered terribly from the introduction of the Nuremburg Laws. All these showed how lives under Hitler’s dictatorship had not improved.

'The introduction of the Perestroika and Glasnost was a mistake.' How far do you agree? Explain your answer.

The introduction of Perestroika and Glasnost could be considered as a mistake as it created some of the problems which eventually led to the collapse of the USSR. Perestroika led to fewer basic goods being available as factory managers switched to producing luxury goods instead of basic goods like food. As a result of the shortages, many basic items became more expensive and thus, leading to inflation. Many workers also became unemployed due to cost-cutting measures. All these affected the Soviet people negatively. With the introduction of Glasnost, the people could now voice their grievances openly, including the criticism of government policies and officials. Demonstrations and protests were allowed. All these created instability, which affected the economy as well. At the same time, morale of the Soviet people became lower as they were constantly exposed to news of inefficiency and corruption of the government through the newspapers. Confidence in the Communist government dropped drastically, which eventually contributed to the breakup of the Soviet Union.

However, considering the circumstances facing the USSR in the 1980s, the introduction of Perestroika and Glasnost might not be considered a mistake. The Soviet economy was declining due to the inefficiency caused by the Communist way of running the country. The workers were unproductive due to the lack of incentives. Thus, Perestroika was introduced to restore vibrancy to the economy. Glasnost was also introduced to encourage a sense of openness among the Soviet people, who would then be willing to contribute new ideas to improve the country. It was also a way to win the people's support for the changes which Gorbachev wanted to introduce. At the international level, the introduction of Perestroika and Glasnost would improve Soviet international image, which had been damaged by Soviet military involvement in Afghanistan.

'The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 was necessary.' How far do you agree? Explain your answer.

There were many compelling reasons for the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. Firstly, the Japanese needed resources to sustain their war efforts in China. As the Americans had collaborated with the British and the Dutch to place an embargo on the sale of oil to Japan in 1940, Japan would suffer from a lack of fuel and thus, unable to continue the war in China. As such, Japan needed to take over Southeast Asia for resources, including the Philippines, which was colonised by the US. Since an attack on the Philippines would lead to US reinforcements from Pearl Harbor, Japan found it necessary to strike at Pearl Harbor first. In addition, Japan was always preparing for a showdown with the West in order to prove that Japan was not inferior to them. This would mean that a war with the West, which included the US, would be necessary. Japan's desire to build an empire also made the attack on Pearl Harbor necessary. The destruction of the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbot 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 attack was unnecessary because Japan was already having difficulty winning the war against China. To fight the US at a same time would stretch Japanese resources even further. The US was actually in a state of isolationism prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Therefore, Japan could have continued to negotiate with the US regarding the embargo. By attacking Pearl Harbor, Japan merely forced themselves to fight a very powerful and determined country. In the long term, Japan would not be able to win such a conflict.

Was the Great Depression the main reason Japan attacked Manchuria in 1931? Explain your answer.

The Great Depression was certainly one of the reasons. Prior to the Great Depression, Japan had been dependent on trade for its economic well-being. This was unavoidable, given Japan's lack of natural resources. However, with the Great Depression affecting the world economy as a whole, many countries started to introduce protectionist measures. This badly affected Japan's trade relations with many countries, including the US. Japanese industries could no longer get cheap supplies of nature resources and markets to sell its goods. This prompted Japan to view Manchuria as a solution to their economic problems, since Manchuria could provide cheap labour, raw materials (coal, timber and iron) and an overseas market for Japanese products.

The rise of militarism in Japan in the early 1930s also contributed to the Japanese aggression towards Manchuria. The civilian government in Tokyo became dominated by military personnel as the civilian government appeared to be helpless in solving Japan's problems. The Japanese military, on the other hand, was well-respected by the people and was regarded as the group capable of solving Japan's problems. For the military leaders, they saw the expansion of Japanese territories as the solution of Japan's economic problems as well as a way to increase Japanese prestige. Manuchuria was near to Japan and China was too involved in an internal conflict to defend the area. Thus, it became a logical target for Japanese military government to start their expansion policy.

The attack on Manchuria was also Japan's first step towards building an empire. This was viewed necessary in order to prove to the West that Japan was a great power . It aimed to create the 'Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere' which would include China, Southeast Asian countries and even India. By taking over Manchuria, Japan could prepare for its next invasion of China and subsequently, Southeast Asian countries.

'The people of Russia benefitted greatly from Stalin's rule.' How far do you agree? Explain your answer.

The main benefits from Stalin's rule were his economic reforms, which 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.

However, Stalin's period of rule also meant a great deal of fear for the people. Stalin used a lot of methods to control his people. The secret police and the informers were used to monitor the people's loyalty to him. Purges, execution and deportation to labour camps were regular events to remove opposition and rivals from the Soviet Union. That was how many of the Kulaks were removed. All these created a lot of fear, distrust and absolute obedience in the Soviet society. The Soviet people were also constantly exposed to propaganda through the use of censorship, social realism and Stalin's personality cult. In school, young people were taught pro-communist and pro-Stalin information. All media and artistic expressions had to promote communism and Stalin. All these prevented creativity and truth from prevailing in society. To survive, conformity was the only way.

"Stalin's control of the USSR was achieved mainly through the use of terror." Do you agree? Explain your answer.

One of the ways which Stalin maintained his control over Russia was through terror. An example would be purges. This would ensure the removal of anyone who opposed him. This also applied to any rival who could be a threat to his position. For instance, when Kirov became more and more prominent in the party, he was assassinated. Thereafter, Stalin began to launch an attack on his opponents in the Communist Party. Thousands of party members were arrested and would be sent to labour camps. Some would be publicly denounced during show trials. In addition, the secret police was very active in spying on the people. Anyone caught or suspected of uttering anti-government or anti-Stalin statements would be arrested and sent to labour camps. Anyone opposing the will of the state would also be deported to the labour camps, as shown by the farmers who resisted collectivisation. All these soon created an atmosphere of fear, which made absolute obedience and loyalty to Stalin the only way to survive.

Another method of control was over culture, mainly in the areas of education and arts. This was done with the aim of controlling the perception the people would have towards Stalin and his government. This was most effective with regard to brainwashing the young people. The teaching of history focused on the roles of Lenin and Stalin. The existence of Stalin's opponents was either downplayed or totally erased. Both students and teachers were closely monitored in order to ensure total compliance in the teaching and learning of such content. Teachers would be purged if they taught otherwise. As for the arts, only positive images of Stalin and his programmes could be portrayed by the artists and writers. The cult of Stalin's personality also prevailed everywhere in the USSR. This was done by placing pictures and erecting statues of Stalin all over the country. The image of him was always portrayed positively such as being fatherly, cheerful, popular and intellectual. All these were aimed at influencing the people to worship him and thus, support him.

The third method relates to the economy. Through collectivisation and Five-Year Plans, most of the Russians were dependent on the state for their jobs and livelihood. This was reinforced with the imposition of strict rules in the collective farms and factories. Targets were set and harsh punishments were meted out to anyone who resisted these rules. With control over their livelihood, most Russians had no choice but to do as they were told.

Was the rise of militarism in Japan in the 1920s and 1930s unavoidable? Explain your answer.

One of the reasons that made the rise of militarism in Japan inevitable was the development of anti-West feelings. There had been instances when the actions of the West appeared to discriminate against the Japanese. For example, the West refused to accept the equality of races as part of the rules in the League of Nations in 1919. Japan was also given a lower ratio in the Washington Naval Agreement in 1921. All these made the Japanese felt discriminated. In order to overcome such perceived discrimination, many Japanese felt that Japan must prove themselves to be as strong as the West. To them, militarism was the only way to do so.

The long history of military successes also made the rise of militarism inevitable. Since Japan started it modernisation, it had experienced unending military successes. They were victorious in the Sino-Japanese War (1895), the Russo-Japanese War and the First World War. As such, the Japanese developed a great sense of pride and belief in the army. This was especially the case when there was low confidence in the civilian government, which was seen as corrupted and inefficient. When the Great Depression came about, many Japanese began to see the military as the only group capable of solving the country's problems. Thus, an increase in military influence in the Japanese government was well-supported by the people. This made the rise of militarism unavoidable.

However, certain factors contributing to the rise of militarism in Japan could have been avoided. The Showa Restoration, which perceived Western influence as being selfish, greedy and individualistic, deepened the anti-West feelings. The Emperor and Japanese virtues were glorified. These propaganda produced youth who were not only blindly loyal to the Emperor and nation but also became deep believers in militarism. If the propaganda had been less extreme, the support for militarism would not be so strong. The existence of patriotic societies also led to rising militarism. Their belief in the superiority of the Japanese culture meant that they supported the military solution of empire-building. They viewed democracy as an obstacle and thus, wanted to replace it with a military dictatorship. If these patriotic societies had been banned and uprooted, the rise of militarism could have been controlled.

The following were three reasons for the outbreaks of revolutions in Eastern Europe in 1989:

(i)Strong sense of nationalism in Eastern European countries
(ii)Sinatra Doctrine
(iii)Glasnost

Which contributed most to the outbreak of revolutions? Explain your answer. [13]


Introduction:
The 1989 Revolutions in Eastern Europe brought the Cold War to an end. This essay will be an attempt to understand the causes behind the outbreak of these revolutions.

Main Body:
The introduction of Glasnost meant that there was a greater freedom of expression in the USSR. These meant that the Eastern European countries could introduce such changes likewise. Therefore, people in Eastern Europe began to organise protests to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with their respective communist governments. Previously, such protests would not have been allowed. With Glasnost, these open expressions of discontent stirred up more anti-government feelings, which contributed to the overthrow of the communist governments eventually.

Besides Glasnost, Gorbachev also introduced the so-called Sinatra Doctrine whereby he was willing to allow the Eastern European governments to develop their countries without Soviet interference. This meant that Soviet Union would not be using the Soviet Army to support the communist governments in Eastern Europe. Such assurance gave the people hope that Soviet intervention that occurred during the 1956 Hungarian Uprising and 1968 Czechoslovakian Crisis would not be repeated. As such, the people began to demand for reforms. The communist governments found themselves severely weakened by the absence of Soviet support and thus, could not stop the people from ousting them from authority.

Finally, the rising nationalist feelings of the Eastern European countries gave the people the urge to be independent of Soviet control. Decades of Soviet control had resulted in much frustration among the people of Eastern Europe, especially with the communist systems that were imposed on them. Given the choice, many people in Eastern Europe would want to break free from Soviet control and set up democratic, capitalist countries, where they were more likely to be freer and more prosperous, just like the Western European countries. Such desires were most evident in East Germany, where the gap between the two Germanies in terms of development was huge. Thus, when the opportunity arose in 1989, most people in the Eastern European countries had no hesitation in supporting an end to the communist systems.

"The Japanese Occupation was a boost to the nationalist movement in Southeast Asia." Do you agree? Explain your answer. [13]

Introduction:
The period of Japanese Occupation brought a lot of suffering to the ordinary people. However, in the long term, the short period of Japanese rule brought about changes to the colonial situation. This was certainly the case for the various nationalist movements.

Main Body:
One way in which the Japanese helped the nationalist movements was breaking the myth about the superiority of the European powers. By defeating the Europeans and subjecting them to humiliation, it brought home the message that Europeans were no different from the locals. Once the locals realised this, their fear for their colonial masters would diminish. They would no longer accept the rule of the colonial masters without question.
The psychological shift had taken place.

The Japanese also provided official support to the nationalist movements. In Indonesia, the support given by the Japanese was very impactful. Firstly, they released the Indonesian nationalist leaders like Soekarno, Hatta and Sjahrir. Next, they allowed the local leaders to hold mass rallies, which provided a great opportunity to promote nationalism. Local Indonesians were also involved in the government processes, which would provide valuable experiences in running the country. The establishment of PETA, which was sponsored by the Japanese, helped to build up the military strength of the nationalist movement. The youths were also mobilised by the Japanese-sponsored Pemuda Movement. For Malaya, the Japanese provided assistance to the Indian nationalist movement by setting up the Indian National Army. This raised consciousness of the Indians regarding their future.

Unconsciously, the Japanese could have helped to strengthen the position of the nationalist movements. In Vietnam, the arrest of the French in March 1945 created a power vacuum, as the Japanese did not send enough officials to administer the place. As a result, the Viet Minh seized the opportunity to take control of some areas, especially in the North. This made it difficult for the French to retake Vietnam. In Indonesia, the vague promises made by the Japanese to grant independence. This led to discussions among nationalist leaders on the structure of an independent Indonesia. Eventually, when the Japanese surrendered, the Indonesians were prepared and confident enough to declare their independence. Again, this would make it difficult for the Dutch to re-take Indonesia. In Malaya, the ill-treatment of the Chinese actually united the Chinese to be anti-Japanese and thus, developed a sense of unity that was important for any nationalist movement.

However, the Japanese did provide some obstacles for certain nationalist movements to achieve their aims.

One of these obstacles was the divide-and-rule policy. The practise of this policy was most evident in Malaya. The Japanese would deliberately ill-treat the Chinese population while the Malay and Indian population would receive better treatment. This would strain relations among the three ethnic groups and thus, depriving the Malayan nationalist movement the unity needed to make progress. The nationalist movement remained fragmented along racial lines as a result of Japanese rule. Even in Vietnam, the Japanese would make use of religious groups such as Cao Dai and Hoa Hao to counter the influence of the communists over the Vietnamese people.

How different were the local response towards the colonisation of Southeast Asian countries? Explain your answer. [12]

Introduction:
By the 1890s, Southeast Asia, by and large, was already colonised by the Western Powers. The manner in which these countries were colonised generally differed from country to country. In Vietnam and Indonesia, a lot of force were used before the French and the Dutch took over the areas respectively. In Malaya, the British arrived with much consent of the locals.

Main Body:
Local resistance were encountered by the French, the Dutch and the British in general. The three European powers all experienced revolts and rebellions from the locals. In Vietnam, the French went to war with the Vietnamese military in 1859 and the Chinese troops in 1883 before they took over Vietnam successfully. Even after the Vietnamese court had surrendered in 1885, local resistance continued, such as the “Aid the Emperor” Movement. In Indonesia, the Dutch were involved in the Aceh War for many years before managing to subdue the state. There were also revolts from the Balinese, who preferred to die than to accept Dutch influence. In Malaya, Resident Birch was assassinated in an attempt to resist British administrative takeover of the Malay states.

However, there were differences too. Some locals chose to collaborate with the West while others continued to resist passively. In the Malay States, the locals did not resist the arrival of the British very much. In fact, British relations with the rulers and locals in Malaya were generally cordial as they were generally welcomed to remain in Malaya. However, in Vietnam and Indonesia, there was a great deal of xenophobia. In Vietnam, Confucianism was used to resist the influence of French culture. Canton teachers would actually adopt anti-Catholic tone in teaching the Vietnamese. In Indonesia, the Wahhabism, a strict form of Islam, was used to gather supporters to overthrow Dutch rule.

How successful was the containment policy? Explain your answer. [12]

Introduction:

The containment policy was first suggested by George Kennan. Its primary was to stop the spread of communism through political and economic means.


Main Body:

The containment policy had been quite successful in the initial stages. Politically, the Truman Doctrine was to provide funding, weapons and supplies to governments who were fighting against the communist threat. It successfully helped Greece and Turkey in resisting a communist takeover. As an economic strategy to counter the spread of Communism, the Marshall Plan was introduced as it was perceived that prolong poverty would result in more people believing in communism. Therefore, through the Marshall Plan, Europe would recover from the Second World War and become prosperous again. With prosperity, countries would reject communism. The Marshall Plan was a success as Western Europe regained its prosperity and Communism could not spread to that region. The formation of NATO was also part of the containment policy. Consisting mainly of countries in Western Europe, it provided a form of deterrence against any Soviet aggression to spread communism to Western Europe. This ensured Western Europe remained free of communism. Finally, the Berlin Airlift also demonstrated the success of the containment policy. It took a strong stand against communism and also ensure that Berlin would not be taken over by the communists.

However, the containment policy had its limitations. Firstly, it could only stop the spread of communism in Europe but not elsewhere. For example, the containment policy was not extended to places in Asia, which resulted in China and Vietnam becoming communist. Even in Korea, US involvement was under the UN banner and not really an extension of the Truman Doctrine, although South Korea was resisting a communist takeover. No assistance in the scope of the Marshall Plan was offered to any country outside Europe too. Secondly, the containment policy had no relevance to countries within the Soviet sphere of influence. When Hungary tried to break away from communist rule in 1956, the US did not provide any assistance to the Hungarians. Thus, there was no consistency in the application of the Truman Doctrine.

How far did competing ideologies contribute to the outbreak of the Cold War? Explain your answer. [12]

Introduction:
The breakdown of the wartime alliance started after the Second World War ended in 1945. Therefore, it can be assumed that when we examine the factors related to this breakdown, we should focus on events before and just after the end of the Second World War.

Main body:
Firstly, the different ideologies between the two sides made long-term cooperation difficult. The West stood for democracy and capitalism while the USSR practised communism. Both sides saw the other ideology as a threat and would often find ways to undermine the other side. This was already the case even before the outbreak of the Second World War. The West tried to prevent the successful establishment of communism in Russia when they got involved in the Russian Civil War in 1918-1921. On the other hand, the establishment of the Comintern in 1923 to spread communism was a threat to the West. Even when Nazism seemed to be threatening the peace in Europe, the West and the USSR did not cooperate to deal with it, until both sides were attacked by Germany. Thus, the roots of conflicts were already there.

Secondly, the wartime alliance was not one without tensions. Both sides created a sense of distrust through their actions. The West caused distrust when their delay in launching the second front allowed Germany to focus its offensive on the USSR from 1941-43. The loss of 20 million Russians caused the USSR to suspect Western intentions in using German offensives to weaken Soviet troops. On the other hand, the USSR caused distrust when they refused to provide assistance to their Polish allies during the Warsaw Uprising. All these events naturally created distrust, which made the wartime alliance unlikely to last for a long time.

Thirdly, the common objective of the wartime alliance was to defeat Germany in the Second World War. Once Germany had been defeated, the common objective that bound the USSR and the West had been fulfilled. When this happened, both sides would start to fulfill their other objectives that served their own national interests. Unfortunately, this was where their national interests clashed. For the USSR, Germany had attacked them twice in 30 years, with tremendous damages. Therefore, they needed to secure those areas that could form a buffer between Germany and the USSR. At the same time, USSR would not want Germany to be strong again. That led to the establishment of pro-Soviet governments in Eastern Europe. For the West, the post-war priority would be the recovery of Europe so that peace and stability would return. The establishment of pro-Soviet governments in Eastern Europe was certainly not seen by the West as a move towards peace and stability but simply a form of aggression. The recovery of Europe would require the return of German prosperity, given Germany's central position in Europe. Thus, the treatment over Germany also became a source of tension. With these conflicting postwar objectives, the wartime alliance could not be transformed into a peacetime alliance.

How far did colonial rule benefit the Southeast Asian states? Explain your answer. [13]

Introduction:
The Europeans came to Southeast Asia and colonised many areas. Their period of rule had benefitted the locals in many ways. However, there were disadvantages too.

Main Body:
One major benefit was the development of the Southeast Asian economies. Most of the Southeast Asian economies opened up as many of them were converted to cash economies. With the introduction of cash economies, the volume of trade increased greatly. The development of many areas into plantations also took place during colonial rule. This was the case in Malaya, where many rubber plantations were set up, and in Indonesia, where cash crops were cultivated on a massive scale in Java and Sumatra. All these economic activities brought prosperity to the Southeast Asian colonies.

Another benefit resulting from colonial rule was modernisation. Colonial societies started to develop socially, as western technology was introduced. Communications between different Southeast Asian states also improved, as railways and roads were built. For example, in Malaya, a railway line linking Penang to Singapore was completed by 1923. For Indonesia, sea links were provided by the KPM. Western technology also helped to improved economic and farming practices. In Indonesia, the Dutch introduced new irrigation systems and provided more effective fertilisers. In education, locals started to receive western knowledge in science and technology. The exposure to Western concepts of democracy, nationalism and communism would also unconsciously benefit the locals in their pursuit for independence subsequently.

However, the existence of resistance to colonial rule certainly showed that colonial rule was not without disadvantages

One of the disadvantages of colonial rule was the negative impact of the economic changes. While the colonies prospered in general, it made the economies of the colonies dependent on the world economy. This would cause instability in the income of the workers and farmers. In addition, there was economic exploitation on the locals. The local workers often suffered from poor working and living conditions. The profits resulting from the prosperity were rarely passed down to them. For example, in Vietnam, it was the French and the Chinese who reaped the profits from the plantations they owned. This was also the case in Indonesia, where the Dutch owned most of the plantations.

Another disadvantage of colonial rule was the loss of authority experienced by the local rulers. They could no longer rule the state without reference to the colonial masters. In some cases, the traditional leaders were entirely removed. This was the case in Cochin China, where direct rule was imposed and caused the Vietnamese court to lose its prestige. Even in places where indirect rule was imposed, the rulers had to rule in a way desired by the colonial masters. This was the case even in some colonies under British rule, where the Resident had more power than the Sultan.

The threat to local culture could be another disadvantage to Southeast Asian states. In Vietnam, Confucianism was challenged by Catholicism. At the same time, Vietnamese writing was forcibly replaced by Roman writings. In Indonesia, the Balinese resisted fiercely against the imposition of Dutch influence.

How similar were the reasons that encouraged the French, the Dutch and the British to colonise areas in Southeast Asia? Explain your answer. [12]

Introduction:
The reasons that prompted the Europeans to colonise areas in Southeast Asia could usually be classified under economic, cultural and external pressure. However, different European powers might have place different priorities on the various reasons.

Main Body:
One of the common reasons the three European powers had was economic. Trade was one of the primary motives. The French always believed that there could be a trade route to China via the Mekong River and therefore, control of Vietnam was critical. The Dutch also wanted to protect the spice trade which had always been profitable to them. For the British, they needed a base in Malaya to protect their China trade. Other economic benefits were also considered by the three European powers. The French believed Vietnam could provide raw materials such as iron and zinc. For the Dutch, the abundant areas in Indonesia meant that the growing of cash crops could be a profitable business. For the British, the tin mines in Malaya would be a great source of raw materials for Vritish industries.

External pressure was also a common reason for the three European powers to colonise areas in Southeast Asia. The French had lost all their colonies after the Napoleonic Wars. In order to restore their glory, they needed to gain new colonies to challenge British supremacy again. For the Dutch, British presence in maritime Southeast Asia was a threat, especially when James Brooke started to acquire Borneo territories for the British. This prompted the Dutch to extend their control over areas beyond Java. For the British, they were pressured into interfering in Malaya in order to restore peace and stability. This was critical in protecting British trade and businesses.

However, the desire to spread their own culture differed among the three European powers. The French was most interested in spreading French culture. There was a strong sense of mission in developing the people in Southeast Asia by introducing French culture. The most obvious attempt to introduce French culture was the enthusiastic attempt to convert Vietnamese to Catholicism. Despite persecution from the Vietnamese, French missionaries continued to spread Catholicism in Vietnam. For the British and the Dutch, little attempt was made to impose their culture on their colonies. As long as British and Dutch interests were not negatively affected, both of them were more prepared to respect local culture. This was most evident when both the British and the Dutch preferred to introduce indirect rule instead of direct rule.