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.