Greendale 2024 4E Elec History Essay Final Essay Compilation

1 ELECTIVE HISTORY Name: __________________( ) Class: 4 ____ TG: ____ Date: _______ Essay Questions Practice • Essay Attempt: Each student must attempt one essay question between 20 August and 9 September, just in time before End Year Examinations. • Name and Answers: Essay has been assigned to you. Find your name in the top right corner of the table and write your answers within the table below. • Exercise Completion: At the end of this exercise (Type answer → Teacher Review/Give Feedback → Corrections), all students will have approximately 30 model essays in total. Compiled by Mr. Faidzil Humanities Department Greendale Secondary School 2024 SECONDARY 4E ELECTIVE HY TOPICAL ESSAY

2 CHAT GPT PROMPT FOR ESSAY Step 1: Create 120-150 words “FOR ARGUMENT” paragraph for this argumentative essay: [Type your question] Use these keywords for the “FOR ARGUMENT” on [Type for/given factor]. . Include in-depth historical details in the elaboration and explanation: 1. 2. 3. Step 2: Create 120-150 words “COUNTER ARGUMENT” paragraph for this argumentative essay. . Include in-depth historical details in the elaboration and explanation: [Type your question] Use these keywords for the “COUNTER ARGUMENT” on [Type your counter/other factors]: 1. 2. 3. Step 3: Create 100-120 words balance conclusion on the hypothesis of the argumentative essay: [TYPE YOUR QUESTION] Suggest why one factor is more important and significant to the other. SAMPLE ‘The League of Nations was ineffective due to the lack of participation of major powers.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. Name: Student A Create 120-150 words "FOR ARGUMENT" paragraph for this argumentative essay: [‘The League of Nations was ineffective due to the lack of participation of major powers.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.] Use these keywords for the "FOR ARGUMENT" on [how the League of Nations was ineffective due to the lack of participation of major powers.] Include in-depth historical details in the elaboration and explanation: − Ineffective − Lack of participation − Major powers − United States never joined − Soviet Union not a member

3 SAMPLE ESSAY Keywords to have ‘For’ Argument: Yes, LON was ineffective due to the lack of participation of major powers. ‘Counter’ Argument: No, LON was ineffective due to lack of enforcement powers and ineffective sanctions. − Ineffective − Lack of participation − Major powers − United States never joined − Soviet Union not a member − Weakened authority − Universal membership lacking − Decisions often ignored − No economic or military backup − Enforcement of sanctions − Lack of enforcement power − No military force − Inability to address aggression − Unanimity requirement − Difficult to reach consensus − Ineffective sanctions − Insufficient penalties − Poor enforcement − Member states ignored sanctions − Weak ability to compel adherence ‘The League of Nations was ineffective due to the lack of participation of major powers.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. Name: Mr. Faidzil I agree that the League of Nations was ineffective largely due to the lack of participation from major powers. The absence of key nations like the United States, which never joined despite President Wilson's initial advocacy, significantly weakened the League's authority and effectiveness. Additionally, the Soviet Union, another major power, was not a member until 1934, and its subsequent expulsion in 1939 further undermined the League's influence. The lack of universal membership meant that the League's decisions often lacked the necessary support to be enforced. Without the economic and military backing of these powerful nations, the League struggled to impose effective sanctions or compel aggressive nations to comply with its resolutions. This absence of key contributors rendered the League unable to enforce its mandates and address international conflicts effectively, leading to its overall ineffectiveness. However, I disagree with the statement. While the lack of major power participation was a factor, the League of Nations’ ineffectiveness was also significantly due to its lack of enforcement power and ineffective sanctions. The League struggled to address acts of aggression effectively because it lacked a military force to enforce its resolutions. This absence of an enforcement mechanism meant that even when the League did make decisions, it had no means to ensure compliance. Additionally, the requirement for unanimous agreement among members often led to paralysis, as conflicting interests prevented timely and decisive action. The sanctions imposed by the League were frequently inadequate and poorly enforced, with member states sometimes disregarding these penalties, which further weakened the League’s ability to compel nations to adhere to its resolutions. Thus, the internal weaknesses of the League in enforcing decisions and sanctions were critical to its ineffectiveness. In evaluating the League of Nations' ineffectiveness, the lack of major power participation was indeed significant, but the internal shortcomings in enforcement and sanctions were arguably more crucial. While the absence of key nations like the United States and the Soviet Union weakened the League's authority, the inability to enforce decisions and the ineffectiveness of sanctions prevented the League from addressing conflicts effectively. Historically, the League's failure to act decisively and enforce it s resolutions eroded its credibility and undermined its role in maintaining peace. Thus, while major power participation was important, the League's structural and procedural weaknesses played a more critical role in its overall ineffectiveness.

4 Chapter 1: Paris Peace Conference and the LoN Keywords to have ‘For’ Argument: Yes, the TOV was a fair settlement. ‘Counter’ Argument: No, the TOV was not a fair settlement. − Fair settlement − Germany's intended terms on adversaries − Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918) − Harsher demands by Germany − Lenient in comparison − Response to immense damage − Devastating losses for France and Belgium − Reparations and territorial concessions − Compensation for war losses − Restrained terms allowing Germany's recovery − Dominated by the “Big Three” − 'Diktat' − Germany had no say in negotiations − War Guilt Clause (Article 231) − Germany forced to accept full blame − Exorbitant reparations − Crippled post-war economy − Loss of key industrial regions − Territory distributed to neighboring countries − Punitive and unjust settlement ‘The Treaty of Versailles was a fair settlement.’ How far do you agree with the statement? Explain your answer. Yes, I agree with the statement that the Treaty of Versailles (TOV) can be considered a fair settlement. For instance, during World War I, Germany's terms in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918) with Russia were far more punitive. The treaty stripped Russia of a significant portion of its land, population, and resources, demonstrating Germany’s harsher demand s. In contrast, the Treaty of Versailles, though harsh, was lenient in comparison. Additionally, the treaty was a response to the immense damage caused b y Germany during the war. Allied nations such as France and Belgium suffered devastating losses, both in terms of lives and infrastructure. Therefore, the reparations and territorial concessions demanded from Germany were seen as a way to compensate for th ese losses. Given the devastation caused, the terms can be argued to be relatively restrained, ensuring Germany could recover while addressing the allies' grievances. However, I disagree that the Treaty of Versailles was far fro