MJC H1 HISTORY P1 Answers

MJC Prelims 8814/9731(1) September 2014 2. How far do you agree that Truman’s leadership sowed the seeds that led to the division of post-war Europe? Tutor’s comments: - Essay requirements: o In order to answer the question specifically (to hit band 4 onwards), instead of generally answering why the divisions developed in Europe / why the CW broke out in Europe (which will only allow you to hit band 5, 11-13 marks)  ‘Truman’s leadership’: need to differentiate from the general role of US and the Roosevelt’s leadership; personality of Truman needs to be reflected in comments about his leadership  ‘sowed the seeds’: needs to be differentiated from other terms which indicate causal relations such as ‘trigger’, ‘accelerate’  Clear end points:  ‘division of post-war EU’, though connected to the CW, is not synonymous. The division is merely a characteristic of the CW and not the CW in itself. o Better answers will:  Weave in the historical debates  Have balance:  In showing that other factors accelerated/concretised/triggered the division, students are actually merely demonstrating the validity of the given assumption!  To show balance, students need to argue how other factors might have sowed the seeds.  Examine the extent of significance:  Sowed the seeds, or other levels of significance such as ‘merely accelerated’, ‘triggered’ etc?  Have scope:  Not just the role of Truman and Stalin (as almost all students identified) but also the role of other players such as Truman’s advisers, Roosevelt and Churchill. Students might also want to examine ‘historical context’ such as the seemingly opposing ideologies of USSR and US which came into conflict since the establishment of USSR in 1917 (but remember to link to 1945-onwards!) Note:- - In dealing with the reasons of conflict, it is important to analyse the reaction of the other party. Eg o Truman’s political actions (Truman Doctrine)  matched by Soviet political actions (aftermath of Two Camp Speech) o US economic policies (Marshall Plan)  matched by COMECON - It is not useful to simply look at later evidences such at the Berlin Blockade/Airlift – not very convincing in advancing an argument about ‘sowing seeds’!

MJC Prelims 8814/9731(1) September 2014 o The only way this might work if you are looking at who/what sowed the seeds for territorial division. But this brings about its own problems (see points below). - Not a useful approach to address the different divisions separately – eg ideological division, economic division, territorial division etc o What students mistakenly do is to attribute one player to be responsible for one type of division without convincingly analysing the impact.  For example, an argument that ‘Truman’s leadership was more important than Stalin’s leadership in sowing the seeds for the economic division.’ can easily be countered by an argument that ‘Stalin’s leadership was more important than Truman’s leadership in sowing the seeds for the economic division.’ o Furthermore, students are unable to see the ‘division’ holistically by arguing that one type of division laid the foundations for the other types of divisions. T Origins of the Cold War I Reasons for outbreak of CW A Truman’s leadership sowed the seeds C Define ‘division of post-war Europe’: - 1945-1949 - Different aspects: political, ideological, economic, military, territorial Truman’s leadership sowed the seeds: - Truman’s aggressive actions and decisions created the conditions / laid the foundations for division, by causing a build up of mistrust and tension between US and USSR. - Reflects the revisionist school of thou ght which places responsibility on the US for the outbreak of CW However: - Can be argued that other factors sowed the seeds – the leadership of Stalin and other western leaders namely Roosevelt and Churchill, as well as Truman’s advisers - Can also be argued that Truman’s leadership, though significant, was only in terms of accelerating what was already developing in the long term T Weight the factors – which is the most valid? Students might also consider using terms which demonstrate different pace of change – accelerated, triggered, exacerbated etc – in developing their arguments. Possible points of discussion: 1. Truman’s leadership arguably created the conditions for division as he had established policies which raised Stalin’s suspicions of the US. - In line with the revisionist school of thought 2. However, Stalin’s leadership could be argued to have created the conditions for Truman to become suspicious of Soviet intentions in the first place. - In line with the orthodox school of thought

MJC Prelims 8814/9731(1) September 2014 - Possible L2 analysis: Stalin had acted in defense, and hence his leadership was merely the consequence. 3. Furthermore, it is arguable that the leadership of other western leaders allowed and even pushed Stalin to take on a more aggressive stand. - Namely Roosevelt and Churchill - Possible L2 analysis: Reaction of USSR not significant enough to result in divisions. Remember that up to 1947, Stalin was still openly keen on cooperation with the US. 4. Other than the leaders, we can also consider Truman’s advisers who had sowed the seeds for division because they were the ones who greatly influenced Truman’s leadership. - Possible L2 analysis: It was Truman who shuffled his cabinet to fill it with ‘yes- man’, to suit his inherently anti-communist bias so it’s not completely accurate to overstate the influence of Truman’s advisers who merely confirmed Truman’s suspicions. 5. It can also be argued that there was an long-term underlying context which laid the foundations for the miscommunications and misunderstandings – Truman’s leadership was merely continuing the pattern of American suspicions of Soviet and at most, was the trigger to the division of EU - Possible L2 analysis: In terms of a more concrete foundation, it can still be attributed to Truman’s leadership as it was only with his leadership that Stalin retaliated. Previously, Roosevelt’s leadership had mitigated the ideological differences between US and USSR.

MJC Prelims 8814/9731(1) September 2014 3. “It was the Cold War which worsened the Korean War, not the other way around.” Discuss. Tutor’s comments: - Essay requirements: o Examine the negative impact that the Cold War had on changing the nature of the Korean War (brief), and how that led to the increased intensity and scale of the conflict (main focus). o Examine the negative impact that the Korean War had on the Cold War in terms of the militarisation and the extension of the latter. o Only essays that have attempted to compare the two perspectives and argue for which is more valid will be able to access Band 3. o Better answers will:  Have balance:  Examine both perspectives substantially. At least two distinct points supporting each perspective.  Have scope:  Should be able to bring in subsequent events that demonstrate whether the Korean War did indeed worsen the Cold War and vice-versa.  Provide a relationship between the two perspectives / establish a criterion of comparison between the two perspectives to argue for why one is more valid than another:  E.g. Cold War’s impact on Korean War was more LASTING, as both Koreas remain divided, compared to the other way around. Although the Korean War had initially worsened the Cold War, this had been mitigated by other factors, as seen from the detente between USA and USSR after the Cuban Missile Crisis). - Common mistake: o Overly narrative and dwelt too much on explanations (how Korean War became a Cold War conflict), but failed to provide tangible evidence to illustrate the “worsening” of the Korean War.  (√) If your point is that the Cold War increased the scale and inten