Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mye Prep Notes 2013
Mye Prep Notes 2013
Class:
Date:
CHESTNUT DRIVE SECONDARY SCHOOL DEPARTMENT OF HUMANITIES SECONDARY 3 HISTORY ELECTIVE (COMBINED HUMANITIES) MIDYEAR EXAMINATION PREPATORY NOTES
E1
Think Critically
Give explanations
PROVIDE EVIDENCE
ANSWER THE QUESTION
In
this
EXAM
PACK,
you
will
find:
1. Powerpoint
handout
on
MYE
format
2. Sample
exam
papers
modified
for
the
new
2014
syllabus
3. A
guide
to
answering
source-based
questions:
a. Inference
b. Purpose
c. Comparison
d. Testing
Assertions
4. SUGGESTED
essay
answers
and
a
guide
to
answering
structured-essay
questions
including
key
points,
explanations
and
examples
INFERENCE
How to answer
What is the message of this cartoon/poster? What can you infer from Source A about ? What can you learn from Source A about? What does Source A tell you about ?
1. POINT: Make an inference (SMART GUESS): a. Start with, I can infer that <your inference> or the message of the source is that b. Answer the question directly if it asks what can you learn, write I can learn that 2. EVIDENCE: SUPPORT your inference with evidence a. The evidence from the source is that <quote: copy a key phrase from the source> 3. EXPLAIN: What does your evidence tell you? a. This suggests that <explain what this phrase tells you>. 4. More tips: a. What is the message infer the message of the whole source. Only 1 inference combining and using the entire source is required. b. What can you learn/What does this suggest/What does Source A tell you about/etc. give 2 inferences to score the top mark
How to answer
EXAMPLE
QUESTION:
What
can
you
learn
from
this
source
about
the
Soviet
Union?
Explain
your
answer.
The
Communist
Party
kept
a
strict
watch
on
the
Soviet
Union's
creative
artists
-
its
writers,
painters,
composers,
etc
-
to
make
sure
that
they
supported
the
Party
and
the
government.
All
writers
had
to
belong
to
the
Union
of
Soviet
Writers,
and
members
were
expected
to
follow
a
policy
of
'socialist
realism'
in
their
writings.
This
meant
that
novels,
filmscripts,
poems,
plays
and
journalism
had
to
deal
with
the
lives
of
ordinary
working
people
and
to
show
the
progress
of
Communism.
Soviet
people
were
therefore
able
to
read
only
books
that
supported
the
ideas
of
Communism.
SUGGESTED
ANSWER:
[POINT
inference
1]
I
can
learn
that
life
in
the
Soviet
Union
was
controlled
as
the
Communist
Party
had
strict
control
over
their
lives.
[EVIDENCE]
The
evidence
is
that
The
Communist
Party
kept
a
strict
watch
on
the
Soviet
Union's
creative
artists,
[EXPLANATION]
which
suggests
that
they
were
not
free
to
express
themselves
and
had
to
follow
government
views
strictly.
[POINT
inference
2]
I
can
also
learn
that
art
in
the
Soviet
Union
was
used
to
gain
support
for
the
government.
[EVIDENCE]
The
evidence
is
that
Soviet
people
were
therefore
able
to
read
only
books
that
supported
the
ideas
of
Communism
and
films
and
plays
were
made
to
show
the
progress
of
Communism.
[EXPLANATION]
This
suggests
that
the
government
made
sure
everything
about
communism
was
very
positive
so
as
to
ensure
continued
support
from
Russians.
EXAMPLE
QUESTION:
What
is
the
message
of
this
source?
Explain
your
answer.
O
Stalin,
O
leader
of
the
peoples,
you
who
have
brought
man
to
birth.
You
who
makes
the
earth
bear
fruit,
You
who
makes
the
spring
bloom,
you
who
make
vibrate
the
musical
chords..
O
you
are
the
sun,
loved
and
reflected
by
millions
of
hearts.
SUGGESTED
ANSWER:
[POINT]
The
message
of
the
source
is
that
Stalin
brought
a
lot
of
good
to
Russia
and
thus
was
well
liked
by
the
Russian
people.
[EVIDENCE]
This
can
be
inferred
from
the
phrase
that
says,
you
have
made
the
earth
bear
fruit
you
have
make
the
spring
bloom.
[EXPLAIN]
The
poet
is
associating
Stalin
with
all
the
good
things
in
life,
implying
that
he
has
done
a
lot
of
good
for
the
Russian
people.
Furthermore,
this
source
suggests
he
is
loved
by
Russians,
[EVIDENCE]
which
can
be
seen
when
the
poet
calls
Stalin
the
sun
loved
and
reflected
by
millions
of
hearts.
[EXPLAIN]
He
is
trying
to
imply
that
Stalin
is
like
the
sun
who
provides
light
to
people
and
the
millions
of
hearts
are
the
Russia
people
who
love
him
and
benefit
from
him.
COMPARISON
In
what
ways
are
the
sources
similar/different
as
evidence
of?
Explain
your
answer.
In
what
ways
are
the
sources
similar/different?
Explain
your
answer.
To
what
extent
are
the
sources
similar/different?
Explain
your
answer.
Comparisons MUST have a common criterion or MATCH between the 2 sources Use the OVERARCHING SOURCE-BASED CASE STUDY QUESTION to guide you o What is Source As answer to the question? o What is Sources Bs answer to the question? o Now, compare the 2 answers. How are they similar/different? SUPPORT by providing evidence for the similarity/difference Question types: o In what ways you can give similarities OR differences o To what extent or How far you must give similarities AND differences
How to answer
1. POINT: State the common criterion/feature of the sources a. Start with, Both sources are similar/different because <common criterion> 2. EVIDENCE: SUPPORT your comparison with evidence from the 1st source a. The evidence from Source A is that <quote: copy a key phrase from the source> 3. EXPLAIN: What does your evidence from the 1st source tell you? a. This suggests that in Source A <explain what this phrase tells you>. 4. EVIDENCE: SUPPORT your comparison with evidence from the 2nd source a. The evidence from Source B is that <quote: copy a key phrase from the source> 5. EXPLAIN: What does your evidence from the 2nd source tell you? a. This suggests that in Source B <explain what this phrase tells you>. 6. Give TWO comparisons.
How to answer
EXAMPLE QUESTION: To what extent are the two sources similar? Explain your answer. Source A: From a Soviet school textbook published in 1976. The Soviet people achieved so much in such a short time. This happened because all the country's wealth belongs to the working people who create this wealth. Thousands of workers produced more than their quota. Miracles were created by the enthusiastic work of the Soviet people. Source B: An extract from a historian published in a history textbook In one sense, Stalin could claim that collectivization was a success. New methods of farming were introduced which did achieve a substantial increase in production in 1937. Yet one and three-quarter million tons of grain were exported in 1932 while over 5 million peasants died of starvation. So many animals had been slaughtered that it was in 1953 before livestock production recovered to the 1928 figure. The cost in human life and suffering was enormous. SUGGESTED ANSWER: [POINT] Both sources agree that collectivization was a success because it increased production. [EVIDENCE FROM SOURCE A] Source A states that Thousands of workers produced more than their quota, [EXPLANATION] which suggests that food production in Russia must have increased. [EVIDENCE FROM SOURCE B] Source B also reports a substantial increase in production in 1937, [EXPLANATION] which indicates that collectivisation was successful because of this increase in production. [POINT] However, Source A suggests that collectivisation benefited the Soviet people, whereas Source B states that it was ultimately a failure as it made the Soviet people suffer. [EVIDENCE FROM SOURCE A] The evidence from Source A is that Miracles were created by the enthusiastic work of the Soviet people [EXPLANATION] which suggests that Russians were happy under the policy of collectivisation. [EVIDENCE FROM SOURCE B] On the other hand, B states that The cost in human life and suffering was enormous. [EXPLANATION] This shows that many people suffered under collectivisation, and thus their lives did not benefit.
purpose
Why
was
this
source
(poster/cartoon/textbook/newspaper
article)
published?
Explain
your
answer.
Why
did
Stalin/Trotsky/etc.
make
this
speech?
Explain
your
answer.
Infer
the
purpose
or
the
motive
of
the
person
creating
the
source
This
requires
you
to
figure
out
3
things:
o The
MESSAGE
of
the
source
(what
is
the
source
trying
to
say?)
o The
AUDIENCE
of
the
source
(who
is
the
source
talking
to?)
o The
IMPACT
of
the
source
on
the
AUDIENCE
(what
should
the
audience
do
after?)
Next,
give
evidence:
Quote
from
the
source,
use
the
provenance
(who
said
the
source)
AND/OR
use
your
background
knowledge
Refer
to
textbook
pg.
59-60
for
more
detailed
explanation
POSITIVE
Portray
Support
Defend
Assure
Appeal
Cast
in
a
positive
light
Create
a
good
impression
Glorify
Gain
support
for
Praise
Commend
HELPING
WORDS
NEUTRAL
Highlight
Bring
to
attention
Convey
Confirm
Convince
Persuade
Justify
Demand
Make
aware
Sensationalise
Emphasise
NEGATIVE
Condemn
Criticise
Accuse
Question
Blame
Shame
Cast
in
a
negative
light
Attack
Threaten
Warn
Reject
How to answer
1. POINT: State the message, audience and impact of the source. a. E.g. Stalin made this speech to glorify collectivisation by saying it had brought many Russians prosperity [MESSAGE], and thus convince Russian peasants [AUDIENCE] to join the collective farms [IMPACT] 2. EVIDENCE: SUPPORT your answer with evidence a. The evidence from Source A is that <quote: copy a key phrase from the source> b. Use the provenance (who wrote the source) to help you support your answer 3. EXPLAIN: What does your evidence from the source tell you? a. This suggests that in Source A <explain what this phrase tells you>.
EXAMPLE QUESTION: Why did Dr Kiselev publish this report? Explain your answer. Source A: [PROVENANCE] A report by a Russian regional health inspector, Doctor Kiselev, March 25, 1932 I have driven around several collective farms [kolkhozes] and consider it necessary to inform you about a few items. I was in various kolkhozes, the not productive and relatively unproductive ones. Everywhere there was only one sight - that of a huge shortage of seed, famine, and extreme lacking of livestock. There is no nourishment - only some flour and bread.. Almost in every home either children or mothers were ill, due to starvation. Their faces and entire bodies were swollen SUGGESTED ANSWER: Dr Kisilev published this report as he wanted to reveal the truth about how collectivisation caused huge suffering [MESSAGE] to the government of Russia [AUDIENCE] and thus warn them about the damage caused by collectivisation [IMPACT]. [EVIDENCE] He mentions a huge shortage of seed, famine, and extreme lacking of livestock and that almost in every home either children or mothers were ill, which shows that collectivisation caused many Russians to suffer. [EVIDENCE + EXPLANATION] As he was a regional health inspector [PROVENANCE], this report was probably intended for the government to read as a warning. Even though some farms were productive, the situation on unproductive farms was causing a great deal of human suffering.
How to answer
TESTING ASSERTIONs
Study
all
sources.
Stalins
rule
was
a
nightmare
for
all
Russians.
Do
all
the
sources
support
this
statement?
Explain
your
answer.
Study
all
sources.
Stalins
policies
greatly
benefited
Russias
economy.
How
far
do
the
sources
agree
with
this
statement?
Explain
your
answer.
How to answer
An assertion is a statement without support or evidence (it is also known as a hypothesis in science) To test an assertion, you need to find sources that support AND do not support the statement Explain the reason why the sources support/do not support the statement Give evidence (QUOTE) from the source to support your argument.
EXAMPLE QUESTION: Study all the sources. Collectivisation was a great success. Do all the sources support this statement? Explain your answer. Source C: An extract from a novel written by a popular Communist author, published in the Soviet Union in 1935. He is describing the reaction of wealthy peasants (kulaks) in one village to Stalins forced policy of collectivization. Men began killing their cattle every night. As soon as it was dark, you could hear the muffled bleating of a sheep, the death squeal of a pig, the whimper of a calf. In two nights, half the animals in the village were killed. People said, kill, its not ours any more, kill, theyll take it away from you, kill, you wont get meat on the collective farm. Source E: Description of life in the collective farms in the Soviet Union by an American historian The collective farms, despite their inefficiencies, did grow more food than in the past. For example, 30 to 40 million tons of grain were produced every year. Collectivisation also meant the introduction of machines into the countryside. Now 2 million previously backward peasants learnt how to drive a tractor. New methods of farming were taught by the experts. The countryside was transformed. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Source E supports the statement that collectivisation was a success, as it suggests that food production increased and technology on farms improved. It gives examples like how 30 to 40 million tons of grain were produced every year and 2 million previously backward peasants learnt how to drive a tractor. These examples show how collectivisation was a success. However, on the other hand, Source C does not support the statement. Instead it shows that collectivisation was a failure as it caused the loss of livestock and also because many peasants did not support collectivisation. The evidence is that kulaks resisted collectivisation by killing their cattle every night and furthermore, food production probably decreased as half the animals in the village were killed.
1. POINT: Choose ONE source that supports the statement. Give 1 reason why. a. E.g. Source ____ SUPPORTS the statement because it suggests that 2. EVIDENCE: SUPPORT your answer with evidence a. The evidence from Source ___ is that <quote: copy a key phrase from the source> 3. EXPLAIN: What does your evidence from the source tell you? a. This suggests that in Source ___ <explain what this phrase tells you>. 4. POINT: Choose ANOTHER source that DOES NOT supports the statement. Give 1 reason why. a. E.g. Source ___ DOES NOT SUPPORT the statement because it suggests that 5. EVIDENCE: SUPPORT your answer with evidence a. The evidence from Source ___ is that <quote: copy a key phrase from the source> 6. EXPLAIN: What does your evidence from the source tell you? a. This suggests that in Source ___ <explain what this phrase tells you>. 7. POINT: Continue with other sources that support/do not support the statement.
How to answer
Essay: describe
How
did
the
Treaty
of
Versailles
punish
Germany?
PUNISHMENT
ONE
in
the
Treaty
of
Versailles:
REDUCTION
IN
ARMY
Germany
was
forced
to
reduce
its
army.
It
was
only
allowed
to
have
100,000
soldiers,
6
battleships
and
no
airforce.
[supporting
info]
Conscription
was
also
banned,
so
the
army
could
only
recruit
volunteers.
[supporting
info]
It
had
to
hand
over
its
airforce
and
battleships
to
its
previous
enemies
in
World
War
1,
the
British
and
French.
[supporting
info]
PUNISHMENT
TWO
in
the
Treaty
of
Versailles:
LOSS
OF
TERRITORIES
Germany
was
also
punished
through
being
forced
to
give
up
its
territories.
For
example,
Germany
lost
Alsace-Lorraine
to
France
[supporting
info]
and
also
lost
all
its
overseas
colonies.
[supporting
info].
This
caused
Germany
to
lose
a
lot
of
resources
like
factories
and
raw
materials
that
were
in
these
territories
that
were
lost.
PUNISHMENT
THREE
in
the
Treaty
of
Versailles:
REPARATIONS
Germany
was
also
forced
to
pay
reparations.
These
reparations
were
to
be
paid
to
France
and
Britain
[supporting
info]
to
repay
all
the
damage
caused
by
the
war.
The
reparations
cost
6600
million
pounds
[supporting
info],
a
huge
sum
to
be
paid
in
annual
installments.
What
were
the
intentions
of
Britain
and
France
at
the
Paris
Peace
Conference?
INTENTIONS
OF
BRITAIN:
To
punish
Germany,
but
moderately
Britains
intentions
at
the
Paris
Peace
Conference
was
to
punish
Germany,
but
only
moderately.
After
4
years
of
fighting,
the
British
public
wanted
Germany
to
be
punished
severely.
Many
British
lives
had
been
lost
fighting
Germany
and
the
British
wanted
to
Make
Germany
Pay.
However,
Lloyd
George,
the
British
Prime
Minister,
realised
that
if
Germany
was
punished
too
harshly,
Germany
would
not
be
able
to
contribute
as
an
ally
of
Britain
in
the
future.
Germany
would
also
want
to
seek
revenge
against
Britain.
Therefore,
Britain
wanted
to
punish
Germany
for
the
damages
it
had
done,
but
not
too
harshly.
INTENTIONS
OF
FRANCE:
To
punish
Germany
very
harshly
Frances
intentions
at
the
Paris
Peace
Conference
were
different,
as
France
wanted
to
punish
Germany
severely.
France
suffered
huge
damage
to
its
land
and
people
as
over
2/3
of
the
army
were
killed
or
injured
in
the
war.
As
Germany
was
Frances
neighbour,
France
wanted
to
make
sure
that
Germany
would
never
again
be
able
to
threaten
France.
The
punishment
therefore
had
to
completely
cripple
and
crush
Germany
so
that
Germany
would
not
rise
again
to
threaten
France.
Essay: EXPLAIN
Why
did
the
Germans
hate
the
Treaty
of
Versailles?
Explain
your
answer.
REASON
1
why
the
Germans
hated
the
Treaty
of
Versailles:
REPARATIONS
One
important
reason
why
the
Germans
hated
the
Treaty
of
Versailles
was
because
they
had
to
pay
harsh
war
reparations.
[
POINT
1:
GIVEN
FACTOR]
Under
the
Treaty
of
Versailles,
Germany
had
to
compensate
the
Allies
in
the
form
of
war
reparations
for
the
damage
done
to
the
Allies.
[
EXPLANATION
1:
GIVEN
FACTOR]
The
amount
that
they
had
to
pay
was
fixed
at
6,600
million
pounds
which
was
a
huge
amount
that
will
take
Germany
many
years
to
pay.
[
EVIDENCE]
Due
to
this,
Germany
had
to
suffer
because
a
lot
of
the
money
that
the
country
earned
had
to
go
towards
the
payment
of
war
reparations
instead
of
improving
the
lives
of
the
country
and
people.
[
EXPLANATION
1:
GIVEN
FACTOR]
As
a
result
of
the
compensation,
Germany
fell
into
bankruptcy
and
faced
economic
ruin.
There
was
very
little
money
left
for
redevelopment,
many
lost
their
jobs
and
poverty
began
to
set
in.
Therefore,
the
Germans
hated
the
Treaty
of
Versailles
because
the
reparations
made
them
suffer.
[
LINK]
REASON
2
why
the
Germans
hated
the
Treaty
of
Versailles:
WAR
GUILT
CLAUSE
Another
reason
why
the
Germans
hated
the
Treaty
of
Versailles
was
the
War
Guilt
Clause.
[
POINT
2:
OTHER
FACTOR]
According
to
the
clause,
Germany
had
to
accept
full
responsibility
for
the
war
although
it
was
not
the
only
power
that
fought
in
the
war.
[
EXPLANATION
2:
OTHER
FACTOR]
Other
countries
like
Britain
and
France
were
also
involved
in
the
start
of
World
War
1.
[
EVIDENCE]
The
War
Guilt
Clause
created
German
unhappiness
because
it
was
this
clause
that
justified
subsequent
terms
like
the
war
reparations,
military
reduction
and
land
loss.
[
EXPLANATION
2:
OTHER
FACTOR]
By
making
Germany
admit
to
the
blame
of
starting
WWI,
the
Allies
were
able
to
include
the
harsh
punishment
that
Germany
had
to
endure.
Therefore,
the
Germans
hated
the
Treaty
of
Versailles
because
the
war
guilt
clause
humiliated
their
country
and
forced
them
to
accept
all
the
harsh
punishment.
[
LINK]
REASON
3
why
the
Germans
hated
the
Treaty
of
Versailles:
REDUCTION
IN
ARMED
FORCES
A
third
reason
why
the
Germans
hated
the
Treaty
of
Versailles
is
because
it
reduced
Germanys
armed
forces.
[
POINT
3:
OTHER
FACTOR]
The
Germans
felt
the
Treaty
was
unfair
as
other
countries
involved
in
the
war
were
not
forced
to
disarm.
[
EXPLANATION
3:
OTHER
FACTOR]
Germanys
troops
were
limited
to
100,
000
men
and
Germany
was
not
allowed
to
build
tanks.
It
was
not
allowed
to
have
an
air
force
or
submarines
and
it
was
only
allowed
to
have
six
battleships
and
a
few
smaller
ships.
[
EVIDENCE]
The
reduction
of
the
army
was
also
blow
to
Germans
national
pride
in
the
army.
They
felt
that
a
weakened
Germany
could
never
be
able
to
protect
itself
from
their
enemies.
[
EXPLANATION
3:
OTHER
FACTOR]
Therefore,
the
Germans
hated
the
Treaty
of
Versailles
because
they
felt
that
the
reduction
of
armed
forces
crippled
their
country,
so
much
so
that
they
would
not
be
able
to
defend
themselves
properly
against
other
countries
should
an
invasion
occur.
[
LINK]
Adapted
from
CHIJ,
Fajar
Secondary
and
Junyuan
Secondary
MYE
2008.
Why
did
Britain
and
France
want
to
punish
Germany
in
the
Paris
Peace
Conference?
Explain
your
answer.
PERSPECTIVE
ONE:
France
wanted
to
punish
Germany
harshly
It
was
Frances
intention
at
the
Paris
Peace
Conference
to
punish
Germany
harshly
[
POINT]
and
not
at
all
to
make
world
peace.
The
aim
to
punish
Germany
was
indeed
important
in
guiding
the
terms
of
the
TOV.
This
was
evident
from
how
Germany
was
omitted
from
the
discussions
of
the
treaty.
This
meant
that
Germany
was
unable
to
negotiate
and
had
to
accept
whatever
terms
they
were
given.
Clemenceau,
Frances
Prime
Minister,
wanted
Germany
to
be
crippled.
[
EXPLANATION]
France
had
been
damaged
severely
by
the
war
and
never
wanted
to
be
threatened
by
Germany
again.
France
also
needed
a
lot
of
money
for
rebuilding
so
as
to
recover
from
the
war.
Therefore,
France
demanded
for
Germany
to
pay
large
amounts
of
reparations
and
to
restrict
Germanys
military
severely
so
as
never
to
threaten
France
again.
[
EXPLANATION/EVIDENCE]
France
therefore
wanted
to
punish
Germany
harshly
so
as
to
ensure
it
would
never
threaten
France
again.
[
LINK]
PERSPECTIVE
TWO:
Britain
wanted
to
punish
Germany,
but
moderately
Furthermore,
Britains
intention
at
the
Paris
Peace
Conference
was
also
to
make
Germany
pay
[
POINT].
However,
Lloyd
George
was
more
moderate
and
did
not
want
to
be
as
harsh
on
Germany
as
France.
He
wanted
justice
to
be
done
to
Germany
for
having
caused
much
destruction
as
so
many
British
soldiers
had
died
in
the
war.
[
EXPLANATION/EVIDENCE] Therefore, Lloyd George wanted reparations from Germany so that Britain would have resources to recover. He also demanded for Germany to give up her territories so that Britain would again be the largest colonial power. However, he was very concerned that punishing Germany too harshly would make Germany unhappy and threaten world peace once again. [ EXPLANATION/EVIDENCE] Britain was therefore more moderate in what punishment should be dealt to Germany. Thus, while Britain largely aimed to punish Germany, Britain also wanted to maintain world peace in the long term by ensuring that Germany did not become a revengeful country. [ LINK] Not answering this question, but useful to remember PERSPECTIVE THREE: USA wanted world peace However, the USA aimed to make world peace [ POINT] at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. Woodrow Wilson, the President of the USA, saw the Paris Peace Conference as a golden opportunity to create a system that would protect world peace. [ EXPLANATION] He therefore initiated the idea of a League of Nations [ EVIDENCE], where nations would settle disputes through consultation and discussion rather than violence. Wilson also did not want to punish Germany severely, as the USA wanted to let Germany recover and become a strong supporter of world peace through the League of Nations. [ EXPLANATION] Therefore, to some extent, there was an intention at the Paris Peace Conference to make world peace, however, this was mainly from the perspective of the USA.
Why
was
the
League
of
Nations
weak
and
unsuccessful
in
the
1930s?
Explain
your
answer.
REASON
1
for
the
weakness
of
the
League
of
Nations:
WEAK
ORGANISATIONAL
STRUCTURE
One
of
the
reasons
for
the
weakness
of
the
League
of
Nations
was
that
the
organizational
structure
of
the
League
was
weak.
[
POINT]
The
League
could
not
enforce
(force
countries
to
follow)
its
decisions.
This
is
because
the
League
of
Nations
did
not
have
an
army
and
no
member
country
had
to
provide
any
soldiers
to
the
League.
The
League
thus
could
not
use
military
force
to
stop
countries
from
going
to
war
with
each
other,
which
made
it
weak.
[
EXPLANATION]
In
addition,
the
various
methods
of
punishment
that
the
League
could
use
did
not
work.
For
example,
if
the
League
condemned
countries
that
went
to
war,
strong
countries
could
just
ignore
the
League
of
Nations.
[
EVIDENCE]
Also,
if
the
League
tried
to
impose
economic
sanctions,
warring
countries
could
just
leave
the
League
and
carry
on
trading
with
other
countries.
[
EVIDENCE]
Therefore,
the
League
failed
because
its
structure
and
inefficiency
meant
that
it
could
not
achieve
its
aims
of
keeping
peace
between
countries.
[
LINK]
REASON
2
for
the
weakness
of
the
League
of
Nations:
USA
NOT
A
MEMBER
However,
there
are
other
reasons
why
the
League
was
weak.
The
absence
of
the
United
States
(USA)
[
POINT]
was
a
big
reason
why
the
League
failed
to
promote
world
peace
in
the
1920s.
The
USA
did
not
join
the
League
because
the
American
policy
of
isolationism
kept
them
it
out.
The
USA
wanted
to
stay
out
of
European
politics
and
any
conflicts
that
might
arise
in
Europe.
[
EVIDENCE]
The
USA
was
then
the
strongest
world
power
and
its
absence
dealt
a
definite
blow
to
the
effectiveness
of
the
League.
[
EXPLANATION/EVIDENCE]
The
USAs
reputation
would
have
given
strength
to
the
commitments
of
the
League.
Furthermore,
the
USA
was
seen
as
a
natural
leader
by
many
of
the
members
of
the
League.
It
was
after
all
the
idea
of
US
President
Woodrow
Wilson
to
set
up
an
international
organization
like
the
League
to
settle
disputes
between
nations.
With
the
absence
of
the
USA,
the
League
did
not
have
a
strong
driver
to
take
action
and
achieve
the
aims
of
the
League.
[
EXPLANATION]
The
other
League
members
did
not
take
the
actions
of
the
League
seriously
without
a
strong
leader,
resulting
in
the
ineffectiveness
of
the
League.
[
LINK]
REASON
3
for
the
weakness
of
the
League
of
Nations:
ATTITUDES
OF
MEMBER
COUNTRIES
Another
reason
for
the
failure
of
the
League
of
Nations
is
because
of
the
attitudes
of
member
countries
[
POINT].
Members
of
the
League
of
Nations
did
not
support
its
decisions
and
instead
supported
their
own
interests
instead.
In
fact,
members
could
leave
when
they
disagreed
with
the
Leagues
decisions.
For
example,
Italy
and
Japan
left
when
the
League
made
decisions
that
they
disagreed
with.
[
EVIDENCE]
Since
members
could
leave
the
League
when
they
disagreed,
the
League
was
unable
to
force
its
members
to
cooperate
and
to
respect
the
decisions
of
the
League.
[
EXPLANATION]
The
powerful
members
of
the
League
such
as
Britain
and
France
did
not
contribute
to
supporting
the
work
of
the
League
in
trying
to
achieve
its
aims.
[
EVIDENCE]
If
the
powerful
members
of
the
League
did
not
take
the
League
seriously,
other
small
countries
would
not
either.
[
EXPLANATION]
Therefore,
the
League
failed
because
without
the
support
of
major
powers
and
members
leaving
whenever
they
disagreed,
the
Leagues
membership
was
simply
not
strong
enough
to
carry
out
the
aims
it
wanted
to
achieve.
[
LINK]
How
did
Stalins
rule
improve
Russias
economy?
Explain
your
answer.
REASON
1
for
Stalins
success:
INDUSTRIALISATION
targets
were
met
I
agree
to
some
extent
that
Stalins
rule
over
Russia
was
a
success
because
through
his
programme
of
industrialisation
[
POINT],
Russia
did
become
a
modern
industrialized
country.
Previously,
it
was
only
a
backward
agricultural
country.
Through
his
Five
Year
Plans
[
EVIDENCE],
Stalin
set
high
production
targets
for
many
important
industries.
Even
though
these
high
targets
were
not
always
met,
production
of
key
resources
such
as
oil,
steel
and
electricity
increased
tremendously.
[
EXPLANATION]
Due
to
these
Five
Year
Plans,
by
1939,
Russia
became
the
second
biggest
industrial
power
in
the
world
after
USA.
[
EVIDENCE]
It
even
produced
more
iron
and
steel
than
Britain.
In
fact,
industrial
production
improved
by
ten
times
since
1914.
[
EVIDENCE]
This
shows
that
his
programme
of
industrialisation
was
a
great
success
for
Russia
as
Stalin
was
able
to
achieve
his
aims
and
grow
Russias
economy.
[
LINK]
REASON
2
for
Stalins
success:
COLLECTIVISATION
targets
were
met
Moreover,
his
policy
of
collectivization
also
achieved
its
targets
successfully
[
POINT].
Stalin
wanted
higher
farming
productivity
to
feed
the
workers
in
the
rapidly
expanding
industrial
towns.
He
decided
on
collectivisation
to
take
all
farmland
and
set
up
huge
state-run
farms
called
collectives.
The
peasants
could
only
keep
enough
to
feed
themselves
and
sold
the
rest
to
the
state
at
a
fixed
price.
[
EXPLANATION]
The
result
of
this
programme
was
that
in
1940,
almost
all
farms
were
collectives
and
97%
of
all
peasants
lived
on
a
collective.
[
EVIDENCE]
Therefore,
the
system
of
farming
and
food
production
changed
dramatically
under
Stalin,
showing
that
he
did
manage
to
successfully
carry
out
his
programme
of
collectivization.
[
EXPLANATION]
Stalins
rule
over
Russia
therefore
resulted
in
the
successful
increase
in
food
production
and
the
successful
reform
of
the
farming
system.
[
LINK]
How
did
his
use
of
propaganda
and
the
secret
police
help
Stalin
control
Russia?
Explain
your
answer.
REASON
1
for
Stalins
control
of
Russia:
USE
OF
PROPAGANDA
One
way
that
Stalin
controlled
Russians
was
through
propaganda
[
POINT].
Propaganda
served
to
create
an
image
of
Stalin
that
made
him
seem
like
the
supreme
leader
for
Russia.
[
EXPLANATION]
For
example,
Stalin
portrayed
himself
as
the
father
of
the
people.
He
developed
this
image
through
the
use
of
artists
to
create
images
of
himself
leading
Soviet
Russia.
[
EVIDENCE]
These
images
and
posters
were
placed
everywhere.
Offices,
factories
and
classrooms
were
all
required
to
have
a
picture
of
Stalin.
[
EVIDENCE]
The
widespread
us
of
propaganda
throughout
Russian
society
meant
that
Russians
were
only
shown
positive
images
of
Stalin.
[
EXPLANATION]
Any
criticism
of
Stalins
policies
would
not
be
reflected
in
his
public
image,
it
would
instead
be
blamed
on
other
members
of
the
Russian
government,
not
Stalin.
[
EXPLANATION]
Thus,
Stalin
could
control
Russia
through
propaganda
because
the
control
over
information
meant
that
only
positive
things
about
Stalins
government
were
publically
communicated.
[
LINK]
REASON
2
for
Stalins
control
of
Russia:
USE
OF
SECRET
POLICE
Another
way
Stalin
controlled
Russians
was
through
the
use
of
the
secret
police
in
the
Great
Terror
[
POINT].
The
secret
police
terrorised
the
citizens
of
Russia
and
made
sure
that
all
opposition
or
unhappiness
about
Stalin
was
stamped
out.
[
EXPLANATION]
This
helped
Stalin
make
sure
that
all
of
Russia
was
under
his
control.
What
happened
was
that
the
secret
police
or
the
NKVD
were
used
to
monitor
all
communications
and
arrested
and
questioned
anyone
who
showed
the
slightest
sign
of
opposition
to
Stalin.
[
EVIDENCE]
Many
intellectuals
and
other
opponents
of
Stalins
were
executed
or
sent
to
labour
camps,
or
gulags,
where
they
were
sentenced
to
hard
labour.
Close
to
39
million
were
executed.
Millions
more
died
in
the
gulags.
[
EVIDENCE]
With
all
these
measures
to
curb
opposition,
Stalin
was
unchallenged
as
no
one
dared
to
voice
their
opposition
to
his
policies.
[
EXPLANATION]
This
rule
of
terror
ensured
that
Stalin
could
force
through
policies
like
collectivisation
and
industrialisation
despite
the
huge
cost
in
human
suffering.
[
EXPLANATION]
Thus,
the
secret
police
helped
Stalin
control
Russia
by
creating
a
climate
of
fear
and
suspicion
to
stop
all
opposition
to
Stalins
policies.
[
LINK]
Essay: EVALUATE
The
Treaty
of
Versailles
was
fair.
How
far
do
you
agree
with
this
statement?
Explain
your
answer.
YES:
FAIR
from
the
perspective
of
the
Allied
countries
who
won
the
war
Yes,
the
Treaty
of
Versailles
was
a
fair
treaty
for
the
Germans.
In
particular,
from
the
perspective
of
the
Allied
countries
that
won
the
war,
Germany
had
lost
the
war,
so
it
was
fair
that
they
were
made
to
pay
[
POINT]
for
the
costs.
The
Allies
felt
the
treaty
was
fair
in
dealing
out
a
harsher
punishment
towards
Germany.
Germany
was
the
main
aggressor
at
the
start
of
the
war.
It
was
due
to
the
ambitions
of
Germanys
leaders
that
World
War
I
started.
[
EVIDENCE]
Therefore,
The
treaty
could
not
have
been
less
harsh,
as
this
would
be
unfair
to
the
millions
of
people
who
died
or
were
injured
as
a
result
of
the
war.
[
EXPLANATION]
The
terms
of
the
treaty
were
fair,
as
it
was
important
for
any
aggressive
nation
to
be
punished
to
serve
as
a
warning
for
other
ambitious
nations.
Furthermore,
most
of
the
lands
that
the
Allies
took
away
did
not
belong
to
Germany
at
first.
[
POINT]
They
were
lands
such
as
overseas
colonies
that
Germany
had
taken
over
from
other
countries.
It
was
only
fair
that
the
people
from
some
of
these
regions
could
vote
to
decide
if
they
wanted
to
be
governed
by
the
Germans.
A
third
reason
why
the
Allied
countries
felt
that
the
Treaty
of
Versailles
was
fair
is
because
the
Germans
themselves
had
forced
another
country,
Russia,
to
sign
a
harsh
treaty
[
POINT].
This
was
the
Treaty
of
Brest-Litovsk
[
EVIDENCE],
which
the
Germans
had
imposed
on
the
Russians
when
Russia
left
the
war
in
1917.
The
Treaty
of
Brest- Litovsk
was
very
harsh
as
the
Germans
made
Russia
give
up
25
per
cent
of
its
lands.
In
comparison,
the
terms
of
the
Treaty
of
Versailles
were
much
less
harsh
[
EXPLANATION]
as
Germany
was
only
made
to
give
up
13
per
cent
of
its
lands
NO:
UNFAIR
from
the
perspective
of
Germany
who
lost
the
war
However,
Germans
of
course
felt
that
the
Treaty
was
unfair
and
that
the
terms
were
too
harsh.
One
reason
was
that
Germany
was
forced
to
bear
all
the
blame
for
the
war,
which
was
unfair
[
POINT]
as
the
Allied
Powers
were
also
participants
in
the
war.
Thus,
it
was
not
fair
for
them
to
make
Germany
bear
the
full
responsibility.
Germany
itself
also
sustained
major
damages
and
loss
of
life
from
Allied
attacks
[
EVIDENCE]
and
needed
to
recover
from
the
war.
The
Germans
therefore
saw
putting
all
the
blame
for
WW1
on
Germany
as
very
unfair.
Another
term
of
the
Treaty
of
Versailles
that
the
Germans
found
unfair
were
the
huge
reparations
[
POINT]
they
had
to
pay.
The
reparations
sum
of
6
600
million
[
EVIDENCE]
was
too
huge
for
the
Germans
to
pay
off.
The
debt
was
unfair
for
most
of
the
German
people,
as
they
were
not
the
ones
who
wanted
the
war.
[
EXPLANATION]
Germany
fought
the
war
because
it
had
ambitious
leaders,
such
as
the
Kaiser.
The
Kaiser,
after
starting
the
war,
actually
abdicated
and
left
the
country
when
Germany
surrendered.
A
new
government,
the
Weimar
government,
was
formed,
and
yet
this
new
Weimar
government
was
forced
to
take
the
responsibility
for
Germanys
loss
in
WW1.
Many
ordinary
Germans
therefore
felt
that
they
should
not
have
been
made
to
pay
for
their
previous
leaders
mistakes
and
that
the
Treaty
of
Versailles
was
unfair.
Furthermore,
the
Germans
were
not
properly
included
in
all
the
discussions
of
the
terms
of
the
treaty
[
POINT].
They
were
forced
to
agree
to
terms
that
had
already
been
decided
upon.
This
was
viewed
as
an
unfair
diktat
by
the
people
of
Germany
who
were
forced
to
fulfil
the
terms
of
a
Treaty
their
government
had
no
influence
on
but
had
signed.
EVALUATION:
Fair
or
unfair,
based
on
personal
judgement
(no
longer
based
on
perspectives
of
Germans/Allied
countries)
In
conclusion
I
believe
the
Treaty
of
Versailles
was
not
fair.
The
Treaty
of
Versailles
was
not
a
fair
treaty
for
the
Germans,
as
it
did
not
take
into
account
the
opinions
of
German
representatives
at
Versailles.
As
much
as
the
Germans
had
been
very
unfair
to
Russia
in
the
Treaty
of
Brest-Litovsk,
this
did
not
mean
that
it
was
fair
for
the
Allies
to
impose
similar
terms
on
Germany.
All
in
all,
I
believe
that
Germanys
ability
to
recover
in
its
economy
and
become
a
peaceful
democratic
country
was
more
important
than
it
being
punished
for
a
war
that
had
already
happened.
The
ordinary
Germans,
like
their
counterparts
in
the
Allied
countries,
wanted
their
lives
back.
The
Treaty
of
Versailles
was
not
a
just
treaty,
because
it
never
gave
them
the
second
chance
that
people
in
the
Allied
countries
had.
Adapted
from
Fajar
Secondary
School
2008
The
League
of
Nations
was
successful
only
to
a
small
extent.
One
reason
why
the
League
was
not
successful
is
because
the
League
was
unable
to
prevent
war
between
some
nations.
[
POINT
1:
REASON
1
TO
SUPPORT
GIVEN
OPINION]
In
many
cases
throughout
the
1920s,
the
League
did
not
take
action
against
the
countries
which
resorted
to
using
war
to
settle
disputes.
[
EXPLANATION
OF
REASON
1]
For
example,
Greece
and
Turkey
went
to
war,
Poland
seized
Vilna,
the
capital
of
Lithuania,
and
France
and
Belgium
also
invaded
the
Ruhr
in
Germany.
[
EVIDENCE]
The
League
did
not
help
these
countries
settle
their
disputes
by
discussion,
which
was
one
of
its
main
aims
in
promoting
world
peace.
[
EXPLANATION
OF
REASON
1]
Therefore,
these
examples
suggest
that
the
League
failed
in
achieving
its
aim
of
promoting
world
peace
in
the
1920s.
[LINK]
Furthermore,
the
League
was
weak
and
could
not
do
a
good
job
of
promoting
world
peace.
[
POINT
2:
REASON
2
TO
SUPPORT
GIVEN
OPINION]
One
reason
for
its
weakness
was
the
absence
of
the
USA.
[
EXPLANATION
OF
REASON
2]
The
USA
was
a
very
influential
country.
However,
it
had
an
isolationist
stance
towards
the
world
in
the
1920s.
[
EVIDENCE]
This
meant
that
the
public
did
not
want
USA
to
participate
in
other
nations
conflicts.
Without
the
USA,
the
League
could
not
achieve
its
aim
of
promoting
world
peace.
Therefore,
the
absence
of
the
USA
shows
that
the
League
of
Nations
did
not
have
the
means
to
succeed
at
promoting
world
peace.
[LINK]
However,
the
League
had
some
successes
in
promoting
world
peace
in
the
1920s.
[
POINT
3:
REASON
3
TO
DISAGREE
WITH
GIVEN
OPINION]
Some
examples
show
that
some
countries
respected
the
decision
making
powers
of
the
League
of
Nations.
[
EXPLANATION
OF
REASON
3]
For
example,
the
League
conducted
plebiscites
in
Upper
Silesia.
Both
Germany
and
Poland
accepted
the
outcome
of
these
plebiscites
and
accepted
the
Leagues
decision.
[
EVIDENCE]
The
League
also
judged
a
dispute
between
Sweden
and
Finland
over
the
Aaland
Islands
and
both
countries
accepted
the
decision
of
the
League.
[
EVIDENCE]
This
shows
that
the
League
of
Nations
was
able
to
achieve
its
aim
of
promoting
peace
between
nations
and
negotiation
rather
than
conflict.
[LINK]
In
conclusion,
the
League
of
Nations
was
only
successful
to
a
small
extent.
There
are
many
examples
from
the
1920s
where
the
League
of
Nations
failed
to
achieve
its
aims
of
keeping
world
peace,
as
nations
disregarded
its
authority
and
went
to
war.
Furthermore,
there
are
good
explanations
for
why
the
League
of
Nations
was
so
weak
the
absence
of
the
USA
is
a
key
factor
in
its
weakness.
Therefore,
the
failures
of
the
League
of
Nations
outweigh
its
successes,
as
the
reasons
for
its
failures
were
much
more
deeply
rooted
than
the
reasons
for
its
success.
To what extent was the League of Nations successful? Explain your answer.
One
reason
why
collectivisation
benefited
Russia
that
Stalin
did
achieve
the
targets
set
in
his
collectivization
programme
and
increased
food
production.
[
POINT
1:
REASON
1
TO
SUPPORT
GIVEN
OPINION]
Stalin
wanted
higher
farming
productivity
to
feed
the
workers
in
the
rapidly
expanding
industrial
towns.
He
decided
on
collectivisation
to
take
all
farmland
and
set
up
huge
state-run
farms
called
collectives.
The
peasants
could
only
keep
enough
to
feed
themselves
and
sold
the
rest
to
the
state
at
a
fixed
price.
[
EXPLANATION
OF
REASON
1]
The
result
of
this
programme
was
that
in
1940,
almost
all
farms
were
collectives
and
97%
of
all
peasants
lived
on
a
collective.
[
EVIDENCE]
Therefore,
the
system
of
farming
and
food
production
changed
dramatically
under
Stalin,
showing
that
he
did
manage
to
successfully
carry
out
his
programme
of
collectivization.
[
EXPLANATION
OF
REASON
1]
In
this
sense,
therefore,
it
may
be
considered
a
victory.
[LINK]
However,
one
effect
of
collectivisation
that
shows
that
it
did
not
benefit
Russia
is
that
there
was
widespread
rioting
and
resistance.
[
POINT
2:
REASON
2
TO
DISAGREE
WITH
GIVEN
OPINION]
The
human
cost
of
implementing
collectivization
was
huge.
Many,
especially
the
Kulaks,
people
with
the
biggest
farms.
resisted
collectivisation.
[
EXPLANATION
OF
REASON
2]
They
refused
to
join
the
collectives
and
many
of
them
burnt
away
their
crops
instead
of
giving
them
to
the
state.
Stalin
could
not
allow
resistance
to
collectivisation.
[
EXPLANATION
OF
REASON
2]
The
land
of
the
Kulaks
was
confiscated
and
millions
were
sent
to
concentration
camps.
[
EVIDENCE]
Therefore,
collectivisation
was
not
a
total
victory
because
it
was
not
accepted
by
the
people
and
met
with
a
lot
of
resistance.
[LINK]
Another
effect
of
collectivisation
that
shows
that
it
was
not
a
complete
victory
is
that
it
caused
a
famine.
[
POINT
3:
REASON
3
TO
DISAGREE
WITH
GIVEN
OPINION]
Collectivisation
made
natural
disasters
such
as
droughts
worse,
as
peasants
burning
their
crops
and
killing
their
livestock
further
decreased
food
production
throughout
Russia.
[
EXPLANATION
OF
REASON
3]
For
example,
in
Ukraine
between
1931
and
1933,
the
decrease
in
the
food
supply
led
to
the deaths of an estimated 10 million people. [ EVIDENCE] Therefore, collectivisation was not a total victory because it caused a great deal of human suffering and made famines and natural disasters worse for Russian people. [LINK] In conclusion, I disagree with the statement to a large extent, as collectivization was a policy that did accomplish its targets of improving farming in the Soviet Union; however, it also made many people suffer. From Stalins perspective, he may have considered it a total victory based on his aims of changing the farming system in Russia. From the ordinary Russian peasants perspective, however, collectivisation was clearly disastrous as it caused huge amounts of resistance, violence and suffering as Kulaks were eliminated and famines were worsened. Therefore, it is an exaggeration to say that collectivisation was a complete victory as the human cost of collectivisation and the many deaths it caused must be considered. Adapted from West Spring Secondary MYE 2008
To
what
extent
did
Stalins
rule
benefit
Russia?
Explain
your
answer.
REASON
1
for
Stalins
success:
INDUSTRIALISATION
targets
were
met
I
agree
to
some
extent
that
Stalins
rule
over
Russia
was
a
success
because
through
his
programme
of
industrialisation
[
POINT],
Russia
did
become
a
modern
industrialized
country.
Previously,
it
was
only
a
backward
agricultural
country.
Through
his
Five
Year
Plans
[
EVIDENCE],
Stalin
set
high
production
targets
for
many
important
industries.
Even
though
these
high
targets
were
not
always
met,
production
of
key
resources
such
as
oil,
steel
and
electricity
increased
tremendously.
[
EXPLANATION]
Due
to
these
Five
Year
Plans,
by
1939,
Russia
became
the
second
biggest
industrial
power
in
the
world
after
USA.
[
EVIDENCE]
It
even
produced
more
iron
and
steel
than
Britain.
In
fact,
industrial
production
improved
by
ten
times
since
1914.
[
EVIDENCE]
This
shows
that
his
programme
of
industrialisation
was
a
great
success
for
Russia
as
Stalin
was
able
to
achieve
his
aims
and
grow
Russias
economy.
REASON
2
for
Stalins
success:
COLLECTIVISATION
targets
were
met
Moreover,
his
policy
of
collectivization
also
achieved
its
targets
successfully
[
POINT].
Stalin
wanted
higher
farming
productivity
to
feed
the
workers
in
the
rapidly
expanding
industrial
towns.
He
decided
on
collectivisation
to
take
all
farmland
and
set
up
huge
state-run
farms
called
collectives.
The
peasants
could
only
keep
enough
to
feed
themselves
and
sold
the
rest
to
the
state
at
a
fixed
price.
[
EXPLANATION]
The
result
of
this
programme
was
that
in
1940,
almost
all
farms
were
collectives
and
97%
of
all
peasants
lived
on
a
collective.
[
EVIDENCE]
Therefore,
the
system
of
farming
and
food
production
changed
dramatically
under
Stalin,
showing
that
he
did
manage
to
successfully
carry
out
his
programme
of
collectivization.
[
EXPLANATION]
Stalins
rule
over
Russia
therefore
resulted
in
the
successful
increase
in
food
production
and
the
successful
reform
of
the
farming
system.
REASON
1
for
Stalins
failure:
INDUSTRIALISATION
caused
hardship
for
workers
However,
Stalins
rule
over
Russia,
while
a
success
in
terms
of
meeting
targets,
was
disastrous
for
many
ordinary
people
[
POINT].
Industrialisation
caused
a
lot
of
hardship
for
ordinary
workers.
This
is
because
industrialisation
forced
many
people
to
move
to
the
city
away
from
their
families.
The
Five
Year
Plans
also
placed
heavy
demands
on
them
by
expecting
them
to
meet
unrealistic
production
targets.
[
EVIDENCE]
Workers
who
did
not
meet
their
work
quotas
in
the
industries
were
purged
too.
In
factories,
working
and
living
conditions
were
often
very
poor.
Due
to
the
emphasis
on
heavy
industries,
consumer
products
like
clothes
were
scarce
[
EXPLANATION/EVIDENCE].
All
these
negative
effects
of
Stalins
policy
of
industrialisation
worsened
peoples
lives,
even
though
it
met
its
production
targets.
REASON
2
for
Stalins
failure:
COLLECTIVISATION
caused
rioting
and
resistance
Another
sign
which
shows
that
Stalins
rule
was
not
a
succes
is
that
his
policy
of
collectivisation
caused
widespread
rioting
and
resistance
[
POINT].
The
human
cost
of
implementing
collectivization
was
huge.
Many,
especially
the
Kulaks,
people
with
the
biggest
farms,
resisted
collectivisation.
They
refused
to
join
the
collectives
and
many
of
them
burnt
away
their
crops
instead
of
giving
them
to
the
state.
[
EXPLANATION/EVIDENCE]
Stalin
could
not
allow
resistance
to
collectivisation.
The
land
of
the
Kulaks
was
confiscated
and
millions
were
sent
to
concentration
camps.
[
EVIDENCE]
Therefore,
Stalins
policy
of
collectivisation
was
not
accepted
by
the
people
and
met
with
a
lot
of
resistance,
suggesting
that
Stalins
rule
was
not
a
great
success
in
this
respect.
[LINK]
REASON
3
for
Stalins
failure:
RULE
OF
TERROR
controlled
Russians
incredibly
strictly
Finally,
in
order
to
achieve
his
success
with
meeting
the
targets
of
his
industrialisation
and
collectivisation
policy,
Stalin
had
to
control
his
people
incredibly
strictly
[
POINT].
The
Russian
people
lost
their
freedom
and
everything
they
did
was
dictated
by
the
state.
They
lived
in
constant
fear
of
being
punished
for
disobeying
state
orders.
[
EXPLANATION]
Russians who opposed his economic policies, such as the kulaks, were purged. In fact, a total of one million people were executed and eight million sent to labour camps in isolated parts of Russia. Therefore, Stalins economic policies were not a success as his purges of those who opposed his policies led to numerous deaths and sufferings for the Russians. In the final analysis, I must disagree with the statement. Success cannot be measured in mere statistics of industrial or agricultural production. The millions of Russian peoples loss of freedom and lives due to the harsh living conditions imposed on them by Stalins economic policies was too high a price to pay. Adapted from Si Ling Secondary School 2008