Paper 1 Practice
Sep 16 test
Practice 1
What, according to Source I, were the reasons for Italy to declare war on Britain and France?
One of the reasons for Italy declaring war on Britain and France was for territorial expansion to the Atlantic. Another reason is that Britain and France has always been against Italy. Finally the last reason according to source l is to march with German in the war.
What does Source J suggest about relations between Italy and Germany in 1938?.
Strong as they are both helping each other out for their territorial ambitions. Germany is more the one carrying out the operation and getting the credit, while Italy is just the second hand man to Germany.
With reference to its origin, purpose and content, analyse the value and limitations of Source I for an historian studying Italian foreign policy in 1940.
One value from the source is that it is made by Benito Mussolini the head of Italy at the time meaning he has a lot of knowledge on the motive of Italian foreign policy at that time. The content is quite important as it covers the reasons immediately after Italy declares war on Britain and France a significant moment in 1940.
On the other hand, Bennito Mussolini is doing a speech with a purpose to persuade making it less reliable for information. Bennito Mussolini as head of Italy also mean that he has a lot of bias and would not say any of the weaknesses and over exaggerate his claims in turn making it less factual.
Compare and contrast what Sources K and L reveal about German and Italian foreign policy in the 1930s.
Both sources show that the relationship between Germany and Italy was not always perfect with some dispute over Austria. Both sources agree that Italy joining with Germany was beneficial to it. Finally both sources state that the formal pact between Italy and Germany happened in 1936. Finally both sources agree that Germany and Italy were really put together during the Spanish Civil War and the Italian invasion of Abyssinia.
However while source L recognizes that there was no formal alliance between Germany and Italy until Italy joined the war in 1936 source K does not highlight this leaving us to believe that the Rome-Berlin axis in 1936 is set in stone. Source L highlights how there are ideological differences between Italy and Germany even though they are fascist while source L treats them as the same ideology
Using the sources and your own knowledge, to what extent were the foreign policies of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, up to 1940, influenced by their territorial ambitions?
Although there were other factors that influenced Germany and Italian foreign policy for the large part they were influenced by the goal for territorial ambitions
First of all as shown in Source K and L both countries wanted living space for their population this meant that Germany got Austria in 1938 and joined WW2 in the side of Hitler party to get land in the mediterranean in order to have that living space
On the other hand Source I shows that foreign policy was also fueled for Italy by percieved wrongs from the allies, trying to avoid the war but the allies setting up for the war.
Furthemore, Italian foreign policy was based mostly on Germany’s foreign policy which source J points out when painting Italy as Germany’s second hand man while Germany tries to get more territories.
Furthermore, Hitlers foreign policy was a lot based on righting the perceived wrongs from WW1 especially agains the allies for their war guilt clause and harsh reperations. Fueling his need for war.
Practice 2
What, according to Source J, was Japan’s attitude toward Manchuria/Manchukuo and China?
Japan was Manchuria as internally disordered by Bthe Chinese but full of valuable resources that could help its and Japan’s economy. Manchuria needed to grow and become an important market in the far east. Finally, Japan also had no territorial ambitions in Manchuria.
What does Source L suggest about the position of Japan and the League of Nations regarding the Manchurian crisis?
While Japan is smaller than the league of Nations the league of nations isn’t handing out much consequences just telling it to stop. Japan is not listening hanging on to Manchuria.
With reference to its origin, purpose and content, analyse the value and limitations of Source J for an historian studying Japan’s response to the Lytton Report in the early 1930s.
One value of the source is that has contemporary value being from a leading Japanese businessman from the time. The author is trying to inform people not really persuade them in his article stating how he is against he Lytton report but not persuading the audience to do anything.
The businessman has a lot of stake in China meaning he will be biased to Japan which are trying to develop Manchuria. The content is quite on sided for Japan and against the Lytton report.
Compare and contrast what Sources I and K reveal about Japanese actions in China. 12.
Both sources agree that Japan through military action now holds control of Manchuria. Both sources agree that the league of Nations has enacted no sanctions against Japan and it has not received any consequences expect for less legitimacy.
While source I asserts the Japanese claim that it was just supporting a spontaneous independence movement source I states that it was not born from such movement. While source I agrees that the justification of self defense allows Japan to invade China, source K argues that it does not warrant justification as it was not legitimate. While Source K focuses on how Puyi is the new head of state, source I treats Manchuria as under the leadership of the local population not Puyi. While source I relies on Japan’s word when writing its report source from a report which is much more trust worthy.
Using the sources and your own knowledge, discuss the view that the ineffectual response of the League of Nations was the main factor in encouraging Japanese expansion in China.
In Japan’s point of view they had many different reasons to conquer China, China had a lot of resources that would help its economy, it was important market and it was in self defense. However the response that the league of Nation had on Japan facilitated Japanese expansion as it received little to no consequences
First of all, one of the reasons that Japan had its claim to invade China was in self defense. As source I states Japan was acting on a legitimate act of self defense from China. So by invading and securing China it could rest assured that it would not be attacked. While this was staged in the Mukden incident it allowed for Japanese justification and also allowed it to secure its territories as it viewed China as an important menace but without it, it was much safer. In summary, Japan used self defense as a justification to invade Manchuria but also so so that it could secure its borders better
Furthermore, Japan saw China as an important market to growth. Source J explains who Japan saw Manchuria riddled with internal disorder due to China and wanted to turn it into n important market in east Asia that would benefit tis and the world economy. This is because Japan had little to no natural resources and was still recovering badly from the Great depression so by invading Manchuria it could kick start its economy again. In summary, Japan saw many economic values in Manchuria due to its natural resources, which it could then turn into an important market
Differently, Japan also wanted political control over Manchuria. Source K states that Japan established the previous emperor as the head of Manchuria. But he as more of a puppet as really the Japanese were the leaders of the region, but through him they were now allowed to control a whole new region. In summary, through the setting up of a puppet leader Puyi the Japanese were able to control a whole new region allowing them for more political control on its neighboors such as the Soviet Union and China
On the other hand the league of nations treatment towards Japan greatly facilitated its invasion of Manchuria. As source, L shows Japan received little to no consequences from the league of nations with the only thing that it received being condemnation. However still annoyed by this Japan decided to leave the League of Nations which led to similar thigns from other countries which also received no consequences. Ultimately, the league of Nations laid back attitude towards the invasion of Manchuria greatly expedited its invasion.
In conclusion the league of nations attitude of condemnation but not imposing of sanctions or other harsher measures greatly expedited Japan’s invasion of Manchuria. However, there were many other facotrs that encouraged Japanese invasion such as the acquisition of resources from China, the weakening of one of its main enemies China and the securing over its territories.
Practice 3
Why, according to Source I, would it be difficult for Japan to defeat China?
China is a big nation with a large population making it hard to occupy it fully. Chinese uneven economies between regions make it hard for the centralised Japan to isolate China. China has a lot of munitions in the interior which means they could supply their army for the years to come.
What does Source L suggest about Japan’s expansion into China?
Japan is crushing everyone into becoming a major world power. While the other major world power such as France, Britain, are doing nothing to stop Japan turning their backs to the destruction
With reference to its origin, purpose and content, analyse the value and limitations of Source I for an historian studying the Second United Front in China.
It comes from a contemporary force that had a lot of knowledge as he was one of the leaders that was organizing the decision. THe content in his excerpt is not trying to persuade anyone it is just outlining how the Chinese army could sustain against Japanese attack.
When he was talking about the second united front it was happening in real time so the events may have changed. Mao as Chinese is heavily biased towards them making him embellish China’s strength
Practice 4
What according to Source K, were the factors contributing to tensions between Japan and the US?
The tripartite act between Italy, Germany and Japan. General population opinion of the US that was against Japan. The embargo of oil that the US put on Japan
What does Source L suggest about Japanese expansion?
Japanese expansion is relentless going from country to country not satisfied with any invasion. Drive by the sole necessity of oil, viewing other countries just as oil stops
With reference to its origin purpose, content analyze the value and limitations of source K for an historian studying the tensions between the US and Japan
The author is a Japanese historian which means that he must have a lot of knowledge on the subject. The main purpose is to inform the audience on US-Japanese relations as it is published in an academic journal.
The author as a Japanese will be bias for Japan agains the US over this topic. The source heavily focuses on how the US made the tensions higher, saying the oil embargo that the US imposed of Japan was the only reason that Japan went to war.
Compare and Contrast what source I and J reveal about increasing tensions between the US and Japan
Both sources agree that oil supplies were of high importance to Japan. Both sources cover how the Japanese attacked the US mostly due to the reasons o the oil embargo. Both sources agree that Japan was fading without its oil supplies.
Source I focuses on how Japanese invasion of Indochina led to export embargoes from the US while source J does not cover the reasons why the embargoes were placed. Source I focuses on how Japan was looking for both a militaristic and diplomatic way to access oil supplies again while source J focuses only on the military option of invading the wester powers. Source I focuses only how the dwindling oil supplies were the reason for the invasion of Japan while source J also states that increasing fortifications particularly from the US led to a sense of urgency to the matter of invading the US
“Mutual fear led to increasing tensions between the US and Japan” Using the sources and your own knowledge to what extent do you agree with this statement
Mutual fear played a huge part in driving tensions between the US and Japan these were heightened through things such as the oil embargo for Japan and the US being scared of Japanese imperialistic policies.
The US was scared of Japanese imperialistic policies. As explained in source I immediately after Japan invaded Indochina the US responded by raising embargoes it had placed on it. Furthermore, the US was also helping China the country that Japan was invading by sending it funding driven by the fear of Japan controlling the whole of East Asia. Increasing tension between them even more.
Japan was driven by the fear of dwindling oil supplies increasing tensions between it and the US As shown in Source L Japan desperately needed oil seeing each new country that it was invading as an oil stop where it could refill its navy for the time being. This fear made Japan made Japan more and more countries that were allies of the US such as Japan and Indochina increasing tensions.
Japan was also driven by the fear that the US was becoming too well of militarily. Japan was driven by the urgency to invade the US as soon as possible due it becoming weaker day by day due to the dwindling oil supplies and the US fortifications getting stronger over time. This led to pressure on the Japanese side they would either invade the US now or could never oppose it again. Augmenting tensions as it was acting more and more rash agains the US.
On the other hand the US was not only driven by fear. As source K states the public kept on augmenting pressure on the government to do something about Japan leading to the US becoming more confrontational against Japan such as when Roosevelt stated that he would not be intimidated. Showing that it wasn’t based on fear but more over control of the world. Similarly Japan also had pressure from its own public to become more and more territorial ambitions and be against he US, even from its own military in Manchuria. With these two factors leading to heightened tensions as the two opposing countries placed themselves more and more against each other
Ultimately, while public pressure did lead to heightened tension the main driver of the increasing tension was the mutual fear. this was in the form of Japan fearing its loss of its oil supplies due to the US and the increasing fortifications the US had while the US having fears over Japanese imperialism. These factors in amalgamation led to the countries becoming more and more against each other leading to heightened tensions.
Practice 5
1a. What, according to Source I, did Fascism and Nazism have in common.
According to Source I both Nazism and Fascism want a productive peace were people can coexist peacefully. Additionally both Nazism and communism have the same enemies. Finally, Source I states that both NAZIsm and Fascism believe in the power that violence can have as a driving force
1b. What does Source J suggest about the foreign policies of Italy and Germany
First of all by displaying tanks and military airplanes source J shows how Italy and Germany foreign policy is based on the military. Source J also focuses on using their military, Italy and Germany will get a “harvest”, which is in the form of more land
With Reference to its Origin, Values, Content, Limitations and Purpose analyze the values and limitations of Source K for an historian studying the impact of ideology on the foreign policies of Hitler and Germany
First of all the author of Source K, is an Historian who visited NAZI Germany at the time meaning the author has extensive primary knowledge. Additionally, the purpose of the book is to inform as it is published in an academic book
A limitation of this source K is that it is form an Historian which means that he likely has bias against Germany and Italy due to the General sentiment in 1937 against Germany from the allied powers. Furthermore, the content in Source K is quite narrowly focused on the tense relations between Italy and Germany due to differing interests, unpopularity in Germany and troubled relationship between Mussolini and Hitler. Only mentioning briefly the impact of ideology and foreign policies
Compare and Contrast what source K and L reveal about German and Italian foreign policy
Both source K and I agree that one of the reasons that Germany and Italy were united was due to their respective antagonist of France and Britain. Additionally, both sources explore how the revision of the Treaty of Versailles by Hitler grew them closer together. Additionally, put into bold how a partnership between Italy and Germany is mutual beneficiary. both both sourcesFinally both sources agree that another reason for union between Germany and Italy is that they had similar ideologies and agreed on similar topics.
On the other hand, while source K highlights how the Italians were unpopular in Germany source I focuses on how Hitler demonstrated extraordinary loyalty to Mussolini before and during the war. While source K highlights the conflicting interest between Italy and Germany, Source L highlights how Italy could be beneficial to Germany.
Using the sources and your own knowledge, evaluate the influence of ideology on the foreign policies of Italy and Germany.
While Ideology played a major role in uniting Italy and Germany into the axis other major factors also played important roles such as mutual antagonism and a mutual beneficial relationship.
First of all Source I shows the many overlaps between German and Italian ideology such as the need for a productive peace and the value of violence as a driving force. This overlapping ideology helped with German and Italian union as it made them have similar goals and interest creating a mutual beneficial relationship if they joined together. Adding on to this Source J highlights how both countries ingrained in their ideology is the use of military force helping unite them as they will use it in tandem with each other. As the two foreign policies were aligned with each other being acquiring land through the driving force of war.
On the other hand there are other major factors at play that helped created the union of Italy and Germany. With source K dismissing that they had common interest instead being united together due to antagonism from Britain and France. This is shown as both countries left the league of nations when being in disagreement with Britain and France. Italy left the league of nations as it received condemnation from France and Britain for its invasion of Abyssinia. While Adolf Hitler left the league of nations due to being against its close link with the Treaty of Versailles. Furthermore, Source L shows how Italy and Germany were united together due to their mutual beneficiary relationship as if they worked together they could full fill their aspirations of greater land area. With Italy taking the Mediterranean while Hitler could take continental Europe both challenging their mutual antagonists of Britain and France.
Ultimately, there were many significant factors that played a role in shaping the Italian and German union these included similar ideologies, mutual antagonism and a mutual beneficial relationship.
October 16
Oct 16 test
First question part a:
First of all, according to Source A Mussolini reduced unemployment massively. Another achievement according to source A is that it provided order to the country improving the quality of life to everyone .Finally, Mussolini led a revival of economy in consequence reducing the amount of strikes.
Values:
One value of source A is that it is form an Italian politician so he has a a lot of knowledge over that topic. Another value of Source A is that in the content a lot of numbers are used backing up his points
A limitation of the source is that he is trying to persuade the audience the good job his party is doing so that he cant get more votes. Another limitation of source A is that ti is published as events are unfolding not giving the whole picture of Italy’s economy in the 1920s.
Practice 2
1a. According to Source A the first criticism of appeasement is that if it wasn’t for that Hitler power would have been contained. Furthermore, according to source a another weakness of appeasement is that it led the British government to have a weak military leaving it without adequate national defense. Finally, the policy of appeasement also led to the leagues demise an dBritain’s lack of foreign policy making its internal presence be weak.
1b According to Source J Military spending in total and as a percent of the e total economy has been growing from 1933 to 1939. Furthermore,, according to source A the sector that has seen the most growth and the most investment is the airforce.
2
One value of source I is that it is form a British politician a country that heavily appeased both Germany and Italy meaning he will have a lot of knowledge on the matter.
One limitation of the source is that it is trying to persuade the readers in this case the parliament to be against appeasement. Moreover, Source I is limited as the politician in this case is heavily anti appeasement making him biased. Finally another limitation of Source I is that the content is heavily based on criticizing the current government making it only focus on the negatives of appeasement not the positives.
Both sources agree that because of appeasement Britain was unable to stop Hitler plans. Both sources agree that it was important for Britain to rearm itself to face Germany. Both sources agree that Britain’s political landscape lend it to be a weak country. Finally, both sources agree that the munich conference showed the absurdity of appeasement
While source K paints appeasement as a sensible strategy at that time source L paints the policy’s of appeasements as absurd. While source K paints the horrors of WW1 as an obstacle for rearmament source L paints it as helping expedite rearmament