Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
23 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is the message of? (6)
|
THE MESSAGE OF THE SOURCE IS:
EVIDENCE: CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE: Justify, put in wider context, go beyond the surface detail and try to make the inference. |
|
|
Why was the Source Published in...(7)
|
The source was published in...because....'. Identify purpose, use source detail to support this and also CK.
PSCK. Why was this source published THEN? What's it trying to say? Why do they want to say THAT THEN? The date of the source is key here. Explain purpose, support with evidence, put in wider picture. |
|
|
Is one source more useful than the other for understanding? (7)
|
Evaluate the usefulness of one source using relevant contextual knowledge and cross referencing to your own knowledge.
Evaluate the usefulness of the other source in the same way. Give a comparative assessment about which is more useful and why (Who wrote it? Does it give the full picture? Does it show a particular attitude that is useful to know>) |
|
|
Which source is more reliable? (7)
|
Talk about the ccc of the first source focusing on reliability.
Same for the second. Make a comparative assessment. It's important you use your own knowledge to assess reliability. |
|
|
How far does source... agree with...? (8)
|
Talk about bits that agree (with details from the sources -ccc)
Talk about the things which disagree (with details - ccc) Talk about whether overall they essentially agree or disagree. |
|
|
Are you surprised that...(7)
|
What is the message? Who's saying it? What's their involvement? ARE YOU SURPRISED THAT THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEN? Are there good reasons for being both surprised and not surprised?
BALANCED RESPONSE. No overall judgement needed. Give brief answer to the question [comment] the compare the details of the source [content] to what you know [context[ and explain whether the details of the source are suprising. |
|
|
How far does Source A prove that B is right/wrong? (8)
|
Briefly explain what source B says:
State whether source A proves it to be right/wrong [comment]. Support this with details from a compared to details from B [ content]. Put both into wider context to explain how far. [Reliability/Context]. In other words, do the two agree or disagree? You need to consider the messages of each source and mostly importantly can you trust source X? If you can't trust it than the chances are it can't prove Y wrong. Start with sources and evaluate them in terms of usefulness and reliability then test them against each other. |
|
|
How far do these sources prove that...(12)
|
Should be 3 sources that support the hypothesis and 3 against.
Do not forget you can get extra marks for evaluating 2 sources (i.e how reliable are they for answering the question.) To do this you can cross-reference to your own knowledge to evaluate their reliability. No need to spend too much time on contextual knowledge here - only unless it supports the argument. REACH A CONCLUSION. |
|
|
How do you assess reliability?
|
Provenance of the source. (Date, where it's from.)
Motive of the Author/Artist/Photographer. What is the Context? (Circumstances/Conditions of time) What does the CONTENT tell you? Bias? What does the source tell you? Primary or secondary source? Reliability is not utility. Credibility of the author? |
|
|
How do you assess utility?
|
ALWAYS will be useful. How though?
USEFUL FOR WHAT? Something nothing else will, what someone wanted people to believe (propaganda), gives you a national/personal perspective. What are its LIMITATIONS? What doesn't it tell us? USEFUL/UTILITY - USE IN ANSWER. Formula: Provenance and Context: Date? Nationality? Purpose? Intended audience? Viewpoint of the person who created the source? What was happening at the time? Sufficiency: Are there facts missing? One viewpoint? Can the source tell us ALL that we need to know about the topic? Was the person there? BIAS: Even so, it tells us what they want us to think. Own Knowledge: Fill in those gaps. |
|
|
Who attented the 1919-1920>
|
32 Nations were represented.
Main decisions were taken by George Clemenceau, Woodrow Wilson, and Lloyd George. Italy wanted to be part of the big 4, but with little success. Big Three were advised by diplomats, lawyers and experts, but often ignored their advice. Representatives of defeated countries were not invited. |
|
|
What was public mood like in 1919?
|
The war was over, but bitterness and hatred remained.
The Big 3 were under pressure from people back home to deal severely with Germany. British and French people especially thought Germany was responsible for the war and should be punished, including having to pay reparations. Britain had lost 750,000 men, borrowed 9 Billion, Lloyd George fought the 1918 General election on slogans such as 'Hang the Kaiser' and 'Make Germany Pay'. France had lost 1 and a hlaf million men and North East France had been devastated. Demands for harsh treatment of Germany increased when it became known how harsh the treaty of Brest-Litovsk had been in 1918. |
|
|
How did the Big Three differ in their aims at Paris?
|
France - Cripple Germany so she couldn't attack again. (Such as in 1870 and 1914). Receive compensation for damage suffered to land, industry and people, Clemenceau was a tough uncompromising politician.
USA - Make the 'Great War to end all wars'. Punish Germany but not too harshly so Germany wouldn't attack again, they were also a good trading partner. Strengthen democracy in defeated nations to prevent leaders causing war, League of Nations to promote international co-operation; self determination; 14 points; Wilson was an idealist and a reformer. England - Middle ground between France and the USA; wanted to punish Germany but not as much as France, Didn't want German revenge and wanted Germany as a trading partner). They wanted to confiscate German colonies and navy to strengthen the British Empire; a realist who knew there would have to be a compromise. |
|
|
Why were there disagreement and compromises between the big 3?
|
Wilson had to agree to French plans for the Rhineland and Saar - USA hadn't suffered as badly as France, explaining Clemenceau's harsher attitude to Germany.
Clemenceau and Lloyd George had to agree to Wilson's plans for self-determination for eastern European countries, despite reservations. Clemenceau criticised Britain for being too lenient on Germany on Germany in Europe, and only harsh when it came to Germany colonies and the navy. Lloyd George was unhappy about Wilson's insistence on access to the seas for all nations, and was uneasy about self-determination. None of the Big 3 were satisfied, too lenient for France, and Clemenceau was rejected by French parliament in 19120, Lloyd George later described it as a 'great pity\ though it made him popular in a short run. Wilson was disappointed, thinking it was too harsh on Germany and the US Congress refused to ratify it. |
|
|
What were the terms of the Treaty?
|
Germany accepted the blame for the war.
They had to pay 6.6 Billion worth of reparations in 1921. Germany Territory lost - Alsace Lorraine to France, Eupen and Malmedy to Belgium, Northern Schleswig to Denmark, Saarland run by League for 15 Years, then a plebiscite, West Prussia and Posen to Poland (the Polish Corridor), Upper Silesia to Poland, Danzig made a free city, run by League, union of Germany and Austria forbidden. Overseas Colonies - Confiscated and became 'mandates' controlled by the League, and basically controlled by Britain, France and others; e.g German East Africa to Britain, Cameroon to France, New Guinea to Australia, Samoa to New Zealand. Demilitarisation - Army limited to 100,000 men, serving for 12 years, conscription banned, no armoured vehicles, submarines, aircraft, heavy artillery, only 6 battleships, demilitarisation of Rhineland with occupation by allied troops. |
|
|
How did Germany react to the Treat of Versailles?
|
Germany lost 10% of it's land, 12.5% of its population, 16% of its coalfields, 50% of its iron and steel industry, and 100% of its overseas colonies.
War Guilt Clause they resented, as it justified reparations, which threatened to destroy the German economy. Disamament - Bad as Germany had a strong military tradition, and no one else had disarmed. Territorial losses were a big blow to pride, and many thought they had merely agreed to a ceasefire, rather than surrendered. 'Stab in the Back' - German army had felt they were betrayed by the politicians. Germany were angry they were represented and that the treaty was a 'diktat'. They signed on the 28th of June 1919. Double standards - self determination for some, not for many Germans (In Poland, Austria, Czechoslovakia); disarmament only for Germany; creation of a LON but Germany couldn't join. |
|
|
Where Germans right to resent the treaty?
|
It was harsh, but less harsh than the treaty of Brest Litovsk, imposed on Russia by Germany in 1918.)
Many belived Germany would be just as harsh, however British economist J.M Keynes said the reparations were far too severe. German economic problems were partly their own fault - Britain and France had raised taxes to pay for the war, whereas Germany planned to pay for it by means of reparations from defeated states. |
|
|
What was the impact of the Versailles Treaty on Germany?
|
Made President Ebert and his government very unpopoular, and contributed to the Kapp Putsch, which was only defeated by a general strike, which was bad for the economy, and provoke a harsh reaction by the french (100 killed, 100,000 expelled).
Many blamed the hyper inflation of 1923 on the reparations. |
|
|
Could the Treaty of Versailles be justified at the time?
|
Some say it was too harsh and contributed to the rise of HItler and Nazis, and therefore WW2.
At the time, most non-Germans thought it was fair - if not too lenient, and it's probably true Germany would have been just as harsh if they had won. A more generous treaty would have been unacceptable to British and French public opinion. Some historians point out it was a very hard task to agree a settlement, and the Treaty was the best that could be done in the circumstances. |
|
|
What was the Treaty of St Germain?
|
With Austria, meant they had to pay reparations; Austro-Hungarian Empire was broken up and land was redistributed to form 'succession states'. Lots of Austrian industry went to Czechoslovakia causing economic problems; Italy thought she should have got more Austrian territory than she did.
|
|
|
What was the Treaty of of Trianon?
|
Transylvania to Romania; Slovakia and Ruthenia to Czechoslovakia; Slovenia to Yugoslavia; three million Hungarians ended up in other states; much industry and raw materials were lost; supposed to pay reparations, but its economy was so weak it never did.
|
|
|
What was the Treaty of Neuilly and Sevres
|
Neuilly was with Bulgaria, lost lands to Greece, Romania and Yugolsavia, and access to Mediterranean Sea; reparations; but treated less harshly than others because it had played a fairly small part in the war.
Treaty of Sevres - Formal acceptance of break up of Ottoman Empire; lost control of the Straits connecting the Mediterranean and the Black Sea; Smyrna to Greece; the Turks were outraged and the Treaty was challenged by Turkish nationalists, led by Mustapha Kemal and had to be renegotiated as the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. |
|
|
What was the impact of the Paris Peace Treaties on central and eastern Europe?
|
Creation of new countries: Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Yugoslavia that were meant to be politically stable.
|
