Commack Schools



Name: _________________________________Helpful Hints in Approaching the Compare and Contrast Question on Paper OneThe compare and contrast question is worth six marks on the IB Paper One exam. Therefore, you need SIX separate points that compare and contrast the two sources. There doesn’t have to be three similarities and three differences. However, the total must amount to SIX.Refer to the sources as “Source __” or “Source __”. One of your points should be a compare or contrast of the origin of the sources. Be sure to explain how the origin of the source impacts the interpretation of the exam question. Look for phrases that appear in both sources. This can include but is not limited to: common names, events, locations, and historical vocabulary. Once you pinpoint a commonality, you must decide if the sources are comparing them or contrasting them. You can and should quote the sources, however you should only quote a few words (two or three words to support your point). The key to this question is linkage, i.e. you are expected to discuss the sources together throughout your response. The examiner is looking for a running commentary. At no time should you talk about one source without relating it to the other. “End-on accounts” – where you write about the content of one source followed by the content of the second source – do not score well. Here are some sentence prompts: How to draw comparisons/show similarities:Both Source __ and Source __ suggest... Like Source __, Source __ states…In the same way that Source __ argues…, Source __ points out that…How to draw contrasts/show differences:Source __ suggests…; however, Source __ says… Source __ disagrees with Source __ regarding… Source __ claims… as opposed to Source __ which asserts…* On the actual IB exam, you will not number the similarities/differences. You will put them in sentence form. Name: ______________________________________Directions:Read and annotate each source. On the accompanying handout, highlight and explain a combination of six similarities (compare) and differences (contrasts) between the two sources.Source A: Paul Birdsall, an historian and diplomat, writing in the specialist history book Versailles Twenty Years After (1941). The “Reparation” chapter of the Treaty of Versailles, besides being a clear violation of the Pre-Armistice Agreement with Germany, proved in the outcome to be the most disastrous section of the treaty. Keynes spoke with authority on that subject.One of the criticisms against the territorial settlement in Europe is directed against the shattering of the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary into a number of states. In this view the negotiators at Paris should have foreseen the economic and political need of a Confederation to combine them. Yet Austria-Hungary had fallen apart before the Peace Conference met and self-appointed national governments ruled these states. The populations of central Europe were hopelessly mixed, and therefore pure self-determination was impossible. Any boundary would leave national minorities on one side or the other. It was not directly the Great Powers which profited from the partition of former German and Austro-Hungarian territory, but those new Slavic states which had themselves been partitioned and dominated for centuries.The various treaties negotiated at Paris are the closest approximation to an ethnic map of Europe that had ever been achieved.Source D:Michael Richards and Paul Waibel, professors of history, writing in their introductory book Twentieth Century Europe: A Brief History, 1900 to the Present (2014).Had the Treaty of Versailles been the only product of the Paris Peace Conference, Europe might have maintained political stability in the 1920s and 1930s. There were, however, four additional treaties. The failure of several of these agreements, combined with the limited success of Versailles, created an extremely unstable situation. Austria and Hungary became small, relatively weak states. Austria was a landlocked state unbalanced in every imaginable way, but especially economically. Unfortunately, Austria was not allowed to join with Germany for fear that this would strengthen the latter.The other problem involved the creation of a series of new states in central and Eastern Europe and conflicting claims over territory and population. The idea of national self-determination was extremely difficult to apply in this area with any fairness. Czechoslovakia, for example, included areas in which the majority of the population was German or Polish; these areas had been included for strategic reasons.The settlement in Eastern Europe tore apart what had been an important economic unit. Factories were now in one state, their sources of raw materials in a second, and their traditional markets in a third. This contributed to the weakness and instability of the area and prevented any possibility that the states of Eastern Europe could serve as a proper counterbalance to either Germany or the Soviet Union.Name: ________________________________Compare and contrast the views expressed in Sources A and D about the impact of the Paris Peace Treaties.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Answer KeyIB History May 2016 Paper 1Compare and ContrastBoth sources were written by historians. Source A was written twenty years after the Paris Peace Conference in 1941, whereas Source D was written nearly one hundred years after the Paris Peace Conference in 2014. Richards and Waibel having more historical hindsight were able to point out the significance of Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union in containing Nazism, whereas Birdsall does not recognize the importance of these nations in containing Nazism. Both sources were critical of the Treaty of Versailles, however Source D recognizes the other four treaties and their failure to maintain European peace. Source A asserts that the reparations chapters were the most catastrophic aspect of the Treaty of Versailles, whereas Source D does not specifically mention the reparations chapters. Both Source A and D agree that Austria would not be an economically viable state on its own. Source A makes the claim that if the Dual Monarchy (Austria-Hungary) was preserved, it would have stabilized the heart of Europe, whereas Source D asserts that Austria would benefit from uniting with Germany. Both Source A and D concur that allowing national self-determination was not realistic. Source A states, “pure self-determination was impossible.” Source D states, “self-determination was extremely difficult.” The mixed ethnicities in Europe made it hard to satisfy claims for national self-determination. Sources A and D differ on their interpretation of Slavic strength in Europe. Source A states that the new Slavic states “profited” from the redrawing of the map of Europe whereas, Source D describes Eastern Europe as an area plagued by “weakness and instability.” The reason for this discrepancy is that Source D has the benefit of historical hindsight and knows the fate of Eastern Europe during WWII and post-war. IB Markscheme Compare and contrast the views expressed in Sources A and D about the impact of the ParisPeace Treaties. [6]For “compare”Both sources claim that the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire contributed to the creation of a weak Austria.Both sources argue that self-determination was difficult to apply in Central Europe.Both sources claim that the peace settlement caused political and/or economic problems.For “contrast”Source D seems to indicate that the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was a result of the peace settlement whereas Source A states it had fallen apart before the Conference met.Source A considers the Paris treaties to have been the closest to an ethnographic/cultural map that Europe had ever had whereas Source D doesn?t seem to agree that this was the case, for example, areas of Czechoslovakia had large numbers of German and Polish people living in them.Source A claims that the most disastrous economic effects of the Treaty of Versailles were reparations whereas Source D considers that the unstable economic situation was caused by a combination of the Treaty of Versailles and the four other treaties.Source D is critical of the effects of the Peace Treaties for Europe whereas Source A suggests that the new Slavic states made some gains from the new territorial arrangements.Do not demand all of the above. If only one source is discussed award a maximum of [2]. If the two sources are discussed separately award [3] or with excellent linkage [4–5]. For maximum [6] expect a detailed running comparison/contrast. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download