We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

The Historical Investigation Essay

Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website!

Teacher Support Material History Internal Assessment k INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE ORGANIZATION For first examinations in 2003 b Diploma Programme HISTORY Internal Assessment Teacher Support Material For first examinations in 2003 International Baccalaureate Organization Buenos Aires Cardiff Geneva New York Singapore

Diploma Programme History Internal Assessment Teacher Support Material International Baccalaureate Organization, Geneva, CH-1218, Switzerland First published in February 2002 Second edition published in March 2004 by the International Baccalaureate Organization Peterson House, Malthouse Avenue, Cardiff Gate Cardiff, Wales GB CF23 8GL UNITED KINGDOM Tel: + 44 29 2054 7777 Fax: + 44 29 2054 7778 Web site: www. ibo. org © International Baccalaureate Organization 2004 The IBO is grateful for permission to reproduce and/or translate any copyright material used in this publication.

Acknowledgments are included, where appropriate, and, if notified, the IBO will be pleased to rectify any errors or omissions at the earliest opportunity. The IBO wishes to acknowledge the work of the following for their help in the production of this document: Sonia Clarke, chief examiner Alaric Dickinson, principal examiner Betty Woodfin, deputy chief examiner, Exeter College IBO merchandise and publications in its official and working languages can be purchased through the online catalogue at www. ibo. rg, found by selecting Publications from the shortcuts box. General ordering queries should be directed to the sales department in Cardiff. Tel: +44 29 2054 7746 Fax: +44 29 2054 7779 E-mail: [email protected] org Printed in the United Kingdom by the International Baccalaureate Organization, Cardiff. 3016 Contents Introduction The Historical Investigation: Guidance for Teachers Frequently Asked Questions The Historical Investigation: Guidance for Students The Written Account Outlines for the Historical Investigation 1. An investigation into social history 2.

We will write a custom essay sample on The Historical Investigation specifically for you

Order now

An investigation of an event represented in newspaper reports 1 2 3 4 5 7 7 8 3. An investigation comparing a film and a written account of a historical event 9 4. An investigation into local history 10 The Historical Investigation: Assessed Examples Example 1: How significant was Fidel Castro’s role in the Missile Crisis of 1962? 11 11 Example 2: To what extent do the film, The Charge of the Light Brigade, and the book, The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost, agree on the apportioning of blame for the failure of the charge of the Light Brigade? 1 Example 3: To what extent was the involvement of the United States government and the CIA responsible for the downfall of Salvador Allende? Example 4: What were the real motives for the different views held by Churchill and Chamberlain during the years previous to World War II? Example 5: The Women’s Army Corps during World War II 30 42 59 Introduction This teacher support material has been prepared by senior examiners and practising teachers of Diploma Programme (DP) history. It should be read in conjunction with the DP History guide (published February 2001 for first examinations in 2003).

The detailed requirements for the internally assessed components, and the internal assessment criteria, are given in the “Assessment Details” section of the guide. In brief, the requirements for internal assessment for the history course (first examinations in 2003) are that: • the student undertakes a historical investigation of his or her choice • the emphasis is on a specific historical inquiry under the guidance of a teacher • the student applies the skills of the historian to the investigation.

The historical investigation is assessed against six criteria that are related to the objectives of the history course. The purpose of this document This teacher support material has been developed: • to provide further clarification of the nature of the internal assessment • to offer guidance to teachers on their role in the production of internal assessment • to provide teachers with examples of the kinds of work that can be undertaken for the historical investigation • to show the application of the assessment criteria.

The document includes four outlines illustrating some possible approaches to the historical investigation. These are followed by five examples of the full historical investigation. The examples provided are actual student work and are presented in their original styles, which may include spelling, grammatical and any other errors. All five examples are followed by detailed comments and marks on each criterion, written by senior examiners. Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 1 The Historical Investigation: Guidance for Teachers What is it?

A historical investigation consisting of a written account of between 1,500 and 2,000 words, divided into six sections: a plan of the investigation, a summary of evidence, an evaluation of sources, an analysis, a conclusion, and a bibliography or list of sources. The investigation must be a written piece and should be the work of the individual student. Group work is not permitted. All higher level (HL) and standard level (SL) history students. This is not specified but a suggestion is: A 100–150, B 500–600, C 250–400, D 500–650, E 150–200. Total 1,500–2,000.

It is marked out of 20 for both HL and SL and weighted at 20% (for HL) and 25% (for SL) of the final assessment. Timing is up to the teacher, but it is advisable to start the investigation at least three months before the date that samples for the May and November sessions have to be with the moderators. Any genuine historical topic, but the teacher must agree it with the student. 1. Explain how the internal assessment works. Students should be given a copy of the instructions for the historical investigation from the “Internal Assessment” section of the guide. 2.

Set a timetable for the different stages, for example, choosing the topic, first draft, final version. 3. Discuss topics and the availability of sources. 4. Agree topics; some teachers institute a specific programme of coordinated syllabus topics, others allow “free choice”. 5. Give class lessons on how to tackle the exercise, emphasizing in particular the importance of a well-defined thesis question, the use and evaluation of sources, note taking, analysis, and the preferred system for references and the bibliography. 6. Advise the students individually if and when necessary. 7.

Read the students’ first drafts and advise them how their work could be improved, but do not annotate the written draft heavily. 8. Check and advise about references and the bibliography. 9. Assess all internal assessment according to the criteria in the guide. 10. Complete the appropriate forms: 3/IA and 3/CS. Be sure to affirm that the internal assessment is the student’s own work in the relevant section. 11. Send samples to the IBO for external moderation. Who does it? How many words should there be in each section? How many marks is it worth? When is it done? What can it be about?

What should the teacher do? 2 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 Frequently Asked Questions • Can the investigation be on a topic outside the IB Diploma Programme history syllabus? Yes, this is perfectly acceptable. • How many sources should be used in the investigation? Students should use as many as will produce an effective investigation. Two of these sources should be selected for evaluation (section C of the investigation). • Should the teacher comment on several drafts of the investigation? No; only the first one, which should not be heavily annotated or edited. Is it possible to have historical investigations approved by IBCA before they are undertaken? This is not a requirement and is not regular practice, but guidance is available from IBCA if the validity of the investigation is in doubt. • Is a penalty imposed when students do not follow the recommendations on the length of the investigation? No marks will be awarded for criterion F if the investigation is shorter than 1,500 or longer than 2,000 words. The word limit has been imposed in order to focus the student’s investigation, to ensure fairness for all students and to reduce the overload on teachers and students. Should the teacher write comments on the finished investigation? This is not a requirement but comments can be very helpful to the moderator in understanding how marks have been allocated. • Should the teacher make a copy of the student’s investigation? Yes, this is advisable. After the process of moderation, the investigations are kept for several months by the moderator and then destroyed. The student and teacher may therefore like to keep a record of the finished investigation. • What do I do if I suspect that the student’s work is not their own?

If you have reasonable evidence that this is the case, make the student rewrite his or her investigation. If time does not permit this, then do not sign the form and submit the reasons for your suspicion. Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 3 The Historical Investigation: Guidance for Students Teachers may find that it is useful to photocopy this page and the section entitled “The Written Account” to give to students. Planning 1. Start by identifying a general area of interest. 2. Narrow it down to a specific question/area of investigation. 3. Choose a working title that may be changed/refined at a later stage. . Make sure you can obtain sufficient resources for your planned investigation. 5. Read widely around the area of study and note down resources used. 6. Review your thesis question and refine it if necessary. 7. Take notes from your chosen resources, including exact references. 8. Complete section A (the plan) and show it to your teacher. 9. Re-read your notes and decide where they would fit into the sections of the investigation. 10. Complete your investigation, according to the IBO guidelines. On completion of the investigation, you may find it useful to use the following checklist.

Checklist Does the front cover have your name, candidate number, word count and thesis question/statement? Are all the pages numbered? Have you completed all the sections of the historical investigation? A: Plan of the investigation B: Summary of evidence C: Evaluation of sources D: Analysis E: Conclusion F: List of sources Does your bibliography contain all the sources used? Is your bibliography set out in alphabetical order? Is your investigation within the word limit of 1,500–2,000? Completed 4 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 The Written Account

This section is taken from the History guide (February 2001), but includes further guidance on producing the written account of the historical investigation. Regardless of the type of historical investigation chosen, every student must produce a written account consisting of the following six sections: A Plan of the investigation B Summary of evidence C Evaluation of sources D Analysis E Conclusion F List of sources A Plan of the investigation The plan of the investigation should include: • the subject of the investigation, which may be formulated as a question • the methods to be used in the investigation.

This is a relatively brief but important section. A sharply focused question and a clearly structured plan will be more likely to produce a successful investigation. B Summary of evidence The summary of evidence should indicate what the student has found out from the sources he or she has used. It can be in the form of either a list or continuous prose. Any illustrations, documents, or other relevant evidence should be included in an appendix and will not be included in the word count. This section should be organized and referenced and provide evidence of thorough research.

C Evaluation of sources This section of the written account should be a critical evaluation of two important sources appropriate to the investigation and should refer to their origin, purpose, value and limitation. More than two sources may be evaluated but the emphasis should be on the thorough evaluation of two sources rather than a superficial evaluation of a greater number. The two sources chosen should be appropriate for the investigation and could, for example, be written, oral or archeological.

The purpose of this section is to assess the usefulness of the sources but not to describe their content or nature. Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 5 The Written Account D Analysis The analysis should include: • the importance of the investigation in its historical context • analysis of the evidence • if appropriate, different interpretations. In this section the elements of the investigation identified in section B will be broken down into key issues/points. Consideration of historical context can add weight and perspective to the study.

Where appropriate (depending on the scope of the investigation) links can be made with associated events and developments to aid understanding of the historical importance of the chosen investigation. E Conclusion The conclusion must be clearly stated and consistent with the evidence presented. This section is a follow-up to section D. It requires an answer or conclusion, based on the evidence presented, which either partially or fully addresses the question stated or implied in the investigation. F List of sources A bibliography or list of sources must be included although this will not form part of the word count.

All sources, whether written or otherwise (including interviews), should be listed. A recognized method of listing sources must be used consistently throughout the investigation, for example, the Harvard author–date system. It is recommended that written sources be listed separately from non-written sources, for example, web addresses, oral interviews. Total: 1,500–2,000 words, 20 marks 6 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 Outlines for the Historical Investigation These four outlines illustrate some possible approaches to the historical investigation. 1.

An investigation into social history How successfully did Hitler promote the ideal of the family in the Third Reich? A Plan of the investigation To establish what Hitler’s ideal for the family was. To measure how far his vision accorded with reality. B Summary of evidence Background: position of family/women prior to 1933. Duties of women defined as: children, church, kitchen (kinder, kirche, kuche). Hitler’s ideals: Mein Kampf and other contemporary sources, for example, speeches. Evaluation of evidence: historians of social history of Third Reich. C Evaluation of sources Comparison of two historical studies, for example, Crew, D F. 994. Nazism and German Society 1933–1945. Routledge; Noakes, J and Pridham, G. 1984. Nazism 1919–1945, Vol 2. State, Economy & Society 1933–39. University of Exeter. D Analysis The place of family in Nazi ideology. Role of men: penalties on bachelors. Ideal of women as mothers/wives/employees as promoted by Hitler and Goebbels. Reality of women’s position: Lebensborn (homes for unmarried mothers); employment patterns— demands of war and rearmament. E Conclusion Evaluation of myth of German family as measured against evidence of family life from social history studies.

Discussion of pressures/outside influences that undermined family policy. Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 7 Outlines for the Historical Investigation 2. An investigation of an event represented in newspaper reports How did newspaper reports on the death of Kennedy vary, and how reliable were they? A Plan of the investigation To show how the reports of Kennedy’s assassination reflected the impact of the event on America. To demonstrate how reporting changed with the passage of time. B Summary of evidence Sections on Kennedy and on assassination. Immediate reactions of the press.

Subsequent press reports. C Evaluation of sources Evaluation of major newspaper reports, such as in the Washington Post and The Times (London). Either compare contemporary accounts or show how treatment of Kennedy’s assassination changed over time in one newspaper. D Analysis Importance of context. Tone of early reportage and analysis of reasons for it. How newspaper reporting changed with emerging evidence and changing mood of country. E Conclusion Accuracy and effectiveness of reporting. Discussion of newspapers as sources of historical evidence. 8 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004

Outlines for the Historical Investigation 3. An investigation comparing a film and a written account of a historical event How and why did the accounts of the storming of the Winter Palace in October 1917 differ in the film, October, and in the book, A People’s Tragedy, The Russian Revolution 1891–1924? A Plan of the investigation To study the film October and compare it with a historical study of the storming of the Winter Palace. B Summary of evidence Film footage: October, 1927, directed by Eisenstein (account of storming of Winter Palace)— emphasis on symbols. Written account: Figes, O. 1996.

A People’s Tragedy, The Russian Revolution 1891–1924. Pimlico. Details of evidence: discussion of significance. C Evaluation of sources Eisenstein’s October: functions—propaganda, creation of a myth. Historical focus of A People’s Tragedy, The Russian Revolution 1891–1924. D Analysis Myth of revolutionary uprising—spontaneous or not? Function of film—giving confidence and pride to an emerging Russian state. Focus of historian—overall evaluation. E Conclusion Contrast between the two sources. Analysis of revolutionary myth. Evaluation of sources and evidence as presented, for example, propaganda, western historian’s view.

Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 9 Outlines for the Historical Investigation 4. An investigation into local history How, when and why was the church/mosque/temple of [name] built and what can be learnt from it about the village of [name] in a defined period? A Plan of the investigation To establish how, when and why the church/mosque/temple was built, its contribution to village/town life and what can be learnt from it about the life of the people of [name]. B Summary of evidence How: building methods, style, architecture. When: chronology, origin and changes.

Why: religious motives, social status, demographic context. History of and from it: demographic changes, religious changes, social implications, war damage, plague (graveyards). C Evaluation of sources Buildings and artifacts: the church/mosque/temple and its religious “furniture”. Written sources: parish/local records. D Analysis Religious practices, changes, beliefs. Impact of political change/revolutions. Rise and fall in the economic status of the area. War and plague that hit the area. Art and architecture. E Conclusion The church/mosque/temple as a historic monument or a living record. Buildings such as castles, forts, industrial buildings, bridges, poor houses (unions), could be treated in the same way. ) 10 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 The Historical Investigation: Assessed Examples Example 1: How significant was Fidel Castro’s role in the Missile Crisis of 1962? Table of Contents A. Plan of Investigation ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 B. Summary of Evidence ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1-3 C.

Evaluation of Sources …………………………………………………………………………………………… 4-5 D. Analysis ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5-7 E. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………… 7 F. Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 1 Example 1 How Significant was Fidel Castro’s Role in the Missile Crisis of 1962? A. Plan of Investigation The investigation assesses the significance of Fidel Castro in the Missile Crisis of 1962. In order to evaluate Castro’s significance, the investigation evaluates his role in each stage of the Crisis in reference to other participants of the event; Castro’s role is investigated in the initial days of the Crisis, during the shooting down of the American U-2 plane, and in the resolution of the Crisis. Memoirs and oral history are mostly used to evaluate Castro’s significance.

Two of the sources used in the essay, Cuba on the Brink: Castro, the Missile Crisis and the Soviet Collapse compiled by James Blight, Allyn Bruce and David Welsh and Cuban documents, “The Mikoyan-Castro Talks, 4-5 November 1962: the Cuban Version,” are then evaluated for their origins, purposes, values and limitations. The investigation does not assess the difference in ideologies (communist versus imperialism or capitalism) of the nations involved nor does the investigation assess opinions other than those of United States, Soviet Union, and Cuba. B.

Summary of Evidence Prior to the Missile Crisis, Castro-American relationships were already strained by the Bay of Pigs in 1961 in which American funded counterrevolutionary Cubans to invade Cuba and overthrow Castro. 1 The counterrevolutionary failed, pushing Castro into an alliance with communist Soviet Union and leaving Castro wary of American designs in Cuba. 2 Castro’s fears were confirmed in early 1962 when his intelligence service noticed signs of U. S. activities related to what was later uncovered to be Operation Mongoose, another American invasion to overthrow Castro. Thus, “it was under these circumstances that [Cuban officials] Nikita S. Khrushchev, Khrushchev Remembers: The Glasnost Tapes. Trans and ed. Jerrold L. Schechter with Yacheslav V. Luchkov. (Boston: Little Brow, 1990) 171. 2 Philip Brenner and James G. Blight, “The Crisis and Cuban-Soviet Relations: Fidel Castro’s Secret 1968 Speech,” Cold War International History Project Bulletin. No. 5 (Spring 1995). 3 James G. Blight et al. Cuba on the Brink: Castro, the Missile Crisis and the Soviet Collapse. (New York: Pantheon, 1993) 19. 12 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 Example 1 informed the Soviet Union that [they] were concerned about a direct invasion of Cuba by the United States and that [they] were thinking about how to step up [their] country’s ability to resist an attack”. 4 In response, Soviet President Khrushchev conceived the plan of protecting Cuban sovereignty by “installing missile with nuclear warheads in Cuba without letting the United States find out until it was too late do anything about them. 5 Castro accepted Khrushchev’s proposal6 and the Soviet Union began deploying nuclear arms. For America, the Crisis began in mid October 1962 when American intelligence discovered Russian nuclear missile in Cuba. For most of the world, the Crisis began on 22 October 1962 when American President Kennedy revealed in a televised broadcast that U. S. “surveillance of the Soviet military build-up on the island of Cuba” had uncovered “as series of offensive missile sites” in preparation for no other purpose “than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the Western Hemisphere. 7 After Kennedy’s broadcast, the American President called for a naval blockade of Cuba8 and used diplomatic negotiations with Khrushchev to come to an agreement in the removal of the weapons. During negotiations, several incidents occurred which heightened tensions and seemed to bring the world one step closer to nuclear holocaust. One of the incidents is the shooting down of the U. S. U-2 airplane on 27 October 1962 causing the death of Major Rudolf Anderson Jr. 9 At the time the United States and the Soviet Union believed that it was Castro who ordered Cuban antiaircraft artillery to fire at low-flying U.

S. planes on the morning of 27 October. ’10 After further analysis, it is clear that it was a Soviet soldier, not Cuban, who shot the plane. Although Castro ordered Cuban antiaircraft artillery to fire, there is no evidence that he ordered Soviet Blight, 19. Nikita S. Khrushchev, Khrushchev Remembers. Ed. and trans. Strobe Talbott. (Boston: Little Brow, 1970) 493. 6 Khrushchev, Glasnost. 171. 7 Anatoli I. Gribkov and William Y. Smith, Operation ANADYR: U. S. and Soviet Generals Recount the Cuban Missile Crisis. (Chicago: Edition Q, 1994) 1. Ibid, 28. 9 Ibid, 66. 10 Ibid, 67. 5 4 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 13 Example 1 artillery to fire. Instead, what is most likely to have happened was that the Soviet officers in Cuba identified so closely with the Cuban government’s cause that their field commander gave the order to shoot at the U-2, thinking as an ally supporting comrades in war. 11 Another incident is Castro’s letter to Khrushchev recommending that the Soviet Union should launch a first-strike nuclear attack on the United States. 2 This outlandish recommendation shocked Khrushchev, leaving him with the impression that Castro “was a young and hotheaded man” one who was “inexperienced as a statesman. ” 13 The Crisis drew to a close when both great powers found a mutual solution outlined in a message sent by Khrushchev on 26 October 1962, and in Kennedy’s response of 27 October; the two men agreed that if the Soviets would withdraw their offensive weapons from Cuba under United Nations supervision, the U. S. would remove its naval blockade of the island and pledge not to invade Cuba. 4 The Crisis came to an end on 28 October 1962 when Radio Moscow announced Khrushchev’s “new order to dismantle the weapons… and to crate them and return them to the Soviet Union. ”15 Throughout the negotiation period, neither Castro not a Cuban representative took part, leaving the issue to be “entirely one between the United States and the Soviet Union. ”16 So, Khrushchev’s announcement on the radio not only shocked Castro but also humiliated him for his exclusion from the negotiations. ’17 Blight, xi.

Ibid, 474-491. 13 Khrushchev, Glasnost. 178. 14 Wayne S. Smith, The Closest of Enemies: A Personal and Diplomatic Account of U. S. -Cuban Relations Since 1957. (New York: Norton, 1987) 81. 15 Blight, 472. 16 Philip W. Bonsal, Cuba, Castro and the United States. (London: U of Pittsburgh P, 1971) 187. 17 “The Mikoyan-Castro Talks, 4-5 November 1962: The Cuban Version,” Cold War International History Project Bulletin. Nos. 8-9 (Winter 1996/1997) 12 11 14 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004

Example 1 C. Evaluation of Sources Cuba on the Brink: Castro, the Missile Crisis and the Soviet Collapse compiled by James G. Blight, Allyn J. Bruce and David A. Welsh is an in-depth “report” on the Havana conference in 1992 hosted by Castro to discuss Cuba’s specific role during the Crisis. Cuba on the Brink was written with the purpose to “greatly enlarge the number of ‘participants’ in the Havana conference by supplying context sufficient for our readers to ‘be there’ vicariously. 18 The book’s values lies in the fact that it provides a new Cuban perspective on the Crisis that has often been disregarded. As well, since Castro hosted the conference, the reader is exposed to Castro’s own interpretation and evaluation of Cuba’s significance. Its limitations is that the Havana conference is dependent on “critical oral history19”; considering that the conference occurred thirty years after the Crisis, it is doubtful that the recollections of the veteran participants have not been altered either subconsciously or for the purpose of conforming to political pressures.

Whereas Cuba on the Brink is based on discussion thirty years after the Crisis, “The Mikoyan-Castro Talks, 4-5 November 1962: the Cuban Version” is a record of conversations between Castro and Soviet envoy Mikoyan in the immediate aftermath of Khrushchev’s acceptance of Kennedy’s demand that Soviet nuclear missiles be withdrawn from Cuba. These conversations, which occurred on 4-5 November 1962, were obtained form Philip Brenner, Cuba specialist, who provided them to the Cold War International History Project and were translated form Spanish by Carlos Osorio.

Cuba’s release of these documents provide a valuable source since these records are primary documents recorded immediately after the event and expose the hurt and betrayal felt by Castro over Khrushchev’s decision to withdraw. As well, since this is a conversation between a Soviet and a Cuban, the historian can notice the different interpretations of each country. These Cuban documents are limited as they were translated awkwardly and both documents are transcriptions of memo notes taken during a speech and do not seem to have been corrected.

However, these Cuba documents can be compared against the Russian version of the Mikoyan-Castro Talks released prior to the Cuban version. Thus, assuming that both versions are independent from one another, the historian can compare the versions to one another for accuracy and biases. Blight, 10. Critical oral history is the synthesis of recollections of participants with declassified documentation and the analyses of historians. 19 18 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 15 Example 1 D. Analysis Castro’s significance in the Crisis can either justify or discredit American interference in Cuban internal affairs.

Prior to the event, the international society was willing to accept American attempts to overthrow Castro since Americans were portrayed as heroes while Castro seemed to be a fanatical socialist. 20 But, if Castro was merely a pawn between U. S. and Soviet Union, Castro improves his international reputation making it difficult for future “heroic” American interference in Cuba. In the initial days, Castro’s role seems to be significant for two reasons: one, he consented to Khrushchev’s plan and two; nuclear arms were sent for the sole interest of preserving Castro’s socialist regime.

However, Castro’s role may be more limited since it is unlikely that Khrushchev’s missiles were sent solely to protect Cuba. Is more likely that Khrushchev wanted to equalize the “balance of power” and redress the strategic imbalance between the U. S. and the Soviet Union Before the Crisis, the American had surrounded the Soviet Union with military bases in Turkey21; sending missiles to Cuba would give the United States “a little of their own medicine… it was high time America learned what it feels like to have her own land and her own people threatened. 22 Furthermore, Khrushchev’s and Kennedy’s secret deal later on in the Crisis that Khrushchev would remove missiles from Cuba if Kennedy would remove Jupiters from Turkey give credibility to the possibility that despite Khrushchev’s altruistic claims, it is more plausible that his actions of 1962 were reflective of the Soviet Union’s own interests rather than Castro’s. During late October 1962, Castro’s role is often directly related to the shooting down of the U. S. U-2 airplane. Khrushchev blames Castro, writing, “Castro ordered our antiaircraft 20 21 Blight, 178, Anatoli, 11. 2 Khrushchev, Khrushchev Remembers. 494. 16 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 Example 1 officers to shoot down a U-2 reconnaissance plane. ”23 If Khrushchev’s claim is true, then Castro played a significant role in the Crisis since the shooting down anticipated the end of diplomatic U. S. negotiations and the start of nuclear warfare. Yet, since new evidence indicate that is it more likely that Soviet officers shot down the plane without Castro’s orders, Castro should neither be blamed nor be given significance for the shooting down of the U-2 plane.

As well, Castro’s role is also associated with his recommendation that the Soviet should launch a nuclear attack on the United States. Actually, Castro’s apparent eagerness for nuclear war may be his greatest significance in the Crisis since his willingness to use aggression ironically convinced Khrushchev of the importance of maintaining world peace and contributed to the Soviet decision to yield to the United States. 24 Overall, the clearest indication of Castro’s importance to the Crisis lies in his lack of participation in the Soviet-American negotiations.

Castro did not realize that Khrushchev had conceded to remove all soviet offensive weapons from Cuba until he heard Khrushchev’s announcement on the radio. His exclusion from the negotiations was no error on the SovietAmerican’s behalf, but a sign of his political insignificance in the Crisis. For many U. S. government decision makers at the time of the crisis most have agreed that Cuba was just a locale for a U. S. – Soviet confrontation. Ex U. S. Ambassador to Cuba (1959-60) Philip W.

Bonsal declares that the Missile Crisis cannot truly be classified under Cuban American relation since “the issue was entirely one between the United States and the Soviet Union. ”25 He states that although the confrontation could have eliminated Castro, “the exercise had little to do with him. ”26 23 24 Khrushchev, Glasnost. 178, Ibid, 177. 25 Bonsal, 187. 26 Ibid. Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 17 Example 1 On the other hand, Khrushchev writes in his memoirs that Castro did indeed play a significant role in the Crisis.

He bluntly announces that Castro was solely responsible for the shooting of the U-2 plane27 and that Castro encouraged the Soviet Union to “launch a preemptive strike against the United States. ”28 However, in view of contradicting sources and Khrushchev’s tendency to make declarations without details and factual evidence, it is unlikely that Castro’s role was as significant as claimed. E. Conclusion During each and every stage of the Crisis, Castro’s role is overshadowed by that of the Soviet Union’s and the United States.

In the beginning, it was Khrushchev, not Castro, who initiated the deployment of nuclear arms; and Castro’s’ relation with the U-2 shooting is little more than a misunderstanding on the part of the Soviet soldiers. As argued by Bonsal, the Missile Crisis was entirely between the Soviet Union and the United States. This view can be justified when we consider the possibility that Khrushchev may have sent his missiles for reasons other than for Castro’s defense and when we are faced with Castro’s obvious exclusion from the Crisis negotiations.

Castro’s “role” in the Crisis, if he has one at all, is that he unintentionally helped convinced Khrushchev to concede to Kennedy’s demands. As Castro himself declares, “I cannot take the credit for the resolution of the crisis… the major role belongs to Khrushchev who caused that crisis by his stubbornness, and then resolved it. ”29 Word Count: 1989 Khrushchev, Glasnost, 178. Ibid, 177. 29 Georgy Shakhnazarov, “Fidel Castro, Glasnost, and the Caribbean Crisis,” Cold War International History Project Bulletin. No. 5 (Spring 1995). 28 27 18 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004

Example 1 F. Bibliography Blight James G. , Bruce J. Allyn and David A. Welsh. Cuba on the Brink: Castro, the Missile Crisis and the Soviet Collapse. New York: Pantheon, 1993. Bonsal, Philip W. Cuba, Castro and the United States. London: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1971. Brenner, Philip and James G. Blight. “The Crisis and Cuban Soviet Relations: Fidel Castro’s Secret 1968 Speech,” Cold War International History Project Bulletin. No. 5 (Spring 1995) Gribkov, Anatoli I. And William Y. Smith. Operation ANADYR: U. S. and Soviet Generals Recount the Cuban Missile Crisis. Chicago: Edition Q, 1994.

Khrushchev, Nikita S. Khrushchev Remembers. Ed. and trans. Strobe Talbott. Boston: Little Brow, 1970 —. Khrushchev Remembers: The Glasnost Tapes. Trans and ed. Jerrold L. Schechter with Yacheslav V. Luchkov. Boston: Little Brow , 1990. “The Mikoyan-Castro Talks, 4-5 November 1962: The Cuban Version. ” Cold War International History Project Bulletin. Nos. 8-9 (Winter 1996/1997). Shakhnazarov, Georgy. “Fidel Castro, Glasnost, and the Caribbean Crisis,” Cold War International History project Bulletin. No. 5 (Spring 1995) Smith, Wayne S. The Closest of Enemies: A personal and Diplomatic Account of U.

S. -Cuban Relations Since 1957. New York: Norton, 1987, Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 19 Example 1 Assessment criteria Criterion A Total marks 2 Marks achieved 2 Examiner comments Clearly stated plan that focuses closely on the question. Methodology explained and in addition clear boundaries set in final sentence. Well researched with constant reference to the extent of Castro’s participation. Thoroughly supported from a good range of appropriate sources. Good choice of sources: one contemporary and one secondary. Very clear comments on value and limitations of both.

Could be slightly more focused on purpose of Mikoyan-Castro talks, but still thorough enough for full marks. Castro’s role is constantly analysed with reference to both sources and the sequence of events. However, more critical analysis of the evidence is needed for full marks. The conclusion focuses on Castro’s role and makes a clear judgment. Extensive, clearly standardized bibliography. Investigation within the word limit, very clearly written. An excellent investigation of a popular topic. Only one mark taken off for D, where it was felt greater depth was required for full marks.

B 5 5 C 4 4 D 5 4 E F Total 2 2 20 2 2 19 20 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 Example 2 Example 2: To what extent do the film, The Charge of the Light Brigade, and the book, The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost, agree on the apportioning of blame for the failure of the charge of the Light Brigade? ~ Contents ~ Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Section: A: Plan of the Investigation B: Summary of Evidence C: Evaluation of Sources D: Analysis E: Conclusion F: List of Sources Endnotes Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 1 Example 2 A: Plan of the Investigation To what extent do the film, “The Charge of the Light Brigade” and the book, “The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost” agree on the apportioning of blame for the failure of the Charge of the Light Brigade? The charge of the Light Brigade occurred on 25th October, 1854, during the siege of Sebastopol. It lasted seven minutes and 247 men and 497 horses were lost. There were four men responsible for the chain of actions that led to the charge; Lord Raglan, Captain Nolan, Lord Lucan and Lord Cardigan.

The aim of this investigation is to compare the apportioning of blame on the different officers in both the 1968 film and according to the view of the historian, Mark Adkin, published in 2000. The investigation will look at the actions of the four men that led to the events of 25th October 1854. An analysis of this should indicate the extent to which the sources agree on the apportioning of blame for the failure of the charge. 22 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 Example 2 B: Summary of Evidence 1.

The situation in the Crimea The Crimean War began on 23rd October, 1853 when Russia rejected an ultimatum from Turkey to withdraw her troops from Turkish Moldavia. The ‘balance of power’ in Europe was being threatened so, on 27th March 1854, Britain and France became military allies with an attack on Russia in the Crimea. For the first time in 200 years, “British and French soldiers were to stand together shooting at a common foe rather than at each other”i. 2. The Charge The line-up of the Light Brigade on the morning of the charge was “five regiments of light cavalry, with a combined strength of some 664 all ranks”ii.

Lord Raglan issued the order to the Light Brigade, Captain Nolan delivered it, Lord Lucan received it and Lord Cardigan executed it. The cavalry received four orders from Raglan on that morning. The third order, to Lord Lucan, “was a masterpiece of imprecision and obscurity”iii. “Cavalry to advance and take advantage of any opportunity to recover the heights. They will be supported by the infantry which have been ordered to advance on two fronts”iv However, Lucan could not see the enemy from his position. Lucan then waited.

He later said that this was not any sign of disobeying the order but rather he was waiting for the promised infantry. Raglan grew impatient as he could see the Russians removing the guns from the redoubts on the heights without obstruction, “the chance of recapturing the guns was likely to be lost for ever”v. He asked General Airey to write the fourth order, “Lord Raglan wishes the cavalry to advance rapidly to the front – follow the enemy and try to prevent the enemy carrying away the guns – Troop Horse Artillery may accompany – French cavalry is on your left – R.

Airey”vi Raglan read the order and scrawled the word “immediate” at the end. Captain Nolan took the order to the waiting cavalry. Nolan, being Airey’s aide-de-camp, should have been well informed of the meaning of the order. An officer, Calthorpe, who was there when Nolan was given the order later wrote that Nolan “received careful instructions from both Lord Raglan and the Quartermaster-General”vii. Lucan was indeed “confused, “His Commander-in-Chief had sent him a written order that he did not properly understand and that appeared to contradict the accepted norms of cavalry warfare”viii.

Lucan did not understand to which guns he was supposed to advance as the only ones he could see were at the end of the valley. When he asked Nolan for clarification, the captain pointed to the North Valley and said, “There, my Lord, is the enemy and there are your guns”ix. The nature of Nolan’s answer and the use of “advance rapidly”x and “immediate”xi in the order left Lucan no choice but to obey and thus the Light Brigade charged down the wrong valley, surrounded by guns on all sides. The film and Adkin’s view on these events are very similar. Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 3 Example 2 C: Evaluation of Sources Two of the sources used were: Adkin, Mark, “The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost”. Pimlico, London, 2000. The author writes in the introduction to his work that, “the object of this book is to put the reader as nearly as possible in the saddles of those responsible for issuing the orders that set the charge in motion, and of the participants themselves”xii. The use of battlefield sketches to give an image of the exact view that Raglan could see help to fulfil Adkin’s aim and were useful.

The breadth in the book was also useful – following the recriminations and accusations that continued for years afterwards. This book had few limitations in terms of this investigation. Although sections on disease in the Crimea were not as necessary as the background information on the “four horsemen of calamity”xiii they helped create a more rounded image of what the war was like. Film:“The Charge of the Light Brigade”. Directed by Tony Richardson. Written by Charles Wood. UK, 1968. The film’s script was strongly based on Cecil Woodham-Smith’s book, “The Reason Why”.

It takes from this source a similarly anti-privilege line. Captain Nolan is made to be the film’s hero by having risen through the ranks on “talent not connection”xiv. The film was useful for its portrayal of the characters of the four key officers. Dr. Saul David wrote in his review that Cardigan “could easily have abused one officer, as he does in this film, with the words: “Paymaster? That’s not a rank it’s a trade! ”xv. It was also useful as the depiction of the charge, unlike other events, was recreated almost exactly as it happened.

This served to make understandable the difficulty in which Lucan was placed by the lack of clarity in Raglan’s orders given his position and what he could see. The limitations of this source are in part the historical inaccuracies (although these were mainly in the back ground to the charge rather than the events leading directly to it) and also that the film ends immediately after the charge. It therefore does not comment on the recriminations that swiftly followed which would have helped this investigation be more accurate in judging the apportioning of blame in the film. 24

Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 Example 2 D: Analysis Both Adkin and the film place most of the blame on Nolan with Raglan being the next most responsible. Adkin writes, “Nolan who so scornfully and in all probability deliberately pointed out the wrong objective, must take a large portion of the blame for the charge taking place”xvi. He also comments on the fact that the words “attack” and “charge” do not appear on the fourth order. Raglan “a the very last moment and not appreciating the damage it would do, then told Nolan verbally that Lucan was to “attack immediately””xvii.

Adkin’s view is that it was this that sealed the fate of the Light Brigade. The recriminations that followed the charge focused not so much on the exact content of the orders, not even about whether or not they were understood, “but rather about whether, in the circumstances, Lucan had any choice but to follow Nolan’s verbal order rather than Raglan’s written one”xviii. Raglan had made a spur of the moment decision – his order took no account of the fact that the recipient of his message could not see all that Raglan could and his orders were unclear.

For this, Adkin makes him take substantial blame. The film, portraying Raglan as a man not entirely in control of the situation, a “semi-senile blunderer”ix leaves him in a slightly more positive light. Although these mistakes on Raglan’s part are made clear in the film, the fact that the final order that leads to the charge came from Nolan, verbally, and not Raglan, means that in both the film and in Adkin’s view, Nolan bears the brunt of responsibility. Adkin writes, “Nolan launched the Light Brigade down the North Valley knowing it was not Raglan’s intention.

He must therefore take the bulk of the blame for its loss”xx. However, it is important to note that in the film, Nolan rides forward after the charge has begun, shouting and waving his sword. This suggests to the audience that he has realised his mistake. He is killed shortly following this. This shows that the film places blame on Nolan but he is still viewed sympathetically by the audience as he tried to stop the charge. This is in-line with Cecil Woodham-Smith’s account in “The Reason Why”.

She accounts for his mistake by saying that “when he received the fourth order he was almost off his head with excitement and impatience, and he misread it”xxi. Peter Gibbs does not agree with the idea that it is Nolan who should take most of the blame, “To suggest that (Nolan)…determined to engineer an action which had not been ordered by the commander-in chief…and that he accomplished this extraordinary purpose by a vague gesture of his arm, is pure sophism”xxii. Both sources give far less blame to Cardigan and Lucan than they do Raglan and Nolan.

Adkin’s view is that Lucan has been unfairly judged by Raglan and historians to date. He comments that since, when he did not understand the orders, he questioned Nolan as to what to do and was given an answer upon which he acted, he can only take a small share of the responsibility. The film also shows that the charge was against Lucan’s better judgement and clearly shows Nolan pointing to the wrong valley thus placing more blame on Nolan than Lucan. As Cecil Woodham-Smith wrote, “Had Lord Lucan refused to execute and order brought by a member of the Headquarters staff. . . ew would, in his own words, have had no choice but “to blow his brains out””xxiii. Cardigan, who executed the order, in Adkin’s view “did at brigade level what Lucan had just done at divisional – queried an apparently dubious order and been told to implement it at once”xxiv. The film shows him querying the order with Lucan but neither had the power, the time or the inclination to question it further. Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 25 Example 2 E: Conclusion The film and Adkin seem to agree for the most part on the amount of blame placed on each of the officers.

To Raglan, from his position, his orders made sense. This is demonstrated in both sources. However, Nolan, who delivered the order, added the word “attack” and pointed to the wrong valley. It is he who is made to take the most responsibility in both sources. Raglan’s character in the film, however, means the lasting image is of is incompetence and due to the amount of time Nolan’s character is given in the film, the audience is more sympathetic to him that readers of Adkin’s book would be. Cardigan and Lucan take less responsibility in both sources – they were following orders.

However, in both Adkin’s view and in the film, their personal grievances meant that rational conversation between the two when discussing the order was impossible. The film does not go on to cover the recriminations that followed and all the officers are left in a negative light – it is the loss of life of the ordinary soldiers that is the lasting image. Adkin however, who goes on to discuss the events following the charge leaves Lucan in a slightly more favourable light due to, in Adkin’s view, the unfairness of his dismissal.

In conclusion, the sources largely agree with the apportioning of blame for the failure of the charge, however the fact that the film does not discuss the recriminations that followed and that Adkin’s work does means that the lasting image of the four officers is slightly different. 1,971 WORDS 26 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 Example 2 F: List of Sources Books: Gibbs, Peter, “Crimean Blunder: The Story of War with Russia a hundred years ago”. Frederick Muller Ltd, London, 1960. Woodham-Smith, Cecil, “The Reason Why”. Penguin Books Ltd, Middlesex, 1960 Kerr, Paul, “The Crimean War”.

Boxtree, an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Ltd, 1998 Adkin, Mark, “The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost”. Pimlico, London, 2000. Tennyson, Alfred Lord, “The Charge of the Light Brigade” Videos: Film: “The Charge of the Light Brigade”. Directed by Tony Richardson. Written by Charles Wood. UK, 1968. Documentary: Campaigns in History series. “Balaclava: 1854 The Thin Red Line and The Charge of the Light Brigade”. Directed by Graham Holloway. 1993 With accompanying book: extracts from “Letters from Headquarters” by Lt. Col. S. J. G. Calthorpe Web-sites: www. ational-army-museum. ac. uk/pages/crimean. html www. britishempire. co. uk/forces/armyunits/britishcavalry/17thlancerschargeltbrigade. html. www. pinetreeweb. com/l3th-balaclava2. html www. 625. org. uk/biograph/biogwood. html – A biography of Charles Wood www. channel4. com/history/microsites/H/history/heads/pastimperfect/brigade. html – A review by the freelance military historian, Dr Saul David. Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 27 Example 2 End-notes: _________________________ i Adkin, Mark. “The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost”.

Page 23 Adkin, Mark. ‘The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost”. Page 2 Gibbs, Peter, “Crimean Blunder”. Page 209 Adkin, Mark. “The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost”. Page 121 Adkin, Mark. “The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost”. Page 127 Adkin, Mark. “The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost”. Page 127 Adkin, Mark. “The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost”. Page 130 Adkin, Mark. ‘The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost”. Page 133 ii iii iv v vi vii viii Adkin, Mark. The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost”. Page 133 and the film “The Charge of the Light Brigade” x ix Adkin, Mark. “The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost”. Page 134 Adkin, Mark. “The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost”. Page 134 Adkin, Mark. “The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost”. Page xii Adkin, Mark. “The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost”. Page 21 xi xii xiii www. channel4. com/history/microsites/H/history/heads/pastimperfect/brigade. html A review by the freelance military historian, Dr Saul David. www. channel4. om/history/microsites/H/history/heads/pastimperfect/brigade. html A review by the freelance military historian, Dr Saul David. xvi xv xiv Adkin, Mark. “The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost”. Page 230 Adkin, Mark. “The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost”. Page 231 Adkin, Mark. “The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost”. Page 232 xvii xviii www. channel4. com/history/microsites/H/history/heads/pastimperfect/brigade. html A review by the freelance military historian, Dr Saul David. xx xix Adkin, Mark. “The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost”.

Page 242 Woodham-Smith, Cecil, “The Reason Why”. Page 234 Gibbs, Peter, “Crimean Blunder”. Page 213 Woodham-Smith, Cecil, ‘The Reason Why”. Page 235 xxi xxii xxiii xxiv Adkin, Mark. “The Charge: The Real Reason Why the Light Brigade Was Lost”. Page 243 28 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 Example 2 Assessment criteria Criterion A B Total marks 2 5 Marks achieved 2 5 Examiner comments Good, clear plan of the investigation and the methodology to be used. Clear evidence of the sequence of events, supported by close reference to appropriate sources.

If the citations had been put in the end notes in full, the additional words freed could have been used for further development of factual details. Evaluation of sources could have been more critical, particularly in respect of limitations. The analysis is clearly trying to distinguish where the sources apportion blame rather than narrating events. Clear conclusion that answers the question; the conclusion indicates a high level of agreement between the film and the book. Reasonable range of sources but not in alphabetical order. The investigation is written within the word limit.

An interesting investigation that effectively compares two alternative sources. C D E 4 5 2 3 5 2 F Total 2 20 1 18 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 29 Example 3 Example 3: To what extent was the involvement of the United States government and the CIA responsible for the downfall of Salvador Allende? Table of Contents A B C D E F Plan of Investigation Summary of Evidence Evaluation of Sources Analysis Conclusion Sources 1 1 5 5 8 9 10 Appendix A 30 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 Example 3 A Plan of Investigation

To what extent was the involvement of the United States government and the CIA responsible for the downfall of Salvador Allende? The aim of this investigation is to evaluate the degree to which American clandestine operations in Chile contributed to the downfall of that country’s President, Salvador Allende, in 1973. The investigation focuses on the tactics used by the 40 Committee and CIA to keep Allende from gaining political power (1958-1970), and those used to destabilize his government after his election (1970-1973). The contribution of Allende’s own political performance to his downfall is also considered.

In the section entitled Evaluation of Sources, two sources used for this investigation [Staff Report of the Select Committee to study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities: Covert Actions in Chile and The Lawless State: The Crimes of the US. Intelligence Agencies] are evaluated according to their values, limitations, origins, and purposes. B Summary of Evidence On September 11th, 1973, a coup d’etat led by Augusto Pinochet overthrew the government of democratically elected President Salvador Allende. Chile’s political history had until this time been mostly free of violent upheaval.

The country’s democratic tradition dated back to 1818 “with only three brief exceptions, the last in 1932. ”1 The exception to the Latin American ‘rule’ of political turmoil, Chile’s political stability was considerably greater than that of its neighbours. The 40 Committee, set up to control American secret action around the world, directed the offensives against the Allende government: with authorization from the Committee, the CIA was able to carry out extensive covert action in Chile. (It is important Morton Halperin et. al. The Lawless State: Crimes of the U. S. Intelligence Agencies (New York: Penguin Books, 1976) 15. Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 31 Example 3 to keep in mind that the legislative branches of government, and thus the American people, were not aware of the actions of the Committee. ) The operations against Allende were divided into two components: Track I consisted of employing constitutional methods to keep Allende from power; Track II was initiated by President Nixon… when he instructed the CIA to play a direct role in organizing a military coup d’etat in Chile2 However, “the 40 Committee never discussed this direct CIA role [and]. . . he Agency was to report. . . to the White House. ”3 As a part of Track I, for the 1964 Chilean presidential elections, during which the US supported Christian Democrat candidate Eduardo Frei, the CIA “mounted a massive anticommunism campaign. Extensive use was made of the [media]”4 and included posters of “Soviet tanks and Cuban firing squads”5. The campaign was principally a religion-based scare tactic. It threatened “godless-atheist communism”6 in the case of a Marxist win, but provided an alternative: that “[for this not to happen, we must elect Eduardo Frei as president”.

Of course, the American government also funded the Christian Democratic Party. A subsequent CIA study concluded that Frei’s majority win was a direct result of thy campaign. 7 2 Staff Report of the Select Committee to study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities, United States Senate, “Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973” (Washington, D. C. : U. S. Government Printing Office, 1975. ) 25. 15. [hereafter referred to as Senate Report] 3 Ibid, 25-26. 4 Senate Report, 15. 5 William Blum.

The CIA: A Forgotten History: US Global Interventions Since World War 2 (New Jersey: Zed Books Ltd. , 1986) 233. 6 Blum, 233. 7 Senate Report, 16. 32 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 Example 3 The attempted kidnapping and eventual assassination of General Rene Schneider was a Track II tactic. Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Schneider “insisted the constitutional process be followed”8 insofar as the army’s political affiliation was concerned. As he was the greatest obstacle to a military coup, the CIA assured “[t]hose Chileans inclined to stage a coup… f strong support at the highest levels of the U. S. government”9 boldened by this promise, two attempts at kidnapping (supported by the CIA) were made by officers; Schneider was finally shot and killed in another botched attempt on October 22nd. It is inconclusive whether the weapons used in the assassination been provided by the CIA10. Despite continuous efforts against him, Allende secured a plurality victory and officially became president on October 24th. In the US, a meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) was held two weeks later11.

It was recognized that an “economic squeeze” would put such strain on Chile that “economic troubles [would] generate [enough] public dissatisfaction”12 to bring about Allende’s downfall. Nixon determined to give Chile “cold Turkey” on the economic front: as its economy was largely export-based, with copper accounting for 80 per cent of exports, it was decided that the US use its economic superiority to influence world copper prices to Chile’s disadvantage. 13 Moreover, between 1969 and 1970, total American economic aid to Chile dropped from 80. 8 to 29. 6 million dollars—a Interim Report: Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders. 225. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid, 227. 11 Among those present were President Nixon, Vice President Ford, CIA Director Richard Helms, and the President’ Assistant for National Security Affairs, Henry Kissinger. 12 Memorandum of Conversation, NSC Meeting – Chile (NSSM 97), November 6, 1970. 2. [hereafter referred to as NSC meeting] 13 NSC meeting, 3. Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 33 Example 3 change of 63 per cent; in 1972, it totalled a mere 7. 4 million14 (See Appendix A).

Furthermore, America also influenced the international community to “[deny]… credits to Chile”15. During his brief time in power, Allende nationalized Chilean industry and established relations with numerous socialist countries16, as he had promised he would. He carried out economic reforms that (in the short term) were of benefit to Chile’s economy. 17 However, his rule was plagued by strikes of the mining and transportation sectors of the workforce. Still, American involvement was present here as well: [many] leaders of… trade associations… received free training.. from the American Institute for Free Labour… which. . . was set up under the control of the CIA. While the 40 Committee turned down specific CIA proposals for direct support of two truckers’ strikes.. , in 1972 and 1973… the CIA passed money onto private-sector-groups which, in turn, with the agency’s knowledge, funded the truckers. 18 The Senate Report agrees that “the two… strikes could not have been maintained on the basis of union funds”19 The Allende government never managed to put an end to the three month long truckers’ strike of 1973.

Finally, on September 11th, the long-awaited coup went as planned, and the will of Pinochet descended upon Chile. Senate Report, 34. Halperin, 24. 16 David R. Mares and Francisco Rojas Aravena. Coming in from the Cold: The United States and Chile. (New York: Routledge, 2001) 10. 17 Salvatore Bizzaro. Historical Dictionary of Chile. (Metuchen, N. J. : Scarecrow Press, 1987) 24. 18 Halperin, 25. 19 Senate Report, 31. 15 14 34 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 Example 3 C Evaluation of Sources The Lawless State: The Crimes of the US. Intelligence Agencies, written by Morton

Halperin (et al) is a critical look at the misdeeds of the CIA, FBI, NSA, and IRS, devoting an entire chapter to the case against Allende. The purpose of the chapter is to clarify to the general public the involvement of the United States in the downfall of Allende. Its values lie in that its author was heavily involved in politics at the national level (in fact he was a senior staff member of the NSC), giving him a more intimate knowledge of the political system of which he writes. Also, as he is an American, he maintains a higher degree of understanding of the politics of his country.

The major limitation of this work is that it was published in 1976, only three years into Pinochet’s rule; thus it does not have the advantage of a greater historical context. Also, this was well before the October 2000 release of 9A records of covert operations in Chile. Covert Actions in Chile, 1963-19 73 is a report to the United States Senate of undercover actions in Chile. Its purpose was to make known to the Senate the extent of American involvement in Chilean affairs, especially those taken against Allende. The values of this document are that it is a primary source, and that it is a direct and concrete summary of actions in Chile.

Limitations include the fact that, as it is a government publication of the wrongdoings of the government, it may have excluded information that was particularly incriminating. Also, it deals with top-secret information, some of which had not been ~ declassified by its 1975 publication. D Analysis Salvador Allende was, as a politician, a prime target for American antagonism. His Marxism, something that, in the Cold War era of the 1970s, was synonymous with the Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 35 Example 3 communism of Russia and Cuba, had doomed him fro the start.

Allende was, in a socialist, and as such was even considered moderate by other Chilean socialists. 20 The fact that Allende also established diplomatic relations with other socialist countries alarmed America, particularly as he was also a “personal friend”21 of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. This affiliation would have been a dangerous one at the best of times, but at the height of the Cold War, it was diplomatic suicide. Allende further antagonised the United States by daring to assert his country’s economic independence, that is, by nationalizing Chilean industry, much of which had been owned by foreign (mainly American) companies.

In particular, Chile’s copper industry was largely owned by American mining companies, and its nationalization was not favourable to American international commercial investments. 22 Allende’s biggest offence, however, was that he was a committed democrat. The very fact that Allende had won 36. 5 per cent of votes demonstrated that a Marxist had found favour in the eyes of a population, and that the massive American use of anti-socialism propaganda in Chile had not succeeded. The American campaign in Chile did exactly what it had set out to do: it “ma[d]e [Chile’s] economy scream”. 3 Withholding financial aid wreaked havoc on the country’s fragile economy. It is interesting to note that, even as American monetary aid to Chile subsided, Halperin, 16. Ibid. 22 Ibid, 28. 23 John Jacob Nutter, Ph. D. The CIA’ s Black Ops: Covert Action. Foreign Policy, and Democracy. (New York: Prometheus Books, 2000) 232. 21 20 36 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 Example 3 its aid to the country’s military increased. 24 This and the murder of General Rene Schneider contributed to Chile’s traditionally apolitical military turning on the government it was expected to protect.

However, as much as Allende brought the wrath of the USA onto himself, he also brought upon himself the wrath of his own country. After the initial success of his economic policy of “consumption to stimulate… economy”25 the yearl973 brought soaring inflation, “reaching 360 percent over the year”26. The government’s inability to deal effectively with the miners’ strike in 1972 and trucker’s strike in 1973 showed Allende’s party to be little more than political amateurs. Perhaps his economic reforms came too swiftly for the fragile Chilean economy to support, destabilizing his own regime and making him lose favour in the eyes of the public.

Even though he seemed popular, the very fact that army officers were plotting against him as early as October 1970 (before his formal inauguration! ) casts doubts upon how long he/ would have remained president, even without American intervention against him. The very fact that miners and transportation officials went on strike so often demonstrates public dissatisfaction with Allende’ s regime. Perhaps Fidel Castro was correct in stating that because “[e]veryone had the right to conspire… the result was that they overthrew Allende”. 7 Perhaps in the very nature of the Chilean, democratic, path to socialism were sown the seeds of a military coup. After all, all 24 25 Senate Report, 34. Bizzaro, 24. 26 Ibid. 27 Halperin, 18. Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 37 Example 3 states long established as socialist (USSR) or communist (China) did not gain this status through democratic means: why would it work any differently for Chile? Allende’s vision of democracy and Marxism, completely antithetical institutions to the North American Cold War psyche, was perhaps too suddenly imposed on Chile and too much worked against to ever truly be possible.

Allende was doomed to failure as soon as he chose to pursue Chilean socialism through a democratic path. E Conclusion The statement that the United States was in no way, shape, or form involved in helping Pinochet gain power in 1973 is untrue. It is highly unlikely that a government that had spent three years and an enormous amount of money to destabilise Allende had nothing to do with a military coup for which they had been hoping for since 1970. America welcomed the new dictator, providing him in the first three years of rule with nearly thirteen times the direct economic aid given to Allende’s government. 8 However, as the evidence of American implication in the coup is only circumstantial, it becomes necessary to consider Allende’s own role in the coup. His policies failed miserable earning him the disfavour of his subjects. It is not correct to say that it was solely American invasiveness and political aggression, or Allende’s economic blunders that were responsible for his ultimate downfall. One would not have been caused sufficient problems without the other. With proper American and international financial aid, it is possible that Allende’s reforms may have worked.

Conversely, if Allende’s changes had been implemented more gradually, American covert action may have 28 Mares and Aravena, 11. 38 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 Example 3 proven to be nothing more than an inconvenience. As it the two elements fed off each other, culminating in the rule of a fascist dictator, and years of terror imposed on the Chilean people, who were, after all, the innocent victims of the CIA, Allende, and finally Pinochet. F Sources Bizzaro, Salvatore. Historical Dictionary of Chile. Metuchen, N. J. : Scarecrow Press, 1987. Blum, William.

The CIA: A Forgotten History: US Global Interventions Since World War. New Jersey: Zed Books Ltd. , 1986. Halperin, Morton H. ,et al. The Lawless State: Crimes of the U. S. Intelligence Agencies. New York: Penguin Books, 1976. Interim Report: Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Government Printing Office, 1975. Mares, David R. and Francisco Rojas Aravena. Coming in from the Cold: The United States and Chile. New York: Routledge, 2001. Memorandum for the Record, Subject: Minutes of the 40 Committee Meeting, 8 September 1970, September 9, 1970. http://www. gwu. du/~nsarchiv/news/2000 111 3/700909. pdf Memorandum of Conversation, NSC Meeting – Chile (NSSM 97), November 6, 1970. http://www. gwu. Edu/~nsarchiv/news/2000 1113/7011 06. pdf Nutter, John Jacob. The CIA’s Black Opps: Covert Action, Foreign Policy, and Democracy. New York: Prometheus Books, 2000. Staff Report of the Select Committee to study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities, United States Senate, “Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973”. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Government Printing Office, 1975. Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 39 Example 3 Appendix A

Data Source: Staff Report of the Select Committee to study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities, United States Senate, “Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973” Washington, D. C. : U. S. Government Printing Office, 1975. 34. 40 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 Example 3 Assessment criteria Criterion A B Total marks 2 5 Marks achieved 2 4 Examiner comments Clear plan that states the focus of the investigation. Two key areas are indicated. Sources to be evaluated are named. Adequate research although initial paragraphs do not focus sufficiently on the question.

Appropriate references and reasonable range of sources. Stronger evaluation of the second source, where value and limitations are appropriately stated. Less effective with The Lawless State, where the comments on the value of the source are limited in scope. Too much focus on Allende’s politics rather than on the role of the CIA in the coup. Good attempt to analyse how Allende may have lost popularity. A well-synthesized conclusion that responds to the question set and considers a number of factors leading to Allende’s downfall. Standard format for the bibliography. A reasonable range of sources.

The investigation is written within the word limit. A competent investigation with some gaps in evidence. Some lack of depth in evaluation and analysis, which led to a few marks being lost, but still good. C 4 3 D 5 3 E 2 2 F 2 2 Total 20 16 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 41 Example 4 Example 4: What were the real motives for the different views held by Churchill and Chamberlain during the years previous to World War II? “Criticism is easy, achievement is difficult”. Winston Churchill in “The Wicked Wit of Winston Churchill” by Dominique Enright. 42 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004

Example 4 INDEX Plan of Investigation Summary of Evidence Evaluation of Sources Analysis Conclusion Bibligraphy Appendices Page 1 Page 1 – 3 Page 4 – 5 Page 6 – 7 Page 8 Page 9 – 10 Page 11 – 15 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 43 Example 4 WHICH WERE THE REAL MOTIVES FOR THE DIFFERENT VIEWS HELD BY CHURCHILL AND CHAMBERLAIN, DURING THE YEARS PREVIOUS TO WORLD WAR II? A) PLAN OF INVESTIGATION In this investigation, my aim was to analyze the different views that Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill held regarding Hitler’s aggression during the interwar years.

Although now, many years later, it is clear that Churchill’s vision was accurate, the circumstances at that particular time help to understand Chamberlain’s outlook better, instead of regarding him as a simple “appeaser”. My method of investigation consisted in comparing various opinions that historians have concerning both politicians. I took into account the authors’ backgrounds, as well as the time when their books were written, in order to support my investigation with primary and secondary sources. I also did cross-referencing of recent sources with others published soon after the events, so as to analyze the issue in depth.

B) SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE Chamberlain (see Appendix 1), Britain’s Prime Minister at the time the Second World War broke out, was confident that by satisfying Hitler’s demands, war could be avoided. This is why he gave in to Hitler’s ambitions, and practiced the policy now known as “appeasement” (See Appendix 2). Churchill (see Appendix 3), however, believed that it was “impossible” to pursue a peaceful coexistence with Hitler’s regime. He was opposed to the policy of appeasement because he warned, “ it would encourage Hitler to seize more territory”1.

He refused to make peace with Hitler on terms, since his “brilliant intuition”2 told him from early on 1 Corbishley, Mike, John Gillingham, Rosemary Kelly, Ian Dawson, James Mason (1996), The Young Oxford History of Britain & Ireland. Oxford University Press, Great Britain. Page 365. 2 Best Geoffrey (2001), Churchill: A Study in Greatness. Hambledon and London, Great Britain. Page 153. 3 Idem. 44 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 Example 4 that “Hitler had much more in mind than the mere redress of the Versailles grievances”3. His advice was ignored, though years later it proved to be correct.

A wide range of historians agree that the appeasement policy was “shameful” and immediately consider the guiltiest of all men, its author, Neville Chamberlain. For instance, Graham Stewart, the author of “Burying Caesar”, considers that Chamberlain during negotiations, “demonstrated his inability to grasp the full measure of the man with whom he was dealing”4. In other words, according to him, Chamberlain should have realized earlier that negotiating with Hitler was impossible, that, as Churchill stated, to give in to Hitler “would only make him more and more aggressive”5.

This opinion is echoed in “Britain in the Twentieth Century”, when its authors state that Chamberlain “genuinely believed that Hitler’s signature meant something, when there was abundant evidence that he had not even a rudimentary sense of honor”6. However, this book shows a certain degree of bias, as it focuses mainly on Chamberlain’s weaknesses, and fails to consider the historical context that led Chamberlain to proceed as he did. On this issue, historians argue that Chamberlain trusted Hitler because he desperately wanted to avoid a war, as the memory of the Great War was still fresh in British people’s minds (see Appendix 4).

Furthermore, as historian John Ray says, “some people admired Hitler because he was a sworn enemy of Communism and they feared Russia more than they mistrusted Germany”7. This author helps one understand why Chamberlain was so confident that Hitler would carry out his promises. Churchill is considered now, “the prophet of uncomfortable truths”8. Yet at the time the prospect of war, which was the “logical conclusion” to his arguments, along with his awful reputation, resulted in him being ignored. He was labeled “warmonger” by many, because of his desire to be well prepared for war when it came.

He knew that Hitler had to be confronted in a war, and he wanted to defeat him “into unconditional surrender”9. The historian Geoffrey Best states, in response to those who considered Churchill a “warmonger”, Stewart, Graham (2001), Burying Caesar. The Overlook Press, Peter Mayer Publishers, New York. Page 290. Corbishley, Mike, John Gillingham, Rosemary Kelly, Ian Dawson, James Mason (1996), Op. Cit. Page 365. 6 Reynolds, E. E. and N. H. Brasher (1966), Britain in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1964. The Cambridge University Press, Great Britain. Page 184. Ray, John (1970), Men Who Made History: Lloyd George and Churchill. Heinemann Educational Books Ltd, Great Britain. Page 27. 8 ldem. 9 Ray, John. Op. Cit. Page 33. 5 4 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 45 Example 4 that he only was in favor of armed services when these had a “clear defensive and diplomatic purpose”10. Churchill did become interested in war during this period, because he had been worried about Germany every since the Treaty of Versailles had been signed. He “feared military resurgence from the earliest moment”11.

Chamberlain believed that, “at worst, a possible war fought later would be more likely to be successful than a certain war fought now”12; which would allow them “to take on Hitler from a position of strength”13. Churchill, however, wanted to defeat Hitler as soon as possible. This difference in opinions led to their extreme reputations, one as “appeaser”, the other as “warmonger. ” With the benefit of hindsight, one can see that neither one fits that profile. 10 11 Best, Geoffrey (2001), Op. Cit. Page 17. Idem. Page 153. 2 Stewart, Graham. Op. Cit. Page 316. 13 Idem. Page 311. 46 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 Example 4 C) EVALUATION OF SOURCES When analyzing historical documents, one must take into account various factors to establish their historical relevance. Graham Stewart, a British historian published “Burying Caesar, the Churchill-Chamberlain Rivalry”, in the year 2001. His aim was to analyze more in depth the differences between both politicians, such as their disagreement over the Munich settlement.

He approaches the issue in an objective manner, as he tries to make the reader understand why the politicians acted the way they did, instead of simply condemning them if they acted incorrectly. For instance, the preface asks the question, “was there a reasonable basis for Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler? ”14. Since it is written approximately sixty years after the events took place, the writer has the benefit of hindsight, allowing him to analyze with more clarity and objectivity.

He also has the advantage of having more information available, not only primary sources, but other secondary sources, such as other historians’ views on the event. However, at times, I noticed that the author reveals his preference for Churchill, as when he claims that he was “always magnanimous”15, yet refers to Chamberlain as a man who “demonstrated his inability to grasp the full measure of the man with whom he was dealing”16. Though the author tries to be objective, he still makes conclusions with considerable amounts of bias, as when he claims that postponing war was not “the ultimate goal of Chamberlain’s policy”17.

This is an issue that is still debated nowadays, since Chamberlain could well have been postponing war in order to rearm. “Britain in the Twentieth Century,” on the other hand, was published in 1966; the British authors Reynolds and Brasher “lived throughout the whole period”18, making this book a primary source19. It is limited since it is written soon after the events described, which makes it more susceptible to the opinions and emotions of its writer. It reflects the context which was lived at that time, therefore it is more subjective than the other source.

Stewart, Graham. Op. Cit. Preface. Idem. Page . 288. 16 Idem. Page 290. 17 Idem. Page 316. 18 Reynolds, E. E. and N. H. Brasher (1966), Britain in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1964. The Cambridge University Press, Great Britain. Preface. 15 14 Diploma Programme History, Internal Assessment TSM, March 2004 47 Example 4 However, since it is a primary document, it also has great value for historians as it reveals the thoughts, worries, emotions and opinions of many people that lived through that time.

Both books focus mainly on Chamberlain’s flaws, such as when Reynolds and Brasher state that Chamberlain, “unfortunately lacked the necessary experience and knowledge of international problems”20. They lay the blame on Chamberlain for the start of war, when in fact, his preparation may or may not have been outstanding, but what made him act the way he did was, primarily, his desire to keep his country out of war. His failure cannot be attributed solely to his personal defects. These sources are valuable as historical evidence for different purposes. Burying Caesar” analyzes more in depth the rivalry between both politicians, and pays less attention to the facts, while “Britain in the Twentieth Century” focuses more on the events, paying more attention to the general scenario of those years. 19 It is a primary source if our topic of study is the policy of appeasement, narrated by people who lived during that period. It could also be considered secondary, if we expected it to be written during the time of appeasement. 20 Reynolds, E. E. and N. H. Brasher (1966), Britain in the Twentieth Century. 1900-1964. The Cambridge University Press, Great Britain. Page 175.

How to cite this page

Choose cite format:

The Historical Investigation. (2018, Nov 28). Retrieved from http://rkkpdi.biz/the-historical-investigation-essay

We will write a custom essay sample onThe Historical Investigationspecifically for you

Our customer support team is available Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST. If you contact us after hours, we'll get back to you in 24 hours or less.

By clicking "Send Message", you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We'll occasionally send you account related and promo emails.
No results found for “ image
Try Our service
online

Hi, I am Sara from Studymoose

Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out http://goo.gl/CYf83b

online

Hi, I am Sara from Studymoose

Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out http://goo.gl/CYf83b

image

Your Answer is very helpful for Us
Thank you a lot!

Sitemap