Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Julie

History SL/HL Help

101 posts in this topic

for anyone taking route 1, i have pree much my European history down cold (charlemagne, crusades etc). need help with islam though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone help me out with my topic for the IA? :)

I find it a bit...I don't know, theres something wrong with it or somethings missing? I really wanted to write about the american Civil war because I find it interesting and since I live in europe we dont really do much of it and so I thought it would be interesting to look into it:P But I'm having troubles getting a good question...this is basically what i've come down to...

To what extent did the election of Abraham Lincoln affect the secession of the south?

or

To what extent did the election of Abraham Lincoln affect the confederates during the civil war?

or

To what extent did the election of Lincoln affect the south?

I want to write about what Lincoln and the election and causes of the war....gaah help! :)

Ideas anyone on how I can improve my question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would further specify the effect part of that. And maybe change Abe's election to maybe some of his specific policies because if you look at his entire term as president...well that's 8 years of policies and stuff and all about the Civil War...

For your first question do you want to talk about their choice to leave being affected by whatever he did or them backtracking and rejoining the union based off whatever he did?

The 2nd question is immensely broad. The confederates were the entire south. Civilians, the army, political figures, all of them. Personally I would avoid this question because your asking how a historical event affected people who have been dead for a really long time :P

The 3rd question you could write a book over, several books...To what extent did Lincolns <economic/militaristic/political> policies affect the south on a <economic/militaristic/political> level?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really i want to talk about the reasons the south wanted to secede and if the election of lincoln had a big role in them doing so....

hehe alright I will cross 2 and 3 out.

Edited by toytoytoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then maybe find some specific things about lincoln's election (campaign policies? actual policies after elected? what did he do?) and then you can discuss how those things either pushed the south to secede or maybe it was to keep them from seceding but they still did? It'd be good to address both issues in my opinion :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then maybe find some specific things about lincoln's election (campaign policies? actual policies after elected? what did he do?) and then you can discuss how those things either pushed the south to secede or maybe it was to keep them from seceding but they still did? It'd be good to address both issues in my opinion :)

ALright thanks :) sounds good. well is the question OK ? Or should I find a way to incorporate some of the things about his election into it? :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would word the question differently. It needs to be more specific and narrowed. Are you trying to discuss the extent to which Abe's election was responsible for the secession of the south? The problem there is that you might spread yourself too thin as there is so much to cover and your analysis will not be as detailed. Perhaps try to analyse one specific incident such as the John Brown incident?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evaluate the effectiveness of the Brezhnev Doctrine.

Hey! Can anybody help me answer the question above? I looked it up in Internet and I couldn't find any decent answer. =) Thanks in advance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evaluate the effectiveness of the Brezhnev Doctrine.

Hey! Can anybody help me answer the question above? I looked it up in Internet and I couldn't find any decent answer. =) Thanks in advance!

Isn't this an essay topic? Sounds like one to me...

It's been some time since I studied the Brezhnev doctrine, but, the first thing that comes to my mind was the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. The doctrine was announced to justify the invasion of Cz. Therefore, first state whether it was effective- did it justify the invasion of Cz.

I would say that no, it didn't. And then I'd go on to say why. Though the doctrine reminded the peoples of Eastern Europe that the USSR had power over them, it was internationally condemned... etc

If it's an essay topic, it means you have to make your own argument. Hence you won't find an answer in google. Research the Brezhnev doctrine and how it affected the cold war and politics at the time and make your own argument. Keep answering the question: what was the purpose of the doctrine? Was it successful in justifying its purpose?

God luck. Hope it helped :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone, I need some serious help with this question from the Americas. I've been trying to find a concrete argument but I can't get to one so far.

Analyse the successes and failures of President Kennedy’s foreign policies towards Latin America between 1961 and 1963.

I was thinking about his policy towards Cuba but oh well that's just me. There was this programme that was signed in Uruguay but I don't remember the name. Please help me. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone, I need some serious help with this question from the Americas. I've been trying to find a concrete argument but I can't get to one so far.

Analyse the successes and failures of President Kennedy’s foreign policies towards Latin America between 1961 and 1963.

I was thinking about his policy towards Cuba but oh well that's just me. There was this programme that was signed in Uruguay but I don't remember the name. Please help me. Thanks

Well first of all...Kennedy’s policies toward Latin America have to be understood within the context of the Cold War, the core of the United States’ policy until its end in 1991 after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, leaving the United States as the dominant military power. . Cuba was the first major crisis to confront the new administration of John F Kennedy in 1961. The ultimate goal of the policy was to thoroughly undermine, or even assassinate if necessary (Operation Mongoose), Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro.

Besides this policy towards Cuba, the administration proposed a comprehensive plan for Latin America; the Alliance for Progress. I think this is the programme you're talking about,the programme was signed at an inter-American conference at Punta del Este, Uruguay, in August 1961. It aimed at establishing economic cooperation between North and South America. The aid was intended to counter the perceived emerging communist threat from Cuba to US interests and dominance in the region.

The United States pledged to spend $10 billion in the region, over ten years, to build transportation facilities and to provide technology and industrial material. In return, Latin American governments were to institute programmes of social and political reform, including land reform. To guard against more radical movements like Castrist guerrilla movements in Cuba, the US government also undertook to strengthen the military forces of the region with arms and training. At the same time, the US suspended economic and/or broke off diplomatic relations with several dictatorships between 1961 and Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, including Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras and Peru. But these suspensions were imposed only temporarily. Unlike Operation Mongoose, the Alliance had its successes and failures.

It is of vital importance for you to understand that Latin America was one of the latent point to the United States. The United States pledged to spend $10 billion in the region, over ten years, to build transportation facilities and to provide technology and industrial material. In return, Latin American governments were to institute programmes of social and political reform, including land reform. To guard against more radical movements like Castrist guerrilla movements in Cuba, the US government also undertook to strengthen the military forces of the region with arms and training. At the same time, the US suspended economic and/or broke off diplomatic relations with several dictatorships between 1961 and Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, including Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras and Peru. But these suspensions were imposed only temporarily. Unlike Operation Mongoose, the Alliance had its successes and failures.

Successes according to my analysis:

  • Growth in regional output in Latin America in the 1960s was 2.4 %, nearly matching the Alliance for Progress goal of 2.5 %.
  • In contrast to the 2.1 % growth in the 1950s, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate in Latin America reached 2.7 % in the later part of the 1960s and climbed 3.8 % between 1970 and 1974.
  • Overall seven countries reached the target goal of 2.5 % GDP growth, twelve nations did not reach the goal, and Haiti and Uruguay had lower GDPs.
  • Adult illiteracy was not wiped out, although it was reduced. In some countries, the number of people attending universities doubled or even tripled. Access to secondary education also showed increases.

And finally the major failures of Kennedy's policy:

  • Of the 15 million peasant families living in Latin America, only one million benefited from any kind of land reform. The traditional elites resisted any land reform.
  • Minimum wage laws were created but the minimum wages offered to Nicaraguan workers, for example, were set so low as to have no appreciable effect on the wages received. In other nations, minimum wage laws encouraged employers to use labour-saving machinery.
  • Much of the aid to the region was in the form of loans that eventually had to be repaid. Moreover, aid money had to be used to buy US products transported on US ships; by eliminating competition, such restrictions added generally to the cost. The recipient nations often had to obtain new loans just to pay off their debts. A significant percentage of aids funds were dissipated through corruption and inefficiency.
  • In Latin America during the 1960s thirteen constitutional governments were replaced by military dictatorships.

I'm SURE it helped

Edited by Procrastination
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody have any suggestions for books for further reading regarding the Peacemaking & Peacekeeping interwar years topic?

It would be really helpful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anybody have any suggestions for books for further reading regarding the Peacemaking & Peacekeeping interwar years topic?

It would be really helpful!

Maybe this link might help.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey people, can somebody help me compare and contrast the foreign policies of Hitler and Mussolini up to 1940? It would be very appreciated, I'm lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mussolini had longer to develop his foreign policy and initially this was aimed at redressing perceived grievances over the Paris Peace Treaties, Fiume and Corfu. Both leaders wanted to develop an Empire although Hitler’s was more European based than Mussolini’s. Mussolini desired revenge for Adowa, which led to the Abyssinian campaign in 1934. Both were members of the Four-Power Pact, but only Mussolini belonged to the Stresa Front. Mussolini, following Locarno, was pledged to support the Rhineland, which led to his intervention against Hitler in Austria in 1934. It was only in 1936 that the two leaders started moving in the same direction although Hitler’s plans for conquest were more ideologically based and more widespread than those of Mussolini.

You should take more things into account such as the Spanish Civil War, Anschluss, Munich, aggressive moves in 1939, and campaigns in the Second World War

Hope it helped.

Edited by Procrastination
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey people, I need help with this assignment:

For what reasons, and with what results, did twentieth century wars influence the status of women?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically in order to answear this you must focus on both the reasons why wars influenced the status and situation of women and provide specific examples of the changes.

The reasons why twentieth century wars influenced the status of women may include: doing jobs that were usually done by men in the past since women used to stay at home doing chores; enlisting in the armed forces when there was urge of more human resources; participating as combatants in wars and recognizing the crucial role that women played in the economy.

The results in your assignment may include the improved constituional rights such as the right to vote granted to women in many countries; a role in the workforce beyond traditional female roles; greater economic independence; increased government social services and access to education; legal changes granting more rights such as marriage, property, etc.; increased involvement in leadership roles, politics, government and business.

Challenging the questions given to you are always appreciated in the IB, you may want to do this by demonstrating that the sacrifices of women were not always recognized equally in all countries, or as a result of all wars.

Hope it helped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello. For what reasons, and with what results, was the French Revolution so violent between 1789 and 1794?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main periods of violence in the French Revolution were: the storming of the Bastille; Paris mob violence; the Great Fear; storming of Versailles; storming of the Tuileries; September massacres (1792); execution of the king and queen and large scale use of the guillotine; rebellion in the Vendee (1793); continuation and increase of the terror, “Reign of terror” 1793-94; death of prominent revolutionaries. Violence began to subside in 1795.

Reasons for violence could include: hatred of the royal family, nobility, feudalism etc.; famine and food shortages; incitement by mob and political leaders; political clubs (Girondins, Jacobins); Robespierre; sansculottes; foreign sympathy with royal family . Effects could include: the end of the monarchy; breakdown of law and order; individual events noted above; dislike of the revolution and rise of Napoleon.

That's basically a summary, you might want to choose some of them and do a deep analysis for your task. French Revolution is somehow difficult to memorise. GOD.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my topic is based around Francisco Madero's death during the Mexican Revolution...I was thinking something like "How did the death of Francisco Madero affect the Mexican Revolution?" I'm not sure whether that's too broad or too narrow.

OR should I write about the conspiracy behind his death...it's really interesting, but I feel like there aren't many sources out there about it. :\

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it has the perfect size but you might want to focus your topic on one aspect of the Mexican Revolution. PD: This is not the place to post this so I'm not going to develop the idea, you're invited to post it in the History Internal Assesment / Historical Investigation thread and if you're talking about an EE go to that section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey people. I would really appreciate if you helped me with the following question:

To what extent, and for what reasons, did the election of Abraham Lincoln contribute to the onset of the Civil War in the United States?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the first part of the question and summarizing the role that Abraham Lincoln had you might want to consider saying "to a large extent". Historical evidence shows that Lincoln’s election in 1860 was the final event that triggered the South's decision to leave the Union. In December 860 a special convention in South Carolina voted unanimously to secede. Within the next six weeks six states had left the union. In February 1861,

representatives of the seven states of the Deep South created the Confederate States of America.

However, I think the most important part of this question is based on " For what reasons". Some of the reasons were what Lincoln stood for, as the South perceived it. However, no single cause brought about the Civil War. Rather, it resulted from the interrelationship of many complex factors.

Perceptions about Lincoln: in 1846 Lincoln ran for the United States House of Representatives and won. While in Washington he became known for his opposition to the Mexican War and his concerns by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854. Also in 1856 Lincoln gave his Lost Speech. He opposed the Dred Scott decision in 1857 and gave his famous “House Divided” Speech on 16 June 1858. Additionally, he engaged in a series of debates with Stephen A Douglas in 1858. The debates, though not a part of the Civil War, certainly played a part in its beginning. Lincoln was against the spread of slavery into the territories but was not an abolitionist. His election victory created a crisis for the nation, as many southern Democrats feared that it would just be a matter of time before Lincoln would move to kill slavery in the South. Rather than face a future in which black people might become free and equal citizens, much of the white South supported secession. This reasoning was based upon the doctrine of states’ rights, which placed ultimate sovereignty with the states.

Lincoln vowed to preserve the Union even if it meant war. What started as a war to preserve the Union became a battle for freedom and a war to end slavery when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in January of 1863. Although the Proclamation did not free all slaves in the nation-indeed, no slaves outside of the Confederacy were affected by the Proclamation, it was an important symbolic gesture that identified the Union with freedom and the death of slavery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have good knowledge of Philippine, Japanese and Chinese history, if anyone needs help.

I can also give rudimentary stuff about Indian History! So, just drop me a message if you need any help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any questions about Polish history or something connected? Feel free to ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0