History HL/SL Route 2: Peacemaking Paper 1 discussion

[Seung Hun Han]

I think sources that were presented in the paper were pretty straightforward. 

I failed to manage my time efficiently, so I only had 20 minutes to write the last question and felt like I could have done so much better. I really knew a lot about this topic, but I just panicked and didn't put much of my own knowledge. 

Question: For question 1. (a) which asked What were the problems that negotiators faced? what did you guys answer?

 I wrote: A: Austria-Hungary was already splitted into different countries even before the Treaties had started B: There are lot of ethnic groups living in central Europe, so dividing boarders based on self-determination would be a hard task for them. C: Even after being able to divide the boarder, there will be minorities that are under other nation's rule. So, satisfying all the countries was difficult. 

For (b) I could definitely see that Austria-Hungary became really minor country as a result of the treaties and the empire has been partitioned.

I feel like I have done really well through question 1 to 3, but as I have said, I ran out of time and didn't write my conclusion for question 4. The stimulus clearly said "Treaty of paris" including all Versailie and all the minor-small treaties. Many sources pointed out to self-determination and geo-political changes. So, using information from the sources and some of my knowledge, I basically answered, "There were indeed some problems especially about changes in geography especially in Central Europe, given the fact that the situation was really dismal, the treaties of paris were just optimal solution that countries could have came up with.

If I can get 4/8 for that question, I think I can be satisfied. 

What did you guys answer for each questions?

 

[ellie]

Oh, I feel loads better after reading your 1 (a) because I answered the same. 

I was so nervous (mostly about the fact my teacher's only criticism has been write more) that I think I messed up my essay. I spent 30 seconds planning it and just wrote about (1) breaking up Central Europe, referring to most of the sources, and (2) the alienation of Germany. Even as I wrote, I knew that I should've stayed more on topic with the small treaties and nationalities, but I just felt like I needed to write as much as humanly possible. I blacked out for the last 20 minutes, I don't even remember how much I wrote -- definitely 2 pages, but I'm thinking it had to be at least 3, since I spent 25 minutes on it.

Questions 2 and 3 were the best, the sources were pretty clear and in an understandable language.

Still can't believe it was Versailles, though, I was betting on Manchuria.

[Comrade]

I was in a trance after Physics HL P2 so I just sort of muddled through it. Probably got a 5 or something. What did you guys say were the purposes of the sources in the evaluation question?

[ShootingStar16]

15 minutes ago, Comrade said:

I was in a trance after Physics HL P2 so I just sort of muddled through it. Probably got a 5 or something. What did you guys say were the purposes of the sources in the evaluation question?

 

I thought it was pretty ok but I did not finish my mini essay because I ran out of time  

 

Ok so for me: 

 

My points for question 1a: 

-hard to meet that goal of self-determination 

-the Great Powers would not profit much from it anyways

-and something about Austria-Hungary (forgot what I put :p) 

 

My messages for the cartoon: 

-the peace terms was not a benefit to what used to be Austria-Hungary as evident in its size in the cartoon and how the peace terms never get to it.

-the peace terms would have benefited Austria-Hungary if it weren't for its collapse. 

For OPVL, Source B.. I was thinking it meant to persuade and raise awareness to the Australian soldiers about the possible ineffectiveness of the Paris Peace conference since it was a speech and in a speech, you usually try to convince people of something and for Source C, I think it was meant to provide insight on Churchill's opinions as it was a personal account. 

 

For the mini essay, I basically said that it was not the best they could have done and I talked about the tendency to rely on self-interest and their lack of consideration for the nature of Austria-Hungary prior to the war as well as their idealism. I brought in the Treaty of St. Germain a bit as well in terms of self-interest because it did not allow Austria to unify with Germany. 

Edited May 8, 2016 by ShootingStar16

[Salome Holland]

I dont know why, but I completely messed up the cartoon, and as soon as I left the exam it made sense to me. I wrote something really stupid like 1. That Austria was now significantly weaker as a result of the peace terms (which I think I might get a mark for) and then I said since Austria could no longer reach the peace terms in the second panel that they had no influence over the peace settlements and were destined to have them dictated to them (which is the stupid point i think) anyways I think the rest of the test was fairly straightforward. My essay was not the strongest but not bad either. Good luck to everyone for paper 2, I am praying for a question on foreign intervention in the Spanish Civil War and Mussolini's Domestic Policies. 

[Seung Hun Han]

1 hour ago, ShootingStar16 said:

 

I thought it was pretty ok but I did not finish my mini essay because I ran out of time  

 

Ok so for me: 

 

My points for question 1a: 

-hard to meet that goal of self-determination 

-the Great Powers would not profit much from it anyways

-and something about Austria-Hungary (forgot what I put :p) 

 

My messages for the cartoon: 

-the peace terms was not a benefit to what used to be Austria-Hungary as evident in its size in the cartoon and how the peace terms never get to it.

-the peace terms would have benefited Austria-Hungary if it weren't for its collapse. 

For OPVL, Source B.. I was thinking it meant to persuade and raise awareness to the Australian soldiers about the possible ineffectiveness of the Paris Peace conference since it was a speech and in a speech, you usually try to convince people of something and for Source C, I think it was meant to provide insight on Churchill's opinions as it was a personal account. 

 

For the mini essay, I basically said that it was not the best they could have done and I talked about the tendency to rely on self-interest and their lack of consideration for the nature of Austria-Hungary prior to the war as well as their idealism. I brought in the Treaty of St. Germain a bit as well in terms of self-interest because it did not allow Austria to unify with Germany. 

What about the Compare and contrast question?

I was able to comment that both of them agree that A. settling the issue was difficult task B. Austria-Hungary was divided into two different countries C. Slavic States were established as a result of this treaties.

For contrast: Source A has more positive view on the treaty as it said "It was the closest approximation of self-determination" while source D said it unstablized central Europe. Source A focuses on geopolitical issues while source D addresses economic issues additionally. Source A said treaty of Versaillies was an absolute failure while source D said if other treaties were not signed, Treaty of Versaillies could have stablized Europe showing more positive view on TOV. 

[RGa]

I don't think I did too bad in P1 but I was left with only 20mins for the essay so I had to rush through  it. For the essay I said that it was done the best they could becuase they were thinking on satisfying the aims of the winning powers but at the same time also punish the ones that lost and started the war. And what happened after the treaties was out of their hands since they could not have foreseen it. I used the A-H example, that it had crumbled before anyone could do anything about it.

[StormMjelde]

I did manage my time so that my answers for question 1-3 was very good. (wrote two pages on question 2) and then only bulletpoints for question 4

[ShootingStar16]

7 hours ago, Seung Hun Han said:

What about the Compare and contrast question?

I was able to comment that both of them agree that A. settling the issue was difficult task B. Austria-Hungary was divided into two different countries C. Slavic States were established as a result of this treaties.

For contrast: Source A has more positive view on the treaty as it said "It was the closest approximation of self-determination" while source D said it unstablized central Europe. Source A focuses on geopolitical issues while source D addresses economic issues additionally. Source A said treaty of Versaillies was an absolute failure while source D said if other treaties were not signed, Treaty of Versaillies could have stablized Europe showing more positive view on TOV. 

For contrast I said that Source A places lesser blame on the treaties compared to Source D as Source D says if it weren't for the four additional treaties this would not be an issue. I also talked about how they did not fully blame the treaties as Source D does not blame the Treaty of Versailles but the four other Paris Peace treaties for the issue with Austria-Hungary. I also talked about how Source A talks more so about the ethnic groups affected while Source D is economic issue. Lastly, I talked about how Source A acknowledges the already unstable situation of Austria-Hungary due to its collapse before the Peace Conference while Source D does not. 

[Khaos]

I really failed to manage my time wisely on this Paper. My answers for 1a/b and 2 were well done in my opinion but I guess they should be considering I spent 30 minutes between the two questions. My question 3 was alright but the entire time I was forming my response, I couldn't help but think about how little time I was leaving myself for question 4.

As far as question 4 went, I had 15 minutes to complete it and despite my thinking I got everything I wanted to on the paper, it was far from well executed or detailed. I think my response was 3/4 of a page and I really felt I could have formatted it better if I had even an extra 5 minutes.

All in all, I'll be pretty happy with a 5 or a 6, I think my hopes at a 7 for this paper are long gone. Hopefully I can do better on papers 2 and 3. Those are a little bit more in my realm of interest (WWI, Cold War, emergence of Single Party States).

Good luck to all tomorrow!

[afern98]

For the cartoon I said the purpose was also to show how Austria-Hungary was basically left to take the terms of the treaty without having agreed to them (the fact that the bottle had instructions on it and there was no one else, as if they'd just been left with the bottle). 

I actually surprised myself and got to question 4 with about 25-30 minutes left so I think I got a really solid answer to that one.