0% found this document useful (0 votes)
67 views5 pages

IB History May 2016 Paper 1 Compare and Contrast

Uploaded by

akhilvikramvarma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
67 views5 pages

IB History May 2016 Paper 1 Compare and Contrast

Uploaded by

akhilvikramvarma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Name: _________________________________

Helpful Hints in Approaching the


Compare and Contrast Question on Paper One
 The compare and contrast question is worth six marks on the IB Paper One exam. Therefore, you need
SIX separate points that compare and contrast the two sources. There doesn’t have to be three
similarities and three differences. However, the total must amount to SIX.

 Refer to the sources as “Source __” or “Source __”.

 One of your points should be a compare or contrast of the origin of the sources. Be sure to explain how
the origin of the source impacts the interpretation of the exam question.

 Look for phrases that appear in both sources. This can include but is not limited to: common names,
events, locations, and historical vocabulary. Once you pinpoint a commonality, you must decide if the
sources are comparing them or contrasting them.

 You can and should quote the sources, however you should only quote a few words (two or three words
to support your point).

 The key to this question is linkage, i.e. you are expected to discuss the sources together throughout your
response. The examiner is looking for a running commentary. At no time should you talk about one
source without relating it to the other. “End-on accounts” – where you write about the content of one
source followed by the content of the second source – do not score well.

 Here are some sentence prompts:

How to draw comparisons/show similarities:

 Both Source __ and Source __ suggest...


 Like Source __, Source __ states…
 In the same way that Source __ argues…, Source __ points out that…

How to draw contrasts/show differences:

 Source __ suggests…; however, Source __ says…


 Source __ disagrees with Source __ regarding…
 Source __ claims… as opposed to Source __ which asserts…

* On the actual IB exam, you will not number the similarities/differences. You will put them in sentence form.
Name: ______________________________________
Directions: Read and annotate each source. On the accompanying handout, highlight and
explain a combination of six similarities (compare) and differences (contrasts)
between the two sources.

Source A: Paul Birdsall, an historian and diplomat, writing in the specialist history
book Versailles Twenty Years After (1941).

The “Reparation” chapter of the Treaty of Versailles, besides being a clear violation of the Pre-
Armistice Agreement with Germany, proved in the outcome to be the most disastrous section of
the treaty. Keynes spoke with authority on that subject.

One of the criticisms against the territorial settlement in Europe is directed against the shattering
of the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary into a number of states. In this view the negotiators at
Paris should have foreseen the economic and political need of a Confederation to combine them.
Yet Austria-Hungary had fallen apart before the Peace Conference met and self-appointed
national governments ruled these states. The populations of central Europe were hopelessly
mixed, and therefore pure self-determination was impossible. Any boundary would leave
national minorities on one side or the other. It was not directly the Great Powers which profited
from the partition of former German and Austro-Hungarian territory, but those new Slavic states
which had themselves been partitioned and dominated for centuries.

The various treaties negotiated at Paris are the closest approximation to an ethnic map of Europe
that had ever been achieved.

Source D: Michael Richards and Paul Waibel, professors of history, writing in their
introductory book Twentieth Century Europe: A Brief History, 1900 to the
Present (2014).

Had the Treaty of Versailles been the only product of the Paris Peace Conference, Europe might
have maintained political stability in the 1920s and 1930s. There were, however, four additional
treaties. The failure of several of these agreements, combined with the limited success of
Versailles, created an extremely unstable situation. Austria and Hungary became small, relatively
weak states. Austria was a landlocked state unbalanced in every imaginable way, but especially
economically. Unfortunately, Austria was not allowed to join with Germany for fear that this
would strengthen the latter.

The other problem involved the creation of a series of new states in central and Eastern Europe
and conflicting claims over territory and population. The idea of national self-determination was
extremely difficult to apply in this area with any fairness. Czechoslovakia, for example, included
areas in which the majority of the population was German or Polish; these areas had been
included for strategic reasons.

The settlement in Eastern Europe tore apart what had been an important economic unit. Factories
were now in one state, their sources of raw materials in a second, and their traditional markets in
a third. This contributed to the weakness and instability of the area and prevented any possibility
that the states of Eastern Europe could serve as a proper counterbalance to either Germany or the
Soviet Union.
Name: ________________________________

Compare and contrast the views expressed in Sources A and D about the impact of the Paris Peace Treaties.

1. _______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________

2. _______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________

3. _______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________

4. _______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________

5. _______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________

6. _______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Answer Key
IB History May 2016 Paper 1
Compare and Contrast

1. Both sources were written by historians. Source A was written twenty years after the
Paris Peace Conference in 1941, whereas Source D was written nearly one hundred years
after the Paris Peace Conference in 2014. Richards and Waibel having more historical
hindsight were able to point out the significance of Eastern European countries and the
Soviet Union in containing Nazism, whereas Birdsall does not recognize the importance
of these nations in containing Nazism.

2. Both sources were critical of the Treaty of Versailles, however Source D recognizes the
other four treaties and their failure to maintain European peace.

3. Source A asserts that the reparations chapters were the most catastrophic aspect of the
Treaty of Versailles, whereas Source D does not specifically mention the reparations
chapters.

4. Both Source A and D agree that Austria would not be an economically viable state on its
own. Source A makes the claim that if the Dual Monarchy (Austria-Hungary) was
preserved, it would have stabilized the heart of Europe, whereas Source D asserts that
Austria would benefit from uniting with Germany.

5. Both Source A and D concur that allowing national self-determination was not realistic.
Source A states, “pure self-determination was impossible.” Source D states, “self-
determination was extremely difficult.” The mixed ethnicities in Europe made it hard to
satisfy claims for national self-determination.

6. Sources A and D differ on their interpretation of Slavic strength in Europe. Source A


states that the new Slavic states “profited” from the redrawing of the map of Europe
whereas, Source D describes Eastern Europe as an area plagued by “weakness and
instability.” The reason for this discrepancy is that Source D has the benefit of historical
hindsight and knows the fate of Eastern Europe during WWII and post-war.
IB Markscheme

Compare and contrast the views expressed in Sources A and D about the impact of the Paris
Peace Treaties. [6]

For “compare”
 Both sources claim that the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire contributed to
the creation of a weak Austria.

 Both sources argue that self-determination was difficult to apply in Central Europe.

 Both sources claim that the peace settlement caused political and/or economic problems.

For “contrast”
 Source D seems to indicate that the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was a
result of the peace settlement whereas Source A states it had fallen apart before the
Conference met.

 Source A considers the Paris treaties to have been the closest to an ethnographic/cultural
map that Europe had ever had whereas Source D doesn´t seem to agree that this was the
case, for example, areas of Czechoslovakia had large numbers of German and Polish
people living in them.

 Source A claims that the most disastrous economic effects of the Treaty of Versailles
were reparations whereas Source D considers that the unstable economic situation was
caused by a combination of the Treaty of Versailles and the four other treaties.

 Source D is critical of the effects of the Peace Treaties for Europe whereas Source A
suggests that the new Slavic states made some gains from the new territorial
arrangements.

Do not demand all of the above. If only one source is discussed award a maximum of [2]. If the
two sources are discussed separately award [3] or with excellent linkage [4–5]. For maximum
[6] expect a detailed running comparison/contrast.

You might also like