How To paper 1

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

6:53 PM

Answering each question:Question 1 a): worth3 marks, spend max5 minuteson. Understanding historical sources - reading comprehension.

For 3 marks, give at least 3 clear points from the source (you can write four in case, to be on the safe side). Paraphrase from the source - i.e. put things in your own words (you can quote but you don't have to do so, and you should avoid just copying large parts of the source).

How to write the answer?

"The first reason given by the source is .......The second reason given by the source is ........ The third reason given by the source is .........."

Question 1 b): worth2 marks, spend max5 minuteson. Understanding historical sources - political cartoon/image analysis.

For 2 marks, give two clear (and separate) points about the 'message' conveyed in the source, supporting each point with evidence from the source.

If it is a cartoon you are analysing, make sure you have fully understood the key figures and symbolsbeforeyou start to write about its messages!

How to write the answer?

"One message conveyed by the source is that ..........., because the source shows. A second message conveyed by the source is that ....... because the source shows."

Question 2: worth6 marks, spend max13 - 14 minuteson. Compare and contrast sources - source contents.

For 6 marks, you need to write two paragraphs that include arunning comparison/contrastof the two sources, carefullysupported by quotes. Make sure that you focus onanswering the terms of the question- ie. it might be asking you to compare/contrast in relation to a very specific topic, not just the sources in general.

Ideally you will be able to find two clear points of comparison and two clear points of contrast, but don't worry if you end up having two of one and one of the other - it depends a little on the sources you are given to compare! Write the first paragraph on points of comparison, and the second on points of contrast.

Before writing your answer read through the sources carefully and underline key quotes you plan to use. If needs be, you can use the scrap paper given to jot down briefly what your key points will be - even it is just key words, this might help you when it comes to writing the answer!

How to write the answer?

Two separate paragraphs:"Both sources agree that ..... Source C says that ......... and Source D says that ....The sources also agree that ......Source C says that ......... and Source D says that ....

"The sources contrast in .......... While Source C says .........., Source D says ............."

Question 3: worth6 marks, spend max13 - 14 minuteson.Source evaluation: OPVL.

Evaluate the sources separately, with one paragraph for each explaining theirorigin(if a primary source has been reprinted in another book, look at the original source not where it was re-printed!) andpurpose(of the source as a whole, not just the specific extract) and whatvaluesandlimitationsthese provide for a historian studying the given topic.

Before writing your answer read through the sources carefully, paying particular attention to the italicized 'origin' text above the source. Though your answer should focus on the provenance of the source (O,P) not its content, look carefully at what the source is saying and see if there are any signs of emotional language, etc, that might be useful in your response.

Ideally you will find two clear values and two clear limitations per source, but it might turn out you find two values but only one limitation - don't worry if this happens, it is determined by the sources you are given, Indeed, make sure that you concentrate on giving values and limitations that arespecific to the sourcesandnot general comments(i.e. it is useful as it is a primary source; it is limited as it is a secondary source and the author wasn't there, etc etc.)

How to write the answer?

Two separate paragraphs, each following this structure:

"The origin of this source is ....... (what, who, when, where - take from the source details) The purpose of this source is ...... (why it was made, for whom). The source is valuable because ...........(refer to origin). The source is also valuable because ......... (refer to purpose).The source is limited because ...........(refer to origin). The source is also limited because .........(refer to purpose)."

Question 4: worth8 marks, spend all the time left on this,at least 22 minutes. Mini-essay, usinga synthesis of allsourcesandown knowledge!

This is the most challenging question, and the one worth the most marks, which is why you need to allow enough time to produce a decent answer here. Crucial to remember is that you must, must, must use bothall the sourcesandyour owndetailedandspecificknowledgein your answer - if you use only the sources (and no own knowledge), or only own knowledge (and no sources), the maximum you can score is 5 marks. You must use asynthesisof sources and own knowledge toproduce a clear response to the question!In this sense, it is just like a full essay: you need to focus on clearly addressing the question, developing a clear argument, and challenging any assumptions in the question if you can.

How to approach this mini-essay?

Spend a couple of minutes re-reading the sources and planning your argument. As this question often asks you how far you agree with a particular statement, I recommend that you might want to draw a quick chart structuring how you are going to use all the sources and include your own knowledge. Obviously, you do not want to spend a lot of time doing this, and how you order it depends on the question given, but it can be a useful planning tool to help you write your answer. An example is as follows:

Agrees with statementDisagrees with statementBoth agrees and disagrees

SourcesA, EB, DC

Own knowledgeNasser shuts canaletcetc

When it comes to writing your answer, youmayinclude a brief introduction to define the question, butyou do not need to do so- it can be awaste of words and time. It is therefore ok to go straight into your first paragraph, which should include a clear point directed at answering the question, which is then supported byQUOTES from the sources("as Source A states......") and yourown detailed knowledge("from background knowledge I know that .......).

Have a second paragraph which uses sources and own knowledge to present the other side of the argument, according to the same model as above, and don't forget that when discussing different sources and interpretations youcanshow an awareness of the source evaluation (OPVL) you carried out in Q3 - i.e. "Source B argues that Israel was completely responsible for the 1967 conflict, but of course this is written from an Egyptian perspective..... etc etc". On the other hand, do not let this distract you from the main task ofANSWERING THE QUESTION!If you have time, and the sources allow it, there might be scope for a third paragraph as well, but it depends a little on the particulars of the exam.

When you have finished your main body, write a clear conclusion that offers abalanced responseto the essay question. Remember that challenging the question in the conclusion can be about disagreeing with particularly loaded words in the question statement - i.e. "brutal", "overwhelming", "mainly", "to a large extent" etc etc. If you run out of time before you manage to complete your answer to this question - :( - you can try and get your points down in bullet points in the last minute or so to see if you might be capable of getting some credit for your ideas from the examiner.

Communism in CrisisWednesday, May 13, 2015

6:58 PM

The struggle for power following the death of Mao Zedong, Hua Guofeng, the reemergence of Deng Xiaoping and the defeat of the Gang of Four

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

6:58 PM

2.1.1 Events Before 1976 Mao was the leader of the People's Republic of China since it was created in 1949 He introduced the Great Leap Forward in 1958 The Great Leap Forward was a policy which was put in place to modernise the Chinese economy by mobilising its population, most of the population was placed on communes where they had to help with industrialisation and increase productivity, due to the lack of China's resources the plan failed and caused wide spread famine Due to the failure of the Great Leap Forward and the Great Proletarian Cultural revolution that resulted from this failure Mao's reputation and position in the Party was damaged, although the Chinese population still had a lot of respect for him especially the youth as they had grown up with the communism propaganda at school as well at home Liu Shaoqi succeeded Mao in 1959 and became the new Chairman of the People's Republic of China, Deng Xiaoping became the General Secretary of the Party, even though Mao was no longer the at the head of the government he was still Chairman of the Communist Party The new leaders of the Party wanted to find solutions to fix China's economy however these went against Mao's revolutionary policies which he had insisted upon to catch up with the West and compete for leadership in the communist world with the Soviet Union One of the solutions implemented by Liu to restore the economy was to allow peasants to cultivate on small plots and make crafts which they could then sell at markets Mao was against this return to capitalism and wanted to keep a revolutionary focus, even though many leaders still respected him, a lot of them questioned his leadership which angered him Mao turned more and more to his wife for support and she became his confidant In 1965 Mao created the Red Guards (revolutionary youth), initiating the Cultural Revolution The Red Guards would go to Universities to look for students who where not loyal enough to the Party, some Party members where removed from their positions, other were put under house arrest, and the people who were not loyal enough outside the public eye where treated with violence The situation got out of control quite fast, the Red Guards confused the revolution with violence when Mao had said "learn revolution by making revolution" In 1966, Mao realised that his campaign had failed and he had to put an end to the violence by breaking up the Red Guards The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution ended in 1969, a new constitution was adopted and Lin Biao was named as Mao's successor The People's Liberation Army and the Party congress where put in charge of the country however they where told that this was only temporary and that once stability had returned they where to go back to answering to the Party instead of controlling it, however two thirds of them where military staff and so the question was how to remove them from the leadership of the Party Mao wanted to remove Lin from his power which was mot easy According to official Chinese records, Lin was planning a coup against the government however the plan was uncovered Lin and his family fled the country but died in a plane crash that they had boarded in Mongolia in September 1971 The power then went back to Mao and Premier Zhou Enlai These two grew weaker with age and so new potential leaders started to emerge. These included the Gang of Four (Jiang Qing and her supporters) Hua Guofeng (a new member of the Party) and Deng Xiaoping.2.1.2 The Gang of Four Mao's wife, Jiang Qing started to get involved in government matters in the 1950s when she started to work with the Ministry of Culture She wanted to create opera and theatre which put the Communist Party in good view Her involvement in politics increased more and more from then on She controlled the media to great extents in the hopes to control national culture In addition she had a lot of propaganda at her disposal which helped her political position Many members of the Party were worried about the influence Jiang Qing had on Mao, especially during the Cultural Revolution The Central Cultural Revolution Committee was formed in 1966, Jiang Qing was first vice chair woman The Committee also included Jiang Qing's closest friends from Shanghai, Yao Wenyuan, Zhang Chunqiao and Wang Hongwen Together these three with Jiang Qing would become known later on as the Gang of Four Yao Wenyuan was Mao's chief propagandist Zhang Chunqiao was deputy secretary of the Shanghai Municipal Committee Wang Hongwen was the union leader During the Cultural Revolution the Gang of Four wanted to eliminate bourgeois influences and the revisionist ways They also wanted to eliminate the Four Olds which were Culture, Customs, habits and thought Jiang Qing managed to keep her position of power after the Cultural Revolution was over Jiang, Zhang and Wang became members of the politburo in 1969 When Lin died, the Gang of Four seized the opportunity to increase their power within the government and wanted the Cultural Revolution to keep going Mao who had previously relied on his wife as his confidant started to lose trust in her, he felt like she was controlling his access to knowledge and people The two then separated and would only meet on appointment Mao was judgmental of the Gang of Four but still used them against some of the members of the politburo to prevent any small group from gaining too much power2.1.3 Deng Xiaoping, Zhou Enlai and Hua Guofeng There was a more moderate and down to earth group in the politburo Deng Xiaoping was the leader of this group and was against the Cultural Revolution which the Gang of Four were so keen to reinstate, he also wanted to introduce some degree of capitalism within the Chinese economy Zhou Enlai was the Premier and supported and protected Deng Xiaoping, they both wanted order to be restored within the country In early 1973, during the course of the power struggle Zhou died Mao was to choose who was to succeed Zhou Zhou's own choice would have been Deng The Gang of Four tried to have Zhang replace Zhou's position as premier Mao eventually named Hua Guofeng as Premier Hua Guofeng was not well known and had been top security official from Mao's home province The leaders of the Party were not exactly enthusiastic about Hua being named as Premier but they did not object either2.1.4 The Qingming Festival 1976 The festival was in Beijing Started on March 29 th and ended on April 4th The population took advantage of the festival to publicly mourn Zhou and support Deng and indirectly criticize Mao and the Gang of Four The government was not expecting this and was by which means to react Hua and Mao agreed that the government was to discretely remove the flowers and poems that had been written, the day after the end of the festival By doing so the hope was to lower tension and prevent a conflict from taking place between the government and the people However instead of preventing a conflict it started one as when news about the removal of the flowers and poems spread through Beijing, the population started to protest The people marched to the square carrying anti-Mao message banners The decision was taken to go ahead with the removal of the flowers and poems and subdue the protestors using violence Protestors were arrested, beaten up and it is said that some were beheaded in the square The population was once again repressed under Mao's leadership Mao then accused Deng of leading the protests and so Deng was removed from his position in government and was suppose to be investigated for political mistakes However Deng fled from Beijing and found refuge in Canton under the protection of General Ye Jianying He stayed in Canton until the death of Mao2.1.5 Mao's Death and the Defeat of the Gang of Four Mao was suffering from Parkinson's disease and grew weaker and weaker in time On the 9th of September 1976 Mao succumb to the disease Mao had wanted Hua to succeed him but all the others were waiting for Mao's death before trying to take over the power When that day arrived the Gand of Four seized the opportunity to take over by using the influence they had over the media, urban militia and universities However they did not realise Hua's strength and the support he was to get from politburo members and the military After Mao died, Jiang altered some of Mao's writings to make it appear as if Mao had wanted her to succeed him, this was exposed however she still remained in a strong position In the politburo meeting Jiang argued that she should succeed Mao as Hua was incompetent to do so Hua argued on the other hand that succession should be dealt with as it had been in the past, that is the vice chairman should succeed the chairman until the next session of the Central Committee Hua had support from many people including the defence minister Ye Jianuang The Gang of Four quickly realised that they were losing power and so decided to carry out a coup on October the 6th The Gang of Four was to get military support from Mao's nephew and political commissar of the Shenyang Military Region The plan was to take the power by force from the government and assassinate some of the politburo members including Hua and Ye When Jiang realised that even with the support of Mao's nephew the Gang lacked weapons, she tried to recruit some members of the politburo to help her with military support however her plan back fired as these decided to tell Hua of her plans rather than joining her cause When Hua found out about Jiang's plans, he held a meeting and together with Ye, Chen and other allies they agreed to launch a pre-emptive strike by safeguarding Beijing and arresting the Gang of Four On the 5th of October Hua called an emergency meeting of the politburo for midnight, when Zhang and Wang arrived they were arrested Yao and Jiang were arrested later at their homes as they had not gone to the politburo meeting The Gand of Four was expelled from the Party and was awaiting trial, it lost all its support as well as its power After this Jiang was portrayed as a power hungry woman who had exploited the death of her husband The population had lost all respect for Jiang and her reputation was destroyed There was still great respect for Mao and so if his wife appeared in a photo with him, she was blacked out and this was done so that people knew that she had been removed from the photo The Gang of Four finally went on trial, Jiang and Zhang initially received the death sentence but this was then changed to life imprisonment, Wang received life imprisonment as well and finally Yao received 20 years imprisonment2.1.6 Events After the Defeat of the Gang of Four The actions of the Gang of Four where condemned In addition to being Premier, Hua was made chairman of the Party and Military Commission Deng was reinstated by Hua to the politburo and was made vice-chairman of the Central Committee once again Hua decided that China should focus on industrialisation again Deng was in charge of the four modernizations which were agriculture, science and technology and industry and national defence Deng had important economic and political power again Within the Politburo three power groups emerged Nine members supported Deng Nine members supported Hua Three members supported Ye Even though Ye had fewer supporters he held the balance and this made him the decision maker There was tension between the groups however the Congress called for unity, stability and cooperation Hua adopted a policy which was called the Two Whatevers: We will resolutely uphold whatever policy decision Chairman Mao made, and unswervingly follow whatever instructions Chairman Mao gave This was not a popular policy for those who wanted to move away from the Maoist era When Hua found himself implicated in the crimes of the Gang of Four as he had the position of head security and premier when the worst atrocities of the Gang where committed he gave up his position He resigned as Premier in 1980 and in 1981 he resigned as Party Chairman and chair of the Military Commission He was succeeded by Zhao Ziyang, Hu Yaobang and Deng respectively Hua admitted to his mistakes and so he was allowed to take the position of vice-chairman until this position was abolished in 1982, he remained a member of the Central Committee until 2002China under Deng Xiaoping, economic policies and the Four ModernizationsWednesday, May 13, 20156:58 PM2.2.1 China under Deng Xiaoping Deng had full control of the Party and the government by 1982 He wanted to make important changes so that China could compete West He also thought that it was important to start separating the government from the Party as he wanted to put in place policies which would differ from communist ideologies The goal was to modernise China so that it could compete with the West in consumer goods and industrial production Even though Deng wanted to put in place Western policies he was still a communist and made sure that the political system remained communist2.2.2 The Ten Year Plan Hua Guofeng announced the new Ten Year Plan in 1978 The plan focused on economic sectors with a heavy industry The goal was to reach a level at which China would be able to support itself and compete with the West Deng was put in charge of these political changes The opening up of China to the West by Mao and Zhou was very beneficial to the plan as it provided some of the capital needed for the plan The plan focused on China's development, especially steel production Goals where set for natural resource extractions (oil, petroleum, coal and non ferrous-metals) In addition the plan included extensive infrastructure development which involved electricity, rail roads and water transport The plan proved to be too ambitious and the government could not afford the costs so in 1979 the goals of the plan were modified The plan would focus on the Four Modernizations: agriculture, industry, science and technology and the military2.2.3 Open Door Policy The Party introduced the Open Door Policy in December 1978 This was a major factor for the success of the Plan and the Four Modernizations A high level of capital was needed to make the changes and the Open Door Policy provided this capital Also China would benefit from learning and importing science and technology by trading with the West China focused on quality of its products, the diversification of its exports, the devaluation of the Yuan and built up its currency reserves China became very attractive to investors like Japan, West Germany and the United States2.2.4 Agriculture The goal was to increase the yields of farmers The government wanted farmers to move away from traditional farming methods Instead of manual work the government wanted to introduce mechanised farming The government wanted to improve water supply to farmers The government supported and promoted the use of chemical fertilisers The government supported personal incentives and diversification There where set quotas 12 commodity and food base areas would be created to allow for better regulation and distribution of food A big turning point was the implementation of the Household Responsibility System Under this system even though there was still no private ownership of land, each farming household received a plot of land The farming households could use this plot of land as they wanted They would have a contract with the local commune in which they had to hire a certain amount of workers and plant a specific amount of crops The farming households had control over the labour within their households and could distribute this labour however they wished Also all farming household surplus could be either sold or kept which was a great benefit to farmers In exchange for using the land for a period of 15 years a quota that had been predetermined would go back to the local commune The Household Responsibility System was very successful, by 1989 90% of households where involved in the system The System alone allowed to increase productivity by more than what had been set by the Ten Year Plan China became the largest agricultural producer Agricultural improvements lead to increased productivity Due to this increased productivity, factories where built and the communes saw the revival of local crafts This meant that farmers could leave their family plots and work locally in the factories2.2.5 Industry The main focus was on capital construction and improving heavy industries Attention was drawn to steel, iron, coal and oil production, 55 billion Yen was invested into these There was a total of 120 projects to be completed however the plan proved to be too ambitious and so in 1979 it was readjusted The Industrial Responsibility System was introduced Under this system, the supervisory body of a State Owned Enterprise (SOE) would have a contract in which a percentage of the production and/or profit would go to the state and the SOE could keep the surplus, quality of production became a factor in the later stages This improved the attitude and motivation of industrial workers, increasing productivity In October 1984 the Resolution on the Reform of the Economic System was introduced Public ownership was not allowed however the government gave more freedom to enterprises The management of these enterprises was a lot more free In doing so the government hoped to increase production Private groups could lease small enterprises but larger ones remained under the control of the state2.2.6 Science and Technology The Cultural Revolution had devastating effects on education China was lacking even the basic technology that was standard in all other developed countries There was a need for more scientists, doctors, engineers and architects A number of goals were put forward The government wanted to be able to compete with the developing countries my repairing the damages caused by the Cultural Revolution By 1985 the government wanted to be only ten years behind the developing countries The goals included to increase the number of scientists, develop the centres used for experiments and to complete a nation wide system of science and technology research2.2.7 Military China had the largest army in the world however it seriously lacked in military technology Nuclear research had come to an end Science and military modernisation had a direct link The centres of research that were being either built or improved made it possible to develop new weapons It was estimated that the government spend up to 10% on developing and buying new technology2.2.8 Results of the Ten Year Plan Mixed results, the plan succeeded in some ways but not in others According to government statistics industrial production and agriculture had an average annual growth of 11% Growth rates where even higher in the production of coal, steel, electricity and oil The GNP reached 778 billion in 1985 There was also success in the regions of infrastructure development and construction There was also tremendous improvements in science and technology However there were problems with the workforce Young workers often trained abroad with modern equipment and then had to reintegrate themselves on their return within an outdated system Also, older workers who had suffered from a lack of education due to the cultural revolution felt threatened by the younger workers as they were scared of unemployment and the younger workers did not respect them as elders The increased production brought about inflation The plan focused on modernisation, economic growth and the availability of consumer goods however other issues affecting the quality of life where not payed attention to Beijing became very polluted and China suffered deforestation on a big scale The one child policy was put into place which penalised families with more than one child Corruption occurred as the Party members were spared from the policy Also, the children of Party members had many benefits, they were automatically accepted into universities and did not have to serve in the militaryDomestic and foreign problems of the Brezhnev era, economic and political stagnation, AfghanistanWednesday, May 13, 20156:59 PM2.4.1 Leonid Brezhnev and the Domestic ProblemsThe Economy Leonid Brezhnev came into power in the USSR in 1964 He combined the positions of General Secretary and chairman of the Presidium He came into power at a time where the USSR had managed to industrialise, increase its arms and develop new technology however it had failed in the production of consumer goods and agriculture Standards of living which had previously been increasing were starting to decrease again A lot of money was being spent on the military and the space programme Brezhnev wanted to increase consumer goods and agriculture by putting in place reforms that would use the market force to increase these however he was prevented from doing so as some feared that these would lead to a tendency towards capitalism However he allowed farmers to work on state owned plots Previously Collectivization had been the policy Collectivization was an agricultural policy in which individual landholders had to give up their land ownership and combine this land with those of other landholders to create large farms By allowing farmers to work on state owned plots this gave them the motivation to produce more as they could keep or sell the surplus However when living standards did not change production decreased Brezhnev tried to increase production in the ninth and tenth five year plans but this was not with much success Consumer goods were only largely available on the black market In 1975 the USSR suffered from another poor harvest and so Brezhnev had to increase agricultural imports to keep the citizens fed In the 1970s the rest of the world was suffering from a petroleum shortage but due to the focus on consumer goods and agriculture the USSR did not manage to increase its production of petroleum and so failed to benefit from the high demand The people started to criticise the governmentCitizens vs Government Censorship and repression where still in place in the USSR However citizens started to voice their opinions and put forward their own ideas as they where worried that a Stalin style regime which had been savagely violent would return Intellects where starting to publicly criticise the government Solzhenitsyn publishedThe Gulag Archipelagowhich was an autobiographical account of how the citizens had been treated in the expanding networks of camps However he was exiled for his work in 1974 Samizdat and Tamizdat were used to voice opinion and spread ideas Samizdat where self published pamphlets or articles that where illegally copied and distributed Tamizdat was similar to Samizdat but the pamphlets and articles where first published abroad and smuggled back into the USSR Some of these became journals and gained many followers There was also pressure from abroad to allow the Soviet Jews to leave the USSR and move to Israel if the Soviet Jews wanted to do so In addition the Baltic States which had been taken by force into USSR protested the invasion of ethnic Russians into their areas, these states wanted independence (Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania)Politics Brezhnev did not have much interest in reforming the government or the Partystructure It became more and more apparent that there was a need for a reform as the leaders where ageing and starting to die In 1974 Brezhnev spoke about "stability of cadres" and assured the older stagnant party members that they would not lose their positions Workers also realised that they would not lose their jobs due to poor productivity Even though this bought about a sense of security it had devastating effects on the economy2.4.2 Foreign Reforms and ProblemsBrezhnev Doctrine The Soviet Union wanted to come to an agreement on arms limitation with the USA as it wanted to limit the possibility of war However Brezhnev's main interest was to maintain a communist regime When the Czechoslovak government introduced reforms that went against the communist regime Soviet troops invaded the country and reversed the reforms In November 1968 the Brezhnev Doctrine In his speech Brezhnev made clear that all communist regimes were to remain communist and he would not let them be overthrown internally nor externally The Western powers criticised this however they did not offer any support for these statesAgreement with the USA Due to the economic situation in the USSR Brezhnev wanted to come to an agreement with the USA on arm limitations This also showed the USA that the USSR wanted to avoid nuclear war In 1969 the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks began between the Brezhnev and the USA president Nixon In May 1972 the USA and the USSR came to an agreement on arm limitations The Helsinki Final Act in 1975 finalised the post-war frontiers in Central and Eastern Europe and the Soviets agreed to comply with international conventions on human rightsInvolvement in Africa and the Solidarity Movement The Portuguese withdrew from their African colonies after the Portuguese revolution in 1974 This resulted in civil war in Mozambique and Angola Marxists groups recruited the assistance of first the Cubans and then the Soviets The Soviets supported the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola They also supported the Frelimo in Mozambique since the 1960s The Soviets also helped put an end to regime of Haile Selassie in Ethiopia and put in place a communist revolutionary government The Somali government was against this it was driven out by the Ethiopians who had received arms from the Soviets The Solidarity movement started in the late 1970s in Poland The USSR wanted to invoke the Brezhnev Doctrine however due to its involvement in Afghanistan it was reluctant to do soThe USSR's Involvement in Afghanistan Since the late 19th century the USSR had intervened in Afghanistan The USSR wanted to compete with Britain for power in Afghanistan The Soviets had sent military support to the country to aid the removal of the British control The USSR military had trained Afghan officers which made them supportive of the Marxist cause in their own country The Afghan army took power in 1978 and killed the president and prime minister Nur Muhammad Taraki became the president of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA) and put in power the Marxist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) The new government wanted to put in place economic and social reforms to try and secularise and modernise Afghanistan The USSR signed an agreement with Afghanistan in December 1978 which stated that the USSR agreed to give military support to the Afghan government in Kabul if the government asked for it The Afghan government became more and more reliant on Soviet support which weakened the moral authority of the government Attacks against the government increased especially by religious groups The reforms where imposed through violence and so the civilians were very hostile towards the government, conflict started to erupt Village and religious leaders were imprisoned or killed for protesting against the policies of the government Those who were able went into exile abroad, the lower class civilians escaped to Pakistan in refugee camps It is estimated that 27000 political prisoners were killed by the PDPA The Mujahideen (rebel forces) started to object to the PDPA and the role of religious bodies in Afghanistan was starting to become more important Those opposition to the PDPA started to attack Soviet leaders as well 100 Soviet advisors were killed in March 1979 by members of the Afghan army that had mutinied in the city of Herat The PDPA reacted by attacking and executing 24000 people in the city In 1979 Taraki was overthrown by Hafizullah Amin which made the situation even more chaotic The USSR invaded Afghanistan in December 1979 and cited the Brezhnev Doctrine as a reason The official reason was that the PDPA asked for support from the USSR to stop the Mujahideen from taking power The main problem was that the USSR did not have a clear aim Within the Soviet government there where disputes on why to proceed and how to proceed The KGB seemed to want a limited operation which would stabilise the situation and prevent it from spreading into surrounding countries The defence ministry wanted to overthrow the PDPA to prevent Pakistan or Iran from invading Afghanistan There was worry that Amin and Taraki had been involved in pro-US activities and that this would lead to the end of socialism in Afghanistan There was 70000 Soviet Troops in Afghanistan by the 27th of December with still no clear objectives on how to proceed The Soviet position was weak as even though they controlled the cities, the rebels which were being supported by the US controlled the countryside The Soviet army executed Amin and all those who saw the assassination Amin was replaced by Babrak Karmal who was another leader of the PDPA This was the start of a ten year intervention in Afghanistan which cost the USSR many lives and billions of dollars The Soviet citizens where against this intervention and it also resulted in international condemnation The US limited grain sales to the USSR and also boycotted the 1980 summer Olympics which were due to be held in Moscow The rebels received the support from the US and President Carter allowed the CIA to conduct operations in Afghanistan By 1982 the USSR realised that it could not win the war in Afghanistan but it refused to admit defeat Instead it continued a war that was costly and very unpopular as it had invoked the Brezhnev Doctrine and could not withdraw2.4.3 Chernenko and Andropov As Brezhnev got older and weaker he relied more and more on his protg Konstantin Chernenko to lead the country It was thought that Chernenko would succeed Brezhnev however when Brezhnev died in November 1982 he was succeeded by Yuri Andropov Andropov was a former KGB leader and a Central Committee member He managed to outmanoeuver Chernenko and became the leader of the USSR Andropov wanted to change the USSR's economic stagnation He tried to nullify the "stability of cadres" to improve productivity He tried to answer the problem of economic stagnation by putting in places policies which stated that those illegally absent from work would be arrested He also closed down most of the Soviet space program in 1983 to try and cut down expenses He wanted to get rid of Brezhnev's and Chernenko's followers and replace them with political elites who were loyal to him and were willing to encourage change within the economy He wanted to replace the older Party members with younger ones with the help of Mikhail Gorbachev Foreign problems which had started during the Brezhnev era continued The situation in Afghanistan worsened The relation between the US and the USSR was already bad but it was made worse when in September 1983 the Soviets shot down a Korean Airlines flight that had strayed into Soviet airspace In 1983 Andropov's health deteriorated and he stopped appearing in public He wanted Gorbachev to succeed him however when Andropov died in 1984 he was succeeded by Chernenko There were not many changes under Chernenko's leadership, foreign and domestic policies stayed the same Chernenko's health deteriorated quite fast and he needed to rely more and more on his deputy Gorbachev When Chernenko died in March 1985 it marked the end of the Brezhnev eraThe Arab-Israeli Conflict 194579Wednesday, May 13, 20157:01 PMLast years of the British Mandate; UNSCOP partition plan and the outbreak of civil warWednesday, May 13, 20157:02 PMHistoric roots of the conflict: Both Arabs and Israelis havedeep-rooted historical and religious connections to the territoryof the 'Holy land' that in the second half of the twentieth century would become the state of Israel and the 'occupied territories'. The Jewish tradition sees Palestine as the 'promised land' of Israel that God gave to the Jewish people according to the biblical account of the Old Testament, and look back to the 'Kingdom of Israel' that existed before the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE as proof that the Jews 'were there first'. On the other hand, Palestinian Arabs point to the fact that they have been living in the area continuously over the past 2,000 years, and can also point towards Biblical references in the Old Testament to justify their claim to the land. For both Jews and Arabs, Jerusalem is a holy site for their respective religions. However rather than seeing this as an ancient conflict, and as Kirsten Schulze argues, "the Arab-Israeli conflict emerged with theadvent of nationalismin the Middle East and the conflict .... is one of competing nationalisms". This is reinforced by the fact that there hasnotbeen a continuous dispute between the Arabs and the Israelis since ancient times over the land of Palestine - these conflicting nationalist claims on the territory have their roots in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, with theemergence of modern Zionism and Arab nationalism. Influenced by anti-semitism in Europe and Russia in the nineteenth century, and broader European trends towards nationalist thinking,Zionismas a modern ideology was developed byTheodor Herzl, an Austro-Hungarian Jew and journalist who argued that the creation of a Jewish national state in Palestine was the only solution to discrimination against the Jews. Zionism started as a small intellectual movement with the publication of Herzl'sDer Judenstaatin 1896, but soon became an international movement. Arab nationalism- the belief that the Arab people should be a single political community - developed simultaneously to Zionism in the later decades of the nineteenth century. Looking back to the glorious cultural achievements of the Arab renaissance, this nationalism was also built upon opposition to the Ottoman Empire, to European colonial interference in the Arab world, and to Zionism, with whom itsterritorial claims over the 'holy land' clashedand competed with. In the early twentieth century Palestine was still ruled by the Ottoman Empire, the 'sick man of Europe' as it was known, but both Zionism and Arab nationalism were ideologies seeking to challenge and overthrow Turkish rule and establish control over the territory for themselves. This is therefore the basic issue at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict: two competing, and irreconcilable, nationalisms staking claim to the same territory! As Jewish philosopher Martin Buber stated in 1947, it is aconflict over "a land of two peoples"- something made clear by an early Zionist fact-finding mission to Palestine in the late 1890s which had reported that "the bride is beautiful but she is already taken"(i.e. already populated by Palestinian Arabs!) Britain's desire to defeat Germany and her allies in the First World War led to policies that would have far-reaching consequences for the future of the Middle East. As the Ottoman Empire was an ally of Germany and the Central Powers, Britain was keen to try and de-stabilise the Middle East as a way of weakening the Turks' military capability. They also hoped to prevent the Ottomans taking control of the Suez canal, and secure control of newly-discovered oil supplies in the region. To secure the support of the Arab tribes against the Ottomans, the British made an agreement that promised future Arab independence. In 1915 theHussein-McMahon Correspondencewere completed between Sir Henry McMahon and Sharif Hussein, Amir of Mecca, and promised that "Great Britain is prepared to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sharif of Mecca".This saw the Arabs enter the war against the Ottomans in 1916. The agreement did specify areas to be excluded from Arab control, and these were to be issues of contention after the war: while the Arabs took Palestine to be included, the British argued that it was part of the excluded territory. This promise to the Arabs was severely undermined by theSykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, a secret agreement between Britain and France in which they carved up the Middle East into areas of interest in the event of Ottoman rule collapsing. Furthermore, in addition to having promised the Arabs their independence, the British also made significant promises to the Zionist movement, hoping to secure their support for the Allied war efforts. The 1917Balfour declaration, a letter from the British Foreign Secretary to a leading Zionist, stated that Britain "viewed with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".Though it should be noted that this did not say that a 'Jewishstate' should be created, and that no specific territorial borders were mentioned, this clearly offered a strong pledge of support to the Zionist cause. The First World War therefore played a crucial role in sowing the seeds of the forthcoming Arab-Israeli conflict: both the Arabs and the Zionists believed that they had been promised control of Palestine, while Britain itself had cynically decided to move into the vacuum created by Ottoman collapse and rule the region themselves. Britain thus intensified the competing claims of both the Arab and the Zionist nationalist ideologies, and satisfied neither in their search for modern statehood. British troops entered Palestine in 1918 and took provisional control over the territory, which was then formalised by the League of Nations in 1922 as part of the post-war settlements. The British mandate showed clearly that Britain had gone back on promises made to the Arabs and the Zionists in favour of the Sykes-Picot agreement. The mandate given to the British placed them in a complex situation, and thecontradictory aims of the mandatehelp to explain the long-term failure of British rule in the area. On the one hand, the British were supposed to put the country under "such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home", but on the other hand, they were also supposed to safeguard the"civil and religious rights of all inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion." In other words, the British weresupposed to keep both the Jews and the Arabs happy, an impossible aim which explains why the British often succeeded in pleasing neither of the two groups, with both claiming that the British were favouring the other group! The Arabs tended to think Britain was holding onto Palestine until a Jewish majority had been gained, while many Jews though that Britain was secretly arming the Arabs and restricting Jewish immigration and land purchase in order to prevent a Jewish state being created. In practice, Britain's attempt to deal with this mess often led to contradictory policies that only worsened the situation by increasing suspicions and tension all-round. The1920s saw relative peace in the mandateas the British encouraged both Jews and Arabs to engage ininstitution-building.The Jews were much more energetic in responding to this, establishing key institutions (ie. Haganah, Hebrew University) which would ease the transition to full statehood in 1948. Despite the forming of the Arab executive in 1920, Arab/Palestinian institution-building failed to proceed at the same pace, as religious, regional and local divisions got in the way. 1929, Wailing Wall incident in Jerusalemput an end to this peace, and sparked significant inter-communal tensions. This led to disturbances which caused 133 Jewish deaths and 116 Arab deaths, and the massacre of most Jewish residents of Hebron. The British response - a White Paper blaming events on Jewish land purchases, and then restrictions on Jewish immigration - upset first the Jews and then the Arabs, when the Brits took a step back from the position in the White Paper. Hitler's rise to power in Germany in 1933 led to anincrease in Jewish immigrationto Palestine, which increased problems in the region. Between 1930 and 1936 the Jewish population had more than doubled from from 160,000 to 370,000 out of a total population of 1.3 million in Palestine - which prompted Arab fears that they would end up losing their land. Arab opposition to this immigration took the form of theArab revolt,which began as a strike in 1936 and went on to become a full-scale uprising which paralysed Palestine for months and took the British three years to contain. The British response to the Arab revolt came first in the shape of thePeel Commision, 1937,which argued that co-existence was impossible and that partition was the only solution. The Arabs rejected this idea, seeing it as the theft of their land, but the British needed to try and secure Arab support in the face of an upcoming war with Hitler in Europe and therefore issued the1939 White Paper. This limited Jewish immigration to 15,000 per year for the next five years, and then made it dependent on Arab consent thereafter. The Arabs rejected this as they demanded national independence, while the Jews saw this as against the terms of the mandate and an act of betrayal when they most needed protection (in the context of the Nazi Holocaust). This saw Zionists turn their focus away from Britain and towards the USA instead in search of support for their proposed Jewish homeland. Summary - main issues: broken promises after WW1; tension caused by increasing Jewish immigration and land purchases; Britain's inconsistent policies.The impact of WWII and reasons for British departure: Winning the war against Hitler had virtually bankrupted Britain, who from 1945 was clearly animperial power in decline. Faced with pressing reconstruction issues at home, and serious economic and financial problems. the British could no longer afford the expensive business of maintaining the mandate in Palestine. TheBiltmore program, calling for a Jewish state in Palestine, 1942, was endorsed by both Democratic and Republican candidates in the 1944 US election campaign, which clearly showed both the force of Zionist lobbyists in the US and also the direction in which postwar US policy was likely to take. Domestic political pressure in the US would play an important role in guaranteeing that the world's foremost superpower become involved in the Middle East . Mass murder of c. 6 million Jews in the Holocaustled survivors and Zionists to pursue their goal of a Jewish state withexistentialurgency, as the only way to secure Jewish security from such atrocities. It also helped secure international sympathy for the Zionist cause. War created amassive refugee problem in Europe,leading to increased pressure for ending restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine and on land purchase in Palestine. The end of the war saw the situation in Palestine worsen considerably, as theJewish waged an uprising against the BritishandArab-Jewish tensions bordered on civil war.By 1947 127 British soldiers had been killed by Jewish attacks - particularly notorious was the Irgun's bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in July 1946 which killed 91 people - and the British departure was looking almost inevitable. Having failed to solve the conflict between Arabs and Zionists, and faced with more important issues at home to deal with, the British decided to hand Palestine to the UN and let them deal with the situation instead.UNSCOP Partition Plan and outbreak of civil war: During summer of 1947 the UN special committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) went to the region to investigate the situation and recommend future policy based on interviews with both Arabs and Jews. However, while the Jews worked carefully with the commission to communicate their position, the Arabs refused to co-operate with them, believing them to be already biased in favour of the Jews and that they had already decided to sacrifice Arab lands in order to placate the Jews after the Holocaust. This boycotting of the commission can not have helped the Arab cause. UNSCOP concluded that both sides' claims were valid, that their aims were irreconcilable, and that the only solution was the partition of Palestine into two separate states to separate the communities into a Jewish and an Arab state. The partition plan granted almost 57% of Palestine to the Jewish settlers, even though the 1.2 million Arabs constituted 70% of the population. Though there were to be separate Arab and Jewish states, Jerusalem was to come under international control. Beyond this, the three main problems with the plan were as follows: i) territorial fragmentation of both states, ii) though politically separate, the two states should be economically united, and iii) given the amount of land given to the Jewish state, what was to happen to the Arab population 'trapped' within the Jewish borders? The Zionists accepted the plan as a first step to statehood, even though they disliked the status of Jerusalem and the fact that they did not have a clear defensible state. However, the Arabs could not see any redeeming parts in a plan which gave away large parts of their land to the Jewish settlers and guaranteed that a large number of Arabs would be part of the new Jewish state, and they therefore rejected the plan completely. TheArab League(Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Transjordan and Yemen) pledged to go to war to prevent a Jewish state - though such a united front was complicated by divisions within the league. After the UN voted in favour of the plan, both the Arabs and the Jews began to arm themselves. Effectively from November 1947 until the declaration of the Israeli state in May 1948 (when the first Arab-Israeli war broke out), Palestine was embroiled in acivil war between the Arabs and Jews.The British could neither implement partition, nor intervene to stop the violence - really, they were just riding out the remaining time of the mandate and looking forward to handing the problem to someone else! This civil war started with the General Strike called by the Arabs from 2nd to 4th December, and continued until the State of Israel was declared, on14th May 1948. Bitter fighting between the two sides included theDeir Yessin massacre, 9th April 1948, in which Irgun and Lehi troops killed more than 250 Arab men, women and children as part of the controversialPlan Daimed at securing the areas of the Jewish state promised by the partition plan. This massacre had a huge impact on the Arab community, leading ultimately to a mass exodus of Palestinian Arabs (cf. historiographical debates about the causes of the Palestinian diaspora): it is estimated that 300, 000 Palestinian Arabs had fled before the State of Israel was declared.British withdrawal; establishment of Israel; Arab response and the 1948-49 warWednesday, May 13, 20157:05 PMEstablishment of Israel and the causes of the 1948 - 49, first Arab-Israeli war: Nov 29th 1947 UNSCOP partition plan passed by the UN assembly. The Jews celebrate, but the Arabs were appalled and pledged to prevent the founding of a Jewish state in Palestine. This reflects the long-standing tensions, conflicts and rivalries between the two groups over these fundamental questions of right to land etc etc. Nov 30th 1947- May 14th 1948 Civil war in Palestine between Jews and Palestinian Arabs, following violence that started with the Arab General Strike. May 14th 1948 Israeli declaration of independence: state of Israel declared by its first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion. This was according to the UNSCOP borders in the partition plan, and the declaration was made the day before the British mandate was due to end in Palestine. May 15th Arab League (Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan) invades Israel to liberate Palestine, starting the first Arab-Israeli war. Jewish-Arab civil war had become a regional war, between the newly-formed state of Israel and the surrounding Arab states.War of independencefor Israel vsWar to liberate Palestinefor Arab states.An Nakbahfor the Palestinians - the catastrophe.Course of the war: 30th Nov to June 1947 - Israeli weakness, fighting for survival. Problems with getting arms, creating an army and supplies to isolated settlements. March 10th 1948 Plan D (Dalet), Israeli defence strategy vs Palestinian belief in plan for a strategy of ethnic cleansing. April 9th Massacre in Deir Yassin of 250 Palestinians. June 11th Folke Bernadotte proposed ceasefire. This proved to be a turning point in the War. IDF troops increased from 65 000 in May to 96 000 in December. (Folke was killed in Sep. 17th 1948 by the Jewish underground) Jan 1949 Armistice negotiations began, when Arab states realized they would not win the War.Why Israel won the War? Israeli strengths:Motivated army (clear unified goal of survival), resources, western sympathy, British army training and experience. Arab weaknesses:Lack of morale, ill-equipped, logistical problems, divided leadership, divided aims (Egypt and Syria had expansionist aims rather than creating a Palestinian state)Outcomes of the War Palestinians:An-Nakba('the disaster/catastrophe'), lost the chance of their own state. 550 000-800 000 refugees, 150 000 to Israel, 450 000 to Transjordan, 200 000 to Egypt. Israelis: Israeli state increased by 21%, has now defensible borders. Arab nations:Defeat in the war leads to instability as the result of domestic challenges to the leadership who lost the war. 1952, Egyptian monarchy overthrown. Arab states increased territory:Transjordan takes West Bank and Egypt takes the Gaza Strip, showing that Arab war aims was not as simple as supporting the Palestinians. Arab-Israeli armistice failed to achieve lasting peaceDespite negotiations between 1949-1950 the two sides could not reach agreement. Israel wanted recognition and peace but would not give up any territory. Arab states wanted territory and repatriating Palestinian refugeesHistoriography A question ofperspective! For the Israelis, this war is called, and celebrated today as, the 'war of independence',a conflict in which Israel bravely fought against the odds and battled for survival against the invasion of hostile Arab armies from its neighbouring countries. For the Palestinians, however, this war is known as 'an-Nakba',the disaster, the conflict in which they were forced out of their homes by deliberately planned ethnic cleansing from Israel in order to become a stateless people living in the permanent exile of refugee camps. It is from the fundamental incompatibility of these two separate narratives that the continued failure to find a resolution to the Middle East situation today stems.Suez Crisis of 1956: role of Britain, France and the United States, the USSR, Israel and the UNOWednesday, May 13, 20157:05 PMTimeline of key dates: 1952, July 23rd:Egypt's monarchy was overthrownby the Free Officers. 1954, October:Nasser replaces Mohammed Naguib as President and leader of Egypt. 1955: Nasser refuses to join the Baghdad Pact andnegotiates the Czech arms deal. 1955, February 28:Israel launches the Gaza Raidas a result of an Egyptian intelligence-gathering squad entering Israel and killing an Israeli cyclist. The raid killed 38 Egyptian soldiers. 1955:Closing of the Straits of Tiran. 1956,26th July:Nationalization of the Suez Canal. 1956, October 30:Israeli troops reach the canaland Britain and France issuesultimatumfor both to withdraw their forces.Key causes of the war:Long Term: Failure to conclude a peace agreementafter the 1948 war: the defeat in the war left the Arab states instable and domestic challenges to the leadership which made peace initiatives difficult to realise. Arab states might have lost the war but had not been defeated to such an extent that they were "forced" to make peace at all costs. Similarly Israel were not ready to make territorial concessions for peace. Though Israel was initially hopeful about Nasser's rise to power ("Much of their optimism centered around one man, Gamal Abdel Nasser.. he had participated in the cease-fire talks with Israel in 1949 and had expressed a desire to resolve the conflict"- Oren), these hopes for a peaceful solution collapsed amid the growing suspicion and tension caused by the events outline below. "Second Round Thinking"- Arab wishes for redeeming the Palestinians and seeking revenge on Israel. As Benny Morris has stated, "Even before the ink on the armistice agreements was dry, there arose in the Arab capitals a clamour for an avenging second round".Israel too saw a second round as a way to establish a more defensible border as well as achieve territorial expansion. Tensions towards a second conflict between Israel and Egypt were increased bycontinuous border skirmishesbetweenPalestinianfedayeenraids based in the Gaza strip and retaliation attacks from theIsraeli army- key example: Gaza raid (1955) launched by Israel and killing 38 Egyptian soldiers in response to the death of an Israeli, described by Egypt as "an action of unprovoked aggression carried out with deliberate brutality."Short Term: Czech Arms deal1955- Israeli hopes for peace as a result of the change of government gave away to distrust, decreasingly bad relations and finally war. Set in motion Israeli deliberations on a pre-emptive war as it saw Egypt mobilizing and receiving modern weapons from the USSR. Egypt turned to the USSR only after the US had refused to supply Nasser with arms. Changed the regional balance in the eyes of Israel to a much less favourable one- the deal provided Egypt with 300 tanks, 200 MiG 15 jets etc. Israel pleaded to France for help and in return recieved 40 tanks, 84 airplanes and 120 light tanks. This sparked Israeli considerations of a pre-emptive strike: as Ben Gurion stated, "If they really get MiGs- I will be for bombing them!"Moshe Dayan, a key figure in the Israeli military and also in favour of a pre-emptive strike, defended Israeli policy afterwards as follows: "if the Arab states .... had not pursued a policy of increasing enmity towards her, Israel would not have resorted to arms." Nationalisation of the Suez Canal,26th of July, 1956- Nasser needed the nationalisation to fund the Aswan Dam project (crucial to his personal pride and legitimacy), after the US World Bank had withdrawn a huge loan made to Nasser as punishment for the Czech Arms deal. This made French-Egyptian collision almost inevitable as there had been previous clashes over the Algerian war (France considered Egypt to be the main support for Algerian nationalists fighting for independence from France). France however was no longer alone but joined by Britain and France and resulted in a tripartite alliance. The Suez Canal was Britain's main trade route for oil etc. and the Czech arms deal was seen as a sign that Egypt was coming increasingly under Soviet influence. Britain and France refused to recognize Egypt's sovereignity over the canal. Sevres protocol,24th October 1956- secret meeting held in France between British, French and Israeli figures, which came up with the plan to get rid of Nasser: Israel would seize the canal, Britain and France would ask both sides to withdraw, and then when Egypt fails to do so Britain and France would intervene to protect the canal. The plan has been described as "ill-conceived both in organisation and purpose"(Fraser).Outline of course of the war - what happened? 29th October, 1956 -Israeli troops launch this attack; the next day they reached the canal. 30th October -Britain and France issued their ultimatum as planned, Nasser refused this (as hoped). 31st October- for two days Britain and France bombs Egyptian airfields and destroys economic targets in Egypt as well as the Egyptian airforce. Britain and France forced to halt their military operation as a result of US pressure based on John Foster Dulles' beliefs that a full-scale war would result in Soviet intervention in the Middle East, their oil interests demanding an 'even-handed' policy towards both Arabs and Israelis, and Eisenhower's election campaign on a peace platform (he could not afford to be dragged into a war while claiming to stand for peace! "Tell them goddam it, we are going to apply sanctions, we are going to the United Nations, we are going to do everything we can to stop this thing"- President Eisenhower.) 2nd November -the UN General Assembly approved a US-sponsored resolution for an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of all forces from Egyptian territory. Israel, under severe pressure from US was forced to accept and Britain and France agreed shortly after, with Britain having been forced by severe financial pressure from the US to end the campaign.Major consequences of Suez: Nasser was praised as the only Arab leader able to challenge the West and expel British, French as well as Israeli troops from Egyptian territory, establishing Egypt's claim to lead the Arab world. Nasser was able to hold on the the canal and also nationalize the remaining British and French holdings, providing funds for the Aswan Dam project and the modernization of Egypt. He also acquired an international army, UNEF, to protect Egypt from Israeli invasions and policies. Israel was granted freedom of shipping in the Gulf of Aqaba, providing Israel with a Red Sea port. Israel's military reputation was further enhanced, after the ease and speed with which they had conquered the Sinai peninsula. As regional superpower, it is possible to argue that this military performance was so awesome that it contributed to the lack of a further conflict before 1967, granting Israel time to focus on nation - and state-building. British and French were considered to be the losers- they failed to depose Nasser, who kept hold of the Suez canal, and Eden was forced to resign. Furthermore, this defeat symbolised the loss of their colonial power in Egypt, and US and Soviet Union were able to step into this vacuum and emerged as the two 'new' dominant foreign powers in the Middle East. Suez thus brought the Cold War into the Middle Eastern conflict, though there have been debates about how far the Cold War was imposed from the outside or imported by leaders in the Middle East for their own ends.Historiography - different interpretations of this topic?Czech Arms Deal as instigator or Israel's longer-term security concerns? Debate amongst historians as to what extent Israeli's policy leading up to Suez was onlyreactive? Conventional view sees Israeli policy and the Sinai Campaign as a result of the influx of Soviet arms and the blockade of the Straits of Tiran - i.e. that Israel was forced into the war by Nasser. This view has been challanged by historians such as Motti Golani who claims that "on the contrary, the arms deal temporarily blocked Israel's efforts to launch a war" - i.e. that hawks in the Israeli administration had long been planning war as part of a broader interventionist policy based on pre-emptive action as a way of increasing security. Moshe Dayan, a key figure in the Israeli military and also in favour of a pre-emptive strike, defended Israeli policy afterwards as follows: "if the Arab states .... had not pursued a policy of increasing enmity towards her, Israel would not have resorted to arms."Most historians agree that Suez represented the end of the British Empire ('Suez became the symbol of the end of imperial destiny" -P. Vial). However, there are different views as to how far British prime minister Eden's policies regarding Suez were foolishly dangerous or justified given the circumstances. Those critical of Eden argue that Suez was a reckless policy that could have led to World War Three if the USA had not intervened. However, a revisionist view has emerged that judges Eden's policies to have been justified: Nasser was a threat to British interests and Eden was therefore brave to attempt to remove Nasser with a policy that would have worked had it not been for the US refusal to support it.Six Day War of 1967: causes, course and consequencesWednesday, May 13, 20157:08 PMTimeline of key dates:1964 - Nasser establishes the PLO, Palestine Liberation Organization in an attempt to control thefedayeen,the Palestinian guerrilla. However, the PLO soon became the object of an inter-Arab struggle for influence between Egypt, Syria and Iraq,as well as an Arab-Palestinian struggle for control.May - The Palestine National Council meet with the PLO for the very first time to draft its Covenant in which the PLO demonstrated their aims. Article 3 of the PLO Covenant:"The Palestinian Arab people have the legitimate right to its homeland and are an inseparable part of the Arab Nation. It shares the sufferings and aspirations of the Arab Nation and its struggle for freedom, sovereignty and unity."1966 November, the Syrian-Egyptian Defence Pact-The As-Samu Raid1967 April, the Israeli-Syrian Air Clash-May, the False Soviet Intelligence Report-May, Nasser mobilises troops-May, UNEF asked to withdraw-May, Blockade of Straits of Tiran-May, Egyptian-Jordanian Defence Pact-June, Six Day War- September, Khartoum Summit- November, UN Resolution 242Key causes of the war:The change of government in Syria in February 1966 The rise to power of militant Ba'thists resulted in increasingly hostile rhetoric at a time when already bad Syrian-Israeli border relations were deteriorating. Conflict embarked in August 1966 when Israel and Syria clashed in a fierce battle in the area of the Sea of Galilee.The Syrian and Egyptian Pact of November 1966 The defence pact boosted Syria's confidence and both Syria and Egypt continued fedayeen operations against Israel from Jordan. This increased Israel's threat perception which made Israel adopt a more hard-line security response. Consequently, Israel launched its most extensive operation since the Sinai Campaign when the IDF, the Israel Defence Force raided the West Bank villages of As-Samu, Jimba and Khirbet Karkay.The Israeli-Syrian air clash in 1967 Israel and Syria engaged in an air battle over Syria, in which Syria lost six MiGs. This conflict added to the tensions and an all-out military confrontation seemed almost unavoidable.TheFalse Soviet Intelligence Report of 1967 The Soviet President Nikolai Podgorny told Nasser's aide Anwar Sadat that Israeli troops had mobilized and intended to invade Syria, yet this was inaccurate information. However, given the defence pact of Syria and Egypt, Nasser decided to act immediately. On May 14, Egyptian troops moved in to the Sinai. The UNEF, the United Nations Emergency Force was asked to withdraw. Yet U Thants insistence on either no withdrawal or complete withdrawalleft the Egyptian-Israeli border without buffer.The Blockade of the Straits Nasser proceeded to close the Straits, later claiming that he had no choice if he wanted to returnthings the way they were in 1956.Nasser did not believe that his action would lead to war. Rather, he would gain a political victory and deflect Arab criticism.The Egyptian-Jordanian Defence Pact Egypts aggressive intent was confirmed when Jordan joined the general mobilization, followed by the signing of a mutual defence agreement with Egypt in May 30 1967. By that point, Israel too had started to mobilize with the overall result of 80,000 Egyptian troops and 900 tanks, 300 Syrian tanks, 300 Jordanian tanks, and some 250,000 Israeli troops, 1,093 tanks and 2003 planes ready for action. War seemed inevitable.Bad diplomacy Israeli public anxiety and frustration increased while diplomats tried to diffuse the crisis. Israeli attempts to negotiate the opening of the Straits with Egyptian Vice-President Zakariya Muhieddin in Washington in June 3 failed due to increasingly hostile rhetoric from all belligerents. Prime Minister Levi Eshkol was forced to hand over the defence portfolio to the Minister of Defence, Moshe Dayan who then took the decision to go to war. It was clear that if Israel did not strike first, the Arabs would.Outline of course of the war - what happened? On June 5 1967 Israel launched a pre-emptive attack and the Israeli air force destroyed 304 Egyptian, 53 Syrian and 28 Jordanian aircraft, mostly on the ground. The IDF crossed into the Sinai and into the West Bank. Syria, Jordan and Egypt counter-attacked the same day and the three Arab states became embroiled in a land battle with the Jewish state, which continued until June 10. The battle on the West Bank ended when Israel captured East Jerusalem on June 7 1967 and troops moved to the Jordan River before King Hussein of Jordan agreed to cease-fire later in the day. Syrian-Israeli fighting did not even start until June 9, yet"shortly after the ninth, Syria, which had contributed so much to the crisis and nothing to the conflict"also agreed to a cease fire. The war with Egypt ended when Israeli forces occupied Sharm al-Sheikh and reached the Suez Canal. Having lost 2,000 soldiers in the fighting with Israel and another 10,000 in the retreat, Egypt had no choice but to agree to a cease-fire on June 8 1967. The war left Israel in control of Jordan's West Bank, Egypt's Sinai peninsula and the Gaza Strip, and Syria's Golan Heights. Israel's air superiority was the most important factor in Israel's victory, followed closely by the lack of Arab coordination which enabled Israel to dealseparately with Egypt, Jordan and Syria rather than having to fight a genuine three-frontal war.Major consequences of 1967: Israel emerged from the war victorious and had increased its territory threefold and became the dominant power in the region. Nasser had been resoundingly defeated and was no longer considered as the main threat and Nasser saw his claim to leadership of the Arab world greatly reduced. The more radical Bathi regime in Syria started to emerge as Israels main regional rival, ultimately resulting in a Syrian-Israeli arms race, which in turn, provided opportunity for greater superpower involvement. The prestige of the Soviet Union, as Egypts and Syrias ally, had also been damaged, while the United States started to see Israel as a valuable asset in the region through which to counter Soviet influence. Pan-Arabism started to decline and the Israeli victory contributed to the to the re-focusing on particularistic Palestinian nationalism as well as placing the Palestinians back on the international agenda. The Six Day War also provided the international community once again with the opportunity to attempt the conclusion of a regional settlement. The result of numerous sessions was UN Security Council Resolution 242 which emphasized "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of the territory by war" and acknowledged"the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from acts of force." Resolution 242 embodied all those key elements which had to be addressed for conflict resolution: recognition, inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war, freedom from acts of force, peace and the Palestinian refugee problem. The Arabs insisted that 242 called for Israel to withdrawal fromallterritories, while Israel insisted it had to hold ontosomeof the territories in order to live within secure boundaries. This created further division between Israel and the Arab states on how to proceed. Opposition to territorial compromise was only expressed by the Israel party Herut and the National Religious Party."The Israelis seemed increasingly reluctant to accept a formula which would require their complete withdrawal from territories occupied in war, even if their objectives of secure frontiers, non-belligerency and freedom of navigation were conceded." The Arab Summit in Khartoum in September 1967 decided the debate in favor of the hard-liners that advocated a continuation of the conflict in order to liberate all of Palestine:No peace with, no recognition of, and no negotiation with, Israel.Historiography - different interpretations of this topic?Evegny Pyrlin, the Head of the Egypt Department of the Soviet Foreign Ministry at that time claims that Soviet decision-makers believed"that even if the war was not won by our side - the Egyptians - a war would be to our political advantage because the Egyptians would have demonstrated their ability to fight our weapons and with our military and political support."October War of 1973: causes, course and consequencesWednesday, May 13, 20157:09 PMTimeline of key dates:1967-Six day war1968-1970 War of attrition1973-Galili documents1973-Alliance between Syria and Egypt6th october 1973-Egyptian troops broke through the Bar Lev line fortifications and war begins23th of october-Ceasefire talks beginKey causes of the war:Long-term1967 war-Increased tension in the region as long-term disputes between Israel and arab states were not solved.Israeli stance after 1967:Determined to keep hold of territories won in 1967 war + wanted peace negotiations not to go through third parties such as US or UNArab states' stance after 1967:Wanted to take back occupied territories in 1967 war + favoured peace negotiations through third partiesPLO stance after 1967:Did not acknowledge any peace settlements that did not take into account the palestinian question1969-1970 War of attrition-launched by Nasser to break the military and political deadlock in the region after 1967 war. War attrition = Sporadic clashes between Egyptian and Israeli armies, which increased tension in regionFailure of peace settlements-After the 1967 war, the US peace plansJohnson's five principles(named after the current US president Johnson) andRoger's planfail to bring stability to the region.Short-term causes:The building of Jewish settlements in occupied territoriesin 1973 further increased tension and let Sadat to attack Israel.The Galili documentsthat were issued in 1973 further increased tension (a political policy aimed at building ever more settlements in occupied territories. It was pursued by the Israeli labour party to satisfy the pressure inside and outside the government to adopt a more radical settlement policy)The alliance between Syria and Egypt-by 1973 Syria and Egypt had concluded that they would force Israel into a peace settlement by the means of war. They made an alliance as Sadat and al-Assad (leader of Syria) recognized that they could not take on the military might of Israel on themselves.Outline of course of the war - what happened?6th october 1973-Egyptian troops broke through the Bar Lev line fortifications and war begins. 6th of october is the Jewish festival of Yom Kippur. Consequently, the Israelis were caught off guard and the Egyptian and Syrian forces enjoyed initial success. By 9th of October, Israeli army has mobilized and they start to counter Arab advances. 11th of october Israeli forces began to advance beyond the 1967 ceasefire borders into Syria. 23th of october-Ceasefire talks begin because of international pressure on all belligerents.Major consequences of 1973:For Israel:War cost 7 billion dollars and killed 2700 Israeli troopsEarly stages of war (Arab succeeds to invade Israel) undermined Israel's self-cofidence as the dominant power in the middle east.Israeli becomes more financially and militarily dependent on the US after the war.Right-wing parties (e.g. Likud party led by Begin Menachem) in Israeli government become more popular because they advocate for a though and more agressive + militant foreign policy as a reaction to the war.For Arab states:15 000 Egyptian soldiers killed7 000 Syrian soldiers killedSadat prestige was enhanced in Arab worldSadat expelled Soviet advisers and open up for cooperation with the US, which he thought could bring durable peace to the middle east.Camp David and the Egyptian-Israeli Peace AgreementWednesday, May 13, 20157:09 PMReasons for the Camp David Accords: The potential for a stalemate had become clear after Sadat's visit to Jerusalem: While Israel blocked any proposed clauses in favour of an independent Palestinian entity in an attempt to retain the West Bank, Egypt demanded Israel's recognition of the Palestinian's right to self-rule. Carter called a summit atCamp Davidwhich neither Israel nor Egypt could reject as the invitation had been from the US president personally.The Peace Agreement: The negotiations lasted from 5th to 17th of September 1978 and two days before the end of the negotiations Sadat threatened to withdraw. Two agreements were condluded: Israel would give up the Sinai, including settlements and airfields. "Framework for Peace in the Middle East"based upon resolutions 242 and 338, the resolution to the Palestinian problem, good neighbourly relations as well as Palestinian autonomy in the West bank (excluding Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip. The Palestinian autonomy was interpreted by Carter and Sudat, a Palestinian self-governing authority, freely elected by the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was to replace the Israeli military administration. However Begin interpreted this as no more than "personal autonomy"- the problems with the peace agreement had already started to take place. During a five-year transition period the final status of the terretories was to be negotiated. 1979, 26th of March- the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty was signed.Results: Sadat had cut Egypt off from the rest of the Arab world by signing the treaty and Israel was faced with the emergy of a new radical right, determined to fight against Camp David. It soon after became clear that Begin had no intentions of decreasing Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip and as a result, the negotiations on the autonomy scheme only continued for a short period and was cancelled by the end of 1979. US became involved in the emerging Iranian Revolution, US hostage crisis in November 1979 and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December and were unable to put pressure on Israel.Implications of Peace: Arab leaders had to decide whether to participate in the negotiations or be left out. In the end only Egypt proceeded and the general Arab reaction to the peace settlement turned into open hostility. the PLO became increasingly determined in its quest for Palestinian self-determination and for the West Bank Palestinians it became clear that the Egyptian-Israeli agreement confirmed continued Israeli rule.+ Sadat's successor, Murabak, upheld the peace agreement with Israel and Egypt became the first Arab state to make peace with israel. The Egyptian boycott on Israel was lifted and started selling oil. 1974, US President Nixon offered both Egypt and Israel help with civil nuclear power. The treaty provided Israel with security and stability along its southern border and thereby freed-up the country's limited resources. The treaty removed the Arab country with the largest military forces from the Arab-Israeli conflict.- The Arab League imposed economic and political boycott on Egypt and membership became suspended. The lack of rapid economic growth as had been promised to the Egyptian population left Sadat open to criticism and eventually assassinated in October 1981. Failure of the treaty to esablish Palestinian autonomy led to Israel's continued settlement policies and annexation fo the Golan Heights in 1981 as well as Israel's invasion of Lebanon 1982.Historiography:The negotiations: "an emotional ceremony in the East Room of the White House late on 17 September 1978"- Bailey.The Palestinians: "You cannot expect millions of Arab Palestinians to go away, or to be content with occupation, or to acquiesce to an Israeli, Egyptian, or an American, idea of their destiny, their "atonomy", or their physical location"- Edward Said.Egyptian response: Sadat "had abandoned the Palestinian cause in order to recover the Sinai"- Tessler.Fall of USSR (Part 1) - Gorbachev and the end of communist ruleMonday, May 11, 20157:05 PMGorbachev, who came to power in March 1985, was the most gifted and dynamic leaderRussiahad seen in many years: he was determined to revitalize the country following the years of stagnation after Khrushchev's fall. He intended to achieve this bymodernizing and making more efficient the communist partywith the policies ofglasnostandperestroika(economic and social reform).Gorbachev claimed that the system was centralized, leaving no room for local individual initiative and that it was based almost completely on state ownership and control, and weighted strongly towards defense and heavy industry, leaving consumer goods for ordinary people in short supply.Gorbachev did not want to end communism; he wanted to replace the existing system, which was still basically Stalinist, with a socialist system which was humane and democratic.However, he did not have the same success at home as abroad, as his policies failed to provide results quickly enough, and led to the collapse of communism and the breakup of theUSSR.Gorbachevs new policies1 GlasnostIt was seen in areas such as human rights and cultural affairs. Dissidents were released, leaders like Bukharin were claimed innocent, andPravdawas allowed to publish an article critical of Brezhnev.Political events such as the 19thParty Conference and the first sessions of the Congress of Deputies were televised.Incultural mattersand the media generally there were some developments. For example, long banned anti-Stalin films and novels were now shown and published. Also there was a new freedom for the press. TheChernobylincident, for example, was discussed with unprecedented frankness.The aims of this new approach were to: use the media to publicize the inefficiency and corruption which the government was so anxious to stamp out educate public opinion mobilize support for the new policies2 Economic affairsIn November 1986 Gorbachev announced that announced that new methods of economic management would be applied. Small scale private enterprise in the manufacture of goods and services was to be allowed, as well as workers cooperatives of no more than 50 members. The objective behind this was to provide competition for the slow and inefficient services provided by the state, in the hope of stimulating a rapid improvement. Another reason was the need to provide alternative employment as patterns of employment changed over the decade, and automation and computers left many people with no job.Also, the responsibility for quality control throughout industry as a whole was to be taken over by independent state bodies rather than factory management.The most important of the reforms was theLaw on State Enterprisesof 1987, which removed the central planners total control over raw materials, production quotas and trade and made factories work to orders from customers.3 Political changesThese changes began in 1987 when Gorbachev made a move towards democracy within the communist party by announcing that members of the soviet would now be elected by the people rather than appointed. Also top party positions and factory managers would be elected.During 1988, the old Supreme Soviet would be replaced by a much smaller one, elected through a Congress of Peoples Deputies. This Supreme Soviet would be a proper parliament, active throughout the year. Reserved seats for the communist party were cancelled. Gorbachev was elected President of theSoviet Unionin 1990. These new institutions completely sidelined the old system, and meant that the communist party was on the verge of losing its privileged position.What went wrong with Gorbachevs policies?1 Opposition from radicals and conservativesGorbachev found opposition from two sides. Some party members such asBoris Yeltsin,theMoscowpart leader, were more radical than Gorbachev and felt that the reforms were not drastic enough. They wanted to change to a market system as soon as possible. On the other hand, the conservative communists such asLigachevfelt that changes were too drastic and the party was losing control. This caused a dangerous split within the party and brought trouble to Gorbachev.When elections were held and the conservatives won a majority in the Congress, massive protests broke out inMoscowere Yeltsin was popular. Now, due to Glasnost, the new freedoms of the people were beginning to turn against the communist party.2 The economic reforms did not produce results quickly enoughThe rate of economic growth stayed put through 1988 and 1989 and fell after 1990, almost by 15%A major reason for this crisis was the failure of theLaw on State Enterprises.The problem was thatwages were dependant on output, but since it was measured by its value in roubles, factories did not increase overall output, but instead concentrated on expensive goods. This led to higher wages, forcing the government to print more money, which caused soaring inflation. Also, basic goods were in short supply, and some common good were totally scarce.Disillusion with Gorbachev rapidly set in, and people became outraged at theshortages. Half a million miners went on strike in 1989, thefirstone since 1917. The disciplined and well organized miners put forward detailed demands. The government soon granted many of the demands, promising complete reorganization of the industry and full local control.By the end of July the strike was over, but the general economic situation did not improve.Gorbachev was fast losing control of the reform movement which he had started.3 Nationalist pressuresThe nationalist pressures also led to the breakup of theUSSR. The Soviet republics, each with its won parliament, had been kept under tight control throughout Stalins time, but glasnost and perestroika encouraged them to hope for more independence. Gorbachev seemed sympathetic to this provided the Communist party remained in overall control. Nagorno-Karabakh conflict Baltic States declare their independence butMoscowrefuses to recognize it. Boris Yeltsin, excluded from the Supreme Soviet was elected president of theRussian federationin 1990.4 Gorbachev and Yeltsin were riva