818 History questions

Why did the Communists win the Chinese Civil War

Thesis: The Chinese Civil War following the dissolution of Japanese occupation in China witnessed the CCP snowball into power to establish the People’s Republic of China in 1949. This was largely due to the GMD and Chiang Kaishek’s failure in legitimizing their rule, Mao’s prowess militarily and the CCP’s ability to gather the masses.
Body Topic One first sentence The Civil War between 1946-1948 witnessed many critical errors, both on the part of Chiang Kaishek and the Guomindang party, they failed militarily and had never been able to win popular support (due to economic reasons, discrediting them politically) attributing to the domination of the CCP and their eventual establishment.
Evidence copied from access:●     Chiang’s failed attempt to seize Northern China without readiness within his own army●     Poor military tactics from Chiang’ overextension of the army saw the CCP cut off their supply lines.●     Lack of loyalty, desertions, moles●     Inflation under their governance●     Withdrew support from urban China - leading to corruption, nepotism, failure in Three Principles lost faith of rural China which consisted of the majority, whom allied with the Communists●     historical opinion + concluding statement

Body Topic Two first sentence Mao and his followers were greatly able to take advantage of the opportunities provided through the Nationalists failings, and with Mao’s genial leadership during the five main poins of the Civil War made out the CCP to be stronger than the Nationalists eventually driving them out.
Evidence copied from access:●     Holding onto Manchuria●     Defeating the ‘strong point offensive’●     PLA’s counteroffensives campaigns 1948-49, Huaihai and Pingjin●     Allowing Yanan in order to obtain the rest of China was seen as Mao’s most prominent decision ●     Ability to gather US ammunitions ●     historical opinion + concluding statement

Body Topic Three first sentence Michael Lynch argues that one of the main reasons behind all of this was the CCP’s ability to gain popular support either through actual loyalty of the people or through instilling fear coercively. Comparatively the Nationalists failed in doing this, their support was from urban China and was in the minds of the public nepotic and corrupt.
Evidence copied from access:●      Mao offered genuine aspirations to the people. Struck sympathy amongst the peasants in China. Ironically they were better positioned to fulfill the Three Principles of the People. They had created political structure. “won the hearts of the people”●     Whereas Chiang Kaishek was amidst a party of factionalism, corruption and dependent on international aid.●      They had little interest in the impoverished peasants as they were run by political elites and supported by urban intelligentsia. ●     By imposing his type of governance on the local power structures in previously Japanese occupied territories his administrators were out of touch with the community and their needs. Thus Chiang was forced to use coercion to enforce obedience●      Conscription saw further grudges against the Nationalists. Their gruesome treatment of peasants did not go unthought of.●     PLA’s land policies won popular support in many liberated areas. Success in expanding volunteer army.
Conclusion (Topic sentence in other words) Thus with the Nationalists and Chiang failing to use their initial advantages and losing territorially, morally, politically and popularly to the prowess of Mao and the PLA, arguably, Mao saw victory amongst a country that yearned for a leader of the people. The CCP took their opportunities and with the GMD’s continuous political misgivings established the People’s Republic of China in 1949. Following the fleet of Kaishek to Taiwan, they won the Civil War.
See more
Omi G.

2 days ago

Answered by Omi, who tutored History with MyTutor

2 views

History IA: Part A; To what extent was the Catholic Church the cause of the loss of support for, and rise in opposition to, Juan Perón leading to his downfall in 1955?

IA Question: identify two appropriate sources for Part A, preferably one contemporary and one modern-day. Breakdown each to origins, purpose, and limitations and evaluate against values and limitations respectively, in order. Begin with values, follow with limitations. ex:Source B: [biography] Alexander. Robert J. “Juan Domingo Perón: A History.” 1979 Originating from Robert J. Alexander, an established American academic who is knowledgeable owing to his interviews conducted with contemporaries including Perón, the source has authority in conveying narrative and is extremely valuable in assessing the career of Perón. The book’s purpose is biographical. On the one hand, this provides an informed recount of the Peronista political movement and is therefore valuable to historians. On the other, the book’s focus on Juan and Eva Perón’s life limits discussion about the church-state conflict, with no evaluation of significance to Perón’s downfall. The content and style of writing is valuable – Alexander makes the chronology of the regime clearly accessible. However this value is limited since Alexander’s writing is notably left-leaning, with distinctly sympathetic assessments of Perón’s actions. This does not invalidate the information conveyed, however his judgements should be considered alongside other accounts by relevant historians. Clear explanation of the source set out, with an evaluation of the value and limitation of each of the origin, purpose, and limitation. List of common examples given for value and limitations of origins and purpose.
See more
Aloysius L.

3 days ago

Answered by Aloysius, a History tutor with MyTutor

31 views

History IA: Part B; To what extent was the Catholic Church the cause of the loss of support for, and rise in opposition to, Juan Perón leading to his downfall in 1955?

IntroductionPerón’s downfall can be attributed to two key factors: the loss of support from his working class – descamisados – power-base throughout his second term [1951-1955] and the rise of opposition among military leaders. An evaluation of the role of the Catholic Church should therefore consider the extent to which the Church’s influence affected these factors. It has been the traditional viewpoint that the conflict with the Catholic Church undermined the Peronista regime in all aspects, however more recent historiography suggests it was Perón’s policies in his first term [1946-51] that were the regime’s inherent problems and his subsequent drastic reversals that primarily accelerated his overthrow. Key thesis presented, structure of the essay clearly signposted. Shown knowledge of historiographal debate, though it is clear that the purpose of the essay is not mere comparison of the different perspectives on the question, but empirical analysis of the evidence presented. Subsequent paragraphs:• Perón alienated support by his policy disagreements with the Catholic Church throughout 1954. The conflict was therefore critical to Perón’s loss of support; however it can only be considered a true weakness for the Peronista regime when coupled with the empowerment of anti-Peronist opposition. • The Church was a direct source of opposition to Perón, actively encouraging anti-Peronist sentiment. The Church’s call to revolution was answered gladly by Perón’s opposition, and should be considered the immediate cause of the downfall of Perón. • On the other hand, Perón’s social-economic policies heavily contributed to the loss of support in his second term, independently from the Catholic Church conflict. The Standard Oil deal might therefore be considered a short-term rallying point of opposition among the nationalist military opponents alongside the church-state conflict. • Dissent also arose from Perón’s agriculture policies. From starvation and low sales, Perón’s agricultural policies created disaffection among the rural population. • Support from workers dwindled as industrial growth slowed. The decline in Perón’s popularity is directly linked to his overthrow: Perón could no longer threaten civil war, encouraging revolutionary opposition generals. • Measures Perón took to secure the loyalty of the army actually enabled revolutionary opposition. Perón ineffectiveness at exerting control invited constant conspiracy and coup until Lonardi’s Revolución Libertadora overthrew the regime in 1955. Paragraphs divided by topic. First sentence in each should be made thesis/argument and exert a judgement that answers the question. Last sentence should be the natural conclusion drawn from the evidence and say a similar thing to the judgement originally posed. Body of each paragraph should be relevant and concise evidence supporting the judgement.In conclusion, the Catholic Church was the critical factor in creating what could be described as a ‘revolutionary situation’ that led to the downfall of the Peronista regime. The conflict with the Church reduced Perón’s support and empowered his enemies. As a short-term factor however, it served only to escalate the inherent issues in Perón’s regime – that of populist policies and reversals forcing economic hardship on the working and rural population – and the inability of the regime to exert control over the military. Such policies made it inevitable that Perón would lose the support he had gained in his first term. The conflict with the Church merely provided the means by which these disaffected groups – the rural population, disaffected workers, and the army – could form the united opposition that led to revolution. Conclusion summarises the key judgements made and creates an overarching thesis that takes into account the role and significance of all factors. The main judgements should already have been made known in the introduction.
See more
Aloysius L.

3 days ago

Answered by Aloysius, a History tutor with MyTutor

9 views

'The League of Nations failed principally because the USA was not a member'. To what extent do you agree with this statement?

10 mark answer"The League of Nations failed for several reasons: the USA was not a member; its most powerful members, Britain and France, were motivated by self-interest; and any decision taken had to be unanimously agreed upon. It was therefore unable to take swift and decisive action during crises such as the Manchuria crisis and the Abyssinia crisis. Although the absence of the isolationist USA seriously weakened the League's international clout, this was not the most important reason why the League failed and it was only a contributing factor. The two most important factors were the need for a unanimous decision - which meant that the League could not react quickly to international crises like Manchuria - and the self-interest of Britain and France. Ultimately, it was this last factor that was the most significant in causing the League to fail. The unanimous vote made the League slow and likely to fail, but it was the self-interested actions of Britain and France that prompted them to vote against the interests of the international community, which ultimately led to the crises that caused the League to fail."A clear line of argument, a developed explanation of the named factors and a clinching argument at the end that is NOT simply regurgitating your previous points.
See more
Catherine R.

4 days ago

Answered by Catherine, a History tutor with MyTutor

16 views

How far were the problems of poverty in England successfully addressed during Elizabeth's reign?

Elizabeth’s government during the late Sixteenth Century had a lot of harvest failures and socioeconomic issues to contend with, including harvest failure, resultant food riots and outbreaks of disease. These affected the poor of the country the most and Elizabeth’s government addressed these issues through laws and acts that were enforced with the aim of creating a coherent framework for poor relief. The 1572 Vagabonds Act enforced a rule that meant that the Justice of the Peace of each parish had to keep a register of the poor in their area and raise a ‘poor rate’ to provide shelter for the poor and the sick. This shows one way in which Elizabethan administration addressed the issue of poverty. Following on from this, amongst other acts, was the 1598 Poor Law. This law required the appointment of ‘overseers of the poor’ to ensure the collection of poor rates and appropriate distribution. 
As well as the clear efforts made by the government to support the poor, the failure of the Oxfordshire ‘rising’ of 1596 shows that Elizabethan efforts to address the problems of poverty were successful. The lack of support for the potential ‘rebellion’ that saw only four people take up arms against London and the Queen showed that policies put in place by Elizabeth’s government in support of the poor helped those living in poverty. John Guy describes the mid-1590s as an era of ‘turmoil’ because of price rises, disease and crop failure but the lack of popular action suggests otherwise. Therefore it can be said that problems of poverty were successfully addressed during Elizabeth’s reign. 
See more
Victoria A.

5 days ago

Answered by Victoria, who has applied to tutor History with MyTutor

1 view

How high was the Catholic threat during Elizabeth I's reign?

The Catholic threat during Elizabeth's reign can be defined as ever - changing. Throughout Elizabeth's reign the extent to which the Catholic's threatened Elizabeth and her rule continued to fluctuate. We also must consider the idea that this threat can be put into two different categories, the threat can be both to her life and her authority, in which Catholics tried to undermine her rule and the power of her 1559 religious settlement.
At the beginning of her reign the threat was very low. This is hugely down to the foreign situation, in which Catholic countries could not afford to impose pressure on England or Elizabeth to be Catholic out of fear of England forming alliances with countries involved in the Hapsburg - Valois wars. However, the threat hugely increased in 1568 upon the arrival of Mary Queen of Scots into England. This arrival gave Catholics within England a figure head for the Catholic resistance and sparked an influx of plots against Elizabeth with the aim of removing Elizabeth from the throne and replacing her with Mary. These plots included the Ridolfi plot of 1571, the Throckmorton plot of 1583 and the Babington plot of 1586. On top of this there was a series of other threats, including the issuing of the Papal Bull in 1570 by the Pope, which excommunicated Elizabeth, this was then furthered in 1580 when the Pope issued a statement allowing Catholics to murder Elizabeth, stating that anyone who did would not only be forgiven by God, but also 'gain merit' in doing so. We must also consider the Spanish Armada of 1588, in which Elizabeth only defeated it out of pure luck in which a storm caused Spanish ships to retreat, had this not happened a Spanish Catholic invasion was extremely probably. All of these things were threats to Elizabeth's lives, but there were also a series of events that were a threat to Elizabeths authority, for example in the early 1580's there were a group of Catholic priests training what were known as Seminary and Jesuit priests abroad and sending them into England with the aim of keeping Catholicism alive within England. This was a threat against Elizabeth's idea of 'outward conformity' in which she wanted people within England to conform to her religious settlement, which these priests did not do. However, whilst the threat in the middle years of her reign was extremely high, to both her life and authority, this largely diminished in the later years. After the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 and the execution of Mary Queen of Scots, the threat decreased hugely for a number of reasons. Elizabeth's reign was extremely long and by the later years it was clear that outward conformity was easier and most people in England chose to conform as it was a lot simpler than resisting. Also, upon the death of Mary Queen of Scots, there was a lack of figurehead of the Catholic resistance, diminishing plots and rebellions against Elizabeth. In addition, a lot of Catholics were ran under ground, harsh rules were put on Jesuits and Seminary priests, which eventually pushed them into hiding, which again hugely diminished the threat against Elizabeth's authority. It therefore can be said that whilst the Catholic threat was high during the middle years of her reign, Elizabeth dealt with it well, issuing laws and using the sources she had, such as one of her advisors Walsingham working around the country helping to diminish the threat. She was also able to defeat the Spanish Armada and prevent a Catholic invasion within England and rid herself of her enemies such as Mary Queen of Scots. So it must be said that the Catholic threat fluctuated throughout her period of 1558 to 1603 with it being extremely high in the middle years of her reign, however by the later years it had largely diminished and Elizabeth removed it.
See more
Ellie G.

1 week ago

Answered by Ellie, a History tutor with MyTutor

4 views

How should I structure an essay paragraph?

A common way to structure paragraphs is to follow PEE, or ‘point, evidence, explanation.’ First, we start with our ‘point,’ or the statement of our argument. This should be 1 or 2 sentences long. This tells the reader what we think. Then we need to add ‘evidence.’ Our evidence includes facts, statistics and quotes from primary sources.  We use this evidence to give an explanation of why we think our statement is correct, using words like ‘because’ to signal this change. Finally, at A level, we need to add analysis to our essays. This can be done by considering other perspectives on our statement. For example, we may consider how a Marxist or Feminist historian might view a historical event. We can also weave analysis throughout our essay by considering various contrasting points of view and explaining why we agree or disagree with them. 
Let’s consider a fun hypothetical question to practice this technique. You need to answer the question; ‘To what extent do you agree with the statement: Halloween candy should be banned?’ You want to say that you agree. We start with a point: ‘Halloween candy should be banned because it is bad for people’s teeth.’ Then we need to add evidence. We could say; ‘Halloween candy has a high sugar content, and sugar is known to increase tooth decay.’ We could also add a quote from a dentist, or give statistics on tooth decay at different times of the year. We then need to finish with our explanation. We can use a word like ‘because’ or ‘therefore’ to show the reader that we have moved from evidence to explanation. ‘Therefore, the higher than usual amount of candy consumed at Halloween means it should be banned because it raises the risk of tooth decay, especially in small children.’ 
See more
Philippa S.

1 week ago

Answered by Philippa, a History tutor with MyTutor

0 views

Explain the events which caused the outbreak of the First World War.

World War I was caused by both long and short term factors, primarily the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand at the height of Austria-Hungarian and Serbian friction, which acted as a trigger for the declaration of war. The long term factors involved were much more general; widespread imperialism and nationalism across Europe set the field for a large-scale war, and the growing number of pacts and alliances between nations meant that a war would no longer be confined to two hostile nations. At a specific level, nationalism and militarism contributed greatly to the tensions between Austria-Hungary and Serbia prior to 1914. Serbia held a strong sense of nationalism and expansion in light of its victory in the Balkan Wars and looked to challenge Austria-Hungary next. The Austrians too had annexed Bosnia which contained many Serbs and contributed to heightened tensions. Therefore it was imperialism and militarism that caused heavy tensions in Europe as a long term factor, and the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand that acted as a trigger.
See more
Vicki P.

2 weeks ago

Answered by Vicki, a History tutor with MyTutor

3 views

Evaluate the usefulness of Source C as evidence of the subjugation of the Scots by Edward I in 1296. (6 marks).

Source C is an extract from the Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough. This makes the source useful, as chronicles were generally factually based accounts of historical events in chronological order, which could make information about the subjugation of the Scots in 1296 factually reliable. Source C was written by Walter of Guisborough. This makes the source less useful because he was English, and his bias may distort Edward I's methods when he subjugated the Scots as having been less brutal than they actually were. Source C was also written in 1296. This makes the source less useful, as being a contemporary source it was therefore written without hindsight and could be based more on rumours circulating about the subjugation of the Scots rather than factual evidence. The source mentions that Berwick initially held out Edward when he invaded Scotland, despite that he offered a peace. This makes the source useful, as it reveals he was only ever going to use forceful methods to subjugate the Scots in 1296 if they refused to capitulate to him. The source also makes clear that over 8,000 Berwick townsfolk were massacred. This makes the source useful, as it reveals that Edward's subjugation of the Scots in 1296 began with a brutal, horrifying Scottish defeat at Berwick. However, the source omits that Edward took the stone of destiny back to England, as well as many other ancient Scottish relics. This makes the source less useful, as it does not reveal the different sorts of means Edward used to subjugate the Scots, such as removing symbols of their independence. The source also fails to mention that every stronghold Edward marched upon, such as Linlithgow, following the defeat at Dunbar immediately capitulated. This makes the source less useful, as it therefore does not reveal the extent to which Edward's subjugation of the Scots was successful, owing to the fact Scottish morale was crushed after English triumphs at Berwick and Dunbar.


See more
Megan R.

2 weeks ago

Answered by Megan, a History tutor with MyTutor

5 views

What makes a good history essay?

Fluency, cohesion and an evident grasp of what the question is asking and an ability to answer that explicitly. It should include a thesis, introduction, conclusion, as well as your argument and counter arguments
See more
Lian M.

2 weeks ago

Answered by Lian, a History tutor with MyTutor

12 views

Your difficult questions, answered

Our tutors get asked all sorts of hard questions in their Online Lessons. They use this page to write up the most common questions so you can access them for free.

Wondering how MyTutor works?
Here's a two minute explanation.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

How do we connect with a tutor?

Who are the tutors?

How much does tuition cost?

How do Online Lessons work?

How it works

mtw:mercury1:status:ok