Time : 3 Hours Maximum Marks : 80 HISTORY ISC Solutions

Self Assessment Paper 1 PART I 1. (i) Lord Curzon toured East Bengal to mobilise support of the Muslims of these areas for implementing the Partition plan. (ii) The main purpose of was to organise constructive activities instead of appealing to the British authority. (iii) Phillip Francis, the Councilor of Lord Warren Hastings. (iv) Raja . (v) Swami Dayanand Saraswati, Lala Hans Raj, Pandit Guru Dutt and Lala Lajpat Rai are some of the reformers of the Arya Samaj. (vi) Dinabandhu Mitra. (vii) Mahatma Gandhi founded the Ashram to teach the Indians about the idea of Satyagraha. (viii) Nehru report was drafted by a committee headed by Motilal Nehru in August 1928. (ix) The seven states were Britain, Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain, Germany and Holland. (x) England. (xi) Nicolas II was the last Czar of Russia. (xii) Treaty of St. Germain. (xiii) Germany and Soviet Union. (xiv) 9 – 1 Chief Judge and 8 Associate Judges. (xv) Some of the ways are: (a) Subsidies were given to agriculture. (b) Guarantee of price was given. (c) Marketing Boards were established which regulated price by restricting output. (d) In ship building, cotton industry attempts were made to boost up production. (xvi) Czarina or wife of Czar Nicholas II. (xvii) The outstanding achievement of Mussolini was the settlement of dispute with the Papacy. By the Lateran Treaty of 1929, the Pope recognised Kingdom of Italy with Rome as capital. The Fascist government recognised Vatican City as a sovereign state. (xviii) On June 30, 1934, a number of enemies and critics of Hitler were executed. It was assumed that at least 400 people were murdered on that fateful night. This incident is referred to as ‘Bloody Saturday’. (xix) The Enabling Law was passed by Hitler on March 23, 1933. (xx) Japan invaded and captured Manchuria. There, Japan set up a puppet state under the name of Manchukuo. 2. (a) The Assertive Nationalists had an abiding faith in the strength of the masses and sought to achieve freedom through mass action in nationalist politics. They sought to arouse the masses by influencing them with their own sacrifices and suffering. Bal Gangadhar Tilak is known as the ‘Father of Assertive Nationalism’ in India. The Assertive Nationalism grew on through: 2 OSWAAL ISC Sample Question Papers, HISTORY, Class - XI (i) The Assertive Nationalists were able to inculcate national pride by extolling India’s past. Tilak restarted the Ganapati and Shivaji festivals to arouse national feelings. He also preached nationalist ideas through his articles in the newspapers ‘Kesari’ and ‘Mahratta’. (ii) The Assertive Nationalists popularised new slogans among the masses like ‘Non-Cooperation’, ‘passive resistance’, ‘mass agitation’ and ‘self reliance’. (iii) The Assertive Nationalists propagated their ideologies through local languages. This ensured that their message was disseminated to a very large number of Indians. (iv) They fearlessly declared that India needed complete independence from British yoke in order to realise her potential. (v) The Assertive Nationalists laid the foundation of many new national education institutions during the course of the Swadeshi movement. (vi) The National Council of Education was set up in the year 1906. It later transformed into the now well known . Likewise, National College was set up in Kolkata with Ghose as its Principal. (b) Swadeshi Movement - The Swadeshi Movement had its genesis in the Anti-Partition Movement which started with the partition of Bengal by the Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon. It was the most successful of the pre-Gandhian movements. Its chief architects were Aurobindo Ghosh, Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, , Lala Lajpat Rai and V. O. Chidambaram Pillai. Though affected in 1905, the partition proposals had come onto the public domain as early as in 1903. Therefore, since 1903, the ground for the launch of the Swadeshi Movement was prepared. In the first phase (1903-1905), moderate way of 3Ps was in full sway but it could not stop partition. Strong sense of unity among fostered by their regional independence, cultural development of 19th century, spread of western education and Hindu revivalist mood gave birth to a vehement resistance. The Bengalis adopted the Boycott Movement as the last resort after they had exhausted the armory of constitutional agitation (between 1903 and 1905) known to them, namely vocal protests, appeals, petitions and conferences to coerce the British to concede to the unanimous national demand. This was boycott-cum-Swadeshi movement. The original concept of Boycott was mainly an economic one. It had two distinct, but allied purposes in view. The first was to put pressure on the British public by the pecuniary loss they would suffer by the boycott of British goods, particularly the Manchester cotton goods for which Bengal provided the richest market in India. Secondly, it was regarded as essential for the revival of indigenous industry which, being at its infant stage, could never grow in the face of free competition with foreign countries which had highly developed industry. Like the Boycott, the Swadeshi as a purely economic measure for the growth of Indian Industry was not an altogether novel idea in India. It was preached by several eminent personalities in the 19th century, Gopal Hari Deshmukh, better known as Lokahitawadi of Bombay, Swami Dayananda and Bholanath Chandra of Calcutta. But the seeds sown by them did not germinate till the soil was rendered fertile by the grim resolve of a united people, exasperated beyond measure; to forge the twin weapons of Boycott and Swadeshi in order to undo the great wrong which was inflicted upon them by an arrogant Government. 3. (a) In the year 1845, there was a controversy with the Christians regarding the conversion of Umesh Chandra Sarkar and his wife. Debendranath used the Patrika to condemn such practices and the Christians attacked the theology claiming it to be solely dependant on the Vedas. This led to Debendranath questioning the Vedic infallibility and he wanted to keep the religion on the old lines of the Hindu scriptures. Accordingly, he made a compilation of the selected passages from the Upanishads inculcating the Truths of monotheism. This was published in the form of a book called the Brahmo Dharma or the Religion of the Worshipper so the One True God. He also laid down certain fundamental principles of Natural Theism for acceptance of the members of the Samaj. The anniversary festival was held in 1850 with new music, new covenant and new prayers, and a marble pulpit was added to the Samaj - this was the Adi ; though, its present state is in ruins. The Patrika wrote articles supporting female education, widow re-marriage, crying against intemperance, denouncing polygamy, demanding rationalisation of Brahmo doctrines and running the church on constitutional principles. Solutions 3 A noteworthy feature of this period was the establishment of various Samajes in and around Calcutta. During this time, Akshay Kumar Datta started a Friends Society - the younger members ventilated their feelings on the need for reforms and finally withdrew themselves from the Samaj, only to form a separate samaj of their own. This was soon followed by the great schism in 1866 when the Navavidhan Brahmo Samaj or the Brahmo Samaj of India was born. Debendranath kept himself aloof and retired to the hills of Shimla in 1856 and occupied himself with prayer and meditation and studied the works of Kant, Fichte, Victor Cousin etc. as well as writings of Hindu theologians and the Persian poet Hafiz closely. As a result of his studies, he concluded that the broad universal basis of natural theism was that it was religion that explained the scriptures and not the other way around (b) The marriage of Suniti Devi in 1878, the thirteen-year-old daughter of the Bengali Brahmo religious and social reformer Keshab Chandra Sen, to the Maharajah of Cooch Behar constituted one of the most controversial matrimonial events in late colonial India. The marriage controversy was significant not only in terms of its effect on religious and social reform organizations in Bengal, but also in terms of the ways in which it served to challenge British attitudes towards the proper regulation of female sexuality in the empire. The British press took considerable interest in the marriage, celebrating it as an instance of the continuous ability of the empire to spread civilization to India. However, this celebratory account served to occlude deeper contradictions. The contradictory character of the marriage fractured Keshab’s relationship with the English Unitarians, Non-conformists and reformers who had long acted as his champions, and led to the demise of Keshabite Brahmoism as a force for national transformation in India. 4. (i) To expand the participation of Indians in government affairs, the Parliament of the United Kingdom had passed an Act called ‘The Government of India Act 1919.’ The Act introduced the system of diarchy in British India, which was opposed by the Indian nationalist leaders, who demanded the administration to review the system. The act envisaged a system of review of reforms after ten years to study and analyse the constitutional progress and to bring in more reforms. (ii) Though, the review was due in the year 1929, the Conservative government, which was in power back then, decided to form the Commission that would study the constitutional progress of India in the late 1920s. The reason behind forming the Commission earlier was the Conservative government’s fear of losing to the ‘Labour Party’ in the upcoming elections. (iii) Since the Conservative government did not want the ‘Labour Party’ to take over British India, it constituted a commission consisting of seven British MPs to study the constitutional progress in British India as promised earlier. (iv) People in India were infuriated and felt insulted, for the Commission, which had been constituted to analyse and recommend constitutional reforms for India, did not have a single Indian member. The Simon Commission was strongly opposed by the Congress and other nationalist leaders and common people. Many protests were carried out individually as well as in groups, urging the British administration to review the constitution of the Commission. (v) In December 1927, the Indian National Congress, in its meeting in Madras, resolved to boycott the Commission. It also challenged the Secretary of State for India, Lord Birkenhead, to draft a constitution that would please the Indians. Led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, some of the members of the ‘Muslim League’ too, had made up their minds to boycott the Commission. (vi) The Commission, headed by Sir John Allsebrook Simon, left England in January 1928 and reached India on February 3, 1928. As soon as the Commission’s arrived in Bombay, it was greeted by thousands of protestors, who demanded the Commission to go back. Many were seen holding placards and other sign boards that had the words "Go Back Simon" written on them. (vii) There were nation-wide strikes and people greeted the Commission with black flags. Wherever the commission went, it received the same response. On October 30, 1928, the Commission decided to visit Lahore. Just like other places, the people of Lahore decided to protest against the Commission. Led by one of the most prominent Indian nationalist leaders Lala Lajpat Rai, a group of people was protesting against the Commission’s Lahore visit. (viii) The protest was peaceful and violence was reported, but in an act of retaliation. James A. Scott, 4 OSWAAL ISC Sample Question Papers, HISTORY, Class - XI the then superintendent of police, ordered a ‘lathi charge’ (baton charge) against the protestors. Many claimed that Scott had personally assaulted Lala Lajpat Rai, injuring him severely in the process. (ix) In spite of being subjected to brutal blows at the hands of James A. Scott and his team of policemen, Lala Lajpat Rai addressed the crowd even before the arrival of medical help and stated that the ‘blows struck at him were the final set of nails in British India’s coffin.’ Lala Lajpat Rai never completely recovered from the injuries. On November 17, 1928, the fiery nationalist leader died of cardiac arrest. (x) Though the doctors believed that his death could have been catalyzed by the injuries caused by the baton charge, the British government denied its role in Lajpat Rai’s death. Lala Lajpat Rai’s untimely demise saddened the entire country and Bhagat Singh, who did not share Lala Lajpat Rai’s methods of attaining independence, but respected the elderly leader for his efforts in the freedom movement, vowed to take revenge on James A. Scott. (xi) This led to the murder of the then assistant superintendent of police, John P. Saunders, who was killed by Bhagat Singh and Rajguru in a classic case of mistaken identity. In its May 1930 report, the Commission proposed the eradication of diarchy system and suggested the establishment of representative government in various provinces. Much before the Simon Commission’s report, Motilal Nehru submitted his ‘Nehru Report’ in September 1928 to counter the Commission’s charges, which suggested that Indians still lacked constitutional consensus. (xii) The ‘Nehru Report’ pushed for dominion status for India with complete internal self-government. The British Government had seen the opposition the Simon Commission faced in India. While the report was still to be published, the British Government tried to calm down people by saying that the opinion of Indians will be taken into account in any such future exercise and that the natural outcome of the constitutional reforms will be a dominion status for India. 5. (a) With the failure of the First Round Table Conference, the British government decided to step down for a compromise with Gandhi, the leader of the nation. On 26th January 1931, Gandhi and other members of the Congress Working Committee were released from the prison. Viceroy Lord Irwin was ready to welcome Mahatma in his palace at Delhi for a settlement. The talks between Gandhi and the Viceroy were held during the second half of February and early March of 1931. These talks became famous as Gandhi-Irwin Pact. The outcome of the talks between the Viceroy and Gandhi was the famous Gandhi-Irwin Pact signed on 5th March 1931. It was decided that the Civil Disobedience Movement would be discontinued and steps would be taken for Congress participation in the Second Round Table Conference. The Government expressed its approval of the encouragement of Indian’s industries. The Pact was approved by the Congress in its annual session at Karachi in March 1931. (b) Keeping the Congress leaders inside the prison, in August 1932, British Prime Minister Ramsay Macdonald announced his “communal award”, giving separate electorate to Muslims, Sikhs and Europeans. He also promised to provide separate electorate for the depressed classes or the untouchables officially known as Scheduled Castes as a separate Community. He also promised reservation for women. The Government issued a white paper on the future of the constitution of India. The constitution provided the proposals for the creation of several Muslim majority provinces and the formation of legislatures on the basis of separate electorate. Thus, the joint electorate system of the nation was abandoned. Gandhiji, therefore, on 20th September 1932 started his fast. It created a deep emotion among the leaders of the Hindu caste and the depressed classes who reached in an agreement in Poona to save Gandhiji’s life as well as the unity of the Hindu Community. This agreement became famous as the Poona Pact. It was decided according to the Pact that there should be reserved seats for the Depressed Classes within the general seats and election to those seats should be by joint electorates. This Poona Pact was considered by many as an unfortunate shifting of emphasis from the main objective of the Civil Disobedience movement. Gandhiji was more concerned with the Harijan Movement which had an adverse effect on the Civil Disobedience Movement. Commonly Made Error  Some students are not aware of the ‘Communal Award’ but are able to explain the Poona Pact. Solutions 5

Answering Tip  Communal Award is the primary cause of the situations that led to the signing of the Poona Pact.

6. Deccan Uprising of 1875 – The movement began at Supa, a large village in Poona district. It was a market centre where many shopkeepers and moneylenders lived. In 1875, ryots from surrounding rural areas gathered and attacked the shopkeepers, demanding their account books and debt bonds. They burnt account books, looted grain shops, and in some cases, set fire to the houses of sahukars (persons who acted as both a moneylender and a trader). From Poona, the revolt spread to Ahmednagar. Then, over the next two months, it spread even further, over an area of 6,500 square km. More than thirty villages were affected. The rioters’ specific purpose was to obtain and destroy the bonds, decrees, and other documents in the possession of the moneylenders. Violence was used only when the moneylenders refused to hand over the documents. Villagers were led by traditional headmen (Patels). This uprising also involved social boycott of moneylenders and social boycott of any villager who didn’t socially boycott the moneylenders. Later, they got support from Poona Sarvajanik Sabha led by Justice Ranade. As the revolt spread, Police posts were established in villages to frighten rebellious peasants into submission. Troops were quickly called in and many convicted. But it took several months to bring the countryside under control. Result of Deccan Riots – When the revolt spread in the Deccan, the Government of Bombay was initially unwilling to see it as anything serious. But the Government of India, worried by the memory of 1857, pressurised the Government of Bombay to set up a commission of inquiry to investigate into the causes of the riots. The Deccan Riots Commission produced a report that was presented to the British Parliament in 1878. Deccan Agriculturists’ Relief Act of 1879 was passed. Now, the peasants could not be arrested and sent to jail if they failed to pay their debts. 7. (a) Bismarck was against political socialism, but was not against co-opting socialist ideas in order to weaken the socialist political parties. Bismarck was the main instigator of the Anti-Socialist Laws which were enacted to try and stop socialist parties and trade unions from gaining ground. However, Bismarck also pushed for various social reforms, which the Liberal opposition derisively called “State Socialism”, a term Bismarck happily adopted for his program. Some of his reforms still work today: Germany’s healthcare system, a kind of hybrid public-private corporatist system, was enacted by Bismarck and remains largely unchanged since the 1880s. Nonetheless, he remained bitterly opposed to socialism as a political force and only did just enough to keep the Social Democratic Party out of power and deprive it of issues to campaign on. (b) In 1864, Bismarck began the series of wars that would establish Prussian power in Europe. He attacked Denmark to gain the German-speaking territories of Schleswig-Holstein and two years later provoked Emperor Franz-Josef I into starting the Austro-Prussian War (1866), which ended in a swift defeat for the aging Austrian empire. At the time, Bismarck wisely declined to levy a war indemnity against the Austrians. Bismarck was less circumspect in his conduct of the Franco- Prussian War (1870-71). Seeing the opportunity to unify Germany’s loose confederations against an outside enemy, Bismarck stirred political tensions between France and Prussia, famously editing a telegram from William I to make both the countries feel insulted by the other. The French declared war, but the Prussians and their German allies won handily. Prussia levied an indemnity, annexed the French border provinces of Alsace and Lorraine and crowned William emperor of a unified Germany (the Second Reich) in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles—a tremendous insult to the French. 8. (a) Reasons why England followed the Policy of Splendid Isolation are: (i) Britain followed the Policy of Splendid Isolation because she wanted to concentrate on overseas expansion, that is, acquiring of colonies in Africa and Asia. (ii) Due to the industrial revolution, Britain felt self-sufficient economically that she needed no economical allies. Hence, remained isolated. (iii) Militarily Great Britain was a superpower. She had the largest navy. Hence, the master of the sea. Having the largest army, submarine and navy, she needed no military allies. (iv) As long as Bismarck remained the German chancellor, peace prevailed in Europe. Hence Britain saw no need of having allies in case of war. (v) Geographically, Britain is an island kingdom. Hence she thought of isolating herself from 6 OSWAAL ISC Sample Question Papers, HISTORY, Class - XI continental Europe. (vi) After the Congress of Berlin of 1878, Britain realised that if she got much involved in European affairs, she would create more enemies for herself. (b) Factors that led Britain to abandon this Policy of Splendid Isolation are: (i) Kaiser William II’s aggressive attitude towards Britain. In 1888, Fredrick William I died and he was succeeded by a young and excited Kaiser II. In 1890, he dismissed Bismarck because he disliked his foreign policy of isolating France. In 1895, during the Jameson raid in South Africa which ended in the defeat of the British by the Boers, Kaiser William II sent a telegraph to Paul Kruger, the president of Transvaal, to congratulate him for defeating the Britain. The clearly demonstrated that Germany was against Britain. (ii) Naval competition. Between 1898 and 1900, Germany was engaged in a naval program aimed at reducing the naval gap between Britain and Germany. Being a master of the sea, Britain felt that as a challenge. (iii) Retirement of the British colonial secretary Lord Salisbury who supported this Policy of Splendid Isolation (iv) The death of Queen Victoria, who was friendly to Germany. But her successor, Edwards William II hated Germany and supported France. (v) Colonial rivalry. Britain faced colonial disputes with other powers in Europe. For example, Britain’s interest in the Far East in Asia was challenged by Russia and Japan and conflicts between Russia and Britain over Persia, Afghanistan and Tibet. In 1893, there was another colonial clash between Britain and France over Sudan called the Fashoda incident. There was also the Egyptian crisis in 1881 and the Moroccan crisis in 1905. (vi) Other European countries were busy making alliances in case of war. This made Britain aware that she would be on her own if war broke out. Britain was especially threatened when her two enemies Russia and France signed the Dual Entente in 1894. 9. The economy of Fascist Italy was weak. The economy of Italy had made little recovery after World War I and Mussolini knew that this was a major area to address if Italy was to become a major European power. Mussolini knew that Italy, after 1918, was a poor nation compared to France and Britain. He wanted to improve the economic state of Italy and his plan was based on a two-fold approach: attacking the power of the trade unions and therefore, controlling the workers, and setting Italy targets as he had with his Battle for Births. For the attempt to get Italy on the road to economic prosperity, Mussolini introduced three ‘battles’ – the Battle for Land, the Battle of the Lira and the Battle for Grain. The Battle for Land: This ‘battle’ was to clear marshland and make it useable for farming and other purposes. One area that was cleared was the Pontine Marshes – an area of mosquito-infested bog land that was to have housing built on it. Cleared land also had roads built on them to improve Italy’s infrastructure. These schemes were labour intensive and employed a lot of people so, they served a purpose in this area. Many saw the Battle of Land as a success. The Battle of the Lira: This ‘battle’ was to restore some of the purchasing power the Lira had in bygone days. Mussolini believed that a weak lira looked bad for Italy when he was trying to create the image of a super-power in Europe. A powerful nation could not have a weak national currency. Mussolini inflated the value of the lira making exports more expensive. This created unemployment at home as many industries and firms could not sell their goods. This particular battle proved a failure primarily as the economic base of Italy was too small. She was not an industrial nation but in essence, an agricultural one. Basing the strength of ones economy on agriculture rarely works and this was the case in Italy. However, Italy got through the Depression in the 1930’s as better than Europe’s industrial power houses simply because she was an agricultural nation. The Depression hit the industrial nations of Europe very hard. The Battle for Grain: Mussolini wanted to make Italy economically stronger and near enough self- sufficient. Hence, his desire to grow grain. However, the plan was to grow grain at the expense of fruit and vegetables which were cheaper to produce. Italian grain became expensive at home and the price of bread rose. This hit the poor the worst as bread was a major part of their diet. Rich farmers did well out of this as they were guaranteed a good price for what they produced. In terms of economic growth, Italy did not have the expanse of industry to bolster her farming Solutions 7 based economy. Whereas, Germany had its industrial power house in the Ruhr and Britain had South Wales, the North-East, Midlands and North-West, Italy had relatively few of these industrial zones. Though laudable in theory, Mussolini’s plans for Italy’s economic growth were based on weaknesses he could not overcome. Commonly Made Error  Some students merely stated the facts, without concluding whether the Fascist state was a success or not.

Answering Tip  The students must read and understand what is expected to be answered in the question.

10. (a) Subsequent to the German Government conceding defeat in World War I, Britain, America and France wrote up a treaty that Germany had no option but to sign. This treaty was the Treaty of Versailles and was widely considered to be one of the harshest treaties ever written. The German public had many objections to the terms of the treaty: (i) Article 231 of the treaty was the ‘War guilt clause’. Although this clause did not technically affect Germany economically or socially it was the clause that the Germans resented the most as it stated that Germany was fully responsible for the War. This was because Germany was a very proud nation and a global superpower for numerous years. The public also strongly believed that Germany had not been the sole cause of World War I and felt that they had acted in self-defense. (ii) Another main term in the Treaty of Versailles was the reparations (compensation) that the Allies claimed they were owed for the destruction caused by the war, which the Allies ultimately considered to be the fault of the Germans. A fixed sum of £6600 million was to be paid back in annual installments. The Germans felt this sum was ridiculously high and that the Allies were simply trying to make a profit out of the war. (iii) The third term of the Treaty of Versailles was the military restrictions placed on the German army. This clause forced Germany to disband its air force, limit its army to 100,000 soldiers and limit navy to 15,000 soldiers with just six battleships. The German army was not permitted into the Rhineland for fifteen years. For a strong military nation like Germany, this reduced their army to a humiliating low level. Germany had strong objections to this term. Germany claimed that they would no longer be able to defend themselves if these restrictions were in place making the country defenseless against an extremely hostile Europe at that time. (iv) The final main term of the Treaty of Versailles was territorial loss for Germany. Germany lost 13% of its land contained around 6 million people, the main areas of land lost were: West Prussia, Alsace-Lorraine, The Saarland and Eupen and Malmedy. They also lost colonies and they became ‘mandates’ ran by the Allies; this was the clause that destroyed Germany's role as a global super power. (b) The Treaty of Versailles was justified in some ways as it could have been much worse. Germany entered the war willingly. Nobody had forced them into it; therefore, they had to accept the consequences of losing a war. This is fair as the Germans knew the consequences and it was their mistake to enter the war. Germany had caused a lot of damage to countries like Belgium so she should pay for the damage she caused. This resulted in £6600 million as reparations. Though Germany should pay for the damage she caused , the amount that she had to pay was too high. The world’s leading economist John Maynard Keynes had said the reparations were too high and that Germany should pay only £2000 million. The amount for the reparations was not fair as it was too high, plus none of the Allies were paying Germany for the damage done to her. Germany’s military services were restricted. Germany was to have 100,000 men for an army, conscription was banned, the Navy could only have six battleships, and Rhineland became a demilitarized zone. Also, Germany was not allowed any armored vehicles, submarines or aircrafts. 1 This left Germany disarmed, making her unable to defend herself from being invaded. With this, there was territorial adjustment. Germany had all her colonies taken away from her. Many of the German colonies became 8 OSWAAL ISC Sample Question Papers, HISTORY, Class - XI mandates making them temporarily looked after by the League of Nations. This meant there was an expansion to the British and French empires. This was unjustified. Some of Germany’s land was given away leading to people losing their German nationality. Germany was also not to unite with Austria in case they cause trouble. This was fair as it made war less likely. Germany were not to have a say in the League of Nations which wanted to keep peace. This meant Germany had to do what the League of Nations said. Germans described the treaty a 'diktat', meaning a dictated peace. Germany had no choice and if she did not agree, she had to face invasion. The League of Nations, was supposed to be a peace keeping force but to the Germans , it seemed like a meeting place for the Allies to gain their revenge instead of a peace conference. This was unjustified because a peace conference should let every country that is involved to have a say. However, this was justified in a way as Germany did the same to Russia. During the war, Russia had surrendered. There was the treaty named Brest-Litovsk. This was a treaty between Germany and Russia. Germany had forced Russia to sign the treaty. Russia also had no say in the treaty and was treated a lot harsher. Therefore, this was fair. If Germany had done the same thing to Russia, other countries were doing the same to Germany.. The treaty could have been a lot harsher if France had her way because the French President Georges Clemenceau and his public wanted Germany to be destroyed. Therefore, this is fair because Germany is lucky to get off with a lighter punishment. The Treaty of Versailles was a bad treaty and was not very successful. The treaty was justified in some way such as Germany knew what the consequences of war were and she willingly entered war but in some cases, it was not justified for example, it was many innocent people who had to suffer the consequences. Overall, the treaty was both justified and unjustified. 11 (a) Initially, it looked like World War I would help Nicholas II. People were outraged at Germany, and the war helped to bring out their patriotic side. It seemed the war would unite people behind the Tsar and his failing autocratic system. But then, it all quickly started to go wrong. Millions of Russians were killed at the front, partly due to the incompetence of military leaders and the soldiers’ lack of equipment and training. Up to 10 million had been killed by 1917. To make it worse, Nicholas was personally involved in leading the army through these disasters – this made it look like the slaughter was his fault. (b) The War caused huge economic problems, including starvation and lack of fuel. This made people in Russia incredibly angry and encouraged them to start protesting against the regime. Starving people who had nothing to lose by complaining, were very dangerous to regimes such as Nicholas II’s. The lack of food was partly a result of the fact that millions of peasants had been sent to fight in the war, meaning there was a shortage of people to produce food. It was also caused by the fact that the railway network was used mainly for transporting troops and military equipment instead of food and fuel. Middle class people started to question the system of government because a man named Rasputin appeared to be controlling the government. Rasputin was a religious mystic on whom the Tsar’s wife developed a bit of a crush on, partly because he claimed to have powers to cure the sickness of children. Nicholas was off at the front, and Rasputin was fit to step into his shoes while he was away. Sensible people questioned how a nut job like Rasputin could possibly have reached such a position of power, and saw it as demonstrating the failure of Russia’s political system. The result of these problems was a wave of protests that began in early 1917 in towns across Russia. People began to riot after protests to demand bread got out of control. Nicholas’ wife – who many people hated anyway because she was a German, and therefore, seen as being one of the enemy – demanded that soldiers shoot the protesters. Instead, the soldiers joined in with the protesters – they were also sick of how badly the country was being run! Together, the workers and the soldiers formed Soviets – assemblies of people that democratically made decisions. By this point, Nicholas Romanov and his wife were, by some distance, the most unpopular people in Russia. Without soldiers to attack its opponents, Tsar Nicholas’s regime was finished. Nicholas couldn’t even get back to St. Petersburg in a last attempt at clinging to his throne. Commonly Made Error  Many students get confused between the political and economic impact and mix them together. Solutions 9

Answering Tip  The political impact is the one that changed the government or its role. The economic impact is the one that changed the money, purchasing power, supply, production, etc. in the country.

qqq