How To paper 1
Wednesday, May 13, 2015 6:53 PM
Answering each question:
Question 1 a): worth 3 marks, spend max 5 minutes on. 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): worth 2 marks, spend max 5 minutes on. 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 symbols before you 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: worth 6 marks, spend max 13 - 14 minutes on. Compare and contrast sources - source contents.
For 6 marks, you need to write two paragraphs that include a running
comparison/contrast of the two sources, carefully supported by quotes. Make sure that you focus on answering 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!
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: worth 6 marks, spend max 13 - 14 minutes on. Source evaluation: OPVL. Evaluate the sources separately, with one paragraph for each explaining their origin (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 what values and limitations these 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 are specific to the sources and not 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: worth 8 marks, spend all the time left on this, at least 22 minutes. Mini-essay, using a synthesis of all sources and own 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 both all the sources and your
own detailed and specific knowledge in 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 a synthesis of sources and own knowledge to produce 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 statement Disagrees with statement Both agrees and disagrees
Sources A, E B, D C
Own knowledge Nasser shuts canal etc etc
When it comes to writing your answer, you may include a brief introduction to define the question, but you do not need to do so - it can be a waste 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 by QUOTES from the sources ("as Source A states...") and your own 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 you can show 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 of ANSWERING 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
a balanced response to 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 Crisis
Wednesday, 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
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 power
2.1.3 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
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 either
2.1.4 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 Mao
2.1.5 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
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 imprisonment
2.1.6 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 2002
China under Deng Xiaoping, economic policies
and the Four Modernizations
Wednesday, May 13, 2015 6:58 PM
2.2.1 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 communist
2.2.2 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 military
2.2.3 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 States
2.2.4 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 factories
2.2.5 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
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 state
2.2.6 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 research
2.2.7 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 technology
2.2.8 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
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 military
Domestic and foreign problems of the
Brezhnev era, economic and political
stagnation, Afghanistan
Wednesday, May 13, 2015 6:59 PM
2.4.1 Leonid Brezhnev and the Domestic Problems
The 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 government
Citizens vs Government
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 published The Gulag Archipelago which 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 economy
2.4.2 Foreign Reforms and Problems
Brezhnev 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 states
Agreement 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 rights
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 so
The 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 withdraw
2.4.3 Chernenko and Andropov
As Brezhnev got older and weaker he relied more and more on his protégé 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 era
The Arab-Israeli Conflict 1945–79
Wednesday, May 13, 2015 7:01 PM
Last years of the British Mandate; UNSCOP
partition plan and the outbreak of civil war
Wednesday, May 13, 2015 7:02 PM
Historic roots of the conflict:
Both Arabs and Israelis have deep-rooted historical and religious connections to the territory of 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 the advent of nationalism in the Middle East and the
conflict .... is one of competing nationalisms". This is reinforced by the fact that there has not been 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 the emergence 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, Zionism as a modern ideology was developed
by Theodor 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's Der Judenstaat in 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 its territorial claims over the 'holy land' clashed and 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 a conflict 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 the Hussein-McMahon
Correspondence were 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 the Sykes-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 1917 Balfour 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 'Jewish state' 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
the contradictory aims of the mandate help 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 were supposed 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.
The 1920s saw relative peace in the mandate as the British encouraged both Jews and Arabs to engage in institution-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 Jerusalem put 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 an increase in Jewish immigration to 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 the Arab 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 the Peel 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 the 1939 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 an imperial 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.
The Biltmore 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 Holocaust led survivors and Zionists to pursue their goal of a Jewish state with existential urgency, as the only way to secure Jewish security from such atrocities. It also helped secure international sympathy for the Zionist cause.
War created a massive 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 the Jewish waged an uprising against the British and Arab-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. The Arab 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 a civil 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, on 14th May 1948.
Bitter fighting between the two sides included the Deir 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 D aimed 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 war
Wednesday, May 13, 2015 7:05 PM
Establishment 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 independence for Israel vs War to liberate Palestine for Arab states. ‘An Nakbah’ for 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.
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 refugees
Historiography
A question of perspective! 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
UNO
Wednesday, May 13, 2015 7:05 PM
Timeline of key dates:
1952, July 23rd: Egypt's monarchy was overthrown by the Free Officers.
1954, October: Nasser replaces Mohammed Naguib as President and leader of Egypt.
1955: Nasser refuses to join the Baghdad Pact and negotiates the Czech arms deal.
1955, February 28: Israel launches the Gaza Raid as 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 canal and Britain and France issues ultimatum for both to withdraw their forces.
Key causes of the war: Long Term:
Failure to conclude a peace agreement after 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
by continuous border skirmishes between Palestinian fedayeen raids based in the Gaza strip and retaliation attacks from the Israeli 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 deal 1955 - 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 only reactive? 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
consequences
Wednesday, May 13, 2015 7:08 PM
Timeline of key dates:
1964 - Nasser establishes the PLO, Palestine Liberation Organization in an attempt to control the fedayeen, 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 Raid
1967 – 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 242
Key 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.