this is my sample attempt at the 2011 paper, i think i scored around 75 according to my teacher
1a)
I can deduce that the aims of the founders were create groups which protested against society and the materialistic interests of people, such as climbing social order and property.
1b)
From this text, we can see that this example does not strongly support the author’s view. Firstly, it is said that there is a very strong and ordered sense of hierarchy in the religious community, which can be said to oppose the author’s view as it says that the society was run by complicated networks of authority that were disunited. Moreover, it is stated that they were run only by the Rule of St Benedict, and therefore did not rely on society to change. However, it is said that clauses such as the controlling nature of the religious leaders on monks and abbots goes against the view that these communities were relied only on the Rule of St Benedict, and this therefore supports the author’s view. Moreover, the fact that military precision was necessary for ‘worldly success’ shows how religious communities were altered by society, as the military would have been an aspect of society. Overall, it is clear that religious communities were affected by society, they were not completely a mirror of the world in which they lived, however they were also not separate from society and were not only based on the Rule of St. Benedict.
1c)
Before 1938 it is clear that Anti-Semitism was not originally a Fascist principle nor was Mussolini inherently anti-Semitic. Mussolini condemned anti-Semitism in his speeches, writings and conversations. In 1933 and 1934 he was an open opponent of Germany's racial policies and instructed the Italian ambassador in Berlin to make personal representations to Hitler expressing Italy's concerns concerning those odious policies. Mussolini also chose and relied on Jewish friends, and two women who influenced him in those days were Jews; Angelica Balabanoff and Margherita Sarfatti. At the very beginnings, five Jews were at the founding meeting of Fascists in Milan, in 1919. Moreover, Mussolini’s long-standing mistress was Jewish and his fascist regime had even allowed 3000 German Jews to enter the country as refugees from Nazi persecution.
However, by the mid-1930s Mussolini’s foreign policy aims of making Italy ‘Great, respected and feared’ had brought the regime closer to the Nazi regime in Germany, and Nazi racial ideas began to circulate in Italy. Because of this, Mussolini persuaded himself that there was a Jewish influence behind resistance to Fascism in Italy and across Europe, and he saw significance in the fact the several members of the Italian anti-Fascist group ‘Justice and Liberty’ were Jews.
After 1938, Mussolini’s principle of Anti-Semitism was altered beyond recognition, and in July 1938, he gave official blessing to the claims of Italian anti-Semites by publishing a tract entitled the ‘Manifesto of Racial Scientists’, declaring that ‘the Jews do not belong in the Italian race’. After this, numerous anti-Semitic policies were introduced in Italy by Mussolini, for example in August 1938, foreign born Jews were banned from state schools and from teaching. By November 1938, it was forbidden for a Jew to marry a non-Jew. It wasn’t until 1943 until the regime collaborated with the Nazi plans to exterminate all Jews in Europe.
Despite the clear evidence of Mussolini’s changing view of the Jews, it is clear that persecution was not nearly as systematic as in Nazi Germany. For example, the anti-Semitic laws contained exemptions for those Italian Jews who had served in the First World and Farinacci, for example, kept his Jewish Secretary. Moreover, many governments and Fascist officials made little effort to enforce the laws, either because they shared the Church’s view the persecution was wrong, or because they had personal or family connections with Jewish Italians. Mussolini’s own sons for example protected their Jewish friends from harassment.
Overall, it is clear that the Mussolini’s principle of ‘Anti-Semitism’ was hugely altered in society. From Mussolini respecting and co-operating with the Jews, he then went out of his way to persecute them after 1938, and the fact that only 700 Italian Jews survived out of the 7500 sent to Nazi death camps in 1943 cannot be argued with. However, it is also clear that many exceptions were made and that far fewer Jews were killed in Italy than in Nazi Germany, and we must take this into account when examining the change of his principle.
2)
From this extract, it is clear that British Society in 1945 after the end of the Second World War was bleak, and this passage implies that many things about the effect of the war on Britain and the general opinions at the time. Firstly, I can infer that there was clearly low morale amongst the British population, despite the “eager looking forward to the end of the war”. This view is presented throughout the passage, and it is said by the housewife that she had “never had such a sour attitude on life in general” and that “there is so little brightness in life”. This clearly implies that the middle-class British housewife was miserable after the end of the war, and she could be seen as an archetypal figure who represents the many other housewives during the war. This low-morale is also presented as the housewife implies that she was even happier during the war, as she says that there used to be “fun and laughter” at the Centre, “even in the darkest days of war”. The fact that she was happier during the war epitomises the sense of low-morale after the war, as even when there was relentless bombing and loss of lives, she still had more fun. However, to me this housewife seems to have depression, and therefore it is hard to see how she can be seen to represent the whole of the British population, as surely there would have been people celebrating the end of the war.
A further aspect of British Society in 1945 presented by the extract is the fatigue and exhaustion after the war. The author mentions this tiredness throughout the passage, for example she explains how she was “tired out” and how “people’s heads are so tired”. Moreover, she comments on the fact that “husbands are coming home so tired” and that “this tiredness must be magnified to the highest degree amongst the homeless”. This shows how British Society was affected by fatigue after the war, which is understandable considering soldiers would have been fighting continuously and citizens would have been kept up by the German bombing. However, once again this passage has restrictions, as it can only tell us about the fatigue of the housewife, who clearly is not in a positive frame of mind while writing the letter.
A further characteristic of Britain after the war portrayed by the extract is the suffering economy. The author write in great detail about the harsh rations due to the war, such as the fact that “meat is scarcer” and “milk is down to two pints of milk a week”, clearly portraying the effects of the rationing on the British society. This would have exacerbated the low morale and fatigue after the war. Moreover, the lack of employment after the war is presented, caused by women losing the jobs they possessed during the war and the demobilised soldiers returning to the country after the war. The author states that “women are leaving their wartime jobs” and that “it’s not as easy to pick up threads as lay them down”. This also presents inequality between men and women, as it was evidently expected of women to quit their jobs in order to be there for their husbands and so that the men could work. Finally, the level of unemployment is also presented as she says that the fatigue must be at the highest “amongst the homeless”, implying that homelessness was a significant problem after the war.
Overall, this extract can tell us that there was low-morale amongst the British population after the war, most likely caused by the tiredness and economic problems. However, this extract cannot represent the whole population, and most of all it can tell us about the opinions and effects on the housewives, rather than soldiers or children for example. Moreover, it cannot accurately depict the effects on social classes other than the middle-class, as it was written by a middle-class housewife experiencing problems which may have been confined to the middle-class, which in itself is very difficult to define. However, in my opinion, this extract is very useful and reliable as evidence for the harsh characteristics of British Society in 1945, as it is a diary conveying the true feelings of a middle-class British housewife, who would have supposedly have had no reason to lie or create a subjective account of the war and its effects.