This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Higher History 2013-2014 Thread

Scroll to see replies

Sorry for this rather dumb question but, why did social changes i.e. education changes, lead to the enfranchisement of women?

Education - women could no longer be classed as not intelligent enough to vote and the argument that they were "too stupid to vote" was therefore invalid.
Marriage - Women now had more rights to their own property and finances and thi showed that they were able to be independent and were not solely controlled by their husband (they wouldn't just vote for who their husband asked them to, they were capable of making their own decisions)
Industrialisation - Women gained respect as they were starting to prove that they could do things like men

This probably isn't very helpful, sorry.

Reply 161

username1331498

Original post by Ami_

Because women were classed as being too 'dumb' and that was the 'reason' why they 'couldn't' understand politics -and were refused the vote- , thus this when places like Girton college opened it defied the argument that women were stupid, so it proved that if they could get an education, surely they could understand politics and so on..

I'm not sure if that made sense tbh. :s-smilie:

Superb! Thank you :smile:

Reply 162

username1331498

Original post by clannem

Brilliant, thank you for the help :smile:

Reply 163

username1331498

Original post by clannem

You wouldn't by any chance have a women's vote essay which you could send?

Reply 164

natalia2906

Original post by LCRMG

What does everyone think will come up for Nazis (Thats if one comes up at all)? I looked at the past papers and it goes:
2010 - maintenance
2011 - rise
2012 - rise and maintenance
2013 - maintenance

I really hope rise comes up but I have a feeling it might be maintenance because they don't want to make it a pattern..

That's what I was wondering as well. Anything could come up this year. That's why I've got German Nationalism prepared just in case. Also I heard that every 10-11 years no Nazi question comes up which would be awful...but quite possible especially considering that this is the last year of the old higher.

Reply 165

natalia2906

I'm having trouble identifying questions for German Nationalism, Liberal Motives and Successes.
Does anyone have any tips on what to look out for to identify them?

Reply 166

biologist.

Original post by natalia2906

Yeah I asked earlier about no nazi questions coming up this year and it seems like other peoples teachers think it will. My own teacher also told us that we should just revise those two since our class isn't as strong with the other topics and there has only been no nazi question once a few years ago and it was really complained about.. :s-smilie:

Reply 167

natalia2906

Original post by LCRMG

It would definitely be complained about if it happened this year..especially with the abolition of the appeals system :/. Do you think it's more likely to be rise or power? I :confused:

Reply 168

biologist.

Original post by natalia2906

It would definitely be complained about if it happened this year..especially with the abolition of the appeals system :/. Do you think it's more likely to be rise or power? I :confused:

Yeah, I really hope one comes up.. I can imagine myself sitting in the exam and just turning to the next page and staring in horror at no nazi questions haha! I think I would have to get up and leave the exam because I couldn't write a single thing for nationalism.
If you followed the pattern it would be rise.. but I think the SQA might be aware of a pattern forming and make it maintenance instead. Who knows? Maybe it will be both?

I hope it's power.

What's everyone's predictions for Britain and The Road To War Section? I really hope it's why Britain appeased as that hasn't appeared in years!! :adore:

Reply 171

username1331498

Original post by SianEvans96

What's everyone's predictions for Britain and The Road To War Section? I really hope it's why Britain appeased as that hasn't appeared in years!! :adore:

I am guessing 'why Britain appeased" also.

Reply 172

mattsam12

Original post by SianEvans96

What's everyone's predictions for Britain and The Road To War Section? I really hope it's why Britain appeased as that hasn't appeared in years!! :adore:

Most likely will be these I think

Reasons for the Adoption of Appeasement between 1936-1938

What lead to the aggressive nature of the fascist foreign policies of Germany and Italy in the 1930’s

An assessment of the Munich Agreement

Btw is there only 5 topics ?

Reply 173

Lilidh

Original post by mattsam12

Hiya,

For everyone here doing Appeasement and Britain how many essays are you learning for each ?

Iv decided on Women, How Democratic was Britain by ... and How did Democracy Grow leaving out Liberals as I dislike the topic. For Appeasement Iv went for The Munich Agreement, Reasons for the Aggressive foreign policies and Reasons for the adoption of Appeasement.

Do you think it is too risky only learning three for Appeasement, so should i include Reasons for the abandonment of Appeasement ?

It is probably best to learn four as there is a possibility you could go in and none of the essays that you have revised have come up!

Reply 174

Abbie :)

Could anyone give me a plan to the woman's rights essay? That's been my worst yet but it'll probably show up :s-smilie:

Reply 175

Lilidh

Does anyone have plans/essays for reasons for abandonment of appeasement or reasons for aggressive foreign policies? I have the on 1, 3, 4 and 6 for Britain I could send! :smile:

Reply 176

username1331498

Original post by Lilidh

Does anyone have plans/essays for reasons for abandonment of appeasement or reasons for aggressive foreign policies? I have the on 1, 3, 4 and 6 for Britain I could send! :smile:

This was only a 16/20, also I do not have a valid line of argument which you need to have in order to get 4/4 for structure.

How important was the Polish crisis in Britain’s decision to abandon the policy of appeasement?

The policy of appeasement was passed in order to allow Adolf Hitler to have certain aggressive foreign policies, in the hope that there would be a preservation of peace in Europe. This policy was abandoned in 1939 and in the immediate aftermath, a war occurred between Germany and Britain. Historians have been debating over the reasons behind why the policy of appeasement was abandoned in 1939 and by examining the evidence it can be seen that the Polish crisis was influential to the abandonment of appeasement. Although this may be true, other reasons must be looked at in order to truly determine the importance of this factor and how much the other factors influenced the decision. These issues include the changing attitudes towards appeasement by 1939, the German occupation of Bohemia and in turn the collapse of Czechoslovakia, the British diplomacy and relations with Soviet Union, and the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

Even after Germany had agreed to not invade other countries, Adolf Hitler decided that he must invade Poland in order to retrieve the German population living inside Poland as a result of the removal of land from Germany to give to Poland as noted in the Treaty of Versailles. One of Hitler’s main aims was to regain the Danzig and Polish Corridor which separated Germany from East Prussia. Since Hitler had the knowledge that many German speakers were living inside of Poland, it can be seen that Hitler had a deep desire to ensure these Germans were brought inside the Third Reich using the method of invasion. In addition to this, Britain and Poland had signed a Agreement of Mutual Assistance, this entailed the military assistance from Britain if Poland were to be attacked by a European Country. On the 1st September 1939, Germany invaded Poland due to a fake attack on Germany which was used as Germany’s reason to invade Poland. Due to the reasons that Britain and Poland had a mutual agreement in times of war and that Germany had invaded Poland, it can be seen that the policy of appeasement was disregarded due to a crisis which erupted in Poland. This was because the British government had signed an agreement to assist Poland and for them to break this agreement when Poland was in need of help, Britain would be mistrusted. The extent to how much influence this factor had on the removal of appeasement, is argued and by examining all of the evidence we can see that the Polish Crisis was to a great extent the reasoning behind it but if the attitudes toward appeasement had not changed beforehand then there would have been a less of a chance that Britain would have retaliated.

By 1939, there was “a dramatic change of mood in Britain” regarding the policy of appeasement, the people of Britain had changed their opinions of the effectiveness and the importance that appeasement had on the security of the European countries. Many significant politicians had voiced their opinions on appeasement, which included the strong criticism of the policy. With powerful politicians finally expressing their strong criticism against appeasement in the public’s eye, the tides had turned and now the public were opposing the policy whereas before the majority were for it. This meant that in order for the government to succeed in pleasing the public, they would have to disband the policy and no longer follow the peace method of appeasing Germany’s rash movements. Additionally, the Oxford by-election in October 1938 in which the anti-appeasement candidate gained a large sum of votes, proved to Neville Chamberlain to what extent people were against appeasement had arrived to. So to please the public he would have to conform to their opinions by going anti-appeasement. Furthermore, if Neville Chamberlain wished to remain in power he would have to give the public what they wanted which was the abandonment of appeasement.

Not only this but the Cabinet had even gone to the extent of preparing eight divisions of the army that were ready to be dispatched to Germany in times of need. Furthermore, when the policy of appeasement was initially passed, the British military forces were very unprepared for a war since they had few planes, few ships and a compact army. But now the British forces had increased in sizes, therefore allowing them to be prepared if a war broke out. This means that since Britain was ready for war, they could afford to abandon the policy of appeasement since they could now use force to deal with Germany instead of failing to make agreements with Adolf Hitler. The extent to how much the attitudes towards appeasement changing had on the abandonment of appeasement can be seen to be very influential and this is truly the backbone of the events which followed because if it was not for the changing attitudes then it can be argued that there would have never have been a retaliation to the German invasion of Poland.

Even though the Munich Agreement was signed by Adolf Hitler, he still declared that Bohemia and Moravia were to be administered by the Nazis since he considered them to be part of the German Reich. This declaration created a wave of shock throughout Britain and it also reinforced the fact that Britain had to use a stronger method of resistance to put a stop to the radical German policies. In addition, Neville Chamberlain now pronounced that “no reliance could be placed in any of the assurances given by the Nazi leaders.” Even a figure who was initially quite fond of Hitler, now began to see truly what his intentions were regarding the invasion of other European countries. The occupation of Bohemia and the collapse of Czechoslovakia also proved to the world that Adolf Hitler was a liar and that the only reasoning which he would accept was war because all of the methods which Britain had tried so far, failed in appeasing Germany. After Hitler had broke the Munich Agreement by invading the rest of Czechoslovakia further honed in the point that Hitler was a liar, and that he truly desired not only land for the Germans to live in and that he could only be stopped by war. This means that the Nazi-administration of Bohemia and Moravia and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, both influenced the abandonment of appeasement since it brought to light Hitler’s true self, and allowed the world to see that he could not be reasoned with using agreements therefore the only method which could be used was force.

Joseph Stalin ultimately knew that Hitler’s main aim was to attack Russia and this knowledge brought him to attempt to reason with the British government to discuss an alliance against Germany. However, at the time Britain had a strong suspicion against communism, in addition, Britain believed that the Russian army was too weak to be of use to Hitler and this feeling of mistrust which meant that the pact between the two nations did not follow through. This denial of an alliance, heightened Stalin’s suspicions of Britain and brought him to commence talks with the Nazis, who were offering land and peace. On 23rd August 1939, the Nazi-Soviet Pact was made and this was a promise between the two nations to not go to war with one another and it included a secret promise to invade Poland and in turn, split it between them. This brought about the abandonment of appeasement since Britain was now presented with a serious threat as Germany and Russia were on close terms. In addition, Poland would be able to receive no help from the east if she was attacked and because Britain had signed an alliance with Poland as a result of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, then the only choice Britain had was to abandon appeasement and use force to restrict Adolf Hitler. This means that the policy of appeasement was abandoned due to the influence that the Nazi-Soviet relationship had on Britain. Not only this, but it also to an extent was the reason behind why the Polish Crisis occurred in the first place. This factor had a greater influence on the abandonment of appeasement since it was the influencing factor why the Polish crisis happened which means that views on appeasement had already shifted and the Polish crisis was merely just a stepping stone to the abandonment.

Appeasement was a policy used by the French and British governments to allow Adolf Hitler to have certain demands in order to avoid European war. This policy was abandoned in 1939. After it was abandoned, a war erupted between Germany and Britain. There is much debate over why the policy was abandoned and by examining the evidence, it can be seen that many factors influenced the abandonment such as; the Polish crisis, changing attitudes towards appeasement, the Nazi-administration of Bohemia, British relations with USSR and the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Overall, as shown in the evidence, the Polish crisis was solely a final step in the road to abandoning appeasement. Before this event, attitudes were changing and even the Nazi-Soviet Pact had been passed, so inevitably the policy would have been abandoned without a crisis appearing in Poland but this crisis catalysed the abandonment. In conclusion, the attitudes towards appeasement changing was the most significant factor since the overall backing of the public had encouraged Neville Chamberlain to go anti-appeasement due to political reasons.

Could you possibly send a few essays for Britain, pretty please?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 177

username1331498

Original post by Abbie :)

Could anyone give me a plan to the woman's rights essay? That's been my worst yet but it'll probably show up :s-smilie:

I have an essay for it (19/20) but I do not relate knowledge back to the question enough... I could still send it?

Reply 178

Abbie :)

Original post by EatAndRevise

I have an essay for it (19/20) but I do not relate knowledge back to the question enough... I could still send it?

That would be so superbly brilliant! Pretty please!

Reply 179

username1331498

Original post by Abbie :)

That would be so superbly brilliant! Pretty please!

“The steady pressure by the moderate Suffragists was the most important reason for the achievement of votes for women by 1918.” How accurate is this view?

Throughout the 19th century, women were regarded to be inferior to men; they were thought to have had smaller brains and were given lesser social and political status to that of men. As years went by, women sought to change this and after 1850 gradual but important changes were made to improve the status of women. Although women were gaining more rights, they were still far from gaining enfranchisement: which they wanted the most. But in 1928 all women over the age of 21 could vote as long as they had stayed in Britain for the past six months. Historians and contemporaries at the time, have been arguing over what the most significant factor in giving women the vote was. To come to a valid conclusion, several factors must be examined and these factors are: the changing status and perception of women after 1850; the impact which World War One had; the wider growth of democracy in Britain and abroad and the role the political groups had. It will be argued that although the Suffragists had a positive impact on the cause of women’s suffrage, there were many other reasons which led to the achievement of partial women’s suffrage.

The National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) and the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) were both political pressure groups whose aim was to push the government to enfranchise women. The NUWSS used peaceful tactics to attempt to persuade the government to bring about enfranchisement. They believed in a gradualistic approach which meant that universal suffrage would be obtained in steps rather than straightaway. Arguably, the Suffragists were too cautious in their approach but although they may not have directly impacted the enfranchisement of women, they did in fact, win the backing of trade unions and also worked quite closely with the Labour Party. In addition, their work did attract the attention of working class women even though their tactics were primarily middle class. This shows that the group had brought many members into its banks, which would prove to the government that the issue of women’s suffrage. The Suffragists made significant progress for women as they had managed to persuade 50% of MPs to support women’s suffrage by 1914.
Although this may be the case, the WSPU was a more militant group who believed in “deeds not words” and it will be argued that they actually made the cause take a step back because their actions frightened members of the public and lost the willing of many MPs. The WSPU was formed due to the slow progress of the NUWSS, and was formed by Mrs Emmeline Pankhurst. They would attack members of the Government and even smashed the windows of government buildings. Their extreme behaviour landed many of the members in prison, where in 1909, Marion Wallace Dunlop went on hunger strike. Many of the women followed on from this, it caused problems for the government and they ended up force feeding them which shocked the public. Although it could be argued that their methods of direct action highlighted the issue of women’s suffrage in a matter of fact, their methods of shocking the population did more harm than good as it frightened the public and turned many MPs away who had previously backed the movement. Additionally, during the war many of the members continued to protest which was deemed to be a very unpatriotic thing to do. Even though the militant tactics brought about much media attention, it also discouraged many MPs to back the suffrage movement as they could not be seen to be working with a group of females acting like terrorists.

Moreover, before 1850, there was a clear barrier between men and women regarding social and political rights. As the years went by, women gradually became more mixed into society and were no longer just the ‘good wives and mothers’ which they so widely thought as in the past. It had come to a point where the question changed from, if women deserve to obtain the vote, to when they were going to obtain the vote. Firstly, it was a general belief that women had smaller brains than men in 1850, thus, there was no reason for girls to have an education. Several Education Acts in the 1870s meant that there was now compulsory primary education for girls. This resulted in improved literacy levels among the working class women and also allowed their access to information improve, which both resulted in more women being knowledgeable politically than ever before. Additionally, universities started to allow more women through their doors. These steps made in education meant that women could now move their way up the workplace, to earn higher paid jobs and to improve their position in society. This was important as now there was no reason why women could not get the vote because if women were in equal positions in the workplace as men and had similar levels of education, then there was absolutely no reason why they should not have the same political rights as men.

Furthermore, in addition to educational and employment opportunities, women were also now getting more involved in local politics. The 1869 Municipal Franchise Act allowed single female householders to vote in local election, and the Parish Councils Act in 1894 enabled women to serve on urban and district councils. This was a signal to the government that women could clearly participate in political life because they were already taking part in local elections. Additionally, Martin Pugh proclaimed that “their participation in local government made women’s exclusion from national elections increasingly untenable.” All of these gradual changes made it virtually impossible for the government to delay giving women the vote and therefore, gave in to the demands in 1928 when all women over the age of 21 had the right to vote.

In addition, World War One brought up severe problems in Britain since there were so many men away at the front, there was a shortage in people in munitions factories. Women therefore stood up to the opportunity and took the chance to aid in the war effort whilst also allowing the male population to see that women could work in jobs which were previously thought to have been ‘male only’ jobs. Over 700,000 women were now working in dangerous factories, which resulted in 237 women dying due to explosions. With women working in dangerous factories, it can be seen that they gained more respect had their social status improved because they were working long and hard hours all for the war effort.

Not only were women working at home, many of them went to the Western Front to work as nurses and ambulance drivers. Two very important groups - The Voluntary Aid Detachment (VAD) and the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry (FANY), played a key role in the war effort. The jobs which women got involved in: encouraged many MPs to back the female enfranchisement movement and gained the governments support since the women had abandoned their own personal grievances to assist in the overall war effort. With women alongside men in the Great War and also at home benefiting the war effort, the government had to do something in the end to ‘reward’ them, and with the vote already being seen as a plausible right for women to have, the government arguably, had to give them it. Clearly, World War One was simply a catalyst in women’s enfranchisement because women were already a long way down the path of gaining the vote. It can be seen that although the war did have an impact, the changing social status of women in the previous years already had the greatest effect in pushing for the vote.

Additionally, democratic values were spreading, as many more men in Britain were becoming enfranchised and even women were getting the vote in places such as New Zealand and Australia. In Britain, more and more men were given the right to vote in acts such as the Second Reform Act in 1867 and the Third Reform Act in 1884. Therefore, a reasonable conclusion can be made that since the men who were previously socially and politically disadvantaged were getting the vote, then there seemed to be a clear problem with not enfranchising women who were still at a major disadvantage. Also, all over the world there were other democratic countries which were enfranchising women. Britain was regarded as the ‘mother of democracy’ but this reputation was being put behind them since they were falling behind the other nations. This meant that in order for Britain to keep up with other countries throughout the world, women had to be enfranchised so that the ‘mother of democracy’ could fulfill her reputation. So it can be seen that the wider growth of democracy had a profound effect on the enfranchisement of women in 1928, but in comparison to that of the changing social status of women after 1850, it was less significant.

After 1850, serious changes were made regarding the social and political status of women. As a result, eventually all women over the age of 21 gained the right to vote in 1928. There is much debate to the most influential factor in the enfranchisement of women, but by examining the evidence it becomes clear that due to a synthesis of many reasons, women become enfranchised in 1918. We can come to this conclusion since as a result of improved education arguably, women would not have been politically aware enough to form the NUWSS. Additionally, it can be seen that over time the government became gradually more and more in favor of enfranchising women.