1. Index Number Class Name
CHIJ ST JOSEPH’S CONVENT
Preliminary Examination
O O
COMBINED HUMANITIES 2192/03
Paper 3 History Elective
Thursday, 26 August 2010
Secondary 4 Express 1 hour 30 minutes
Additional Materials: Writing paper
READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS FIRST
Write your index number, class and name on all the work you hand in.
Write in dark blue or black pen.
Do not use staples, paper clips, highlighters, glue or correction fluid.
Section A: You must answer all parts of Question 1.
Section B: Answer one question.
At the end of the examination, fasten all your work securely together.
The number of marks is given in brackets [ ] at the end of each question or part-question.
Attach the cover page to your answer script.
FOR EXAMINER’S USE
A
B
Total
This document consists of 6 printed pages.
Setter(s) : Ms Sarah Sharmini D/O Rajam [Turn over

2. 2
Section A (Source-based Case Study)
Question 1 is compulsory for all candidates.
Study the sources carefully and answer all the questions.
You may use any of the sources to help you answer the questions, in addition to
those sources which you are told to use. In answering the questions you should
use your knowledge of the topic to help you interpret and evaluate the sources.
1a. Study Source A.
What is the message of Source A? [6m]
b. Study Source B and Source C.
How similar are Source B and Source C in their views about the policy of
appeasement? [6m]
c. Study Source D.
How useful is Source D in explaining the reasons for the policy of
appeasement? [6m]
d. Study all sources
“The policy of appeasement was a mistake.” How far do the sources
support the statement? Explain your answer. [7m]
[Turn over

3. 3
Was the policy of appeasement a mistake?
Source A
A political cartoon on the policy of appeasement published in a British
newspaper, 10 October 1938.
*Deutschland refers to Germany
Source B
A speech by Neville Chamberlain to the British people on 27 September 1938.
How horrible it is that we should be digging trenches here because of a
quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing.
However much we may sympathize with Czechoslovakia, a small nation
confronted by a big and powerful neighbour, we cannot in all circumstances
undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account.
War is a fearful thing, and we must be very clear, before we embark upon it,
that it is really the great issues that are at stake, and that the call to risk
everything in their defense, when all the consequences are weighed, is
irresistible.
[Turn over

4. 4
Source C
A speech by Winston Churchill to residents of a town in England, on 14 March,
1939.
The Czechoslovak Republic [Czechoslovakia] is being broken up before our
eyes. Their gold is to be stolen by the Nazis. The Nazi system is to blot out
every form of internal freedom…They are about to lose all symbols of an
independent democratic State…Many people at the time of the September
crisis thought they were only giving away the interests of Czechoslovakia, but
with every month that passes you will see that they were also giving away the
interests of Britain, and the interests of peace and justice.
Source D
A British historian’s view of the policy of appeasement.
Neville Chamberlain felt that appeasement was an urgent necessity. War
had to be avoided at all costs because he believed that the money should
be spent on social welfare programs rather than armaments… He strongly
disliked the Soviet Union, had no faith in the French and believed that the
United States was unshakably isolationist.
[Turn over

5. 5
Source E
A political cartoon on the policy of appeasement published in an American
newspaper on 5 October 1938.
Not the same old lion he used to be.
[Turn over

6. 6
Section B (Structured-essay Questions)
Answer one question.
2. This question is about Communist Russia.
a. “The impact of World War One was the most important reason for the rise of
communism in Russia.” Do you agree? Explain your answer. [12]
b. “Stalin’s economic policies benefited Russians." Do you agree? Explain your
answer. [13]
3. This question is about Fascist Japan.
a. “The failure of the democratic government was the main reason that led to the
rise of fascism in Japan.” Do you agree? Explain your answer. [12]
b. “Militarist rule bought more benefits than harm for the Japanese people.” Do you
agree? Explain your answer. [13]
4. This question is about the end of the Cold War.
a. “Corruption in the government was the main reason that weakened the Soviet
economy in the early 1980s.” Do you agree? Explain your answer. [12]
b. ‘Mikhail Gorbachev was responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union.’ Do you [13]
agree? Explain your answer.
END OF PAPER

7. CHIJ SJC
4Exp Preliminary Examination
COMBINED HUMANITIES – HISTORY
Section A - Source-based Questions
Question 1
a) Study Source A. [6]
What is the message of Source A. [5]
Question Target: Drawing Inference
L1 Describes source without answer the question or Repeats provenance [1]
answer.
L2 Makes valid inference(s) without support from source. [2]
Award 2m for 1 valid inference and 3m for 2.
The message of the cartoon is to show that Hitler planned to take over Europe
The message of the source is that the European countries are weak and
defenceless.
L3 Makes valid inference(s) with support from source. [3-
Award 4m for 1 valid inference with support and 5m for 2. 4]
The message of the cartoon is to show that Hitler planned to take over Europe.
In the source, he is dropping each European country, represented by the
babies, one by one into the bag that represents the German empire.
The message of the source is that the European countries are weak and
defenceless. In the source, the European countries are depicted as little babies
who will not be able to defend themselves against Hitler.
L5 Purpose [5]
The purpose of the source is to convince the British people/ government that due to
the policy of appeasement, Hitler is able to take over Europe easily so that the
government should stop the policy of appeasement and take firm action against Hitler
before it’s too late.
L6 Contextual Knowledge (6m)

8. According to my contextual knowledge, the policy of appeasement had made
Hilter bolder as he was convinced that the allied powers will not take action
against him. Thus, he went after European countries one by one.
Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland etc.
b) Study Source B & C. [6]
How similar are Source B and C about the policy of appeasement? ? Explain
your answer.
Question Target: Compare and Contrast
L1 Difference in provenance/ Similarity in topic [1]
L2 Similarity or/and Differences in content, unsupported [2]
Award 3m for 1 similarity or 1 difference identified.
L3 Similarity or/ and Difference in content, supported [3-
5]
Award 3m for 1 similarity or 1 difference explained., 4m for 2 similarity or different
explained. Award 5m for 1 similarity and 1 difference explained.
Similarity
Both sources are similar as both show that the policy of appeasement had a
negative impact on Czechoslovakia. My evidence from Source B is,
“Czechoslovakia, a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbour… we
cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply
on her account”. My evidence from Source C is, “The Czechoslovak Republic
[Czechoslovakia] is being broken up before our eyes. Their gold is to be stolen by the
Nazis”.
Difference
Both sources are different in their whether the policy of appeasement was the
right decision. Source B says that Britain is not being threatened, thus the
appeasement is the right solution whereas Source C says that British interest are
threatened thus appeasement is not the right action that should be taken. My evidence
from Source B is, “How horrible it is that we should be digging trenches here because
of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing… we
cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply
on her account” and my evidence from Source C is, “but with every month that passes
you will see that they were also giving away the interests of Britain, and the interests of
peace and justice”
L4 Shows similarities in the messages/ tone of the two sources [6]

9. Award 6m for ability to explain similarity in the purpose of the sources, taking into
consideration the audiences and the intended reactions from them
Both sources are different in their purpose.
The purpose of Source B is to convince the British people that the Czechoslovakian
issue is not a serious one and British interests are not being threatened, thus the
British people should support appeasement rather than war. But the purpose of
Source C is to convince the British residents of the town that the appeasement policy
is the wrong move as British interests are being threatened so that the British will not
support the policy of appeasement.
c) Study Source D [6]
How useful is Source D about its explaining the reasons for appeasement?
Explain your answer
Question target: Assessing utility and reliability
L1 Not useful, based on typicality [1]
The source is not useful as it is just 1 person’s opinion.
L2 Useful OR not useful, based on provenance/ unsupported / copies from [2]
source / no attempt to analyse content of B
The source is useful as it is by a historian who can be trusted as he would have done
research.
L3 Usefulness/ Limitations [3-
3m for usefulness supported and 4m for both usefulness and limitations 4]
Source D is useful as it states that the reason for appeasement was to
spend government funds wisely on social improvement rather than on war.
My evidence is, “he believed that the money should be spent on social
welfare programs rather than armaments”.
Or
Source D is useful as it states that appeasement was needed since Britain
did not trust that its allies will be of help if war breaks out. My evidence is,
“He strongly disliked the Soviet Union, had no faith in the French and
believed that the United States was unshakably isolationist”
Or
The source is limited in usefulness as it does not give other reasons for the
policy of appeasement.

10. L4 Usefullness/ limitations supported by cross-reference. [5-
6]
Award 5m for 1 cross reference and 6m for 2 valid cross-reference to either contextual
knowledge or other sources to support claim.
E.g. Cross-referring to Source B, it shows that there were other reasons for
appeasement. Chamberlain wanted appeasement as he felt that Britain’s interests
were not being affected by Hitler’s ambition and thus appeasement is a better
option than war. My evidence is, “a quarrel in a far-away country between people
of whom we know nothing… we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve
the whole British Empire in war simply on her account”.
.d) Study Sources A-E. [7]
‘The policy of appeasement was a mistake.’ How far do Sources A – E
support this statement? Explain your answer.
[7]
Question Target: Evaluating sources.
L1 Identifies sources that agree OR/AND disagree with the hypothesis. [1-2]
Award 1m for correctly identifying sources that agree or disagree. 2m for both.
Agree: A, C & E
Disagree: B & D
L2 Explains sources that agree OR disagree with the hypothesis. [3-4]
Award 3m for correctly explaining ONE source that agree or disagree. 4m for TWO or more.
* if the sources are discussed together, then it is considered ONE explanation.
Source A supports the statement as it shows that the policy of appeasement allows Hitler to
take over Europe easily. In the source, due to the policy of appeasement, countries in
Europe are depicted as weak defenceless babies and Hitler is putting them into the sack
labelled Germany one by one.
Source C supports the statement as the policy of appeasement is threatening British
interests. My evidence is, “Many people at the time of the September crisis thought they
were only giving away the interests of Czechoslovakia, but with every month that passes you
will see that they were also giving away the interests of Britain, and the interests of peace
and justice”

11. Source E supports as it shows that the policy of appeasement was a mistake as it has made
Britain weak and has led to the British loss of pride. In the source, the Lion which represents
Britain has been shaven and even the tail was cut off. This symbolises the loss of prestige.
This shows that the policy of appeasement has made Britain lose its pride and standing in
the world thus it was a mistake.
Source B disagrees as appeasement has prevented an unnecessary devastating war. My
evidence is, “we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in
war simply on her account. War is a fearful thing, and we must be very clear, before we
embark upon it, that it is really the great issues that are at stake”
Source D disagrees as Britain had strong reasons for the policy of appeasement. Society’s
needs were greater than war and furthermore, Britain did not have reliable allies. My evidence
is, “War had to be avoided at all costs because he believed that the money should be spent
on social welfare programs rather than armaments… He strongly disliked the Soviet Union,
had no faith in the French and believed that the United States was unshakably isolationist”.
L3 Explains sources that agree AND disagree with the hypothesis. [5-6]
Award 5m for correctly explaining ONE source each on the side of agreement or
disagreement with the hypothesis. 6m for TWO or more on each side.
L4 Award 7m only when one source is analysed deeper, beyond the superficial of agreement or
disagreement with hypothesis (e.g. Question reliability of sources)
E.g. Source B is by Neville Chamberlain. He is the one who came up with the policy of
appeasement. Thus, it is only natural that he would state why the British people should
support the policy of appeasement rather than emphasising the possible detriments of the
policy.

12. 2. This question is about Communist Russia
c. “The impact of World War One was the most important reason for the rise of
communism in Russia.” Do you agree? Explain your answer. [12]
The impact of World War 1 led to the rise of Communism in Russia. Living conditions in
Russia worsened because of WW1. There were long queues to buy food and Russians
had to endure severe winters without adequate coal to heat their homes. Russians thus
lost confidence in the Tsar and were willing to look for alternative governments. Peasants
demanded for fairer distribution of land and the Social Revolutionaries supported this.
Thus, the impact of WW1 led to the rise of communism in Russia.
The failure of the provisional government led to the rise of communism in Russia. The
provisional government did not carry out land reforms as it included members who were
rich landowners. Thus, peasants were dissatisfied and used violence to get land for
themselves. Lenin promised the peasants ‘peace, Bread and land’ and won support. The
provisional government’s weakness allowed the Soviets to gain more influence among
the Russians. For example, they gained control of food supplies and promised to give
Russians more food. Thus, communism rose in Russia due to the inability of the
provisional government to enforce land reforms and their inability to control the soviets.
Communism rose in Russia because of the strength of the Bolsheviks that is the
leadership of Lenin and the strength of the Red Guards. The Red Guards defeated
prevented the Russian Army led by General Kornilov from gaining power and
subsequently, under the leadership of Lenin, ousted the Provisional Government from
power during the October revolution. Thus, a communist regime was established in
Russia due to the great leadership of Lenin and the strength of the Red Guards.
In conclusion, the strength of the Bolsheviks was the main reason for the rise of
Communism in Russia. The Bolsheviks understood the needs of the Russians and
promised to give them what they wanted. The provisional government failed to
solve the problems caused by WW1 and the Bolsheviks were strong and intelligent
enough to take advantage of the situation and deal with other opposition with the
help of the Red Guards.

13. d. “Stalin’s economic policies benefited Russians." Do you agree? Explain your
answer. [13]
Stalin’s economic policies benefitted Russians as there was a system of rewards and
training for workers. To ensure targets were met the Communist government offered
salaries based on how much a worker produced. Hard work was rewarded with medals
and opportunities to go on holiday at a discount. New schools, colleges and universities
were built to educate Russians and primary education was made compulsory. By 1930s,
Russians were able to obtain well-paid, high skilled jobs. Thus, Stalin’s economic policy
benefitted Russians.
Stalin’s economic policies resulted in large number of deaths and thus did not benefit
Russians. He introduced collectivisation to fund industrialisation. Many rich peasants
who opposed collectivisation were killed or sent to concentration camps. Stalin ordered
17 million horses to be killed so that farmers will be forced to use the tractors. However,
there were insufficient tractors to replace the horses and the situation was made worse
when peasants burnt their crops in protest. This resulted in severe famine where more
than 10 million peasants died. Thus, Stalin’s economic policies did not benefit Russians
due to the high death rate.
Stalin’s economic policies did not benefit Russians due to the poor working conditions.
Workers who were initially motivated soon became disillusioned by appalling working
conditions and unrealistic production targets. Workers were punished if they did not meet
targets. By 1929, workers protested against the treatment they received. The
government responded by taking strict disciplinary actions against them. Therefore,
Stalin’s economic policies did not benefit workers in Russia.
In conclusion, even though Stalin turned Russia into a great industrialised
country and many Russians were now more skilled, it came at a huge human
cost. Workers suffered under the harsh rule of Stalin and millions lost their lives.
No amount of achievement can justify such harsh treatment and massive loss
of lives. Thus, overall, Stalin’s economic policies did not benefit Russians.

14. 3. This question is about Fascist Japan
c. “The failure of the democratic government led to the rise of fascism in Japan.” Do
you agree? Explain your answer. [12]
The failure of democracy led to the rise of fascism due to corruption in the government.
Many democratic political parties looked to zaibatsus to sponsor them during the election
campaigns. Zaibatsus were wealthy companies that became very powerful in Japan.
Thus, they were able to make the democratic government to pass laws that would benefit
big companies. These caused rumours of corruption and political parties accused one
another of being corrupt. Thus, the people lost confidence in the democratic
government’s ability and were attracted by alternative forms of government such as
military rule which promised to do the best for Japan, leading to the rise of fascism.
Poor relations with the West led to the rise of fascism in Japan. For example, during the
Washington naval conference, the ratio of naval forces between Britain, USA and Japan
was set at 5:5:3 respectively. Japan felt insulted and saw it as a deliberate attempt to
restrict Japanese power. Thus, Japan wanted to adopt aggressive expansionism and
acquire colonies to prove itself to the West. Thus, poor relations with the West led to the
rise of fascism in Japan.
Patriotic societies led to the rise of fascism in Japan as well. Since the 1920s, there had
been a growing number of patriotic societies in Japan such as the Black Dragon society
and the Cherry Blossom Society. Members of these societies had close ties with the
military and some were even members of the army or navy. There were extremely
nationalistic and believed that Japan was greater than other countries and wanted to
make Japan great by adopting an aggressive foreign policy. Thus, the rise of such
patriotic societies led to the rise of fascism in Japan.
The most important reason for the rise of fascism in Japan was the failure of the
democratic government. It was the weaknesses of the democratic government
that attracted people to join the patriotic societies and support the military. If
people had confidence in the democratic government’s ability, the military would
not have been able to exert its influence.

15. d. “Militarist rule bought more benefits than harm for the Japanese people.” Do you agree?
Explain your answer. [13]
Militarist rule brought benefits to Japan as it offered a solution to Japan’s economic
problems through aggressive expansionism. Japan was greatly affected by the Great
Depression and protectionism. Famers selling silk were greatly affected. Also, Japan was
importing more than it exported. This led to a serious trade imbalance. The solution to
this problem was to expand. Militarist rule brought more resources and living space to
Japan when they took over parts of China like Manchuria and Korea. Thus, militarist rule
benefitted Japan.
However, Militarist rule did not benefit the Japanese because of the control over
education. In 1930s, the government insisted on changes in the curriculum and focused
more on tradition values and skills. Loyalty to the emperor was emphasised and self-
sacrifice in service for the nation was promoted. Thus, Youths were blindly loyal to the
emperor and the nation. They also believed in militarism and an aggressive foreign
policy. This was not beneficial for the Japanese as children did not receive a broad
based education and critical thinking skills but rather trained to be puppets of the
government.
The political impact of militarism was not beneficial to the Japanese. The military
assassinated Prime Minsiters such as Hamaguchi and Ki Inukai when they did not
support the aims of the military. Thus, subsequent leaders were afraid to oppose the
military. Thus, capable leaders were not allowed to come to power and think of
alternative good policies for Japan. Those who criticised the government lost their jobs
as well. Thus, the political control of the military brought harm to the Japanese as the
government was not willing to listen to valuable inputs from the people and capable
leaders to improve the lives of the Japanese or to find peaceful solutions to Japan’s
problems.
L5 Conclusion [12-13]
In conclusion, Military rule brought more harm than benefits to Japan. Even though the
military aimed to make Japan into a great power, the methods they used brought harm to
the Japanese. Capable leaders were lost and children were also deprived of critical
thinking skills due to propaganda in education. Thus, a peaceful solution to Japan’s
problems was not found. The country went into war and many lives were lost.
4. This question is about the end of the Cold War
c. “Corruption in the government was the main reason that weakened the Soviet economy
in the early 1980s.” Do you agree? Explain your answer. [12]
L1 Describes topic without answering the question.
[1-2]
Award 1m for each detail, up to a maximum of 2m
L2 Describes Given Factor or identify ther factors

16. [3-4]
Award 3m for describing given factor or identification of 1 other factor. Award 4m
for identification of more than 1 factor.
L3 Explains the given factor Or other factors
[5-6]
L4 Explains given factor AND other factors
[7-10]
Award 7m for answers which explain the given factor and identify/ describe other
factors.
Award 8-10m for explanation of the given factor AND other factors. Do not award
10m unless more than one additional factor is explained.
Corruption in the government weakened the Soviet economy. The politburo did not pick
leaders based on their ability or talent but based on favouritism, and their length of
service in the communist party. Thus, the most capable leaders, who could improve the
make the right decisions for the economy were not chosen. Thus, the government
continued to make poor and slow decisions for the economy. This resulted in a shortage
of goods and ‘black markets’. Corrupt government officials received bribes to from
people who wanted goods that were in short supply. Fewer consumer goods were
available in shops. Money that the government should earn to improve USSR went into
the pockets of corrupt officials. Thus, corruption in the government weakened the Soviet
economy.
Inefficient transport and distribution system weakened Soviet economy. Factories
were located far away from the raw materials they used and valuable production time
was wasted when transporting raw materials to factories. When there were large
harvests or bumper crops, crops would sometimes rot and go to waste by the time it was
transported. These led to the loss of profits that could help boost Soviet economy.
Increased spending also weakened the Soviet economy. USSR was spending millions of
dollars on troops to support its Warsaw pact allies. In 1979, defence spending increased
when it invaded Afghanistan to prevent the spread of radical Islam to Soviet republics.
Every year, USSR spent US$3 billion on financial suuport to its satellite states in Eastern
Europe through COMECON. These massive expenditures to maintain Communism in
Eastern Europe depleted and weakened Soviet economy.
L5 Conclusion [11-12]
The corrupt government was the main reason for the weak Soviet economy. Corruption led to
incapable leaders in the government who did not make necessary changes to the transport
system and did not do anything about the huge amounts spent on maintaining Communism in
Eastern Europe.
d. ‘Mikhail Gorbachev was responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union.’ Do you agree [13]
with this statement? Explain your answer.
L1 Describes topic without answering the question.
[1-2]
Award 1m for each detail, up to a maximum of 2m

17. L2 Describes Given Factor or identify ther factors
[3-4]
Award 3m for describing given factor or identification of 1 other factor. Award 4m
for identification of more than 1 factor.
L3 Explains the given factor Or other factors
[5-6]
L4 Explains given factor AND other factors
[7-11]
Award 7-8m for 2 factors that support /oppose the hypothesis. Award 9m for 1
factor that supports and 1 factor that oposes the hypothesis. Award 10-11 marks
for 3 factors discussed, supporting and opposing the hypothesis.
Gorbachev led to the collapse of the soviet union due to the policy of Glasnost which led to the
loss of the authority of the communist party. He realised that to improve the economy, he
needed more ideas and suggestions about how to make the economy better. He hoped that the
ideas, suggestions and pressure from ordinary Soviet citizens would make the conservative
Communists more receptive to change. Gorbachev loosened the government’s control over
what was said or written in the media. In this way, he hoped that he could win the people’s
support for his plans. Glasnost did not meet its aim but made things worse. Glasnost allowed the
Soviet people to criticise government’s polices and to go on strikes. These changes weakened
the power of the Communist Party and removed fear in the people. The government could no
longer control the people as before. Many people simply lost all confidence in the Communist
Party’s ability to rule and and voted for non communist leaders. Therefore, it led to the downfall
of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union.
Secondly, Gorbachev led to the collapse of the Soviet Union due to the policy of Perestroika
which did not solve the people’s problems. He meant to solve the Soviet Union’s problems by
making the economy more efficient. He felt the command economy was the main reason for the
problems of Soviet Union. Thus he introduced a market economy as this left the important
economic decisions to the individuals and businesses. The Law of State Enterprise meant that
central government no longer made all the key decisions about the economy. Managers of farms
and factories could decide what they wanted to produce and how much they would produce.
Gorbachev also encouraged setting up of small businesses. Even then, the Soviet people did
not see any improvement in their lives, and in fact it got worse. The queues to buy food and
other essential items got longer as these were available only in very limited supplies. This
situation arose because the factory managers switched to the production of luxury goods instead
of basic goods so as to maximise profits. Workers lost their jobs as managers wanted to reduce
cost. Thus the Soviet citizens lost trust in the Communist Party in the Soviet Union since they
were unable to make life better for them but made it worst. This led to the collapse of the Soviet
Union as people lost support for the communist government because of the changes Gorbachev
introduced.
However, the situation in the Soviet Union before Gorbachev took power was already in a bad
shape. Therefore, it was not Gorbachev’s leadership which resulted in the collapse of the Soviet
Union. The Soviet Union had long struggled to finance the Cold War competition with the West.
The USA tried to weaken the Soviet economy by preventing the sale of computers and other
technologies to the Soviet Union. USA also worked with Saudi Arabia to keep the price of oil low
since Saudi Arabia was the largest produce of oil. Thus, Soviet Union could not make much

18. d. ‘Mikhail Gorbachev was responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union.’ Do you agree [13]
with this statement? Explain your answer.
L1 Describes topic without answering the question.
[1-2]
Award 1m for each detail, up to a maximum of 2m
L2 Describes Given Factor or identify ther factors
[3-4]
Award 3m for describing given factor or identification of 1 other factor. Award 4m
for identification of more than 1 factor.
L3 Explains the given factor Or other factors
[5-6]
L4 Explains given factor AND other factors
[7-11]
Award 7-8m for 2 factors that support /oppose the hypothesis. Award 9m for 1
factor that supports and 1 factor that oposes the hypothesis. Award 10-11 marks
for 3 factors discussed, supporting and opposing the hypothesis.
Gorbachev led to the collapse of the soviet union due to the policy of Glasnost which led to the
loss of the authority of the communist party. He realised that to improve the economy, he
needed more ideas and suggestions about how to make the economy better. He hoped that the
ideas, suggestions and pressure from ordinary Soviet citizens would make the conservative
Communists more receptive to change. Gorbachev loosened the government’s control over
what was said or written in the media. In this way, he hoped that he could win the people’s
support for his plans. Glasnost did not meet its aim but made things worse. Glasnost allowed the
Soviet people to criticise government’s polices and to go on strikes. These changes weakened
the power of the Communist Party and removed fear in the people. The government could no
longer control the people as before. Many people simply lost all confidence in the Communist
Party’s ability to rule and and voted for non communist leaders. Therefore, it led to the downfall
of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union.
Secondly, Gorbachev led to the collapse of the Soviet Union due to the policy of Perestroika
which did not solve the people’s problems. He meant to solve the Soviet Union’s problems by
making the economy more efficient. He felt the command economy was the main reason for the
problems of Soviet Union. Thus he introduced a market economy as this left the important
economic decisions to the individuals and businesses. The Law of State Enterprise meant that
central government no longer made all the key decisions about the economy. Managers of farms
and factories could decide what they wanted to produce and how much they would produce.
Gorbachev also encouraged setting up of small businesses. Even then, the Soviet people did
not see any improvement in their lives, and in fact it got worse. The queues to buy food and
other essential items got longer as these were available only in very limited supplies. This
situation arose because the factory managers switched to the production of luxury goods instead
of basic goods so as to maximise profits. Workers lost their jobs as managers wanted to reduce
cost. Thus the Soviet citizens lost trust in the Communist Party in the Soviet Union since they
were unable to make life better for them but made it worst. This led to the collapse of the Soviet
Union as people lost support for the communist government because of the changes Gorbachev
introduced.
However, the situation in the Soviet Union before Gorbachev took power was already in a bad
shape. Therefore, it was not Gorbachev’s leadership which resulted in the collapse of the Soviet
Union. The Soviet Union had long struggled to finance the Cold War competition with the West.
The USA tried to weaken the Soviet economy by preventing the sale of computers and other
technologies to the Soviet Union. USA also worked with Saudi Arabia to keep the price of oil low
since Saudi Arabia was the largest produce of oil. Thus, Soviet Union could not make much
profit from selling its oil. USA was thus able to prevent Soviet Union from earning. It was also