Index Number

Class Name

CHIJ ST JOSEPH’S CONVENT Preliminary Examination

O COMBINED HUMANITIES Paper 3 History Elective Secondary 4 Express

O 2192/03

Thursday, 26 August 2010

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

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

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.

[Turn over

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.

4 Source C A speech by Winston Churchill to residents of a town in England, on 14 March, 1939. Source D A British historian’s view of the policy of appeasement.

[Turn over

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.

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.

5 Source E A political cartoon on the policy of appeasement published in an American newspaper on 5 October 1938.

[Turn over

Not the same old lion he used to be.

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 agree? Explain your answer.

[13]

END OF PAPER

CHIJ SJC 4Exp Preliminary Examination COMBINED HUMANITIES – HISTORY Section A - Source-based Questions Question 1 a) Study Source A.

What is the message of Source A. [5] Question Target: Drawing Inference

[6]

L1 Describes source without answer the question or Repeats provenance answer.

[1]

L2 Makes valid inference(s) without support from source. 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.

[2]

L3 Makes valid inference(s) with support from source. Award 4m for 1 valid inference with support and 5m for 2. 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.

[3-4]

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)

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. How similar are Source B and C about the policy of appeasement? ? Explain your answer. Question Target: Compare and Contrast

[6]

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]

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

How useful is Source D about its explaining the reasons for appeasement? Explain your answer Question target: Assessing utility and reliability

[6]

L1

Not useful, based on typicality The source is not useful as it is just 1 person’s opinion.

[1]

L2 Useful OR not useful, based on provenance/ unsupported / copies from

source / no attempt to analyse content of B

[2]

The source is useful as it is by a historian who can be trusted as he would have done research.

L3 Usefulness/ Limitations 3m for usefulness supported and 4m for both usefulness and limitations 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.

[3-4]

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.

‘The policy of appeasement was a mistake.’ How far do Sources A – E support this statement? Explain your answer. [7]

Question Target: Evaluating sources.

[7]

L1

Identifies sources that agree OR/AND disagree with the hypothesis. Award 1m for correctly identifying sources that agree or disagree. 2m for both. Agree: A, C & E Disagree: B & D

[1-2]

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”

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.

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.

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.

[12]

d. “Stalin’s economic policies benefited Russians." Do you agree? Explain your answer.

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.

[13]

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.

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.

[12]

d. “Militarist rule bought more benefits than harm for the Japanese people.” Do you agree? Explain your answer.

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.

[13]

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.

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

[12]

[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 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

[13]

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

d. ‘Mikhail Gorbachev was responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union.’ Do you agree 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

[13]