iGCSE History: 20th Century International Relations - KQ1 Treaty of Versailles 

Yas queen👏👏👏👑👑👑👑

Well done, that's super impressive!

Fr

That's great to hear, good luck for the rest!

No worries good luck with your exams!! drive.google.com/drive/folders/1JKtIivs7A7yZXM7ZI5fJwbjRG0QDZ4RI Try the link above, should have the PowerPoint in them I think

thank you so much, Sir! these resources are extremely helpful and I'm very grateful for your willingness to share these with us! Again, I truly appreciate the effort u put into creating these! Thanks!🥰@@thehistoryrevisionguy-de5208

yes please😜

Hi, no worries thanks for the comment! Try this link below and see how if it works: drive.google.com/drive/folders/1SxuBwaPKSnSC2UB-AvaFDUgweRiv6tKp?usp=sharing

@@thehistoryrevisionguy-de5208 I can open the files, thank you so much!

@@clairelin5563 no worries! 👍🏻

Paper 2 is strictly topic 3, 1y late but hopefully it helps someone 😭

@@Gemma649 Its in 5 days 😭😭😭😭

I have a kq4 and 5 one ready to do, materials are all prepped, just need to record! Aiming to do it during winter holidays

@@thehistoryrevisionguy-de5208 please its so useful haha

just screenshot and crop the images

What did people at the time think about the treaty....tbh this is very similar to just arguments for and against treaty being fair.... But instead of being asked that, you will notice alot of 10 markers instead ask what the main reason for Germany being upset with the treat was, e.g how far was war guilt main reason Germany was angry etc

@@thehistoryrevisionguy-de5208 hey hey, the gulf war as a depth, does it require us to learn events after kuwait onward or i should also learn saddams comeup to power

@@hlomphoprincess3573 definitely both, I haven't taught kq7 before so not sure what the most common or likely topics are but the source paper normally takes just ONE aspect of the topic and makes the whole paper about this. So for example, league of nations source paper two years ago was entirely about manchuria and nothing else. Normally they make the source paper about a major aspect of that Key question, so again for kq3 I have seen sudetenland crisis be the topic often since again its a major component of the key question. So invasion of Kuwait appears to definitely be one of the most likely topics of the paper, but you should really be prepared for the paper to be about anything, unlikely for it to be about sadam rise to power but not impossible.

Have a look at all kq7 paper 2 papers in the past and see what has come up for it before.

@@thehistoryrevisionguy-de5208 it has literally only ever come up once bruh like.. lucky me hey...im literally just gonna bank on your video for the source paper tbh

Hi, I don't have summary notes unfortunately but if you want the slides they are in this folder: drive.google.com/drive/folders/1SxuBwaPKSnSC2UB-AvaFDUgweRiv6tKp

@@thehistoryrevisionguy-de5208 Thank you so much

but the exam papers ask is it fair

@@kirtu9035 Tell the "exam papers" it was "divide and rule" of and over Europeans, by outside powers. Europeans were "divided" by "a ruling." You'll get a 10 for creativilty 😁👍 *Divide and rule.* Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and *divide and "gain an advantage"* if others struggle, fight, and lose is closer to what happened. DIVIDE AND CONTROL At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness). Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today *still* carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels, and any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain, simply needed to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans. One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. Once "divided", there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity. From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy." Elements of this technique involve: - creating or encouraging divisions ... - to prevent alliances that could challenge ... - distributing forces that they overpower the other - aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate - fostering distrust and enmity Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories." [editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things] *"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.* Some examples regarding the theory in practice: After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances. What was "in it" for Washington DC? Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe... First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century) Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors would offer a foothold in Europe. Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have such consequences... Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it. *"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."* Robert Greene And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did... The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement after 1895, amongst other less "valuable" suitors, was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below). These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power. Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences). What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London? London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself. Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below). The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians. A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine. Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. Me: "pwomises made"...lol With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..." The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895. To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...lol. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below footnote explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics sterted with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947. It is alive and well. It has surrounded every aspect of power politics on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind. Same with the funding of opposing European leaders and states (for example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s). *A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.* Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else, while "eating popcorn and chips"...

@@kirtu9035 In case you wish to shine in your test, say that asking if it was fair is an example of a "red herring," or laying a false trail in logic and reasoning...

@@kirtu9035 ...because what it really was was an ongoing policy of "divide and rule" of Europe, by outside powers.

@@kirtu9035 It only takes a few seconds to explain. At Versailles, outside powers used a position of superior power, to *divide* Europeans, with *a ruling.*

I may do KQ4 and 5 as well as something about paper 2, not sure if I will. Get a chance before exams, but I will try!

@@thehistoryrevisionguy-de5208 that would be amazing please do,will be waiting upon the update, KQ7 is quite problematic nd there arnt any useful videos for it

@@hlomphoprincess3573 what key questions are your school making you do?

@@thehistoryrevisionguy-de5208 ​ the ones you teach,so wonderfully if i may say, 20th cent KQ1-7 ,my session is in october/ november are you implying that it is not necessary to learn all of them?

@@hlomphoprincess3573 yeah, you don't need to learn them all. If you look at a past paper you will notice that there are always four questions you can choose from, q.5, 6, 7 and 8. Q.5 and 6 are always taken from kq1-3, and 7 and 8 are always taken from kq4-7. So basically, you could learn just 1-3 and be able to answer the 20th century topic, however you would not have any choice of questions, you could learn 1-3 and three out of the next four and be guaranteed a choice. Also, the source question never comes up on paper 1 so that eliminates another option to hVe to revise for. In your case, kq5 is your paper 2 exam, which means it definitely will not come up in paper 1. So basically the bare minimum you need to learn/revise is kq1-3 and 5, however I would suggest doing all of kq1-5, if you are really worried about not getting a choice of question, do 1-6, I would definitely not bother with 7, it's a hard one that you probably won't choose to answer anyway so just ignore it for your revision, even if your teacher teaches it. Hope that's clear!

??

what are you smoking