History IA Help

[theuberjc]

I turned in my rough draft for my History IA, and my teacher gave me really bad comments on it (ex: "not enough analysis"). I've expected something like this to happen because I myself know that I am not a history person.

My IA topic was about the evacuation of the Japanese-Americans during World War and how the internment camp affected the lives of the Issei and the Nisei.

Main problem is: I don't really know how to differentiate analytical writing from narrative writing. Because I doubt I will pass the IB History Exam, I want to do really good on my IA; plus, it's the only IA we're doing for the whole year.

Please help!

[GirlwiththeBlueBox]

The main difference between analytical and narrative writing is that narrative writing basically just tells the facts and analytical writing, well, analyses those facts. When you write analytically, you are inserting your own opinions into the paper and backing them up with facts in order to draw a conclusion.

For example:

The trial and sentence imposed upon Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was, without a doubt, unfair. 'The Rosenberg Case and the Jewish Issue' and The Rosenberg File: A Search for the Truth (valuable because they both provide primary documents from the case, quotes from individuals that were present at the case, and introduce divergent views on the trial) both state that Greenglass was paid $500 in 1945 for his information on the implosion lens for the atomic bomb. This would mean that the passing of information to the Soviet Union by Julius and Ethel Rosenberg would have taken place during that year. Assuming Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were guilty, their crime had been committed during World War II (1939-1945), when the Soviet Union and the United States were not yet enemies. The Rosenbergs would have been providing information to an ally of the United States at the time the crimes were committed, which certainly does not merit the death penalty, and thus the sentencing was unfair.

One of the most controversial aspects of the trial is the severity of the punishment given to the Rosenbergs, who were sentenced far more harshly than any other atomic spies of the time. Klaus Fuchs, who spied for many more years than the Rosenbergs alleged to and gave much more detailed information, was sentenced to only fourteen years in prison, nine of which he served before being released on good behavior. Because the Rosenbergs passed very limited information compared to Fuchs and received the death penalty, their sentencing was very unfair.

The VENONA project decrypts released in 1995 by the FBI suggest that Ethel had a minimal role in the espionage. After deciphering many messages, it was discovered that, while Julius Rosenberg was always referred to by a code name, Ethel was always referred to as simply 'Ethel', which implies that she was not involved in the transferring of information to the Soviet Union. Furthermore, the case against Ethel was reliant only on the testimony of her brother, David Greenglass. David Greenglass also later admitted that he had made up some of his testimony against Ethel in order to lessen his own sentence, which indicates that proper research into the witnesses' testimonies was not done. There also should have been more evidence with which to accuse Ethel other than the testimony of her brother, who is only one individual. Yet Ethel was still arrested and sentenced to death for crimes that were menial at best, which indicates that the trial was certainly unfair.

Another aspect of the trial that could suggest injustice was the secret communication between Saypol and Kaufman. The many secret discussion (ex parte discussions) between Saypol and Kaufman were unethical and prejudicial towards the defendants. Ex parte discussions are severely limited by the Fifth Amendment, which states that a person shall not be deprived of liberty without due process of law, and to have so many ex parte discussions during the trial could be considered court misconduct. Also, because Kaufman states before the trial even started that he was going to sentence the Rosenbergs to death, this implies certain bias against the Rosenbergs. Kaufman hadn't even heard the evidence defending the couple before he made his decision, which is certainly not fair court conduct.

According to the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, which states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witness against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.", the Rosenbergs had a fair because they had all of these rights, which should make their trial constitutional and just. However, another historian could argue that the Rosenbergs were not given a fair trial because there were many violations of the ex parte discussion rules, which state that ex parte presentations are generally exempt except in very special circumstances, and there were a great many of these ex parte discussions during the trial, implying that many were not necessary. There was also bias on the part of the presiding judge, who stated that he would sentence Julius Rosenberg to death, even before he saw any of the evidence, which is definitely court misconduct.

[alefal]

Hey!

Just to supplement GirlwiththeBlueBox's answer:

Does your question lend itself to analysis? For instance, is it a 'to what extent ...' question? Make sure your question is possible to analyse and work with (for instance, 'what were the reasons for World War 2' would be a horrendous question in the IB system, as it does not lend itself to analysis). Have your question beside you all the time, and look at it frequently to make sure you answer the question. Also, you might want to break the question into multiple components.

For instance, consider this question: 'To what extent was the Reischtag Fire the most important aspect leading to Hitler's complete consolidation of power?'

What I suggest you do if you are to answer such a question, is to break it down. First, identify the aspects leading to Hitler's consolidation of power. His ability to speak persuasively. The Versailles Treaty. Reischtag Fire. The Depression. The SA. Von Papen persuading Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to Chancellor. Et cetera.

Then, as the question asks about the Reischtag fire, start analysing this aspect after your introduction. Explain why it is important, how it changed the

events, what the consequences were, why it can be considered as the most important aspect.

After you have done that, move to next paragraph where you for instance discuss his speaking abilities. Do the same thing, come with examples, what were the consequences, why it is as/more important as the Reischtag fire, or why it is not as important.

Then you'd move on to the different aspects you've identified, and do perfectly the same thing.

When you conclude, you would then look at your analysis of the different aspects, and conclude with, for instance, 'Although the Reischtag Fire had its impact, his speaking abilities and the erroneous decision by von Papen, together with the economic situation, can be seen as even more important factors leading to Hitler's consolidation of power.'

That's basically it.

Good luck with your IA!

[theuberjc]

Thank you for the help!!!

I now have a pretty good idea how I'm gonna rewrite my IA.

But I changed my research questions (since I guess I would HAVE TO HAVE a good research question before I do this all again and screw up).

"To what extent did the lives of the Japanese Issei and the Japanese Nisei differ during the Second World War?" -- Does this sound good? Or is it just the same as saying "How did the internment camp affect their lives?"

or maybe (I just thought of this one): "To what extent was the Executive Order 9066 successful?"

Edited November 20, 2012 by theuberjc

[GirlwiththeBlueBox]

Actually, your Issei/Nisei question sounds the same as it did before... And your other question about Executive 9066--- wasn't it obviously successful? Almost all of the Japanese Americans were put in internment camps, weren't they? There wasn't anything unsuccessful about it. I don't think this question would be able to have any analysis in it.