[donlothario]

source A
marshall and his advisers feared that unless generous american aid to europe was provided soon, there would be a severe slump in western europe which would have dire effects on the american economy. Such serious economic crisis might encourage the people of westgern europe to turn to communism and the soviet union.
in a speech at harvard univerisity on 5 june 1947 marshall clled for an effort to help the economic revival of europe . this would help the economic revival of europe.this would ensure the continued prosperity of the american economy.An offer of help was also xtended to the soviet union and the eastern european states, although the us government hoped it would be refused. In view of the hostility in the usa towards the soviet union,it was not likely that congress would have pased the programme if it had been linked to massive aid to the soviet union
molotov the soviet foreign minister attended a conference with americaand countries interested in marshall aid in july 1947 to discover the terms on which the aid might be available . however,he soon left the meeting refusing to supply the economic data that america demanded . this suggests that stalin had not yet decided on a split with the united states .yet he could not affor to open the soviet union to the spying e of marshgall aid planners

who does the author blame more for the increasing tensions of the cold war-the usa or the ussr explain your answer using details of the source

PLEASE HELP ME

[MrJohnDClare]

I agree - this is a hard question.

The skill needed is inference.

Look first at what the author says about Marshall. Is tyere anything he says which openly blames Marshall? Now read between the lines. Is he suggesting that Marshall was to BLAME? Look at the words he uses. Are there any pejorative words (words carrying hostile overtones) he uses about Marshall? Are there any words which are complimentary/have overtones of praise?

Look second at what the author says about Molotov and Stalin. Is tyere anything he says which openly blames them? Now read between the lines. Is he suggesting that they were to BLAME? Look at the words he uses. Are there any pejorative words (words carrying hostile overtones) he uses about them? Are there any words which are complimentary/have overtones of praise?

There you go.
Not a very good surce for such an exercise.
But I'd suggest that - when you analyse the words - you may find that the author sligly loses his unbiased objectivity about Molotov and Stalin, revelaing him as a western historian of the late Cold War era, I would guess.

[donlothario]

Are you surprised by what source B tells you?explain your answer using the sources and your own knowledge


I need to know how to write this type of question
thanks

[MrJohnDClare]

I think this one links back to what I was saying when I guessed that - since the source 'sort-of' lamed Molotov - it was probably written by a western historian during the Cold War, and who allowed his situation to cloud his impartiality.

Was I right? If I am, then you an't surprised at all by what he said - you would expect him to say that.

Now if it was written by a Soviet historian, now that would be be VERY surprising.

What would you think about it if it was written by a western historian AFTER the Cold War?
By a Western politician at the time?
By a schoolteacher writing a textbook (supposed to be impartial)?

So this second part of the question is about provenance, and the effect origin, context and motive might have upon the way the author writes.