Paper+3,+2015-16

Only HL students must take "Paper 3". This is the IB exam that tests for understanding of in-depth knowledge of the history of selected world region.

The IB Rubric for Paper 3: Paper 3 Markbands
Here is the official description of the IB markbands used by examiners in evaluating student essays in this exam:
 * [[file:Paper 3 Markbands, 2008.pdf]]

Here is a simplified form of the IB markbands, which I use for your essays:
 * [[file:IB Essay Markbands simplified-RJT.pdf]]

Here is a translator between the IB markbands and the traditional 100-point scale:
 * [[file:IB Markbands, 100-Pt Scale.doc]]

Our WFS-Specific Content Focus
IB History teachers are directed to prepare students in three of twelve possible topics, which are the focus of evaluation in Paper 3.

I and the WFS History Department have chosen to build the HEM course around the goal of preparing our students on these topics:
 * Unification and consolidation of Germany and Italy 1815-90
 * Imperial Russia, revolutions, emergence of Soviet State 1853-1924
 * War and change in the Middle East 1914-49

Before I could treat these topics with you, I also judged that it would be necessary to give you a background to preceding events there, or it would be impossible for you to understand the events strictly included in the official topics under study. That is the reason I started the course with Unit 1, which covered the Roman Empire through roughly 1750. And that is the reason I also led you through a mini-unit on the French Revolution and Napoleon. As a result, you received a partial preparation on another topic covered by the Paper 3 HEM exam: The French Revolution and Napoleon—mid 18th century to 1815.

Finally, I and the rest of the Department consider that the preparation that we give you for the Paper 3 exam is not limited to what is covered in the HEM course. A couple of years ago, the Department chose to change our previous practice of teaching the History of Americas as our "regional option" within the HL program, to teaching the History of Europe and the Middle East. We did this in part because experience had taught us that there would be much more overlap between the subject matters of the two parts of the HL curriculum at WFS if we did, and this would translate into a more coherent and mutually self-supportive relation between the two HL-sequence courses at WFS. Quite simply, most of the events treated in the 20C course take place in Europe and are major events in the history of Europe and the Middle East! This means that much of the 20C course is also a preparation for topics covered in the HEM Paper 3. This is not a coincidence or good luck–we planned it that way!

So as you prepare for your Paper 3 exam, you should definitely consider topics from the 20C course to be "fair game". In practice, as the Paper 1 and Paper 2 exams also take place before the Paper 3 exam does, you will probably organize your studying of the 20C material to culminate before your studying of the HEM material. So you should have the 20C material "in the bag" when you do your final studying for HEM, and that knowledge should serve as a useful reserve and foundation upon which to add the HEM-specific elements, such as the 19th century history background to 20th century European and Middle East events.

And when you sit down to take the Paper 3 exam, you should definitely consider selecting questions to answer whose subject matter you learned in the 20C course, and not just in the HEM course.

The exam appears to be a simple list of twenty-four questions. In fact, it is organized into twelve sets of two questions, each set corresponding to one of the twelve possible selection topics within the HEM regional option. The sets are listed in rough chronological order.

Students are required to answer a total of three questions chosen from anywhere on the list. This means you will see two questions on each of the main WFS-selected topics, plus two questions on the French Revolution and Napoleon. In other words, the HEM course in theory should have prepared you to answer up to 8 of the total 24 questions in the exam. (However, there are some sub-topics within our selected topics for which we did not prepare you, and there may be a question or more that falls in those areas, so the total questions for which HEM has prepared you will almost certainly be lower– perhaps 5-6?) Adding in questions for which the 20C course should have prepared you, you should have a reasonable base of questions that you are competent to answer, from which you can select.

You should NOT choose to write your exam on topics other than those selected by WFS as focuses of our teaching, in HEM or 20C, unless you have a very EXCEPTIONAL reason (for example, if you have written an Extended Essay on the topic).

Questions in HEM-Selected Topics, by Topic
Here I have put together comprehensive lists of past Paper 3 exam questions about
 * the French Revolution and Napoleon.
 * the unification and consolidation of Germany and Italy.
 * Imperial Russia, revolutions, emergence of Soviet State.
 * war and change in the Middle East 1914-49.

Questions in the Most Recent Exams, and IB Examiners' Comments, by Year
Below, I have gone through the most recent Paper 3 exams and compiled a list of questions that I consider of relevance to WFS IB History students. My criteria for relevance are two:
 * The topic is among those I have selected for in-depth study in the HEM course. However, note that there are sub-topics within some of my chosen topics that I have NOT prepared you to cover. For example, when we study the Middle East, I have chosen NOT to prepare you to discuss the history of Persia/Iran, or of the Gulf States, for reasons of time availability.
 * The topic is among those Mr. Clothier and I have selected for in-depth study in the 20C course. However, note that the topics that are covered in the 20C course do not map perfectly onto the topic definitions used in the History of Europe and the MIddle East Paper 3. For example, in the 20C course, we cover World War II, but we do not extend beyond the immediate postwar period. However, the corresponding History of Europe and the Middle East IB-defined unit that includes World War II also includes the rest of Western European history until 2000, which we do not cover in either HEM or 20C.

After questions that I consider you were NOT prepared for, for one of the above reasons, I have noted this in a parenthetical comment, where time allowed me.

After each relevant question, I have also tried to include the post-examination, post-evaluation comment about it from the IB Examiners. Such comments are not available until several months after the exam date.

2013-November

 * The French Revolution and Napoleon – mid eighteenth century to 1815**

1. Assess the extent to which the demands of the French revolutionaries had been satisfied by 1794. 2. “The restoration of legitimate rulers was the main objective of the Congress of Vienna.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?


 * Unification and consolidation of Germany and Italy 1815–1890**

3. “Economic weakness was the main reason for Austria’s decline in the years 1815–1866.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? 4. “Bismarck was first and foremost a Prussian nationalist.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?


 * Ottoman Empire from the early nineteenth to the early twentieth century**

5. Analyse the reasons for the view that the Ottoman Empire was the “sick man of Europe” in the second half of the nineteenth century. 6. Discuss the role of the Great Powers in Greece’s struggle for independence.


 * Western and Northern Europe 1848–1914**

7. Analyse the successes and failures of Napoleon III’s foreign policy. 8. Assess the extent of political and economic change in any one country of Western or Northern Europe between 1848 and 1914 (excluding Germany).


 * Imperial Russia, revolutions, emergence of Soviet State 1853–1924**

9. “Alexander III was a political reactionary but an economic modernizer.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? 10. Compare and contrast the role of the Soviets in the February and October revolutions of 1917 in Russia.


 * European diplomacy and the First World War 1870–1923**

11. To what extent were the policies of Germany responsible for the outbreak of war in 1914? 12. Assess the successes and failures of the Paris Peace Settlement at the end of the First World War.


 * War and change in the Middle East 1914–1949**

14. How successful was the mandate system in the Middle East? Refer to specific examples to support your answer (excluding Palestine). 15. Examine the reasons for changing British policy in Palestine in the years 1917–1939.


 * Interwar years: conflict and cooperation 1919–1939**

16. Compare and contrast the economic and political problems facing Germany in the years 1919–1923 and 1929–1933. 17. “The Spanish Civil War was caused by divisions in Spanish society, not ideology.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?


 * The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe 1924–2000**

To what extent is it possible to argue that Stalin’s political, economic and social policies transformed the Soviet Union? 18. Examine the extent of Soviet dominance in the years 1945–1991 in one European satellite state (excluding Germany) 19. you have studied.


 * The Second World War and post-war Western Europe 1939–2000**

20. What were the main problems facing post-war Western Europe, and to what extent were they overcome by 1949? 21. Why was Britain’s membership of the European Economic Community (EEC) delayed until 1973?

2013-May

 * The French Revolution and Napoleon — mid eighteenth century to 1815**

"The poor judgment of Louis XVI was responsible for the destruction of the monarchy in France by 1793." To what extent do you agree with this statement?

• Assess the impact of the domestic policies of Napoleon in France in the years 1799-1814. [WFS students were not prepared for this one]


 * Unification and consolidation of Germany and Italy 1815–1890**

1. Why was the Italian nationalist movement so ineffective in the years 1815-1848?

2. How successful were Bismarck's domestic policies in the years 1871--1890?


 * Imperial Russia, revolutions, emergence of Soviet State 1853–1924**

1. To what extent do you agree that Alexander II transformed Russian society?

2. Assess the impact of the Russo-Japanese War on the reign of Nicholas II up to 1914.


 * European diplomacy and the First World War 1870–1923**

1. Discuss the significance of the Alliance System on European affairs in the years 1871-1914.

2. Examine the reasons for, and the consequences of, the United States' entry into the First World War in 1917.


 * War and change in the Middle East 1914–1949**

1. "Ataturk transformed the political, economic and social structure of Turkey." To what extent do you agree with this statement?

2. Analyze the reasons for Israeli success in the Arab-Israeli conflict (1948-1949).


 * Interwar years: conflict and cooperation 1919–1939**

1. Evaluate the methods used by Mussolini to gain and retain power in the years 1919-1926.

2. "Hitler has clear foreign policy aims but no plan of how to achieve them." To what extent do you agree with this statement?


 * The Second World War and post-war Western Europe 1939–2000**

• Why were the Axis powers defeated in Europe in the Second World War (1939-1945)?

2012-May

 * The French Revolution and Napoleon — mid eighteenth century to 1815**

1. “The revolutionary wars of 1792–1796 were to defend France and not spread revolution.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? [WFS students were not prepared for this one] 2. How successful was the Congress of Vienna in achieving the aims of the peacemakers? >
 * Examiners: There were a number of responses to this. Many had a good understanding of the main aims of the Congress but were not always successful in linking the terms of the Treaty of Vienna to these aims. There was reasonable comment on the success of the treaty but very few saw any limitations.
 * Unification and consolidation of Germany and Italy 1815–1890**

3. Analyse the causes and consequences of the 1848 revolutions in the German states. > 4. Assess the contribution made by other powers to the unification of Italy (1848–1871).
 * Examiners: Quite a few responses to this and where the candidates had good knowledge the answers kept a tight focus on both causes and consequences. Other answers tended to make general comments about nationalism as a cause and then to identify the main consequence as the unification of Germany.
 * Examiners:This was a popular question and on the whole quite well done. Candidates resisted the temptation to narrate events and focus solely on Cavour. However the main focus was on France with limited comment on the role of Prussia or indeed of Great Britain. Very good answers often commented that hostility to Austria was a unifying and motivating factor in the drive for unification.


 * Imperial Russia, revolutions, emergence of Soviet State 1853–1924**

9. Compare and contrast the domestic policies of Alexander II (1855–1881) and Alexander III (1881–1894). [WFS students were not prepared for this one]
 * Examiners:This question was very popular with some very good answers which had structure and knowledge and which made some very insightful comments that the policies of the two Czars where not radically different and that they had the same aims. However a disappointingly large number were often descriptive of the policies of Alexander II, and focused on successes and failures. There was very limited knowledge of Alexander III and often comparison was limited to one being the Czar Liberator and the other the Reactionary Czar.

10. “Lenin was able to consolidate Bolshevik rule in Russia by combining popular policies and repression.” To what extent do you agree with this statement about Bolshevik rule up to 1924?
 * Examiners:This was popular but answered with varying degrees of success. Some of the popular policies were well known although a surprising number of answers failed to refer to the Decree on Land. Repressive policies were often limited to reference to the Cheka, with little comment on political repression in the form of the establishment of the one party state, closing constituent assembly, Kronstadt etc. Answers did need better links to the question.


 * European diplomacy and the First World War 1870–1923**

11. Assess the importance of Balkan nationalism as a reason for the outbreak of the First World War. > 12. Why were the Central Powers defeated by 1918?
 * Examiners:This was a very popular choice. Many answers had excellent knowledge of events (Bosnia and two wars) and tensions in the Balkans. They were able to make convincing links as to how these contributed to the outbreak of war but, also, that other tensions made it into a world war rather than a regional conflict. However, a significant number lacked any depth of knowledge. (For example asserting that Serbia wanted independence from Austria! Or that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand started the war without making links to Balkan nationalism.)
 * Examiners:This was also very popular and many candidates were able to successfully identify a range of factors. However, very few were able to expand on the problem of weak allies or the issue of internal problems for Germany. Some answers were very good and considered ALL of the Central powers not just Germany.


 * War and change in the Middle East 1914–1949**

13. “Economic and religious issues were the main cause of tension in the Palestine Mandate between 1920 and 1939.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? > 14. For what reasons, and with what consequences, was Reza Khan able to gain power in Iran in 1924? [WFS students were not prepared for this one]
 * Examiners:Candidates who attempted this question often did not have sufficient supporting detail and were unable to comment on economic disparity. They also accepted unquestioningly that religious differences caused tensions. Where the candidates had in depth knowledge they were able to make some excellent comments on the interrelated causes of tension such as immigration, broken promises etc.


 * Interwar years: conflict and cooperation 1919–1939**

15. Compare and contrast the reasons for the rise to power of Hitler and Mussolini. > 16. “The policy of appeasement was a major cause of the outbreak of war in 1939.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? [WFS students were not prepared for this one]
 * Examiners:This was popular. Unfortunately many answers focused on methods and not reasons. There were often generalized statements about both being good orators with little real focus on the conditions in Italy and Germany which made it possible for the extreme right to gain power. This was disappointing as both men should be well known.
 * Examiners:Very popular – the vast majority of candidates attempted this with varying degrees of success. Many focused on Versailles and the weakness of the League without making clear links as to how this might have led to war and often there were narrative accounts of Manchuria and Abyssinia which were not made relevant. With regard to appeasement itself knowledge of this key period was sometimes limited. Analysis was limited to stating that Hitler became more confident. Some answers did make the point that his foreign policy success as a consequence of appeasement enabled him to remain in power and this made war almost inevitable. These were from stronger candidates who chose to challenge the question and argue that appeasement merely delayed but did not cause the war and were able to support their ideas with detailed knowledge.


 * The Second World War and post-war Western Europe 1939–2000**

19. Why had Germany been divided into East and West by 1949? 20. Assess the extent of economic integration in Europe by the 1990s. [WFS students were not prepared for this one]
 * Examiners:Popular, however many turned this into a “causes of the Cold war” answer which was fine up to a point but links had to made to detailed events in Germany to show how Cold War tensions led to the official division of Germany into two separate states by 1949.

2011-May

 * The French Revolution and Napoleon — mid eighteenth century to 1815**

1. Analyse the reasons for the violent nature of the French Revolution in the years 1789–1794. > 2. “Napoleon’s ambitious imperial policy was the main reason for his ultimate failure.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? [WFS students were not prepared for this one]
 * Examiners:Most candidates who answered this had reasonable knowledge of the causes of the French revolution but very few focused on the period after 1789 or the increasing violence.


 * Unification and consolidation of Germany and Italy 1815–1890**

3. Why had Prussia emerged as the leading German state by 1862? > 4. Compare and contrast the unification of Germany and Italy in the nineteenth century.
 * Examiners:Most answers to this question were well done and included comparisons between Prussia and Austria, Austrian weaknesses were well illustrated. Weaker candidates insisted on answering on Bismarck and unification which is exactly what the date of 1862 was designed to prevent.
 * Examiners:A popular question, which was on the whole done with clear comparisons and some contrasts. There was also evidence of good balance and quite detailed knowledge. Some got distracted by historical debate on the aims of both Bismarck and Cavour with superficial knowledge.


 * Imperial Russia, revolutions, emergence of Soviet State 1853–1924**

9. To what extent were Stolypin’s political and economic policies successful in the years 1906–1911? > 10. “There were two revolutions in Russia because of the weakness of the Provisional Government.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?
 * Examiners:A reasonably popular question and where the candidates were well prepared they produced some very good answers evaluating Stolypin’s aims and how successful they were. Weaker candidates drifted into comparative answers with Alexander II and III or focused on the events of 1905 with minimal reference to Stolypin’s policies. The question referred to 1905 but should have been 1906.
 * Examiners:This question caused most anxiety with teachers and clearly some candidates did not find the wording accessible (see general points) However it was a very popular question and the vast majority of the answers concentrated on both the weakness of the Provisional Government and the strength of the Bolsheviks; using detailed knowledge and developed analysis to answer the question effectively. Those that went back to 1905 clearly did not understand what the phrase Provisional Government meant and got confused with the Dumas.


 * European diplomacy and the First World War 1870–1923**

11. Analyse the impact of the new German Empire on European affairs in the years 1871–1910. > 12. Discuss the impact of the First World War on domestic affairs in any one country of the region. [WFS students were not prepared for this one]
 * Examiners:There were some good answers to this question and most were reasonably balanced in their treatment of both Bismarck and Wilhelm II’s foreign policy, keeping the word “impact” in focus throughout. Pleasingly many avoided turning the answers into causes of the First World War essay although again there were some who answered the question they wanted to find.


 * War and change in the Middle East 1914–1949**

13. “Allied diplomacy during the First World War in the Middle East was contradictory and caused instability in the region.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? > 14. In what ways was Ibn Saud able to extend his power and establish the kingdom of Saudi Arabia by 1932?
 * Examiners:One of the Middle East questions where well-prepared students were able to do reasonably well although few ventured away from Palestine to issues in the other mandates.
 * Examiners:A limited number of responses that were fairly well answered although knowledge was rather limited in detail at times with many not seeing that external willingness to accept his rule helped Ibn Saud to remain in power.


 * Interwar years: conflict and cooperation 1919–1939**

15. Analyse the consequences of the Great Depression on any one country in Europe. > 16. Evaluate the success of Hitler’s domestic policies between 1933 and 1939.
 * Examiners:Germany was the favourite exemplar with a large number of answers, but the majority of these seemed unclear as to chronology confusing the hyperinflation of 1923 with the recession of 1929-1932. There was some understanding of the problems caused by unemployment, contributing to the rise of the Nazis. The majority of candidates asserted firmly that Hitler gained more support without substantiating their statements, which is easily done with reference the huge increase in the number of Nazi deputies in the Reichstag. Nor was there much consideration of the difficulties faced by Weimar governments because of the polarization of politics and the class based nature of German political parties plus the overuse of article 48. For such a popular area where material could be used in paper 2 responses the level of detailed knowledge was disappointing. There were some excellent exceptions to this comment.
 * Examiners:This was exceptionally popular. Candidates did have a broad knowledge of a range of Hitler’s policies albeit limited in detail at times. The better answers used their knowledge to evaluate “success” linked to aims but the majority either wrote descriptive answers or addressed success in a limited way.

2010-May

 * The French Revolution and Napoleon — mid eighteenth century to 1815**

1. To what extent was Louis XVI responsible for the outbreak of revolution in France in 1789? > 2. “Napoleon will trample underfoot [destroy] the rights of man, put himself above them and become a tyrant.” To what extent was this prediction correct?
 * Examiners:The best candidates focused on the “how far” command term and provided an analysis of the causes of the French Revolution. On the other hand, there were answers which revealed candidates should have a more detailed knowledge of the chronology of events in the French Revolution as they often included events post 1789.


 * Unification and consolidation of Germany and Italy 1815–1890**

3. Analyse the political factors involved in the unification of Italy up to 1861. > 4. Discuss the relative importance of the decline of Austria and the policies of Bismarck as causes of German unification.
 * Examiners:“Political factors” was often an overlooked term. Weaker answers responded with narratives on Cavour; some included Garibaldi but did not focus on issues such as nationalism (Mazzini) and liberalism effectively.
 * Examiners:Although knowledge of Austria Hungary is improving, questions on the unification still tempt too many candidates to offer narratives of Bismarck‟s wars which would only partially address the question. Some answers did have a real understanding of Austria‟s decline but many were satisfied with a brief mention of Austria‟s exclusion from the Zollverein.


 * Imperial Russia, revolutions, emergence of Soviet State 1853–1924**

9. “His measures of reform did not disguise his belief in the need to maintain autocratic rule.” To what extent do you agree with this view of Alexander II? > 10. Compare and contrast the causes and nature of the two 1917 Russian Revolutions.
 * Examiners:A popular choice. Again, the “how far” was overlooked and many answers offered a narrative Alexander‟s reforms. There was also a significant number of candidates who focused on the effects of reforms and argued on how successful Alexander had been. It should be noted that this question focuses on motives.
 * Examiners:A popular question. Some candidates still struggle to offer a comparative structure and only get to effective comparisons and contrasts in the conclusion. Having said this, this question was also answered by some in a highly effective and knowledgeable way.


 * European diplomacy and the First World War 1870–1923**

11. Evaluate continuity and change in German foreign policy between 1871 and 1914. > 12. Analyse the successes and failures of one post-First World War treaty.
 * Examiners:Candidates were quite knowledgeable on Bismarck‟s aims and policies post 1870 but less secure on Wilhelm II and tended to rely on mention of Weltpolitik with little until we got to the “blank cheque” Continuity and change were not really addressed by very many.
 * Examiners:99% of answers focused on the Treaty of Versailles. Some offered Locarno as an example although this was not a relevant choice. In relation to those using relevant treaties, knowledge was sound, but there was limited specific assessment of failures and, particularly, successes. Narratives on Versailles causing the rise of Hitler or the outbreak of World War II were, unfortunately, also fairly common.


 * War and change in the Middle East 1914–1949**

13. Assess the importance of the Palestine Mandate (1920–1948). > 14. “The father and founder of modern Turkey.” To what extent does this statement explain the role and policies of Atatürk?
 * Examiners:Few answers. Most focused more on the problems brought upon by the Palestine mandate after 1947 than on the question as set. Very few identified importance in an international context .Material from Paper 1 was used by many candidates who were clearly struggling with their choice of question.
 * Examiners:Very few which was surprising as Ataturk is such a significant figure in the Middle East. Answers proved to be knowledgeable and focused.


 * Interwar years: conflict and cooperation 1919–1939**

15. Compare and contrast the domestic policies of Hitler and Mussolini. > 16. For what reasons, and to what extent, did attempts to achieve collective security between 1919 and 1939 fail?
 * Examiners:A popular choice. Answers shared the problems mentioned above in relation to comparative structure. Hitler is better known than Mussolini, for whom samples were very general. The comparative social and family policies were well known.
 * Examiners:The “to what extent” command term was overlooked as candidates focused largely on events such as Abyssinia (Paper 1 being quoted too often!) and Manchuria with limited attention to the period 1919-1929. Some candidates offered a definition of “collective security” and relevant material outside the League of Nations but they were certainly a minority. However there were also a pleasing number who did discuss the impact of the Depression and Appeasement.

Overview on How To Do a Paper 3 Test
Generally, you need to write good in-class essays that fully answer your selected questions. For guidance about this, go the Writing section in this website.

IB Examiners' Feedback
Here are IB Examiners' comments on the exam essays written by recent cohorts of IB History candidates.


 * Candidates are not always meeting the demands of the question: structure, compare and contrast questions are frequently poorly answered, knowledge is present but is not applied effectively. Similarly the command term "assess" especially in relation to change over time is often not responded to effectively.
 * Candidates should know the geography of the region so that they do not make the wrong choice of question or include a country outside the region
 * Comparative questions still seem to pose a problem despite the fact that they are a standard feature of the paper, comparative comments are often „bolt on‟ to a narrative rather than being used to as a framework.
 * Candidates from some schools wrote introductions that were far too long and which included too much detailed information. Some teachers appear to expect their students to write „In this essay I will examine.....‟ or „This essay will....‟. These techniques were rather cumbersome and it meant that the introductions tended to be very long. Candidates later repeated this information in the body of the essay which meant that the essays were very repetitive. This often led to time management problems for candidates.
 * Candidates should clearly and succinctly define the key terms, indicate the organisation of the paragraphs and state the argument in the introduction. One way of helping students to remember is to use the four Cs: context, clarification, controversies and contention.
 * Proper paragraphing is essential in a good history essay.
 * Candidates should also avoid long, repetitive conclusions.
 * Some candidates tended to overwrite and included far too much irrelevant narrative or descriptive material. Where this applied to whole schools it seems that teachers may be accepting this style because they equate it with detail. Candidates should write comprehensive, well structured, thematic essays.
 * Also candidates should also use the key words of the question such as „turning point‟; „authority‟; „undermined‟; „causes‟; „consequences‟; „fail‟; „exhausted‟; „inconsistent‟; „nation builder‟; „political developments‟; „technology‟; „social structures‟; „economic development‟ throughout the response and as part of the analysis.

Review Materials on the Selected Topics
Go to the following sections in this website for specific review materials on:
 * The French Revolution and Napoleon — mid eighteenth century to 1815:
 * France
 * Unification and consolidation of Germany and Italy 1815–1890
 * Germany
 * Italy
 * Imperial Russia, revolutions, emergence of Soviet State 1853–1924
 * Russia
 * European diplomacy and the First World War 1870–1923:
 * War, World War I, Origins
 * War and change in the Middle East 1914–1949
 * Middle East
 * Interwar years: conflict and cooperation 1919–1939
 * Single Party States: Rise of HItler
 * Single Party States:: Rise of Mussolini
 * The Second World War and post-war Western Europe 1939–2000
 * War, World War II, Course and Effects