IDENTIFICATION SAMPLE: CATHERINE THE GREAT Catherine the Great was the Empress of Russia between 1762 and She was a German princess, placed on the throne by a group of Russian nobles who assassinated her husband, the Emperor Peter III. Catherine was one of the most successful Russian rulers, especially in foreign policies. Continuing territorial expansionism initiated by Peter the Great, Catherine acquired territories in the south defeating the Ottoman Empire and participated in the partitioning of Poland, whereby gaining more than fifty percent of the Polish territory. At the same time, Catherine expanded commercial relations with Europe and China. By the end of her reign, Russia had become a European superpower. Catherine was an intelligent woman, familiar with the works of French Philosophes, and seemed to favor social and economic reforms. Yet, realizing that her rule depended upon the support of the Russian nobility, in 1785 she granted the nobles a charter that exempted them from taxes. Such policy led to worsening conditions of Russian peasants who rebelled against the government. In response, Catherine further expanded the institution of serfdom placing peasants completely at the will of their landlords.

Your essay will be evaluated according to the following criteria:  Organization (10%) – have a clear and defined structure  Thesis (20 %) – have a well-defined and focused thesis  Analysis (40%) -- analyze (rather than narrate) the topic. Support your arguments by specific examples from two sources  Style and grammar (30%) – will be judged in accordance with the standards of an institution of higher learning 

Your analytical essay will be graded according to the following criteria: # It should be no more than 3 pages (double-spaced for a typed paper). If you write at home, you must use and cite two additional sources (electronic sources are off limits) outside of your main reading. Use a simple parenthetical citation (for example, George, 54), but do include the full bibliographical citation on a separate page. # Thesis (25% of the grade): the essay must have a clear and sharply focused thesis (underline it), which offers your opinion and serious insight into the topic. # Analysis (50% of the grade): you should analyze (rather than narrate) the topic and support your argument with specific examples. # Organization, grammar, and style (25% of the grade): the essay should be well organized, written in a clear and concise manner, and free of misspellings, verbosity, etc. If the reader has difficulty comprehending your arguments, your way of communicating them is inadequate.

HOW TO WRITE A RESPONSE PAPER (1 typed, single-spaced page)  A response paper is your chance to communicate in writing your personal viewpoint and personal learning as they relate specifically to the book, article, statement, etc. The text, the artifact alone, has no meaning; it is given meaning by you, the writer. In other words, a response paper is your own interpretation of a given source and should demonstrate how deeply you have thought about the concepts, values, and attitudes of the period or historical episode in question. When analyzing the source, keep in mind that its author tries to make a point, to promote an idea, a set of beliefs or values. Hence, you should concentrate upon two objectives:  1. Telling what you think these ideas are.   2. Reflecting on these points, positions, and values and indicating whether they correspond with your understanding of the historical event or episode in question.  Important Note: Essay organization, style, and grammar are a crucial part of the assignment and will be graded accordingly.

Response paper sample Battle of Neretva is a 1969 a Yugoslav partisan film. The film was directed by Veljko Bulajić and depicts a massive Axis offensive against the Yugoslav Partisans in The offensive was also known as the “Fourth Enemy Offensive” and occurred in the area of the Neretva-River in Bosnia- Herzegovina. While the film is based on the true events of World War II and the battle scenes are superb, the producer leaves out several important issues. Thus, the film conveys the impression that all the partisans as well as their enemies were ideologically motivated. However, as in many civil wars and revolutions, the majority of the population in wartime Yugoslavia held no rigid political loyalties. Instead, they were forced to survive as best they could and their allegiances shifted according to the situation. For example, the Chetniks, who are portrayed as the inveterate enemies of the Partisans, were not a single unified force, but initially fought alongside the Partisans against the Germans and then joined the Germans against the Partisans (I ). Bosnia-Herzegovina especially represented a contentious mix of political ideologies, ethnicities and religious beliefs – including nationalism and communism, Serb and Croat, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Muslim – and consequently, the war there was particularly cruel. The film crafts a fascinating narrative of rival radical ideologies, particularly between the multinational vision of the Communist Partisans versus the xenophobic nationalism of the Serbian Chetniks and the Croatian Ustaše. Although the film emphasizes the battle against the Partisans and the Axis powers (Germany and Italy), for Bulajić its local dimension – the conflict between the citizens of the former Yugoslavia is just as, if not more, important (II ). As Commissar Stole says “hatred between the same people is the most vicious.’”

The film correctly shows that the Partisans fought for much more than mere survival – from the beginning Tito envisioned the war against the Axis powers mutating into a revolutionary struggle and turning Yugoslavia into a communist state (II- 276). Although most Serbs initially joined the Partisans to survive the Ustaše genocide, the Partisan leadership from the beginning emphasized the importance of social revolution that would change the country’s political and socio-economic landscape. In other words, the unique conditions of Axis occupation and the bitter ethnic and ideological conflicts engendered the revolutionary movement united in its primary objectives (I-57-61). Regrettably, the film does not stress the background of the Partisan leadership and in my opinion, this issue is very important. The KPJ’s long experience as an underground political movement meant years of recruitment through cultural groups, sports clubs, schools, and unions (I- 87-9). This fact alone helps explain why the Partisans were much better organized not only to fight large-scale battles, but also create the so- called “free zones” – the Neretva basin was but one – in which they set up the small replicas of the future socialist society, later superimposed upon the entire Yugoslavia (II – ). The Partisans never viewed the armed struggle against the Axis powers from a purely military prospective, but were determined to transform this struggle into a political battle aimed at building a “genuinely multinational socialist society.” Overall, however, the film does offer a realistic portrayal of the brutality of warfare in Yugoslavia.

Bibliography: I. Bibliography: I. Tomasevich, Jozo. War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, : Occupation and Collaboration. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, II. Pavlović, Stevan K. Hitler’s New Disorder: The Second World War in Yugoslavia. London: Hurst & Company, 2008.