Questions Paper on Poland.

Samuele Spinella 4C

2) Source D makes Source C surprising to a small extent.

This is due to the fact that Source D talks about Trade Unions fighting for “social and moral
liberation”, just like Source C addresses them as “reactionary forces”. Therefore, it’s not
surprising as they both discuss on this topic.

Moreover, Source D states that “nobody was killed or wounded as a result of its [Solidarity’s]
activities”, while in Source C it seems as the use of force and weapons is expected from
Solidarity’s actions. This is not surprising considering the provenance of the sources: Source
D is from the speech held by Lech Walesa in 1983 and Source C is some material prepared by
the Polish government; the relationship between these two powers is not optimal, as Lech
Walesa was the head of the only non-communist Trade Union, Solidarity, in Poland, which
was led by the communist party. Therefore, it is not surprising that they have different views
on the matter.
In addition, Source D does not make Source C surprising because Source D had a different
purpose, being a speech, its aim was to persuade or to emphasize his good work and most
importantly that he deserved the Nobel prize. On the other hand, Source C is material given
to government supporters by the Polish government itself as a way to persuade friends and
workmates of the supporters.

However, Source D does make Source C surprising on a small extent surprising because in
Source D Walesa says that the situation in Poland “can be resolved only through a real
dialogue between state authorities and the people”, while Source C states that the anti-
communist union trade is willing to perform strikes and political pressure to eradicate the
influence of the communist party in the society.
Therefore, Source D makes Source C surprising to a small extent.

3) Why do you think this source was published in 1981?

It was published in 1981 because Jaruzelski imposed the martial law in Poland, therefore
taking violent actions through the military to eradicate the strikes planned by Solidarity: as a
consequence, people wanted to express their anger towards the government because it
blocked them from working, for example miners drowned in a mine due to the intervention
of police.
4) How similar are the messages of the two cartoons?
The two cartoons are similar because they are both on Solidarity’s side.
Source F depicts Solidarity running away from the Polish Government, meaning that It has to
run to save its life, because its weaker compared to the Government, while Source G shows
the communist regime easily destroying Solidarity’s forces, as he has a bigger tank. This
Means that they are similar because they both show Solidarity as weak to justify her failing to
protect themselves from the Government, as if the pictures wanted us to sympathize for
Solidarity.
However, Source F depicts the Polish Government unable to catch Solidarity, while in Source
G the communist tank Is in front of the enemy, therefore can easily destroy the enemy. This
is due to the fact that in Source F’s caption the Polish Government justify the fact that he can’t
catch Solidarity because she Is running for her Life, while he Is only trying to catch her. Instead
in Source G It Is shown as if the communist party had warned Solidarity not to do certain
things, as stated in the caption “don't Say we didn’t warn you” but she acted differently from
what the Government has said, so communism is attacking. Therefore, they are different
because in Source F Solidarity Is winning while in Source G It's losing.

5) Study source H. How fare do you believe General Jaruzelski in Source H?

I believe General Jaruzelski in Source H to some extent, because there are reasons to and not
to believe him.
For example, in 1995 he had already retired, therefore It seems reasonable to believe him as
he is not in politics anymore and can Say what he wants WITHOUT receiving backlash. This is
added to the fact that he Is speaking After the events occurred in 1981, so the influence of
what he said would have been different anyways.

However, it’s hard to trust Jaruzelski because he has a subjective point of view as he
experienced the events first-hand, therefore could be not completely objective on explaining
what happened.
Therefore, I believe General Jaruzelski to some extent.