Your essay will be evaluated by the following criteria:

1. Your essay will be evaluated by the following criteria: Introduction – 20% Does the introduction contain a clearly defined thesis stating an arguable point? Does the introduction provide 2-3 general points that will be offered as proof to be defended in the body of the essay? Body - 50% Do the body paragraphs take the 2 -3 points mentioned in the introduction and analyze (rather than narrate) them, making good use of reasons and evidence drawn from the text book as well as other research sources? Grammar, organization, style – 30% (while the content and structure of the essay form the basis of the grade, mistakes such as spelling errors and faulty punctuation can and will have a negative impact on the grade of the essay exam).

2. Film 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 1943. 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-132-34). 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- 235-36). As Commissar Stole says “hatred between the same people is the most vicious.’”

3. 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 – 256-59). 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.

4. Bibliography: I. Tomasevich, Jozo. War and Revolution in Yugoslavia,1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2001.II. Pavlović, Stevan K. Hitler’s New Disorder: The Second World War in Yugoslavia. London: Hurst & Company, 2008.

5. Short essay sample. Why, in your opinion, did the “Prague Spring” take place in Czechoslovakia and not in other East European countries? Be specific.In my opinion, there were several factors that made the “Prague Spring” a unique episode. First, in contrast to other Soviet satellite-states, Czechoslovakia was an industrialized country and hence, the Soviet “socialist” model undermined the national economy, particularly in Bohemia and Moravia. Popular opinion, therefore, was squarely behind those politicians who advocated economic reforms, which in turn spurred demands for political reforms as well. Second, some prominent members of the Czechoslovak communist party such as Alexander Dubček endorsed these initiatives and challenged President AntonínNovotný. In March 1968, when Novotný resigned, his successor Ludvik Svoboda also gave consent to the reforms. So encouraged, Dubček declared the party's mission was "to build an advanced socialist society on sound economic foundations ... a socialism that corresponds to the historical democratic traditions of Czechoslovakia. “ Consequently, it was a combination of economic factors and the rise of reform-minded communist politicians that facilitated the “Prague Spring.”