IDENTIFICATION SAMPLE: CATHERINE THE GREAT
Catherine the Great was the Empress of Russia between 1762
and 1796. 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 1943. The offensive was also known as the “Fourth
Enemy Offensive” and occurred in the area of the Neretva-River in BosniaHerzegovina.
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.’”
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 (I87-9). This fact alone helps explain why the Partisans were much better
organized not only to fight large-scale battles, but also create the socalled “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.
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.