MAPS OF HISTORY · IB HISTORY · PAPER 1 · CONFLICT AND DISPLACEMENT
IB HISTORY · PAPER 1 · FOCUSED STUDY
Paper 1: Conflict and Displacement — Europe 1945–1960 and Indochina 1975–1990
Conflict and Displacement is one of the five Paper 1 Focused Studies of the new IB History course, first examined in May 2028. Paper 1 is the source paper: its questions ask you to read primary sources closely, to judge what each can and cannot tell a historian, and to combine them with your own knowledge. This Focused Study pairs two case studies, Europe 1945–1960 and Indochina 1975–1990, and our atlas Uprooted: Refugees in Europe and Indochina covers both on linked maps, in 12 chapters with 40 primary sources.
After 1945 Europe’s borders moved and millions were made to follow them; after 1975 three million people fled Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Two maps, one question: what drove people out, and who took them in?
WW2 is free — every chapter. Try chapters 1–2 of any 2 other atlases (3 with a free account). Opening a new atlas uses one of them. Membership opens all 21 — Join.
What this Focused Study asks
Each source set in the atlas is built around one inquiry question, and together they show what this Focused Study asks of you. Keep them in mind as you read: a good answer to any of them needs both the sources and the chapters behind them.
Europe 1945–1960
- How far did Allied decisions shape the expulsion of Germans from eastern Europe after 1945?
- Why did the Allies change their treatment of Jewish displaced persons in 1945?
- How far did states create lasting rights for refugees between 1948 and 1956?
Indochina 1975–1990
- Why did first asylum break down in Southeast Asia in 1979, and how was it restored?
- How did the United States and the states of the region bring the Indochinese exodus to an end between 1987 and 1990?
Case study 1: Europe 1945–1960
Chapters 1–6 of the atlas follow Europe 1945–1960, from 1945 to 1961. Read them in order: each chapter is a step in one argument, and the map moves with it.
- Europe UprootedCHAPTER 1 · MAY 1945
- The Expulsions of GermansCHAPTER 2 · 1945–1950
- Borders Move, People FollowCHAPTER 3 · 1944–1950
- The DP CampsCHAPTER 4 · 1945–1947
- From Relief to RightsCHAPTER 5 · 1947–1952
- Integration and the Cold WarCHAPTER 6 · 1950–1961
Evidence to use
One point from the IB notes of each chapter, written as a sentence you could use in an answer. Every chapter in the atlas carries four to six.
- By August 1944 about 7.6 million foreign civilians and prisoners of war worked in the Reich, more than a quarter of its labour force, so Germany’s defeat was bound to strand millions of people far from home at once. CH 1
- Section XIII of the Potsdam agreement of 2 August 1945 stated that the transfer of Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary “will have to be undertaken”, asking only that it be “orderly and humane”, which gave the expulsions great-power consent. CH 2
- Under the Lublin agreements of 9 and 22 September 1944 about 1.2 to 1.5 million Poles and Polish Jews moved from the Soviet republics to Poland, and about 482,000 Ukrainians moved the other way, an exchange voluntary on paper and coerced in practice. CH 3
- The Soviet Union recovered about 5.35 million citizens by early 1946, some by force under the Yalta accords, and at Dachau on 19 January 1946 eleven of 399 former Soviet soldiers killed themselves rather than board a train east. CH 4
- Between July 1947 and December 1951 the International Refugee Organization resettled 1,038,750 people, including 328,851 in the United States, 182,159 in Australia, 132,109 in Israel and 123,479 in Canada, turning relief into resettlement. CH 5
- The Equalisation of Burdens law of 14 August 1952 made West Germans whose property survived the war pay half its 1948 value over thirty years into a fund for expellees, paying out more than 130 billion marks by 1986. CH 6
Case study 2: Indochina 1975–1990
Chapters 7–11 of the atlas follow Indochina 1975–1990, from 1975 to 1990. Read them in order: each chapter is a step in one argument, and the map moves with it.
- Communist VictoryCHAPTER 7 · 1975
- Re-education and FlightCHAPTER 8 · 1975–1978
- The Boat PeopleCHAPTER 9 · 1978–1979
- Geneva and the US ResponseCHAPTER 10 · 1979–1982
- Camps, Screening and the CPACHAPTER 11 · 1980–1990
Evidence to use
One point from the IB notes of each chapter, written as a sentence you could use in an answer. Every chapter in the atlas carries four to six.
- After the Geneva agreements of July 1954 divided Vietnam, more than a million people moved south, about 800,000 of them Catholics, and the US Navy carried nearly 310,000, a precedent for flight after a communist victory. CH 7
- UNHCR wrote that more than a million people passed through Vietnam’s re-education camps, while Gareth Porter and James Roberts argued in 1988 that long-term detainees numbered 200,000 to 300,000, an uncertainty that reflects Hanoi’s secrecy. CH 8
- Boat arrivals in neighbouring countries rose from about 88,000 in 1978 to about 207,000 in 1979, with between 54,000 and 59,000 landing in single months at the peak of May and June 1979. CH 9
- At the Geneva meeting of 20–21 July 1979, 65 governments raised resettlement pledges from about 125,000 to 260,000 places and promised about $160 million, while Indonesia and the Philippines offered sites for processing centres. CH 10
- Thailand began “humane deterrence” in January 1981, holding new boat arrivals in austere camps such as Na Pho without access to resettlement, and Hong Kong detained every arrival after 2 July 1982 in closed camps. CH 11
Comparing the two case studies
The atlas ends by setting the two case studies side by side in Two Crises Compared. Comparison is where the Focused Study pays off: the same question asked of two societies shows which explanations travel and which belong to one place.
PAPER 1 · UPROOTED · CHAPTER 12
Compare and contrast the responses of states and international organisations to displacement in Europe (1945–1960) and Indochina (1975–1990).
Both crises relied on first asylum, resettlement and UNHCR coordination, shaped by Cold War sympathy for people fleeing communism. They differed because Europe absorbed most of its displaced as citizens and built a legal regime, while Indochina’s refugees depended on foreign states and negotiated bargains, ending in screening and return.
Similar tools: first asylum and resettlement abroad.
Different scale of national integration.
Different legal frameworks and outcomes.
The evidence for each point, the counter-argument and the judgement are in the IB notes of chapter 12 in the atlas. Read the chapter first: Two Crises Compared.
Key concepts
The course asks you to think with six concepts. Each chapter’s IB notes name the two or three it supports best; here they are across the atlas, most used first.
- Causation · 6 CHAPTERS
Why something happened: the long-term conditions, the triggers and the choices behind it, and which of them mattered most. For example: Europe Uprooted, The Expulsions of Germans, Borders Move, People Follow, Communist Victory. - Consequence · 6 CHAPTERS
What followed from an event or decision, intended and unintended, in the short and the long term. For example: Europe Uprooted, Borders Move, People Follow, Integration and the Cold War, Communist Victory. - Change · 6 CHAPTERS
What was different afterwards, how quickly it changed, and for whom. For example: The DP Camps, From Relief to Rights, Integration and the Cold War, Geneva and the US Response. - Perspectives · 6 CHAPTERS
How people at the time, and historians since, have seen the same events differently, and why. For example: The Expulsions of Germans, The DP Camps, From Relief to Rights, Re-education and Flight. - Significance · 5 CHAPTERS
Why an event, person or idea matters, judged by its effects and by how it has been remembered. For example: The Expulsions of Germans, The DP Camps, From Relief to Rights, Geneva and the US Response. - Continuity · 4 CHAPTERS
What stayed the same through an apparent upheaval, and why it survived. For example: Borders Move, People Follow, Integration and the Cold War, Camps, Screening and the CPA, Two Crises Compared.
Source-analysis practice
This is one complete source set from the atlas, free to use. It is built around one inquiry question: How far did Allied decisions shape the expulsion of Germans from eastern Europe after 1945? Read the sources first and note who made each one, when and why. Then answer the questions in writing, and only afterwards open the guide under each question, which describes what a strong answer does.
TEXT · CHAPTER 2
Speech in the House of Commons on Poland (extract on expulsion)
- CREATOR
- Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
- DATE
- 15 December 1944
- ORIGIN
- Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 406, cols. 1483–84
Context. Churchill was urging the Polish government-in-exile in London to accept the loss of eastern Poland in return for German lands to the west and north.
UK Parliamentary copyright, expired; Hansard (historic) · original ↗
TEXT · CHAPTER 2
Protocol of the Proceedings of the Berlin (Potsdam) Conference, Section XIII: Orderly Transfer of German Populations
- CREATOR
- Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union (Truman, Attlee, Stalin)
- DATE
- 1 August 1945
- ORIGIN
- Signed protocol, printed in Foreign Relations of the United States, Conference of Berlin (Potsdam) 1945, vol. II, doc. 1383; also published in the conference communiqué of 2 August 1945
Context. Some printed versions number this section XII. Expulsions from Poland and Czechoslovakia were already under way when the conference met.
US Department of State, Office of the Historian (FRUS) · original ↗
TEXT · CHAPTER 2
Allied Control Council plan for the transfer of the German population
- CREATOR
- Allied Control Council for Germany; transmitted by Robert Murphy, US Political Adviser for Germany
- DATE
- 20 November 1945 (telegram of 30 November 1945)
- ORIGIN
- Telegram 1147 to the Secretary of State, printed in Foreign Relations of the United States 1945, vol. II, doc. 650
Context. The plan was the Allies’ response to Section XIII of the Potsdam agreement; it set a timetable for moving about 6.65 million people between December 1945 and the summer of 1946.
US Department of State, Office of the Historian (FRUS) · original ↗
PICTURE · CHAPTER 2
“Umsiedler” (expellees) at the Berlin-Pankow freight station
- CREATOR
- Otto Donath
- DATE
- 1946
- ORIGIN
- Photograph, German Federal Archives (Bundesarchiv), Bild 183-1983-0422-312
Context. “Umsiedler”, resettlers, was the official term in the Soviet zone for Germans expelled from the east. The original German caption says the resettlers used the railway for their onward journey.
Picture: German expellees carrying bundles and rucksacks board railway carriages at the Berlin-Pankow freight station in 1946.
Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-1983-0422-312 / Donath, Otto / CC-BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en) · original ↗
The questions
- QUESTION 1 · COMPREHENSION
According to Source B (Potsdam, Section XIII), what did the three governments decide about German populations in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, and what did they ask of the governments concerned?
What a strong answer does
A full answer identifies three points from the text: that the governments accepted that transfer “will have to be undertaken”, that transfers should be “orderly and humane”, and that the Control Council was to examine the problem while Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary were asked to suspend further expulsions meanwhile. Strong answers paraphrase in their own words and keep to what the source says.
- Names the acceptance of transfer as already decided
- Notes the condition of orderly and humane conduct
- Notes the request to suspend expulsions pending the Control Council report
- QUESTION 2 · ANALYSIS
With reference to its origin and purpose, analyse the value and limitations of Source A (Churchill, House of Commons, December 1944) for a historian studying why the expulsions happened.
What a strong answer does
Its origin, a speech by the British prime minister to Parliament during the war, gives it great value as evidence of the British government’s thinking months before Potsdam; it shows that expulsion was seen as a security measure, linked to the memory of mixed borderlands such as Alsace-Lorraine. Its purpose, to persuade the Polish government-in-exile and MPs to accept the loss of eastern Poland, limits it: Churchill had reasons to present expulsion as tidy and humane. It also cannot show how expulsions were later carried out.
- Uses origin (date, speaker, setting) to explain value
- Uses purpose (persuading Poland and Parliament) to explain a limitation
- Links the analysis to the question of causes
- QUESTION 3 · EVALUATION
Compare and contrast what Sources B and C reveal about how the Allies intended the transfer of Germans to be managed.
What a strong answer does
Both sources show the Allies treating transfer as an administrative problem to be planned centrally, and both are concerned with the burden on the occupation zones. They differ in that Source B sets out principles and asks for a pause, while Source C, written four months later, turns those principles into quotas by country and zone, 3.5 million from Poland and 3.15 million from the other states. A strong answer notes that neither mentions how the people being moved would be treated in practice.
- At least two clear similarities
- At least two clear differences
- Points supported by brief references to both sources
- QUESTION 4 · SYNTHESIS
Using the sources and your own knowledge, evaluate the claim that the expulsion of Germans after 1945 was the result of decisions taken by the Allied powers.
What a strong answer does
Strong essays weigh Allied decisions (Churchill’s endorsement, Section XIII, the Control Council plan in Source C, the receiving zones) against national initiative (the wild expulsions of May–August 1945, Czechoslovakia’s citizenship decree, Polish army clearances), using own knowledge as well as the sources. They also consider context, above all six years of German occupation, and reach a judgement, for example that responsibility was shared but unequal: the Allies legitimised and organised what national governments began. Source D can show the human scale of the transfers.
- Clear judgement on “how far”
- Integrates at least three sources with own knowledge
- Considers the Nazi occupation as context without excusing violence
- Names a range for the death toll where relevant
More source sets in the atlas
The atlas holds 4 more source sets for this Focused Study. Their sources sit in the IB notes of the chapters named below: open a chapter in the atlas and turn on the IB notes switch to read them.
- Why did the Allies change their treatment of Jewish displaced persons in 1945? EUROPE 1945–1960
Its sources are in the IB notes of chapter 1, chapter 4. - How far did states create lasting rights for refugees between 1948 and 1956? EUROPE 1945–1960
Its sources are in the IB notes of chapter 5, chapter 6. - Why did first asylum break down in Southeast Asia in 1979, and how was it restored? INDOCHINA 1975–1990
Its sources are in the IB notes of chapter 9, chapter 10. - How did the United States and the states of the region bring the Indochinese exodus to an end between 1987 and 1990? INDOCHINA 1975–1990
Its sources are in the IB notes of chapter 8, chapter 11.
Practice questions and essay plans
Each question below comes with the outline of a model plan: a thesis that answers the question and the claim each paragraph makes. Try your own plan before you read ours. The first plan comes from chapter 2, a free chapter, and is shown in full. The full plans, with evidence, a counter-argument and a judgement, are in the chapters’ IB notes in the atlas, and the atlas’s own page lists every chapter’s notes: IB notes for Refugees in Europe and Indochina.
PAPER 2 · UPROOTED · CHAPTER 2
To what extent were the expulsions of Germans from eastern Europe after 1945 the result of decisions taken by the Allied powers?
The Allied powers made the expulsions possible and gave them legitimacy, but the governments of Poland and Czechoslovakia initiated and executed them, driven by the experience of Nazi occupation. The expulsions were therefore the product of shared but unequal responsibility, with Allied consent decisive for their scale and national policy decisive for their timing and brutality.
Allied consent turned expulsion into international policy.
EVIDENCEChurchill endorsed a “clean sweep” in December 1944, Section XIII at Potsdam accepted transfer, and the Control Council set quotas for 6.65 million people.
LINKWithout great-power approval and receiving zones, transfers on this scale could not have taken place. The receiving zones belonged to the occupying armies, so consent meant capacity as well as approval.
National governments acted first and set the methods.
EVIDENCESome 700,000–800,000 Germans were driven from Czechoslovakia in the wild expulsions before Potsdam, and the decree of 2 August 1945 stripped Germans of citizenship.
LINKThe worst violence came from national initiative that the Allies then ratified. Brno’s death march of May 1945 shows the brutality of this phase before any treaty existed.
The experience of occupation explains why both elites and publics demanded expulsion.
EVIDENCEAbout six million Polish citizens had been killed and villages such as Lidice destroyed, while many Sudeten Germans had supported Henlein’s party.
LINKCollective memory of occupation made collective removal seem just and secure. The memory of Munich made minorities look like a security threat that only removal could end.
R. M. Douglas argues that London and Washington knew the transfers were deadly and endorsed them anyway, so the Allies bear more than formal responsibility; Section XIII’s request for a pause was never enforced. On this reading, national actors were the instruments of a policy decided in London, Washington and Moscow.
The expulsions are best explained as an international policy carried out by national governments. Allied decisions determined that millions would move and where they would go, but they did not create the will to expel, which grew out of six years of German occupation and the lessons drawn from Munich.
Read the chapter behind this plan: The Expulsions of Germans.
PAPER 2 · UPROOTED · CHAPTER 5
To what extent was the 1951 Refugee Convention shaped by the Cold War?
The Cold War shaped the Convention’s definition and the motives of its Western sponsors, but its core protections grew out of the memory of Nazi persecution and the forced returns of 1945–47. The Convention was therefore a humanitarian document written within Cold War limits.
The definition fitted Western Cold War priorities.
The core principle came from the experience of the 1940s.
The limits reflected states’ wish to keep commitments small.
The evidence for each point, the counter-argument and the judgement are in the IB notes of chapter 5 in the atlas. Read the chapter first: From Relief to Rights.
PAPER 3 · UPROOTED · CHAPTER 9
Evaluate the reasons why first-asylum states in Southeast Asia restricted asylum in 1979.
The first-asylum states restricted asylum in 1979 because arrivals far outran resettlement, because they believed Vietnam was exporting its ethnic Chinese on purpose, and because their own societies seemed vulnerable. Their freedom from the 1951 Convention allowed them to act on these fears.
The gap between arrivals and resettlement made the burden look permanent.
Governments saw the outflow as a hostile Vietnamese policy.
Domestic fragility shaped Malaysia’s and Thailand’s decisions.
The evidence for each point, the counter-argument and the judgement are in the IB notes of chapter 9 in the atlas. Read the chapter first: The Boat People.
PAPER 3 · UPROOTED · CHAPTER 11
Examine the reasons for the shift from resettlement to screening and return in Southeast Asia in the 1980s.
The shift happened because resettlement countries lost the will to take every arrival, because host states and the West came to see later departures as economic migration, and because a negotiated plan could end the exodus by changing the incentive to leave. Each reason reflected the fading of the Cold War sympathy that had driven the response of 1979.
Compassion fatigue reduced resettlement.
Changing motives for departure justified screening.
Return was designed to end the outflow.
The evidence for each point, the counter-argument and the judgement are in the IB notes of chapter 11 in the atlas. Read the chapter first: Camps, Screening and the CPA.
Revision tools
The atlas ends with a map quiz that asks you to find places and moments on the map itself (part of membership and of the Exam Sprint). The quick quiz and the discussion questions with our answers are free pages on this site, and the printable study guide gathers every chapter’s notes into one document for revision.
The same atlas for other papers
Several chapters also carry IB notes for Papers 2 and 3, and for topics of the old course examined in 2027:
- Paper 2 · Conflict · 12 CHAPTERS
- Paper 3 · Asia and Oceania · 4 CHAPTERS
- Old course · World history topic 11: Causes and effects of 20th-century wars · 2 CHAPTERS
- Old course · World history topic 12: The Cold War: superpower tensions and rivalries (20th century) · 3 CHAPTERS
Maps of History is independent and is not affiliated with or endorsed by the International Baccalaureate Organization. IB course names describe alignment only; paper, theme and section names follow the new course outline and may change when the final guide is published.
THE DISPATCH
A short welcome series, then a letter when a new atlas opens — and the printable study guide for Uprooted is yours now, free.
NO TRACKING · YOUR ADDRESS IS USED FOR THE DISPATCH AND NOTHING ELSE · UNSUBSCRIBE ANYTIME