Cbs 10 4_e5n_sa2_hy_qn&ans

CANBERRA SECONDAR Y SCHOOL 2010 Preliminary Examination 2

Secondary 4 Express/5 Normal

Combined Humanities (History Elective)2192/03

Date: 24 Aug 2010

20th Century World History, 1910s-1991 Duration: 1 h 30 min Time: 0800-0930 h

Name: ______________________________________ ( ) Class: ____

INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES :

READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS FIRST

Do not open this booklet until you are told to do so.

Write in dark blue or black pen.Do not use staples, paper clips, highlighters or correction fluid.

Write your name, class and index number in the spaces on this page and on any separate answer papers used.

Section A

Answer all parts of Question 1.

Section B

Answer one question.

Write all answers on the writing papers provided.

Hand in answers to Sections A and B separately.

INFORMATION FOR CANDIDATES

At the end of the examination, fasten all your work securely together.The number of marks is given in brackets [ ] at the end of each question or part question.

.

This document consists of 5 printed pages including cover page.

Section A (Source-based Case Study)

1

50

Question 1 is compulsory for all candidates.

Study the sources carefully and then answer all the questions.

You may use any of the sources to help you answer the questions, in addition to those sources which you are told to use. In answering the questions you should use your knowledge of the topic to help you interpret and evaluate the sources.

1 (a) Study Source A.

What is the message of this source? Explain your answer, using details of the source and your knowledge. [5]

(b) Study Source B.

How useful is this source as evidence about how Stalin ruled the people with fear? Explain your answer. [6]

(c) Study Source C.

How far can you accept what this source says about the success of the First Five-Year Plan? Explain your answer. [7]

(d) Use all the sources.

‘Stalin was a disaster for the Soviet Union’. How far do these sources support this judgement? Explain your answer. [7]

2

Was Stalin a disaster for the Soviet Union?

Source A: A French poster of Stalin in the 1930s

Source B: The Russian exile, Solzhenitsyn, writing about a Communist Party meeting in 1938

At the end of the conference, a tribute to Comrade Stalin was called for. Of course, everyone leapt to his feet. However, who would dare to be the first to stop– after all, *NKVD men were in the hall waiting to see who quit first. And in that obscure hall, unknown to the Leader, the applause went on – 6, 7, 8 minutes! They couldn’t stop now till they collapsed of heart attacks! Aware of the falsity of the situation, after 11 minutes, the director of the paper factory sat down in his seat. And, oh, a miracle took place! Everyone else stopped dead and sat down. That, however, was how they found who the independent people were. They pasted 10 years in a labour camp on him.

The *NKVD men refers to the secret police force of the USSR.

3

Source C: Stalin announcing the “success” of his First Five-Year Plan in Jan 1933

“What are the results of the Five-Year Plan in four years in the sphere of industry? Have we achieved victory in this sphere? We did not have an iron and steel industry, the foundation for the industrialization of the country. And we have not only created these new great industries, but have created them on a scale and in dimensions that eclipse the scale and dimensions of European industry...

And as a result of all this our country has been converted from an agrarian into an industrial country; for the proportion of industrial output, as compared with agricultural output, has risen from 48 per cent of the total in the beginning of the Five-Year Plan (1928) to 70 per cent at the end of the fourth year of the Five Year Plan period (1932).”

Source D: An overview of the Russian (and Soviet) economy 1913-1940, extracted a secondary history textbook

Source E: An American newspaper report from 1930.

Millions of peasants, rather than give them up to the collectives, killed the cows, sheep and chickens. For a short while, the Russians ate more meat than they had for a decade. Then they went on a vegetarian diet.

4

Section B (Structured-Essay Questions)

Answer any one question.

2 This question is about Establishing Peace.

(a) ‘The Treaty of Versailles imposed on Germany was fair’. Do you agree? Explain your answer. [12]

(b) Do you agree that the absence of the United States of America was the most important reason why the League of Nations failed? Explain your answer. [13]

3 This question is about Causes of War World II.

(a) ‘The British and French policy of appeasing Hitler in the late 1930s was justified’. Do you agree? Explain your answer.

[12]

(b) Do you agree that Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy was the most important reason why war broke out in Europe in 1939? Explain your answer. [13]

4 This question is about Cold War and the Collapse of the USSR.

(a) ‘The Cuban Missile Crisis was beneficial to the USA’. Do you agree? Explain your answer. 12

(b) Do you agree that Gorbachev was the most important reason for the collapse of the USSR? Explain your answer. [13]

End - of – Paper

5

Canberra Secondary School 2010 Preliminary 2

4E/5N History Suggested Mark Scheme

Section A (Source-based Case Study)

1 (a) Study Source A.

What is the message of this source? Explain your answer, using details of the source and your own knowledge. [5]

Level Descriptors MksL1 Answer based on provenance/Copies from source.

Eg. It shows a French poster of Stalin in the 1930s1

L2 Inference without support.Award 2 marks for one inference, unsupported.Award 3 marks for two inferences, unsupported.

Eg. Source A tells me that Stalin had the power of life and death over his subjects.Eg. Source A tells me that Stalin was a tyrant/dictator.Eg. Source A tells me that Stalin was an autocrat.

2-3

L3 Inference with supportAward 3 marks for one inference, supported.Award 4 marks for two inferences, supported.

Eg. Source A tells me that Stalin had the power of life and death over his subjects. In the cartoon, he is portrayed as the Egyptian pharaoh, supervising the workers in the completion of the buildings. He is seen to be holding onto a gun, pointing at the workers below and ready to shoot his workers if they were too slow.

Eg. Source A tells me that Stalin was a tyrant/dictator. To achieve his industrialization programme, he forced his people to work like slaves. In the cartoon, the soviet people were portrayed as slaves using brute power to pull a large stone to complete a project and being supervised by Stalin who is holding a gun.

3-4

L4 Impact / Purpose of message i.e. what the audience will do because of hearing the message. E.g. persuade them, win them over, make them support etc.

5m- valid interpretation supported by clear and valid interpretation of source

Eg. The cartoonist wanted to convince the soviet people that Stalin is a tyrant, abusing his people and treating them like slaves just to achieve his dream of industrialization for the Soviet Union. The cartoonist did this so that the Russians will stop supporting Stalin’s Industrialization programme.

Eg. The French cartoonist creates this propaganda poster because he wanted to convince the Russians/ people that although Stalin had claimed success in his industrialization programme, he had done it with force and fear so that the Russians will stop supporting Stalin and his programmes.

5

6

(b) Study Source B.

How useful is this source as evidence about how Stalin ruled the people with fear? Explain your answer. [6]

Level Descriptors MksL1 Useful/Not useful based on provenance OR lift from source details

Eg. It is by The Russian exile, Solzhenitsyn, writing about a Communist Party meeting in 1938

Eg. Yes. It tells us about a Communist Party meeting in 1938.

1

L2 Uncritical acceptance of useful/not useful ,unsupported by source contentAward 2m for useful/not useful without support from source. Award 3m for useful and not useful unsupported.

Eg. Yes, it is useful. It shows that whoever dares to be different would be punished. Eg. Yes, it is useful. It tells us that there were secret police like NKVD men on the lookout for people who did not respect Stalin.Eg. It is useful as it tells us that Stalin terrorized his people through the secret police/ruled the people with fear. OREg. No, it is not useful. It did not specifically mention that the NKVD men were instructed by Stalin to arrest the people. They could have acted independently, without the knowledge of Stalin.

2-3

L3 Useful/Not useful, supported by source contentAward 3 m for useful/not useful, supportedAward 4m for useful and not useful supported

Eg. Yes, it is useful. It shows that Stalin ruled the people with fear as in whoever dares to be different would be punished. The director of the paper factory was given ‘10 years in a labour camp’ for being the first to stop the applause for Stalin. This is supported by Source A which shows how Stalin forced his people to work for the industrialization programme by force.

Eg. Yes, it is useful. It tells us that there were secret police like NKVD men on the lookout for people who did not respect Stalin as seen in ‘after all, *NKVD men were in the hall waiting to see who quit first’.

Eg. It is useful as it tells us that Stalin terrorized his people through the secret police. The source shows that nobody dares to stop the applause after the tribute for Stalin until somebody (the director of the paper factor) in the audience led the way.

ORNo, it is not useful. It did not specifically mention that Stalin had instructed the NKVD men to arrest the people. They could have acted independently, without the knowledge of Stalin.

3-4

7

L4 L3 +usefulness in context / contextual knowledge/cross reference to other source/(Lack of) reliability explained This can be done in various ways:

Analysis of laded language in the source, or Use of content to analyse the provenance, or Cross reference. Cross reference must be on the basis that

Source E is hostile to the foreign talent policy

If there is no L3, then award 4 marks only

Eg. Yes, it is useful. It shows that whoever dares to be different would be punished. The director of the paper factory was given ‘10 years in a labour camp’ for being the first to stop the applause for Stalin. This is supported by Source A which shows how Stalin forced his people to work for the industrialization programme by force. This is supported by Source A which tells us that Stalin had the power of life and death over his subjects. In the cartoon, he is portrayed as the Egyptian pharaoh, supervising the workers in the completion of the buildings. He is seen to be holding onto a gun, pointing at the workers below and ready to shoot his workers if they were too slow.

This is also supported by Source A which tells us that Stalin was a tyrant/dictator. To achieve his industrialization programme, he forced his people to work like slaves. In the cartoon, the soviet people were portrayed as slaves using brute power to pull a large stone to complete a project and being supervised by Stalin who is holding a gun.

Eg. It is useful as it tells us that Stalin terrorized his people through the secret police. The source shows that nobody dares to stop the applause after the tribute for Stalin until somebody (the director of the paper factor) in the audience led the way. This is supported by Source A which shows Stalin as the Egyptian pharaoh, supervising the workers in the completion of the buildings. He is seen to be holding onto a gun, pointing at the workers below and ready to shoot his workers if they were too slow or not obeying his command.

OREg. No, it is not useful. It did not specifically mention that they were instructed by Stalin to arrest the people. The NKVD men could have acted independently, without the knowledge of Stalin.

Eg. No. It is not useful as the writer, Solzhenitsyn, is a Russian exile. He could have been exiled because he had committed an offence. Thus he would write things that are unfavourable/mock about Stalin and how the Communist Party operate. This is supported by Source E which says, ‘Millions of peasants, rather than give them up to the collectives, killed the cows, sheep and chickens’. This shows that people would rather choose to kill their livestock than to submit to

5-6

8

Stalin’s collectivisation policy/programme.(c) Study Source C.

How far can you accept what this source says about success of the First Five-Year Plan? Explain your answer [7]

Level Descriptors MksL1 Unexplained provenance

Eg. Yes. Because it is Stalin announcing the “success” of his First Five-Year Plan in Jan 1933.

1

L2 Identifies source content to believe/disbelieve, but no valid explanation to explain why. Award 2 m for identify one idea. 3 m for 2 or more ideas.

Eg. Yes. It says the Five-Year Plan was achieved ‘in four years in the sphere of industry’. And they have created the iron and steel industry ‘on a scale and in dimensions that eclipse the scale and dimensions of European industry’...

Eg. It also says that ‘our country has been converted from an agrarian into an industrial country’; and the proportion of industrial output, as compared with agricultural output, has risen from 48 per cent of the total in the beginning of the Five-Year Plan (1928) to 70 per cent at the end of the fourth year of the Five Year Plan period (1932)’.

2-3

L3 Explained provenance, with no use of source content

Eg. Yes, I can accept it because as the leader of Communist Russia, and the architect of the First Five-Year Plans, Stalin had implemented the industrialization and collectivization of agriculture to modernize and develop the Soviet Union, so he will know what he is talking about.OREg. No. I can’t accept it Stalin could just be making a propaganda speech to encourage the people to continue to support his programme.

3-4

L3 Explains source content to believe/disbelieve, with valid explanation and support. Award 3 m for Yes/No with support.Award 4m for Yes & No with support.

Eg. Yes. I can accept what Source C says about the success of the First Five-Year Plan as the First 5-year Plan was achieved in 4 years, earlier than expected. Stalin proudly announced that the Five-Year Plan had been achieved earlier than planned and that Russia had been turned from an agrarian into an industrial country. This is seen in ‘What are the results of the Five-Year Plan in four years in the sphere of industry?’ and ‘our country has been converted from an agrarian into an industrial country’.

Eg.. Yes. Source C also shows that industrial output was better than agricultural output, as seen in ‘the proportion of industrial output, as

3-4

9

compared with agricultural output, has risen from 48 per cent of the total in the beginning of the Five-Year Plan (1928) to 70 per cent at the end of the fourth year of the Five Year Plan period (1932)’.

OR

Eg. No. Stalin did not say how the people have suffered tremendously under the First 5-year Plan or at what cost it was achieved as seen by the suffering of the people in Source A.

Eg. No. I cannot accept what Source C says about the success of the First Five-Year Plan, It highlights that ‘the proportion of industrial output, as compared with agricultural output, has risen from 48 per cent of the total in the beginning of the Five-Year Plan (1928) to 70 per cent at the end of the fourth year of the Five Year Plan period (1932)’. It did not show how dismally the agricultural output was.

L4 Yes and No, Cross-reference to other sources. Award 5 marks for Yes/No, with cross reference.Award 6 marks for Yes+No with cross reference. Eg. I can accept what Source C says about the success of the First Five-Year Plan, Stalin proudly announced that the Five-Year Plan had been achieved earlier than planned and that Russia had been turned from an agragrian into an industrial country. This is seen in ‘What are the results of the Five-Year Plan in four years in the sphere of industry?’ and ‘our country has been converted from an agrarian into an industrial country’. This is supported by Source D which shows that industrial output has indeed improved when the figures for 1928 and 1933 are compared. For example, in 1928 electrical power has tripled from 5 billion kwh in 1928 to 16 billion kwh in 1933; coal output has also gone up more than doubled, from 35 million tons to 76 million tons.

Eg. Source C also shows that industrial output was better than agricultural output, as seen in ‘the proportion of industrial output, as compared with agricultural output, has risen from 48 per cent of the total in the beginning of the Five-Year Plan (1928) to 70 per cent at the end of the fourth year of the Five Year Plan period (1932)’. Source D supports the claim in Source C that agricultural output was below that of industrial output. The table in Source D shows that the production of grain went down form 73 million grains in 1928 to 69 in 1933 and number of cows have also gone down from 29 millions to 19 millions.

OREg. I cannot accept what Source C says about the success of the First Five-Year Plan, It highlights that ‘the proportion of industrial output, as compared with agricultural output, has risen from 48 per cent of the total in the beginning of the Five-Year Plan (1928) to 70 per cent at the end of the fourth year of the Five Year Plan period (1932)’. However, it

5-6

10

did not show how dismally the agricultural output was. Source D shows that grain production went down from 73 millions tons in 1928 to 69 in 1933 and number of cows has also gone down from 29 millions to 19 millions. This is supported by Source E which shows the reaction of the Kulaks and devastating consequence to the Five-year Plan as it states that ‘Millions of peasants, rather than give them up to the collectives, killed the cows, sheep and chickens’ This has thus resulted in the poor agricultural output compared to the industrial output.

L5 Critical analysis of provenance, with use of source content

Eg. I cannot really accept what the source say about the success of the First Five-Year Plan because being the architect of the industrialisation and the collectivization of agriculture programme, it is not a surprise that Stalin will praise the outcome of his First Five-Year Plans but he had hidden the fact that it was achieved at a high cost. He had hidden the fact that his programme was strongly opposed by the Kulaks who killed their live-stocks instead of giving them to the state. Thus it resulted in the drastic drop in the grain, cows and pigs output.

7

11

(d) Study all the sources.

How far do the sources prove that Stalin was a disaster for the Soviet Union? Explain your answer. [7]

Level Descriptors MksL1 Answers on Stalin with no valid use of source/ describe the sources.

Eg. Stalin was a disaster for the Soviet Union because he was a tyrant. He punished people who did not obey him. He forced the Russians to industrialize.

1

L2 Identifies sources which shows that Stalin was a disaster for the Soviet Union

Award 1m for identifying one source. And an additional for another source used.Award 2m for identifying one source which shows and another which does not and an additional mark for another source on wither side.Eg. Sources A, B and E prove that Stalin was a disaster for the Soviet Union.Or Eg. Sources C and D prove that Stalin was not a disaster for the Soviet Union.

1-3

L3 Identifies and explains sources which show that Stalin was/was not a disaster for the Soviet Union

Award 4m per source used on either side up to a maximum of 5 marks.

Source A depicts Stalin as a tyrant/dictator. To achieve his industrialization programme, he forced his people to work like slaves, making them suffer. In the cartoon, the soviet people were portrayed as slaves using brute power to pull a large stone to complete a project and being supervised by Stalin who is holding a gun. Thus it shows that Stalin was a disaster for the Soviet Union

Source B shows that Stalin ruled the people with fear as in whoever dares to be different would be punished. The director of the paper factory was given ‘10 years in a labour camp’ for not continuing his applause for Stalin. Source B also shows that there were secret police like NKVD men on the lookout for people who did not respect Stalin as seen in ‘after all, *NKVD men were in the hall waiting to see who quit first’. Thus it shows that Stalin ruled the people with fear and meted out punishment without concrete evidence of sabotage. Stalin was thus a disaster for the Soviet Union.

Source E shows the reaction of some people, namely the Kulaks towards the Five-year Plan. It says that ‘Millions of peasants, rather than give them up to the collectives, killed the cows, sheep and chickens’ This has thus resulted in the poor agricultural output compared to the industrial output.

4-5

12

Due to the collectivization of agriculture programme, it had brought suffering and protest from the people. Thus Stalin was a disaster for Soviet Union.

ORSource C shows the success of the First Five-Year Plan, Stalin proudly announced that the Five-Year Plan had been achieved earlier than planned and that Russia had been turned from an agrarian into an industrial country. This is seen in ‘What are the results of the Five-Year Plan in four years in the sphere of industry?’ and ‘our country has been converted from an agrarian into an industrial country’. Thus he was not a disaster for the Soviet Union.

Source D shows that industrial output has indeed improved when the figures for 1928 and 1933 are compared. For example, in 1928 electrical power has tripled from 5 billion kwh in 1928 to 16 billion kwh in 1933; coal output has also gone up more than doubled, from 35 million tons to 76 million tons. Stalin had actually improved the economy for Russia. Thus he was not a disaster for the Soviet Union.

L4 Both aspects of L3

Award 6 marks for sources used to support and dispute the view that that Stalin was a disaster for the Soviet Union

Award an additional mark for any further source discussed and supported.

6-7

13

Section B (Structured-essay Questions)Answer one question.

2 This question is about Establishing Peace.(a) ‘The Treaty of Versailles imposed on Germany was fair’. Do you agree?

Explain your answer.[12]

L1 Writes about the TOV but without focus on the question.Award 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.

1-2

L2 Describes the terms of TOV.Award 3 marks for describing one term of the TOV to a maximum of 4 marks.Eg. According to Article 231 of the Treaty, the Germans had to bear full responsibility for the war. Germany had to take the full blame for the war and had to pay heavy war reparations of ₤ 6,600 million in cash or industrial goods to the Allied powers. Germany would have problems paying up this enormous sum especially as it had lost a lot of resource lands and trading concessions.

Eg. Germany also had to give territories such as Alsace-Lorraine and its rich iron mines and Saar’s coalfields to France, the Polish Corridor to Poland etc. The Germans hated the land loss clause in the Treaty of Versailles. In addition, they lost their overseas colonies and all their natural resources to the Allies

Eg. Germany’s Army was restricted to only 100,000 soldiers. Compulsory military service (conscription) was not allowed. Germany was not allowed to have tanks, air force and submarines. She was only allowed to keep a small navy. Rhineland was to be permanently demilitarised so no troops were allowed to be stationed there.

3-4

L3 Explains TOV as fair or unfair. Marks within the level to be determined by quality of explanation and /or amount of supporting details used.

Eg. Yes. ‘The Treaty of Versailles imposed on Germany was fair’. According to Article 231 of the Treaty, the Germans had to bear full responsibility for the war. Germany had to take the full blame for the war and had to pay heavy war reparations of ₤ 6,600 million in cash or industrial goods to the Allied powers. Germany would have problems paying up this enormous sum especially as it had lost a lot of resource lands and trading concessions.

Eg. Germany also had to give territories such as Alsace-Lorraine and its rich iron mines and Saar’s coalfields to France, the Polish Corridor to Poland etc. In addition, they lost their overseas colonies and all their natural resources to the Allies

Eg. Germany’s Army was restricted to only 100,000 soldiers. Compulsory military service (conscription) was not allowed. Germany was not allowed to have tanks, air force and submarines. She was only allowed to keep a

5-7

14

small navy. Rhineland was to be permanently demilitarised so no troops were allowed to be stationed there. I think the treaty was fair as Germany had started the first World War which had ruined many parts of France. Many lives had also been lost in France The Germans had similarly acted harshly to the new Soviet Union after the Russian Revolution. The Bolsheviks had been forced to hand over some of Russia’s best industrial land to Germany at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Thus Germany deserves what she had done.OREg. The Treaty of Versailles imposed on Germany was unfair. Firstly, the terms of the TOV were made between the Allies and each defeated country separately and were signed at different times. Germany was not represented at the negotiation/invited to the discussion. The TOV was a diktat imposed on Germany. Thus it was not able to negotiate for a fairer terms.

Eg. Secondly The imposition of the heavy war reparations was unfair. According to Article 231 of the Treaty, the Germans had to bear full responsibility for the war. Germany had to take the full blame for the war and had to pay heavy war reparations of ₤ 6,600 million in cash or industrial goods to the Allied powers. Having to pay the heavy reparations and having their land and resources taken away would mean that Germany was not able to rebuild itself and thus cause it to be in an economic crisis. Eg. Thirdly, Germany had to give territories such as Alsace-Lorraine and its rich iron mines and Saar’s coalfields to France, the Polish Corridor to Poland etc. In addition, they lost their overseas colonies and all their natural resources to the Allies. T his would lead to serious economic problems and they would have difficulties rebuilding their economy. It was thus unfair as the Allies took over the German colonies for themselves.Eg. Lastly, Germany’s Army was restricted to only 100,000 soldiers. Compulsory military service (conscription) was not allowed. Germany was not allowed to have tanks, air force and submarines. She was only allowed to keep a small navy. Rhineland was to be permanently demilitarised so no troops were allowed to be stationed there. The TOV actually humiliated Germany by this disarmament clause as Germany would be weak and unable to defend herself.

L4 Both elements of L3 Award 8 -10 marks for explanations of the given AND other factor(sMarks within the level to be determined by quality of explanation and /or amount of supporting details used.

8-10

L5 L4, plus explains the relative importance of different factorse.g. [As L4 plus] Whether the TOV is fair or unfair would depend on which country had been most affected by the war. To France, the TOV was fair as she wants Germany to be punished harshly for inflicting so much damage and suffering to France. Taking away lands from Germany to create a buffer zone would made France feel more secured. USA on the other hand felt the TOV was too harsh on Germany as it might make future peace

11-12

15

unlikely and make Germany not been able to recover economically.

(b) Do you agree that the absence of the United States of America was the most important reason why the League of Nations failed? Explain your answer.

[13]

L1 Writes about Lack of military force/absence of the United States of America/failure of disarmament but without focus on the questionAward 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.

1-2

L2 Describes the given factor, OR identifies/describes other factor(s)Award 3 marks for describing the given factor OR dentifying/describing other factor(s). Award 4 marks for both.

Eg. Yes, the League of Nations (LON) failed because of the absence of the United States of America. Three great powers were not members of the League: Germany was not allowed to join; USSR was not a member and USA refused to join as it was following a policy of isolationism. The US Senate did not want the USA to become involved in world affairs that might require its young men to fight another war. The US was the wealthiest and most powerful country after WWI.

Eg. Yes, the League of Nations (LON) failed because it lacked a military force . The LON did not have any arm forces of its own. The League had no army or police force for major powers to accept its rulings. It was dependent on the support of its members.

Eg. Yes, the League of Nations (LON) failed because failure of disarmament. A LON commission was to supervise the disarmament. But Germany disarmed slowly and took advantage of loopholes in the Treaty. Germany was allowed only an army of 100 000 troops. But Germany trained almost all these men as officers and secretly trained the people to be ordinary soldiers. As a result the German army had almost 100 000 officers and many ordinary soldiers. In 1923, the LON suggested a Treaty of Mutual Assistance. Countries were to agree to limit their arms but the LON would come to their defence if they were attacked but few countries agreed to it.

3-4

L3 Agrees with statement and explains why Or Disagrees with statement and explain why Award 4 m for I valid explanation to a maximum of 6m for supporting details Eg. Yes, the League of Nations (LON) failed because of the absence of the United States of America. Three great powers were not members of the League: Germany was not allowed to join; USSR was not a member and USA refused to join as it was following a policy of isolationism. The US Senate did not want the USA to become involved in world affairs that might require its young men to fight another war. The US was the wealthiest and most powerful country after WWI. Thus USA’s policy of isolationism and absence from international affairs weakened the

5-7

16

League. LON’s reputation and credibility would have benefited from having the strongest country in the world as a member.OREg. No. the League of Nations (LON) failed because it lacked a military force. The LON did not have any arm forces of its own. The League had no army or police force for major powers to accept its rulings. It was dependent on the support of its members. Thus without a military force, It could only apply economic sanctions if a country is found to have acted against the principles of the League, leading to its weakness.OREg. No, the League of Nations (LON) failed because failure of disarmament. A LON commission was to supervise the disarmament. But Germany disarmed slowly and took advantage of loopholes in the Treaty. Germany was allowed only an army of 100 000 troops. But Germany trained almost all these men as officers and secretly trained the people to be ordinary soldiers. As a result the German army had almost 100 000 officers and many ordinary soldiers. The LON had also failed to ensure that countries disarm or limit their navies. As a result, Germany was able to build smaller but heavily armed battleships which did not pass through LON’ s requ irement . In 1923, the LON suggested a Treaty of Mutual Assistance. Countries were to agree to limit their arms but the LON would come to their defence if they were attacked but few countries agreed to it. Thus the failure to get countries on naval and military disarmament are important reasons why the League of Nations failed:

L4 Both elements of L3Award 8 marks for answers which explain the given factor and identify/describe other factor(s). Award 9 -11 marks for explanations of the given AND other factor(s). Do not award 11 marks unless more than one additional factor is explained.

8-11

L5 L4 + Reaches a balanced conclusion explaining explicitly addressing how far Award 12m for explanations to a maximum of 13m for supporting details

e.g. [As L4 plus]I think all the factors cited are important reasons why the LON failed.Although without the strongest country in the world as a member LON’s reputation and credibility was lessened, it failed also because it did not have a military force to enforce any implement its mandates. It could only apply economic sanctions if a country is found to have acted against the principles of the League, leading to its weakness.

12-13

17

3 This question is about war in the Asia –Pacific.

(a) ‘The British and French policy of appeasing Hitler in the late 1930s was justified’. Do you agree? Explain your answer.

[12]

L1 Writes about Appeasement Policy but without focus on the question

Award 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.

1-2

L2 Describes the Appeasement Policy. Award 3 marks for describing the Appeasement Policy. To a maximum of 4 marks .

Eg. Yes. The British and French policy of appeasing Hitler in the late 1930s was justified’ Many European countries felt that the TOV was unfair and German resentment was reasonable. They wanted to avoid war by satisfying some of Germany’s demands. Even Britain and France also believed that many of Germany’s complaints about the Treaty of Versailles were reasonable and supported appeasement. The terms of the TOV such as the War Guilt clause and the crippling reparations clause had devastated Germany and Hitler was only trying to reclaim what were duly Germany’s territories

Eg. Britain and France also believed that they were totally unprepared for war. The British economy was badly damaged by WWI and the Great Depression.

Eg. Firstly, the Europeans politicians accepted Hitler’s rearming like building a navy and not limiting it, The Saar was also allowed to be united with Germany in 1935

3-4

L3 Explains that Appeasement Policy of the late 1930s was justified/not justified.Marks within the level to be determined by quality of explanation and /or amount of supporting details used.

Eg. Yes. The British and French policy of appeasing Hitler in the late 1930s was justified’ Many European countries felt that the TOV was unfair and German resentment was reasonable. They wanted to avoid war by satisfying some of Germany’s demands. Even Britain and France also believed that many of Germany’s complaints about the Treaty of Versailles were reasonable and supported appeasement. The terms of the TOV such as the War Guilt clause and the crippling reparations clause had devastated Germany and Hitler was only trying to reclaim what were duly Germany’s territories. This sympathy allowed Hitler to occupy the Rhineland, rearm, build a navy and unite with Austria, unopposed by the Allies

Eg.Yes.Britain and France also believed that they were totally unprepared

5-7

18

for war. The British economy was badly damaged by WWI and the Great Depression. Thus by practising appeasement, Britain and France felt they could rebuild they economy and “buy-time” to strengthen and modernise their military forces.

Eg. Britain was also having problems dealing with its colonies, like India and Palestine who wanted independence and there was increasing opposition to British rule. As the British did not have the troops to keep order in their colonies and fight a war in Europe at the same time, appeasement policy of the late 1930s was justified

Eg. Britain and France also had a greater fear and dislike of Communism than of Nazism. They believed that a strong Germany under Hitler would stop the westward spread of Communism. They also knew that Hitler was staunchly anti-communist and this would be a perfect foil for Russia’s communism. Thus they practised appeasement policy hoping to gain Hitler’s support against Communism.

Eg. Britain and France believed that Hitler was a reasonable leader who would stop making demands once some of Germany’s main grievances had been settled. As the League of Nations was quite powerless, it seemed better to settle disputes by direct contact between leaders. This wrong belief led to Hitler becoming bolder in his demands and taking advantage of the Allies hesitance to invade Sudetenland and later Czechoslovakia.

OREg. No. The British and French policy of appeasing Hitler in the late 1930s was not justified’ The following actions of the European politicians had allowed Hitler to become bolder and demanded for more. Firstly, the Europeans politicians accepted Hitler’s rearming like building a navy and not limiting it, The Saar was also allowed to be united with Germany in 1935, This has thus made Ger many stronger.

In 1936, when the Europeans accepted that German troops remilitarizing the Rhineland as only marching into its own ‘backyard’, it resulted in France having no demilitarized land between it and Germany. Appeasing Hitler has thus made Germany stronger and allowed the German army to grow more rapidly.

When Germany took Sudetenland which is part of Czechoslovakia in Sept 1938, the Europeans justified it by saying that Germany was just taking land it has a good claim to and even believing that Hitler had promised to stop there. T he appeasement policy has now helped Germany’s armed forces to be very strong and difficult to stop them to take more land.

Eg. The British and French policy of appeasing Hitler in the late 1930s was not justified. Britain and France feared another war like World War One. It had been a long and costly war, which saw a great loss of lives and property especially in France. By adopting a policy of Appeasement,

19

they hoped that they could avoid suffering the same experience again.They believed in settling disputes through discussion, rather than war. They were willing to give in to aggressive powers, as long as the demands were not too excessive. Thus France and Britain gave in to the demand of Hitler. As a result, the Europeans politicians made little or no attempt to control Hitler’s ambition. Britain even signed the Munich Agreement which allowed Hitler to take over Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. But this only encouraged Hitler as he thought that no one would stop him from capturing the countries in Europe. Hitler thus went on to capture Czechoslovakia and Poland, leading to WW2. It thus showed that appeasement policy had failed.

L4 Both elements of L3 Award 8 -10 marks for explanations of the given AND other factor. Marks within the level to be determined by quality of explanation and /or amount of supporting details used.

8-10

L5 L4, plus explains the relative importance of different factors

e.g. [As L4 plus]

The British and French policy of appeasing Hitler in the late 1930s was only a temporary measure to give them time to recover from the effects of WWI and the Great Depression. It has only given France and Britain a temporarily peace. The policy has instead made Hitler bolder and encouraged Germany’s aggression which resulted in WWII.

11-12

20

(b) Do you agree that Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy was the most important reason why war broke out in Europe in 1939? Explain your answer.

[13]

L1 Writes about Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy/the failure of the League of Nations/the Nazi-Soviet Pact but without focus on the question

Award 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.

1-2

L2 Describes one factor, OR identifies/describes other factor(s)Award 3 marks for describing the given factor OR identifying/describing other factor(s). Award 4 marks for both.

Eg. Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy is an important reason why war broke out in Europe in 1939. Hitler had wanted to make Germany into a great country by abolishing the Treaty of Versailles, reuniting all German people in one country and giving Germany more living space. To achieve his aims, he mapped out the whole sequence of events carefully in advance. In the beginning he wasn’t sure when or how. OREg.The League of Nations (LON) is also an important reason why war broke out in Europe in 1939. The LON was ineffective. It failed to stop the Japanese from conquering Manchuria. In 1935, Mussolini attacked Abyssinia. Abyssinia appealed to LON for help and the LON imposed economic sanctions. However, Britain and France did not include steel, copper oil in the sanctions and even offered Abyssinia land to Mussolini if he stopped fighting. When the other countries heard that the two main countries in the league were trying to make a deal behind their backs, they became less interested in sanctions. OREg.The signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact between Stalin and is also an important reason why war broke out in Europe in 1939, agreeing not to fight each other. They also agreed to divide Poland up between them. For Stalin, not only could he gain territory in Poland, he could also gain time to improve the Soviet armed forces before the inevitable attack from Nazi Germany.

3-4

L3 Agrees with statement and explains why Or Disagrees with statement and explain why Award 5 m for I valid explanation to a maximum of 6m for supporting details Eg. Yes. Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy is an important reason why war broke out in Europe in 1939. Hitler had wanted to make Germany into a great country by abolishing the Treaty of Versailles, reuniting all German people in one country and giving Germany more living space. To achieve his aims, he mapped out the whole sequence of events carefully in advance. In the beginning he wasn’t sure when or how. The reactions of other countries, the failure of the LON to stop Japan and Italy from conquering Manchuria and Abyssinia respectively made him more bold in pursuing his aims.OR

5-7

21

Eg. No. Hitler’s aggression is the main reason war broke out in Europe in 1939. He was determined to expand Germany’s territory and just kept on pushing until Britain and France had no choice but to go to war. He could have stopped in September 1938 and there would not have been a war, but he kept going and then concluded a treaty with the Soviet Union which meant that he would invade Poland. That would definitely led to war.OREg. No. The League of Nations (LON) is also an important reason why war broke out in Europe in 1939. In the 1930s, the LON was ineffective. It failed to stop the Japanese from conquering Manchuria. In 1935, Mussolini attacked Abyssinia. Abyssinia appealed to LON for help and the LON imposed economic sanctions. However, Britain and France did not include steel, copper oil in the sanctions and even offered Abyssinia land to Mussolini if he stopped fighting. When the other countries heard that the two main countries in the league were trying to make a deal behind their backs, they became less interested in sanctions. This enabled Mussolini to complete his conquest of Abyssinia. The inability of the LON to prevent warfare in Manchuria and Abyssinia reduced its credibility. It did boost Hitler’s confidence and make his foreign policy more aggressive . OREg. No. The signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact between Stalin and Hitler is also an important reason why war broke out in Europe in 1939. They agreed not to fight each other. They also agreed to divide Poland up between them. This pact actually allowed Hitler to invade Poland without fighting a war on two fronts. For Stalin, not only could he gain territory in Poland, he could also gain time to improve the Soviet armed forces before the inevitable attack from Nazi Germany

L4 Both elements of L3Award 8 marks for answers which explain the given factor and identify/describe other factor(s). Award 9 -11 marks for explanations of the given AND other factor(s). Do not award 11 marks unless more than one additional factor is explained..

8-11

L5 L4 + Reaches a balanced conclusion explaining explicitly addressing how far Award 12m for explanations to a maximum of 13m for supporting detailse.g. [As L4 plus]The failure of the LON to stop the aggression of other countries had given Hitler the boost to achieve his aims. The USSR signing the Nazi-Soviet Pact with Hitler, had given Hitler the peace of mind to go ahead with his conquest of countries in the west without fear of having to fight USSR. Hitler himself had intended to create a greater Germany, so he had planned to conquer Europe from 1936-39.. Thus I feel it is not only the League of Nations and the USSR but Hitler himself be held responsible for Hitler’s conquests from 1936 to 1939. It is a combination of the different factors mentioned that are held responsible

12-13

22

for the reasons why war broke out in Europe in 1939:

4 This question is about the outbreak and escalation of the Cold War.

(a) ‘The Cuban Missile Crisis was beneficial to USA’. Do you agree with the statement? Explain your answer. 12

L1 Writes about Cuban Missile Crisis but without focus on the questionAward 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.

1-2

L2 Describe that The Cuban Missile Crisis was beneficial/not beneficial to USA’Eg. Yes. The Cuban Missile Crisis was beneficial to USA. When USA discovered Soviet missiles in Cuba in October 1962, they sent ordered a naval and air blockade around Cuba to stop more missiles from being shipped to Cuba from USSR. There were also secret exchanges between the two leaders, Kennedy and Khrushchev. Eventually, the USSR agreed to remove all the missiles from Cuba. This was beneficial to USA as the removal of the missiles meant that USSR’s ability to strike at America was severely limited. Had the missiles not been removed, these missiles would be less than 150 km from major US cities and this would greatly reduce USA’s advantage in missiles.

3-4

L3 Explains that The Cuban Missile Crisis was beneficial/not beneficial to USA’Marks within the level to be determined by quality of explanation and /or amount of supporting details used.

Eg. Yes. The Cuban Missile Crisis was beneficial to USA. When USA discovered Soviet missiles in Cuba in October 1962, they sent ordered a naval and air blockade around Cuba to stop more missiles from being shipped to Cuba from USSR. There were also secret exchanges between the two leaders, Kennedy and Khrushchev. Eventually, the USSR agreed to remove all the missiles from Cuba. This was beneficial to USA as the removal of the missiles meant that USSR’s ability to strike at America was severely limited. Had the missiles not been removed, these missiles would be less than 150 km from major US cities and this would greatly reduce USA’s advantage in missiles. Thus, the removal of the missiles allowed US-Soviet relations to be more cordial and USA to maintain a certain level of advantages over USSR. Furthermore, the crisis also caused the Soviet-Chinese relations to be strained. After the USSR removed the missiles from Cuba, the Chinese accused the USSR of being weak and called it a ‘paper-tiger’. China claimed that it was the true leader of the communist movement. This led to conflict between the two communist powers and caused the international communist movement to be split between the two sides. This meant that the international communist movement would be weakened as it was no longer united and this would greatly benefit USA and the Western powers . Hence, the Cuban Missile Crisis was indeed beneficial to USA.

5-7

23

Or

No. The Cuban Missile Crisis was not beneficial to USA. Since Cuba became communist in 1959, USA had made numerous attempts to remove the communists from the island as the Americans were worried that Cuba might be used as a base to spread communism to America as well as the rest of the Latin America. This would be detrimental to the interest of USA. Hence, USA provided funding and training to exiled Cuban rebels and these rebels tried to overthrow Castro government in an invasion via the Bay of Pigs. Unfortunately the invasion failed. Hence, even though USA managed to force USSR to remove the missiles from the island, Cuba still remained in the hands of the communists. USSR had promised to protect Cuba if it was threatened and USA was also made to promise not to invade Cuba. This meant that USA must put the possible threats posed by this communist state at its doorstep. In addition, to force USSR to remove the missiles from Cuba, USA also promised secretly to remove the missiles from Turkey. This would greatly reduce USA’s strategic advantage over USSR should there be a war between the two sides. As a result, USA had failed to rid communism from Cuba and had to lose certain strategic advantages in the nuclear arm race with USA after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Thus, the Cuban Missile Crisis was not beneficial to USA.

L4 Both elements of L3 Award 8 -10 marks for explanations of the given AND other factor. Marks within the level to be determined by quality of explanation and /or amount of supporting details used.

8-10

L5 L4, plus explains the relative importance of different factors

e.g. [As L4 plus] In conclusion, the Cuban Missile Crisis was still beneficial to USA. Even though Cuba remained a communist state and that it had to remove its missile from Turkey, the USA still managed to contain Cuba and still managed to maintain certain degree of advantages over USSR by maintaining its bases and missiles in other parts of Europe which were still comparatively closer to USSR than any other USSR bases to USA. However, the benefits that it gained far outweigh the losses. The removal of missiles from Cuba would severely limited USSR capability to strike at USA should there be a war. Hence, the security of USA was maintained. In additional, the broke down of relationship between USSR and China only served to benefit USA in the long run as this would severely weaken the international communist movement. This would benefit USA in its struggle against USSR during the Cold War as USSR would lose a vital ally. Thus, the Cuban Missile Crisis was beneficial to USA.

11-12

24

(b) Do you agree that Gorbachev was the most important reason for the collapse of the USSR? Explain your answer. [13]

L1 Writes about the weaknesses of the Soviet economy/the reforms of Gorbachev/relations with other Eastern European countries.but without focus on the question

Award 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.

1-2

L2 Describes one given factor, OR identifies/describes other factor(s)

Award 3 marks for describing the given factor OR identifying/describing other factor(s). Award 4 marks for both.

Eg.. Yes. The role of Gorbachev was the most important reason for the collapse of the USSR. He thought he could solve the Soviet Union’s problems by making the economy more efficient. Thus he introduced Perestroika or restructuring of the Soviet economy in 1984. Under Perestroika, there were military cutbacks, more autonomy was given to factories managers set their targets and all factories had to be self-finanacing. He also introduced market economy by allowing the people to set up small private businesses under state supervision. He also encouraged glasnost, ‘openness’ He encouraged ideas and suggestions of ordinary citizens to improve the economy. There was also less censorship. People were given more freedom to practice their religion. People in the Communist countries of Eastern Europe were also free to choose the type of government they wanted

Eg. No. The USA was the most important reason for the collapse of the USSR. President Ronald Reagan deliberately increased spending on defence in 1981 because he knew the Soviet Union’s economy was very weak and could not keep up with the cost of a new arms race. He enlarge and improved the US air force, navy and army. He also created the ‘Star Wars’ Programme which was a defensice shield of laser-beam firing space satellites, which could intercept and destroy any Soviet missiles fired at the United States

3-4

L3 Agrees with statement and explains why Or Disagrees with statement and explain why Award 4 m for I valid explanation to a maximum of 6m for supporting details

Eg. Yes. The role of Gorbachev was the most important reason for the collapse of the USSR. He thought he could solve the Soviet Union’s problems by making the economy more efficient. Thus he introduced Perestroika or restructuring of the Soviet economy in 1984. Under Perestroika, there were military cutbacks, more autonomy was given to factories managers set their targets and all factories had to be self-finanacing. He also introduced market economy by allowing the people to set up small private businesses under state supervision. He also encouraged glasnost, ‘openness’ He encouraged ideas and

5-7

25

suggestions of ordinary citizens to improve the economy. There was also less censorship. People were given more freedom to practice their religion. People in the Communist countries of Eastern Europe were also free to choose the type of government they wanted. However, he faced resistant to the reforms from the officials. Communist officials did not want to implement them or only implemented part of Gorbachev’s reforms. The Soviet people also did not see any improvement in their lives. Instead there were long queues to buy food. Fewer basic foods were available. Many workers lost their jobs in the new market economy because of retrenchments by state-owned companies to reduce their costs a result of his reforms, Gorbachev’s glasnost reforms wllowed the Soviet people to criticize government policies. As a result of the reforms introduced by Gorbachev, a Pandora box was open. The changes weakened the power of the Communist Party and made people lost confidence in the Communist Party’s ability to rule, leading to its demise.

Eg. No. The USA was the most important reason for the collapse of the USSR. President Ronald Reagan deliberately increased spending on defence in 1981 because he knew the Soviet Union’s economy was very weak and could not keep up with the cost of a new arms race. He enlarge and improved the US air force, navy and army. He also created the ‘Star Wars’ Programme which was a defensice shield of laser-beam firing space satellites, which could intercept and destroy any Soviet missiles fired at the United States. As a result Soviet Union had to reduce spending on so much on the military and make to improve relations with the USA to defuse international tension and free up money that were spent on armaments in the USSR and the arms race to improve the Soviet economy but it was too late, leading to a weaker Soviet Union and its demise.

Eg. No. the rise of nationalism was the reason for the collapse of the USSR. With perestroika and glasnost being introduced, the Communist party loosened its control of the Soviet Union, the different ethnic groups in the Soviet Union openly called for the break up of he Soviet Union. In the late 1980s, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia Armenia, Azebaijian, Georgia and Ukraine asked for independence. As a result of the continued protests, Gorbachev gave them more autonomy in 1991.

Eg. No. An inefficient economy was the most important reason for the collapse of the USSR. The command economy of the Soviet Union shows signs of inefficiency in the 1980s when the Soviet citizen would not get basic things such as food and clothing. The efficient economy was due to poor and slow decisions by central government. There was also lack of quality control. There was also no incentive for the people to work. Consumer goods were not readily available. Farms and factories were not improved. The transport system was inefficient and distribution system was not organized. As a result, the Soviet people were frustrated with the Communist Party, leading to demonstration

26

against Gorbachev and the Communist Party, leading to its demise.

L4 Both elements of L3Agree and Disagree with statement with explanation

Award 8 marks for answers which explain the given factor and identify/describe other factor(s). Award 9 -11 marks for explanations of the given AND other factor(s). Do not award 11 marks unless more than one additional factor is explained.

8-11

L5 L4 + Reaches a balanced conclusion explaining explicitly addressing how far Award 12m for explanations to a maximum of 13m for supporting details

e.g. [As L4 plus]

It would be unfair to put all the blame on Gorbachev for the collapse of the USSR. When Gorbachev took over the control of the Soviet Union, the economy was already failing and the problems had been going on for so long such as industries in the USSR running at a loss, constant shortages of food and consumer goods. There was already widespread discontentment and poor quality of work. He was unlike Soviet Union top leaders had, since Stalin’s time, covered up problems. Gorbachev was different, he ruled USSR with openness. He did not cover up the problems that Soviet Union had. It was just that the changes he introduced to make Soviet economy and government better caused new problems which he had not anticipated.

12-13

End - of – Paper

27