1. CANBERRA SECONDARY SCHOOL
2010 Preliminary Examination 2
Secondary 4 Express/5 Normal
Combined Humanities (History Elective) Date: 24 Aug 2010
2192/03
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.
50
.
This document consists of 5 printed pages including cover page.
Section A (Source-based Case Study)
1

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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 [12]
1930s was justified’. Do you agree? Explain your answer.
(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

6. 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 Mks
L1 Answer based on provenance/Copies from source. 1
Eg. It shows a French poster of Stalin in the 1930s
L2 Inference without support. 2-3
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.
L3 Inference with support 3-4
Award 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.
L4 Impact / Purpose of message 5
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.
6

7. (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 Mks
L1 Useful/Not useful based on provenance OR lift from source details 1
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.
L2 Uncritical acceptance of useful/not useful ,unsupported by source 2-3
content
Award 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.
OR
Eg. 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.
L3 Useful/Not useful, supported by source content 3-4
Award 3 m for useful/not useful, supported
Award 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.
OR
No, 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.
7

8. L4 L3 +usefulness in context / contextual knowledge/cross 5-6
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.
OR
Eg. 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
8

9. 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 Mks
L1 Unexplained provenance 1
Eg. Yes. Because it is Stalin announcing the “success” of his First
Five-Year Plan in Jan 1933.
L2 Identifies source content to believe/disbelieve, but no valid 2-3
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)’.
L3 Explained provenance, with no use of source content 3-4
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.
OR
Eg. No. I can’t accept it Stalin could just be making a propaganda
speech to encourage the people to continue to support his programme.
L3 Explains source content to believe/disbelieve, with valid 3-4
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
9

10. 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. 5-6
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.
OR
Eg. 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
10

11. 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 7
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.
11

12. (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 Mks
L1 Answers on Stalin with no valid use of source/ describe the sources. 1
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.
L2 Identifies sources which shows that Stalin was a disaster for the 1-3
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.
L3 Identifies and explains sources which show that Stalin was/was not a 4-5
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.
12

13. Due to the collectivization of agriculture programme, it had brought
suffering and protest from the people. Thus Stalin was a disaster for Soviet
Union.
OR
Source 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 6-7
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.
13

14. 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? [12]
Explain your answer.
L1 Writes about the TOV but without focus on the question. 1-2
Award 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.
L2 Describes the terms of TOV. 3-4
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.
L3 Explains TOV as fair or unfair. 5-7
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
14

15. 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
.
OR
Eg. 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. This 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 8-
Award 8 -10 marks for explanations of the given AND other factor(s 10
Marks within the level to be determined by quality of explanation and /or
amount of supporting details used.
L5 L4, plus explains the relative importance of different factors 11-
e.g. [As L4 plus] 12
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
15

16. 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 [13]
most important reason why the League of Nations failed? Explain your
answer.
L1 Writes about Lack of military force/absence of the United States of 1-2
America/failure of disarmament but without focus on the question
Award 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.
L2 Describes the given factor, OR identifies/describes other factor(s) 3-4
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.
L3 Agrees with statement and explains why 5-7
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
16

17. League. LON’s reputation and credibility would have benefited from
having the strongest country in the world as a member.
OR
Eg. 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.
OR
Eg. 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 requirement. 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 L3 8-11
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.
L5 L4 + Reaches a balanced conclusion explaining explicitly 12-
addressing how far 13
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.
17

18. 3 This question is about war in the Asia –Pacific.
(a) ‘The British and French policy of appeasing Hitler in the late 1930s was [12]
justified’. Do you agree? Explain your answer.
L1 Writes about Appeasement Policy but without focus on the question 1-2
Award 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.
L2 Describes the Appeasement Policy. 3-4
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
L3 Explains that Appeasement Policy of the late 1930s was justified/not 5-7
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
18

19. 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.
OR
Eg. 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 Germany 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. The 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

20. 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 8-10
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.
L5 L4, plus explains the relative importance of different factors 11-
12
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.
20

21. (b) Do you agree that Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy was the most [13]
important reason why war broke out in Europe in 1939? Explain your
answer.
L1 Writes about Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy/the failure of the 1-2
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.
L2 Describes one factor, OR identifies/describes other factor(s) 3-4
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.
OR
Eg.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.
OR
Eg.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.
L3 Agrees with statement and explains why 5-7
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
21

22. 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.
OR
Eg. 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.
OR
Eg. 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 L3 8-
Award 8 marks for answers which explain the given factor and 11
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..
L5 L4 + Reaches a balanced conclusion explaining explicitly 12-
addressing how far 13
Award 12m for explanations to a maximum of 13m for supporting
details
e.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
22

23. 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
12
with the statement? Explain your answer.
L1 Writes about Cuban Missile Crisis but without focus on the 1-2
question
Award 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.
L2 Describe that The Cuban Missile Crisis was beneficial/not 3-4
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.
L3 Explains that The Cuban Missile Crisis was beneficial/not 5-7
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.
23

24. 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 8-10
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.
L5 L4, plus explains the relative importance of different factors 11-
12
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.
24

25. (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 1-2
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.
L2 Describes one given factor, OR identifies/describes other factor(s) 3-4
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
L3 Agrees with statement and explains why 5-7
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
25

26. 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

27. against Gorbachev and the Communist Party, leading to its demise.
L4 Both elements of L3 8-
Agree and Disagree with statement with explanation 11
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.
L5 L4 + Reaches a balanced conclusion explaining explicitly 12-
addressing how far 13
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.
End - of – Paper
27