Secondary 4 History Preliminary Examination Paper 1

TuitionGoWhere Practice Paper - History Secondary 4 (PRELIM) - Answer Key

Section A: Source-Based Case Study [50 marks]

(a) Study Source A. What can you learn from this source about American foreign policy in 1947? [4 marks]

Sample Answer: From Source A, I can learn that American foreign policy in 1947 was based on supporting countries threatened by communist expansion. The source shows that America was willing to take on global leadership responsibilities to "support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation." The policy aimed to help countries "work out their own destinies in their own way," suggesting America wanted to promote self-determination while preventing communist takeover. The source also reveals American concern that failure to act could "endanger the peace of the world."

Marking Scheme:

• 1 mark for each valid inference supported by source content
• Maximum 4 marks
• Look for: containment policy, global leadership role, opposition to communist expansion, concern for world peace

(b) Study Sources A and B. How different are these two sources as evidence about the developing Cold War? Explain your answer, using details from the sources. [6 marks]

Sample Answer: The sources are very different in their perspectives on the developing Cold War. Source A presents the American view that the US must support "free peoples" against communist threats, portraying America as defending freedom and democracy. In contrast, Source B presents the Soviet view that the Marshall Plan is American interference designed to "split Europe into two camps" and threaten Soviet interests.

The sources differ in their interpretation of American actions. Source A justifies American intervention as necessary to maintain world peace, while Source B condemns it as aggressive interference in other countries' internal affairs. Source A sees America as responding to threats, while Source B portrays America as the aggressor creating hostile blocs.

However, both sources acknowledge the division of Europe into opposing camps, though they blame different sides for causing this division.

Marking Scheme:

• L1 (1-2 marks): Simple comparison without explanation
• L2 (3-4 marks): Identifies differences with some source support
• L3 (5-6 marks): Clear explanation of differences with good source support

(c) Study Source C. Are you surprised by this source? Explain your answer. [7 marks]

Sample Answer: I am not surprised by this source given the context of 1948. By this time, tensions between the Soviet Union and Western Allies had been escalating since 1945. The disagreements over Germany's future, the Truman Doctrine, and the Marshall Plan had already created deep divisions.

The Berlin Blockade was a predictable Soviet response to Western actions in Germany, particularly the introduction of a new currency in the Western zones and moves toward creating West Germany. Stalin saw these as threats to Soviet security and influence in Germany.

However, the scale and severity of the crisis might be surprising - cutting off all supplies to 2 million people was an extreme measure that risked military confrontation. The Western response with a massive airlift also shows how seriously both sides took this confrontation.

The source's description of this as "the most serious confrontation between East and West since the end of the war" is not surprising given the pattern of escalating tensions, but the potential for nuclear conflict made it particularly dangerous.

Marking Scheme:

• L1 (1-2 marks): Simple yes/no without context
• L2 (3-4 marks): Some contextual explanation
• L3 (5-7 marks): Clear explanation using historical context to justify surprise/lack of surprise

(d) Study Sources D and E. Would the North Korean broadcaster agree with President Kennedy? Explain your answer, using details from the sources. [8 marks]

Sample Answer: The North Korean broadcaster would not agree with President Kennedy. Both sources show fundamentally different perspectives on Cold War conflicts.

Source D portrays North Korea as the victim, claiming that "South Korean puppet government, backed by American imperialists, has launched unprovoked attacks." The broadcaster sees America as the aggressor supporting an illegitimate government. In contrast, Source E shows Kennedy condemning Soviet actions in Cuba as "deliberately provocative and unjustified."

Both sources blame the opposing superpower for aggression. The North Korean broadcaster blames "American imperialists" for Korean division and conflict, while Kennedy blames the Soviet Union for the missile crisis. Source D refers to defending "the motherland against aggression," while Source E talks about defending against "Communist missiles."

However, both sources show similar concerns about foreign interference - the North Korean broadcaster condemns American backing of South Korea, while Kennedy condemns Soviet missile deployment in Cuba. Both see their side as responding defensively to the other's aggression.

The North Korean broadcaster would likely view Kennedy's stance in Source E as typical American imperialism, just as Kennedy viewed Soviet actions as communist aggression.

Marking Scheme:

• L1 (1-2 marks): Simple agreement/disagreement without source support
• L2 (3-5 marks): Some comparison with limited source use
• L3 (6-8 marks): Clear comparison using specific source details

(e) Study all the sources. "The Soviet Union was solely responsible for the outbreak of the Cold War." How far do these sources support this view? Use the sources and your knowledge to support your answer. [25 marks]

Sample Answer Framework:

Introduction: The sources provide mixed evidence about Soviet responsibility for the Cold War, with some supporting and others contradicting the view that the USSR was solely responsible.

Sources Supporting Soviet Responsibility:

• Source A suggests America was responding to threats, implying Soviet aggression came first
• Source C shows Soviet blockade of Berlin as aggressive action that escalated tensions
• Source D shows North Korean (Soviet-backed) aggression in starting Korean War
• Source E reveals Soviet placement of missiles in Cuba as provocative action

Sources Contradicting Sole Soviet Responsibility:

• Source B shows Soviet perspective that America was the aggressor through Marshall Plan
• Source A could be seen as American expansionism disguised as defense of freedom
• Source D claims South Korea attacked first, suggesting American responsibility
• All sources show both sides taking aggressive actions

Historical Knowledge:

• Stalin's actions in Eastern Europe (Poland, Czechoslovakia) were aggressive
• But Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan were also seen as threatening by Soviets
• Both sides misunderstood each other's intentions and security needs
• Ideological differences made conflict almost inevitable

Conclusion: Sources partially support the view but also show American actions contributed to Cold War outbreak. Neither side was solely responsible; both contributed through misunderstanding and competing security needs.

Marking Scheme:

• L1 (1-6 marks): Describes sources without evaluation
• L2 (7-12 marks): Uses sources with limited evaluation
• L3 (13-18 marks): Uses sources and knowledge with some evaluation
• L4 (19-25 marks): Sophisticated use of sources and knowledge with balanced evaluation

Section B: Essay Questions [25 marks each]

Marking Scheme for All Essay Questions:

Level 1 (1-6 marks): Describes events/policies without addressing the question. Limited factual knowledge.

Level 2 (7-12 marks): Attempts to address the question with one-sided argument. Some relevant knowledge but limited analysis.

Level 3 (13-18 marks): Addresses the question with some balance. Good factual knowledge and some analysis of different factors.

Level 4 (19-25 marks): Sophisticated analysis with balanced evaluation. Excellent factual knowledge, clear argument structure, and nuanced conclusion.

Sample Answer Frameworks:

Question 1: Treaty of Versailles Fairness

Arguments for Fairness:

• Germany started the war and should pay consequences
• Territorial changes restored national self-determination (Poland, Czechoslovakia)
• Military restrictions prevented future German aggression
• Reparations compensated for war damage

Arguments Against Fairness:

• War guilt clause was one-sided - other countries also contributed
• Reparations were excessive and crippled German economy
• Territorial losses created new minorities and resentment
• Military restrictions left Germany defenseless

Conclusion: Mixed - some aspects fair (self-determination) but others too harsh (reparations, war guilt)

Question 2: Japan's Defeat and US Strengths

US Strengths Contributing to Victory:

• Industrial capacity produced ships, planes, weapons faster than Japan
• Island-hopping strategy bypassed strong Japanese positions
• Naval superiority after Midway gave control of Pacific
• Atomic bombs forced surrender without invasion
• Code-breaking gave intelligence advantages

Other Factors:

• Japanese strategic mistakes (Pearl Harbor brought US into war)
• Resource shortages crippled Japanese war effort
• Soviet entry eliminated Japanese army in Manchuria
• Japanese overextension across too wide an area

Conclusion: US strengths were crucial but combined with Japanese weaknesses and strategic errors

Question 3: Stalin's Rule as Disaster

Arguments for Disaster:

• Millions died in purges, gulags, forced collectivization
• Terror and repression destroyed civil liberties
• Forced collectivization caused famines (Ukraine Holodomor)
• Economic inefficiencies and waste
• Cultural and intellectual stagnation

Arguments Against Disaster:

• Rapid industrialization made USSR major power
• Victory in World War II saved country from Nazi occupation
• Education and literacy programs improved human development
• USSR became superpower by 1945
• Modernization transformed backward agricultural society

Conclusion: Mixed legacy - industrial and military achievements came at enormous human cost

Question 4: League of Nations Success

Arguments for Success:

• Settled some minor disputes (Aaland Islands, Upper Silesia)
• Humanitarian work (refugees, disease control, slavery)
• Mandates system supervised former German colonies
• Provided forum for international cooperation
• Some disarmament agreements achieved

Arguments Against Success:

• Failed to prevent major aggressions (Manchuria, Abyssinia, Rhineland)
• Lacked enforcement power - no army
• Major powers (US, USSR, Germany) not always members
• Economic sanctions ineffective
• Ultimately failed to prevent World War II

Conclusion: Limited success in minor issues but failed in major crises that mattered most