EAST VIEW SECONDARY SCHOOLSECOND SEMESTRAL EXAMINATION 2016SECONDARY THREE NORMAL ACADEMIC

CANDIDATE NAME

CLASS INDEX NUMBER

Combined Humanities 2120 / 03

Paper 3 History Elective 13 October 2016

Total Marks: 50 1 Hour 40 Minutes

Additional Materials: Writing Paper

READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS FIRST

Write your name, class and index number on all your answer sheets to be handed in.Write in dark blue or black pen.Do not use staples, paper clips, highlighters, glue or correction fluid.

Section A: Answer Question 1.Section B: Choose either Question 2 or 3 and answer both part-questions.

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.

For Examiner’s UseSection A

Section B

Total

This paper consists of 6 printed pages (including the cover page).

Setter: Ms Khalidal Huda

2

SECTION A : Source-Based Case Study (30 marks)

Question 1 is compulsory for all candidates.

Study the Background Information and 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 you are told to use. In answering the question 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 banner? Explain your answer. [5]

(b) Study Source B.

Why was this poster published? Explain your answer. [5]

(c) Study Sources C and D.

How different are they? Explain your answer. [6]

(d) Study Source E.

How useful is Source E as evidence that Stalin had been popular? Explain your answer. [7]

(e) Study Source F.

Does the poem prove that Stalin was a good leader? Explain your answer. [7]

3

Did Stalin’s rule bring more good than bad for the Soviet Union?

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Read this carefully. It may help you to answer the question.

When Stalin came to power in 1929, he wanted the Soviet Union to achieve the same economic and military levels as the Western powers. Industrialisation and collectivisation were implemented, and a series of Five-Year Plans helped to set targets for industrial and agricultural development. As a result, the Soviet Union became one of the most industrialised and modernised states of the time.

However, that achievement came at a heavy price. Poor agricultural outputs led to a widespread famine, killing millions. Those who survived had difficult lives, working long hours for low pay. When unhappiness against his leadership rose, Stalin started to remove people suspected of plotting against him, by executing them or sending them to forced labour camps. This period became known as the Great Terror.

So was the price paid worth the success achieved under Stalin’s rule? Study the sources to find out.

Source A: A Soviet banner, 1936. The words read: “Rise higher the banner of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin!”*

*Marx, Engels and Lenin were also Communist leaders.

4

Source B: A Soviet poster, 1931. The translations are on the left.

Source C: Stalin speaking to the Soviet people about the first Five-Year Plan in 1932.

What are the results of the Five-Year Plan in four years?

We did not have an iron and steel industry. Now we have one.We did not have a machine tool industry. Now we have one.We did not have modern chemicals industry. Now we have one.We did not have a big industry for producing agricultural machinery. Now we have one.

Source D: An adapted view of a Russian who had migrated to America, about his visit to Russia in 1931.

Russia had advanced industrially so much since I last visited. But when I see the crowds in Moscow queuing for food, one feels the sinister force behind Stalin’s speeches. There is a brutal intolerance of differing opinions, the disregard of the

Because of collectivisation,

the USSR became the country with the world’s

most powerful agriculture

USSR(Soviet Union)

5

human individual.

Source E: Adapted from an article in The New York Times, an American newspaper, titled ‘Stalin, Russia’s New Hero’, published 11 March 2016.

Millions were killed in prisons and labour camps under Stalin. Yet surveys this month showed that 40% of Russians thought the Stalin era brought ‘more good than bad’, up from 27% in 2012.

In today’s Russia, officials are corrupt. Police officers demand bribes and judges are believed to be bought and sold. The people long greatly for the “order” of the past under Stalin. The problem is: these people never picture themselves as the ones being repressed. When they long for the Stalin era, they imagine the gun at the side, not to the back of their necks.

Source F: A song about Stalin, by a Soviet poet and writer, 1937.

We receive our sun from Stalin,We receive our prosperous life from Stalin,

Even the good life in the tundras* filled with snowstormsWe made together with him,

With the son of Lenin, With Stalin the wise.You, bright sun of the nations,

The unsinking sun of our times,And more than the sun, for the sun has no wisdom.

*tundras are flat lands with no trees and frozen soil underneath

6

SECTION B : Structured-Essay Question (20 marks)

Choose either Question 2 or Question 3.

2 This question is on the causes of World War II in Asia Pacific.

(a) Describe Japan’s social and economic crises in the early 1900s. [8]

(b) Explain why Japan adopted an aggressive foreign policy in the 1930s because of:

the weakness of the League of Nations the rise of militarism in Japan [12]

OR

3 This question is on the causes of World War II in Europe.

(a) Describe the Munich Agreement and the Nazi-Soviet Pact. [8]

(b) Explain why Britain and France adopted an appeasement policy in the 1930s because of:

fear of another war sympathy for Germany over the Treaty of Versailles [12]

END OF PAPER

7

East View Secondary SchoolHumanities Department

3NA History Elective FYE 2016Suggested Marking Scheme

1 (a) Study Source A. What is the message of this banner? Explain your answer. [5]

L1 Lifts source details; no inference made

E.g. The message of this banner was that Stalin would rise as high as Lenin.

[1]

L2 Makes inference about Stalin’s power / strengthi.e. not about his right to succeed / same status as predecessors

E.g. The message of this banner was to convince Russians that Stalin was powerful. This was because he was drawn on a flag and it was written “Rise higher the banner of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin!” The wish for him to rise higher meant that he was powerful and would make the Soviet Union stronger [3].

Amendment:Inference on the power of communism: L2/2Inferences on Stalin’s power / strength: L2/3–4

[2–4]

L3 Makes inference about Stalin’s right to succeed / same status as predecessors

E.g. The message of this banner was actually to show that Stalin was the rightful leader after Marx, Engels and Lenin. This can be seen in a picture of him on a banner alongside the leaders before him with the words “Rise higher the banner of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin!” This sends the message that he, just like his predecessors, will make the Soviet Union more powerful than ever, and therefore legitimising his leadership [5].

[5]

8

1 (b) Study Source B. Why was this poster published? Explain your answer. [5]

L1 Lifts source details; no inference made

E.g. This poster was published to show that collectivisation had made the USSR the most powerful agriculture in the world.

[1]

L2 Reason based on message / outcome only3m for more developed answers

E.g. This poster was published to convince the Soviet people that collectivisation was a success. This can be seen in how collectivisation had made the Soviet Union “the country of the most powerful agriculture in the world” [3].

[2–3]

L3 Reason based on purpose5m for more developed answers

E.g. This poster was published to convince the Soviet people that Stalin’s collectivisation was a success. This can be seen in how collectivisation had made the Soviet Union “the country of the most powerful agriculture in the world”. Through this poster, the Soviet people would see how Stalin had made their country’s agriculture to be power so that they would strengthen their support for Stalin [5].

Amendments:Inferences NOT on collectivisation: L2/2Inferences on OUTCOME on improving collectivisation success: L4/4–5

[4–5]

9

1 (c) Study Sources C and D. How different are they? Explain your answer.[6]

L1 False matching / Difference in provenance

E.g. Sources C and D are different because Source C shows the success of the Five-Year Plan whereas Source D does not.

E.g. Sources C and D are different because Source C is by Stalin whereas Source D is by a Russian emigrant.

[1]

L2 Similarity OR Difference of contents3m for more developed answers

SimilarityE.g. Sources C and D are not that different because both showed how modernised the Soviet Union was. Source C showed how modernised its economy was with the rise of iron, steel, machine tool and chemicals industries which the Soviet Union never had before. Source D also showed how modernised the Soviet Union was as it said “Russia had advanced industrially so much since I last visited” [3].

DifferenceE.g. Sources C and D are different because Source C shows how good Stalin’s rule was whereas Source D shows that Stalin’s rule wasn’t really good. Though Source C focused on all the new industries created to modernise the Soviet Union and improve the economy, reflecting the success of Stalin’s rule, Source D actually focused on the totalitarian control Stalin imposed on his people, such as “a brutal intolerance of differing opinion, the disregard of the human individual”, reflecting that Stalin’s rule failed to disregard human rights [3].

[2–3]

L3 Both sides of L25m for more developed answers

[4–5]

L5 Difference of tone, supported

E.g. Sources C and D are different. Source C was supportive about the impact of Stalin’s rule while Source D was critical about the impact of Stalin’s rule. Source C painted a very positive picture of the impact of Stalin’s policies because it focused on the successes of his industrialisation policy. It showed how the Soviet Union did not have modern industries like iron and steel or machine tools before, only to be achieved during Stalin’s rule, which showed how advanced Stalin made the Soviet Union out to be and how good his rule was. On the other hand, Source D painted a much less positive picture of the impact of Stalin’s policies because it focused on the negative aspects. For example, Source D mentioned that there were “crowds in Moscow queuing for food” and “a brutal intolerance of differing opinions, the disregard of the human individual.” This implied that despite the industrial successes, there were many people suffering due to a lack of food and freedom, hence Stalin’s rule had brought about a negative impact on the people.

[6]

10

1 (d) Study Source E. How useful is Source E as evidence that Stalin had been popular? Explain your answer. [7]

L1 All failed answersi.e. Answers that do not address the usefulness of Source E

[1]

L2 Useful / Useless, based on the fact that it was a 2016 survey3m for more developed answers

E.g. Source E is useless as evidence that Stalin had been popular, because it is based on a survey of Russians living today, not living during Stalin’s time. So even though it shows Stalin’s popularity rising, it is irrelevant as evidence that Stalin was popular [3].

E.g. Source E is useful as evidence that Stalin had been popular. Even though it is a survey done in 2016, there might still be people alive today who was living in the 1930s. Hence, when it showed that Stalin’s popularity had increased from 27% to 40%, it is useful as evidence of Stalin’s popularity [3].

[2–3]

L3

L4

Useful / Useless, based on evidence of Stalin’s rule

E.g. Source E is useful as evidence that Stalin had been popular. This was because it showed that the Russians admired the order and stability Stalin had brought to the country under his rule. This can be seen in how “The people long greatly for the ‘order’ of the past”, which shows how popular Stalin’s rule had been with the people.

E.g. Source E is not useful as evidence that Stalin had been popular, because it showed that Stalin had killed many Russians, which meant that he hadn’t been popular. This can be seen in “Millions were killed in prisons and labour camps under Stalin” and how actually Stalin’s era would mean a gun “to the back of their necks”, which meant political violence and repression. Given this, it shows that Stalin could not have been popular.

Useless, based on an appreciation of the context of Russia in 2016 as stated in the source5m for more developed answers

E.g. Source E is actually not useful as evidence that Stalin had been popular. Even though it shows that more Russians today thought “Stalin’s era had brought ‘more good than bad’”, this could be because of the current situation in Russia, which had no order, as “officials are corrupt, police officers demand bribes and judges are believed to be bought and sold”. Therefore, even though Source E shows that Stalin was popular, it might be an idealised version of the old order of Stalin’s rule, as they are currently suffering from a lack of order, and therefore not an accurate depiction of his rule and his popularity. Therefore, Source E may not be useful as evidence that Stalin had been popular [5].

[3]

[4–5]

L5 Useful AND Not Useful, based on contents of Source E6m for more developed answers

[5–6]

11

L6 Useful / Not Useful, based on cross-referencing7m for more developed answers

E.g. Source E is useful as evidence that Stalin had been popular. This was because it showed that the Russians admired the ‘stability’ Stalin had brought to the country under his rule. This can be seen in how “The people long greatly for the ‘order’ of the past”. This showed that, because he brought order to society, he must have been popular. However, this was contradicted by Source D. Source D showed that even though there was order in the queues for food, he had felt “the sinister force” due to the “brutal intolerance of differing opinions, the disregard of the human individual”. This shows that even though there was order, Stalin could not have been popular because he instilled a sense of fear among the people due to the dictatorial measures put in place against his opponents. Since Source E is contradicted by Source D, Source E is not reliable, and therefore Source E is not useful as evidence that Stalin had been popular [7].

[6–7]

12

1 (e) Study Sources A to E. ‘Stalin’s rule had been good for the Soviet Union’ How far do these sources support this view? Use the sources and your knowledge to support your answer. [7]

L1 Writes about hypothesis, no valid source use

E.g. Stalin’s rule had not been good for the Soviet Union because under his rule millions of people had died.

[1]

L2 Yes OR No, supported by valid source use2m for one yes / no, supported by valid source use, and an additional mark for each subsequent valid source use, up to a maximum of 4m

E.g. Yes, Source B supports the view. This can be seen in the words “We did not have an iron and steel industry. Now we have one. We did not have a big industry for producing agricultural machinery. Now we have one.” This shows that Stalin’s rule had been good for the economy of the Soviet Union as he had helped to industrialise it [2].

E.g. No, Source E does not support the view as Source E had described Stalin’s rule as being repressive and murderous, with “Millions were killed in prisons and labour camps under Stalin” [2].

[2–4]

L3 Yes AND No, supported by valid source use5m for one yes and no, supported by valid source use, and an additional mark for each subsequent valid source use, up to a maximum of 7m

E.g. Yes, Sources B and C support the view that Stalin’s rule had been good for the Soviet Union. Source B supports this view because it shows that Stalin’s rule had brought good for the country’s agriculture, making it the most advanced agriculture in the world as it said “the USSR became the country with the world’s most powerful agriculture”. Also, Source C shows this with the words “We did not have an iron and steel industry. Now we have one. We did not have a big industry for producing agricultural machinery. Now we have one.” This shows that Stalin’s rule had been good for the economy of the Soviet Union as he had helped to industrialise it.

However, Sources D and E do not support the view that Stalin’s rule had been good for the Soviet Union. Source E had described Stalin’s rule as being repressive and murderous, with “Millions were killed in prisons and labour camps under Stalin”. Source D too had portrayed Stalin’s rule negatively, describing it as fearsome and terrifying with words like “one feels the sinister force” in the air, with Stalin’s “brutal intolerance of differing opinions” and “disregard of the human individual” [7].

[5–7]

13

2(a) Describe Japan’s social and economic crises in the early 1900s. [8]

L1 Describes Japan’s general situation in the 1900s, without giving details on Japan’s economic and social crises2m for more developed descriptions

E.g. Japan launched an aggressive foreign policy in the 1930s. This was because of the weakness of the League of Nations as its members were too preoccupied with their own internal problems as well as problems with an aggressive Germany in Europe [2].

[1–2]

L2 Identifies OR describes Japan’s economic OR social crises3m for identifying an identified aspect up to a maximum of 5m OR4m for a described aspect and 5m for 2 described aspects

(ONE CRISIS)

E.g. Japan’s social crisis in the early 1900s included food shortages [3]. This was due to several factors. One of it was over-population. Japan’s population had boomed quickly, from 45 million in 1900 to 64 million in 1930. Japan was a mountainous region, which made it difficult to find new agricultural lands to grow rice. As a result, this meant a shortage of food for the growing population of Japan [5].

E.g. Japan also faced an economic depression in the 1920s [3] as demand of Japanese exports had fallen as there was a Great Depression in the world [4].

[3–5]

L3 Describes Japan’s economic AND social crises6m for describing both social and economic crises, with an additional mark for the depth of supporting information and the number of aspects covered

(TWO CRISES)

[6–8]

14

2(b) Explain why Japan adopted an aggressive foreign policy in the 1930s because of:

the weakness of the League of Nations the rise of militarism in Japan [12]

L1 Describes Japan’s expansionist foreign policy, without identifying the reasons behind it1m for each detail, up to a maximum of 2m

E.g. Japan had embarked on an expansionist foreign policy and invaded territories near Japan, such as Taiwan, Korea and Manchuria. The success of its expansion encouraged Japan to establish a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, through which the Japanese would dominate the whole of East Asia and Southeast Asia [2].

[1–2]

L2 Identifies / Describes factors3–4m for one described factor5–6m for two described factors

E.g. Japan embarked on an aggressive foreign policy in the 1930s because of the weakness of the League of Nations. The members of the League had been beleaguered by problems such as economic problems post-WW1 and difficulties rebuilding themselves. That made it too weak to stand up to aggressive countries like Japan [4].

E.g. Japan embarked on an aggressive foreign policy in the 1930s due to the rise of militarism as Japan’s political leadership became more militaristic. After the Prime Minister was assassinated and martial law was declared in 1932, the military effectively controlled the government and they sought to embark on an expansionist foreign policy to build Japan’s own empire to put it on par with the Western powers [4].

[3–6]

L3 Explains factor(s)7–9m for one explained factor10–12m for two explained factors

E.g. Japan embarked on an aggressive foreign policy in the 1930s because of the weakness of the League of Nations. The members of the League had been beleaguered by problems such as economic problems post-WW1 and difficulties rebuilding themselves. That made it too weak to stand up to aggressive countries like Japan. As a result, when Japan attacked Manchuria in 1931, the League of Nations could only commission an investigation and condemned Japan as an aggressor – which hardly affected Japan at all, apart from it withdrawing from the League after that. The League could not stop Japan militarily, nor could it persuade Japan using moral persuasion. As a result, Japan was emboldened to carry on with its expansionist plans in the face of very little opposition from the world [9].

[7–12]

15

3(a) Describe the Munich Agreement and the Nazi-Soviet Pact. [8]

L1 Describes general events in Europe between 1919 and 1939, without giving details on the Munich Agreement or the Nazi-Soviet Pact2m for more developed descriptions

E.g. Hitler embarked on an aggressive foreign policy because he was emboldened by the League’s inaction. They had not stopped him from remilitarising the Rhineland, even though he had been prepared to withdraw his troops. This showed that appeasement was a mistake [2].

[1–2]

L2 Describes Munich Agreement OR Nazi-Soviet Pact3m for identifying an identified aspect up to a maximum of 5m OR4m for a described aspect and 5m for 2 described aspects

E.g. The Munich Agreement was due to Hitler’s threats of going to war against Czechoslovakia for Sudetenland [3]. Chamberlain met with Hitler to discuss ways to avoid a war. As a result, the Munich Agreement was born in September 1938. Britain, France and Germany agreed that the whole of Sudetenland would be given to Germany, in exchange for Germany’s agreement to not go to war. Czechoslovakia was not invited. Britain and France urged it to accept the terms; otherwise it would not receive any military support from Britain and France should it decide to war with Germany [5].

E.g. The Nazi-Soviet Pact was also known as the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, signed between Germany and the Soviet Union in August 1939. By then, Hitler had set his sights on expanding German lands to the east of Europe, specifically Poland. He knew that by doing so, he would risk war at the west part of Europe and he did not want to fight a war on two fronts yet. As a result, the pact was secretly signed to promise peace between the two countries. Germany also offered the Soviet Union some parts of Poland and the Baltic States, while Germany would retain the western part of Poland [5].

[3–5]

L3 Describes Munich Agreement AND Nazi-Soviet Pact6m for describing both social and economic crises, with an additional mark for the depth of supporting information and the number of aspects covered

[6–8]

16

3(b) Explain why Britain and France adopted an appeasement policy in the 1930s because of:

fear of another war sympathy for Germany over the Treaty of Versailles [12]

L1 Describes British and French appeasement policy, without identifying the reasons behind it1m for each detail, up to a maximum of 2m

E.g. Appeasement was adopted in the 1930s, with Britain and France giving in to Hitler when he broke the terms of the Treaty of Versailles by rearming Germany, as well as remilitarising the Rhineland in 1936 [2].

[1–2]

L2 Identifies / Describes factors3–4m for one described factor5–6m for two described factors

E.g. Britain and France had adopted an appeasement policy in the 1930s because of their fear of another war. They were barely recovering from World War 1 in the 1930s, as they had suffered tremendous losses. They were also very much weakened economically and militarily, and the former was worsened by the onset of the Great Depression in 1929 [4].

E.g. Britain and France had also adopted an appeasement policy in the 1930s because of this genuine sympathy many felt for Germany after the Treaty of Versailles was signed. Many had thought that the Treaty was indeed unfair and overly harsh to Germany. That was why many thought it was understandable to appease Hitler [4].

[3–6]

L3 Explains factors7–9m for one explained factor10–12m for two explained factors

E.g. Britain and France had adopted an appeasement policy in the 1930s because of their fear of another war. They were barely recovering from World War 1 in the 1930s, as they had suffered tremendous losses, exacerbated of the Great Depression in 1929. The leaders also knew of the great aversion in their citizens for involvement in the affairs of other countries. If they did decide to stand up to Hitler’s actions in the Spanish Civil War or when Hitler broke the Treaty of Versailles to reclaim the Rhineland as a military zone, the democratic leaders might get voted out. As a result, that was why adopting an appeasement policy seemed the only way [9].

E.g. Britain and France had also adopted an appeasement policy in the 1930s because of this genuine sympathy many felt for Germany after the Treaty of Versailles was signed. Many had thought that the Treaty was indeed unfair and overly harsh to Germany, such as the loss of 10% of German lands to the formation of other countries. That was why many thought it was understandable that Hitler would want to reunify all the German peoples, such as the desire for Sudetenland which comprised of mostly Germans, and hence appeasement made sense [9].

[7–12]

17