Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1.
L2 Inference, Unsupported 2
Award 2 marks for an unsupported inference
Eg. Source A tells me that Campbell had been in favour of British intervention in the
Malay states in the 1870s.
Eg. Source A tells me that Campbell had been in favour of British intervention in the
Malay states in the 1870s as such a move would have been favourable/brought benefits
to them. From Source A, ‘It is possible that friendly intervention on our part would end
the continuing troubles in Larut and ensure peace in Penang and the Straits
Settlements’. This shows that Campbell had favoured a shift in British policy from non-
intervention to that of active involvement in the Malay states.
Eg. Sources B and C are similar in provenance as they are both accounts by historians.
OR
Eg. Sources B and C are similar in topic as they are both about British policy towards
the Malay states in the late 19th century.
OR
Eg. Sources B and C are similar in source type as they are both textual sources.
OR
Eg. Sources B and C are similar in content as they both showed that the Malay states
was an attractive target as they were very blessed with natural resources.
OR
1
Eg. Sources B and C are similar in content as they both showed that the major European
powers were constantly competing against one another to annex new colonies /
territories.
OR
Eg. Sources B and C are different in content as they both showed differing views about
Britain’s willingness to intervene in the Malay States.
L2 Similarity/Difference Based On Content, Supported. 3-4
Award 3 marks for similarity/difference based on content, supported. Award 4 marks for
similarity and difference, supported.
Eg. Sources B and C are similar in content as they both showed that the Malay states
were attractive targets as they were very blessed with natural resources. From Source
B, ‘the economic needs of Britain dictated her to acquire these territories rich in raw
materials’. This shows how the Malay states’ appeal lay in the rich resources found
there. In addition, from Source C, ‘Malay states contained great wealth and that they
could sustain a far larger trade than had existed so far. Particularly attractive were
prospects of investment in tin mining in Perak and Selangor’. Again, this shows how
there had been an abundance of natural resources and raw materials in the Malay
states.
OR
Eg. Sources B and C are similar in content as they both showed that the major European
powers were constantly competing against one another to annex new colonies /
territories. From Source B, ‘Either she had to step into the Malay States or she had to
watch while these states were grabbed by the other powers’. This shows that the British
were fearful of the presence and competition posed by the other powers. In addition,
from Source C, ‘Especially since the Malay States were of great potential to the other
European powers’. Again, this shows how the Malay states had also appealed to the
other major powers due to its natural resources and raw materials.
OR
Eg. Sources B and C are different in content as they both showed differing views about
Britain’s willingness to intervene in the Malay states. From Source B, ‘So the British
actively intervened in the Malay states because the economic needs of Britain at that
moment demanded the taking over of new territories’. This shows how the British had
little qualms about intervening in the Malay states due to the benefits. In contrast, from
Source C, ‘The British government faced great pressure to intervene from the Straits
Settlement officials and merchants.’ This shows that the British government had not
been in favour of intervening in the Malay states and had been subjected to incessant
pressure to do so.
L3 Different Based On Purpose, Supported 5-6
Award 5 marks for difference based on purpose, supported. Award 6 marks for more
developed answers.
Eg. Sources B and C are different in purpose as Source B had intended to discredit the
rationale for British intervention in the Malay states whereas Source C had intended to
defend/justify the British government’s rationale for doing so. From Source B, ‘There is
no doubt that the political situation in the Malay States was disorderly and chaotic at the
time. However, the truth is that Britain intervened in the Malay States, not out of the
noble cause of bringing peace and order to these states, but because it could not afford
to follow a policy of non-intervention’. This shows that the British intervened in the Malay
states because they had been motivated by their own self-interests. In contrast, from
Source C, ‘Chinese and European capital from Singapore and Penang financed most of
the tin mining after 1850. It was argued that large-scale trade and steady returns on
2
capital could come about only if the interior states had political stability and reasonably
good administrative standards’. This shows how the British had not been in favour of
intervening in the Malay states initially, but had to do so in order to protect the interests
of various groups, including the non-British ones. As such, the aim of Source B was to
influence its readers to be critical of British intervention as a colonial act whereas Source
C aimed to influence its readers to accept British intervention in the Malay states as a
necessary precursor for trade and development.
Eg. Source D is useful in helping me understand the basis for British policy towards the
Malay states as it tells me that the other major powers had been actively involved in
the region. From Source D, ‘Germany, which had emerged as a new power in Europe
after her unification in 1871, aspired to be the world’s greatest industrial and imperial
power. She colonized several areas in Africa and the East and was also actively
searching for more colonies in the East. There were also rumours that she was
interested in bases in Pulau Langkawi and in Northern Malaya’. This shows that the
Germans had been shaping up as a possible contender/rival/challenger to the British
in the region as well as the Malay states.
L3 Useful OR Not Useful Based on Valid Cross Referencing With Other Source(s) / 4-5
Contextual Knowledge To Establish Reliability/Accuracy
Award 4 marks for 1 valid cross-reference. Award an additional mark for any other
cross-reference up to a maximum of 5 marks.
Eg. Source D is useful in helping me understand the basis for British policy towards the
Malay states as it had provided an accurate and reliable account of how the growth of
Germany and how its involvement as well as that of other major powers in the area had
been a source of concern for the British influence. As such, the claim in Source D can
be supported/corroborated by Sources B and C, which were by other historians as well.
From Source B, ‘Britain intervened in the Malay States, not out of the noble cause of
bringing peace and order to these states, but because it could not afford to follow a
policy of non-intervention. Either she had to step into the Malay States or she had to
watch while these states were grabbed by the other powers’. This shows that the British
had been mindful of the threat posed by the other major powers, especially Germany.
Furthermore, in Source C, ‘Especially since the Malay States were of great potential to
the other European powers’. This shows that the other major powers had coveted the
Malay states as well.
Note: For cross-reference with Contextual Knowledge, students are required to provide
adequate evidence and contextual details before explaining how that had made the
source reliable/accurate, and therefore useful.
L4 L3 plus Usefulness Based on Critical Analysis of Provenance 6
Eg. Source D is useful in helping me understand the basis for British policy towards the
Malay states as it sets the context behind the re-think of British policy as well as the
greater calls for a shift from non-intervention to that of active intervention in the Malay
states. Furthermore, the source by the local historian is also consistent with the
3
depictions by other fellow historians as well as my contextual knowledge. Furthermore,
the account was very factual and did not have any hidden agenda except to provide
just a factual narrative.
Eg. Source F is not wrong as it was produced at a later date. As such, Lord Kimberley
would have had a chance to find out more about the issue.
L2 Answers Based on Comparison of Content 3
Eg. Source E/F is wrong as they provided different depictions of Lord Kimberley’s
attitude towards intervening in the Malay states. Source E showed that there was no
benefit for Britain if it were to intervene in the Malay states. From Source E, ‘Further
extension of British territory is not the proper remedy for these evils. If we are to annex
all the territory in Asia where there is mis-government we must end up dividing Asia
with Russia’. This shows that Lord Kimberley had been of the opinion that the British
would have been wasting its time and efforts if it had any plans to intervene in the
Malay states as it would have been a gargantuan and pointless endeavour. On the
other hand, in Source F, ‘the government finds it important to work with the native
princes to rescue their fertile and productive countries from the ruin which must befall
them if the present disorders continue unchecked’. This shows how Lord Kimberley
had felt that the British government should intervene in the Malay states due to the
various benefits/potential pay-offs.
L3 Answers Based on Cross-Reference To Establish Reliability/Accuracy 4-5
Award 4 marks for answers that provide 1 valid cross-reference with another
source/contextual knowledge. Award an additional mark for any other valid cross-
reference with another source/contextual knowledge to a maximum of 5 marks.
Source F claims that there was benefit for British intervention (British
should intervene in the Malay states).
#Note To Marker: Source E is also accurate in its claim that there was no benefit
for British intervention as they were not willing to get bogged down with local
and native affairs as these will divert their attention from commercial activities
which was the primary reason for their arrival in the Malay states in the first
place. To support this argument, students may cross-refer against their
Contextual Knowledge.
Eg. In conclusion, I feel that both sources were not wrong due to the context. For
example, Source E was from an earlier period where Lord Kimberley was echoing the
official stand of the British government not to intervene in the Malay states. As such,
he tried to justify that stand by highlighting the demerits of getting involved in such a
plan. However, a few years later, the situation had changed. For example, not only did
the chaos in the Malay states escalate further, prompting calls from the business
groups, the rise of Germany and other major powers plus their interest in the Malay
states also prompted a change in policy outlook. As such, Source F was a reflection of
this change in policy as well as Lord Kimberley’s attempt to justify such a change.
Statement To Be Tested = British intervention in the Malay states from 1874 onwards
had been driven by commercial motivations.
Challenging Statement = British intervention in the Malay states from 1874 onwards
had not been driven by commercial motivations/driven by other motivations.
Source C also shows that the British intervention in the Malay states from 1874
onwards had been driven by commercial motivations. From Source C. ‘It was argued
that large-scale trade and steady returns on capital could come about only if the interior
states had political stability and reasonably good administrative standards’. This shows
how the British intervention had been driven by commercial motivations as the British
5
wanted to subdue the unrest and chaos, which had been bad for business and other
commercial activities.
Source D also does not show that the British intervention in the Malay states from 1874
onwards had been driven by commercial motivations. From Source D, ‘She (Germany)
colonized several areas in Africa and the East and was also actively searching for more
colonies in the East. There were also rumours that she was interested in bases in Pulau
Langkawi and in Northern Malaya’. This shows how the British intervention had been
driven by the fear of losing out to the other major powers which had begun to focus
their interest on Malaya.
Source E also does not show that the British intervention in the Malay states from 1874
onwards had been driven by commercial motivations. From Source E, ‘If we are to
annex all the territory in Asia where there is misgovernment we must end up dividing
Asia with Russia, for I know no part of Asia which is decently governed except those
under English or Russian rule’. This shows that even in the early 1870s, the British had
not been inclined to intervene in the Malay states and did not think highly of it such that
they would have seen any economic/commercial value that would motivate any active
action to place them under British control.
Source F also does not show that the British intervention in the Malay states from 1874
onwards had been driven by commercial motivations. From Source F, ’the government
finds it important to work with the native princes to rescue their fertile and productive
countries from the ruin which must befall them if the present disorders continue
unchecked’. This shows that the British had been motivated to intervene based on
humanitarian reasons of saving the locals and natives from the chaos and violence that
had broken out in the Malay states.
*Note To Marker: For L3, award a bonus mark for up to 2 marks for use of contextual
knowledge to question a source in relation to its reliability etc. The total mark of the
question must not exceed 8 marks.
Sample Conclusion/Evaluation
In conclusion, the sources largely do not show that the British intervention in the Malay
states from 1874 onwards had been driven by commercial motivations/the sources
largely show that the British intervention in the Malay states from 1874 onwards had
6
been driven by other than commercial motivations. Instead, the British had also been
motivated by a combination of humanitarian reasons ie. a means of saving the locals
and the natives from the recurring and ongoing chaos and violence in the Malay states
as well as to prevent the British from losing out to the other major powers like Germany
which had also coveted the Malay states for the various raw materials and resources.
As such, I feel that this was an accurate depiction of the issue as the British had been
motivated by various concerns before making the decision to revoke the long-standing
policy of not getting entangled in local affairs.
2. This question is on ‘Germany’s Defeat to the Allies During World War II’.
(a) Explain 2 strategies employed by the Soviet Union to ward off the German invasion during World War II.
[8]
Question Target: Constructing Explanation
Level Descriptors Mark
Range
L1 Writes about the topic but without focus on the question 1-2
(b) The following factors contributed to the end of World War II in Europe;
USA’s superiority
Germany’s mistakes & shortcomings
Did one factor play a larger role than the other? Explain your answer. [12]
Eg.
Examples include;
OR
OR
OR
Examples include;
In the Battle of Britain in 1940, Hitler had ordered the Luftwaffe to focus only on
destroying the RAF. However, when a German plane bombed civilian areas of
London by mistake, he shifted his focus to attacking British cities instead. This
allowed the RAF time to recover and inflict heavy damage on the German
Luftwaffe, denying Hitler victory over Britain.
Another example of a strategic mistake took place in the Soviet Union. While
gaining the upper hand in the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, Hitler again
disregarded the advice of his generals and shifted some of his military divisions
from Moscow to attack other places, mostly Ukraine. This resulted in the
Germans losing the only real chance of ending the war quickly and
decisively. As such, the Germans also contributed to the end of World War
II in Europe as the poor command structure had affected operational
effectiveness and the quality of the decision-making. In addition, the
mistakes made in both the British and Russian theatres of war allowed its
opponents to recover and stretch the fighting further, at a great cost to
German resources.
OR
As such, this compromised the German war effort as the key resources
were not necessarily channelled to the most critical areas.
Furthermore, German military tactics also failed to gain advantage against the
enemy. For example, the limited effectiveness of the military tactics can be seen
in the way the German navy had invested heavily in battleships and cruisers
instead of the more threatening U-Boats. In response, the British eventually
developed an anti-submarine force when Germany tried to rectify the problem
later. As such, the Germans also contributed to the end of World War II in
Europe as such rivalries led to massive wastage of resources. This was
especially wasteful since Germany also had to cope with replacing its
depleting resources at the same time.
Another mistake made by the Germans in managing its scarce resources can be
seen in the way that they focused on producing a large number of different types
10
of armaments, unlike the Allies who focused on a few types of proven weapons
and equipment. As such, the Germans also contributed to the end of World
War II in Europe as the high number of spare parts required meant that a lot
of these weapons became non-operational and useless, unless the proper
spare parts can be found. With Germany’s resources depleting, it became
more difficult to produce those spare parts. At the same time, Hitler’s constant
demand for the most up-to-date weaponry also meant that some types of
weapons were mass-produced before they were tested on the battlefield. This
meant that German soldiers had to fight with weapons that were not
necessarily battle-ready. In the event that they were not, then all the
resources expended in making those weapons would have been wasted
and the soldiers did not have the edge required to dominate & prevail in the
battlefield.
OR
OR
Eg. In conclusion, I feel that USA’s superiority had played a larger role than
Germany’s weaknesses and shortcomings. While Germany’s own weaknesses
and shortcomings had definitely sabotaged their own war efforts, the sheer scale
of the USA’s military prowess also meant that it had not been a fair fight from the
start and once the USA joined as a combatant, it was only a matter of time before
11
the Germans were overwhelmed and blitzed by the USA’s military and strategic
capabilities.
(a) Explain 2 circumstances that led to Japan adopting an expansionist foreign policy prior to the outbreak
of World War II in the Asia Pacific. [8]
Japan then decided to administer Taiwan as its first overseas colony. Taiwan
came under the direct rule of Japan. Japan embarked on a colonization
process that mirrored European efforts around Asia, including the
construction of schools, railways and other modern infrastructure. They also
created economic projects that primarily benefited Japan. For example, raw
materials such as sugar were extracted, processed and sold in Japan.
- Twenty-One Demands
The Western powers became very interested in China from the late 19th
century onwards because of its large territory, population and potential for
economic activity. Japan had established a foothold in Manchuria after the
Russo-Japanese War and gained control of Korea and Taiwan after the First
Sino-Japanese War. This fuelled Japanese ambitions to expand further into
China. China also experienced political instability during this period as the fall
of the Qing Dynasty led to a power struggle between Yuan Shi Kai and Sun
Yat Sen. Japan had joined World War I on the side of the Allies and occupied
the German-controlled Qingdao. Japan then delivered the Twenty-One
Demands as an ultimatum to China in 1915.
13
from their citizens to act against the other. Americans also feared competition
for jobs from Japanese immigrants. As such, the Japanese were greatly
offended by this racial discrimination.
- Economic Crisis
The Japanese people also faced internal economic problems due to the rapid
population increase and shortage of land for farming. Japan’s population had
grown rapidly from 45 million in 1900 to 64 million by 1930. This affected the
availability of land for farming. Farmers did not have enough land to grow their
crops and earn a decent profit to support themselves. The Japanese farmers
also practiced traditional farming methods where planting and weeding were
carried out by hand. These methods were extremely labour-intensive and
slow. The shortage of rice led to much discontent among the Japanese people
and as a result, they lost faith in the government. On top of these internal
dissatisfactions, Japan was also affected by the Great Depression in 1929.
The Great Depression affected economies worldwide. The USA and Britain
began to practice protectionism in order to shield their own economies. This
meant that there was growing opposition to free trade and increasing
restrictions and taxation on Japanese exports into these countries. Demand
for Japanese exports, in particular its main export, silk, fell drastically. This
affected the Japanese economy significantly and caused an economic
depression in Japan.
14
other countries in order to import essential resources such as oil.
However, restrictive trading practices, especially after the Great Depression,
made it even more difficult for Japan to obtain the raw materials it needed
from markets it did not directly control. The Japanese thus developed an
expansionist foreign policy of taking control of territories near Japan.
Their justification for this policy was that it was necessary in order to
support their supply of raw materials and resources. Control of Taiwan
allowed the Japanese access to an important source of sugar. Korea
was annexed to defend the Japanese isles and provide a source of
cotton and wool. Manchuria was occupied in turn to defend Korea, as
well as to provide a source of minerals and wheat on top of providing
Japan with land for the growing population.
- Overpopulation
Apart from internal economic problems, Japan also faced problems of
overpopulation. As the population grew larger, the demand for housing, goods
and products also increased. This problem fed Japan’s growing expansionist
ambitions, as occupation of more territories meant access to more resources
as well as space for relocating its citizens. For example, many Japanese were
resettled in Manchuria to resolve the problem of overpopulation.
(b) The following factors contributed to the instability and eventual outbreak of World War II in the Asia
Pacific;
Weakness of the League of Nations
US foreign policy actions on Japan in the 1930s
Did one factor play a larger role than the other? Explain your answer. [12]
15
Level Descriptors Mark
Range
L1 Describes The Topic, But Without Focus On The Question 1-2
OR
When Japan occupied Vietnam in 1940, Roosevelt went further and imposed a
trade embargo on Japan. This embargo formally banned the export of steel, scrap
iron and fuel to Japan. These resources were essential to support Japan’s war
effort in China in the second Sino-Japanese War, and made the control of oil-rich
countries in Southeast Asia even more attractive. Even though the USA was not
a formal participant of World War II at that time, these actions also indirectly made
her one of Japan’s enemies and marked for attack.
L4 L3 plus Balanced Conclusion 11-12
Award 11 marks for answers that evaluate why the chosen perspective was more
applicable than the other perspective based on valid criteria. Award 12 marks for
more well-developed answers.
Eg. In conclusion, I feel that the weakness of the League of Nations had played
a more decisive role compared to the USA’s foreign policy actions on Japan in
the 1930s. While the USA’s foreign policy sanctions against Japan were
admittedly provocative, the weakness of the League of Nations and absence of
firm action over Japan’s previous transgressions in China had done a lot to
embolden the Japanese towards going against major powers. Such was the spike
in Japan’s confidence level that they saw conflict with the USA as being a crucial
step towards attaining its goals in the Asia Pacific.
---The End---
17
18