SINGAPORE CHINESE GIRLS’ SCHOOLPRACTICE TEST 1 (2009)

SECONDARY THREEHISTORY ELECTIVE

Name: __________________________( ) Date: 23 rd July 2009

Class: Secondary 3 ____ Marks: / 25

Time: 45 minutes Parent’s Signature: __________

SEQ: War in Europe

Read the question carefully and answer both parts of the question.

Question 1

a) Which of the following was the most important reason behind the rising tensions in international relations in the 1930s? Explain your answer. [12]

(i) Communism(ii) Great Depression of 1930s(iii) Territorial ambitions

b) “The policy of Appeasement was a severe miscalculation on the part of Chamberlain” Do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. [13]

SINGAPORE CHINESE GIRLS’ SCHOOLPRACTICE TEST 1 (2009)

SECONDARY THREEHISTORY ELECTIVE

Name: __________________________( ) Date: 23 rd July 2009

Class: Secondary 3 ____ Marks: / 25

Time: 45 minutes Parent’s Signature: __________

SEQ: War in Europe

Read the question carefully and answer both parts of the question.

Question 1

a) Which of the following was the most important reason behind the rising tensions in international relations in the 1930s? Explain your answer. [12]

(i) Communism(ii) Great Depression of 1930s(iii) Territorial ambitions

b) “The policy of Appeasement was a severe miscalculation on the part of Chamberlain” Do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. [13]

LORMS for History Practice Test 1 SEQ (3 rd July 2009)

2aWhich of the following was the most important reason behind the rising tensions in international relations in the 1930s? Explain your answer.

(i) Communism(ii) Great Depression of 1929(iii) Territorial ambitions

[12]

L1 Writes about rising tensions in international relations but without focus on the questionAward 1m max.

[1]

L2 Takes a stand and describes 1 or 2 factors

-Describes one factor and gives reason– 2m

-Describes at least 2 factors with reasons– 3m

Introduction

E.g. The fear of Communism was the most important reason behind rising tensions in the 1930s, and explains the hostility that the Western Powers felt towards Communist USSR. 2m

E.g. Even though the fear of Communism and territorial ambitions did help to increase tensions in international relations, it was the Great Depression of the 1930s that gave rise to and accentuated these two factors, and is thus the most important factor behind the increasing hostility in international relations.

[2-3]

L3 Explains one factor (either given or other factors)Award 4m for an explanation of how the fear of Communism led to rising tensions in international relations. Additional mark for each supporting detail, up to maximum of 5 marks.

Factor 1: Fear of Communism

Point: The fear of Communism contributed to rising tensions between the Western powers (such as Britain, France and Germany) and the USSR.

- It was the fear of Communism that explains why the Western powers were willing to give in to Hitler as the latter had made known his desire to destroy Communism. This can be seen in the Munich Conference where USSR had been kept out, while Britain, France Germany and Italy decided on the fate of Czechoslovakia. (4m) Example

[4-5]

- This increased tensions between the Western Capitalist powers and USSR, as the latter felt that the former was giving a free rein to Germany in hope that it can be a strong buffer state against the spread of Communism. (5m) Analysis

- Thus, the fear of Communism and the subsequent measures taken to combat this threat heightened the sense of suspicions and distrust between the West and East and led to rising tensions in international relations. Link

OR

Explanation of one alternative factor: 4- 5

Factor 2: Territorial Ambitions

Point: Territorial ambitions by Italy and Germany also helped to heighten the tensions in international relations, as their aggressive foreign policy meant that they were willing to risk war to gain new land.

- Germany’s remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1930 led to rising tensions with France, as Germany’s actions made the French feel like they were under threat. Hitler next sent his troops into Austria in 1938 and forced a political union upon her. His subsequent demands for Sudentenland and the invasion of the whole of Czechoslovakia destabilized the fragile peace in Europe, and succeed in launching Europe into WWII. (4m) Example

- Germany’s professed desire for living space and her willingness to use force to get her way contributed greatly to the rising tensions in international relations, as she succeeded in threatening the security of France and USSR, through the remilitarization of the Rhineland and the invasion of Czechoslovakia. (5m) Analysis

- Therefore, German territorial ambitions did contribute largely to increasing the hostility between the great powers, and eventually led to the outbreak of World War II. Link

OR

Factor 3: Great Depression of 1929

Point: The Great Depression was an important long term factor in contributing to rising tensions in international relations.

-The Great Depression that started in America led to severe repercussions in Europe, as loans made to Germany were recalled, and protectionism put in place whereby American demand for European goods dried up and led to mass unemployment in countries like Germany. This caused great discontentment amongst the people and led to the rise of Fascist governments in Europe, such as Germany, who were keen to embark on rearmaments as a way to expand their armies to execute their expansionary policies, and to

alleviate the problem of unemployment. This was seen through Hitler’s 4 year economic plan, that featured rearmaments as a way to solve the problem of unemployment. (4m)

-This economic crisis was the underlying factor that led nations to safeguard their national interests at the expense of global security and interests, and thus contributed a great deal to worsening the relationship between countries, as national interests of various counties clashed, creating much tensions in Europe.

L4

L5

Award 6m for explanation of one factor and mentioning of one other factorAward 7m max for explanation of two factors: Max 7

Award 9m max for explanations of the given factor AND 2 other factors. Award 10m for explanations of all 3 factors, all clearly linked to the topic. Differentiation of marks dependent on clarity and detail of explanation.

[6-10]

L6 L4 + Explain to what extent i.e. evaluate the relative importance of the different factors leading to the outbreak of war in Asia-Pacific.i.e. answers that show how some factors are contingent /dependent on others, or the different roles factors play (short-term, long term, etc.)

In conclusion, I would argue that the Great Depression was the most important factor, as it made the fear of Communism more real, and made rearmaments an attractive way in which to solve the problem of unemployment. The Great Depression saw the collapse of the American economy, and showed clearly that the system of Capitalism was flawed. This in turn made the Western Capitalist states even more fearful about Communism, as they were afraid that the communists may take advantage of this unstable situation to launch a take-over. It was the Great Depression too, that gave impetus to the policy of rearmaments, which provided Germany with the concrete means to fulfill her territorial ambitions.

[11-12]

2b “The policy of Appeasement was a severe miscalculation on the part of Chamberlain” Do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.

[13]

L1 Writes about policy of Appeasement but without focus on the question.Award 1m max

[1]

L2 Agrees OR disagrees, and identifies reason (s)Award 2m for identifying 1 point for agreeing or disagreeing

[2]

Yes, the policy of appeasement was a severe miscalculation on the part of Chamberlain as he should not have trusted and given in to Hitler. In doing so, only managed to delay war, but not prevent it.

OR

No, the policy of appeasement was not a miscalculation on the part of Chamberlain, as it was the only policy available to him there, and was useful in that it helped to buy time for Britain to rearm and be more prepared to fight Germany when peace finally broke down.

L3 Agrees AND disagrees, and identifies reasons.Award 3m for identifying 1 point for agreeing AND disagreeing.E.g. I agree with the statement. Although the policy of appeasement was not a miscalculation on the part of Chamberlain, as it was the only policy available to him there, given the pacifistic tendencies of the British public opinion, and was useful in that it helped to buy time for Britain to rearm and be more prepared to fight Germany when peace finally broke down; it was ultimately a severe miscalculation as it also bought time and space for Germany to build up its resources, and this guaranteed that war, when it came, would be more deadly. Moreover, it also encouraged Hitler to take gambles, and ultimately deprived Britain of an ally in USSR. (argument)

[3]

L4 Explains reasons for agreement OR disagreement

4-5 marks max for one point, with example and analysis

6-7 marks for two points, with examples and analysis

Point 1: Appeasement was a miscalculation by Chamberlain because even though it bought time for Britain to rebuild its military capabilities, it also afforded Germany the space, time and resources to build up her own military capacity.

Example: Appeasement did allow the British to catch up with Germany in terms of aircraft production. In 1936, Britain had produced 1800 aircraft as opposed to Germany’s 5000, but by 1939 Britain had caught up with Germany, and produced 8000 aircrafts, to Germany’s 8400. 4m

Analysis: Despite the fact that Appeasement did buy time for Britain to catch up with Germany and to be better able to defend herself from German aggression, it also meant that the British and German war machines were given additional time to mobilize and thus to wage war on a grander scale. Thus the policy of Appeasement was a severe miscalculation by Chamberlain as it failed to prevent war, but only to delay it to a time when its occurrence would bring about greater destruction to both sides. In retrospect, war would have been prevented if Chamberlain had taken a firm stand on Hitler’s

[4-7]

rearmaments programme in 1933, and not allow him to make a mockery of the Treaty of Versailles. Had he done so, Hitler would most probably have backed down as Germany was in no way prepared for war at that time, and would not want to risk offending both Britain. 5m

Link: Therefore Appeasement was a miscalculation as it failed to curb Hitler’s ambitions and led to an escalation in the scale of war when it finally broke out.

Point 2:.Appeasement was a miscalculation that proved costly in hindsight because it encouraged Hitler’s gambling by always giving in to him, and fuelled his insatiable appetite for more territories and a stronger military force. This policy proved to be a severe miscalculation as it sacrificed the sovereignty of Austria and Czechoslovakia but failed to secure peace in Europe.

Example: The failure of Chamberlain to take a firm stand on Hitler allowed him to violate clause after clause in the Treaty of Versailles, starting with the Germany rearmaments programme 1933, the retaking of the demilitarized Rhineland 1936, Anchuluss with Austria in 1938, the annexation of Sudentenland in Sept 1938, and finally the whole of Czechoslovakia in Mar 1939. 6m

Analysis: The failure of Chamberlain to stop Hitler emboldened him to test the limits and to take advantage of Britain’s passivity, to reassert German strength. Appeasement was the wrong policy to take with Hitler as its success relied on the trustworthiness of both parties, to honour their agreements. However, Hitler proved to be untrustworthy time and time again, and the Allied powers either failed to notice the incongruities between his actions and words, or disregarded all the warning signs that Hitler was not a reliable party. The argument that Chamberlain was restricted in his actions by the strong public opinion for peace is a weak one, as it is the responsibility of governments to secure the long term rather than short term interests of their nations, even if this means going against the myopia of the general public. A strengthened Germany clearly posed a threat to the long term stability of Europe, given Hitler’s explicit aim of Lebensraum, and the government should not have been constrained by public opinion, but should have convinced the public of the need to take strong measures to halt Germany’s expansionist foreign policy. 7m

Link: Therefore, the policy of Appeasement was a costly miscalculation by Chamberlain, which brought more harm than good, as Hitler could not be trusted to keep his word.

L5 Explains reasons for agreement AND disagreement

Award 8-9 marks for all three points, with examples and analysis. Both sides of the argument must be present.

Award 10 marks for good and sustained argument with clear links

[8-10]

back to the question.

Point 3: Although the policy of Appeasement seemed to bring good in the sense that a strong Germany provided an effective buffer against Communism, Chamberlain misjudged and failed to realize that it was Fascism that posed a greater threat to the security of Europe, and that the policy of Appeasement ultimately deprived them of an ally in the USSR.

Example: Appeasement effectively drove USSR into the arms of Germany, as evinced by the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1939, after Britain, France and Italy had signed the Munich Agreement with Hitler in 1938, allowing the latter to annex the Sudentenland. The Munich Agreement thus put an end to all the attempts by Chamberlain to come to a possible alliance with the USSR, as the USSR could not trust him to keep to his word, seeing how he had previously broken his promise to safeguard the security of Czechoslovakia. 8m

Analysis: Thus the policy of Appeasement deprived Britain of a potentially strong ally against Germany, that could have helped to preserve the status quo. However, it is difficult to say if such an agreement would have been ultimately possible, as the USSR was the arch rival of Poland, who was an important ally of Britain and one that they did not want to offend.9m

Link: Therefore, although it is clear in retrospect that Appeasement was a miscalculation as the resulting situation then did somewhat restrict the options available to Britain, and precluded an alliance with USSR.

L6 Explains how far and reaches a balances conclusion based on explanation of factors in L5

How far – 11-12 mBalanced conclusion – 13m

E.g. In conclusion, Given my present understanding of that period, I can conclude that in retrospect, Appeasement was a miscalculation as it bought temporary peace at a huge cost. Ultimately, Appeasement backfired because it could not prevent war, but merely delayed it, and made it more deadly when it finally erupted, given that the British and German war machines were fully mobilized. Hence in retrospect, it would have been a lot more effective had Chamberlain denied Hitler firmly from the start rather than indulge him and allow Germany to become a formidable enemy.

[11-13]