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

1.

(a) Study Source A.

What does Source A tell you about Campbell’s attitude towards intervention in the Malay states in the
1870s? Explain your answer. [4]

Question Focus: Inference

Level Descriptors Mark
Range
L1 Answers Based On Lifting OR Paraphrasing The Source 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.

L3 Inference, Supported 3-4

Award 3 marks for a supported inference. Award an additional mark for any other
explanation/elaboration up to a maximum of 4 marks.

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.

(b) Study Sources B and C.

How far are the 2 sources similar? Explain your answer. [6]

Question Target: Comparison

Level Descriptor Mark
Range
L1 Similarity/Difference Based On Provenance/Topic/Source Type or Source 1-2
Content, Unsupported.
Award 1 mark for similarity based on provenance and 2 marks for similarity/difference
based on source content, unsupported.

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.

(c) Study Source D.

How useful is Source D in helping you understand the basis for British policy towards the Malay states?
Explain your answer. [6]

Question Target: Utility/Usefulness

Level Mark Descriptor Mark
Range
L1 Uncritical Acceptance of the Source(s) as Useful / Not Useful 1

L2 Useful OR Not Useful Based on Source Content 2-3

Award 2 marks for explanation of how the source was useful OR not useful. Award 3
marks for any additional details/explanation of useful/not useful.

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.

(d) Study Sources E and F.

‘Both sources depicted differing attitudes by Lord Kimberley towards intervening in the Malay states’.
Does this mean that one of the sources is wrong? Explain your answer. [6]

Question Target: Comparison & Reliability (Hybrid)

Level Descriptor Mark
Range
L1 Answers Based on Typicality/Provenance 1-2
Award 1 mark for answers based on typicality/provenance. Award 2 marks for answers
with both typicality and provenance.

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.

# Main Idea To Be Tested = Whether or not the British government should

intervene in the Malay states.
 Source E claims that there was no benefit for British intervention (British
should not intervene in the Malay states).

 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. Source F is more accurate in depicting Lord Kimberley’s attitude towards

intervening in the Malay states due to the various benefits, which can be corroborated
by Sources A and B, especially since doing so would also restore order and peace in
the Malay states. From Source A, ‘It is more than probable that a resident political
officer, a carefully chosen discreet man with a good knowledge of the people and their
language would prevent its recurrence’. This shows that long-term British intervention
4
 and active involvement in the Malay states would be essential for order and stability.
In addition, from Source B, ‘There is no doubt that the political situation in the Malay
States was disorderly and chaotic at the time’. This shows how the lack of British
intervention had left daily affairs in the hands of the locals, leading to the chaos and
disorder.
L4 L4 plus critical evaluation of the directed sources to determine difference in 6
perspectives/understanding of context

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.

(e) Study all sources.

How far do the sources show that the British intervention in the Malay states from 1874 onwards had
been driven by commercial motivations? Use the sources and your knowledge to explain your answer.
[8]
Question Target: Testing Assertion
Level Mark Descriptor Mark
Range

L1 Writes About The Hypothesis, But No Valid Source Use 1

L2 Yes OR No, Supported By Valid Source Use 2-4

Award 2 marks for one Yes OR No, supported by valid source use, and an additional
mark for each subsequent Yes OR No, supported by valid source use up to a maximum
of 4 marks.
L3 Yes AND No, Supported By Valid Source Use 5-8
Award 5 marks 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 7 marks.

Statement To Be Tested = British intervention in the Malay states from 1874 onwards
had been driven by commercial motivations.

Supporting Statement = As above.

Challenging Statement = British intervention in the Malay states from 1874 onwards
had not been driven by commercial motivations/driven by other motivations.

Sources That Show

Source B shows that the British intervention in the Malay states from 1874 onwards
had been driven by commercial motivations. From Source B, ‘Hence, the economic
needs of Britain dictated her to acquire these territories rich in raw materials’. 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 British
actions were driven by the need to maintain its economic advantages.

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.

Sources That Do Not Show

Source A does not show that the British intervention in the Malay states from 1874
onwards had been driven by commercial motivations. 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 how British
intervention had been motivated by the humanitarian desire to restore peace in the
Malay states, Penang and the Straits Settlements rather than economic motives.

(For Bonus Mark)

However, it was understandable that Campbell would highlight the gains that will arise
from British intervention in the Malay states since he himself was in favour of such a
policy and wanted to influence his supervisors and/or decision-makers in the British
government like Lord Kimberley to feel the same way and effect a change from the
non-interventionist policy to one that involved the British playing an active role in the
Malay states.

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.

(For Bonus Mark)

# Students may also discuss how Sources E and F were reflective of the context
as well as Lord Kimberley’s stand/justification with regard to whether or not the
British government had been supportive of the intervention policy 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.

Section B: Structured-Essay Questions (20 marks)

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

L2 Identifies OR Describes The Factors 3-4

Award 3 marks for identification of factors without description, and 4 marks for a
detailed description.
L3 Explains Factor 5-6
Award 5 to 6 marks for one explained factor.
L4 Explains 2 Factors 7-8
Award 7 to 8 marks for two explained factors.

Factor 1: Command & Leadership

From the leadership standpoint, Stalin himself learnt from his mistakes in the
initial months of the German invasion as well as delegated control over the Red
Army to the competent generals while eliminating the incompetent generals. In
addition, the Red Army also had a policy of eliminating retreating or fleeing
soldiers so as to keep the fight going. At the same time, the major industrial plants
were also moved to central and eastern Russia where they were beyond the
reach of the Germans, thus ensuring no disruption in the production of war
supplies. In addition, Stalin also devoted all resources to military production to
support the life and death fight against the Germans. As such, this helped to
ward off the German invasion during World War II as after enduring the
initial onslaught, the Soviet Red Army were able to exterminate the German
army. The continuous supply of resources also helped to ensure that the
Red Army was well-equipped to fight the enemy.

Factor 2: Taking Advantage of The Harsh Russian Winter

Apart from that, the Red Army also made use of the harsh winters in 1941 and
1942 to rebuild and reorganize its troops along the German military lines. As the
Germans had not been able to attain the swift victory that they had been looking
for, the onset of the harsh Russian winter forced a stop to the German army’s
operations. On one hand, this resulted in a break in the German momentum while
on the other hand, it provided the Soviet Red Army with a much needed respite
and an opportunity to regroup. Coupled with the improved communications and
the production of effective new weapons in large quantities, the Red Army
managed to match their German counterparts and provided fierce resistance
even in retreat. As such, this enabled the Red Army to gain crushing
victories in the various campaigns such as;

(a) Battle of Moscow

7
 The Red Army launched a counter-attack against the Germans and this
Soviet victory was the first defeat of the Wehrmacht in the Eastern Front,
which dealt a severe blow to the morale of its troops.

(b) Battle of Stalingrad

During the Battle of Stalingrad, the Wehrmacht was unable to defeat the Red
Army despite controlling 90% of the city. Again, the winter of 1942 severely
weakened the Wehrmacht and gave the Soviets time to reorganize and
rearm, leading to a decisive Soviet victory with the destruction of the German
forces there.

(c) Battle of Kursk

During the Battle of Kursk, the Red Army was ready for what was supposed
to be a surprise attack. In the end, it was another decisive Soviet victory and
as a result, Germany retreated from the Eastern Front from this point
onwards.

(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]

Question Target: Making Judgement

Level Descriptors Mark
Range
L1 Describes The Topic, But Without Focus On The Question 1-2

L2 Explains 1 Given Factor 3-6

Award 3 marks for answers that explain 1 Given Factor. Award an additional mark
for any additional detail(s) up to a maximum of 6 marks.
L3 Explains Both Given Factors 7-10
Award 7 marks for answers that explain both Given Factors. Award an additional
mark for any additional detail(s) up to a maximum of 10 marks.

Eg.

Factor 1: USA’s Superiority

USA contributed to the end of World War II in Europe due to its various strengths
and advantages (tactical nous) that had greatly boosted its own/the Allied war
effort.

Examples include;

USA’s Provision of Massive Resources To Its Allies

 From ‘Cash & Carry’ To Lend-Lease Act

Although the USA only formally entered the war in December 1941, it was already
aiding the Allies from the start of the war in September 1939. On 21 September
1939, in a revision to the 1937 Neutrality Act, Roosevelt persuaded the US
Congress to allow Britain and France to buy arms from the USA on a ‘cash &
carry’ basis. However, this changed in March 1941, when Roosevelt persuaded
Congress to pass the Lend-Lease Act as a response to British PM Winston
Churchill’s call for help, as Britain’s own resources were nearing exhaustion by
the end of the 1940. In time, the USA also extended the Lend-Lease programme
to the Soviet Union when it was invaded by Germany on June 1941. By the end
of the war, the USA had spent almost US$50 billion on this programme. As
such, the USA should also take the credit for Germany’s defeat in Europe
8
during World War II as the massive and timely infusion of resources
ensured that both Britain and the Soviet Union did not fall to Germany. This
meant that they could keep making Germany fight the war on two fronts and
overstretch itself over time.

OR

 USA’s Support of Democratic Nations By Being ‘Arsenal of Democracy’

Besides the Lend-Lease programme, Roosevelt also argued that the USA should
be the ‘arsenal of democracy’, which meant that the USA ought to actively support
democratic nations such as Britain in their fight against the Axis Powers. After
France fell in June 1940, Britain was the only major Allied country in Europe that
had not fallen to Germany. Thus, Roosevelt decided that the USA should increase
its level of aid to Britain, persuading Congress to give ‘all aid short of war’. This
led to an agreement between the USA and Britain, where the USA gave Britain
50 old destroyers in return for eight naval bases in the Caribbean and also held
secret dialogues with Churchill on how the USA could best support Britain.
On top of that, Roosevelt also sought to expand and re-equip the US Army and
Navy as well as to step up rearmament on top of planning to have ten million men
in arms, with half to be ready for overseas duty by 1943. As such, the USA
contributed to the end of World War II in Europe as the massive injection of
resources boosted the strength of the Allies, enabling them to continue
putting up stiff resistance. In a war of attrition, it meant that the Allies had
gotten stronger whereas the Germans had become weaker over time.

OR

 USA’s Contribution of Vast Resources & Manpower After Entering The

War
After its formal entry, the USA also helped by contributing ground troops,
weapons and equipment. In addition, the USA also collaborated with the Allies in
military strategies against the Axis Powers. The production and contribution
of these resources by the USA was an important boost for the Allied forces.
As the world’s largest producer of goods at the time, it was able to convert its
factories at a faster rate than that of the Axis Powers. After their formal entry into
the war, the USA was also able to send large numbers of American military
personnel, such as soldiers and intelligence officers to aid Allied military
campaigns. As such, the USA contributed to the end of World War II in
Europe as these resources not only resolved the Allied problems of military
shortages, but also bolstered the Allied war machine and improved its
fighting capabilities.

OR

 USA’s Collaboration With Allies On Military Strategies

Apart from the provision of massive resources, USA’s participation in the planning
and execution of Allied military strategies was also invaluable, especially in
helping the Allies achieve control of the air and sea. These not only prevented
essential resources from reaching Germany, but also gave the Allies
greater opportunities and success at bombing German cities and Axis
military sites, such as their synthetic oil plants and oilfields. In addition, the
control of the air and sea also helped greatly in Allied tactical successes against
Germany. The best known of such tactical successes was ‘Operation Overlord’
which began with the D-Day landings on the coast of Normandy. As such, the
USA contributed to the end of World War II in Europe as the Allied
supremacy over the air and sea meant that Germany became more and
more isolated and depleted the longer the war dragged on.
OR
9
Factor 2: Germany’s Mistakes & Shortcomings
Germany also contributed to the end of World War II in Europe due to its various
weaknesses and miscalculations that had severely undermined its own war effort.

Examples include;

Ineffective Command Structure & Hitler’s Strategic Mistakes

The German state and military command structure suffered from a confusing
system of overlapping authority. Apart from Hitler, no one else had the power to
make decisions or had access to all information. Hitler had insisted on making
decisions that ought to have been left to the military. He also went against the
advice of his experienced generals. This proved to be a mistake, as Germany
went on to make many errors such as the ones during the Battle of Britain and
the invasion of the Soviet Union.

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

Inappropriate Use of Resources & Military Funds

Germany’s inappropriate use of military funds and resources also weakened its
military production and effectiveness during the war. For example, instead of
utilizing scarce resources in a prudent manner, there was a competition for funds
among the military leaders who wished to build up their own section of the
Wehrmacht like the Heer (Army), Kriegsmarine (Navy) and the Luftwaffe (Air
Force).

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

Germany’s Heavy Reliance On Petroleum

Heavy reliance on petroleum was another major German weaknesses. Although
Germany had very little natural petroleum reserves of its own, petroleum was the
chief resource which powered its war machine. To remedy this problem, the
Germans invented synthetic oil as a substitute for refined petroleum such as fuel
and lubricants. Apart from this, Germany also seized the oilfields of Nazi-
occupied countries such as Austria and Romania for its own use. However, from
1943 onwards, German synthetic oil plants and oilfields were subjected to heavy
Allied aerial bombing led by the USA. This was aggravated when the Ploesti
oilfields in Romania, the chief source of Germany’s oil imports, were put out of
operation by the Soviet Red Army and the US Air Force in August 1944. As such,
the Germans also contributed to the end of World War II in Europe as
without a huge alternative supply of petroleum, the loss of its existing
supply lines brought the German war machine to a near stop and it could
not sustain military operations.

OR

Germany’s Own Strategic Error: Fighting A War On Two Fronts

Hitler’s greatest mistake was probably his decision to conduct a war on two fronts.
This prevented him from concentrating his efforts on a single theatre of
war. While still at war with Britain in the Western Front, Hitler then chose to invade
the Soviet Union, opening up the Eastern Front. Then, while he seemed to be
gaining the upper hand against the Soviets, he proceeded to declare war on the
USA as he had believed that the USA would be primarily occupied with fighting
Japan in the Pacific. Instead, Roosevelt concentrated his troops and efforts in
North Africa & Europe. As such, the Germans also contributed to the end of
World War II in Europe as this massive gamble and miscalculation backfired
spectacularly. Instead of fighting only 1 enemy at a time, Hitler now had to
fight a war on two fronts against formidable opponents at the same time,
which was more than the German resources could cope with.
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 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.

3. This question is on the ‘Outbreak of World War II in the Asia Pacific’.

(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]

Question Target: Constructing Explanation

Level Descriptors Mark
Range
L1 Writes about the topic but without focus on the question. 1-2

L2 Identifies OR Describes The Factors 3-4

Award 3 marks for identification of factors without description, and 4 marks for a
detailed description.

L3 Explains Factor 5-6

Award 5 to 6 marks for one explained factor.
L4 Explains 2 Factors 7-8
Award 7 to 8 marks for two explained factors.

Factor 1: Japan’s Desire To Establish Itself Against External Threats &

Rivals
As Japan modernized and developed, it struggled to establish itself and gain
equality with the Western powers. Japan wanted to be considered as an equal
amongst the Western powers which had built empires and controlled large
territories. Japanese relations with the external powers also played a major role
in influencing Japanese opinions and attitudes towards war. This was evident in
Japan’s relations with Russia, Britain, China and the USA.

 Conflict with Russia

The rise of Japan was an immediate threat to Russian interests in the Far
East. In the 19th century, sea travel was the most viable route between Russia
and China, as the Trans-Siberian railway that cut across the land of Russia
and China had not yet been constructed. The Russian Empire therefore
established a sphere of influence in Manchuria in north-eastern China and
secured a permanent ice-free port. Russia attempted to establish a
permanent military and naval base in Manchuria, which was seen as security
threat to Japan and its interests and influence in Korea.

Japan initially wanted to reach a diplomatic agreement. Japan offered to

accept Russian influence in Manchuria if Russia accepted Japanese
influence in Korea. Russia, however, was not interested in reaching a
compromise. Russia did not believe that it needed to negotiate with Japan as
an equal power because the East was seen as less powerful and inferior to
the West. The Japanese government responded to the threat by declaring
war on Russia. The Russo-Japanese War took place in 1904, and the
Japanese defeated the Russians in 1905. In the Treaty of Portsmouth signed
after the war, Japan gained control of the Liaodong Peninsula, the South
Manchurian Railway and the southern half of the Sakhalin Island.

As such, Japan adopted an expansionist foreign policy prior to the

outbreak of World War II in the Asia Pacific as that was the only way to
get the Russians to respect them as an equal instead of the
discriminatory attitude that it had shown to Japan earlier.

 Conflicts with China

12
- First Sino-Korean War
In 1894, Japan fought a successful war against China over the control of the
Korean peninsula. Korea was under the influence of the Chinese Qing
Dynasty, and Japan, like the European powers, wished to take advantage of
the weaknesses of the Qing government in order to take control of Chinese
territory and trade. At the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895, China was forced
not only to give up control of Korea, but also the island of Taiwan to Japan.

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.

In Korea, however, the Japanese government tried to rule indirectly through

the Korean royal family. These efforts were not successful as the Korean king
and queen tried to assert their independence. The Korean queen,
Myeongseong, even asked the Russians for help to expel the Japanese in
1895. As a result, she was assassinated by Japanese agents. In 1910, Japan
annexed Korea and ruled it directly. Japanese policies in Korea included
education in Japanese, forced labour and military service for Koreans,
settlement of Japanese migrants and the confiscation of land for Japanese
farmers.

- 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.

As such, Japan adopted an expansionist foreign policy prior to the

outbreak of World War II in the Asia Pacific as that was the way to gain
further territories and prestige at China’s expense.

 Worsening Relations with the USA

The USA was also a rising power in the Asia Pacific region and did not
consider Japan to be its equal amongst the Western powers. This led to much
tension and conflict between the 2 powers as Japanese ambitions continued
to grow.

- American Racism Against The Japanese

Racial segregation and discrimination was common in American society in
the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and American discrimination against the
Japanese contributed towards tense relations between the USA and Japan.
Laws were passed to protect American economic interests and to exclude the
Chinese, Korean and Japanese immigrants to prevent them from competing
for jobs. In 1882, the USA passed the Chinese Exclusion Act to suspend
Chinese immigration. This was followed by the establishment of the Japanese
and Korean Exclusion League in 1905. At this time, the Japanese and
American governments did not want conflict. However, both faced pressure

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.

- Paris Peace Conference

Previously, President Woodrow Wilson of the USA had proposed the
Fourteen Points and the League of Nations in his speech to the US Congress
in January 1918. In response, Prince Fumimaro Konoe, who later became
Prime Minister of Japan, wrote an essay titled ‘Reject the Anglo-American-
Centred Peace’ which called for ‘the eradication of racial discrimination’. In
1919, he was also part of the Japanese delegation which attended the Paris
Peace Conference and proposed a racial equality clause to be included in the
covenant of the League of Nations. Japan’s demand for racial equality had
been the result of discrimination against Japanese immigrants in the USA.
The proposed clause called for the equality of all foreign immigrants to
countries in the League, regardless of race or nationality. Wilson would not
pass the proposal without unanimous agreement. As the proposed clause
failed to gain the approval of Britain and Australia, it was therefore rejected.
In turn, this caused much unhappiness amongst some Japanese, who felt that
they were not given due respect by the Western powers.

- Washington Naval Conference

The Washington Naval Conference was organized by the USA, and called for
a reduction in the naval forces of the major powers. The major naval powers
included the USA, Britain, Japan, Italy and France. The ratio of naval strength
between the powers was decided as 5:5:3:1.67:1.67 respectively. This meant
that Japan had to reduce their naval strength more than the USA and Britain.
The Japanese felt that the agreement was unfair and biased against them.

As such, Japan adopted an expansionist foreign policy prior to the

outbreak of World War II in the Asia Pacific as that was the only way to
get the Russians to respect them as an equal instead of the
discriminatory attitude that it had shown to Japan earlier.

Factor 2: Various Crises In Japan

- 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.

As such, the Japanese embarked on an expansionist foreign policy in

order to acquire resources and mitigate the fallout from the economic
problems. Japan had limited resources and had to rely on trade with

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.

- Growth of Military Influence in Japanese Politics

Apart from economic woes, the political climate in Japan was also
increasingly unstable as the military attempted to gain more power. The rise
of Japanese militarism played a large role in Japan’s expansionist ambitions
and aggressive attitude towards relations with other countries. Japan had
been governed by a parliament and an emperor since the Meiji Restoration
of 1868. During the Taisho period (1912-1926), democratic movements and
political parties arose due to the poor health of Emperor Taisho. The
government was made up of different political parties and often changed,
leading to political instability. Government ministers were often corrupt for
their own gains and assassinations were common. The emperor became a
mere figurehead without any real authority. When Prime Minister Tsuyoshi
Inukai was assassinated in May 1932, parliamentary rule in Japan effectively
ended as was replaced by martial law. The military effectively controlled the
government and under martial law, a 15-member cabinet made up of 10
military figures and only 5 political party members was formed, with Admiral
Makoto Saito as Prime Minister. The politicians and the emperor then granted
concessions to the military in the hope of preventing further political violence.

As such, the rise of militarism in Japanese political leadership also

steered Japanese foreign policy towards expansionism, fuelled by
Japan’s desire for equality and recognition amongst the world powers.
In addition, Japanese involvement in conflicts with the major world
powers in the early 1900s and its successes brought about an increase
in confidence in the military. The control of territories also allowed Japan
to build its own empire, similar to the Europeans. The success of Japanese
economic development, through the acquisition of Korea and Manchuria
encouraged further conquest.

(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]

Question Target: Making Judgement

15
Level Descriptors Mark
Range
L1 Describes The Topic, But Without Focus On The Question 1-2

L2 Explains 1 Given Factor 3-6

Award 3 marks for answers that explain 1 Given Factor. Award an additional mark
for any additional detail(s) up to a maximum of 6 marks.
L3 Explains Both Given Factors 7-10
Award 7 marks for answers that explain both Given Factors. Award an additional
mark for any additional detail(s) up to a maximum of 10 marks.

Factor 1: Weakness of the League of Nations

The weakness of the League of Nations contributed to the instability and
eventual outbreak of World War II in the Asia Pacific as it proved ineffective
in dealing with Japan’s increasingly aggressive actions, which led to
instability in Asia Pacific and also emboldened it to take even more drastic
and aggressive actions later on. This can be seen through the Mukden incident
and invasion of Manchuria, as well as the Second Sino-Japanese War. The
League reacted slowly and was not able to force Japan to withdraw.

 Mukden Incident & Invasion of Manchuria

Manchuria was both economically and strategically important to Japan. It was
economically important because it was a good source of raw materials and
resources needed for Japan’s growing industries. It also provided Japan with a
market to sell their products. Strategically, control of Manchuria allowed Japan to
defend its interests in Korea. Japan was also placed in a strong position for future
expansion into China, because of Manchuria’s geographical location.

On 18 September 1931, a bomb exploded near the Japanese-owned railway near

Mukden. The Japanese Army blamed the Chinese nationalists and demanded
that the Japanese government take action to protect Japanese interests in
Manchuria. This event became known as the Mukden incident and provided an
opportunity for a military takeover of Manchuria. A full-scale invasion of
Manchuria was launched on 19 September 1931 while China was too
preoccupied with its own civil war to resist the attack. The Japanese army
established a satellite state called Manchukuo, under the symbolic leadership of
the last emperor of China, Puyi. In September 1932, the Japanese government
recognized the new state by signing a treaty with Manchukuo, placing the new
country under Japanese military control. China and the other great powers
refused to recognize the new state of Manchukuo, claiming that it rightfully
belonged to China. The League responded by commissioning an investigation
and a report to the assembly chaired by the British Earl of Lytton. The report,
known as the Lytton report, found that the Japanese army’s response to the
Mukden Incident went far beyond self-defence. A motion was raised at the
League of Nations to condemn Japan as an aggressor, and the League refused
to recognize Manchukuo. However, the Japanese delegation walked out of
the assembly and the Japanese government formally withdrew from the
League of Nations soon after. The League was thus unable to enforce its
decision upon Japan. Thus, the issue was not resolved properly and the
Japanese also became more emboldened, confident that they could not be
stopped.

 Second Sino-Japanese War

From 1932, there were instances of fighting between Japanese and Chinese
troops in northern China, which allowed Japan to increase their control over
Manchuria. Tensions escalated between China and Japan. The Second Sino-
Japanese War broke out in 1937 after the Marco Polo Bridge incident, resulting
16
 in a full-scale invasion of China. Japanese troops stationed in the vicinity of the
Marco Polo Bridge near the town of Wanping outside Beijing were carrying out
training exercises. A few shots were fired, prompting the Chinese troops there to
return fire in defence. Later, the Japanese discovered that one of their soldiers
was missing. Thinking that the Chinese might have captured him, the Japanese
demanded to be allowed to search the town. The Chinese said they would
conduct the search, with one Japanese officer accompanying them. The
Japanese troops tried to force their way into Wanping, but failed. Both sides
increased their military strength in the area, and despite attempts to resolve the
issue, the heightened tensions between the Japanese and Chinese resulted in a
full-scale invasion of China after this incident.

Although China appealed to the League of Nations to intervene, the Western

powers were not willing to get involved. The Western powers were occupied with
developments in Europe as Hitler attempted to impose his own expansionist
policy in Europe. The Western powers only began to provide aid to China when
the extent of Japanese violence in the Nanking Massacre was made known
internationally.

OR

Factor 2: US Foreign Policy Actions on Japan in the 1930s

US foreign policy actions on Japan in the 1930s contributed to the
instability and eventual outbreak of World War II in the Asia Pacific as it
helped to encourage the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour. At the beginning,
the USA initially adopted an isolationist policy in the 1930s. They did not get
involved in foreign conflicts or the League of Nations unless it directly involved
their own interests. This was reaffirmed in the 1937 Neutrality Act and as such,
the Japanese then expected to have a free hand in their war against China.
However, American popular opinion sided with China, and President Franklin D.
Roosevelt followed accordingly by changing his foreign policy. He spoke of the
need for aggressor nations to be ‘quarantined’, and used Japan’s aggression to
justify military aid to China. In 1939, Roosevelt also cancelled the 1911
commercial treaty with Japan, thus placing restrictions on Japanese trade with
the USA.

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