2025 HKDSE History Answers & Marking Scheme

(a) According to Source A, the two difficulties were the international restrictions on trade with China (due to the Korean War) and the inability of traditional entrepot trade to sustain the growing population.
(b) According to Source B, between 1950 and 1960, re-exports to China drastically decreased from 1460 million HKD to 120 million HKD, while domestic exports rapidly increased from 400 million HKD to 2280 million HKD, indicating a structural transition from an entrepot economy to an industrial export-oriented economy.
(c) Agree: The embargo forced Hong Kong to transition from entrepot trade to light industrial manufacturing (as shown by Source B's domestic export surge and Source A's mention of capital shift). Disagree / Limitation: The transition caused immediate economic hardship, high unemployment, and required immense adaptation of refugees, capital, and technology from mainland China.

(a) Award 1 mark for each difficulty identified from Source A, up to 2 marks. Award 1 mark for explanation. [Max: 3 marks]
(b) Award 1 mark for stating the decline in re-exports to China with data. Award 1 mark for stating the rise in domestic exports with data. Award 2 marks for explaining the overall trend/structural shift of the economy. [Max: 4 marks]
(c) Banding scheme:
L1 (1-2 marks): Weak arguments, fails to use both sources and own knowledge.
L2 (3-5 marks): Uses only sources or only own knowledge, or one-sided argument without balance.
L3 (6-8 marks): Comprehensive answer using both sources (embargo impact, export data) and own knowledge (role of mainland capital/refugee labor, government policy), presenting a balanced argument with a clear stand. [Max: 8 marks]

(a) The cartoonist held a positive/supportive attitude towards the Marshall Plan, depicting it as a productive force (tractor) bringing recovery, while portraying Soviet opposition (Stalin building a fence) as obstructive and futile.
(b) Soviet opposition was due to the belief that the Marshall Plan was an American imperialist plot to expand its capitalist sphere of influence, divide Europe, and violate the political sovereignty of European nations.
(c) Agree: The Plan divided Europe economically, triggered Soviet countermeasures (Cominform, Comecon), and solidified the Iron Curtain. Disagree / Limitation: Tensions were already high due to the Truman Doctrine, Sovietization of Eastern Europe, and the Berlin Blockade, which were independent of or parallel to the Plan.

(a) Award 1 mark for identifying the positive/supportive attitude. Award 2 marks for explaining with clues from the cartoon (e.g., tractor plowing for recovery vs. Stalin's blocking fence). [Max: 3 marks]
(b) Award 2 marks for each well-explained reason based on Source B (e.g., American economic expansion/imperialism, infringement on national sovereignty, division of Europe). [Max: 4 marks]
(c) Banding scheme:
L1 (1-2 marks): Lacks balance, fails to use both sources and own knowledge.
L2 (3-5 marks): Uses only sources or only own knowledge, or fails to address 'to what extent'.
L3 (6-8 marks): Balanced evaluation using both sources (economic aid vs. political division) and own knowledge (Truman Doctrine, Comecon, Berlin Crisis) to assess the extent of escalation. [Max: 8 marks]

(a) The primary purpose of the 'New Policies' was to make the Qing Empire strong and prosperous again by adopting Western administrative strengths, while preserving the fundamental rule/ancestral laws of the dynasty.
(b) The two criticisms were: 1) The reforms were a sham ('grand deceit') to keep power among Manchu nobles; 2) Military reforms aimed to suppress the Han people rather than defend the country.
(c) Agree: The reforms alienated elites (e.g., local gentry dissatisfied with the Royal Cabinet of 1911), trained a new army that turned revolutionary, and failed to satisfy demands for rapid change. Disagree: The reforms actually modernized education (abolishing civil exams) and military structures, which were essential steps towards modernization, but were disrupted by revolutionary impatience.

(a) Award 1 mark for identifying 'making the empire strong/prosperous'. Award 2 marks for explaining the condition ('maintaining ancestral laws/dynastic rule' and 'adopting Western methods'). [Max: 3 marks]
(b) Award 2 marks for each criticism identified and explained from Source B (e.g., fake reforms benefitting Manchu nobles, military modernization targeting Han control). [Max: 4 marks]
(c) Banding scheme:
L1 (1-2 marks): Casual assertion, fails to use both sources and own knowledge.
L2 (3-5 marks): Uses only sources or only own knowledge, or lacks balanced evaluation of 'downfall vs. salvation'.
L3 (6-8 marks): Balanced discussion using both sources (Qing goals vs. revolutionary doubts) and own knowledge (impact of abolishing civil service exams, the New Army, the 1911 Royal Cabinet, Railway Protection Movement) to justify the stand. [Max: 8 marks]

(a) The Emperor warned that if the League failed to help Ethiopia, international law would collapse, allowing strong nations to destroy weak ones with impunity, thereby destroying the principle of collective security.
(b) The difficulties were: 1) Geopolitical fears that strong sanctions (oil embargo) would drive Italy to ally with Nazi Germany; 2) The priority of national self-interest (British security) over collective security, specifically the desire to maintain the Stresa Front.
(c) Agree: British and French self-interest paralyzed the League (as shown in Source B's fear of losing the Stresa Front, Hoare-Laval Pact). Disagree: The League's constitutional weaknesses (unanimity rule, lack of a standing army) and the non-membership of key powers like the USA made effective action difficult regardless of Anglo-French self-interest.

(a) Award 1 mark for identifying the threat to collective security. Award 2 marks for explaining the mechanism (inaction leading to strong powers destroying weak powers with impunity). [Max: 3 marks]
(b) Award 2 marks for each difficulty identified and explained from Source B (e.g., fear of pushing Italy to Germany, prioritization of Stresa Front/national security over global peace). [Max: 4 marks]
(c) Banding scheme:
L1 (1-2 marks): One-sided argument, fails to use both sources and own knowledge.
L2 (3-5 marks): Uses only sources or only own knowledge, or fails to address 'to what extent' with historical depth.
L3 (6-8 marks): Balanced evaluation using both sources (inaction vs. fear of war) and own knowledge (Hoare-Laval Pact, US isolationism, League's institutional weaknesses, Manchurian Crisis) to formulate a clear judgment. [Max: 8 marks]

Introduction:\n- Define the interwar period (1919-1939) and the rise of totalitarianism (Nazism in Germany, Fascism in Italy).\n- State the stance: To a large extent, the peace settlements laid the psychological and geopolitical foundations for totalitarianism, though other factors (the Great Depression, fear of communism, and weak democratic traditions) were critical catalysts.\n\nArguments supporting the peace settlements as the main cause:\n1. Germany and the Treaty of Versailles (1919):\n - Extreme humiliation: The War Guilt Clause (Article 231) wounded German national pride.\n - Economic devastation: Massive reparations (132 billion gold marks) weakened the Weimar Republic from its inception.\n - Territorial and military losses: Loss of Alsace-Lorraine, the Polish Corridor, and strict military limitations created a desire for revisionism and revenge, which Hitler exploited via the \"stab-in-the-back\" myth.\n2. Italy and the Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920):\n - \"Mutilated Victory\" (vittoria mutilata): Despite being a victor, Italy was denied Dalmatia and Fiume promised in the Treaty of London (1915).\n - National outrage: This betrayal fostered intense resentment against liberal politicians and democratic systems, which Mussolini exploited to promise national rejuvenation.\n\nArguments pointing to other critical factors:\n1. The Great Depression (1929):\n - In Germany, the collapse of the economy and soaring unemployment (6 million) directly destroyed the moderate Weimar coalition and boosted Nazi votes.\n2. Weakness of Democratic Institutions:\n - Germany's Weimar Constitution had structural flaws (proportional representation led to unstable coalitions; Article 48 allowed emergency rule).\n - Italy's liberal government was corrupt, unstable, and unable to maintain law and order during the post-war social chaos (Biennio Rosso).\n3. Fear of Communism:\n - The Bolshevik Revolution (1917) terrified industrial and agricultural elites in Germany and Italy, leading them to financially back Hitler and Mussolini as shields against communism.\n4. Charismatic Leadership and Paramilitary Violence:\n - Both Hitler and Mussolini utilized effective propaganda, personal charisma, and paramilitary groups (SA/Blackshirts) to terrorize opponents and mobilize mass support.\n\nConclusion:\n- Conclude that while domestic instability and economic crises were the immediate triggers, the peace settlements of 1919-1920 created the structural grievances and nationalistic fervor that made these societies receptive to totalitarian expansionist ideologies.

Excellent (13-15 marks):\n- Formulates a clear and balanced stance on the 'to what extent' prompt.\n- Provides a detailed, comparative, and highly organized analysis of both Germany and Italy.\n- Explicitly connects the negative consequences of the peace settlements (Versailles, St. Germain) to the rise of Hitler and Mussolini.\n- Extensively discusses and weighs alternative causes (e.g., Great Depression, fear of communism, weak democratic systems).\n- Well-supported by accurate and abundant historical facts.\n\nGood (10-12 marks):\n- Clear stance with a well-structured response.\n- Addresses both Germany and Italy, and covers both the peace treaties and alternative factors.\n- May show slight imbalance (e.g., more focus on Germany than Italy, or weaker discussion of one alternative factor).\n- Good use of historical evidence.\n\nSatisfactory (7-9 marks):\n- General understanding of the prompt but may lean towards being descriptive rather than analytical.\n- May focus excessively on one country or fail to clearly contrast the peace treaties with other factors.\n- Arguments lack depth or contain minor historical inaccuracies.\n\nWeak (4-6 marks):\n- Demonstrates superficial knowledge of the topic.\n- Heavily unbalanced, perhaps only discussing Hitler's rise to power without addressing the peace treaties in detail, or neglecting Italy entirely.\n- Weak organization and limited historical details.\n\nPoor (0-3 marks):\n- Mostly irrelevant, incoherent, or contains major factual errors.

Introduction:\n- Define the period: Maoist period (1949-1976) and post-Mao period under Deng Xiaoping (1978-1997).\n- Formulate stance: To a limited extent. While the economic mechanisms and openness changed drastically (representing a massive departure), the core socialist framework, leadership, and ultimate national goals remained continuous.\n\nArguments supporting 'departure' (Changes in economic path):\n1. Transition from Plan to Market:\n - Maoist: Highly centralized command economy (Soviet model) with complete price controls and state-determined production goals.\n - Post-Mao: Introduction of market forces, culminating in the adoption of the \"Socialist Market Economy\" in 1992, allowing supply and demand to guide resource allocation.\n2. Ownership Structure (De-collectivization):\n - Maoist: Absolute public ownership, with People's Communes in rural areas and State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in cities.\n - Post-Mao: Introduction of the Household Responsibility System in agriculture, permission of private businesses, development of Township and Village Enterprises (TVEs), and foreign-owned ventures.\n3. Rejection of Isolationism (Open Door Policy):\n - Maoist: Strict self-reliance, minimal foreign trade (especially post-Sino-Soviet split), and rejection of foreign investments.\n - Post-Mao: Active integration into the global economy through the Open Door Policy (1978), establishment of Special Economic Zones (SEZs like Shenzhen), and seeking foreign investment.\n4. Ideological Shift from Class Struggle to Economic Pragmatism:\n - Maoist: Ideological purity prioritized (\"better to have socialist weeds than capitalist crops\").\n - Post-Mao: Pragmatic focus on growth (\"Black cat, white cat\"), declaring economic construction as the central task.\n\nArguments supporting 'continuity' (No total departure / Core socialist elements retained):\n1. Political Control and Party Monopoly:\n - In both periods, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) maintained an absolute monopoly on power. Deng's Four Cardinal Principles (1979) asserted that economic reforms would not lead to Western-style political democracy.\n2. Retention of State-Guided Planning and Key Industries:\n - The state continued to formulate Five-Year Plans. Key strategic sectors (e.g., energy, transport, banking, heavy industries) remained dominated by large State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs).\n3. The Ultimate Goal of Socialist Modernization:\n - Both Mao and Deng aimed at achieving the \"Four Modernizations\" and building a wealthy, powerful, and independent China free from foreign dominance. Both saw industrialization as the foundation of national survival.\n\nConclusion:\n- Summarize that the reforms represented a tactical shift in the methods of economic development (from command to market-based) rather than a complete abandonment of the socialist framework, proving that it was an evolution of the socialist path rather than a total departure.

Excellent (13-15 marks):\n- Directly and insightfully addresses the 'total departure' prompt with a balanced stance.\n- Well-structured comparative analysis covering both departure (market mechanism, ownership reforms, open door policy) and continuity (party dictatorship, state control of strategic sectors, ultimate socialist goals).\n- Illustrates arguments with detailed and precise historical evidence from both periods (1949-1976 and 1978-1997).\n- Demonstrates strong analytical logic and historical reasoning.\n\nGood (10-12 marks):\n- Clear stance and systematic analysis of both change and continuity.\n- Balanced discussion of the two eras, though one aspect or period might be treated with slightly more detail than the other.\n- Solid historical knowledge and appropriate terminology used.\n\nSatisfactory (7-9 marks):\n- Comprehensible argument, but may lean toward describing the economic policies of Mao and Deng separately without sufficient thematic comparison.\n- May focus heavily on the 'departure' aspects while neglecting the continuities, or vice versa.\n- Contains minor analytical weaknesses or lacks deep historical detail.\n\nWeak (4-6 marks):\n- Unbalanced, one-sided essay that only describes either Deng's reforms or Mao's campaigns.\n- Fails to conceptualize the notions of 'departure' versus 'continuity'.\n- Fragmented historical knowledge.\n\nPoor (0-3 marks):\n- Off-topic, highly inaccurate, or incoherent.