IB DP · Thinka-original Practice Paper

2023 IB DP History Practice Paper with Answers

Thinka Nov 2023 SL (TZ2) IB Diploma Programme-Style Mock — History

54 marks150 mins2023

An original Thinka practice paper modelled on the structure and difficulty of the Nov 2023 SL (TZ2) IB Diploma Programme History paper. Not affiliated with or reproduced from IB.

Paper 1: Source Booklet

Candidates must select one of five prescribed subjects. Answer all four source-based questions within the chosen subject.

5 Question · 24 marks

Question 1 · Direct source comprehension

3 marks

**Source A**: From a speech by Japanese representative YŃsuke Matsuoka to the League of Nations, December 1932.

"Japan’s actions in Manchuria have been profoundly misunderstood. Our intervention was not an act of unprovoked aggression, but a necessary measure of self-defense to protect our vital economic interests and the lives of Japanese subjects against rampant lawlessness. For years, the Chinese authorities have failed to maintain basic public order, allowing anti-Japanese boycotts and violent bandits to terrorize the region. Furthermore, Manchuria serves as a crucial buffer zone against the spreading menace of Soviet communism, which threatens the stability of the entire Far East. Japan seeks only to foster co-existence and mutual prosperity in Asia, free from Western imperialist interference."

**According to Source A, what were three reasons why Japan intervened in Manchuria?**

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

The candidate should extract three clear, distinct reasons from the text:
- To protect Japanese citizens and economic interests (as an act of self-defense).
- Due to the failure of Chinese authorities to keep order (preventing boycotts and bandit violence).
- To establish a buffer zone against Soviet communism.
- To promote Asian co-existence/mutual prosperity free from Western interference.

Marking scheme

Award 1 mark for each identified point up to a maximum of 3 marks:
- 1 mark for mentioning self-defense or protection of Japanese lives/economic interests.
- 1 mark for mentioning the failure of Chinese authorities to control boycotts or banditry.
- 1 mark for mentioning the creation of a buffer against Soviet communism.
- 1 mark for mentioning the desire to foster Asian co-existence/prosperity or counter Western influence.

Note: Answers must be derived directly from the source material.

Question 2 · short_answer

2 marks

Source A: From a memorandum by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Benito Mussolini, dated January 1935. 'Our position in East Africa must be secured before the European balance of power shifts further. A decisive victory in Abyssinia will not only provide much-needed territory for our surplus population but will also demonstrate to the League of Nations that Italy's imperial ambitions cannot be blocked by empty collective security agreements. Furthermore, establishing total control will secure our existing colonies of Eritrea and Somaliland against future incursions.'

According to Source A, what were the reasons for Italy's planned intervention in Abyssinia?

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

The student can identify any two of the following reasons from the source:
- To secure Italy's position in East Africa before the European balance of power shifts.
- To obtain land/territory for Italy's excess/surplus population.
- To show the League of Nations that collective security cannot stop Italian expansionism.
- To protect Italy's existing colonies of Eritrea and Somaliland from potential incursions.

Marking scheme

Award 1 mark for each relevant point identified from the source, up to a maximum of 2 marks.
- Accept direct paraphrasing of the source's points regarding population, security of existing colonies, challenging the League of Nations, or regional balance of power.
- Do not award marks for external historical knowledge not mentioned in the source.

Question 3 · OPCV evaluation of value and limitations

4 marks

Source A: An extract from a speech by Japanese Foreign Minister Kōki Hirota to the Imperial Diet, January 1935. 'Our foreign policy is directed toward securing the peace of East Asia through co-existence and co-prosperity with our neighbors. Having withdrawn from the League of Nations due to its failure to comprehend the realities of the Far East, Japan now bears the sole responsibility as the cornerstone of peace in this region. We desire sincere cooperation with China, free from Western intervention, to construct a stable and prosperous New Order.'

With reference to its origin, purpose, and content, analyze the value and limitations of Source A for historians studying Japanese foreign policy in the mid-1930s.

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

Values: 1. Origin: Being an official speech by the Japanese Foreign Minister to the Imperial Diet, it provides direct, authoritative insight into the Japanese government's public diplomatic stance and official rhetoric in 1935. 2. Content: It shows how Japan conceptualized its role as the 'cornerstone of peace' and justifies its departure from the League of Nations, illustrating the early development of the 'New Order' ideology. Limitations: 1. Purpose: The speech is designed for domestic political reassurance and international consumption; its purpose is to justify unilateralism and project a peaceful, stabilizing intent, which deliberately masks aggressive intentions. 2. Content: The source ignores the aggressive, militaristic reality of Japanese actions in Manchuria and northern China, presenting an idealized depiction of 'co-operation' that does not reflect actual military policy or the dominance of the military over civilian authorities.

Marking scheme

Award 1 mark for each relevant point of value or limitation up to a maximum of 4 marks. To obtain the full 4 marks, candidates must address both values and limitations, and must refer to at least two of origin, purpose, and content. Max 2 marks if only values or only limitations are discussed.

Question 4 · Compare and contrast

6 marks

Source A: From a speech by British Foreign Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare to the House of Commons, December 1935. 'Our actions in the League of Nations must be guided by both collective responsibility and practical caution. To impose an immediate and total embargo on oil would not lead to peace, but would instead risk escalating a localized conflict into a general European war. The League's action in applying economic and financial sanctions has already shown a remarkable degree of international solidarity. We must continue to seek a negotiated settlement that satisfies both the principles of the League and the realities of the situation, rather than pursuing reckless measures that could destroy the peace of the entire continent.' Source B: From a memorandum by Tehle Hawariat, the Ethiopian representative to the League of Nations, submitted to the League Assembly, January 1936. 'The economic sanctions imposed by the League of Nations are a mere shadow of collective security. By exempting key resources like oil, coal, and steel, the League has allowed the aggressor to continue its brutal military campaign unabated. This hesitation does not preserve peace; it invites further lawlessness. While the Great Powers speak of "caution" and "negotiation," they are in truth sacrificing a sovereign member state of the League to appease a fascist aggressor. True collective security requires decisive, complete action, not half-measures that protect the strategic interests of European empires at the expense of Ethiopian lives.' Task: Compare and contrast the views expressed in Source A and Source B regarding the League of Nations' response to the Abyssinian crisis.

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

Comparisons: 1) Both sources note that the League of Nations has put economic sanctions into effect (Source A mentions 'applying economic and financial sanctions'; Source B mentions 'The economic sanctions imposed by the League'). 2) Both sources recognize that key resources like oil have been excluded from the current embargo (Source A mentions the risk of an 'embargo on oil'; Source B notes the League is 'exempting key resources like oil'). 3) Both sources focus on the theme of 'peace' as a primary justification or goal of League actions. Contrasts: 1) Source A supports a cautious policy to prevent a wider European conflict ('risk escalating... into a general European war'), while Source B argues that this caution encourages further aggression ('invites further lawlessness'). 2) Source A praises the sanctions as showing 'international solidarity,' whereas Source B criticizes them as 'half-measures' and a 'mere shadow of collective security'. 3) Source A promotes a 'negotiated settlement' that respects 'realities,' whereas Source B condemns negotiation as 'appeasement' of an aggressor at the expense of a sovereign state.

Marking scheme

For 5-6 marks: The response includes clear, well-supported comparisons and contrasts that directly address the views on the League's response. For 3-4 marks: The response contains mostly comparisons or mostly contrasts, or lacks sufficient supporting evidence from the text. For 1-2 marks: The response identifies vague similarities or differences without direct reference to the texts. Max 4 marks if only comparisons or only contrasts are discussed. Award 1 mark for each point of comparison or contrast, up to a maximum of 6 marks (typically a minimum of 2 comparisons and 2 contrasts is required for full marks). No marks should be awarded for summaries of individual sources that do not attempt to compare or contrast.

Question 5 · Synthesis of sources and own knowledge

9 marks

Using the sources and your own knowledge, to what extent do you agree that the League of Nations' failure to resolve the Manchurian Crisis (1931–1933) was primarily due to the self-interest of its leading member states?

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

Synthesis of Sources and Own Knowledge:

Arguments supporting the claim (Self-interest of leading member states):

Britain's Position: Britain, the de facto leader of the League alongside France, was deeply reluctant to impose economic or military sanctions. Facing the devastating domestic impact of the Great Depression, the British government prioritized economic recovery. Furthermore, British military leaders warned that the Royal Navy was unprepared for a conflict in the Far East, and the government feared that provoking Japan could jeopardize its valuable colonial possessions in Hong Kong and Singapore.
France's Position: France was primarily concerned with its national security in Europe, particularly the rising threat of a revisionist Germany. France was unwilling to commit military resources to East Asia and wanted to maintain cooperative relations with Japan to protect its own colonial interests in French Indochina.
Reluctance to act: Both leading nations used the Lytton Commission as a delaying tactic, hoping the crisis would resolve itself without requiring them to take a decisive, costly stand that would disrupt their own regional trade and security interests.

Arguments challenging the claim (Other critical factors):

Structural Weaknesses of the League: The League Covenant lacked the mechanism for swift, enforceable military action. Decisions in both the Council and the Assembly required unanimity, which severely hampered decisive action when one of the disputing parties (Japan) held a veto-wielding permanent seat on the Council.
Absence of Key Global Powers: The United States, pursuing an isolationist foreign policy, was not a member of the League. Although the US issued the Stimson Doctrine of non-recognition in 1932, it refused to commit to joint economic sanctions. The Soviet Union, also outside the League at this time, was preoccupied with internal industrialization and collectivization, rendering collective security incomplete.
Japanese Military Autonomy: The Kwantung Army acted independently of the civilian government in Tokyo (the concept of gekokujo). This meant diplomatic negotiations with Japanese diplomats in Geneva were largely decoupled from the reality on the ground in Manchuria, making a peaceful negotiated settlement virtually impossible.

Marking scheme

Mark Bands:

7–9 marks: The response is well-structured and demonstrates a clear, balanced analysis that explicitly addresses the prompt. It successfully synthesizes evidence from the sources with detailed, accurate historical own knowledge. The student evaluates the role of leading states' self-interest alongside alternative explanations (structural limits, US absence, Japanese military independence) to reach a reasoned conclusion.

4–6 marks: The response is mostly focused on the prompt but may rely too heavily on either the sources or own knowledge, rather than integrating both effectively. The analysis of the factors behind the League's failure may be unbalanced or lack depth in explaining the specific domestic/geopolitical motives of Britain and France.

1–3 marks: The response is vague, descriptive, or relies on a simple summary of either the sources or general historical facts without addressing the "to what extent" aspect of the prompt. There is little to no synthesis.

Paper 2: World History Essay Topics

Candidates must choose two different world history topics and answer one essay question from each. Structure essays analytically with comparative focus.

2 Question · 30 marks

Question 1 · essay

15 marks

Compare and contrast the impact of economic policies on the maintenance of power in two 20th-century authoritarian states, each chosen from a different region.

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

### Essay Outline & Analysis

**Introduction**
* Introduce the two chosen authoritarian leaders from different regions, for example: Adolf Hitler (Germany, Europe) and Mao Zedong (China, Asia).
* State the thesis: While both regimes aggressively used state-directed economic policies to stabilize their rule and build legitimacy, Hitler preserved capitalist structures under strict state coordination to prepare for war, whereas Mao systematically abolished private ownership to construct a socialist state, highlighting fundamentally different ideological frameworks for maintaining power.

**Points of Comparison (Similarities)**
* **Legitimacy through Economic Recovery:** Both leaders consolidated their grip on power by addressing previous economic crises. Hitler tackled the mass unemployment of the Weimar era through public works (e.g., Reich Autobahn) and rearmament. Mao stabilized the hyperinflation of the GMD era and rehabilitated the war-torn Chinese economy through the early Land Reforms and the First Five-Year Plan.
* **Drive for Self-Sufficiency (Autarky):** Both regimes sought to insulate themselves from foreign economic dependence to safeguard their power. Hitler's Four-Year Plan (1936) aimed to make Germany self-sufficient in raw materials (synthetic rubber, oil). Mao sought autarky to resist Western capitalist blockades and later Soviet pressure, emphasizing self-reliance during the Great Leap Forward.
* **State Control and Direction:** Both regimes rejected laissez-faire economics in favor of heavy central planning, using economic output to demonstrate the superiority and stability of their authoritarian systems.

**Points of Contrast (Differences)**
* **Treatment of Private Property:** Hitler did not nationalize industries; instead, he co-opted the existing industrial elites (e.g., Krupp, IG Farben), aligning corporate profits with Nazi rearmament goals. Mao, conversely, eliminated the capitalist class and private landowners entirely, implementing agricultural collectivization and nationalizing industrial enterprises to eliminate potential domestic opposition.
* **Primary Economic Target Groups:** Hitler's economic consolidation focused on the industrial working class (pacified through the 'Strength through Joy' program) and military-industrial elites. Mao's primary focus was the peasantry, using land redistribution to secure the loyalty of the rural masses before transitioning them into communes.
* **Ideological Goals:** For Hitler, economic policy was a pragmatic tool for racial expansion (Lebensraum). For Mao, economic reorganization was a continuous ideological struggle to achieve a classless communist society, even when it risked severe economic destabilization (e.g., Great Leap Forward).

**Conclusion**
* Summarize how both regimes used economic policy to successfully prevent domestic unrest and build compliance. Conclude that while Hitler utilized capitalistic mobilization to build a war machine, Mao used total socialist transformation to reshape Chinese society, demonstrating that the maintenance of authoritarian power can rely on either the subordination or the eradication of private capital.

Marking scheme

The essay is marked out of 15 using the following band descriptors:

* **13–15 marks:** The response is highly structured, balanced, and consistently comparative. It demonstrates in-depth, accurate historical knowledge of the economic policies of both chosen states. Analysis is critical and well-supported by historical evidence, addressing both similarities and differences explicitly.
* **10–12 marks:** The response is analytical and clearly structured as a comparative essay. It contains good historical detail for both states, though it may contain minor imbalances (e.g., slightly stronger focus on one region/leader than the other) or brief narrative passages.
* **7–9 marks:** The response is primarily descriptive with some attempt at comparative analysis. It may present the two states sequentially rather than in a integrated comparative structure, with the comparative links made primarily in the introduction and conclusion.
* **4–6 marks:** The response is generalized and lacks sufficient historical detail. It may focus heavily on one state with only superficial references to the second, or fail to address the impact of economic policies on the *maintenance* of power.
* **1–3 marks:** The response is vague, highly inaccurate, or irrelevant to the question.

Question 2 · essay

15 marks

Compare and contrast the impact of two Cold War crises, each chosen from a different region, on the escalation and de-escalation of superpower tensions.

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

### Essay Outline & Analysis

**Introduction**
* Identify the two selected crises from different regions, for example: the Berlin Blockade (1948–1949, Europe) and the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962, Americas).
* State the thesis: While both crises brought the superpowers to the brink of direct military conflict and resulted in the firm delineation of respective spheres of influence, the Berlin Blockade institutionalized the geopolitical division of Europe and accelerated the militarization of the Cold War, whereas the Cuban Missile Crisis shocked both leaderships into establishing crisis-management mechanisms that initiated a period of early detente.

**Points of Comparison (Similarities)**
* **Direct Superpower Confrontation:** Both crises involved a direct, high-stakes standoff between the US and USSR leaders (Truman and Stalin in 1948; Kennedy and Khrushchev in 1962), bypassing proxy combatants to directly threaten global stability.
* **Consolidation of Spheres of Influence:** Both events confirmed regional geopolitical boundaries. The Berlin Blockade solidified the division of Germany into East (GDR) and West (FRG). The Cuban Missile Crisis secured Cuba's position as a Soviet-aligned state in the Western Hemisphere, protected by the US pledge not to invade.
* **Avoidance of Hot War:** In both instances, despite severe escalation, both superpowers actively avoided firing the first direct shot, relying instead on non-lethal strategies (the Berlin Airlift and the naval quarantine of Cuba) to project resolve without initiating war.

**Points of Contrast (Differences)**
* **Nature and Duration of Brinkmanship:** The Berlin Blockade was a slow, grueling eleven-month economic and logistical siege. The Cuban Missile Crisis was an acute, fast-paced thirteen-day nuclear standoff where the threat of global thermonuclear destruction was immediate and palpable.
* **Impact on Diplomacy and De-escalation:** The resolution of the Berlin Blockade did not lead to improved bilateral relations; rather, it accelerated the creation of NATO (1949) and the formalization of the European partition. Conversely, the Cuban Missile Crisis acted as a powerful catalyst for de-escalation, leading to the creation of the Moscow-Washington hotline (1963) and the signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty (1963).
* **The Role of Nuclear Weapons:** In 1948, the US held a nuclear monopoly, which acted as a silent deterrent to Soviet military action in Berlin. By 1962, mutually assured destruction (MAD) was an active reality; the crisis itself was triggered by the clandestine deployment of Soviet medium-range nuclear missiles to Cuba, making the risk of nuclear miscalculation the central driver of the resolution.

**Conclusion**
* Summarize the comparative findings: both crises were critical flashpoints that tested superpower resolve and defined geographic limits. Conclude that while the Berlin Blockade laid the rigid structural foundations for a divided, militarized Europe, the Cuban Missile Crisis exposed the existential dangers of that very structure, forcing a paradigm shift toward managed coexistence.

Marking scheme

The essay is marked out of 15 using the following band descriptors:

* **13–15 marks:** The response displays a highly structured, balanced, and sophisticated comparative approach. It demonstrates accurate, detailed knowledge of both selected crises. It clearly analyzes both the escalation and the de-escalation of superpower tensions, drawing insightful connections and thematic contrasts.
* **10–12 marks:** The response is analytical and comparative in structure. The historical narrative of both crises is strong and mostly balanced, though there may be minor gaps in explaining the specific impacts on broader superpower diplomatic relations.
* **7–9 marks:** The response describes both crises in detail but remains largely narrative. Comparison may be limited to a few paragraphs at the beginning or end of the essay, or the essay may focus heavily on one crisis while treating the other superficially.
* **4–6 marks:** The response is descriptive and lacks historical depth. It struggles to connect the events of the crises to the wider theme of superpower escalation and de-escalation, or treats the regions with significant imbalance.
* **1–3 marks:** The response shows very little understanding of the Cold War context, containing major inaccuracies or failing to address the comparative prompt.

Wondering how well you actually know this?

Thinka is an AI practice app for DSE students — unlimited questions, instant auto-marking, and detailed step-by-step solutions. 100,000+ students use it to confirm they actually know it, not just think they do.

Start Practising Free See pricing

Want more questions like this? Practice unlimited on Thinka — instant answers included.

Start Practising Free