2024 IB DP History Practice Paper with Answers

The extract outlines several key goals of Japanese foreign policy: first, protecting the nation's security and sovereignty ('ensuring the self-existence and self-defense'); second, an anti-colonial mission to expel foreign powers ('liberate the region from Western imperialist exploitation'); and third, securing vital economic assets ('secure essential raw materials like rubber and oil' and 'uniting the resources of East Asia').

Award 1 mark for each of the first two valid points identified, and 0.5 marks for a third valid point, up to a maximum of 2.5 marks. Valid points include: ensuring the self-existence/self-defense of Japan; uniting East Asian resources; liberating East Asia from Western imperialism; securing raw materials (rubber/oil); constructing a new regional order based on co-existence.

The extract details the negative impacts of the Act: it aims to maintain a subservient workforce ('permanent servitude'), limits educational curriculum to basic labor skills while denying key subjects, and economically disadvantages African children by preventing them from entering skilled professions or threatening the economic status quo.

Award 1 mark for each of the first two valid consequences identified, and 0.5 marks for a third valid consequence, up to a maximum of 2.5 marks. Valid points include: keeping youth in permanent servitude; restricting curriculum to manual labor; denying instruction in sciences; preventing competition for skilled jobs; stopping challenges to white economic dominance.

Values:
- Origin: Being a speech by Yōsuke Matsuoka, Japan's official envoy to the League of Nations in December 1932, it provides a valuable firsthand primary source reflecting the official diplomatic stance of the Japanese government during the height of the crisis.
- Purpose: It shows how Japan sought to justify its actions to the international community, framing its aggression as a peace-keeping and stabilizing mission.
- Content: It reveals the specific arguments used by Japan, such as the rhetoric of "self-defense," protection of "treaty rights," and the portrayal of China as a chaotic state incapable of maintaining order.

Limitations:
- Origin/Purpose: Since this is a public diplomatic address aimed at preventing the League of Nations from imposing sanctions or accepting the Lytton Report, it is highly partisan, defensive, and designed as international propaganda rather than an objective account.
- Content: The speech glosses over or omits key historical realities, such as the Kwantung Army's unilateral expansion, the manufactured Mukden Incident, and the creation of the puppet state of Manchukuo, making it an unreliable narrative of the actual military events.

Detailed Marking Scheme:
- 1 mark for a valid statement of value linked to origin.
- 1 mark for a valid statement of value linked to purpose or content.
- 1 mark for a valid statement of limitation linked to origin or purpose.
- 1 mark for a valid statement of limitation linked to content.

Accept/Reject Guidelines:
- Max 2 marks if only values or only limitations are discussed.
- Max 3 marks if the student fails to explicitly ground their points in the origin, purpose, or content of the source.
- Do not credit vague assertions of bias without specific historical context or reference to the source's content/origin.

**Direct Comparisons (Similarities):**
* Both sources focus on the military actions initiated on September 18, 1931.
* Both sources identify the South Manchurian Railway (or the railway zone) as central to the outbreak of the crisis.
* Both sources acknowledge the role of the League of Nations in addressing or arbitrating the conflict.

**Direct Contrasts (Differences):**
* **Motivation/Nature of Action:** Source A claims Japan's actions were purely defensive and forced upon them to protect lives and restore order, whereas Source B asserts the actions were a planned, premeditated act of imperialist aggression.
* **The September 18 Incident:** Source A alleges Chinese soldiers destroyed the railway, while Source B argues this claim is a baseless fabrication used as a pretext for invasion.
* **Scope of the Military Operations:** Source A describes the military response as localized, whereas Source B states that Japanese troops have systematically occupied major cities far beyond the railway zone.
* **Treaty Compliance:** Source A claims Japan respects treaties and wants them respected, whereas Source B explicitly accuses Japan of violating China's sovereignty, the League Covenant, and the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
* **Territorial Intent:** Source A states that Japan has no territorial ambitions in Manchuria, whereas Source B argues that Japan is actively overthrowing local administrations and occupying territory.

**Mark Allocation:**
* **5–6 marks:** The response identifies clear, valid similarities and differences with direct, linked comparisons between both sources. It is well-structured and addresses both comparison and contrast.
* **3–4 marks:** The response identifies some similarities and/or differences, but they may be presented as two separate descriptions rather than linked comparisons, or the analysis is heavily weighted toward either comparison or contrast.
* **1–2 marks:** The response offers vague, superficial, or incorrect points of comparison/contrast, or simply summarizes each source without making direct comparisons.

*Maximum 4 marks if only comparison or only contrast is written.*

To achieve the highest mark band (7–9 marks), the essay should be structured as follows: 1. Introduction: Define the scope of Japanese expansion (from the Manchurian Crisis of 1931 to the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941). State a clear, balanced thesis evaluating the relative weight of economic factors versus military, ideological, and geopolitical factors. 2. Support for Economic Motivations: Use sources that highlight Japan's lack of natural resources (such as coal, iron, and later oil and rubber) and the devastating impact of the Great Depression on Japan's silk-export economy. Integrate own knowledge regarding the Wall Street Crash, the resulting protectionist tariffs (e.g., Smoot-Hawley Tariff), and the strategic imperative to secure northern China (Manchuria) as a 'lifeline' to solve domestic unemployment and resource scarcity. Reference the formulation of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere as an economic bloc designed to achieve self-sufficiency. 3. Counter-arguments / Alternative Motivations: Use sources that emphasize non-economic factors. Integrate own knowledge of the rise of radical militarism (such as the Showa Restoration movement and the February 26 Incident) and ultra-nationalistic ideology (concepts of Pan-Asianism and Japan's 'divine mission' to lead Asia). Discuss geopolitical security: the fear of the USSR (leading to the Anti-Comintern Pact) and the perceived encirclement by the ABCD (American, British, Chinese, Dutch) powers. Mention the independent actions of the Kwantung Army during the Mukden Incident (1931), which shows that expansion was often driven by military opportunism rather than coordinated state economic planning. 4. Synthesis of Sources and Own Knowledge: Ensure that every source (A, B, C, and D) is explicitly cited and evaluated in conjunction with external facts (such as the 1941 US oil embargo as a direct catalyst for the southern advance). 5. Conclusion: Summarize the arguments, concluding that while economic desperation initially drove the push into Manchuria and was exacerbated by Western embargoes, it was inextricably linked to militaristic pride, national security concerns, and ideological ambition.

7–9 marks: The response is clearly focused on the question and displays a high degree of awareness of the historical context. All four sources are integrated effectively into a coherent and balanced argument. Outstanding own knowledge is used to support, develop, and challenge the evidence in the sources. The essay arrives at a clear, synthesized judgment on 'to what extent'. 5–6 marks: The response addresses the question but may focus more on either the sources or own knowledge, rather than integrating both evenly. At least three sources are used. There is some attempt to evaluate different factors, but the argument may lack balance or depth. 3–4 marks: The response is descriptive rather than analytical. It may rely heavily on paraphrasing the sources without integrating own knowledge, or conversely, rely on own knowledge with only passing reference to one or two sources. 1–2 marks: The response is weak, lacks focus on the prompt, and shows little understanding of the historical period or the sources.

### Analytical Overview: Candidates must select two authoritarian rulers from different regions (e.g., Adolf Hitler in Europe and Mao Zedong in Asia, or Fidel Castro in the Americas and Julius Nyerere in Africa) and evaluate the role of foreign policy in maintaining their power. ### Key Areas of Comparison & Evaluation: 1. Foreign Policy Successes as a Tool of Legitimacy & Maintenance: Case Study 1 (e.g., Adolf Hitler - Europe): Hitler's foreign policy successes (remilitarization of the Rhineland, the Anschluss, the Munich Agreement) between 1935 and 1939 greatly enhanced his domestic popularity, solidified his image as a strong leader overcoming the 'humiliation' of Versailles, and silenced internal conservative/military opposition. Case Study 2 (e.g., Mao Zedong - Asia): Mao's foreign policy, particularly standing up to the United States in the Korean War ('Resist America, Aid Korea') and later splitting with the Soviet Union (Sino-Soviet Split), fostered intense Chinese nationalism and positioned him as the champion of anti-imperialism, reinforcing his domestic hegemony despite disastrous economic campaigns like the Great Leap Forward. 2. Relative Importance Compared to Domestic Factors: Foreign policy was not the sole or even primary pillar of stability in either state. Domestic mechanisms were critical: Terror and Coercion (e.g., Gestapo/SS in Germany, and the Laogai system in China), Propaganda and Cult of Personality (Führer myth / Mao Zedong Thought), and Economic Performance (Hitler's economic recovery programs and Mao's land reforms). 3. Synthesis & Evaluation: A strong essay will conclude that while domestic control and terror laid the baseline for maintaining power, foreign policy successes acted as powerful accelerators of popular consensus, allowing these rulers to maintain authority even during difficult domestic periods.

### Marking Scheme (Out of 15 Marks) --- * 13–15 Marks: Demands are fully addressed. A sustained, highly analytical, and well-supported evaluation of the role of foreign policy in power maintenance is presented using a well-structured comparative framework comparing two rulers from different regions. --- * 10–12 Marks: Demands are largely addressed. Consistently analytical, though one ruler or region may be discussed with slightly more depth. Good structured comparison is present. --- * 7–9 Marks: Understanding of the question is demonstrated but the essay is primarily descriptive rather than analytical. Comparison is limited or superficial. --- * 4–6 Marks: Limited understanding of the essay prompt. Focuses on only one ruler or fails to address the 'foreign policy' element systematically. --- * 1–3 Marks: Minimal understanding, highly inaccurate, or irrelevant response.

### Analytical Overview: Candidates should examine how proxy wars between 1950 and 1980 affected the relationship between the US and the USSR, weighing the destabilizing effects of these conflicts against the stabilizing patterns that emerged, such as the avoidance of direct military confrontation. ### Key Themes for Evaluation: 1. Escalation of Tensions and Regional Geopolitics: The Korean War (1950-1953) solidified the globalization and militarization of the Cold War, leading to the expansion of NATO and direct confrontation. The Vietnam War (1965-1975) highlighted the limits of American power; while direct involvement delayed formal agreements, it also forced the US to seek diplomatic paths to ease tensions with China and the USSR (triangular diplomacy), paradoxically fostering the onset of Détente in the early 1970s. The Angolan Civil War (mid-1970s) and Soviet intervention in Afghanistan (1979) demonstrated the fragile nature of Détente, convincing the US that the USSR was using proxy wars to expand its sphere of influence, ending Détente. 2. Prevention of Direct Conflict (The 'Long Peace'): Proxy wars served as a safety valve. Because both superpowers possessed nuclear weapons (MAD), direct conflict was too dangerous. Proxy conflicts allowed them to compete ideologically and strategically without triggering World War III. 3. Synthesis & Evaluation: Proxy conflicts had a dual impact: they globally extended the ideological rivalry, periodically froze diplomatic dialogue, and ultimately destroyed Détente by the late 1970s. However, they also confirmed the status quo of mutual nuclear deterrence, ensuring that superpower competition remained indirect.

### Marking Scheme (Out of 15 Marks) --- * 13–15 Marks: Clear, analytical focus on the impact of proxy conflicts on superpower relations (not just a narrative history of the wars themselves). Well-chosen case studies from the 1950-1980 period are used. Balanced evaluation showing how proxy wars both increased tensions and paradoxically incentivized crisis management. --- * 10–12 Marks: Addresses the prompt with analytical intent, though some sections may drift into narrative accounts of the proxy wars. Solid understanding of the connection between regional conflicts and global superpower dynamics. --- * 7–9 Marks: Descriptive response that recounts the details of several proxy wars but makes only superficial or sporadic links to superpower relations. --- * 4–6 Marks: Limited focus on the question. May write generally about the Cold War or describe one war without addressing the impact on US-Soviet relations. --- * 1–3 Marks: Minimal response showing little historical understanding of the Cold War or proxy conflicts.