Cambridge IGCSE · thinka 原创模拟试题

2024 Cambridge IGCSE History (0470) 模拟试题及答案详解

Thinka Jun 2024 (V2) Cambridge IGCSE-Style Mock — History (0470)

140 分285 分钟2024
分析模拟试题
An original Thinka practice paper modelled on the structure and difficulty of the Jun 2024 (V2) Cambridge IGCSE History (0470) paper. Not affiliated with or reproduced from Cambridge.

卷一 甲部

Answer two questions from this section.
2 题目 · 40 分
题目 1 · structured
20 分
Many different aspects of the peace settlement of 1919-20 caused controversy and resentment. (a) Describe the restrictions placed on the German Rhineland by the Treaty of Versailles. [4] (b) Why did Woodrow Wilson find it difficult to achieve his goal of 'self-determination' at the Paris Peace Conference? [6] (c) 'The loss of industrial territories was the most serious consequence of the Treaty of Versailles for Germany.' How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. [10]
查看答案详解

解题

(a) Under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, the German Rhineland was demilitarised. No German military forces, weapons, or fortifications were permitted in this zone. Additionally, Allied troops occupied the area for a period of fifteen years to ensure German compliance with the treaty. This measure was designed to provide a physical security buffer for France against any future German invasion. (b) Woodrow Wilson faced several major obstacles in achieving 'self-determination' in Paris. Firstly, the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman empires had left a patchwork of ethnic groups scattered across Eastern Europe, making it geographically and demographically impossible to draw borders without leaving national minorities inside newly created states like Poland and Czechoslovakia. Secondly, Wilson had to contend with existing secret agreements, such as the Treaty of London which promised territorial gains to Italy, directly conflicting with self-determination. Lastly, European leaders like Georges Clemenceau and David Lloyd George prioritised their own nations' strategic security and imperial ambitions over Wilson's idealistic principles. (c) On one hand, the loss of industrial territories severely damaged Germany's economic recovery. The Saarland, with its valuable coalfields, was placed under League of Nations control for 15 years, with its coal production going directly to France. Germany also lost Alsace-Lorraine to France, and Upper Silesia and West Prussia to Poland, which stripped Germany of approximately 15% of its agricultural production and 10% of its industry. This made it difficult for the fledgling Weimar Republic to rebuild and pay the heavy reparations demanded. On the other hand, other consequences were even more devastating. The political humiliation of Article 231 deeply wounded German national pride, creating a lasting resentment that right-wing nationalists exploited to weaken the democratic government. Furthermore, the severe military restrictions left Germany feeling vulnerable and surrounded by heavily armed neighbours. In conclusion, while the economic blow of losing industrial territory was severe, the political delegitimisation of the Weimar Republic caused by the 'War Guilt' and 'Diktat' elements was more critical, as it directly paved the way for the rise of extreme nationalist groups.

评分标准

Part (a) [4 marks] Award 1 mark for each relevant detail up to a maximum of 4 marks: - Demilitarisation of the zone (no troops/fortresses allowed) [1 mark] - Allied occupation for 15 years [1 mark] - Purpose was to act as a buffer zone for French security [1 mark] - Placed on the border between Germany and France/Belgium [1 mark] Part (b) [6 marks] - Level 4: Explains two reasons [6 marks] - Level 3: Explains one reason [4-5 marks] - Level 2: Identifies or describes valid reasons but does not explain [2-3 marks] - Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question [1 mark] - Level 0: No creditable response [0 marks] Part (c) [10 marks] - Level 5: Explains both sides and supports a valid judgement on 'how far' [10 marks] - Level 4: Explains both sides (at least one explanation on each side) [7-9 marks] - Level 3: Explains one side [4-6 marks] - Level 2: Identifies or describes valid points but does not explain [2-3 marks] - Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question [1 mark] - Level 0: No creditable response [0 marks]
题目 2 · structured
20 分
By 1934, Hitler had successfully established a totalitarian dictatorship in Germany. (a) Describe the events of the Munich Putsch of November 1923. [4] (b) Why did the Great Depression after 1929 help the Nazi Party gain electoral support? [6] (c) 'The Reichstag Fire was more important than the Night of the Long Knives in Hitler's consolidation of power between 1933 and 1934.' How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. [10]
查看答案详解

解题

(a) In November 1923, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party attempted to seize power in Munich, Bavaria. Armed SA members interrupted a public meeting led by Bavarian state officials in a beer hall, forcing them to support a national revolution. The next day, Hitler, General Ludendorff, and approximately 3,000 armed Nazis marched through Munich to take over government buildings. However, they were met by armed police, who opened fire, killing 16 Nazis. Hitler fled, was subsequently arrested, and was put on trial for high treason. (b) The Great Depression triggered by the Wall Street Crash of 1929 devastated Germany, causing unemployment to rise to over six million. The democratic Weimar coalition governments failed to agree on solutions, leading to political instability and a decline in faith in democracy. The Nazis successfully exploited this crisis by promising 'Work and Bread' to the unemployed, appealing to middle-class fears of a Communist revolution, and using powerful propaganda organized by Joseph Goebbels to present Hitler as a strong, decisive leader who could restore national pride and stability. (c) On one hand, the Reichstag Fire of February 1933 was incredibly important because it provided Hitler with an immediate pretext to suspend civil liberties. By blaming the fire on a Communist conspiracy, Hitler persuaded President Hindenburg to sign the Emergency Decree for the Protection of the People and the State. This allowed the Nazis to ban Communist publications, arrest thousands of political opponents, and suppress anti-Nazi campaigning ahead of the March 1933 elections, which was crucial for securing the parliamentary majority needed for the Enabling Act. On the other hand, the Night of the Long Knives in June 1934 was vital because it neutralised internal threats and secured the loyalty of the traditional German army. Hitler ordered the SS to execute Ernst Rohm and other SA leaders who wanted a 'second revolution' and sought to absorb the army into the SA. By eliminating this threat, Hitler won the support of the army's high command, who subsequently swore an oath of absolute personal loyalty to Hitler upon Hindenburg's death. In conclusion, both events were vital milestones; however, the Reichstag Fire was more important as it initiated the destruction of democracy from within the legal system, whereas the Night of the Long Knives merely consolidated and secured an already established dictatorial grip.

评分标准

Part (a) [4 marks] Award 1 mark for each relevant detail up to a maximum of 4 marks: - Seizure of the Munich beer hall / interrupting Bavarian officials [1 mark] - March through Munich the next day with General Ludendorff [1 mark] - Police opened fire, killing 16 Nazis [1 mark] - Hitler was arrested and put on trial for high treason [1 mark] - Hitler used the trial to gain national publicity [1 mark] Part (b) [6 marks] - Level 4: Explains two reasons [6 marks] - Level 3: Explains one reason [4-5 marks] - Level 2: Identifies or describes valid reasons but does not explain [2-3 marks] - Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question [1 mark] - Level 0: No creditable response [0 marks] Part (c) [10 marks] - Level 5: Explains both sides and supports a valid judgement on 'how far' [10 marks] - Level 4: Explains both sides (at least one explanation on each side) [7-9 marks] - Level 3: Explains one side [4-6 marks] - Level 2: Identifies or describes valid points but does not explain [2-3 marks] - Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question [1 mark] - Level 0: No creditable response [0 marks]

准备好测试自己了吗？

将这些笔记转化为考试练习。获取此课题的无限AI题目，即时批改及详细解析。

练习此课题

卷一 乙部

Answer one question from your chosen Depth Study.
1 题目 · 20 分
题目 1 · Structured
20 分
Depth study B: Germany, 1918–45

11 After a long wait, Hitler was firmly in power by the end of 1934.

(a) Describe the main features of the Enabling Act of March 1933. [4]

(b) Why was the Reichstag Fire of February 1933 important to Hitler's consolidation of power? [6]

(c) 'The political scheming of von Papen and von Schleicher was the most important reason Hitler became Chancellor in January 1933.' How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. [10]
查看答案详解

解题

(a) Describe the main features of the Enabling Act of March 1933.
The Enabling Act, passed in March 1933, contained several key features:
- It granted the Chancellor (Hitler) and his cabinet the power to enact laws without the consent of the Reichstag.
- The laws passed under this act could bypass or violate the Weimar Constitution.
- It was initially set to remain in force for a period of four years.
- It required a two-thirds parliamentary majority to pass, which Hitler secured through the intimidation of deputies and by banning communist representatives.
- It effectively destroyed parliamentary democracy and established the legal foundation of Hitler's dictatorship.

(b) Why was the Reichstag Fire of February 1933 important to Hitler's consolidation of power?
The Reichstag Fire was crucial for the following reasons:
- It allowed Hitler to blame the Communist Party (KPD) for attempting to launch a violent revolution, creating a state of anti-communist panic among the German public.
- This fear enabled Hitler to convince President Hindenburg to sign the Emergency Decree (Reichstag Fire Decree) the following day, which suspended constitutional civil liberties such as freedom of speech, assembly, and the press.
- With civil rights suspended, the Nazis could legally arrest thousands of communist party members, close down their printing presses, and disrupt their political campaigns.
- By crippling the communist opposition, the Nazis were able to dramatically improve their position and performance in the March 1933 elections.

(c) 'The political scheming of von Papen and von Schleicher was the most important reason Hitler became Chancellor in January 1933.' How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
- Agreement: The intrigues of Franz von Papen and Kurt von Schleicher in late 1932 and early 1933 were the immediate cause of Hitler's appointment. By late 1932, the Nazi Party was in decline, having lost over two million votes in the November election and facing severe financial difficulties. However, Schleicher's failure to establish a stable government led a disgruntled von Papen to conspire against him. Von Papen persuaded President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor in a coalition government with von Papen as Vice-Chancellor, famously boasting that they could 'frame' and control Hitler. This gross miscalculation by the traditional conservative elites directly handed Hitler the chancellorship on 30 January 1933.
- Disagreement: On the other hand, more fundamental long-term factors were at play. The Great Depression of 1929 devastated the German economy, causing mass unemployment and political polarization, which drove millions of desperate Germans to support extremist parties. Additionally, Hitler's personal charisma and the sophisticated propaganda campaigns orchestrated by Joseph Goebbels successfully marketed the Nazis as the only salvation for Germany. The fear of a communist takeover also prompted wealthy industrialists and middle-class business owners to finance and support the NSDAP. Therefore, while political scheming was the trigger, it could only succeed because of the deep systemic crisis and the massive electoral base the Nazis had already mobilized.

评分标准

Part (a) [4 marks]
Award 1 mark for each valid, distinct point identified or described (up to a maximum of 4 marks).
Points may include:
- Allowed the Chancellor/Cabinet to pass laws without the Reichstag.
- Laws could deviate from the constitution.
- Initially limited to four years.
- Formed the legal basis of the Nazi dictatorship.
- Passed with a two-thirds majority by excluding communists and intimidating others.

Part (b) [6 marks]
Level 4 (6 marks): Explains two reasons.
Level 3 (4–5 marks): Explains one reason.
- 4 marks for a basic explanation, 5 marks for an explanation supported by specific contextual knowledge.
Level 2 (2–3 marks): Identifies or describes valid reasons but does not explain.
- Award one mark for each identification/description (e.g., 'Hitler blamed the communists', 'The Emergency Decree was passed', 'It suspended civil rights').
Level 1 (1 mark): Writes about the topic but does not address the question.
Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable response.

Part (c) [10 marks]
Level 5 (10 marks): Explains both sides and supports a valid judgement on 'how far'.
Level 4 (7–9 marks): Explains both sides (at least one clear explanation on each side).
- 7 marks for one explanation on each side; additional marks up to 9 for further explanations on either side.
Level 3 (4–6 marks): Explains one side of the argument.
- Award one mark for each clear explanation of a factor (either scheming or alternative factors like the Great Depression, propaganda, fear of communism).
Level 2 (2–3 marks): Identifies or describes valid points but does not explain.
- Award one mark for each point identified/described.
Level 1 (1 mark): Writes about the topic but does not address the question.
Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable response.

卷二 Option A or B

Answer all parts of the question for one option.
2 题目 · 80 分
题目 1 · subjective
40 分
### OPTION B: TWENTIETH CENTURY TOPIC

**Was Kennedy more successful than Khrushchev in resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis?**

Study the Background Information and the sources carefully, and then answer all parts of the question.

#### Background Information

In October 1962, the world stood on the brink of nuclear war after US spy planes photographed Soviet nuclear missile sites under construction in Cuba. President John F. Kennedy decided to establish a naval blockade (referred to as a 'quarantine') around Cuba to prevent further military shipments. After thirteen days of extreme tension, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev agreed to dismantle and remove the missiles in exchange for a public US pledge not to invade Cuba. Secretly, the US also agreed to remove its Jupiter missiles from Turkey. Both leaders claimed victory, but historians continue to debate who actually achieved more of their objectives.

---

#### SOURCE A

Kennedy’s handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis was a triumph of statecraft and personal courage. By rejecting the advice of his joint chiefs of staff, who demanded an immediate airstrike and invasion of Cuba, he prevented an almost certain nuclear escalation. His decision to impose a blockade gave Khrushchev a clear and manageable choice, allowing him room to retreat without losing face entirely. In the end, Kennedy achieved his primary objective: the complete and verifiable removal of Soviet offensive weapons from the Western hemisphere. It was a massive political victory that restored American prestige, especially after the humiliation of the Bay of Pigs, and showed that the United States would stand firm against communist expansion.

*From a recent history book.*

---

#### SOURCE B

The outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis was a major success for Soviet foreign policy, and Khrushchev was the true victor. His primary aim had always been to safeguard the Cuban revolution from US invasion, an objective he successfully achieved through Kennedy’s formal public pledge. Furthermore, Khrushchev obtained a valuable concession that his generals had long desired: the removal of American Jupiter nuclear missiles from Turkey, which had directly threatened the Soviet mainland. While Khrushchev had to endure public criticism for retreating, he acted as a responsible global statesman who saved humanity from nuclear destruction, whereas Kennedy’s public posturing was reckless and driven largely by domestic electoral concerns.

*From a recent history book.*

---

#### SOURCE C

A British cartoon published in October 1962. It shows President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev both sweating profusely, sitting opposite each other at a table, arm-wrestling. Each is sitting on a large hydrogen bomb. Kennedy’s finger is poised directly over a button connected to Khrushchev’s bomb, and Khrushchev’s finger is poised over a button connected to Kennedy’s bomb. The caption reads: 'OK, Mr. President, let's talk about compromises.'

---

#### SOURCE D

An American cartoon published in late November 1962. It shows a giant Uncle Sam standing tall and smiling, holding a broom labeled 'Firm Diplomacy'. He has just swept a collection of toy nuclear missiles into a dustpan labeled 'To the USSR'. A small, defeated-looking Khrushchev is seen walking away with his hands in his pockets, while a Cuban peasant in the background waves a tiny American flag.

---

#### SOURCE E

We must not yield to passion, Mr. President. We must realize that war, once unleashed, cannot be stopped so easily. If we do not show wisdom, we will find ourselves in a position where we must fight, and that will mean mutual annihilation. You are worried about Cuba. You say that it worries you because it is ninety miles from the coast of the United States. But you have placed destructive missile weapons, which you call offensive, in Turkey, literally right next to us. I propose a deal: we are agreeable to removing from Cuba the weapons you regard as offensive, and the Soviet Union will commit to this. The United States, on its part, will declare that it will respect the inviolability of Cuba's borders and will remove its analogous weapons from Turkey.

*From a letter sent by Khrushchev to Kennedy, 26 October 1962.*

---

#### SOURCE F

To halt this offensive buildup, a strict quarantine on all offensive military equipment under shipment to Cuba is being initiated. All ships of any kind bound for Cuba from whatever nation or port will, if found to contain cargoes of offensive weapons, be turned back. We are not looking for a clash, but we will not shrink from one either. Any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere will be regarded as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union. The path we have chosen is full of hazards, but it is most consistent with our character and our courage.

*From President Kennedy’s television address to the American public, 22 October 1962.*

---

#### SOURCE G

The situation is growing increasingly precarious. There is deep concern within the executive committee that the blockade will not force the Soviets to back down and that we may soon be forced into an active military strike on the missile bases, which would almost certainly trigger a Soviet response in Berlin or against our European allies. We must find a diplomatic exit. Trading the Jupiter missiles in Turkey, which are obsolete anyway, is a small price to pay to avoid a global conflagration, even if it makes us look weak to our NATO allies. We cannot afford to let pride dictate our response when the stakes are this high.

*From a secret memorandum by a US National Security Advisor to President Kennedy, 25 October 1962.*

---

### Questions

**(a) Study Sources A and B.**
How far do these two sources agree? Explain your answer using details of the sources. [7]

**(b) Study Sources C and D.**
How far would these two cartoonists have agreed? Explain your answer using details of the sources and your knowledge. [8]

**(c) Study Source E.**
Why did Khrushchev write this letter at that time? Explain your answer using details of the source and your knowledge. [8]

**(d) Study Sources F and G.**
How far does Source F make Source G surprising? Explain your answer using details of the sources and your knowledge. [8]

**(e) Study all the sources.**
How far do these sources provide convincing evidence that Kennedy was more successful than Khrushchev in resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis? Use the sources to explain your answer. [9]
查看答案详解

解题

### Solution and Analysis

**(a) Study Sources A and B. How far do these two sources agree?**
* **Agreements:** Both sources agree that Kennedy chose a naval blockade (referred to as a 'blockade' or 'quarantine' in context) rather than an immediate military invasion of Cuba. Both agree that the crisis ended with the removal of Soviet missiles from Cuba, and both agree that a US military invasion of Cuba did not take place.
* **Disagreements:** Source A views the resolution as a massive victory for Kennedy, claiming it restored US prestige and stood firm against communism. Source B, conversely, argues that Khrushchev was the true victor because he preserved the Cuban revolution, secured a non-invasion pledge, and achieved the removal of US nuclear missiles from Turkey. Furthermore, Source A praises Kennedy's courage and statecraft, while Source B criticizes his actions as reckless public posturing driven by domestic political concerns.

**(b) Study Sources C and D. How far would these two cartoonists have agreed?**
* **Differences in Point of View / Purpose:** The cartoonists hold fundamentally different views on the outcome and nature of the crisis. Source C is a critical neutral/British perspective, depicting the situation as a terrifying and equal stalemate where both leaders are trapped on hydrogen bombs and forced to compromise to avoid mutual destruction. Source D, an American cartoon, presents a triumphant nationalistic view, portraying the crisis as a clear-cut victory for the US ('Uncle Sam' sweeping away Soviet missiles) and showing Khrushchev as a small, defeated figure walking away.
* **Areas of Agreement:** Both cartoonists agree that the crisis was a high-stakes confrontation involving nuclear missiles and that the tension was resolved by the removal of these weapons.

**(c) Study Source E. Why did Khrushchev write this letter at that time?**
* **Purpose and Context:** Khrushchev wrote this letter on 26 October 1962 because the crisis had reached its most dangerous peak. He wanted to halt the slide toward global nuclear war by offering a public trade (removing Soviet missiles from Cuba in exchange for a US non-invasion pledge and the removal of US Jupiter missiles from Turkey). By writing this letter, Khrushchev hoped to find a face-saving diplomatic exit before a US airstrike or invasion of Cuba became unavoidable, which would have forced a military escalation.

**(d) Study Sources F and G. How far does Source F make Source G surprising?**
* **Not Surprising (Public vs. Private Stances):** Source F does not make Source G surprising because they represent two completely different spheres of political communication during a crisis. Source F is a public television address delivered by President Kennedy to show strength, deter Soviet aggression, and reassure the American public. Source G, however, is a secret, internal planning memorandum intended solely for the President's executive committee, where advisers could realistically assess the dangers, express deep anxiety about the blockade's failure, and privately discuss necessary concessions (like trading the Turkey missiles) to avoid war.

**(e) Study all the sources. How far do these sources provide convincing evidence that Kennedy was more successful than Khrushchev in resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis?**
* **Evidence supporting Kennedy's success:** Source A describes the resolution as a triumph of statecraft for Kennedy that restored US prestige. Source D visually depicts the US as completely victorious, sweeping Khrushchev's missiles away. Source F highlights Kennedy's uncompromising public stance, showing he successfully forced the Soviets to back down on his terms.
* **Evidence rejecting/qualifying Kennedy's success (or showing Khrushchev's success):** Source B explicitly states that Khrushchev was the true victor because he secured Cuba's safety and got US nuclear missiles removed from Turkey. Source C suggests it was a mutual compromise where both leaders were equally terrified into backing down. Source E shows Khrushchev dictating the diplomatic terms of the trade (Cuba for Turkey), which were ultimately accepted. Source G reveals that behind the scenes, US planners were deeply anxious and ready to compromise by giving up the Turkey missiles, showing the US blockade was not a straightforward success.

评分标准

### Marking Scheme

#### Part (a) [7 marks]
* **Level 4 (7 marks):** Compares the big messages of the two sources. (Source A argues Kennedy was highly successful/victor; Source B argues Khrushchev was the true victor/successful). Must be supported with source details.
* **Level 3 (5-6 marks):** Compares agreement(s) AND disagreement(s).
* **Level 2 (2-4 marks):** Compares agreement(s) OR disagreement(s).
* **Level 1 (1 mark):** Identifies points of comparison but makes no valid match, or compares provenance.
* **Level 0 (0 marks):** No creditable response.

#### Part (b) [8 marks]
* **Level 5 (8 marks):** Compares the points of view or purposes of the cartoonists. (C is critical of both leaders and presents the crisis as a dangerous stalemate of mutual threat; D is a nationalistic American view celebrating a complete US victory and Khrushchev's defeat). Must be supported.
* **Level 4 (5-7 marks):** Compares valid messages of the cartoons without reaching the cartoonists' points of view. (e.g., both deal with the removal of missiles; C shows a tense stalemate; D shows a clear victory).
* **Level 3 (3-4 marks):** Explains message/point of view of one of the cartoons or provides an interpretation of both but no valid comparison.
* **Level 2 (2 marks):** Plausible misinterpretations of the cartoons.
* **Level 1 (1 mark):** Compares surface details only.

#### Part (c) [8 marks]
* **Level 6 (8 marks):** Explains the purpose of writing the letter in the specific context of the peak of the crisis. (To de-escalate, avoid mutual destruction, and secure key concessions—such as the Turkey missiles and non-invasion pledge—before a US strike occurred). Must be supported by details and contextual knowledge.
* **Level 5 (7 marks):** Explains the purpose of the letter (to compromise / prevent war) but lacks specific contextual depth or intended impact.
* **Level 4 (5-6 marks):** Explains the big message of the letter as the reason for writing (offering a trade of Cuba missiles for Turkey missiles).
* **Level 3 (3-4 marks):** Explains the context of late October 1962 as the reason for writing, OR explains a valid sub-message.
* **Level 2 (2 marks):** Explains the source but does not link it to the reason for writing.
* **Level 1 (1 mark):** Paraphrase of the source details.

#### Part (d) [8 marks]
* **Level 6 (7-8 marks):** Explains that Source G is not surprising despite Source F, by evaluating public vs. private political roles. (F is public posturing to show resolve; G is a secret, internal assessment of real danger and willingness to compromise).
* **Level 5 (6 marks):** Compares the sources and infers that they demonstrate different public and private stances.
* **Level 4 (4-5 marks):** Compares the sources and infers differences/similarities in the attitudes/confidence of the US administration (F is tough/confident; G is anxious/cautious).
* **Level 3 (3 marks):** Uses contextual knowledge to explain why G is not surprising, but makes no relevant comparison to F.
* **Level 2 (2 marks):** Compares the sources but fails to explicitly state whether Source G is surprising.
* **Level 1 (1 mark):** Surface details or assertions based on provenance.

#### Part (e) [9 marks]
* **Level 4 (6-9 marks):** Evaluates how the sources provide evidence to both support AND reject the statement.
* *Supporting:* Sources A, D, and F.
* *Rejecting:* Sources B, C, E, and G.
* *Note:* To score higher in this level, candidates must explicitly use and quote/reference the sources by letter.
* **Level 3 (3-5 marks):** Uses the sources to support OR reject the statement.
* **Level 2 (2 marks):** Uses the sources but fails to directly test the statement.
* **Level 1 (1 mark):** Writes about the topic but does not use the sources.
* **Level 0 (0 marks):** No creditable response.
题目 2 · subjective
40 分
### OPTION B: TWENTIETH CENTURY TOPIC

**Was Kennedy more successful than Khrushchev in resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis?**

Study the Background Information and the sources carefully, and then answer all parts of the question.

#### Background Information

In October 1962, the world stood on the brink of nuclear war after US spy planes photographed Soviet nuclear missile sites under construction in Cuba. President John F. Kennedy decided to establish a naval blockade (referred to as a 'quarantine') around Cuba to prevent further military shipments. After thirteen days of extreme tension, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev agreed to dismantle and remove the missiles in exchange for a public US pledge not to invade Cuba. Secretly, the US also agreed to remove its Jupiter missiles from Turkey. Both leaders claimed victory, but historians continue to debate who actually achieved more of their objectives.

---

#### SOURCE A

Kennedy’s handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis was a triumph of statecraft and personal courage. By rejecting the advice of his joint chiefs of staff, who demanded an immediate airstrike and invasion of Cuba, he prevented an almost certain nuclear escalation. His decision to impose a blockade gave Khrushchev a clear and manageable choice, allowing him room to retreat without losing face entirely. In the end, Kennedy achieved his primary objective: the complete and verifiable removal of Soviet offensive weapons from the Western hemisphere. It was a massive political victory that restored American prestige, especially after the humiliation of the Bay of Pigs, and showed that the United States would stand firm against communist expansion.

*From a recent history book.*

---

#### SOURCE B

The outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis was a major success for Soviet foreign policy, and Khrushchev was the true victor. His primary aim had always been to safeguard the Cuban revolution from US invasion, an objective he successfully achieved through Kennedy’s formal public pledge. Furthermore, Khrushchev obtained a valuable concession that his generals had long desired: the removal of American Jupiter nuclear missiles from Turkey, which had directly threatened the Soviet mainland. While Khrushchev had to endure public criticism for retreating, he acted as a responsible global statesman who saved humanity from nuclear destruction, whereas Kennedy’s public posturing was reckless and driven largely by domestic electoral concerns.

*From a recent history book.*

---

#### SOURCE C

A British cartoon published in October 1962. It shows President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev both sweating profusely, sitting opposite each other at a table, arm-wrestling. Each is sitting on a large hydrogen bomb. Kennedy’s finger is poised directly over a button connected to Khrushchev’s bomb, and Khrushchev’s finger is poised over a button connected to Kennedy’s bomb. The caption reads: 'OK, Mr. President, let's talk about compromises.'

---

#### SOURCE D

An American cartoon published in late November 1962. It shows a giant Uncle Sam standing tall and smiling, holding a broom labeled 'Firm Diplomacy'. He has just swept a collection of toy nuclear missiles into a dustpan labeled 'To the USSR'. A small, defeated-looking Khrushchev is seen walking away with his hands in his pockets, while a Cuban peasant in the background waves a tiny American flag.

---

#### SOURCE E

We must not yield to passion, Mr. President. We must realize that war, once unleashed, cannot be stopped so easily. If we do not show wisdom, we will find ourselves in a position where we must fight, and that will mean mutual annihilation. You are worried about Cuba. You say that it worries you because it is ninety miles from the coast of the United States. But you have placed destructive missile weapons, which you call offensive, in Turkey, literally right next to us. I propose a deal: we are agreeable to removing from Cuba the weapons you regard as offensive, and the Soviet Union will commit to this. The United States, on its part, will declare that it will respect the inviolability of Cuba's borders and will remove its analogous weapons from Turkey.

*From a letter sent by Khrushchev to Kennedy, 26 October 1962.*

---

#### SOURCE F

To halt this offensive buildup, a strict quarantine on all offensive military equipment under shipment to Cuba is being initiated. All ships of any kind bound for Cuba from whatever nation or port will, if found to contain cargoes of offensive weapons, be turned back. We are not looking for a clash, but we will not shrink from one either. Any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere will be regarded as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union. The path we have chosen is full of hazards, but it is most consistent with our character and our courage.

*From President Kennedy’s television address to the American public, 22 October 1962.*

---

#### SOURCE G

The situation is growing increasingly precarious. There is deep concern within the executive committee that the blockade will not force the Soviets to back down and that we may soon be forced into an active military strike on the missile bases, which would almost certainly trigger a Soviet response in or against our European allies. We must find a diplomatic exit. Trading the Jupiter missiles in Turkey, which are obsolete anyway, is a small price to pay to avoid a global conflagration, even if it makes us look weak to our NATO allies. We cannot afford to let pride dictate our response when the stakes are this high.

*From a secret memorandum by a US National Security Advisor to President Kennedy, 25 October 1962.*

---

### Questions

**(a) Study Sources A and B.**
How far do these two sources agree? Explain your answer using details of the sources. [7]

**(b) Study Sources C and D.**
How far would these two cartoonists have agreed? Explain your answer using details of the sources and your knowledge. [8]

**(c) Study Source E.**
Why did Khrushchev write this letter at that time? Explain your answer using details of the source and your knowledge. [8]

**(d) Study Sources F and G.**
How far does Source F make Source G surprising? Explain your answer using details of the sources and your knowledge. [8]

**(e) Study all the sources.**
How far do these sources provide convincing evidence that Kennedy was more successful than Khrushchev in resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis? Use the sources to explain your answer. [9]
查看答案详解

解题

### Solution

**(a) Comparison of Source A and Source B**
* **Agreements:** Both sources agree on the basic factual details of the crisis: Kennedy selected a blockade as his response to the Soviet deployment, nuclear weapons were successfully extracted from Cuba, and the immediate threat of a US invasion of the island was averted.
* **Disagreements:** Source A evaluates the crisis as a personal political triumph for President Kennedy, arguing that his firm blockade successfully restored American geopolitical prestige. On the contrary, Source B argues that Premier Khrushchev was the genuine winner because he successfully secured the long-term protection of Castro's communist regime in Cuba and achieved the strategic goal of getting the close-range American Jupiter nuclear missiles removed from Turkey. Source A praises Kennedy's courage and caution, whereas Source B condemns his public behavior as dangerous, electorally motivated grandstanding.

**(b) Comparison of Source C and Source D**
* **Contrasting Viewpoints:** The cartoonists are fundamentally divided on the outcome of the crisis. Source C, representing an external British perspective, portrays both superpower leaders as deeply trapped in a dangerous situation. It argues that neither side was victorious, as both sat on active hydrogen bombs and were forced to seek mutual compromise. In sharp contrast, Source D, representing a patriotic American view, celebrates a total US victory, using the visual metaphor of Uncle Sam cleanly sweeping away Khrushchev's missiles, presenting the Soviet premier as completely defeated.
* **Agreements:** Both cartoonists agree that the core threat of the crisis centered on the terrifying buildup of active thermonuclear weapons and that resolution required a massive de-escalation of this specific threat.

**(c) Analysis of Source E**
* **Underlying Purpose and Context:** Khrushchev authored this letter on 26 October 1962 because the crisis had reached a critical inflection point where a US military airstrike or invasion of Cuba seemed imminent. Recognizing that a localized military clash would escalate into global nuclear war, Khrushchev aimed to propose a reciprocal compromise. His purpose was to secure a public US pledge not to invade Cuba and a trade for the removal of the Turkey missiles, which would allow him to dismantle the Cuban installations in a way that looked responsible rather than like a total retreat.

**(d) Surprisingness of Source G in light of Source F**
* **Not Surprising (Public vs. Private Realities):** Source F does not make Source G surprising when analyzed through the lens of cold-war political signaling. Source F is a public address carefully designed to project unshakeable American resolve, deter further Soviet shipments, and maintain high public morale. Conversely, Source G is a highly classified internal memorandum designed for realistic planning. It is entirely logical that US advisers publicly projected total confidence while privately expressing severe panic, noting that the blockade might fail and that compromising on the obsolete Jupiter missiles in Turkey was a logical price to pay to avoid nuclear war.

**(e) Synthesis of All Sources on Kennedy's Success**
* **Sources Supporting Kennedy's Success:** Source A explicitly characterizes the event as a grand victory of American statecraft that stood firm against communist expansion. Source D presents a highly nationalistic image of Uncle Sam sweeping Soviet weapons out of the hemisphere while Khrushchev slinks away. Source F serves as evidence of Kennedy's public strength, showing that his firm blockade successfully set the terms of the confrontation.
* **Sources Opposing or Qualifying Kennedy's Success:** Source B argues that Khrushchev was the real winner because he saved Cuba and got US missiles out of Turkey. Source C shows that the outcome was a mutual compromise forced by equal vulnerability, rather than a unilateral victory. Source E documents the diplomatic reality of a direct, balanced trade (Cuba for Turkey) proposed by the Soviets. Source G reveals that behind the scenes, American leadership was terrified of the blockade failing and prepared to make major military concessions to avoid war, demonstrating that the crisis was not a straightforward US victory.

评分标准

### Marking Scheme

#### Part (a) [7 marks]
* **Level 4 [7 marks]:** Compares the core messages of both sources. (Source A presents Kennedy as victorious; Source B presents Khrushchev as victorious). Must be supported with specific details.
* **Level 3 [5-6 marks]:** Explains both agreements and disagreements between the sources.
* **Level 2 [2-4 marks]:** Explains either agreements or disagreements.
* **Level 1 [1 mark]:** Simple comparisons of isolated facts or comparisons based only on provenance.

#### Part (b) [8 marks]
* **Level 5 [8 marks]:** Compares the cartoonist's perspective/purpose. (Source C is a critical neutral view showing both leaders equally trapped and forced to compromise; Source D is a triumphalist American cartoon showing complete US victory). Must be supported.
* **Level 4 [5-7 marks]:** Compares the sub-messages of both cartoons (e.g., both focus on missile removal, but C shows a stalemate while D shows an American win) without fully addressing point of view.
* **Level 3 [3-4 marks]:** Interprets one or both cartoons accurately but makes no valid comparison.
* **Level 2 [2 marks]:** Plausible misinterpretations of the cartoons.
* **Level 1 [1 mark]:** Direct description of surface details only.

#### Part (c) [8 marks]
* **Level 6 [8 marks]:** Explains the specific purpose of the letter in its October 1962 context. (Written to propose a face-saving trade—Cuba for Turkey—and halt the slide to war before a US invasion forced a catastrophic Soviet military response). Must be supported.
* **Level 5 [7 marks]:** Explains the general purpose of the letter (to find a compromise) but lacks specific context or evaluation of intended impact.
* **Level 4 [5-6 marks]:** Explains the main message of the letter as the reason for writing (offering to trade the missiles).
* **Level 3 [3-4 marks]:** Explains the historical context of October 1962 as the reason, or explains a sub-message.
* **Level 2 [2 marks]:** Explains the content of the letter but does not link it to the motive for writing.
* **Level 1 [1 mark]:** Paraphrases the source details.

#### Part (d) [8 marks]
* **Level 6 [7-8 marks]:** Evaluates the difference between public rhetoric and private policy to show why G is not surprising. (Source F is a public display of resolve to deter the enemy; Source G is a secret planning document revealing real military fears and private flexibility). Must be supported.
* **Level 5 [6 marks]:** Compares public/private stances in the sources without full historical evaluation of why this makes it unsurprising.
* **Level 4 [4-5 marks]:** Compares the literal attitudes in both sources (F is confident; G is panicked/anxious).
* **Level 3 [3 marks]:** Explains why G is unsurprising using contextual knowledge but fails to make a direct comparison with F.
* **Level 2 [2 marks]:** Compares the sources but fails to answer if G is surprising.
* **Level 1 [1 mark]:** Basic assertions based on provenance.

#### Part (e) [9 marks]
* **Level 4 [6-9 marks]:** Explains how the source base both supports and challenges the statement. Candidates must explicitly use source letters (A, B, C, etc.) to back up their claims.
* *Supporting Kennedy's success:* Sources A, D, F.
* *Rejecting/Qualifying Kennedy's success:* Sources B, C, E, G.
* **Level 3 [3-5 marks]:** Uses the sources to argue only one side of the statement.
* **Level 2 [2 marks]:** Evaluates the sources but does not directly apply them to test the statement.
* **Level 1 [1 mark]:** General essay without referencing the sources.
* **Level 0 [0 marks]:** No response.

Paper 4

Answer one question from your chosen Depth Study.
1 题目 · 40 分
题目 1 · essay
40 分
Depth study B: Germany, 1918–45

(a) Write an account of the Reichstag Fire of February 1933. [15]
(b) Discuss the importance of the Enabling Act to Hitler's consolidation of power in 1933–34. [25]
查看答案详解

解题

**(a) Write an account of the Reichstag Fire of February 1933.**

On the night of 27 February 1933, the Reichstag building in Berlin, which housed the German parliament, was destroyed by a fire. Inside the burning building, the police arrested Marinus van der Lubbe, a young Dutch communist who was a former bricklayer. Van der Lubbe was found in possession of matches and firelighters, and he confessed to setting the fire, claiming he did it to protest against the rise of capitalism and the Nazi government.

Hitler, who had been appointed Chancellor just a month earlier on 30 January, immediately used the event to his political advantage. Along with his propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels, Hitler proclaimed that the fire was not an isolated incident but a coordinated signal for a widespread communist uprising. This allowed the Nazis to whip up public hysteria and fear of a red revolution.

On the very next day, 28 February, Hitler persuaded President Paul von Hindenburg to sign the 'Decree of the Reichstag President for the Protection of the People and State' (commonly known as the Reichstag Fire Decree), using Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. This emergency decree suspended key civil liberties, including freedom of speech, assembly, the press, and the right to privacy. It also gave the central government the power to intervene in state governments.

Under this decree, the Nazi government launched an immediate assault on the Communist Party (KPD). Over 4,000 communists, including parliamentary deputies and party leaders, were arrested. Their printing presses were shut down, and they were banned from campaigning. This effectively removed the Nazis' main political opponents just a week before the Reichstag elections of 5 March 1933, paving the way for Hitler's consolidation of power.

**(b) Discuss the importance of the Enabling Act to Hitler's consolidation of power in 1933–34.**

The Enabling Act of March 1933 was a pivotal moment in Hitler's path to dictatorship, but its importance must be analyzed alongside other key factors in the Nazi consolidation of power during 1933–34, such as terror, propaganda, and the elimination of internal and constitutional rivals.

The Enabling Act (officially the 'Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich') was passed on 23 March 1933. Since it altered the constitution, it required a two-thirds majority in the Reichstag. Hitler achieved this by banning Communist deputies, using SA intimidation, and making false promises to the Center Party. Once passed, the Act gave Hitler's cabinet the power to enact laws without the approval of the Reichstag or the President for a period of four years. This legally destroyed the Weimar democracy and replaced it with a legal dictatorship. Hitler no longer needed Hindenburg to sign emergency decrees, and the Reichstag was reduced to a rubber-stamp body. This 'legal' foundation allowed Hitler to systematically coordinate ('Gleichschaltung') German society, enabling him to ban independent trade unions in May 1933, dismantle opposition political parties by July 1933, and abolish the federal system (Länder) in January 1934.

However, other factors were also crucial to Hitler's consolidation of power. First, the use of terror and the creation of a police state played a massive role. The Reichstag Fire Decree of February 1933 had already neutralized the left-wing opposition and established the legal framework for arbitrary arrests. By mid-1933, the first concentration camps (like Dachau) were built to imprison political dissidents, and the Gestapo and SS became formidable instruments of terror, forcing conformity through fear.

Second, propaganda was vital in winning public support and manufacturing consensus. Under Goebbels’ Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, all forms of media, art, and education were strictly censored and aligned with Nazi ideology, ensuring that alternative viewpoints were silenced.

Finally, the elimination of internal and constitutional threats was essential to secure Hitler's supremacy. The Night of the Long Knives in June 1934 saw the SS execute Ernst Röhm and other leaders of the SA, who represented a radical threat to the conservative establishment. This bloody purge reassured the traditional German Army (Reichswehr) and led directly to the military swearing a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler. This was cemented in August 1934 when President Hindenburg died, allowing Hitler to merge the offices of Chancellor and President, declaring himself Führer and Commander-in-Chief.

In conclusion, while terror, propaganda, and the purge of the SA were essential in maintaining control and securing the military's support, the Enabling Act was the most important constitutional instrument. It provided the veneer of legality that Hitler craved, allowing him to systematically dismantle Weimar democracy from within and establish the structural framework of the Nazi totalitarian state.

评分标准

**Part (a) Marking Scheme [15 marks]**

* **Level 3 (11–15 marks):** Detailed and structured historical narrative.
* Accurately details the events of the Reichstag Fire (27 Feb 1933), the arrest and identity of Marinus van der Lubbe, and the immediate Nazi reaction (blaming communists).
* Explains the subsequent introduction of the Reichstag Fire Decree (28 Feb) by Hindenburg under Article 48, highlighting the suspension of civil liberties.
* Explains the impact on the March 1933 election, including the arrest of thousands of communists.
* **Level 2 (6–10 marks):** Descriptive account.
* Describes some events of the fire and some consequences but lacks complete chronological sequence or depth in explaining the constitutional impact (such as the specific emergency decree details).
* **Level 1 (1–5 marks):** Limited or superficial knowledge.
* Mentions that the Reichstag burned down and Hitler blamed the communists, but with little detail or accuracy.
* **Level 0 (0 marks):** No creditable response.

**Part (b) Marking Scheme [25 marks]**

* **Level 5 (21–25 marks):** Well-supported and balanced discussion of multiple factors, with a clear, substantiated judgment.
* Explains the significance of the Enabling Act (legal dictatorship, bypass of Reichstag/President, foundation for Gleichschaltung, banning of trade unions/parties).
* Compares this to other vital factors (Reichstag Fire Decree, Nazi police state/terror, Joseph Goebbels and propaganda, Night of the Long Knives, death of Hindenburg/merger of offices).
* Offers a clear judgment on which factor was more important for Hitler's consolidation of power, backed by strong historical reasoning.
* **Level 4 (16–20 marks):** Explains more than one facet of the discussion (e.g., the Enabling Act vs. at least one other factor) but with less depth or a weaker, less substantiated judgment.
* **Level 3 (11–15 marks):** Explains only one side of the argument (e.g., explains only the importance of the Enabling Act, or focuses solely on other factors such as terror/The Night of the Long Knives without addressing the Enabling Act's significance).
* **Level 2 (6–10 marks):** Identifies relevant factors (Enabling Act, SA, Reichstag Fire Decree, etc.) but relies on assertion and description rather than historical explanation.
* **Level 1 (1–5 marks):** Shows general knowledge of Nazi Germany in 1933–34 but without addressing the question directly.
* **Level 0 (0 marks):** No creditable response.

想知道自己有几分把握？

thinka 是 DSE 学生在用的 AI 练习应用，提供无限量练习题、即时自动批改和详细解题步骤。超过 100,000 名学生用它确认自己是真的会，而不只是「以为会」。

免费开始练习查看方案

想练更多同类题型？在 thinka 无限量刷题，即时知道答案。

免费开始练习