2025 Cambridge IAS-Level History (9489) 模擬試題連答案詳解

### **Analysis of Similarities**
* **Agreement on the Nature of the Sanctions:** Both sources agree that the sanctions imposed on Italy are limited and exclude critical measures. Both explicitly identify the exclusion of an oil embargo and the decision to keep the Suez Canal open as the key limitations of the current League response.
* **Recognition of the Potential Impact of Stronger Measures:** Both sources recognize that stronger actions (like banning oil or closing the Suez Canal) would have a massive impact. Source A notes they would provoke Mussolini into war, while Source B notes that omitting them effectively allows the conquest of Ethiopia to continue.

### **Analysis of Differences**
* **Evaluation of the 'Prudent' Policy:** Source A views the cautious approach as a "triumph of diplomatic maturity" that successfully balances moral disapproval with vital European security. Source B strongly rejects this characterization, labeling this same "prudence" as "cowardice and betrayal."
* **The Ultimate Goal / Priority:** For Source A, the absolute priority is preventing a wider European war and preserving the Stresa Front against Germany. For Source B, the absolute priority is upholding the principle of collective security and protecting a sovereign member state (Ethiopia) from unprovoked aggression.
* **The Future of the League:** Source A implies that the League's survival depends on its flexibility and realism in avoiding conflicts it cannot handle. Source B argues that by failing to act decisively, "the League is dead" and its core concept of collective security is exposed as an illusion.

### **Evaluation of Provenance and Context**
* **Source A** reflects the prevailing British foreign policy stance of late 1935 (appeasement and realpolitik). Britain was highly concerned about German rearmament and wished to keep Italy as an ally (the Stresa Front). This makes the source highly representative of British official and conservative public opinion, which prioritized domestic and European stability over international law.
* **Source B** represents the perspective of the victim of aggression. As a vulnerable, less-developed state under active military attack, Ethiopia had no choice but to rely entirely on the collective security promises of the League Covenant. The representative's emotional and accusatory tone is entirely natural given that Italian forces were actively using poison gas and advanced weaponry against them, making the source highly reliable as an expression of the frustration felt by smaller nations towards the Great Powers' self-interest.

**Level 4 (12–15 marks):** Identifies both similarities and differences, and evaluates the sources using historical context and/or provenance to explain these agreements and disagreements.
* Candidates should explain how Source A's British origin and focus on the German threat (Stresa Front) explains its support for cautious sanctions, whereas Source B's position as the victim of aggression explains its denunciation of these same limits.

**Level 3 (8–11 marks):** Identifies both similarities and differences through direct cross-referencing of the texts, but lacks effective or sustained evaluation of the sources.

**Level 2 (4–7 marks):** Identifies only similarities OR only differences between the two sources.

**Level 1 (1–3 marks):** Summarizes or paraphrases the sources without making valid, direct comparisons on the specific topic of the prompt.

### Analysis of the Sources

* **Source A:** This source argues that the League of Nations should not intervene in the crisis. It characterizes the League as a "distant body" whose involvement would only "delay a peaceful settlement." It suggests that a bilateral agreement between China and Japan is the only viable route. While it does not explicitly state that the League is "unable or unwilling," it strongly implies that any intervention by the League is structurally inappropriate and unhelpful, thereby challenging the idea that the League *should* act effectively in such regional disputes.
* **Source B:** This source offers a mixed perspective. It challenges the view that the League was entirely inactive, as the Lytton Report represents a formal, extensive effort by the League to investigate the crisis, gather evidence, and propose a concrete compromise (autonomous Manchuria under Chinese sovereignty). However, it also supports the view that the League was unable to act effectively in a coercive manner. The report admits that "restoration of the status quo ante is not possible," which is a tacit concession to the reality of Japanese military dominance, showing that the League could not undo the occupation.
* **Source C:** This source strongly supports the view that the League was unable and unwilling to act forcefully. It explicitly outlines the economic and military limitations of the key powers (Great Britain and France) during the Great Depression. The editorial argues that implementing economic or military sanctions would be "the height of folly," explaining the lack of political will and physical capability to enforce collective security. It portrays the Lytton Report as a tool for diplomatic mediation rather than a basis for punitive action.
* **Source D:** This source is a passionate endorsement of the view that the League was unwilling and unable to act effectively. From China’s perspective, the League’s response consisted of nothing but "endless delays, toothless resolutions, and commissions of inquiry" while failing to trigger Article 16 (sanctions). It explicitly warns that this failure represents the "death knell of the League itself," highlighting the total breakdown of collective security.

### Grouping and Cross-Referencing

* **Supporting the view:** Sources C and D, and elements of Source B, agree that the League failed to take effective, decisive action. Source D focuses on the moral and legal failure to apply Article 16, while Source C provides the practical, realist justification for why British and French leadership made such action impossible. Source B’s acknowledgment that the pre-invasion status quo could not be restored corroborates the idea that the League was unable to roll back Japanese aggression.
* **Challenging the view:** Sources B and C show that the League was not completely idle; it acted through diplomatic and investigative channels. Source B represents a serious attempt to establish a legal and moral framework for a settlement by rejecting Japan’s "self-defense" argument and refusing to recognize Manchukuo. Source C views this diplomatic approach not as a failure, but as a realistic and appropriate limit of the League’s role in the face of global economic instability.

### Evaluation and Contextualization

* **Source A** is highly biased and unreliable as an objective assessment of the League’s capability. As the representative of Japan, the aggressor state, Yoshizawa's motive is to keep the League from interfering so that Japan can dictate terms to a weaker China through bilateral negotiations.
* **Source B** (The Lytton Report) is a highly reliable official document representing the consensus of the international commission. Its balanced tone reflects the League's difficult position: trying to uphold international law without having the military means to enforce it. The report's recommendations show the limits of moral authority in the face of determined aggression.
* **Source C** represents British public and political opinion in late 1932. It is highly useful for explaining *why* the League was unwilling to act effectively. Domestically, Britain was reeling from the Great Depression, and its defense forces were depleted. The source illustrates that collective security was subordinate to the national interests and survival of the main League members.
* **Source D** represents the perspective of the victim nation, China. While Wellington Koo’s frustration is highly justified given the reality of Japanese occupation, his letter is designed to shame the League into action. The warning that this failure would destroy the League proved prescient, but the source naturally downplays the immense practical difficulties faced by European powers at the time.

### Conclusion
Ultimately, while the League attempted to act diplomatically and legally through the Lytton Commission (Source B), the sources collectively demonstrate that the League was both unable and unwilling to act *effectively* to stop aggression. Source C and Source D, from opposing sides of the crisis, confirm this reality: China decried the lack of enforcement, while British public opinion confirmed that the powers had neither the economic strength nor the military will to undertake it.

**Level 5: [21–25 marks]**
* Sustained, balanced assessment of the hypothesis using all four sources.
* Evaluates the reliability, motive, and context of the sources to explain differences in perspective (e.g., contrasting China's legalist demands with Britain's realist economic constraints).
* Reaches a clear and nuanced conclusion based on the synthesis of source evidence.

**Level 4: [16–20 marks]**
* Analyzes both sides of the argument using all four sources.
* Clearly identifies which sources support and which challenge the claim that the League was unable or unwilling to act effectively.
* Begins to evaluate the sources for bias, reliability, or historical context, but this may not be fully integrated into the final judgment.

**Level 3: [11–15 marks]**
* Identifies sources that support and/or challenge the statement.
* May focus heavily on one side of the argument, or fail to use all four sources.
* Offers limited evaluation of source reliability, treating sources primarily as statements of fact.

**Level 2: [6–10 marks]**
* Provides a simple summary of the sources without directly linking them to the hypothesis.
* May write a general narrative about the Manchurian Crisis rather than focusing on the source material.

**Level 1: [1–5 marks]**
* Demonstrates little or no understanding of the sources or the question.
* Writes highly generalized, irrelevant, or historically inaccurate remarks.

The establishment of the Directory in 1795 can be explained by several key factors: 1. Reaction to the Reign of Terror: Following the fall of Maximilien Robespierre in July 1794 (the Thermidorian Reaction), there was widespread public and political desire to dismantle the apparatus of the Terror and ensure that power could never again be concentrated in the hands of a single radical faction or committee like the Committee of Public Safety. 2. Prevention of Dictatorship and Radicalism: The Constitution of Year III (1795) deliberately designed a weak executive structure. By splitting the executive power among five Directors, the authors of the constitution aimed to prevent the rise of another dictator. 3. Protection of Middle-Class Interests: The thermidorians who drafted the constitution represented the wealthy bourgeoisie. They wanted to protect the moderate gains of the 1789 Revolution (such as the sale of church lands and civil equality) while restricting political power to propertied men. Thus, they abolished universal male suffrage and reinstated a property-based voting system. 4. Prevention of a Royalist Restoration: While avoiding Jacobin radicalism, the moderate republicans also had to defend the Republic against a resurgence of royalism. The Directory was intended to provide a stable, moderate republican middle ground that could suppress both left-wing Jacobin and right-wing Royalist threats, as seen in the suppression of the Vend m ire uprising.

Level 4 (9-10 marks): Identifies and explains multiple clear, analytical reasons for the establishment of the Directory in 1795, demonstrating deep historical knowledge of the Thermidorian Reaction and constitutional changes. Arguments are fully developed and show a clear understanding of the need for stability and fear of extremism. Level 3 (6-8 marks): Explains two or more reasons for the establishment of the Directory, but the analysis may be less balanced or lack depth. Focus is on causation. Level 2 (3-5 marks): Identifies reasons but offers limited explanation, leaning toward a descriptive narrative of the period rather than analytical explanation. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Offers a vague, general response with little relevant or accurate historical detail. Level 0 (0 marks): No response or response contains no relevant historical knowledge.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, introduced by Stephen A. Douglas, caused major political instability for several reasons: 1. Repeal of the Missouri Compromise: By applying the principle of popular sovereignty to the Kansas and Nebraska territories, the Act effectively repealed the 36 degree 30 line established by the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had prohibited slavery in those regions. This outraged northern anti-slavery politicians and citizens who viewed the compromise as a sacred covenant. 2. Realignment of the Party System: The bitter debate over the Act shattered the Second Party System. The Whig Party, unable to bridge the sectional division between its northern and southern wings, collapsed entirely. The Democratic Party suffered severe sectional polarization, losing significant support in the North. 3. Emergence of the Republican Party: In response to the Act, a new, purely sectional coalition of northern Free Soilers, anti-slavery Whigs, and independent Democrats formed the Republican Party, dedicated to stopping the westward expansion of slavery. This deepened the North-South political divide. 4. Bleeding Kansas: The Act led to a rush of pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers into Kansas to influence the popular sovereignty vote, resulting in a localized civil war known as Bleeding Kansas. This violence further inflamed national passions and discredited the concept of popular sovereignty.

Level 4 (9-10 marks): Explains multiple reasons for the political instability caused by the Act, demonstrating detailed historical knowledge of party political realignment, the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and territorial violence. Explanations are fully developed and focused on causation. Level 3 (6-8 marks): Explains two or more reasons, but the analysis may lack balance or depth in explaining the broader political consequences. Level 2 (3-5 marks): Identifies relevant factors (e.g., Bleeding Kansas, the Republican Party) but provides limited explanation or relies on a descriptive narrative of the event. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Offers a vague, generalized response with minimal historical knowledge. Level 0 (0 marks): No response or response contains no relevant historical knowledge.

An analytical argument should weigh the role of Prussian economic strength against other critical factors that led to unification in 1871. On one hand, economic factors were foundational: 1) The Zollverein (Customs Union), established under Prussian leadership, excluded Austria and integrated the economies of the German states, creating a natural economic hegemony for Prussia. 2) Prussian industrialization, particularly in the Ruhr valley, provided the necessary coal, iron, and manufacturing base to build a modern transport network (railways) and a superior military. On the other hand, other factors were crucial to achieving political unification: 1) The political and diplomatic skill of Otto von Bismarck, who brilliantly manipulated domestic and international crises (such as the Schleswig-Holstein dispute, the dispute over Luxembourg, and the Ems Telegram) to isolate Austria and France. 2) Prussian military reforms led by Albrecht von Roon and Helmuth von Moltke, which transformed the Prussian army into a highly efficient force capable of rapid mobilization and decisive victories in the Wars of Unification (1864, 1866, and 1870-71). 3) The growth of popular German nationalism, which Bismarck successfully co-opted to secure the support of the southern German states against France. In conclusion, while economic strength provided the essential material foundation and established Prussian dominance over Austria, it was the combination of Bismarck's diplomatic maneuvering and Prussian military reform that ultimately forged political unification.

Level 5 (16-20 marks): Identifies and evaluates key factors, presenting a balanced and well-supported argument that directly compares the importance of Prussian economic strength with alternative factors (such as Bismarck's diplomacy, military reforms, and nationalism) to reach a sustained, analytical judgment. Level 4 (11-15 marks): Provides a clear, analytical discussion of both economic and political/military factors, but may lack a fully integrated or consistent final judgment. Level 3 (6-10 marks): Explains relevant factors but tends to be descriptive rather than analytical, or presents a largely one-sided argument focusing primarily on economic strength or Bismarck. Level 2 (3-5 marks): Identifies some basic factors (e.g., Bismarck, railways, or wars) but lacks depth, structural clarity, or historical detail. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Superficial or highly general response showing minimal historical knowledge of German unification. Level 0 (0 marks): No response or response contains no relevant content.

An analytical argument should evaluate the role of railroads compared to other essential drivers of late nineteenth-century US industrialization. On one hand, railroads were transformative: 1) They created a genuinely integrated national market, allowing raw materials to be transported cheaply to factories and finished goods to be distributed nationwide. 2) The construction of railroads stimulated huge demand in other vital sectors of the economy, particularly steel, coal, lumber, and engineering. 3) Railroad corporations pioneered modern forms of corporate organization, management, and finance, paving the way for large-scale investment. On the other hand, several other key factors driven by industrial growth must be considered: 1) Abundant natural resources, including iron ore, coal, and oil, which provided the raw materials for heavy manufacturing. 2) Massive demographic growth, fueled by domestic migration and millions of European immigrants, which provided both a cheap labor force and a rapidly growing consumer base. 3) Technological innovations, such as the Bessemer process, electricity, and the assembly line, which revolutionized production efficiency. 4) Government policies, such as high protective tariffs, land grants to railroad companies, and a general commitment to laissez-faire capitalism, which allowed industrial capitalists to reinvest profits freely. In conclusion, while railroads provided the essential infrastructural backbone and market integration that made mass production viable, they were part of a broader synergy of natural resources, technological innovations, labor, and favorable government policies that collectively drove US industrial growth.

Level 5 (16-20 marks): Offers a balanced and well-supported evaluation of the role of railroads relative to other causes of US industrialization, culminating in a clear, analytical judgment. Level 4 (11-15 marks): Provides a clear analysis of multiple factors but may lack the depth of synthesis required for a top-level comparative judgment. Level 3 (6-10 marks): Identifies and explains several factors (railroads, resources, inventors, etc.) but tends to describe them rather than analyzing their relative importance. Level 2 (3-5 marks): Discusses railroads or industrialization in general terms with limited detail or historical evidence. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Superficially addresses the prompt with minimal historical context. Level 0 (0 marks): No response or response contains no relevant content.