ACSI 2025 HIST PRELIM P2 MS

1 ACS INDEPENDENT 2025 Y4 HISTORY P2 PRELIM Suggested Answers 1a) Study Source A. What is the message of this source? Explain your answer. 5m L1 Misunderstands/paraphrase with no inference/describes source. 1m L2 Inference unsupported. The cartoon’s message is that Stalin (the USSR) is dominating Berlin in a way that ignores true four -power cooperation, treating the Western Allies as powerless or humiliated underlings rather than equal partners. 2m L3 Inference supported and explained. Award 4m for one well-explained inference and 5m for an additional inference. Award 3m only for inference with evidence only. The cartoon’s message is that Stalin (the USSR) is dominating Berlin in a way that ignores true four-power cooperation, treating the Western Allies (Britain, France, and the USA) as powerless or humiliated underlings rather than equal partners. Inference #1: The cartoonist suggests Stalin is treating the Western Allies as objects to be walked on, showing he is oppressing or dominating them instead of cooperating as equals. This can be seen from how Stalin is shown lounging comfortably in a chair labelled “USSR,” with his feet on carpets made from the Western Allies. Inference #2: The setting is labelled “Berlin International Zone Headquarters,” referencing the four-power administration agreed after WWII. Hence the cartoon implies the USSR is ignoring the joint administration deal, trying instead to rule Berlin alone for its own benefit, leading to conflict (like the Berlin Blockade that had just begun). 3- 5m b) Study Sources B and C. Having read Source C, are you surprised by Source B? Explain your answer. 6m L1 Mismatch 1m L2 No BOC, Valid comparison but with no evidence/Difference in provenance only. I am not surprised by Source B after reading Source C because their origins explain their differences. Source B is a 1949 Soviet government news release meant as propaganda to blame the West and justify the blockade, while Source C is a 2001 British historian’s analysis aiming for balanced, evidence-based explanation. 2m L3 Surprised or Not Surprised due to difference or similarity in the content of both sources After reading Source C, I am surprised by the content of Source B because the two sources present different explanations for the Berlin Crisis. Source C offers a balanced and analytical perspective, explaining that the Soviet blockade was a calculated response to Western policies such as the introduction of the Deutschmark and the plan to form a separate West German state. This can be seen from “ They argued that it was a defensive measure to stop the Soviet zone from being swamped with the devalued Reichsmarks, which the new Deutschmark was rep lacing.” It shows that Stalin used the 3m

2 blockade as a pressure tactic, while also acknowledging the Soviet argument that it was a defensive measure against economic disruption. In contrast, Source B completely rejects any Western justification and instead frames the crisis as an aggressive Western plot, claiming “The crisis was planned in Washington behind a smokescreen of anti -Soviet propaganda” and accusing the West of deliberately starving West Berliners. Source B’s message is uncompromisingly accusatory and denies any Soviet responsibility, which is surprising after reading Source C’s nuanced account that acknowledges both sides’ actions and motives. The difference highlights how Source B serves as propaganda by oversimplifying the conflict and ignoring the Western rationale described in Source C. L4 As L3 + explained by cross-reference to contextual knowledge or other sources. (Award 5m for a well-explained answer) L3 + Having read Source C, I am further surprised by Source B as Source B is challenged by contextual knowledge. Source B claims the crisis was entirely planned by the USA to harm the USSR, ignoring key facts about Western motivations. In reality, the Western Allies introduced the Deutschmark to stabilise Germany’s economy after years of postwar chaos and hyperinflation. The blockade was the Soviet response to this move, aiming to force the West to abandon plans for a separate West German state. Furthermore, instead of being “forced to yield,” the USA and its allies successfully supplied West Berlin through the Airlift, breaking the blockade without conceding their goals. This evidence contradicts Source B’s claim that Western “war plans” failed because of Soviet strength. 4- 5m L5 Purpose analysis (Award 5m only if impact/ evidence lacking in purpose explanation). Having read Source C, I am not surprised by Source B as they come from different contexts and thus are expected to have different purposes. Source B is a Soviet commentary published by TASS in 1949 during the Berlin Crisis. Its provenance as an official Soviet news agency release means it reflects the USSR’s government viewpoint at the height of Cold War tensions. The context is the Berlin Blockade, when the Soviet Union sought to challenge Western control in West Berlin. The audience includes Soviet citizens and the international community, especially those sympathetic to or undecided about the USSR’s position. The main purpose of Source B is to justify Soviet actions by portraying the West, particularly the USA, as aggressors who deliberately planned the crisis to isolate the USSR. The message condemns Western powers for causing suffering in West Berlin through the “self -blockade” and claims the Soviet Union forced the USA to back down. For example, the source states, “The crisis was planned in Washington behind a smokescreen of anti -Soviet propaganda,” and “The USA was forced to yield… their war plans had come to nothing.” The intended impact is to strengthen Soviet domestic support and international legitimacy by casting the USSR as peace-loving and victimized, while depicting the West as hostile and manipulative. Source C is an excerpt from a book by a British historian published in 2001, providing a retrospective analysis of the Berlin Crisis. Its provenance as a secondary historical source written long after the events allows it to use a wide range of evidence and hindsi ght. The context is the post -Cold War scholarly environment, aiming to explain the causes and motivations behind the blockade. The audience is the public and academic readers interested in an objective account. The purpose of Source C is to explain that the Berlin Blockade was a reaction by the Soviets to Western political and economic moves, 5- 6m

3 specifically the introduction of the Deutschmark and efforts to create a separate West German state. The source notes that Stalin “believed that he could force the Western allies to reconsider the whole German question by applying pressure to their position in West Berlin.” It also acknowledges the Soviet justification that the blockade was “a defensive measure to stop the Soviet zone from being swamped with the devalued Reichsmarks.” The intended impact is to offer a balanced understanding that highlights the complexity of Cold War diplomacy, showing that both sides took strategic actions rather than blaming one side solely. Accept other possible analysis. c) Study Source D. How useful is this source as evidence of USSR’s actions in the Berlin Crisis? Explain your answer. 6m L1 Inference unsupported/ misinterpretation/describes source only. 1m L2 Useful/ not useful through limited analysis of provenance. 2m L3 Useful content analysis, supported with source evidence. Source D is useful in showing USSR is deliberately humiliating the Western Allies in Berlin to provoke war as seen from “The longer the Western Allies remain in Berlin as targets of constant humiliation by the Soviet power”. This is reliable: contextual knowledge confirms that in June 1948 the USSR blockaded all land routes into West Berlin