NANYANG JUNIOR COLLEGE

Year One Common Test 2022

HISTORY
9752/01/02
Paper 1 Shaping the International Order (1945 – 2000) 01 July
2022
Paper 2 Making of Independent Southeast Asia (Independence – 2000) 1 hour 45 mins

No Additional Materials are required.

READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS FIRST

Write your name and civics tutorial group on all the work you hand in.
Write in dark blue or black pen on both sides of the paper.
You may use an HB pencil for any diagrams, graphs or rough working.
Do not use staples, paper clips, glue or correction fluid.
DO NOT WRITE IN ANY BARCODES.

Section A
Answer both questions.

Section B
Answer one question.

At the end of the examination, fasten all your work securely and hand in both sections
separately.
The number of marks is given in brackets [ ] at the end of each question.
 2

This document consists of 5 printed pages.

[Turn over

9752 H2 History Year One Common Test 2022

 3

Section A

You must answer both questions.

The USSR and Europe in the Post Second World War Period

1. Read the sources and answer the question which follows.

Source A

The following circumstances should not be forgotten. The Germans made their invasion of
the USSR through Finland, Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary. The Germans were
able to make their invasion through these countries because, at the time, governments
hostile to the Soviet Union existed in these countries. As a result of the German invasion the
Soviet Union has lost irretrievably in the fighting against the Germans, and also through the
German occupation and the deportation of Soviet citizens to German servitude, a total of
about seven million people. In other words, the Soviet Union’s loss of life has been several
times greater than that of Britain and United States of America put together. Possibly in some
quarters an inclination is felt to forget about these colossal sacrifices of the Soviet people
who secured the liberation of Europe from the Hitlerite yoke. But the Soviet Union cannot
forget about them. And so what can there be surprising about the fact that the Soviet Union,
anxious for its future safety, is trying to see to it that governments loyal in their attitude to the
Soviet Union should exist in these countries? How can anyone who has not taken leave of
his senses describe these peaceful aspirations of the Soviet Union as expansionist
tendencies on the part of our state?
Excerpt from Stalin’s interview with Soviet newspaper “Pravda”, 14 March 1946.

Source B

A new alignment of political forces has arisen. The principal driving force of the imperialist
camp is the US. This camp wants to hatch a new imperialist war. The anti-fascist forces
comprise the second camp. This camp is based on the USSR and the new democracies,
including Romania, Hungary and Finland. The camp strives to resist the threat of imperialist
expansion and to strengthen democracy. Aggression and exploitation are alien to the very
nature of the Soviet socialist state, and the USSR is interested in creating external peace for
the building of a communist society. From this it follows that cooperation between the USSR
and countries with other systems is possible, provided that the principle of reciprocity is
observed and that obligations once assumed are honored. Everyone knows that the USSR
has always honored the obligations it has assumed and has demonstrated its desire for
cooperation. The vague and deliberately guarded formulations of the Marshall Plan amount
in essence to a scheme to create blocs of states bound by obligations to the US, and to grant
American credits to European countries as compensations for their surrender of economic,
and then of political, independence. Moreover, the cornerstone of the Marshall Plan is the
restoration of the industrial areas of Western Germany controlled by American monopolies.

From Andrei Zhdanov’s, Soviet organiser of Cominform, opening speech at a Cominform

Conference, September 1948.

[Turn over

9752 H2 History Year One Common Test 2022

 4

Now answer the following question:

Compare and contrast sources A and B regarding Soviet concerns regarding Europe in the
immediate post-WW2 period. [10]

How Similar: Both show USSR is concerned about the safety of EE. A says “Soviet Union,
anxious for its future safety, is trying to see to it that governments loyal in their attitude to the
Soviet Union” and in B it says “the USSR is interested in creating external peace for the
building of a communist society”.
How Different: They are different because of the reasons for these concerns. Source A is
about security, especially USSR’s security. Source A talks about “The Germans made their
invasion of the USSR through Finland, Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary”, while B is
about being anti-imperialist – “The principal driving force of the imperialist camp is the US.”

Why Similar: Due to CK: USSR oversaw the creation of a buffer zone. Through the use of
salami tactics, the USSR was able to establish a zone of control across the region.
Why Different: CK also helps in this area as well. Source A was written in 1946, so the
immediate concerns of USSR are clear as there was the atom bomb etc. But by 1948, it was
less about military and more about ideology as the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan were
already present, so the priorities changed. In terms of purpose, A Stalin is speaking to the
Russian people mainly, possibly to created a siege mentality. In Source B, the audience is
Eastern Europe, and USSR is warning them about the Marshall Plan so this purpose is more
about coordinating the European states, while in A is it more about how it directly impacts
USSR.

9752 H2 History Year One Common Test 2022

 5

[Turn over
The Korean War

2. Read the sources and answer the question which follows.

Source C

According to reliable information of the Soviet Government, the events, which are occurring
in Korea, were provoked by an attack on border areas of North Korea by forces of the South
Korean authorities. Therefore, the responsibility for these events rests on the South Korean
authorities and on those who are behind them. As is well known, the Soviet Government
withdrew its troops from Korea before the United States did and thereby affirmed its
traditional principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. Now, the
Soviet Government stands by the principle of the impermissibility of interference of foreign
powers in the internal affairs of Korea.

Statement of the Soviet government to the US Ambassador, 29 June 1950.

Source D

American leaflet titled ‘Korean Ox, Chinese Servant, Russian Master!’, December 1952.

Now answer the following question:

Compare and contrast sources C and D regarding USSR’s role in the Korean War? [10]

How Similar: Both suggest USSR that was very interested in the events in Korea. In D it is
portrayed as them clearly being involved as it looks on over China and North Korea. In C,
“the Soviet Government stands by the principle of the impermissibility of interference of
foreign powers in the internal affairs of Korea”. Both show USSR being a keen observer in
what happened .
Or – both suggest that it may look tht USSR was not quite interested – C talks about how it
was an attack by NK, and D shows Stalin standing away from the action, observing.
How Different: They are different in showing the level of involvement of USSR. In source C
– “the Soviet Government withdrew its troops from Korea before the United States did and

9752 H2 History Year One Common Test 2022

 6

thereby affirmed its traditional principle of non-interference”, while D shows that it is it was
the “master”.

Why Similar: CK – USSR was interested but from a distance – it didn’t want to be involved
in a direct war after WW2 just finished. But it did give lots of support to NK through aid and
final approval for the war.
Why Different: CK – time, by the time that D was published the war was at a standstill, so
USA would have assumed that the USSR was clearly against it, otherwise how could USA
not be winning. While C was at the start and so USSR initially wasn’t directly involved. And
in terms of purpose, C is from USSR to USA to tell them they aren’t involved so that USA
won’t get involved. D is a USA poster trying to clearly suggest that USSR and China were all
part of monolithic communism, trying to establish the concerns about the domino theory.
Section B

9752 H2 History Year One Common Test 2022

 7

You must answer one question from this section. You must support your answer with
examples drawn from at least three countries.

“Political stability was largely achieved in independent Southeast Asia states.” How far do
you agree with this statement?

Political stability is the ability of SEA government to sustain power over protracted periods. This is
achieved by catering to the people’s needs and implementing good governance in order to
maintain popular support by establishing credibility. The independent SEA governments were
largely unable to achieve political stability because their leaders manipulation of constitutions to
bolster their own political base and the threat of the military to the government caused the
political instability in the countries. However, it cannot be discredited that there was political
stability achieved in some states because of their strict and orderly laws implemented as well as
their free and liberal nature.

SEA states were not able to achieve political stability largely because of the government leaders
manipulation of constitutions to bolster their own political base. By manipulating the structure of
the government constitutional process and elections, the leaders were able to sustain their power
in the state. In the case of the Philippines, Marcos was a manipulator responsible for destroying
the democratic system in the Philippines. Despite the constitution and elections processes being
set in place, Marcos manipulated the votes to grant himself unlimited power while at the same
time, have forceful suppression of opposition parties. Also, he used $50 million worth of public
funds to fund his campaign. This led to much discontent amongst the population which eventually
led to opposition uprising. Hence, it brought about political instability in the Philippines. Likewise,
Indonesia under Suharto was unstable because he had the tendency to implement unpopular
strategies, at least to the masses, such as Dwifungsi which caused the escalation of opposition.
His attempt to eliminate opposition eventually got him overthrown after AFC when people lost
tolerance of him. During economically prosperous times, such practices and the rampant
corruption was tolerated, as there was general economic growth. However, with the onset of the
AFC in 1997, caused him to lose economic credibility, and in turn, caused him to be overthrown.
In these two cases, the government leaders who was the driving force of the government body
made it difficult for political stability to be achieved. Their manipulation of the system hindered the
government body to perform tasks at the interest of society but rather, it focused on the leaders
interests which was to sustain their power. This brought about the public’s disapproval with
widespread opposition. Hence, with the loss of popular support, political stability was not
maintained.

Moreover, SEA governments were largely unable to achieve political stability because of the
threat the military posed. This is largely due to the government depending on the military to
establish legitimacy in power, as long as they had the support of the military. SEA countries such
as the Philippines and Indonesia, had the military working alongside the government, and there
were several military officials place within the government. In the case of Indonesia, the Suharto
grappled power from Sukarno with the help of the military and as a reward, he placed military
officials in power within the government. In the case of the Philippines, Marcos was able to
reinforce his power and claim down on political opposition with the help of the military. He was
also able to enact martial law by using the military to enforce it. However, widespread economic
problems coupled with the cronyism rampant within the government brought about severe
dissatisfaction to Marcos. The military withdrew their support for Marcos and they wanted to
overthrow him to bring democracy back to the country. With the military rebelling against the
government, it put the country in political instability. These two cases show how vulnerable the
government was to the military as they derived their political legitimacy from it. With the loss of
the military’s hands in the government, the government would be weakened and thus, unable to
achieve political stability. Thus, the threat the military brings to the government kept the political
stability of SEA states at stake. Thus, the military being a threat to the government hindered their
ability at ensuring political stability is achieved.

9752 H2 History Year One Common Test 2022

 8

However, it cannot be discredited that the government was able to achieve political stability
because of their strict and orderly laws they set in place as a guide for society. The government
was able to ensure social stability without having to involve the military, as they used emergency
powers to deal with the short term instability and returned back to democratic rule as soon as it
was possible. In the case of Singapore, the government used the Internal Security Act (ISA) in
1963 which allowed for detention without trial. Operation Cold Store allowed them to completely
remove the communists that was the main threat to PAP’s political stability at that time. After the
threat was removed, the emergency was lifted and Similarly, in Malaysia, the government
implemented the emergency rule to prevent further widespread of violence instigated by the
Malayan Communist Party MCP. The government took active measures to prevent the
communists from gaining more popular support so that it will not jeopardize their rule. Thus, they
were able to deal with the communist threat effectively and Barisan Nasional was able to sustain
power for an extended period of time. These two cases tell us that by implementing strict and
specific regulations, the government was able to keep the opposition in check and thus, kept the
political stability in the countries possible. Moreover, the temporary nature of such powers
ensured that the political situation returned back to normal as soon as possible, which in turn
allowed the government to retain the confidence of the people. Furthermore, the PAP and the
Barisan Nasional governments were able to stay in power for an extended period, which is further
evidence of the political stability that they have achieved.

SEA governments who tried to carry out democracy were unable to achieve political stability as it
led to infighting which led to the government being unable to function ineffectively. The political
rivalry provided an opportunity for rival political leaders to usurp power, which in turn led to
governments being overthrown. In the case of Burma, Ne Win was able to grapple power as the
democratic government was unable to handle the minorities effectively, which led to U Nu’s
administration being overthrown in a coup. Ne Win felt that parliamentary democracy was not
suitable for Burma and he wanted to solve the factionalism that was plaguing Burma by seizing
power. However, the widespread unpopularity that he had eventually caused him to be removed
from power in 1988. In a similar light, Marcos also felt that democracy was handicapping his
country as it took too long to pass laws due to the infighting in the Senate and Congress, which
caused him to implement martial law in 1972. He also rewrote the Constitution which gave him
absolute powers within the country. However, he was eventually overthrown by the military in
1986. From both case studies, democracy did not perform to the expectations of rival political
leaders which took the opportunity to seize power from the democratic governments. While the
leaders who seized power were able to remain in power, the political stability that was achieved
was merely superficial. There was discontentment within the population but it was suppressed by
the help of the military or through maximum rule. However, when the discontentment became too
much to suppress, the leaders themselves were also removed. Comparatively, the leaders who
ruled with maximum rule seemed to be more effective in achieving political stability which the
earlier democratic governments were unable to do. Thus, while countries who experimented with
democracy were politically unstable, they experienced an increase in stability under maximum
rule, albeit at a superficial level. Nonetheless, there was a degree of political stability established
by SEA states.

In conclusion, SEA states were largely able to achieve political stability because of the ability to
sustain their role in governance and popular support over time. However, there were also states
that showed the capability of the government in achieving political stability through the
appropriate use of maximum rule depending on the situation or through the establishment of
economic credibility. Furthermore, political stability also depended on the conditions present in
the state, such as the people being willing to tolerate the policies of the government. As SEA
governments were largely able to sustain power over a protracted period of time or were able to
deal with the opposition and/or challenges presented to them over time, SEA states were largely
able to achieve political stability, albeit at a superficial level for some, as a whole.

9752 H2 History Year One Common Test 2022

 9

‘The rise of maximum governments in independent Southeast Asian states was a direct
consequence of the failure of democracy.’ How far do you agree with this judgement?

Maximum governments are governments that portray elements of authoritarianism, manifested in the form
of centralization of power and the curtailing of civil liberties. A rise in maximum governments may signal a
change in governance from a democracy to a more authoritarian approach to governance. A failure of
democracy may have led to a change towards a maximum government, due to the lack of economic or
social stability. In such cases, the judgement that the rise of maximum governments was a consequence of
the failure of democracy may be valid. However, there are other factors such as motivations of political
personalities or the role of the military which can be seen to have led to the rise of maximum governments
in Southeast Asia as well. While these factors are viable in explaining the rise of maximum governments, in
most cases it can be seen that the failure of democracy was a more direct impetus in causing the rise of
maximum governments to a large extent.

The rise of maximum governments in Southeast Asian states can be seen as a direct consequence of the
failure of democracy in maintaining social stability in their respective countries. In some cases, democracy
failed to provide proper representation for the many ethnic minorities of their countries, resulting in ethnic
unrest which created social instability in these countries. This lack of stability led to the rise of maximum
governments as military regimes were seen to take over from the democratic governments in order to
stabilize the social climate in these countries. In the case of Burma, under U Nu’s democratic government,
policies such as the Buddha Sasana Act in 1950 and the declaration of Buddhism as the state religion of
Burma resulted in the alienation of minorities such as the Karens. This led to resistance in the form of the
Karen National Union against the majority Burmans, creating massive unrest which led to a lack of social
stability. As such, the military had to take over as a caretaker government, in order to reinforce the country’s
stability through more authoritarian measures. Similarly, in Indonesia, the lack of representation of minority
races from the Outer Islands in the government which was dominated by a small Javanese elite on the
pretext of ‘guided democracy’ resulted in ethnic unrest and separatist movements, culminating in a counter-
government being set up in West Sumatra in 1957. Sukarno’s government had to take more authoritarian
measures to quell this unrest, through the use of the military and eventually through the de-politicization of
society during Suharto’s starkly more authoritarian regime. In both cases, it can be seen that on the surface,
failure of democracy in increasing representation of the ethnic minorities resulted in ethnic unrest, which
warranted the move to a more authoritarian governance in order to preserve the social stability of these
countries. However, in the case of Indonesia, it was the failure of the policies associated with Sukarno’s
government which only appeared democratic on the surface, which led to the rise of unrest and hence,
authoritarian governance started to rise in order to overcome the social strife. As such, it can be seen that
the rise of maximum governments can be partially attributed to the failure of democracy in creating social
stability in some Southeast Asian states.

The rise of maximum governments in Southeast Asian states may also be seen as a direct consequence of
the failure of democracy in creating economic stability in these states.

As some democratic governments were challenged by political plurality and factionalism, their lack of proper
decision-making prevented them from improving their countries’ economies, leading to economic instability
resulting in the rise of maximum governments. In general, governments were expected to generate
economic growth for their countries, and raise the standards of living for their people. However, political
plurality and factionalism resulted in a lack of decisive policies and political deadlock encountered by some
democratic governments in Southeast Asian states, resulting in poor economic and living conditions for the
people. This led to a rise in maximum governments in order to improve the economies in these countries.
For example, in Thailand, under Pridi’s democratic government, a presence of high political factionalism
resulted in political parties fighting for more power rather than focussing on the country’s economic woes.
This resulted in inflation and corruption, which was worsened when Thailand was forced to sell cheap rice
to the Britain in exchange for entry into the UN. As the economic impacts became too pronounced, the
General Sarit Thanart organized a coup in 1957, overthrowing the Phibun regime, moving Thailand into an
authoritarian regime. Similarly, in Indonesia, on top of social instability during Sukarno’s regime, economic
instability was also rife as Indonesia went into rapid population growth coupled with high inflation. The
government’s cutting off of ties with the West worsened the situation, with hyperinflation of 600% in 1966.
This created a fertile circumstance for Suharto to overthrow Sukarno in an abortive coup in 1965, leading to
a rise in the authoritative government of Suharto in a bid to preserve economic stability as well. Both cases
show that proliferation of economic troubles as a result of the failure of democratic governments to enact
effective reforms legitimized the move towards authoritarianism, leading to a rise in maximum governments.
Furthermore, it can be seen that these maximum governments were more successful than the democratic
governments, as they were indeed able to return the country to stability due to their disciplined nature and
strict reforms, which added credibility to their governance. Hence, it can be seen that the rise of maximum

9752 H2 History Year One Common Test 2022

 10

governments in Southeast Asian states can be attributed to the failure of democracy in maintaining
economic stability as well.

However, the rise of maximum governments may also be seen as a result of the motivations of different
political personalities in Southeast Asian states. Some political personalities in Southeast Asia can be seen
to have striking motives which influenced their style of governance. This can be seen to have resulted in a
rise in authoritarianism as well. In the case of the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos was driven by his desire to
consolidate absolute power for himself. Marcos declared Martial Law in 1972 and changed the constitution
in 1973 to give greater powers to the executive, forcing the National Assembly to elect him as both
president and prime minister. This led to the beginning of the 10-year dictatorship of Marcos’ maximum
government. In the case of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew had a strong anti-communist belief which led to him
moving his governance of Singapore towards a softer authoritarian approach, through the use of the ISA to
conduct Operation Cold Store in 1963 to arrest suspected communists, eventually leading to the exit of the
Barisan Socialis party from the political arena of Singapore. This led to the maintenance of power in the
hands of the PAP from then on. In both cases, the political motives and beliefs of the leaders shaped the
move towards a more authoritarian government in their respective countries. Furthermore, it can be seen
that despite the differences in motive, the nature of their motives, whether to consolidate power or sustain
stability, heavily influenced the style and structures of governance of the different political personalities,
often influencing a more authoritarian approach towards governance. The fact that both Marcos and Lee
Kuan Yew were able to sustain their rule through their authoritarian style of governance suggests that it was
not so much about the failure of democracy but the popular support they had from the population that was a
contributing factor to their rise and stay in power. Hence, political personalities can be seen to have
influenced the rise of maximum governments in Southeast Asia as well.

Moreover, the maximum governments can be seen to be influenced by the role of the military in politics of
different Southeast Asian states as well. The military’s involvement in politics of Southeast Asian states can
be seen to differ and hence affect the rise of maximum governments in these states. For example, in Burma
the role of the Burmese Independence Army (BIA) in supporting the Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom
League’s (AFPFL) covert resistance against the Japanese and eventually push for independence garnered
great support for the BIA and legitimized their significance in Burma’s politics. This lent support for the rise
of maximum governments under General Ne Win from 1958 to 1960 and 1962 to 1981. In contrast, a lack of
involvement of the military in politics can be seen to have allowed democracy to be sustained in some
Southeast Asian states. In Singapore, the military’s sworn subservience to the government prevented the
military from taking up political control, allowing Singapore’s parliamentary democracy to be sustained. The
same was the case for Malaysia where the military’s subservience to the Malaysian government allowed the
sustenance of Malaysia federal democracy. As such, the involvement of the military in politics can be seen
to have paved the path for the rise of maximum governments while a lack of legitimacy of the role of the
military can be seen
-+o have prevented the rise of maximum governments instead. Furthermore, it should however, be noted
that the democracies in Malaysia and Singapore were more successful than those of Southeast Asian
countries which experienced military governments, which may have influenced this difference in the role of
military leading to the rise of maximum governments. In the case of Burma, where there was a weak civil
government, it provided the opportunity for the military to rise to power. However, in the case of Singapore
and Malaysia, where there were strong civil governments, the governments were able to keep the military in
check. While the military was involved in politics, it was more of the capability of the civil governments that
were more pivotal in either causing or preventing the rise of a maximum government due to the role of the
military. Therefore, the failure of democracy was not the main reason behind the rise of maximum
governments in SEA.

Overall, factors such as political personalities and the significance of the military in politics did contribute to
the rise of maximum governments. However, the failure of democracy can be seen as a trigger which
caused the worsening of instability and dissatisfaction with governance. This warranted action by
authoritarian parties, such as political personalities or the military to take overpower, causing a shift towards
maximum governance. Hence, the other factors can be merely seen as factors which set the context and
eased the rise of authoritarian governments instead, which lowers the significance of these factors as a
direct trigger for the rise of maximum governments. Hence, the rise of maximum governments can be seen
as a direct consequence of the failure of democracy to a large extent.

9752 H2 History Year One Common Test 2022