(a) 你認為該漫畫是出版於資本主義國家還是共產主義國家？試參考資料E，解釋你的答案。 （3分）
L1 嘗試指出該漫畫出版於資本主義國家，惟未能恰當運用資料解釋答案。 [最多2分]
L2 能指出該漫畫出版於資本主義國家，並能恰當運用資料解釋答案。 [最多3分]
L1 嘗試推斷，惟未能恰當運用資料解釋答案。 [最多2分]
L2 能推斷目的，並能恰當運用資料解釋答案。 [最多4分]
L1 答案含混，未能有效運用資末及個人所知，及/ 或對題目有關時段涵蓋不足。 [最多2分]
(a) Do you think that the cartoon was published in a capitalist or communist state? Explain your answer with reference to Source E. (3 marks)
Performance was average. The more competent candidates could point out that the cartoon was published in a capitalist state, with an explanation using clues from the Source. The weak candidates thought that the cartoon was published in a communist state; they misunderstood the continents shown in the globe represented China and the Soviet Union.
L1 Attempts to point out that the cartoon was published in a capitalist state, but unable to explain the answer with due reference to the Source. [max. 2] L2 Points out that the cartoon was published in a capitalist state, and explains the answer with due reference to the Source. [max. 3] Explanation: e.g.
- ‘Constant red war threat’; only a capitalist state would hold this view.
- The globe showed a sickle (representing the USSR) containing north and south America. In other words, the cartoonist thought that threat came from communism, and the cartoon should be published in a capitalist state.
The cartoon was published in a capitalist state.
According to Source E, the cartoon stated that there was “Constant red war threat” in “The world we live in”, while red war represented the world revolution advocated by communism. Therefore, the cartoon was criticizing communism that was growing and hence the cartoon was published in a capitalist state.
Moreover, the cartoon depicted the globe as a sickle and the globe was showing the map of South America. South America was being threatened by the sickle, implying that the cartoonist believed communism was spreading to Western countries like South America and posing threats to world peace. Thus, the cartoon was published in a capitalist state.
(b) What can you infer from Source F about Khrushchev’s purpose in delivering this speech? Explain your answer with reference to Source F. (4 marks)
Performance was poor. Only a minority of candidates could make good use of the Source to infer Khrushchev’s purpose of making the speech. Many candidates merely repeated the Source in their answers, without inferring the ‘purpose’. Some weak candidates misread the Source; they thought Khrushchev intended to start a nuclear war.
L1 Shows attempts to infer, but unable to explain the answer with due reference to the Source. [max. 2] L2 Infers the purpose and explain the answer with due reference to the Source. [max. 4] Purpose: e.g.
- To arouse the attention of the Moscow residents to the idea of ‘peaceful coexistence’. Clues: e.g.
- ‘To disregard this is to shut one’s eyes and ears and bury one’s head like the ostrich does when in danger.’
Khrushchev’s purpose in delivering this speech was to attract Moscow residents to support the idea of ‘peaceful coexistence’.
Source F stated that under “different social systems”, conflicts would not be “resolved successfully in any other way than on principles of peaceful coexistence”. It reflects that Khrushchev believed that ‘peaceful coexistence’ was the best way to resolve the existing international crisis. Therefore, his purpose was to attract people’s support of the idea of ‘peaceful coexistence’.
Moreover, Source F pointed out that “agreat deal would perish in a nuclear war”, showing that the international community was facing serious crises. Khrushchev suggested that “it would be too late to discuss what peaceful coexistence means” when the crises had become heated and chances to settle the problem would be missed. Thus, his purpose was to attract people’s support of the idea of ‘peaceful coexistence’.
Lastly, Khrushchev thought that to ‘disregard” the idea of ‘peaceful coexistence’ was to “shut one’s eyes and ears and bury one’s head like the ostrich does when in danger” and it could not help resolve the conflicts. Thus, his purpose was to attract people’s support of the idea of ‘peaceful coexistence’.
(c) ‘In the 1950s, the relationship between the capitalist and communist blocs gradually became less hostile.’ Do you agree? Explain your answer with reference to Sources E and F, and using your own knowledge. (6 marks)
Performance was poor. Only a minority of candidates could discuss whether the relationship between the two blocs ‘became less hostile’, using facts from the 1950s. some weak candidates merely narrated on the conflicts between the two blocs, without making any attempts to elaborate on their relationship.
L1 Vague answer, unable to effectively refer to the Sources and own knowledge, and/or with inadequate coverage of the period in question. [max. 2] L2 Merely refers to the Sources or own knowledge, and/or covers only part of the period in question. [max. 3] L3 Refers to both Sources and own knowledge, and basically covers the whole period in question. [max. 6] Agree: e.g.
- Source E, which was published in the early 1950s, suggested imminent confrontation between the two blocs. Towards the end of the 1950s, the idea of peaceful co-existence was promoted, as reflected in Source F. (Source) - After the Korean War, there was no major confrontations between the two blocs in the 1950s. (own knowledge) Disagree: e.g.
- ‘A great deal would perish in a nuclear war’ suggested that the nuclear threat was still imminent in the late 1950s. (Source F) - Armament race was still under way. The powers competed to develop their own nuclear and hydrogen bombs. (own knowledge)
I agree with this statement. Firstly, the capitalist and communist blocs were hostile to each other in the 1950. According to Source E, the cartoon criticized the growing influence communism that the world was facing “constant red war threat”. The cartoon advocated that the regimes around the world should cooperate with one another to counter the threat of communism, reflecting the hostile relationship between the two blocs. Secondly, several conflicts occurred between the two blocs in the early 1950s. According to my own knowledge, in order to expand their influence, the capitalist and communist blocs had intervened in the Korean War (1950-1953). The two blocs confronted against each other through providing assistance to South Korea and North Korea. Thus, the two blocs were hostile to each other in the early 1950s. Thirdly, in the mid-1950s, the relationship between the two blocs remained poor. According to my own knowledge, since West Germany joined the NATO in 1955 and the USSR established the Warsaw Pact Alliance (1955) with communist Eastern European countries, the two military alliances confronted against each other. The capitalist and communist blocs were still hostile to each other. However, the capitalist and communist blocs started breaking the ice in the mid-1950s. According to my own knowledge, the leaders of the two blocs had called the Geneva Conference (1955) to discuss the ideas of ‘peaceful development’ and ‘peaceful coexistence’. They also planned to convene the Paris Summit in 1960, implying that the two blocs were improving their relationship by attempting to reduce conflicts. Fourthly, in the late 1950s, the relationship between the two blocs had been improved. According to Source F, Khrushchev stated that ‘peaceful coexistence’ was the best way to resolve the existing international crisis “in conditions when there are states with different social systems” when delivering his speech. It shows that Khrushchev hoped to seek support from the public for improving relationship with the West, reflecting that the relationship between the two blocs had been improved. Lastly, according to Source F, Khrushchev thought that to ‘disregard” the idea of ‘peaceful coexistence’ was to “shut one’s eyes and ears and bury one’s head like the ostrich does when in danger”. It indicates that the USSR was eager to improve its relationship with the West and thus the two blocs had improved their relation in the late 1950s. Therefore, I agree with the statement.