Prescribed subject/P1 · Historical sources and contextual evaluation

IB Diploma Programme History SL (the guide first assessed in 2017). This topic prepares Paper 1, the source paper 史料题试卷, which SL and HL students both sit. Schools choose one prescribed subject 规定专题 from five, and each has two case studies 案例研究 from different regions. In the exam you read four sources on one case study and answer four questions in 1 hour (24 marks; 30% at SL, 20% at HL). This handout teaches the source skills first, and then gives the facts for the most taught choice, the move to global war.

On 20 September 1939 a London newspaper printed a cartoon by David Low. Hitler and Stalin bow politely to each other over the body of a dead soldier, Poland. Hitler says: "The scum of the earth, I believe?" Stalin answers: "The bloody assassin of the workers, I presume?" Two enemies had just signed a pact, and Low showed in one picture that neither trusted the other. A historian reading the cartoon learns little about the pact's details, but a lot about how the British saw it. That is the skill Paper 1 tests: what a source can and cannot tell you.

Must-know for Paper 1:

The sources are a mix of primary sources 一手史料 (made at the time: speeches, letters, photographs, cartoons) and secondary sources 二手史料 (written later by historians).

For Question 1, use only the source: your own knowledge earns nothing there. Spend the most time on Question 4, which has the most marks.

For Question 2 you analyse one source with four ideas, often called OPVL:

• Origin 来源: who made it, when, where, and what type of source it is.
• Purpose 目的: why it was made and for whom: to inform, to persuade, to justify, to entertain.
• Value 价值: what it can reliably tell a historian, because of its origin, purpose or content.
• Limitation 局限: what it cannot show, or where it may mislead.

Value and limitation always depend on the question you ask. A propaganda 宣传 poster is poor evidence of how people really lived, but excellent evidence of what a government wanted people to believe. Never write "this source is biased 有偏见的, so it is useless": the bias itself tells the historian something.

Worked Question 2. Source: the Lytton Report, published by a League of Nations commission in October 1932 after it visited Manchuria. With reference to its origin, purpose and content, analyse the value and limitations of the source for a historian studying the Manchurian crisis.

The source is valuable because the commission was sent by the League and visited Manchuria in 1932, so its members saw the situation shortly after the events and heard both Chinese and Japanese views. Its purpose, to give the League facts on which to act, meant it had to be careful and detailed. However, it is limited because it was written for a diplomatic audience: it uses cautious language to avoid closing the door to Japan. It also cannot show how the League's members would respond to it, which is what decided the crisis.

Each value and limitation is tied to a feature of the source (who sent it, when, why), not just to its content.

For Question 3, compare 比较 means find similarities, and contrast 对比 means find differences. Link the two sources in every point:

Both Source A and Source C show that Britain wanted to avoid war in 1938, but while Source A presents this as wise, Source C presents it as weakness.

Aim for at least two similarities and two differences. Describing Source A in one paragraph and Source C in the next earns few marks.

For Question 4, write a short essay: a thesis 论点 in the first sentence, two or three paragraphs that each use a source (named, such as "Source B") together with your own facts, and a judgement at the end. Use at least three of the four sources.

Each exam puts all four sources on one case study, so you must know both of your school's case studies.

After the First World War, the League of Nations 国际联盟 (1920) was meant to keep the peace by collective security 集体安全: if one state attacked another, all members would act together against it, first with economic sanctions 经济制裁 and, if needed, with force. In the 1930s Japan, Italy and Germany expanded by force, and collective security failed. The key question is why.

Japanese expansion in East Asia, 1931–1941

Causes historians weigh: the Great Depression, which hit Japan's silk exports and made resources in Manchuria attractive; the growing power of the army over the civilian government; nationalism; and the weakness of the League, which had no army of its own and whose most powerful members did not act.

German and Italian expansion, 1933–1940

Britain and France followed appeasement 绥靖政策: giving in to some demands to avoid war. Reasons included the memory of the First World War, economic weakness, the belief that Versailles had been too harsh, and the need for time to rearm.

Worked Question 4 plan. "Using the sources and your own knowledge, evaluate the claim that the League of Nations failed mainly because its members chose not to act."

1. Thesis: largely true; the League had tools, but Britain and France put their own interests first.
2. Manchuria: the League investigated, but no member would fight Japan so far away (use the Lytton Report source).
3. Abyssinia: sanctions without oil, and the Hoare–Laval Plan, showed that Britain and France wanted to keep Italy friendly (use a cartoon source).
4. Counter-argument: the League had no army, and the US, the largest economy, was never a member; the aggressors were determined.
5. Judgement: the weaknesses of its structure made failure likely, but the members' choices made it certain.

• The format: 1 hour, four sources, 24 marks; the marks and timing for each question.
• Question 1: from the source only, with quotations; the message of a visual source.
• Question 2: OPVL, each value and limitation linked to the origin or purpose; bias as evidence.
• Question 3: similarities and differences, point by point.
• Question 4: thesis, sources and own knowledge, a judgement.
• The five prescribed subjects and their case studies.
• The move to global war: collective security; the Japanese timeline 1931–1941; the German and Italian timeline 1933–1940; appeasement.