Educerie · IB Diploma · History
Paper 1 — Worked examples
About the sources used here. These are constructed practice sources, written by Educerie in the style and format of the sources that appear in Paper 1, and grounded in the documented historical record of the Manchurian crisis. They are not archival documents and must not be quoted as such. They exist so you can rehearse the skill; the history they describe is real, the wording is ours.
Source A — Constructed practice source: an extract from a report by an international commission of inquiry into the events in Manchuria, published 1932.
The military operations of the Japanese troops during the night of 18 September cannot be regarded as measures of legitimate self-defence. The plan of campaign was carried out with such speed and precision as to suggest that it had been prepared in advance. We do not, however, find the situation in Manchuria before that date to have been a simple one. Japanese economic interests in the region were extensive and long-established, and had been subject to obstruction.
Source B — Constructed practice source: a public statement issued by the Japanese government, 1932.
Japan seeks no territory. Our forces acted solely to protect the lives and lawful property of Japanese citizens against banditry which the Chinese authorities had proved wholly unable to suppress. The new state of Manchukuo has been founded by the free will of its own inhabitants, and Japan has done no more than recognise a fact.
Source C — Constructed practice source: a British political cartoon, 1933. A figure labelled "The League" sits at a desk marked "STRONGLY WORDED RESOLUTIONS", writing busily. Behind him, a vastly larger soldier labelled "JAPAN" steps over a small wall marked "MANCHURIA", carrying a sack. The soldier is not looking at the desk.
Source D — Constructed practice source: an extract from a work by a historian, published 2005.
The crisis exposed the central weakness of the post-war settlement. The League possessed no army, and its members possessed no appetite to supply one. Britain and France, absorbed by economic collapse at home, were unwilling to impose sanctions that might have damaged their own trade. The lesson was not lost on other powers, who observed that aggression carried a reputational cost and very little else.
Question 1a — What, according to Source A, were the reasons for the events of September 1931? (3 marks)
The commission concludes that the Japanese military action of 18 September cannot be justified as legitimate self-defence. ✓ The speed and precision of the operation suggest to them that it had been planned in advance rather than being a spontaneous response. ✓ However, they also note that Japan had extensive, long-established economic interests in Manchuria which had been obstructed, so the prior situation was not straightforward. ✓
3/3.
Three points, in your own words, and nothing else. No evaluation, no context, no comment on reliability — those belong elsewhere and earn nothing here. The third point matters: sources usually contain a qualification, and candidates who take only the headline claim find themselves a mark short.
Question 1b — What is the message of Source C? (2 marks)
The cartoonist is arguing that the League of Nations was powerless to restrain Japanese aggression — it responds with words while the action it is meant to prevent proceeds. ✓ The contrast in scale, with Japan drawn as a giant stepping easily over Manchuria while the League sits small at a desk, suggests the League's response was not merely ineffective but irrelevant — Japan is not even looking at it. ✓
2/2.
Compare that with what a weak answer does: "There is a man at a desk writing and a big soldier stepping over a wall." That is description, and description scores zero. The question asks for the message — the argument the cartoonist is making. Every visual detail is evidence for a claim, so name the detail and then say what it means.
Question 2 — With reference to origin, purpose and content, analyse the value and limitations of Source B for historians studying the Manchurian crisis. (4 marks)
Origin. Source B is an official statement of the Japanese government, issued in 1932 by a party directly involved in the events. It is therefore of high value in establishing the official Japanese position at the time, expressed in the government's own words. Its limitation is that it comes from an interested party which had every reason to present its actions favourably, so it cannot be relied upon as a record of what occurred. ✓
Purpose. It was produced for international consumption, to justify Japanese action to other powers and to the League. This makes it valuable for understanding the arguments Japan believed would be persuasive abroad. Its limitation is that it is an exercise in justification rather than explanation, so it is unlikely to disclose private motives or planning. ✓
Content. The specific claims — that Japan sought no territory, that Chinese authorities could not suppress banditry, and that Manchukuo was founded by its inhabitants' free will — are valuable because they are testable against other evidence, and Source A directly contradicts the claim of spontaneous self-defence. ✓ The limitation is what the content omits: it makes no reference to Japanese economic interests, which Source A confirms were extensive, and it gives no account of how Manchukuo's government was actually constituted. ✓
4/4.
Three things earn these marks. Origin, purpose and content are each addressed in order and by name. Each has both a value and a limitation. And every value finishes the sentence "valuable for finding out what" — not "valuable because it is a primary source", which says nothing.
Note that the source's partiality is treated as useful, not disqualifying. A government's justification is the best possible evidence of what that government wanted believed. That reframing is what separates a 4 from a 2.
Question 3 — Compare and contrast what Sources A and D reveal about the response to the crisis. (6 marks)
Similarities. Both sources treat the Japanese action as illegitimate rather than defensible: Source A finds it cannot be regarded as legitimate self-defence, and Source D describes it straightforwardly as aggression. Both also imply that the international response was inadequate — Source A confines itself to findings without proposing enforcement, while Source D states directly that no enforcement was forthcoming. Both, further, locate part of the explanation outside Japan: Source A in the obstruction of Japanese economic interests, Source D in the preoccupations of Britain and France.
Differences. Source A is concerned with establishing what happened and apportioning responsibility for the events themselves, whereas Source D is concerned with why the response failed and with the consequences for the wider order. Source A offers a qualified picture, acknowledging that Japanese grievances were real, whereas Source D offers no such qualification and treats the episode simply as aggression unpunished. Finally, Source A, written in 1932, could not know what followed, whereas Source D, writing in 2005, draws an explicit lesson for other powers — a judgement only hindsight makes available.
6/6.
Notice that almost every sentence contains both sources. That linkage is the structural requirement of compare and contrast, and it is what separates a strong answer from a pair of summaries. Note also the final difference: the date of a source is itself a point of contrast, and hindsight is one of the easiest comparisons to make well.
Roughly equal weight is given to similarity and difference. An answer that offers four similarities and one difference is unbalanced and will not reach the top band.
Educerie · original worked examples written against the published IB Diploma Programme structure for History Paper 1, first assessment 2017. All four sources are constructed by Educerie for practice and are not archival documents; the historical events they describe are real. Last reviewed 5 September 2026.