History Grade 11 P1 November Mock 2026 Addendum (English)

Mock hlayiso mock exams Practice Series: Grade 11 Exam Preparation WWW.HLAYISO.COM NATIONAL SENIOR CERTIFICATE GRADE 11 HISTORY P1 ADDENDUM NOVEMBER EXAMINATION 2026 (MOCK) This addendum consists of 12 pages. Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 2 Hlayiso/Gr 11 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock QUESTION 1: HOW DID STALIN’S POLICY OF COLLECTIVISATION AFFECT THE PEASANTS OF THE SOVIET UNION BETWEEN 1929 AND 1933? SOURCE 1A The source below was compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts. It explains why Stalin introduced the policy of collectivisation. In 1928 Joseph Stalin introduced the first Five-Year Plan. Its aim was to turn the Soviet Union into a modern industrial power within a few years. Stalin argued that the country was 50 to 100 years behind the advanced capitalist countries and that it would be crushed by its enemies unless it caught up quickly. Industrialisation depended on agriculture. The new factories and the millions of workers who moved to the cities needed a regular supply of cheap food. Grain was also the Soviet Union’s most important export, and the money earned from selling it abroad would pay for foreign machinery and the services of foreign engineers. However, under the New Economic Policy (NEP) farming was carried out on about 25 million small, inefficient peasant farms that used old-fashioned methods. In 1927–1928 many peasants held back their grain because the prices paid by the state were too low, and the cities faced food shortages. Stalin’s answer was collectivisation. Individual peasant farms were to be combined into large collective farms (kolkhozy) and state farms (sovkhozy). The collective farms would share tractors and other machinery supplied by the state, and would have to deliver a fixed quota of their produce to the state at low prices. Collectivisation would also allow the Communist Party to control the peasants and to destroy the last remains of capitalism in the countryside. The main target was the kulaks, the better-off peasants who owned more land and animals and sometimes hired other peasants to work for them. The Party regarded them as rural capitalists who exploited the poorer peasants. [Compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts] *kolkhoz (pl. kolkhozy): a collective farm on which peasants worked together and shared the produce *sovkhoz (pl. sovkhozy): a state farm run like a factory, on which peasants worked for wages Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 3 Hlayiso/Gr 11 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock SOURCE 1B The source below was compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts. It focuses on the resistance of the peasants to collectivisation and the campaign against the kulaks. In December 1929 Stalin announced that the kulaks would be ‘liquidated as a class’. Armed squads of Party members, secret police and about 25 000 volunteer workers from the cities were sent into the villages to force the peasants into collective farms. Peasants who resisted were labelled kulaks, whether they were wealthy or not. Kulak families had their land, houses, animals and tools taken from them. Some were shot or sent to labour camps; nearly two million others were loaded onto cattle trucks and deported to remote areas of Siberia, Kazakhstan and the Urals, where many died of cold, hunger and disease. Many peasants resisted fiercely. Rather than hand over their animals to the collective farms, they slaughtered their cattle, pigs, sheep and horses and ate or sold the meat. Some burnt their crops and farm buildings, and Party officials were attacked and even murdered in the villages. In some areas peasant women led riots against the closing of village churches and the seizure of their cows. By March 1930 more than half of all peasant households had been forced into collective farms. On 2 March 1930 Stalin published an article in the newspaper Pravda entitled ‘Dizzy with Success’. In it he blamed over-enthusiastic local officials for using force and stated that joining a collective farm should be voluntary. Millions of peasants immediately left the collective farms, and by the summer of 1930 only about a quarter of households remained in them. The pressure was soon renewed, however, and by 1932 more than 60 per cent of peasant households had been collectivised. [Compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 4 Hlayiso/Gr 11 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock SOURCE 1C The table below was compiled by the examiner. It shows the approximate number of livestock in the Soviet Union in 1928 and in 1933. LIVESTOCK 1928 1933 (millions) (millions) Horses 33,5 16,6 Cattle 70,5 38,4 Pigs 26,0 12,1 Sheep and goats 146,7 50,2 [Adapted from figures quoted in various economic histories of the Soviet Union. All figures have been rounded.] SOURCE 1D The source below was compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts. It describes the famine of 1932–1933 and the measures taken by the Soviet government. Collectivisation did not produce the large harvests that Stalin had promised. The slaughter of animals, the loss of the most experienced farmers and the confusion on the new collective farms caused grain production to fall. The state nevertheless demanded ever higher quotas from the collective farms, and officials often took the grain that the peasants needed for food and for seed for the next season. The government introduced harsh measures to make sure that the quotas were met. A law of 7 August 1932 declared that all collective farm property belonged to the state; anyone caught stealing even a small amount of grain from the fields could be shot or sent to a labour camp for ten years. Villages that failed to meet their quotas were placed on ‘blacklists’ and were denied supplies of goods such as salt, matches and paraffin. In December 1932 internal passports were introduced for city dwellers, but peasants were not given passports, which made it almost impossible for them to leave their villages in search of food. The result was a terrible famine in 1932 and 1933, especially in Ukraine, the North Caucasus and Kazakhstan. Historians estimate that between five and eight million people died. In Ukraine the famine is remembered as the Holodomor (death by hunger). Yet during these years the Soviet Union continued to export grain abroad to pay for machinery for its factories. The Soviet government denied that there was a famine and did not ask for foreign aid. Foreign journalists were kept out of the worst-affected areas. The Welsh journalist Gareth Jones, who walked through Ukrainian villages in March 1933, reported on the starvation he had seen, but Soviet officials dismissed his reports as lies. [Compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts] *quota: a fixed amount of produce that each farm had to deliver to the state Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 5 Hlayiso/Gr 11 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock QUESTION 2: HOW DID WEAKNESSES IN THE AMERICAN ECONOMY OF THE 1920s LEAD TO THE WALL STREET CRASH OF 1929 AND THE GREAT DEPRESSION? SOURCE 2A The source below was compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts. It describes the American economy during the 1920s. The 1920s are often called the ‘Roaring Twenties’. The Republican presidents of the 1920s followed a policy of laissez-faire, keeping taxes low and allowing businesses to operate with little interference from the government. New methods of mass production, such as the assembly line introduced by Henry Ford, made consumer goods cheaper. Millions of Americans bought motor cars, radios, refrigerators, vacuum cleaners and washing machines for the first time, often on credit through hire-purchase schemes. Beneath the surface, however, the economy had serious weaknesses. Wealth was very unevenly distributed: the richest 5 per cent of Americans received about one-third of all personal income, while about 60 per cent of families earned less than $2 000 a year, the amount regarded as necessary for a decent standard of living. Farmers, who had produced large surpluses during the First World War, could not sell their crops at a profit when demand in Europe fell, and many lost their farms. Factories produced more goods than Americans could afford to buy. To protect American industry, the government placed high tariffs on imported goods, and other countries responded by placing tariffs on American goods. At the same time, millions of Americans began to speculate on the stock market at Wall Street in New York. Many bought shares ‘on the margin’: they paid only about 10 per cent of the price of a share themselves and borrowed the rest from a stockbroker. They expected to repay the loan from the profits made when share prices rose. By 1929 share prices were far higher than the real value of the companies that had issued them. [Compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts] *laissez-faire: an economic policy in which the government does not interfere in business *speculate: to buy shares in the hope of selling them quickly at a higher price Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 6 Hlayiso/Gr 11 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock SOURCE 2B The graph below was drawn by the examiner. It shows the approximate level of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, an index of the share prices of leading American companies, between 1928 and 1932. 400 381 (3 Sept 1929) Dow Jones Industrial Average (points) 350 294 (Apr 1930) 300 250 199 (Nov 1929) 200 165 (Dec 1930) 150 100 78 (Dec 1931) 50 41 (Jul 1932) 0 Jan 1928 Jan 1929 Jan 1930 Jan 1931 Jan 1932 [Graph drawn by the examiner; values are approximate and rounded] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 7 Hlayiso/Gr 11 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock SOURCE 2C The source below was compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts. It explains the events of the Wall Street Crash and its immediate consequences. Share prices reached their highest point in early September 1929 and then began to fall as nervous investors started to sell. On Thursday 24 October 1929, which became known as ‘Black Thursday’, panic broke out and almost 13 million shares were sold. A group of leading bankers met and pooled their money to buy large numbers of shares at high prices in an attempt to restore confidence. Prices recovered briefly, but on Monday 28 October the selling began again. On Tuesday 29 October 1929, ‘Black Tuesday’, more than 16 million shares were sold and prices collapsed. Investors who had bought on the margin were unable to repay their loans and many were ruined. The crash spread to the banks. Many banks had used their depositors’ money to buy shares or had lent it to speculators who could not repay it. When worried people rushed to withdraw their savings, thousands of banks were forced to close, and millions of ordinary Americans lost everything they had saved. Businesses could no longer borrow money; they cut production and dismissed workers, who then had even less money to spend. President Herbert Hoover believed that the economy was basically sound and that the government should not interfere directly. He is widely remembered for his optimism that prosperity was ‘just around the corner’. He encouraged businesses to keep wages up and later set up the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to lend money to banks and large companies, but he refused to give direct federal relief to the unemployed. Homeless people built shacks out of scrap metal and cardboard on the edges of cities. These settlements were mockingly called ‘Hoovervilles’. [Compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 8 Hlayiso/Gr 11 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock SOURCE 2D The graph below was drawn by the examiner. It shows the approximate number of unemployed people in the USA between 1929 and 1933. 14 12,8 12,1 Number of unemployed (millions) 12 10 8,0 8 6 4,3 4 2 1,6 0 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 Percentage of the labour force unemployed: 1929: 3% 1930: 9% 1931: 16% 1932: 24% 1933: 25% [Graph drawn by the examiner; figures are approximate and rounded] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 9 Hlayiso/Gr 11 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock QUESTION 3: HOW DID THE REMOVAL OF ABORIGINAL CHILDREN FROM THEIR FAMILIES REFLECT IDEAS OF RACE IN AUSTRALIA IN THE 20TH CENTURY? SOURCE 3A The source below was compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts. It explains the ideas about race that shaped the policies of Australian governments towards Aboriginal people. In the late nineteenth century many white Australians were influenced by Social Darwinism. This set of ideas applied Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection to human societies and claimed that some races were more advanced than others and were destined to replace them. Because the Aboriginal population had fallen sharply after colonisation as a result of disease, violence and the loss of land, many white Australians believed that the Aboriginal people were a ‘dying race’ who would eventually die out. Colonial and later state governments passed so-called ‘protection’ laws. Aboriginal people were moved onto reserves and missions, and officials known as Protectors, or Protection Boards, controlled where they could live, whom they could marry, where they could work and how their wages were spent. Under the Aborigines Act of 1905 in Western Australia, the Chief Protector became the legal guardian of every Aboriginal child under the age of 16, and parents lost the legal right to decide what happened to their own children. Officials were particularly concerned about the growing number of children of mixed Aboriginal and European descent. They believed that these children could be separated from their Aboriginal families and culture, trained to live like white people and ‘absorbed’ into white society. Some officials, such as A. O. Neville, Chief Protector of Aborigines in Western Australia from 1915 to 1940, openly argued that through marriage with white people over a few generations Aboriginal ancestry could be ‘bred out’. [Compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts] *reserve: an area of land set aside by the government for Aboriginal people to live on Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 10 Hlayiso/Gr 11 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock SOURCE 3B The timeline below was compiled by the examiner. It shows key laws and events relating to the removal of Aboriginal children in Australia. 1869 Victoria passes an Aboriginal Protection Act. A Board for the Protection of Aborigines is given power over where Aboriginal people may live and work. 1905 The Aborigines Act in Western Australia makes the Chief Protector the legal guardian of every Aboriginal child under the age of 16. 1909 New South Wales passes the Aborigines Protection Act and sets up an Aborigines Protection Board. 1915 New South Wales changes the law to allow the Board to remove any Aboriginal child from its family without a court finding that the child is neglected. 1937 A conference of Commonwealth and state officials in Canberra agrees that Aboriginal people of mixed descent should ultimately be ‘absorbed’ into the white population. 1951 Commonwealth and state ministers adopt a policy of assimilation: Aboriginal people are expected to give up their culture and live like other Australians. 1967 More than 90 per cent of Australian voters support a referendum that allows Aboriginal people to be counted in the national census and gives the Commonwealth government power to make laws for them. 1997 The report Bringing Them Home estimates that between one in three and one in ten Aboriginal children were forcibly removed from their families between 1910 and 1970. 2008 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd makes a National Apology to the Stolen Generations. [Timeline compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 11 Hlayiso/Gr 11 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock SOURCE 3C The source below is a summary compiled by the examiner. It is based on the general findings of the national inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, published in the report Bringing Them Home (1997). Children were taken from their families by police officers, welfare officers or missionaries, often without warning and sometimes straight from school. Many parents were never told where their children had been sent. The children were placed in government institutions and church missions, such as the Cootamundra Girls’ Home and the Kinchela Boys’ Home in New South Wales, or were fostered or adopted by white families. In the institutions the children were given new names and were forbidden to speak their own languages or practise their culture. Brothers and sisters were often separated from each other. Many children were told that their parents were dead or did not want them, and they were taught that Aboriginal people and their way of life were inferior. Children with lighter skin were often separated from darker-skinned children so that they could more easily be absorbed into white society. The education the children received was very basic. Girls were trained to work as domestic servants in white homes and boys were trained as farm labourers and stockmen. At about the age of 14 many were sent out to work for white employers, and their wages were often paid to the authorities instead of to them. The inquiry found that many children suffered physical, emotional and sexual abuse. As adults, many members of the ‘Stolen Generations’ struggled with the loss of their identity, family and culture. Many never found their parents again. The inquiry found that the effects of the removals were passed on to later generations and concluded that the forcible removal of children had been a gross violation of their human rights. [Summary compiled by the examiner from the general findings of Bringing Them Home (1997)] *Stolen Generations: the name given to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children who were removed from their families by Australian governments and churches Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 12 Hlayiso/Gr 11 Mock 2026 NSC – Addendum Mock SOURCE 3D The source below was compiled by the examiner. It includes one sentence (in quotation marks) from the National Apology made by the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, in the Australian Parliament on 13 February 2008. The National Apology to the Stolen Generations was the first item of business of the newly elected Australian Parliament. Thousands of people, many of them members of the Stolen Generations and their families, gathered at Parliament House in Canberra, while large crowds watched the speech on big screens in cities across the country. The previous Prime Minister, John Howard, had refused to make a formal apology, arguing that the present generation should not be held responsible for the actions of earlier generations. In his speech Kevin Rudd apologised for the laws and policies of earlier parliaments and governments that had caused grief, suffering and loss to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. He stated: ‘For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.’ The leader of the opposition, Brendan Nelson, also supported the apology. Many members of the Stolen Generations wept and applauded and said that the apology had at last recognised their suffering. Some Aboriginal leaders, however, pointed out that the government had refused to set up a compensation fund for the victims, and they argued that words alone would not close the large gaps in health, education and life expectancy between Aboriginal and other Australians. [Compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts] Copyright reserved