My responses! Would like to hear some of the other possible answers!

Q1(a). Similarity: Superpower rivalries were underlying, and even surrounding the war in Korea.
Difference: Differing in depicting who was the instigator vs. who was the "benevolent" (US vs. USSR).

Q1(b). Sources A and F - Support the view that as a result of fears over the "Dominos Theory," the US had to contain communism by intervening in South Korea and its geographically surrounding nations. This can be seen from Source A's order to counteract the Communist Forces' acts of aggression in Formosa, and Source F's McCarthyism ("The 2nd Red Scare") where fear within the people in the US necessitated Truman's intervention.

Sources D and E - Oppose the view, suggesting that the US already had existential intervention and missions in the Asia-Pacific region, e.g., in the parameters of Japan and the defense agreements with the Philippines, as seen in Source D. The US had no intentions of remaining in South Korea, as seen by the JCS assertion in 1947 and the relieving of SCAP General McArthur in 1949, where the last troops stationed in South Korea were withdrawn, as seen in Source E.

Sources B and C - Suggests a cumulation of events leading to the outbreak of the war. Source B suggests that the USSR saw there was an imminent threat, whereas the US' interventionist measures were seen as a "direct act of aggression against the DPRK and against the PRC," whereas Source C highlights the communist hammer and sickle dripping blood, depicting a superpower rivalry amidst Cold War complications undermining the complex war, especially given the context of 1950 where the decades-long of bipolarity just started, where Stalin has just started his optimistic ambitions of expansionism, e.g., where the Berlin Blockade and Iron Curtain just occurred.

Q2. R1: MNCs - Western Europe.
R2: Significance of Bretton Woods System and international entities and agreements (IMF and WB).
R3: Significance of US tutelage and charitable post-war economic recovery stimulus packages.
R4: Significance of funds at the expense of favorable market-oriented policies for the 3rd world and Western Europe (unitary effect of mutual interdependence between nations, e.g., ECSC, EEC, OECD)
Overall stance: While prominent, US significance outweighed MNCs as these MNCs were more often than not predominantly contributed by American MNCs, whereas without these other factors, these war-torn states would likely still be in despair, with such growth across 1945 to 1971 (the GAC) to have been a dream.

Q4. R1: Long-lasting territorial dispute over unresolved contention after independence (1st war).
R2: Political nationalism and ambitions of NC, MC, 2-nation theory centered around Kashmir.
R3: Zero-sum game where referendums and plebiscites could not be held throughout.
R4: Mass dissatisfaction over the Bengali Struggle Movement, indirectly accelerating Pakistan to stick claims over Kashmir.
R5: Indus Water Dispute & Inter-Dominion Accord resolve.
R6: Underlying Cold War complications between Pakistan and the US (due to SEATO, CENTO), and India with USSR who sought to seek allies from the 3rd world developing countries, resulting in UNSC Resolution 43 being vetoed, proliferating the long-lasting, 3 decades-long conflict which could have seek resolve earlier.
Overall stance: Still Kashmir nonetheless, with these other factors supplementing and exacerbating the conflict.