Mark Scheme

Section A — Structured Questions (36 marks)

Question 1

(a) What can you learn from Source A about Wilson's reasons for the United States entering the First World War? [3 marks]

Award 1 mark for each valid inference drawn from the source, up to a maximum of 3 marks.

Creditable responses include: • The USA entered to prevent violations of rights / to correct wrongs • The USA wanted to protect American lives / make American life possible • The USA wanted to make the world safe for democracy / peace-loving nations • The USA wanted to stop force and selfish aggression • The USA was motivated by moral principles rather than selfish interests • The USA wanted to ensure justice and fair dealing between nations

Accept: Valid inferences supported by the source. Reject: Generalised statements not supported by the source; contextual knowledge not shown in the source.

(b) Describe the key features of the Treaty of Versailles agreed in 1919. [5 marks]

Award 1 mark for each relevant point, up to a maximum of 5 marks.

Creditable responses include: • Germany had to accept blame for starting the war (War Guilt Clause / Article 231) • Germany had to pay reparations (£6.6 billion / 132 billion gold marks) • German army limited to 100,000 men • Germany forbidden to have submarines / air force / tanks • Germany lost all overseas colonies • Alsace-Lorraine returned to France • Rhineland demilitarised • Anschluss (union with Austria) forbidden • German territory given to Poland including the Polish Corridor • Danzig made a free city • Saar coalfields given to France for 15 years • Germany not allowed to join the League of Nations

Accept: Any other valid point about territorial, military, financial or other terms. Reject: Vague statements without specific detail; descriptions of other treaties.

(c) Explain why Germany resented the Treaty of Versailles. [7 marks]

Level 3 (6-7 marks): Explains TWO or more reasons with supporting detail. Level 2 (3-5 marks): Explains ONE reason with supporting detail OR describes several reasons without explanation. Level 1 (1-2 marks): General statements or single points without development.

Creditable explanations include: • War Guilt Clause was seen as humiliating and unfair because Germany did not believe it was solely responsible for the war • Reparations were seen as crippling and impossible to pay, damaging the German economy • Military restrictions left Germany weak and vulnerable to attack • Loss of territory meant loss of population, resources and industry (10% of land, 12.5% of population, 16% of coalfields, 48% of iron production) • Germans in the Sudetenland, Poland and elsewhere were now under foreign rule (Volksdeutsche) • Germany was not consulted during negotiations (dictated peace / Diktat) • The treaty contradicted Wilson's Fourteen Points, particularly self-determination • Germany was excluded from the League of Nations, treating it as a pariah state • Loss of colonies damaged German pride and prestige

Accept: Clear causal explanation showing WHY these terms caused resentment. Reject: Simple description without explanation; statements about what the treaty contained without explaining German resentment.

Question 2

(a) What message is Source B giving about the Munich Agreement? Use details of the source and your knowledge to explain your answer. [6 marks]

Level 3 (5-6 marks): Uses details of the source AND contextual knowledge to explain the message. Level 2 (3-4 marks): Uses details of the source OR contextual knowledge to explain the message. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Makes unsupported inferences or describes the source.

Creditable responses include:

From the source: • Chamberlain is smiling and waving, suggesting satisfaction / triumph • He is holding up the agreement, suggesting it is worth celebrating • Large crowds have gathered to greet him, suggesting public support / relief • The atmosphere appears positive and optimistic

Message: • The Munich Agreement was seen as a success / achievement • The agreement brought peace / avoided war • Chamberlain was popular / welcomed as a hero • There was public relief that war had been avoided

Contextual knowledge to support: • Chamberlain believed he had secured "peace for our time" • The agreement allowed Hitler to take the Sudetenland in return for no further territorial demands • The British public feared another war after the losses of 1914-18 • Appeasement was popular at the time among many British people

Accept: Valid interpretation supported by both source details and contextual knowledge at Level 3. Reject: Pure description without interpretation; unsupported assertions.

(b) Does Source C support the evidence of Source B about the Munich Agreement? Explain your answer. [7 marks]

Level 3 (6-7 marks): Compares the sources by making developed statements about agreement and disagreement. Level 2 (3-5 marks): Compares the sources by making statements about agreement OR disagreement, or makes undeveloped statements about both. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Describes the sources or makes simple statements about agreement or disagreement.

Creditable responses include:

Disagreement: • Source B shows the Munich Agreement as positive / successful, while Source C describes it as "total and unmitigated defeat" • Source B shows public celebration and optimism, while Source C warns this is "only the beginning" of further problems • Source B suggests Chamberlain achieved something worthwhile, while Source C criticises that Hitler got what he wanted easily ("served to him course by course") • Source B implies peace is secured, while Source C warns of "a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year" • The tone is completely opposite: celebration vs. warning of disaster

Possible limited agreement: • Both sources acknowledge that an agreement was reached • Both sources show the Munich Agreement was a significant event

Context to explain difference: • Source B shows the immediate public reaction; Source C is Churchill's analysis • Churchill opposed appeasement; Chamberlain supported it • Churchill proved more accurate in his predictions

Accept: Clear comparison making use of both sources. Reject: Answers that only deal with one source; simple statements of "they disagree" without explanation.

Question 3

(a) Describe the main decisions made at the Yalta Conference in February 1945. [4 marks]

Award 1 mark for each relevant point, up to a maximum of 4 marks.

Creditable responses include: • Germany to be divided into four zones of occupation (USA, USSR, Britain, France) • Berlin to be divided into four zones even though it was in the Soviet zone • Free elections to be held in liberated Eastern European countries • USSR would join the war against Japan after Germany's defeat • United Nations to be set up • Poland's borders to be moved westward • Nazi war criminals to be punished • Germany to pay reparations (mainly to USSR) • Declaration on Liberated Europe agreed

Accept: Any valid decision made at Yalta. Reject: Decisions made at Potsdam or other conferences; vague statements without specific detail.

(b) Explain why the Berlin Blockade of 1948-49 increased Cold War tensions. [4 marks]

Award 1 mark for each developed explanation, up to a maximum of 4 marks.

Creditable responses include: • It was direct confrontation between East and West over Germany's future • It showed Stalin was willing to use force / pressure to achieve his aims • It demonstrated the division of Germany was becoming permanent (led to creation of two German states) • The airlift showed Western determination to resist Soviet expansion • It brought the world close to military conflict / war • It led to the formation of NATO (1949) as a defensive alliance against USSR • It showed that cooperation between former allies had completely broken down • It demonstrated Berlin would remain a flashpoint / source of tension

Accept: Clear explanation of HOW the blockade increased tensions. Reject: Simple description of what happened without explaining increased tensions; narrative account without analysis.

Section B — Extended Response (24 marks)

Question 4

How far do you agree that the League of Nations failed mainly because it lacked the support of major powers? Explain your answer. [10 marks]

Level 4 (9-10 marks): Balanced answer addressing BOTH sides of the argument with supporting evidence and a clear judgement. Level 3 (6-8 marks): One-sided answer with developed explanation OR balanced answer with limited development. Level 2 (3-5 marks): Describes reasons for League's failure with limited explanation. Level 1 (1-2 marks): General statements about the League with minimal supporting detail.

Creditable responses include:

Agreeing (lack of support from major powers): • USA never joined despite Wilson's role in creating it, weakening it from the start • USSR excluded until 1934, then expelled in 1939 • Germany not allowed to join until 1926, then left in 1933 • Japan left in 1933 after Manchuria crisis • Italy left in 1937 after Abyssinia crisis • Without major powers, the League lacked moral authority and economic/military strength • Absence of USA meant no economic sanctions would be fully effective • Britain and France were the only major powers consistently involved but were weakened by WWI and unwilling to act decisively

Disagreeing (other reasons for failure): • Structural weaknesses: decisions required unanimity, making action slow or impossible • No standing army to enforce decisions • Economic sanctions took too long to have effect and were undermined by non-members • Britain and France were unwilling to risk their own interests (e.g., Hoare-Laval Pact) • Depression of 1930s made countries focus on domestic problems • Treaty of Versailles was resented, and League was associated with it • League was too idealistic and not suited to real-world power politics • Specific failures: Manchuria (1931), Abyssinia (1935), Rhineland (1936) showed it powerless

Accept: Balanced arguments showing awareness of multiple factors with a supported conclusion. Reject: Pure narrative without analysis; answers that only agree or disagree without considering alternatives; judgements without supporting evidence.

Question 5

'The policy of appeasement was the main reason why war broke out in Europe in 1939.' How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. [14 marks]

Level 4 (11-14 marks): Balanced analysis of BOTH sides with well-selected supporting evidence and a sustained, justified judgement. At top of level, answer shows conceptual understanding of causation. Level 3 (7-10 marks): One-sided explanation with good supporting evidence OR balanced answer with uneven development. Level 2 (4-6 marks): Describes several factors with limited explanation OR explains one factor. Level 1 (1-3 marks): General statements about causes of war with minimal supporting detail.

Creditable responses include:

Agreeing (appeasement was main reason): • Appeasement encouraged Hitler to believe Britain and France would not fight, making him more aggressive • Munich Agreement (1938) showed democracies would give in to threats • Remilitarisation of Rhineland (1936) unpunished showed Hitler could break Versailles Treaty • Anschluss (1938) allowed without consequences emboldened Hitler • Each success made Hitler more confident to demand more • Britain and France only drew line at Poland in 1939, by which time Hitler did not believe them • Appeasement gave Hitler time to rearm Germany, making war more likely and Germany stronger • The policy suggested weakness and encouraged aggression

Disagreeing (other reasons): • Treaty of Versailles created German resentment and desire for revenge • Hitler's ideology and aggressive foreign policy aims (Lebensraum, reverse Versailles, unite German speakers) • Failure of League of Nations to stop aggression in 1930s • Nazi-Soviet Pact (August 1939) made Hitler confident he could avoid two-front war • Economic depression created conditions for extremism and made countries focus inward • British and French military weakness meant they were not ready for war earlier • Isolationism of USA meant no powerful ally to deter Germany • The invasion of Poland itself was Hitler's decision - war was not inevitable

Synoptic understanding: • Appeasement was important but must be seen alongside Hitler's intentions • Multiple factors interacted (e.g., Versailles resentment + appeasement + Hitler's aims) • Counterfactual: earlier firm stand might have prevented war OR might have caused war sooner • Timing: appeasement gave Britain time to rearm too (RAF stronger by 1939)

Accept: Balanced arguments with sustained judgement; awareness that causation is complex; ability to prioritise factors with justification. Reject: Pure narrative of events 1933-39; simplistic "appeasement was good/bad" without analysis of causation; lists of factors without explanation or prioritisation.

Sample Answers with Examiner Commentary

Question 4 — Sample Answers

Grade A (high distinction) answer*

I agree that the lack of support from major powers was the most important reason why the League of Nations failed, but other structural and situational weaknesses also contributed significantly to its failure.

The absence of major powers was critical. The United States never joined despite President Wilson being the main architect of the League. This was devastating because America was the world's largest economy and could have made economic sanctions effective. When the League imposed sanctions on Italy during the Abyssinia crisis in 1935, they failed partly because the USA continued trading with Mussolini. Furthermore, Germany was excluded until 1926 and left in 1933, while the USSR was not admitted until 1934 and then expelled in 1939. This meant that at any given time, the League never had all major powers as members. When Japan and Italy also left in the 1930s, the League became little more than an organisation dominated by Britain and France, two powers weakened by the First World War and unwilling to act decisively without American support. The lack of major powers meant the League lacked both moral authority and the economic and military strength to enforce its decisions.

However, other factors were also important. The League's structure made effective action nearly impossible. Decisions of the Council required unanimity, which meant any member could veto action. This made the League slow to respond to crises. The League also had no standing army to enforce its decisions, relying instead on members to contribute forces. Britain and France were reluctant to risk their own troops and economic interests. During the Abyssinia crisis, the Hoare-Laval Pact showed that Britain and France were prepared to betray the League's principles to protect their strategic interests in the Mediterranean. Additionally, economic sanctions took too long to work and could be undermined by non-members continuing to trade with the aggressor.

The League was also fatally undermined by the Great Depression from 1929, which made countries focus on their own economic survival rather than collective security. Japan's invasion of Manchuria in 1931 occurred partly because Japan needed resources during the Depression. The League's failure to stop this aggression encouraged further challenges to the international order.

In conclusion, while the lack of major power support was the single most important factor - without the USA especially, the League could never fulfil its potential - this weakness was compounded by structural flaws and the international situation of the 1930s. If the USA had joined but the League still required unanimous decisions, it might still have failed to act decisively.

Mark: 10/10

Examiner commentary: This is an excellent answer that fully engages with the question. The candidate provides a balanced argument, addressing both why lack of major power support was the main reason (with specific evidence such as USA's absence affecting sanctions, and the departure of Japan, Germany and Italy) and why other factors were also significant (structural weaknesses, Depression). The answer demonstrates clear understanding of causation and links between factors. The conclusion reaches a supported, nuanced judgement that prioritises the lack of major power support while acknowledging other contributing factors. The answer uses precise historical knowledge and maintains analytical focus throughout.

Grade C (pass) answer

I partly agree that the League of Nations failed mainly because it lacked the support of major powers.

One reason the League failed was that the USA never joined. President Wilson wanted the League but the American Senate voted against joining. This was bad for the League because America was very powerful and rich. Without America, the League was weaker. Also Germany was not allowed to join at first and then left in 1933 when Hitler came to power. Japan left after Manchuria in 1933 and Italy left after Abyssinia. This meant the League did not have the main countries in it to make it strong.

Another reason was that the League had no army. This meant it could not force countries to do what it said. When Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, the League just sent people to write a report but did not stop Japan. The same happened with Abyssinia when Italy invaded in 1935. The League tried sanctions but they did not work and Italy conquered Abyssinia anyway. This showed the League was weak and could not stop aggression.

The League also had problems with making decisions. All the members had to agree before anything could be done. This made it very slow and countries could just disagree to stop action happening.

In conclusion, the League failed because major powers were not members and because it had no army to enforce its rules. If America had joined it might have been more successful.

Mark: 6/10

Examiner commentary: This is a sound answer that reaches the middle of Level 3. The candidate identifies relevant factors (absence of major powers, no army, structural problems with decision-making) and provides some supporting evidence (USA's non-membership, Germany's departure, Japan and Italy leaving, Manchuria and Abyssinia). However, the explanations are not always fully developed - for example, the candidate states the USA's absence made the League "weaker" but does not explain precisely how or why. The answer addresses both sides of the argument but the counter-arguments are less developed than the main argument. The conclusion is present but somewhat brief and does not fully weigh the relative importance of the different factors. To reach the higher levels, the candidate needed more precise explanation of causation and better linkage between factors.

Grade E (near miss) answer

The League of Nations failed because it had lots of problems. The main problem was that countries did not support it properly.

America did not join the League even though it was Woodrow Wilson's idea. This was because the Senate did not want to. Without America the League was not strong enough. Other countries also left like Germany and Japan. This made it even weaker.

The League tried to stop wars but it failed. In Manchuria the League told Japan to leave but Japan just left the League instead. In Abyssinia the League tried to stop Mussolini but he invaded anyway. This shows the League could not stop powerful countries.

Another problem was it had no soldiers. The League of Nations could not send an army to stop countries invading each other. It only had economic sanctions but these did not work very well.

In conclusion, the League of Nations failed because major powers did not support it and it had no army.

Mark: 3/10

Examiner commentary: This answer remains in Level 1/Level 2 boundary. The candidate identifies some relevant points (USA's non-membership, lack of army, failures in Manchuria and Abyssinia) but provides minimal explanation of why these factors caused the League to fail. The answer is largely descriptive rather than analytical. There is no real attempt to evaluate "how far" the lack of major power support was the main reason - the candidate simply agrees without considering alternative explanations in any depth. The historical knowledge shown is limited and sometimes imprecise (no mention of Italy leaving, or the USSR, or specific details of why sanctions failed). To improve, the candidate should develop explanations of causation (not just "this made it weaker" but explaining how and why), provide more specific supporting evidence, and engage with both sides of the argument before reaching a balanced judgement.

Question 5 — Sample Answers

Grade A (high distinction) answer*

While the policy of appeasement was a significant factor in the outbreak of war in 1939, it was not the sole or necessarily the main reason. The war resulted from a complex interaction of factors including Hitler's aggressive ideology, the legacy of Versailles, the failure of collective security, and the specific circumstances of 1939.

Appeasement certainly played an important role in encouraging Hitler's aggression. The policy, pursued primarily by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, involved making concessions to Germany's demands to avoid war. When Hitler remilitarised the Rhineland in 1936 in direct violation of the Versailles Treaty, Britain and France took no action. This taught Hitler that the Western democracies would not fight. Similarly, the Anschluss with Austria in March 1938 was accepted without consequences. Most significantly, the Munich Agreement of September 1938 handed Hitler the Sudetenland, rewarding his threats with territorial gain. Each success made Hitler bolder and convinced him that Britain and France were weak and would not resist him. When they finally drew a line at Poland in 1939, Hitler did not believe they would actually fight. Appeasement also gave Germany time to rearm, making the Wehrmacht stronger by 1939. In this sense, the policy directly contributed to the outbreak of war.

However, Hitler's own ideology and aims were arguably more fundamental. Hitler had made clear in Mein Kampf his intentions to reverse Versailles, unite all German speakers, and gain Lebensraum in the East. He systematically worked toward these goals: conscription in 1935, Rhineland in 1936, Austria in 1938, Czechoslovakia in 1938-39. The invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939 was consistent with his long-term aim of expansion eastward. Hitler was an ideologically driven dictator who had always intended war - appeasement merely affected the timing and circumstances rather than causing it. Indeed, some historians argue that appeasement delayed war until Britain was better prepared, with radar systems installed and the RAF stronger than in 1938.

The Treaty of Versailles also created conditions for war. German resentment at the 'Diktat' of 1919, the war guilt clause, reparations, and territorial losses created a desire for revenge that Hitler exploited. The treaty was harsh enough to humiliate Germany but not harsh enough to prevent rearmament. This underlying tension was a deeper cause than appeasement itself.

The Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939 was the immediate trigger that made Hitler confident enough to invade Poland. The pact ensured Germany would not face a two-front war, removing Hitler's main fear. Without this agreement, Hitler might have hesitated even after years of appeasement.

In conclusion, appeasement was an important factor that emboldened Hitler and delayed collective action, but it should be seen as one of several interconnected causes. Hitler's aggressive intentions, rooted in Nazi ideology and fed by Versailles resentment, were more fundamental. Appeasement affected how and when war came, but given Hitler's aims, war was likely inevitable. The policy's main effect was to make Germany stronger by 1939 while damaging the credibility of British and French threats, thus shaping the circumstances rather than being the sole cause of the war's outbreak.

Mark: 14/14

Examiner commentary: This is an outstanding answer demonstrating the highest level of conceptual understanding. The candidate provides a sophisticated, balanced analysis that evaluates the role of appeasement while considering multiple other factors. The answer shows excellent supporting evidence (Rhineland, Anschluss, Munich, specific dates and details) and explains causal relationships clearly. Importantly, the candidate demonstrates understanding of historical debate (mentioning the counter-argument that appeasement bought time for Britain to rearm) and the complexity of causation (appeasement affected timing and circumstances rather than being a sole cause). The conclusion synthesises the argument effectively, making a nuanced judgement about the relative importance of appeasement. The answer maintains analytical focus throughout and demonstrates sustained reasoning worthy of the highest marks.

Grade C (pass) answer

I agree that appeasement was an important reason why war broke out in 1939 but there were other reasons as well.

Appeasement was when Britain and France tried to keep peace by giving Hitler what he wanted. Neville Chamberlain believed that the Treaty of Versailles had been too harsh on Germany and that Hitler had some fair demands. At Munich in 1938, Britain and France let Hitler take the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain came back to Britain and said he had achieved "peace for our time." However, this was wrong because in March 1939 Hitler took over the rest of Czechoslovakia. This showed that appeasement had failed because Hitler could not be trusted and just wanted more and more. Appeasement encouraged Hitler to be aggressive because he thought Britain and France were weak and would not stop him. When they finally said they would protect Poland, Hitler did not believe them and invaded anyway. So appeasement was a major reason for war.

However, Hitler himself was also to blame for the war. He had always wanted to make Germany great again and get back the land lost at Versailles. He wrote in Mein Kampf about getting lebensraum (living space) in Eastern Europe. He had been building up his military with conscription and rearmament. He wanted to unite all German speakers which is why he took Austria and the Sudetenland. His invasion of Poland was part of his plan to expand eastward. So even without appeasement, Hitler probably would have started a war anyway.

The Treaty of Versailles was also a cause of war. The treaty was very harsh on Germany, making them pay reparations and taking away their land. Germans were angry about this and Hitler promised to reverse it. Many Germans supported Hitler because they wanted revenge for Versailles. So the treaty created the anger that led to war.

In conclusion, appeasement was a major reason for war because it made Hitler think he could get away with aggression, but Hitler's own plans and the Treaty of Versailles were also important causes.

Mark: 8/14

Examiner commentary: This answer achieves Level 3 (7-10 marks). The candidate provides a generally balanced response addressing both appeasement and other factors. There is relevant supporting evidence (Munich Agreement, "peace for our time," Hitler's aims in Mein Kampf, Versailles resentment) and some clear explanation of how appeasement encouraged Hitler. However, the development is uneven - the appeasement section is more detailed than the discussion of Hitler's ideology or Versailles. The candidate makes valid points but does not always fully explain the causal connections. For example, the statement that "Hitler probably would have started a war anyway" needed more development about why his ideology made war likely. The conclusion attempts to weigh factors but could be more developed in explaining which was "main" as the question asks. To reach Level 4, the candidate needed more sustained analysis throughout, better integration of factors, and a more sophisticated judgement about relative importance.

Grade E (near miss) answer

Appeasement was the main reason war broke out in 1939.

Appeasement was the policy of giving in to Hitler to avoid war. Britain and France let Hitler do what he wanted. In 1938 at Munich, Chamberlain let Hitler have the Sudetenland. Chamberlain thought this would bring peace but Hitler just took more land. In 1939 Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and then Poland. This started the war.

Appeasement made Hitler think he could do anything he wanted. Every time Britain and France did nothing, Hitler got more confident. By 1939 he thought they would not fight so he invaded Poland. But this time Britain and France declared war on Germany.

If Britain and France had stopped Hitler earlier, there might not have been a war. When Hitler marched into the Rhineland in 1936, France could have stopped him but they did nothing. This was a mistake because Hitler's army was still quite weak then.

Hitler also wanted to make Germany strong again after the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty made Germany weak and Germans were angry about it. Hitler promised to make Germany great again.

In conclusion, appeasement was the main reason for war because it let Hitler become too powerful and he thought he could invade Poland without Britain and France stopping him.

Mark: 4/14

Examiner commentary: This answer reaches the bottom of Level 2/top of Level 1 (4-6 marks). The candidate identifies appeasement as important and provides some relevant examples (Munich, Rhineland, invasion of Poland) with basic understanding of how appeasement emboldened Hitler. However, the explanation is limited and somewhat simplistic - phrases like "Hitler thought he could do anything he wanted" need more precise historical explanation. The answer lacks depth in discussing alternative factors - Versailles is mentioned briefly but not properly developed or linked to the outbreak of war. There is minimal engagement with "how far" in the question; the candidate largely just agrees with the statement without properly evaluating it against other causes. The historical knowledge is basic and sometimes imprecise (no mention of Austria/Anschluss, Nazi-Soviet Pact, Hitler's ideology beyond general "make Germany strong"). To improve, the candidate should provide more specific evidence, develop explanations of causation more fully, consider counter-arguments seriously, and reach a more carefully weighted judgement.