Mark Scheme

Section A — Period Study

Question 1 (up to 4, 2 each) Two problems described (feature + detail). Acceptable: the Treaty of Versailles resentment (reparations, "war guilt", loss of land); hyperinflation of 1923 (savings wiped out); political uprisings from left and right (e.g. Spartacist, Kapp Putsch, Munich Putsch); the Republic seen as "born from defeat"/associated with the "stab in the back". [4]

Question 2 (up to 10) Levels-marked "explain why". Reward explained reasons:

• the Great Depression (from 1929) caused mass unemployment and misery, so people looked for radical solutions;
• Nazi propaganda and promises (work, bread, national pride, a strong leader) appealed to desperate people and used scapegoats;
• the weakness/divisions of the Weimar government and its failure to solve the crisis lost it support;
• fear of communism drove some to the Nazis.
• Level 3 (7–10): two or more reasons clearly explained and linked to increased support; Level 2 (4–6): one explained or several described; Level 1 (1–3): simple/general.

Question 3 (up to 20) Levels-marked essay evaluating terror/violence against other factors in Hitler establishing a dictatorship by 1934.

• Level 4 (16–20): sustained, well-supported argument evaluating terror/violence (SA/SS, the Night of the Long Knives, intimidation) against legal/political methods (the Reichstag Fire and Decree, the Enabling Act, banning other parties, the death of Hindenburg and merging of offices) and other factors (propaganda, fear of communism); reaches a balanced, justified judgement.
• Level 3 (11–15): a clear argument with good support and some evaluation.
• Level 2 (6–10): some relevant points, description more than argument.
• Level 1 (1–5): simple or narrow. Indicative content: violence (removing opponents, the Night of the Long Knives) and the crucial use of legal means (the Enabling Act let Hitler make laws) — many candidates argue the legal route was at least as important. Credit a supported judgement.

Section B — Historic Sources

Question 4 (up to 4) Two supported inferences, 2 marks each (inference + support). E.g. people supported the Nazis because of economic desperation (support: "no work and no hope... often hungry"); because the Nazis offered hope and promises others did not (support: "they offered something, and the others seemed to offer nothing"); the appeal of their strong, organised image ("smart in their uniforms"). [4]

Question 5 (up to 8) Levels-marked utility. Reward evaluation of both sources using content, provenance (nature/origin/purpose) and own knowledge:

• Source A is useful as a first-hand memory conveying why ordinary, desperate people were drawn to the Nazis (economic misery, the appeal of hope), though it is a memory recorded much later (1975), which may be affected by hindsight.
• Source B is useful for showing the Nazis' rise was also opposed and understood at the time as the end of democracy — it refers to the Enabling Act ("power to make laws without this parliament"), showing the legal route to dictatorship; its purpose (opposing the law) shapes it.
• Together they usefully show both the popular appeal and the legal/political method of the Nazi takeover.
• Level 3 (6–8): both sources evaluated with content, provenance and own knowledge, reaching a judgement; Level 2 (3–5): both used, limited evaluation; Level 1 (1–2): simple use of content.

Question 6 (up to 4) One explained legal method: the Enabling Act (1933) gave Hitler the power to make laws without the Reichstag or President, allowing him to rule legally as a dictator; (or the Reichstag Fire Decree used to arrest opponents legally). Method stated + explained. [4]

Sample Answers with Examiner Commentary

Question 4 — Sample Answers

Grade A response. "One thing I can infer from Source A is that many Germans supported the Nazis because of economic desperation. The source says there was 'no work and no hope' and that the family 'were often hungry', which suggests people were so badly off that they were willing to turn to the Nazis. A second inference is that the Nazis appealed because they seemed to offer hope when no one else did. The source says they were 'promising work and bread' and that 'they offered something, and the others seemed to offer nothing', which implies people supported the Nazis not necessarily because they believed everything, but because they were the only party offering a way out."

Mark: 4/4. Examiner commentary: A full-mark answer. The candidate makes two clear inferences — economic desperation, and the Nazis offering hope others did not — and supports each with a well-chosen quotation, using the 'inference + support' structure the question rewards. The second inference is especially strong because it draws out the source's subtle point ('I will not pretend we all believed everything') that support was driven by desperation rather than total conviction. Working something out from the source, rather than copying it, is exactly what earns the marks.

Grade C response. "Source A says there was no work and no hope and that they were hungry. It also says the Nazis were smart in their uniforms and promised work and bread."

Mark: 2/4. Examiner commentary: The candidate selects relevant material but mostly copies it rather than inferring from it. 'No work and no hope' and 'promised work and bread' are things the source states directly. To reach full marks these need to be turned into inferences — for example, that the economic misery made people desperate enough to support the Nazis, or that the Nazis won support by offering hope when other parties did not. The evidence is well chosen; the missing skill is drawing a conclusion from it.

Question 3 — Sample Answers

Grade A response (extract). "Terror and violence certainly played a part in Hitler establishing a dictatorship. The SA and SS intimidated and attacked opponents, and in the Night of the Long Knives in 1934 Hitler had the leaders of the SA and other rivals murdered, removing threats to his power. This violence frightened people into obedience.

However, I would argue that legal and political methods were at least as important. After the Reichstag Fire in 1933, Hitler used the Reichstag Fire Decree to arrest communists and suspend civil rights — using the law to remove opponents. Most importantly, the Enabling Act of 1933 gave Hitler the power to make laws without the Reichstag or the President, which effectively made him a legal dictator. When Hindenburg died in 1934, Hitler merged the offices of Chancellor and President and made the army swear an oath to him personally. These were legal and political moves, not simply violence.

In conclusion, while terror and violence helped Hitler remove and frighten opponents, I do not agree that it was the main reason. The decisive step was the legal transfer of power through the Enabling Act, which allowed him to dismantle democracy from within. Violence supported this process, but the appearance of legality is what made the dictatorship possible."

Mark: 18/20. Examiner commentary: A Level 4 response. It engages directly with the statement, presenting a developed case for the role of terror (SA/SS, the Night of the Long Knives) and then a strong counter-argument based on legal and political methods (the Reichstag Fire Decree, the Enabling Act, the merging of offices in 1934), all accurately supported. The conclusion is genuinely evaluative, reaching a clear judgement that weighs the two and prioritises the legal route while acknowledging the role of violence. This balance and precise support is exactly what the top band requires.

Question 5 — Sample Answers

Grade A response (extract). "Both sources are useful to a historian studying how the Nazis came to power, but in different ways. Source A is useful because it is a first-hand memory from an ordinary German worker, explaining why people at the bottom of society were drawn to the Nazis: the economic desperation ('no work and no hope... often hungry') and the appeal of a party that 'offered something' when others 'seemed to offer nothing'. It gives an insight into popular support that official records might miss. However, it was recorded in 1975, over forty years later, so it may be affected by hindsight or faded memory. Source B is useful in a different way: it shows that the Nazi rise to power was also opposed and understood at the time as the destruction of democracy. It clearly refers to the Enabling Act — the power 'to make laws without this parliament and without the President' — which is exactly the legal method by which Hitler became a dictator, so it is strong evidence for the political route to power. Its purpose, to argue against the law, means it presents the Nazis negatively, but that is expected from an opponent and does not make it unreliable as evidence of opposition. Taken together, the two sources are very useful because one reveals the popular appeal of the Nazis and the other the legal method of their takeover, giving a fuller picture than either alone."

Mark: 8/8. Examiner commentary: A top-band utility answer. It evaluates both sources using all the tools the question rewards: content (what each reveals), provenance (the worker's later memory and possible hindsight; the opponent's purpose in Source B), and own knowledge (identifying Source B's reference to the Enabling Act). Crucially, it judges usefulness for the specific enquiry and recognises that a source's bias — the opponent's hostility — is itself useful evidence rather than a flaw. The final point, that the two sources together show both the popular appeal and the legal method, is exactly the kind of synthesis that secures full marks.

Grade C response. "Source A is useful because it tells us people supported the Nazis as they were poor and hungry. Source B is useful because it shows someone was against the Nazis. Source A might not be reliable because it was written a long time afterwards."

Mark: 4/8. Examiner commentary: The candidate uses the content of both sources and makes a valid point about the provenance of Source A (written much later), which reaches the middle of the range. To go higher, the evaluation of Source B needs developing — it is useful because it shows the rise to power was seen at the time as the end of democracy and refers to the legal transfer of power (the Enabling Act) — and own knowledge should be brought in to support both. Judging how useful each source is for the specific enquiry, and treating the opponent's hostility as useful evidence of opposition, would lift the answer into the top band.