Cambridge IAS-Level · PastPaper.sampleTitle

MetadataPastPaper.sampleTitle

Thinka Jun 2024 (V1) Cambridge International A Level-Style Mock — History (9489)

100 PastPaper.marks180 PastPaper.minutes2024
PastPaper.analysisPastPaper.samplePaper
An original Thinka practice paper modelled on the structure and difficulty of the Jun 2024 (V1) Cambridge International A Level History (9489) paper. Not affiliated with or reproduced from Cambridge.

Paper 1 Document Question

Answer one question from one section only (Section A, B, or C). Each question has two parts.
2 PastPaper.question · 40 PastPaper.marks
PastPaper.question 1 · Compare and Contrast
15 PastPaper.marks
Read the two sources below and answer the question that follows.

**Source A**
"We were faced with a dual obligation: on the one hand, to uphold our commitments to the League of Nations Covenant, and on the other, to prevent a major European war that would result from pushing Italy too far. The proposals put forward [the Hoare-Laval Pact] represented a hard but necessary compromise. It is easy to clamour for total sanctions, but those who do so do not carry the responsibility of maintaining peace in Europe. Our actions preserved the League's mediator role while ensuring that a local conflict did not ignite a global conflagration."
*From a speech by British Foreign Secretary Samuel Hoare to the House of Commons, December 1935.*

**Source B**
"The proposals suggested by the British and French governments are nothing less than a betrayal of the fundamental principles of collective security. By offering the aggressor the spoils of his violence, the League of Nations does not preserve peace; it invites further lawlessness. Abyssinia placed its trust in the solemn pledges of the Covenant, expecting protection against unprovoked assault. Instead, we are being asked to sacrifice our sovereignty to appease a powerful neighbor. This is not mediation; it is capitulation."
*From an official appeal by Emperor Haile Selassie of Abyssinia to the League of Nations, December 1935.*

**Question**
Compare and contrast the views expressed in Source A and Source B regarding the Anglo-French proposals (the Hoare-Laval Pact) to resolve the Abyssinian Crisis.
PastPaper.showAnswers

PastPaper.workedSolution

**Similarities:**
* Both sources acknowledge that the Anglo-French proposals involve significant concessions and compromises at the expense of absolute enforcement of the League's Covenant. Source A calls it a "hard but necessary compromise," while Source B describes it as "offering the aggressor the spoils of his violence."
* Both sources place the proposals within the wider context of the League of Nations' duties, referencing "commitments to the League of Nations Covenant" (Source A) and the "fundamental principles of collective security" (Source B).
* Both sources recognize that the proposals represent an alternative to full, punitive collective sanctions against Italy.

**Differences:**
* **Purpose/Justification:** Source A defends the pact as a vital mechanism to maintain general peace and prevent a catastrophic continental war ("ensure that a local conflict did not ignite a global conflagration"). Conversely, Source B argues that the proposals do not preserve peace but actually encourage international disorder ("invites further lawlessness").
* **Evaluation of the League's Role:** Source A asserts that the proposals preserved the League's constructive function as a mediator. Source B argues that the proposals undermine the very essence of the League, representing "capitulation" and a betrayal of the "solemn pledges of the Covenant."
* **Perspective on Sovereignty/Justice:** Source A focuses on the geopolitical responsibilities of the Great Powers ("responsibility of maintaining peace"). Source B focuses on the moral and legal rights of the victim state, protesting that Abyssinia is being forced to "sacrifice our sovereignty to appease a powerful neighbor."

**Context and Evaluation:**
* The differences are explained by the contrasting positions of the authors. Source A is by Samuel Hoare, the British Foreign Secretary, who faced immense pressure to maintain Italy as an ally against a rising Nazi Germany, leading him to prioritize European stability over Abyssinian territorial integrity. He is speaking to the House of Commons to politically justify a highly controversial, leaked secret agreement.
* Source B is by Haile Selassie, the leader of the victimized nation, who had placed absolute faith in Western internationalism. His purpose is to appeal to the global public and hold the League accountable to its written charter, highlighting the moral failure of the Great Powers' appeasement policy.

PastPaper.markingScheme

**Level 1: [1–3 marks]**
Identifies basic, surface-level similarities or differences, or simply summarizes each source without making direct, comparative connections.

**Level 2: [4–7 marks]**
Identifies valid similarities OR differences, supported by selective referencing from the texts. Alternatively, provides a superficial run-through of both similarities and differences without depth.

**Level 3: [8–11 marks]**
Identifies and explains both similarities and differences with clear, direct textual support from both Source A and Source B. The comparison is balanced and structured.

**Level 4: [12–15 marks]**
Meets all criteria for Level 3 and evaluates the sources in their historical context. Explains *why* the views differ by analyzing the provenance, purpose, and audience of both sources (e.g., Hoare defending British geopolitical pragmatism/fear of Germany vs. Haile Selassie appealing to collective security and the moral obligations of the Covenant).
PastPaper.question 2 · essay
25 PastPaper.marks
Read the sources below and answer the question that follows.

**Source A**
We had to choose between the path of peace through compromise and the path of war. From the beginning of the dispute, the British government has sought to uphold the principles of the League of Nations, but we also had to consider the risk of a devastating European war. The collective system is not a machine that functions automatically; it depends on the willingness of all members to share the burden. It was clear that no other major power was prepared to take military action to defend Abyssinia. To push Italy into a corner by imposing an oil embargo would have triggered a European conflict for which our partners were unprepared and unwilling to fight. Our search for a negotiated settlement, though criticized, was a realistic attempt to prevent a wider catastrophe.
*From a speech by Sir Samuel Hoare, former British Foreign Secretary, defending his actions in the House of Commons, December 1935.*

**Source B**
I, Haile Selassie I, Emperor of Abyssinia, am here today to claim that justice which is due to my people and the assistance promised to us eight months ago by fifty-two nations. The League of Nations Covenant is not a collection of empty promises; it is a solemn treaty of collective security. Yet, while my people are being systematically exterminated by poison gas and superior weapons, the powerful members of the League have hesitated, delayed, and searched for excuses to avoid their duty. By refusing to apply effective economic sanctions, such as an oil embargo, and by closing their eyes to the aggression of a powerful state, the great powers—specifically Great Britain and France—have betrayed their signatures on the Covenant. They have chosen to appease the aggressor rather than defend the weak.
*From a speech by Emperor Haile Selassie to the League of Nations Assembly, June 1936.*

**Source C**
To demand immediate and severe sanctions against Italy is to push Europe into the arms of a senseless conflict. France’s primary concern must remain the security of our own borders against a resurgent Germany. If we alienate Italy over the Abyssinian dispute, we destroy the Stresa Front, which is the only real barrier against German expansion in Central Europe. The idealism of the League’s Covenant must not blind us to the harsh realities of European geopolitics. Those who demand that France and Great Britain risk their own national security for the sake of an East African territory do not understand the balance of power. The League’s mechanisms are too rigid, and forcing their application in this case threatens to shatter European peace.
*From an editorial in a conservative French newspaper, October 1935.*

**Source D**
The ultimate failure of collective security during the Abyssinian Crisis lay not in Geneva's institutional design, but in the calculated dual diplomacy practiced by London and Paris. From the outset, both governments paid lip service to the League of Nations to satisfy their domestic electorates, while secretly working to avoid any action that might drive Mussolini into an alliance with Hitler. By refusing to close the Suez Canal and repeatedly delaying an oil embargo, Britain and France effectively signaled to Mussolini that his aggression would not be seriously contested. The Hoare-Laval Pact was not an isolated error but the logical conclusion of a policy that prioritised Anglo-French imperial security and European alliances over the integrity of the League Covenant.
*From a book by a modern historian, 2012.*

**Question:**
How far do these sources support the view that Great Britain and France were primarily responsible for the League of Nations' failure to protect Abyssinia?
PastPaper.showAnswers

PastPaper.workedSolution

**Introduction**
- Candidates should identify the central debate: whether the failure of the League of Nations in the Abyssinian Crisis was primarily the fault of British and French policy (as argued explicitly by Sources B and D) or whether it was driven by broader geopolitical realities and structural weaknesses of the League (as argued or implied by Sources A and C).

**Sources supporting the view (Sources B and D):**
- **Source B**: Emperor Haile Selassie directly accuses Great Britain and France of betraying the League Covenant. He argues that they "hesitated, delayed, and searched for excuses" and chose to "appease the aggressor" by refusing to implement an oil embargo. This source suggests that the failure was a deliberate choice by these two great powers to protect their own interests at the expense of international law.
- **Source D**: A modern historian reinforces this view, arguing that the failure lay in the "dual diplomacy" of London and Paris. Source D notes that both nations publicly supported the League to please voters while secretly undermining collective security to keep Mussolini on their side against Hitler. It highlights specific actions—such as keeping the Suez Canal open and delaying oil sanctions—as evidence of their primary responsibility.

**Sources challenging the view (Sources A and C):**
- **Source A**: Sir Samuel Hoare argues that Britain was not solely responsible, noting that "no other major power was prepared to take military action." He emphasizes that collective security cannot function automatically without shared burdens. From his perspective, avoiding a wider European war was a realistic policy, meaning that Britain was acting responsibly rather than failing Abyssinia.
- **Source C**: This French editorial argues that French policy must prioritize its own national security against Germany over Abyssinia. It blames the "rigid" mechanisms of the League itself, rather than French or British bad faith, arguing that forcing sanctions would destroy the vital Stresa Front and destabilize Europe.

**Source Evaluation and Contextualization:**
- **Source A** must be evaluated as a piece of self-justification. Written by Hoare shortly after he was forced to resign following the public outrage over the Hoare-Laval Pact, he has a strong motive to defend his record and deflect blame onto the system and other powers.
- **Source B** reflects the desperate position of Haile Selassie in exile. While highly reliable for conveying the sense of betrayal felt by victims of aggression, his focus is understandably narrow, downplaying the broader European geopolitical fears (such as the threat of Nazi Germany) that influenced Anglo-French decision-making.
- **Source C** reflects contemporary French security anxieties in late 1935. It shows that French policy was shaped by public and political pressure to maintain Italy as an ally against Germany, illustrating why France was reluctant to act through the League.
- **Source D** benefit from hindsight and access to archives, allowing the historian to expose the discrepancy between public rhetoric and private diplomacy. It provides a balanced synthesis of how domestic politics and geopolitical strategy combined to undermine the League.

**Conclusion**
- Candidates should conclude by weighing these perspectives. While Sources A and C show that Britain and France faced genuine geopolitical dilemmas (the threat of a wider war and Nazi Germany), Sources B and D provide compelling evidence that their hypocritical "dual diplomacy" and reluctance to take risks ultimately paralyzed the League, making them primary responsible for its failure.

PastPaper.markingScheme

**Level 5 (21–25 marks):**
- Answers show a clear and consistent focus on the question, evaluating all four sources to determine their utility and reliability.
- Explores the relationships between the sources (e.g., how Source D supports the accusations in Source B, and how Source A's excuses are challenged by Source D).
- Reaches a sustained and balanced conclusion that directly addresses the prompt using contextual knowledge to weigh the sources.

**Level 4 (16–20 marks):**
- Answers identify both supporting and challenging evidence from the sources.
- Begins to evaluate the sources based on their nature, origin, and purpose, rather than just accepting them at face value.
- Clear understanding of the historical context of the Abyssinian Crisis (1935–36).

**Level 3 (11–15 marks):**
- Answers identify which sources support or challenge the view but may treat them in a mechanical, source-by-source manner.
- Limited or superficial evaluation of source reliability (e.g., simply stating a source is biased because of who wrote it, without further development).

**Level 2 (6–10 marks):**
- Answers understand the general topic but fail to construct a balanced argument.
- May rely heavily on summarizing the sources without directly linking them to the question of Anglo-French responsibility.

**Level 1 (1–5 marks):**
- Writes about the Abyssinian Crisis in general with little or no direct reference to the provided sources.
- Severe misunderstandings of the sources or the historical context.

Paper 2 Outline Study

Answer two questions from one section only (Section A, B, or C). Each question has two parts.
4 PastPaper.question · 60 PastPaper.marks
PastPaper.question 1 · Causal Explanation
10 PastPaper.marks
Explain why Britain signed the Anglo-Japanese Alliance in 1902.
PastPaper.showAnswers

PastPaper.workedSolution

Britain's decision to sign the Anglo-Japanese Alliance in 1902 marked a major departure from its traditional foreign policy of 'splendid isolation'. Several key factors drove this decision: First, the Boer War (1899-1902) had exposed Britain's diplomatic vulnerability and lack of allies, making isolation seem increasingly dangerous in a hostile European environment. Second, British imperial interests in China were directly threatened by the rapid expansion of Russian influence in East Asia, particularly its military occupation of Manchuria following the Boxer Rebellion. Recognizing that it could not easily contain Russia alone in this region, Britain sought a partner with shared strategic interests. Third, the alliance offered a highly cost-effective naval strategy. The rapid rise of the German Imperial Navy required Britain to consolidate its fleet in European waters. By partnering with Japan, Britain could rely on the Japanese Navy to safeguard its Far Eastern commercial routes, allowing the Royal Navy to redeploy capital ships back to the North Sea without risking its imperial interests in Asia.

PastPaper.markingScheme

Level 1 (1-2 marks): Identifies one or two basic reasons (e.g., fear of Russia, ending isolation) but lacks specific historical explanation or context. Level 2 (3-5 marks): Describes the reasons behind the alliance but tends to focus on narrative details of the alliance terms rather than explaining the causal links to British strategic calculations. Level 3 (6-8 marks): Explains at least two distinct reasons with good analytical focus (e.g., the Russian threat in China and the strain on the Royal Navy), linking these directly to the abandonment of 'splendid isolation'. Level 4 (9-10 marks): Provides a comprehensive and highly analytical explanation of multiple overlapping factors, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of both regional East Asian dynamics and broader global/European balance-of-power considerations for Britain.
PastPaper.question 2 · Causal Explanation
10 PastPaper.marks
Explain why the Populist Party emerged in the USA in the early 1890s.
PastPaper.showAnswers

PastPaper.workedSolution

The emergence of the Populist Party (or People's Party) in the early 1890s was the culmination of deep-seated agrarian grievances in the American South and West. First, farmers faced severe economic hardships, including falling commodity prices driven by global competition and domestic overproduction, alongside high interest rates on mortgages charged by eastern banking institutions. Second, farmers felt exploited by railroad monopolies, which controlled transport routes and charged extortionate, discriminatory rates to move agricultural goods to urban markets. Third, the monetary system was a central issue; the federal adherence to the tight gold standard limited the money supply, keeping prices low and debts hard to pay. Farmers campaigned for 'free silver' (bimetallism) to inflate the currency and ease their debt burdens. Finally, existing political channels had failed them. The Farmers' Alliances realized that neither the pro-business Republican Party nor the southern Democratic Party would enact structural reforms like federal railroad regulation or currency expansion, leading them to organize a third political party to directly challenge the established two-party system.

PastPaper.markingScheme

Level 1 (1-2 marks): Identifies general grievances of farmers (e.g., poverty, railroads) without clearly explaining how they led to the formation of a political party. Level 2 (3-5 marks): Describes the difficulties faced by western and southern farmers but lacks deep causal links to the political mobilization of the Populist movement. Level 3 (6-8 marks): Explains at least two major causes of the party's emergence (e.g., railroad exploitation, the currency debate over silver, and the failure of existing political parties to represent agrarian interests). Level 4 (9-10 marks): Offers a structured, analytical explanation showing how economic, structural, and political factors converged to make the creation of a distinct national third party seem necessary to agricultural reformers.
PastPaper.question 3 · Part (b) Evaluative Essay
20 PastPaper.marks
To what extent was the growth of political clubs the main reason for the radicalisation of the French Revolution between 1789 and 1793?
PastPaper.showAnswers

PastPaper.workedSolution

Candidates should construct a balanced argument that evaluates the role of political clubs alongside other drivers of radicalisation. Arguments supporting the role of political clubs: Clubs like the Jacobins and Cordeliers provided an institutional framework for radical discourse, spreading ideas to the provinces through network affiliation. Figures like Robespierre, Marat, and Danton used these forums to influence the National Assembly and the public. They radicalised the Parisian populace (sans-culottes) by translating abstract revolutionary theories into direct political action, culminating in events like the storming of the Tuileries (10 August 1792). Arguments identifying other causes of radicalisation: The Flight to Varennes (June 1791) was a crucial turning point, exposing the King's duplicity and making constitutional monarchy untenable. The outbreak of war in April 1792 created a crisis atmosphere, where military victories and defeats were directly tied to domestic political stability. Internal security panics led directly to the September Massacres and the trial/execution of Louis XVI. Persistent economic hardships, including hyperinflation of the assignats and food shortages, created a volatile urban population easily mobilised for radical change. Conclusion: Candidates should offer a clear judgment. A strong response might argue that while political clubs provided the ideology and leadership structures necessary to direct radicalism, it was the existential crises of war and economic deprivation that created the desperate conditions allowing these radical groups to seize control and push the revolution to extremes.

PastPaper.markingScheme

Level 5 (16-20 marks): Answers show a clear, focused, and sustained analytical approach, evaluating multiple factors (political clubs, war, the King's actions, economic distress) with high-quality historical detail. The argument is well-balanced and leads to a sophisticated, logical conclusion. Level 4 (11-15 marks): Answers provide detailed explanations of both the role of political clubs and alternative factors. There is clear understanding of the period, though the evaluation or final judgment may be less fully developed. Level 3 (6-10 marks): Answers are descriptive rather than analytical. They may describe the activities of the Jacobins or general events of the revolution without directly addressing the prompt. Level 2 (3-5 marks): Answers show limited knowledge, focusing on a few unstructured facts about the French Revolution with little relevance to the prompt. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Fragmentary or irrelevant answers.
PastPaper.question 4 · Part (b) Evaluative Essay
20 PastPaper.marks
'The primary cause of the economic boom of the 1920s in the USA was the implementation of Republican government policies.' How far do you agree?
PastPaper.showAnswers

PastPaper.workedSolution

Candidates should present a balanced analysis comparing Republican policies with other factors. Arguments in agreement: The pro-business stance of the Republican administrations (Harding, Coolidge, Hoover) fostered confidence. Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon's tax cuts left more capital for private investment. High protective tariffs (e.g., Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922) protected domestic industries from foreign competition. Deregulation and a lax attitude toward anti-trust laws allowed corporations to expand rapidly and merge. Arguments in disagreement (alternative causes): Technological innovations and new manufacturing techniques, especially Henry Ford's assembly line, drastically lowered production costs and made goods affordable. The rapid expansion of consumer credit ('buy now, pay later' installment plans) enabled widespread purchase of consumer durables. The automotive industry acted as a massive economic multiplier, stimulating demand for steel, rubber, glass, and road construction. Additionally, the First World War left European competitors weakened while the US emerged as the world's leading industrial producer and creditor. Conclusion: Candidates should reach a supported judgment. For example, they might argue that while Republican policies created a highly favorable, laissez-faire legal and psychological environment for business investment, the actual engine of the boom was technological innovation (mass production) combined with the growth of a consumer society driven by credit.

PastPaper.markingScheme

Level 5 (16-20 marks): Sustained and balanced analytical essay. Evaluates the relative importance of Republican policies versus structural, technological, and international factors. Shows excellent historical knowledge of the 1920s US economy and provides a well-reasoned conclusion. Level 4 (11-15 marks): Detailed explanation of both sides of the argument (government policy vs. other factors like mass production and consumer credit). The essay is structured and analytical, though evaluation may lack the depth of Level 5. Level 3 (6-10 marks): Primarily descriptive essay outlining the economic boom of the 1920s. Identifies some factors (like Ford or Mellon) but lacks a balanced, analytical comparison of their relative importance. Level 2 (3-5 marks): General, unstructured assertions about the 1920s, perhaps focusing only on the roaring twenties lifestyle without economic analysis. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Minimal or irrelevant response.

PastPaper.sampleCTATitle

PastPaper.sampleCTADescription

PastPaper.ctaPrimaryPastPaper.ctaSecondary

PastPaper.sampleStickyMessage

PastPaper.stickyCtaText