2026 Cambridge IGCSE History (0470) Practice Paper with Answers

Key points describing the League's work for refugees and prisoners of war:
- The League established the Commission for Refugees, led by Norwegian explorer and diplomat Fridtjof Nansen.
- It oversaw the repatriation of approximately 400,000 prisoners of war stranded after the First World War, largely from Russia and former Ottoman territories.
- It introduced the 'Nansen passport', an internationally recognised identity document that allowed stateless refugees to travel and settle in other countries.
- Following the 1922 Greco-Turkish War, the League organised emergency camps, food supplies, and disease prevention for hundreds of thousands of Greek and Turkish refugees.
- It coordinated with charitable bodies to provide long-term housing and employment assistance.

Target: Recall and descriptive knowledge (AO1: 4 marks).

Award 1 mark for each relevant point identified/described. Award an additional mark for supporting detail (up to a maximum of 4 marks).

Points may include:
- The League appointed Fridtjof Nansen as High Commissioner for Refugees (1).
- It helped repatriate around 400,000 prisoners of war back to their home countries (1); details regarding transport or conditions (1).
- Created the 'Nansen passport' (1); which gave legal identity and travel rights to stateless individuals/refugees (1).
- Provided humanitarian relief and camps to refugees after the Greco-Turkish conflict in 1922 (1).
- Tackled outbreaks of disease (e.g., cholera, typhus) in refugee camps (1).

Maximum 4 marks.

Key terms of the secret Plombières Agreement (July 1858):
- France agreed to support Piedmont-Sardinia militarily if Austria attacked first (Austrian aggression was needed as a pretext).
- A joint Franco-Piedmontese army would drive Austrian forces out of northern Italy.
- Lombardy and Venetia would be joined with Piedmont to create an expanded Kingdom of Upper Italy under Victor Emmanuel II.
- In exchange for French military intervention, Piedmont agreed to cede Nice and Savoy to France.
- A confederation of Italian states would be formed under the honorary presidency of the Pope.
- The alliance was to be sealed by the marriage of Victor Emmanuel's daughter, Princess Marie-Clothilde, to Napoleon III's cousin, Prince Jerome.

Target: Recall and descriptive knowledge (AO1: 4 marks).

Award 1 mark for each relevant point identified/described. Award an additional mark for supporting detail (up to a maximum of 4 marks).

Points may include:
- France agreed to help Piedmont if war was declared by Austria / Austria had to be provoked into attacking first (1).
- France promised to send troops (around 200,000 men) to fight Austria (1).
- A new Kingdom of Upper Italy would be created (incorporating Lombardy and Venetia) (1).
- France was to receive Nice and Savoy as compensation/reward (1).
- Italy was to be organised into a federation under the honorary presidency of the Pope (1).
- A dynastic marriage was agreed between Princess Marie-Clothilde and Prince Napoleon Jerome (1).

Maximum 4 marks.

One major reason for building the Berlin Wall was the severe economic and demographic crisis caused by the 'brain drain'. Between 1949 and 1961, approximately 2.7 million East Germans fled to the West via the open border in Berlin. A disproportionate number of these refugees were young, well-educated professionals such as doctors, engineers, and teachers. This constant flight created acute labour shortages in the German Democratic Republic (GDR), destabilising its economy and threatening the viability of the East German state, which compelled Khrushchev and Ulbricht to close the border completely.

Another important reason was the ideological and security threat posed by West Berlin. West Berlin was regarded by the Soviets as a dangerous Western outpost deep inside the communist bloc. It served as a prominent centre for Western espionage and propaganda, allowing the Western powers easy access to gather intelligence on Eastern bloc developments. Furthermore, the thriving economy and political freedoms visibly present in West Berlin provided an embarrassing contrast to the shortages and repression under communist rule in East Berlin, undermining the legitimacy of Soviet control.

Level 4 (6 marks): Explains TWO distinct reasons in depth.
- Award 6 marks for two fully developed explanations showing clear historical causality.

Level 3 (4–5 marks): Explains ONE reason in depth.
- Award 4 marks for a basic explanation of one reason.
- Award 5 marks for a well-supported explanation of one reason.

Level 2 (2–3 marks): Identifies or describes reasons without causal development.
- Award 2 marks for identifying one reason (e.g. 'People were fleeing to the West').
- Award 3 marks for identifying two or more reasons (e.g. 'To stop the brain drain and to remove Western spies from East Germany').

Level 1 (1 mark): Generalised answer or unsupported assertions.
- Award 1 mark for vague or simplistic statements (e.g. 'Because relations between the US and USSR were hostile').

Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable response.

One key reason was Bismarck's long-term aim to establish Prussian supremacy over the German states. For decades, Austria had held the dominant position within the German Confederation, standing as the main obstacle to a Kleindeutsch (lesser German) unification under Prussian leadership. Bismarck believed that German unity could only be achieved if Austria was decisively excluded from German political affairs, and he recognised that an armed conflict was necessary to dismantle the traditional influence of the Habsburg monarchy in Germany.

Another crucial reason was the dispute over the administration of the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. Following their joint victory against Denmark in 1864 and the Treaty of Gastein in 1865, Austria had taken control of Holstein, while Prussia administered Schleswig. Bismarck intentionally provoked diplomatic frictions over Austria's governance of Holstein, which was surrounded by Prussian territory. When Austria appealed to the Diet of the German Confederation to settle the dispute, Bismarck claimed this violated previous agreements, ordered Prussian troops into Holstein, and declared the Confederation dissolved, making war inevitable.

Level 4 (6 marks): Explains TWO distinct reasons in depth.
- Award 6 marks for two fully developed explanations showing clear historical causality.

Level 3 (4–5 marks): Explains ONE reason in depth.
- Award 4 marks for a basic explanation of one reason.
- Award 5 marks for a well-supported explanation of one reason.

Level 2 (2–3 marks): Identifies or describes reasons without causal development.
- Award 2 marks for identifying one reason (e.g. 'Bismarck wanted to exclude Austria from German affairs').
- Award 3 marks for identifying two or more reasons (e.g. 'Disputes over Schleswig-Holstein and rivalry for control of Germany').

Level 1 (1 mark): Generalised answer or unsupported assertions.
- Award 1 mark for vague or simplistic statements (e.g. 'Both countries wanted more power in Europe').

Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable response.

Arguments supporting the statement (Constitutional/Structural Weaknesses):
1. Unanimity and Sluggish Decision-Making: Under the Covenant (Articles 5 and 15), key decisions in both the Council and the Assembly required unanimous agreement. This gave any member state—including potential aggressors or their allies—the ability to veto collective action, which led to fatal paralysis during sudden crises.
2. Lack of an Independent Military Force: The League possessed no standing armed force of its own and depended entirely on member nations to contribute troops voluntarily. Member states were consistently unwilling to commit armed forces to enforce collective security, making the League's ultimate sanctions largely toothless.
3. Flawed Sanctions Mechanism: Economic sanctions under Article 16 were difficult to coordinate and proved ineffective, especially because key non-member economic superpowers like the United States could continue trading freely with sanctioned aggressor nations.

Arguments challenging the statement (External Factors & Great Power Self-Interest):
1. Impact of the Wall Street Crash and Great Depression: The global economic collapse of 1929 generated mass unemployment and social catastrophe, paving the way for radical, expansionist regimes in Japan and Germany. It also forced democratic powers like Britain and France to turn inward and cut military budgets rather than uphold collective security abroad.
2. Inability to Restrain Determined Dictators: The League had functioned relatively well in resolving minor disputes in the 1920s (e.g., the Aaland Islands in 1921, the Greek-Bulgarian conflict in 1925), but failed when confronted by major military powers willing to violate international law blatantly, as seen in the Japanese invasion of Manchuria (1931) and Mussolini’s invasion of Abyssinia (1935).
3. British and French Self-Interest: The leading permanent members bypassed League mechanisms when it suited them, seeking bilateral appeasement (such as the Hoare-Laval Pact in 1935 and the Munich Agreement in 1938) because they prioritized their own domestic security and imperial trade routes over international law.

Evaluative Conclusion:
While constitutional defects like the unanimity rule and the lack of an armed force severely limited the League's enforcement capability, these weaknesses were present throughout the 1920s when the League enjoyed notable peacekeeping and humanitarian successes. What ultimately doomed the League in the 1930s was the catastrophic fallout of the Great Depression, which unleashed aggressive fascist expansionism while simultaneously eroding the willingness of Britain and France to act decisively in defence of the Covenant.

Level 1 (1 mark): General answer lacking specific historical context.
Level 2 (2–3 marks): Identifies or describes relevant factors without developed explanation (e.g. mentions the League had no army, mentions the Depression or Manchuria).
Level 3 (4–6 marks): Explains ONE side of the argument well:
- 4–5 marks for one developed explanation supporting or challenging the statement.
- 6 marks for two developed explanations on ONE side only.
Level 4 (7–9 marks): Explains BOTH sides of the argument with accurate historical detail:
- 7 marks for one explanation on each side.
- 8–9 marks for balanced, multi-faceted explanations covering constitutional weaknesses (unanimity, lack of army, absence of USA) and external factors (Great Depression, militarism, Anglo-French self-interest).
Level 5 (10 marks): Delivers a fully supported evaluative judgement addressing 'how far', clearly weighing the relative importance of structural flaws against the external economic and political crises of the 1930s.

Arguments supporting the statement (Successes of Containment):
1. Korean War (1950–1953): The United States successfully led a United Nations coalition to repel the North Korean invasion across the 38th parallel. Despite massive Chinese intervention, US-led forces secured the independence of South Korea, ensuring that communism did not expand across the entire peninsula and establishing a prosperous, capitalist ally.
2. Cuban Missile Crisis (1962): President Kennedy's naval quarantine and diplomatic firmness forced the Soviet Union to dismantle and withdraw its medium- and intermediate-range nuclear missiles from Cuba. Although Cuba remained communist, the direct military threat of Soviet nuclear expansionism into the Western Hemisphere was effectively checked and deterred.
3. Preserving Regional Stability: US military and economic presence contained communism from spreading to key strategic East Asian states such as Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Thailand, preventing the wider 'domino effect' throughout Southeast Asia.

Arguments challenging the statement (Failures and Limitations of Containment):
1. Vietnam War (1955–1975): Despite deploying over 500,000 troops and dropping unprecedented tonnage of bombs (Operation Rolling Thunder), the US failed to defeat the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese Army. The conflict resulted in severe domestic division, high US casualties, and the eventual complete fall of Saigon to communist forces in April 1975.
2. The Domino Effect in Indochina: Following the US withdrawal and the collapse of South Vietnam, neighbouring Laos and Cambodia also fell to communist regimes (Pathet Lao and Khmer Rouge), demonstrating that American military intervention failed to contain communism across the Indochinese theatre.
3. Cuba's Enduring Communist State: In the Western Hemisphere, the US failed to overthrow Fidel Castro's regime (exemplified by the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961), leaving a permanent communist state allied to Moscow right on the US border.

Evaluative Conclusion:
American containment policy achieved partial success rather than complete success. While it proved capable of holding the line in conventional conflicts with clear borders and international legitimacy (South Korea) and in direct superpower showdowns (the Cuban Missile Crisis), it proved entirely ineffective against popular guerrilla warfare rooted in anti-colonial nationalism, culminating in the complete collapse of containment in Vietnam and Indochina by 1975.

Level 1 (1 mark): General answer lacking specific historical depth or focus on the case studies.
Level 2 (2–3 marks): Identifies or describes containment events (e.g. lists Korea, Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam) without explaining success or failure.
Level 3 (4–6 marks): Explains ONE side of the argument well:
- 4–5 marks for one developed explanation of success (e.g. Korea/Cuban Missile Crisis) OR failure (e.g. Vietnam/Indochina).
- 6 marks for two developed explanations on ONE side only.
Level 4 (7–9 marks): Explains BOTH sides of the argument with accurate factual knowledge across the prescribed case studies:
- 7 marks for one explanation on each side.
- 8–9 marks for detailed, balanced explanations covering Korea and the Cuban Missile Crisis on one side, and Vietnam and the fall of Indochina on the other.
Level 5 (10 marks): Delivers a substantiated evaluative conclusion directly addressing 'how far', comparing the nature of containment across different contexts (conventional frontlines vs. nationalist guerrilla insurgency).

To achieve full marks on a 4-mark Paper 1(a) recall question, candidates must state four distinct factual points, or provide two to three points with supporting elaboration:
- It was established by the Nazi regime as a subsidiary of the German Labour Front (DAF), headed by Robert Ley.
- It aimed to improve worker productivity, morale, and obedience to the Nazi state by filling workers' free time.
- It provided heavily subsidised cultural and sporting activities, including cinema tickets, concerts, museum outings, and physical education.
- It ran low-cost holidays and weekend excursions, including cruise voyages on purpose-built liners (e.g. to the Mediterranean or Baltic).
- It managed the Volkswagen savings scheme, through which workers paid regular stamps to purchase a family car (though production shifted to military vehicles before delivery).

Target: AO1 (Recall, select and deploy historical knowledge).

Award 1 mark for each valid, relevant historical point identified. Award an additional mark for appropriate development or supporting detail (up to a maximum of 4 marks).

Credit points such as:
- It was organised by the German Labour Front (DAF) / Robert Ley (1).
- It provided subsidised leisure and cultural activities for German workers (1).
- Examples include theatre/cinema visits, concerts, library access, sporting activities (1).
- It provided affordable holidays, weekend trips, and cruises (e.g. to Norway / Italy) (1).
- It ran the savings scheme for the Volkswagen ('People's Car') (1).
- Its purpose was to make workers happy and productive / maintain support for the regime (1).
- It monitored and controlled workers' free time so they would not engage in anti-Nazi activities (1).

One key reason Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy in 1921 was the disastrous economic situation created by the Civil War and the harsh regime of War Communism. Under War Communism, the Bolsheviks had forcibly requisitioned grain from peasants, banned private trade, and nationalised almost all industrial production. This destroyed economic incentives: peasants responded by growing only enough food for their own immediate needs, leading to catastrophic agricultural decline and the devastating famine of 1920–1921, which claimed millions of lives. Industrial output had also collapsed to roughly a fraction of pre-First World War levels. Lenin recognised that without immediate economic relief, reintroducing small-scale private enterprise, and replacing grain requisitioning with a fixed tax in kind, the Soviet economy would completely disintegrate. Another major reason was the rising wave of open political and military resistance against Bolshevik rule, culminating in the Kronstadt Rising of March 1921. Kronstadt was a major naval base whose sailors had previously been among the most devoted supporters of the Bolshevik revolution in 1917. When these elite sailors mutinied, demanding free speech, democratic elections to soviets, and an end to grain requisitioning and party dictatorship, Lenin referred to it as a 'flash of lightning' that illuminated reality. It demonstrated that the Bolsheviks were rapidly losing the loyalty of the working class and armed forces. Lenin realised that strict ideological purity had to be compromised in favour of pragmatic economic concessions to pacify the population and secure Bolshevik survival.

Level 1 (1 mark): General answer lacking specific historical context or accuracy. Level 2 (2–3 marks): Identifies or describes reasons without full development. Award 2 marks for one identified reason, 3 marks for two or more. Examples: Because of the Kronstadt mutiny; Because the Russian economy was failing; Because peasants were starving and angry about grain requisitioning. Level 3 (4–5 marks): Explains ONE reason clearly with supporting historical evidence. Award 4 marks for a basic explanation, 5 marks for a detailed explanation showing causal link. Level 4 (6 marks): Explains TWO or more distinct reasons clearly with supporting historical evidence (e.g. explains both the economic collapse/famine caused by War Communism and the serious political/military threat posed by peasant revolts and the Kronstadt Rising).

A strong response will evaluate both the achievements and limitations of the New Deal in restoring the US economy by 1939:

Arguments agreeing that the New Deal achieved economic recovery:
- Restoration of financial stability: The Emergency Banking Act of 1933 and the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) restored public confidence in the banking system, ending widespread bank runs.
- Job creation and infrastructure: Agencies such as the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), Public Works Administration (PWA), and Works Progress Administration (WPA) provided employment for millions, building roads, schools, dams, and bridges.
- Agricultural and industrial stabilisation: The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) helped raise crop prices and farm incomes by managing production, while the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) revitalised an entire impoverished region through electrification and flood control.
- Structural social security: The 1935 Social Security Act established old-age pensions and unemployment insurance, creating an essential safety net that supported domestic consumer purchasing power.

Arguments disagreeing / highlighting limitations:
- Persistent high unemployment: Despite massive federal expenditure, unemployment remained high throughout the 1930s (around 9.5 million people, or roughly 17% of the workforce in 1939), failing to return to pre-1929 levels.
- The Roosevelt Recession (1937–1938): When federal spending was temporarily cut in 1937, the economy contracted sharply and unemployment surged again, demonstrating that recovery was dependent on deficit spending rather than self-sustaining private sector growth.
- Uneven benefits and discrimination: Many Black sharecroppers and agricultural labourers were displaced by AAA policies, while minimum wage legislation under the NRA excluded domestic and agricultural workers.
- Full recovery came with WWII: Complete economic recovery, full employment, and industrial mobilisation were ultimately triggered by rearmament and entry into the Second World War after 1939, rather than New Deal measures alone.

Conclusion / Evaluation:
Candidates should weigh these points to provide a nuanced judgement—for example, concluding that while the New Deal successfully averted total economic collapse, stabilised the financial infrastructure, and provided essential relief, it did not achieve complete economic recovery, as self-sustaining prosperity and full employment were only achieved through the wartime economy.

Apply the Paper 1 Part (c) 10-mark generic levels of response:

- Level 1 (1 mark): General answer lacking specific contextual knowledge.
Superficial assertions or vague descriptions (e.g. 'Roosevelt helped people get jobs but there was still poverty.').

- Level 2 (2–3 marks): Identifies / describes reasons without sustained explanation.
Lists factual points or New Deal agencies without developing their economic impact (e.g. mentions CCC, WPA, or the recession of 1937 without explaining how they reflect recovery or failure).

- Level 3 (4–6 marks): Explains ONE side only.
- 4 marks for one developed explanation on one side.
- 5–6 marks for two or more developed explanations supporting ONE side (e.g. explains in depth how the New Deal stabilised banks and created public employment, OR explains how unemployment remained high and the 1937 recession occurred).

- Level 4 (7–9 marks): Explains BOTH sides.
- 7 marks for one developed point on each side.
- 8–9 marks for multiple developed points on both sides showing balanced historical understanding.

- Level 5 (10 marks): Explains with evaluation of 'how far'.
Meets all Level 4 criteria and provides a clear, substantiated, and balanced conclusion that directly addresses the prompt's assertion (e.g. evaluating the distinction between economic stabilisation/reform and full economic recovery, or noting the decisive role of rearmament for WWII).

Source A and Source B present contrasting interpretations of the 1956 Hungarian crisis regarding its motives, leadership, and external role.

Key Differences:
1. Nature and legitimacy of the uprising: Source A describes the event as a genuine "revolutionary struggle" expressing the "undivided duty" of the Hungarian working people to achieve self-determination, sovereignty, and democratic neutrality. In contrast, Source B labels the uprising a criminal "counter-revolutionary" revolt driven by "fascist elements" aiming to restore capitalism and landlordism.
2. Role of foreign powers: Source A views outside intervention (the Soviet military) as an aggressive "external military intervention" that threatens Hungarian freedom, prompting an appeal to the United Nations for protection. Conversely, Source B claims the crisis was instigated and financed by "Western imperialist agents," while portraying Soviet armed intervention as requested "fraternal assistance" to protect socialism.
3. Aims of the Hungarian leadership: Source A states Hungary's goal is "complete neutrality" and peaceful coexistence with all nations. Source B asserts that the true goal of the rebels was to "dismantle people's democracy" and impose reactionary violence.

Points of Agreement:
- Both sources recognise that a major armed crisis and regime transition took place in Budapest in late 1956.
- Both acknowledge the central presence and decisive role of foreign military intervention (Soviet armed divisions) in the country.

Conclusion:
The sources differ substantially in their overall viewpoint. While Source A frames the crisis as a fight for national liberation and sovereign independence, Source B frames it through Soviet Cold War ideology as an imperialist plot that justified military intervention.

Apply the following levels-based mark scheme:

- Level 4 (6–7 marks): Explains BOTH differences and agreements (or points of nuanced overlap) using specific details and contextual understanding from both sources.
- 7 marks: Fully developed explanation comparing the overarching perspectives/purposes of both sources with precise textual cross-referencing.
- 6 marks: Clear explanation of major differences alongside at least one valid point of agreement supported by source evidence.

- Level 3 (4–5 marks): Explains points of difference OR points of agreement supported by direct evidence from both sources.
- 5 marks: Two or more developed points of difference supported by source details.
- 4 marks: One developed difference or agreement supported from both texts.

- Level 2 (2–3 marks): Identifies differences or similarities without direct comparative textual development, or compares only one source.
- 2–3 marks: Paraphrases source content or identifies surface-level contrasts without systematic comparison.

- Level 1 (1 mark): General assertions, copying of source content without comparison, or unsupported opinions.

- Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

To explain why Source A was published in May 1919, candidates must consider the historical context, the author's message, and the intended purpose/impact on the audience.

1. Context:
In May 1919, the draft terms of the Treaty of Versailles were formally handed to the German peace delegation headed by Count Brockdorff-Rantzau. The German public, expecting a negotiated settlement based on Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points after the armistice of November 1918, was shocked by severe territorial losses (e.g., Polish Corridor, Alsace-Lorraine), disarmament clauses (100,000-man army, no air force), huge unspecified reparations, and the War Guilt Clause (Article 231).

2. Big Message of the Source:
The editorial argues that the treaty is a vindictive act of revenge by the Allies (especially Clemenceau) that betrays earlier promises and seeks the economic, territorial, and moral ruin of Germany.

3. Intended Purpose:
The newspaper's purpose is not merely to express outrage, but to pressure the newly formed Weimar National Assembly and government (then led by Chancellor Philipp Scheidemann) to refuse to sign the 'shameful dictate'. It seeks to mobilise German public opinion and unite different political factions ('workers, merchants, and soldiers') to resist Allied demands, hoping that mass opposition might force the Allies to renegotiate or reconsider imposing the terms.

Level 1 (1 mark): Writes about the source without addressing purpose/reason for publication, or simple assertion without historical grounding.
Level 2 (2–3 marks): Identifies surface information from the source as the reason for publication (e.g. 'It was published to show that the treaty was unfair and demanded too much money'), or unsupported assertions about the date.
Level 3 (4–5 marks): Explains the context of May 1919 (reception of draft terms) OR explains the sub-message/big message of the source (e.g. that the treaty was an unjust Diktat).
Level 4 (6–7 marks): Explains the author's intended purpose/effect on the German public or Weimar government (e.g. to incite resistance against signing the treaty and pressure politicians to reject Allied terms), supported with source content and contextual knowledge.
Level 5 (8 marks): Fully explains purpose in the precise historical context of May 1919 (e.g. published during the critical window between receiving the draft terms and the signing deadline in June 1919, specifically designed to unite public opinion and pressure Scheidemann's government to hold firm against Allied blackmail before the threat of military resumption).

To explain why Source D was published in late July 1914, candidates must analyse the July Crisis context, the core message of the text, and its intended domestic and international purposes.

1. Context:
Following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914, Austria-Hungary secured the 'blank cheque' of German backing and delivered a harsh ten-point ultimatum to Serbia on 23 July 1914. Russia viewed Serbia as a key ally and saw Austro-Hungarian dominance in the Balkans as a direct threat to Russian strategic interests (access to the Turkish Straits/Black Sea) and Pan-Slavic prestige.

2. The Source's Message:
The article condemns the ultimatum as an imperialist plot by Austria and Germany to crush Serbian sovereignty and achieve Germanic hegemony over the Balkans, declaring that Russia must defend its fellow Slavs.

3. Intended Purpose:
- Domestic audience: To generate patriotic enthusiasm and prepare the Russian public and military for potential war, uniting the population behind Tsar Nicholas II by framing intervention as a 'sacred duty' of Pan-Slavic solidarity.
- International audience (Vienna and Berlin): To send a firm diplomatic warning/deterrent that military action against Serbia would not remain localised but would result in full-scale war with the Russian Empire.
- Alliance audience (France and Britain): To portray Russia and Serbia as the innocent victims of Austro-German aggression, ensuring French support under the Franco-Russian Alliance.

Level 1 (1 mark): General unsupported assertion or repeats content without explaining purpose.
Level 2 (2–3 marks): Identifies surface information from the source as the reason for publication (e.g. 'It was published to tell people that Austria had sent an ultimatum to Serbia').
Level 3 (4–5 marks): Explains the context of the July Crisis 1914 OR explains the big message (Russia standing up for Serbia against Germanic aggression).
Level 4 (6–7 marks): Explains the intended purpose/impact of the publication (e.g. to deter Austria-Hungary and Germany by threatening intervention, OR to rally domestic support/Pan-Slav nationalism for Russian mobilisation).
Level 5 (8 marks): Fully explains purpose in the specific diplomatic context of July 1914, evaluating multiple intended audiences (warning the Central Powers, preparing the domestic populace for mobilisation, and justifying Russian military action under the guise of Slavic protection).

A complete answer evaluates whether Source B makes Source A surprising by contrasting the differing perspectives and explaining the purpose of each source in its historical context:

1. Reasons why Source B might make Source A appear surprising:
- On the surface, Source A claims the wall was built for defensive security against Western 'sabotage' and 'spies' ('Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart').
- In contrast, Source B reveals that the real driver was internal economic collapse caused by a massive brain drain (thousands of skilled citizens fleeing through West Berlin).
- A reader taking Source A at face value would be surprised by the stark contradiction in Source B regarding the true motive of the East German leadership.

2. Reasons why Source B does NOT make Source A surprising (evaluation through context/purpose):
- Source A is an official East German government broadcast meant for public consumption right after the erection of the Berlin Wall (August 1961). It would be completely impossible for the communist regime to admit publicly that its own citizens were fleeing socialism in catastrophic numbers (over 2.5 million had fled since 1949).
- Therefore, Walter Ulbricht's regime had to invent the ideological narrative of the 'Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart' to save face and blame Western imperialism.
- Source B is a confidential internal US diplomatic assessment analysing the objective economic realities of East Germany. The two sources have fundamentally different purposes and audiences.
- Consequently, Source B does not make Source A surprising because historians expect official communist propaganda in 1961 to fabricate defensive justifications for the wall.

Apply the Paper 2 levels-based mark scheme (8 marks total):

- Level 1 (1 mark): Simple unsupported assertion, or writes about the sources without addressing surprise.
- Level 2 (2–3 marks): Identifies differences or similarities between the sources without evaluating context or purpose (e.g. 'It is surprising because Source A says it was to stop Western spies, but Source B says it was to stop East Germans fleeing').
- Level 3 (4–5 marks): Explains surprise / lack of surprise based on valid sub-messages or everyday empathy, supported by source content.
- Level 4 (6–7 marks): Explains surprise / lack of surprise by evaluating Source A's authorial purpose, target audience, or historical context (e.g. explaining why the East German regime had to label it an 'Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart' given the brain drain crisis of 1961).
- Level 5 (8 marks): Fully developed evaluation comparing the provenance, purpose, and context of both sources to reach a sustained final judgement on surprise.

To answer this question effectively, sources must be grouped and analysed according to whether they support or challenge the hypothesis that Soviet dominance was maintained only through military force.

Sources supporting the hypothesis (dominance relied on force or the threat of force):
- Source A: Khrushchev explicitly confirms that the USSR used armed divisions and tanks in Budapest in 1956 to crush opposition and keep Hungary within the socialist bloc.
- Source C: The Prague leaflet states directly that Soviet dominance rests on military invasion and armoured divisions rather than popular consent.
- Source F / Source E: Source E illustrates that when political authority in Poland was challenged by Solidarity in 1980, the USSR relied on military manoeuvres and the imminent threat of armed intervention to maintain control.

Sources challenging the hypothesis (dominance relied on other methods or genuine compliance):
- Source B: Highlights economic integration through COMECON, noting that Soviet oil subsidies and unified economic planning provided stability and bound satellite states together without needing military action.
- Source D: A Western diplomatic dispatch indicates that domestic stability in East Germany was achieved through social welfare programmes, rising living standards, and guaranteed jobs, leading to genuine public conformity.
- Source F: Husák claims Soviet dominance was sustained by ideological consensus, shared proletarian values, and mutual cooperation rather than brute coercion.

Evaluation & Synthesis:
A high-level response balances both sides and assesses provenance. While Sources A, C, and E provide strong proof of direct military coercion during acute crises (1956, 1968, 1980), Sources B and D demonstrate that routine day-to-day dominance relied heavily on economic incentives and social provision. Furthermore, Source F may be dismissed as official pro-Soviet propaganda intended to conceal coercion, whereas Source D is a private diplomatic document offering independent observation of non-military control mechanisms.

Level 1 (1 mark): General assertions without direct source reference or misunderstanding of the prompt.

Level 2 (2–3 marks): Identifies sources that support OR challenge the statement, but merely quotes or paraphrases without clear explanation of how the evidence relates to the hypothesis.

Level 3 (4–5 marks): Evaluates sources on ONE side of the argument (either supporting OR challenging the hypothesis) with developed explanation referencing specific source details.
- Example for support: Explains how Sources A, C, and E demonstrate armed intervention and military threats.
- Example for challenge: Explains how Sources B, D, and F demonstrate economic integration, social welfare, or ideological partnership.

Level 4 (6–8 marks): Evaluates sources on BOTH sides of the argument with clear explanation of how specific details support and challenge the hypothesis.
- 6 marks: Explains at least one source supporting and one source challenging.
- 7–8 marks: Explains multiple sources on both sides effectively.

Level 5 (9 marks): Awarded for comprehensive Level 4 responses that also include critical source evaluation (considering author motive, provenance, or context, e.g. recognising Source F as official justification vs. Source D as confidential foreign intelligence) to reach a substantiated judgement on the hypothesis.

A comprehensive narrative account should encompass the following chronological developments:

1. Early Decrees and Consolidation of Power (late 1917):
- Immediately after seizing power in October/November 1917, Lenin issued the Decree on Land (legitimising peasant land seizures) and the Decree on Peace (initiating withdrawal from World War I) to broaden public support.
- The Decree on Workers' Control gave factory committees authority over management, and titles/class privileges were abolished.

2. Political Repression and Elimination of Opposition (late 1917 – early 1918):
- Establishment of the Cheka (All-Russian Extraordinary Commission) under Felix Dzerzhinsky in December 1917 to suppress counter-revolutionary activities and sabotage.
- The Constituent Assembly met for a single day in January 1918; after the Socialist Revolutionaries won the majority of seats, the Red Guards dissolved the assembly by force, confirming one-party rule.
- Censorship was enacted with opposition newspapers shut down and non-Bolshevik political parties banned or restricted.

3. Ending Foreign Hostilities:
- Signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918, which conceded substantial territory to Germany in exchange for peace, fulfilling Lenin's promise and allowing Bolshevik focus on domestic consolidation.

4. Military Mobilisation and Trotsky’s Leadership (1918–1921):
- Reorganisation of the Red Army by Leon Trotsky into a disciplined, professional force using conscription, former Tsarist military specialists supervised by political commissars, and severe disciplinary measures.
- Control of interior lines of communication, railways, and industrial centres around Petrograd and Moscow provided a major operational advantage over divided White forces.

5. The Red Terror and War Communism:
- Launch of the Red Terror following an assassination attempt on Lenin in August 1918, involving mass arrests, hostage-taking, and executions of perceived class enemies, including the execution of the Romanov royal family at Yekaterinburg in July 1918.
- Implementation of War Communism: complete nationalisation of large and medium industries, strict labour discipline and compulsory work, private trade prohibited, and forceful grain requisitioning (prodrazvyorstka) from peasants to feed the Red Army and industrial workers.

6. Ending the Civil War Period (1921):
- Suppression of widespread peasant unrest (e.g., the Tambov Rebellion) and the crushing of the Kronstadt naval mutiny in March 1921.
- Introduction of the New Economic Policy (NEP) at the Tenth Party Congress in March 1921 to relieve economic desperation by reintroducing a grain tax and limited private trade, accompanied by the formal ban on factions within the Bolshevik Party to maintain strict political unity.

Assessment relies on AO1 (recall, select, organise and deploy historical knowledge) using a 3-level best-fit mark scheme:

- Level 3 (11–15 marks): Detailed, structured, and chronologically accurate narrative.
- Demonstrates comprehensive knowledge of Bolshevik actions across 1917–1921.
- Covers political, military, and economic dimensions (e.g., early decrees, Constituent Assembly dissolution, Cheka/Red Terror, Brest-Litovsk, Trotsky's military reforms, War Communism, and the 1921 turning points).
- Demonstrates clear chronological progression and appropriate historical terminology.

- Level 2 (6–10 marks): Narrative with relevant factual detail but uneven coverage or minor chronological errors.
- Identifies and describes several key policies or events (e.g., Cheka, Red Army, War Communism) but may omit significant aspects (e.g., Brest-Litovsk, early decrees, or the transition in 1921).
- Descriptions are accurate but may lack depth or appear as disjointed factual points rather than a continuous narrative.

- Level 1 (1–5 marks): Generalised or brief narrative with limited specific detail.
- Relies on basic assertions (e.g., 'Lenin used the army and secret police to fight the Whites') with minimal concrete factual support or dates.

- 0 marks: No creditable response.

### Indicative Content

Arguments emphasizing the importance of terror and repression:
- The Police State apparatus: The SS (Schutzstaffel), led by Heinrich Himmler, grew from Hitler's bodyguard into a massive paramilitary organisation responsible for state security. The Gestapo (secret state police) eliminated political opposition through surveillance, arbitrary arrest, torture, and protective custody (Schutzhaft).
- Concentration Camps: Established in 1933 (e.g., Dachau), early camps were used to detain and break political opponents (communists, social democrats, trade unionists) without trial, serving as a powerful deterrent to the wider public.
- Judicial control: The legal system was completely subordinated to Nazi ideology; judges were required to join the National Socialist League for the Maintenance of Law, and the People's Court (Volksgerichtshof) was created in 1934 to try treason cases with predetermined verdicts.
- Informant network and pervasive fear: Block Wardens (Blockleiter) monitored neighbourhoods, encouraging denunciations among ordinary citizens. Even though the Gestapo had relatively few full-time officers, the perception of omnipresent surveillance created widespread self-censorship.

Arguments discussing the importance of other factors:
- Propaganda, mass media, and culture: Joseph Goebbels and the Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda successfully cultivated the 'Führer Myth', presenting Hitler as the nation's saviour. Complete control of radio (the cheap Volksempfänger), print media (Editors' Law of 1933), cinema (e.g., Triumph of the Will), and annual Nuremberg rallies established ideological conformity.
- Economic recovery and employment: The reduction of unemployment from roughly six million in 1933 to virtual full employment by 1939 through public works (the Reichsarbeitsdienst / Autobahnen), rearmament, and conscription earned genuine popular gratitude and legitimacy among the working and middle classes.
- Social incentives and welfare: Programmes such as Kraft durch Freude (Strength through Joy) and Schönheit der Arbeit (Beauty of Labour) provided subsidised leisure, cruises, and improved factory conditions, reinforcing working-class acquiescence.
- Youth and education: Indoctrination of schools and compulsory membership in the Hitler Youth (Hitlerjugend) and League of German Girls (BDM) ensured the allegiance of the next generation.
- Foreign policy successes: The remilitarisation of the Rhineland (1936), the Anschluss with Austria (1938), and the acquisition of the Sudetenland (1938) overturned the hated Treaty of Versailles and generated intense patriotic pride and voluntary support.

Evaluative Conclusion / Synthesis:
Candidates should weigh these factors to determine relative importance. While terror and repression were crucial for smashing organized political resistance (such as the KPD and SPD) and silencing active dissenters, terror alone could not have maintained stable control over 65 million people. For the majority of ordinary Germans, passive compliance and active support were largely secured through economic stability, effective propaganda, and the restoration of national pride, meaning terror acted as an indispensable backstop rather than the sole basis of rule.

### Paper 4 Part (b) Generic Mark Scheme [25 marks]

- Level 5 [21–25 marks]: Multi-faceted explanation with sustained, substantiated evaluative judgement
- Demonstrates comprehensive, accurate, and detailed historical knowledge.
- Explains the importance of terror and repression across different dimensions (political, social, psychological).
- Thoroughly discusses and balances alternative factors (e.g., propaganda, economic revival, social incentives, foreign policy popularity).
- Reaches a sophisticated, substantiated judgement on relative importance directly addressing 'how important'.

- Level 4 [16–20 marks]: Developed explanation of both the named factor and other factors
- Deploys sound, accurate historical knowledge to explain how terror/repression maintained control.
- Explains other factors contributing to Nazi control with relevant historical evidence.
- Balanced analysis, though the final evaluative conclusion may be less fully developed or argued.

- Level 3 [10–15 marks]: Explains importance of the named factor OR alternative factors
- Sound knowledge shown, but the answer is one-sided (focuses almost entirely on terror, or only on propaganda/economic factors) or lacks explicit comparison.
- Narrative/descriptive elements may outweigh analytical depth at the lower end of this level (10–12 marks).

- Level 2 [4–9 marks]: Identifies factors / generalized narrative description
- Identifies relevant features of Nazi rule (Gestapo, SS, Goebbels, Autobahnen) but provides limited explanation of how they maintained control.
- Mostly descriptive narrative with limited supporting historical detail.

- Level 1 [1–3 marks]: Fragmented or very generalized comments
- Limited, inaccurate, or unsupported assertions.

- Level 0 [0 marks]: No creditable response.