2025 OCR GCSE History A (Explaining the Modern World) - J410 Practice Paper with Answers

Possible points: (1) Germany, France and Belgium agreed to accept their joint borders as fixed by Versailles, so Germany freely accepted the loss of Alsace-Lorraine. (2) Britain and Italy acted as guarantors; any state that broke the agreement would face action by the others, which reassured France. (3) The demilitarisation of the Rhineland was confirmed, protecting France and Belgium. (4) Germany was welcomed back as an equal partner and joined the League of Nations in 1926 with a permanent Council seat, ending its isolation. (5) The 'spirit of Locarno' improved relations: Stresemann, Briand and Chamberlain were awarded Nobel Peace Prizes, and the climate helped lead to the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) and the Young Plan (1929). (6) Limits: eastern borders with Poland and Czechoslovakia were only covered by arbitration treaties, not guaranteed, and Britain made no firm commitment there.

AO1 (5 marks). Award 1 mark for each point identified and a further mark for development (supporting detail, explanation or example), up to a maximum of 5 marks. Examples: 'Germany accepted its western borders with France and Belgium [1] as set by Versailles, including the loss of Alsace-Lorraine [+1]'; 'Britain and Italy guaranteed the borders [1], reassuring France that it would be helped if attacked [+1]'; 'Germany joined the League of Nations in 1926 [1] with a permanent seat on the Council, ending its isolation [+1]'; 'relations improved, the so-called spirit of Locarno [1], leading to Kellogg-Briand in 1928 [+1]'; 'eastern borders were not guaranteed [1], so Poland and Czechoslovakia remained uneasy [+1]'. Three or more different points are needed for 5 marks, but a candidate giving two well-developed points may still reach 4. Accept answers that combine points. Do not credit unsupported generic statements such as 'it made countries get on better' beyond 1 mark. No reward for events unrelated to Locarno (e.g. detailed description of the Dawes Plan). All content is indicative only and any other historically valid content is acceptable.

Suggested reasons (two developed reasons needed for full marks).

Reason 1: Soviet suspicion of American motives. The Plan (announced June 1947) offered billions of dollars in aid to rebuild European economies. The USA presented it as a means of preventing poverty and hunger, which it believed helped Communism to spread, as set out in the Truman Doctrine of March 1947. Stalin and Molotov saw it as 'dollar imperialism': aid would make countries economically dependent on the USA, give America a market and political influence in Europe, and weaken Soviet control. The USSR therefore regarded it as a hostile act, increasing tension.

Reason 2: It split Europe into two blocs. Stalin forced Poland, Czechoslovakia and other Eastern European states to refuse aid after initial interest, and created Cominform (1947) and Comecon (1949) as Soviet alternatives, tightening Soviet control. Sixteen Western European states accepted aid. This hardened the division, so each side saw the other as a rival camp, and the USA saw Soviet tightening of control (e.g. the 1948 Czechoslovak coup) as proof of expansion.

Reason 3 (alternative): Germany. Marshall Aid was extended to the American, British and French zones, which were merged and given a new currency in 1948. Stalin feared a revived, anti-Soviet West Germany, and responded with the Berlin Blockade (June 1948), leading to the Airlift and further hostility, and later NATO (1949).

Any other historically valid content is acceptable.

AO1 (5) + AO2 (5) = 10 marks. Levels-based; all content is indicative only and any other correct examples should also be credited. No reward can be given for wider knowledge unrelated to the topic.

Level 5 (9-10): Explains two or more reasons, each developed with accurate, relevant knowledge and linked clearly to rising tension. Nutshell: two developed reasons.
Level 4 (7-8): Explains one reason in a developed way, with additional identification or partial development of another. Nutshell: one developed reason.
Level 3 (5-6): Describes the Marshall Plan or its effects accurately but does not fully explain why tension increased. Nutshell: description without explanation.
Level 2 (3-4): Narrative or undeveloped identification of reasons, with limited or generalised knowledge. Nutshell: undeveloped identification.
Level 1 (1-2): General assertions about the Cold War with little or no relevant knowledge, e.g. 'they did not trust each other'. Nutshell: general assertion.
Level 0 (0): No creditable response.

Within a level: bottom of level for borderline, middle for just enough, top for consistent achievement.

Indicative content (student voice): 'The USSR saw the Marshall Plan as dollar imperialism. Stalin believed that by giving aid, the USA would make European countries dependent on it and spread American influence, so he refused to let Eastern Europe accept, which made relations worse.' 'The Plan divided Europe into two blocs. Stalin set up Cominform and later Comecon to tighten control, which convinced the USA that the USSR was expanding, and so tension grew.' 'Marshall Aid went to West Germany, where a new currency was introduced in 1948; Stalin feared a strong West Germany and blockaded Berlin.'

Planning outline for a full-mark answer.

1. Identify the view of A: appeasement was weakness, Britain and France were strong enough to stop Hitler in 1936 and 1938, and concessions encouraged him and made war in 1939 inevitable.

2. Support from own knowledge: the League of Nations had failed to stop Japan in Manchuria (1931-33) and Italy in Abyssinia (1935-36); Hitler left the Disarmament Conference and the League in 1933; he introduced conscription and rebuilt the Luftwaffe in 1935; the Rhineland was remilitarised in 1936 with no military response, although German troops had orders to withdraw if opposed; the Anschluss took place in March 1938; at Munich in September 1938 Britain and France agreed to the cession of the Sudetenland, and Czechoslovakia was not consulted; Germany occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939.

3. Challenge A using B: the depression limited defence spending; British forces were stretched across the empire and the Dominions were reluctant to support war; the public remembered the First World War and favoured peace; rearmament was under way, and the late 1930s saw the building of radar and fighter production, so Munich gave time. Use knowledge of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement and the Treasury's influence to show the pressures.

4. Challenge A using C: the USA was isolationist; the USSR was distrusted and was not invited to Munich; Hitler's aims were uncertain; Chamberlain, Halifax, Churchill and others disagreed. French weakness and instability also limited joint action. A treats all leaders as alike and uses hindsight.

5. Provenance: A was written in 1948, soon after the war, by someone with a personal stake in the events. It was shaped by wartime memory and a wish to blame the pre-war leaders. B used newly released official papers, which shifted the focus to constraints and to the options that were actually open. C benefits from later archives in several countries and a longer perspective.

6. Judgement: A is partly fair, since concessions did embolden Hitler and some opportunities, such as the Rhineland, were missed, but it is overstated and ignores the constraints and the range of motives. Credit any valid, supported conclusion.

AO4 (20 marks) and AO1 (5 marks). The question tests whether the student can evaluate an interpretation using other interpretations and own knowledge. All content is indicative only and any other historically valid content is acceptable. No reward can be given for wider knowledge unrelated to the topic.

Level 5 (21-25 marks): Evaluates Interpretation A in depth by using B and C and detailed, accurate knowledge. Reaches a sustained, supported judgement on how fair the comment is, and considers why the interpretations differ (for example date, access to evidence, the author's purpose). Nutshell: A sustained, balanced evaluation with a clear judgement, supported by both interpretations and knowledge.

Level 4 (16-20 marks): Evaluates A using B and C and knowledge, with some judgement of fairness. Some explanation of why views differ, but not sustained. Nutshell: Supported evaluation with a judgement, but unevenly balanced.

Level 3 (11-15 marks): Uses other interpretations or knowledge to agree or disagree with A. Judgement is stated but weakly supported, or comments on provenance are generic. Nutshell: Some evaluation, limited support.

Level 2 (6-10 marks): Describes A, B or C or recalls knowledge about appeasement without evaluating how fair A is. Nutshell: Description in place of evaluation.

Level 1 (1-5 marks): General assertions, or a very limited or inaccurate answer. Nutshell: Simple, generic comments.

Level 0: No creditable response.

Caps: If the student misreads A (for example by treating it as supporting appeasement), the answer is capped at Level 2. Answers that use only knowledge and make no use of B and C are capped at Level 3.

Placing within a level: bottom of the level for a borderline answer, middle for just enough, top for consistent achievement of the descriptor.

Indicative content in student voice: 'Interpretation A is fair because the Rhineland was remilitarised in 1936 without opposition, which showed Hitler that Britain and France would not fight.' 'However, B shows that Britain was weakened by the depression and that rearmament needed time, so A is too harsh.' 'C suggests leaders lacked information and allies, which A ignores. A was written in 1948 by a man who had lived through the war, so it was written with hindsight.'

Model approach (AO4 with AO1/AO2 support, plus SPaG).

Interpretation A (1948) sees appeasement as a failure that encouraged Hitler: it highlights Versailles breaches (1935 rearmament, 1936 Rhineland), Austria (Anschluss, 1938) and the Sudetenland (Munich, 1938). Written just after the war, it reflects hindsight and the national mood after 1945, when appeasement was widely condemned (the 'Guilty Men' mood) and the cost of war was fresh. Its focus is moral judgement and outcome.

Interpretation B (2005) sees appeasement as realistic: it stresses the effects of the Depression on the economy, imperial defence commitments, pacifist public opinion, the need for gradual rearmament (e.g. radar, Hurricane and Spitfire production, the Chamberlain period) and the value of showing the Dominions that Britain had tried everything for peace. Written decades later with released government papers, it takes the viewpoint of ministers at the time and asks what choices they genuinely had.

Reasons for difference: (1) Timing and context of writing: wartime memory and hindsight in 1948 versus distance in 2005, plus changing attitudes after the Cold War shaped debate about when to resist aggressors. (2) Access to evidence: A was written before cabinet papers and military assessments were available; B uses them to show economic weakness and military unpreparedness, including the Chiefs of Staff warnings that Britain could not fight Germany, Italy and Japan together. (3) Different focus and criteria for judgement: A judges by results (war came anyway, smaller nations such as Czechoslovakia were abandoned); B judges by the constraints and options in 1938, noting that the delay may have helped Britain in 1940. Also, selection: A selects the concessions, B selects the reasons for caution.

A strong answer reaches an overall judgement, e.g. that the difference arises mainly from the evidence and hindsight, while the disagreement about what appeasement meant is partly one of values.

Total 25 = 20 (AO4 with AO1/AO2 support: 5 AO1, 5 AO2, 10 AO4 as per period-study essay weighting) + 5 SPaG.

Question content (20 marks), five levels:

Level 5 (17-20): Explains why the interpretations differ with sustained analysis of at least two reasons developed with reference to both interpretations and detailed, accurate own knowledge; shows understanding of how and why interpretations are constructed (context, evidence, focus); reaches a supported, reasoned judgement. Nutshell: sustained, well-supported explanation of why historians differ, using both interpretations and knowledge.

Level 4 (13-16): Explains at least one reason with development and uses both interpretations and relevant knowledge; identifies a second reason; judgement is partly supported. Nutshell: good explanation of differences with some development.

Level 3 (9-12): Identifies differences in the interpretations and gives some explanation, but largely descriptive or one-sided, with limited link to why historians differ; knowledge is relevant but may not be tied to the interpretations. Nutshell: some explanation, mostly describes the interpretations.

Level 2 (5-8): Simple statements about what A and B say, or generic reasons (e.g. 'they had different opinions') with limited knowledge. Nutshell: undeveloped identification of difference.

Level 1 (1-4): General assertion or comments on appeasement with little relevance to the interpretations. Nutshell: general or irrelevant comment.

0: no creditable response.

Cap: if the answer only describes the policy of appeasement without addressing the interpretations or why they differ, maximum Level 2. If one interpretation is misunderstood (e.g. B read as condemning appeasement), maximum Level 3.

Indicative content (student voice, all content indicative only and any other historically valid content is acceptable): 'Interpretation A was written in 1948, only three years after the war, so the author knew Hitler had not been stopped and was likely to blame the policy.' 'Interpretation B was written in 2005 using released government papers, which show Britain was financially weak and the armed forces were overstretched, so it sees appeasement as realistic.' 'A concentrates on the outcome and on moral failure such as Czechoslovakia at Munich in 1938, whereas B focuses on buying time to build the RAF and on public opinion.' 'Historians also differ in what they choose to emphasise and in how they weigh hindsight against the options at the time.' No reward can be given for wider knowledge unrelated to the topic.

Placing within a level: bottom of level for borderline, middle for just enough, top for consistent achievement.

SPaG (5 marks, separate descriptor): High performance 4-5 marks: spelling and punctuation accurate, consistent control of grammar, wide range of specialist terms used accurately (e.g. appeasement, rearmament, hindsight, interpretation, Treaty of Versailles). Intermediate performance 2-3 marks: reasonable accuracy, some control, adequate range of specialist terms. Threshold performance 1 mark: some accuracy in spelling, punctuation and grammar, limited use of specialist terms. 0 marks: no marks if response is not worthy of credit or the answer is too brief to assess.

A full answer identifies one example of wartime propaganda (1 mark) and adds specific supporting detail (1 mark). Possible examples: War Bond campaigns and posters; Rosie the Riveter imagery encouraging women into war work; posters urging salvage of scrap metal; slogans warning against careless talk; Hollywood films and radio broadcasts supporting the war; the Office of War Information coordinating messages.

Award up to 2 marks: 1 mark for identifying one valid example of propaganda used by the US government in 1941-45; a further 1 mark for developing it with accurate, specific detail (for example the purpose, the medium, the audience or a named campaign). Example: 'The government ran posters showing a female factory worker flexing her arm (1) to persuade women to take jobs in war industries (1).' Generic answers about propaganda with no period-specific example can gain 1 mark at most. Do not credit propaganda from other countries or from the 1919-1941 period. All content is indicative only and any other correct examples should also be credited. Only one example is credited: if two are given, credit the better one.

Reason 1: Wartime labour needs and political pressure. Factories needed workers for mobilisation, yet many employers refused to hire Black workers. A. Philip Randolph threatened a march on Washington in 1941, and Roosevelt, wanting national unity and uninterrupted production, issued Executive Order 8802, banning discrimination in defence industries and setting up the Fair Employment Practices Committee. This opened skilled jobs to African Americans, encouraged migration to northern and western cities, and raised expectations of equality.

Reason 2: The war against racist regimes and Black service and activism. Fighting Nazi ideology made segregation at home look hypocritical. Around a million African Americans served in segregated forces, and the NAACP grew rapidly during the war. Campaigns such as the Double V (victory over fascism abroad and racism at home) kept the issue in the public eye, and the 1943 Detroit race riots showed the dangers of ignoring racial tension. After the war, Truman, needing Black votes and aware of the USA's international image, issued an order in 1948 to desegregate the armed forces. These formed foundations for later civil rights campaigns.

Limits: progress was partial. Jim Crow remained in the South, the military stayed largely segregated during the war, and the FEPC had weak powers.

AO1 (5) + AO2 (5). Explain question marked using a five-level grid.

Level 5 (9-10 marks): Explains two reasons, both developed with accurate and relevant knowledge and a clear link to progress between 1941 and 1948. Nutshell: two developed reasons.
Level 4 (7-8 marks): Explains one reason in a developed way and identifies or partly explains a second. Nutshell: one developed reason.
Level 3 (5-6 marks): Describes relevant events (for example the Executive Order or desegregation) with accurate knowledge but without a full explanation of why they brought progress. Nutshell: description, not explanation.
Level 2 (3-4 marks): Undeveloped identification of reasons or narrative of wartime events with limited focus. Nutshell: identification or narrative.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): General assertions with little or no accurate knowledge (for example 'the war made people more equal'). Nutshell: general assertion.
Level 0: No creditable response.

Within a level: bottom for borderline, middle for just enough, top for consistent achievement.

Indicative content (example sentences in student voice):
- Wartime labour needs/Executive Order 8802: 'Roosevelt needed factories running at full capacity, and Randolph's planned march in 1941 embarrassed the government, so he banned discrimination in defence industries.' Developed: creation of the FEPC; jobs, migration to cities.
- War aims and hypocrisy / Double V: 'Fighting Nazi racism while segregating Black soldiers looked hypocritical, which gave campaigners a strong argument.'
- Black military service and NAACP growth: 'Membership of the NAACP grew as African Americans demanded rights in return for serving.'
- Truman and 1948 desegregation of the armed forces: 'Truman wanted Black votes and a good international image, so he ordered desegregation of the forces.'
- Detroit riots 1943 as evidence of tension prompting attention to race relations.
- Limits of progress may be credited if used to explain the reason.

All content is indicative only and any other historically valid content is acceptable. No reward can be given for wider knowledge unrelated to the topic.

Message: the war effort demands equality at home; the order banning discrimination in defence industries is welcome but is not yet being enforced, and Black Americans will keep campaigning publicly until it is.

Support from the source: contrast between sons risking lives 'for freedom' and being refused the best jobs and segregated in camps; 'an order on paper is not a job on the factory floor'; 'we will keep asking, loudly and in public'; 'loyalty in war' versus 'fairness at home'.

Support from context: Executive Order 8802 (1941), issued by Roosevelt after the threat of a march on Washington, banned discrimination in defence industries and set up the Fair Employment Practices Committee, which had limited powers; the armed forces remained segregated; the Black press and organisations such as the NAACP used wartime rhetoric to press for civil rights; this laid foundations for later Civil Rights progress. Provenance: a Black-owned newspaper, 1942, written to persuade readers and the authorities, so it is deliberately forceful and selective, but it reflects genuine frustration.

AO3, 5 marks. Three levels.

Level 3 (4-5 marks): Identifies a message and supports it with both detail from the source and relevant contextual knowledge and/or provenance (purpose, audience, date), explaining how these show the creator's intended message. Bottom of level: message supported by source and context but one side is thin. Top: consistent, integrated use of source, context and provenance.
Level 2 (2-3 marks): Identifies a message and supports it from the source content only, or with generic or undeveloped contextual comment.
Level 1 (1 mark): Describes or paraphrases the source without identifying a message, or makes a vague, unsupported assertion.
Level 0 (0): No creditable response.

Nutshell: L3 message explained using source and own knowledge; L2 message from source content; L1 description.

Indicative content (student voice): 'The message is that Black Americans want the government to enforce equality, not just announce it. The writer contrasts sons risking their lives for freedom with unfair jobs and segregated camps. This fits what I know: Executive Order 8802 in 1941 banned discrimination in defence industries but the Fair Employment Practices Committee was weak, and the armed forces stayed segregated. As the editorial was written for a Black readership and for those in power, it aims to build pressure for change.'

Other messages are acceptable if supported, e.g. loyalty of Black Americans to the war effort; the hypocrisy of fighting for freedom abroad; the role of public campaigning. All content is indicative only and any other correct examples should also be credited. No reward can be given for wider knowledge unrelated to the topic. Marks within a level: bottom for borderline, middle for just enough, top for consistent achievement.

Content: the 400 bars against 11 agents shows enforcement was under-resourced; bars next to the police station and the weekly payment to an officer show corruption and open flouting of the law; crowded courts and small fines show weak punishment; the final sentence shows widespread public acceptance of drinking. Own knowledge: the Volstead Act 1919 and the Bureau of Prohibition were given limited funds; speakeasies multiplied; bootleggers such as organised gangs bribed officials; many Americans, especially in cities and among immigrant communities, opposed the law. Provenance: a first-hand investigation by a reporter, written in 1926 when Prohibition had been in force for six years, so it shows the law at its peak of difficulty. Limits: it covers only one port city, where smuggling was easiest, and a newspaper may select shocking details; it is a single account and does not show enforcement successes (for example reduced alcohol-related illness in some areas) or the later government response.

AO3, 5 marks, three levels.

Level 3 (4-5 marks): Explains how the source is useful by using the content AND the provenance (author, date, purpose, type) and/or context to reach a supported judgement about its usefulness for the enquiry. Nutshell: inference supported by content, provenance and own knowledge.
Level 2 (2-3 marks): Identifies or explains usefulness using either content or provenance, with some supporting detail, but the link to the enquiry is only partly developed. Nutshell: useful because of what it says, or who wrote it.
Level 1 (1 mark): Simple statement of usefulness or description of the source, with little or no support. Nutshell: general assertion or paraphrase.
0 marks: no creditable response.

Indicative content (all content is indicative only and any other historically valid content is acceptable):
- Content: 400 bars vs 11 agents; bars near the police station; bribe paid to an officer; crowded courts, cases dropped, small fines; public did not see drinking as criminal.
- Provenance: reporter who visited bars and spoke to officials, so first-hand; 1926 is mid-Prohibition; a newspaper may want to attract readers.
- Context: Volstead Act; underfunded enforcement; speakeasies and bootlegging; corruption; city attitudes.
- Limitations: one port city only; may be untypical; does not show other views.
Example student-voice sentence: 'The source is useful because it says there are 400 bars but only eleven agents, which supports the view that Prohibition was impossible to enforce, and the reporter visited the bars himself in 1926, so the evidence is first-hand.'
Marks within a level: bottom for borderline, middle for just enough, top for consistent achievement. No reward can be given for wider knowledge unrelated to the topic.

Plan: (1) Agree: damage. Japanese American internment after Executive Order 9066 (1942) removed around 120,000 people from the West Coast, with loss of homes, farms and businesses and no due process. African Americans in the military served in segregated units, often in support roles. Racial tension in overcrowded war-production cities led to the 1943 Detroit Race Riots, in which most of the dead were African American and the police were criticised for failing to protect them. Jim Crow continued in the South and in much housing. (2) Disagree: improvement. Executive Order 8802 (1941), issued after A. Philip Randolph threatened a march on Washington, banned discrimination in defence industries and created the Fair Employment Practices Committee. War work gave African Americans better wages and urban jobs in the North and West, and the Great Migration continued. NAACP membership grew sharply and the Double V campaign linked fighting fascism abroad with ending racism at home. Many women also gained jobs and independence, though often lost them after 1945. In 1948 Truman's Executive Order 9981 began desegregation of the armed forces, building on wartime pressure. (3) Judgement: the harm to Japanese Americans was severe and clearly caused by the war, but for African Americans the war was a mixed experience that laid foundations for the later Civil Rights movement. Real change by 1948 was limited, so a judgement that the war brought damage and progress side by side, with the long-term gains outweighing the short-term harm for African Americans, is well supported. The best answers weigh groups against each other and reach a clear overall conclusion.

AO1 7 marks (knowledge and understanding), AO2 11 marks (analysis and evaluation using change, consequence and significance). Quality of extended response is assessed.

Level 5 (16-18 marks): Sustained, well-developed analysis of both sides of the argument, supported by accurate and detailed knowledge. Weighs the damage against the improvement for different groups and reaches a fully justified judgement that is linked to the criterion in the question. Nutshell: sustained, balanced, supported judgement.
Level 4 (13-15 marks): Developed analysis of both sides with mostly accurate and relevant knowledge. A judgement is reached and is supported but not fully weighed. Nutshell: developed both sides, reasoned judgement.
Level 3 (9-12 marks): Some analysis of at least one side with relevant knowledge; the other side may be undeveloped. Judgement is stated but weakly supported. Nutshell: some analysis, limited judgement.
Level 2 (5-8 marks): Descriptive answer with some relevant knowledge, mostly one-sided, with little or no analysis. Nutshell: description, no real argument.
Level 1 (1-4 marks): General or limited statements with little accurate knowledge. Nutshell: general assertion.
Level 0: No relevant content.

Marks within a level: bottom of the level for borderline, middle for just enough, top for consistent achievement. If the answer deals with only one side of the argument, do not award above Level 3. No reward can be given for wider knowledge unrelated to the topic or the period 1941-1948.

Indicative content (all content is indicative only and any other historically valid content is acceptable):
Agree (damage): Executive Order 9066 and the internment of about 120,000 Japanese Americans, with loss of property; segregated African American military units and limited combat roles; the 1943 Detroit Race Riots; continued Jim Crow and discrimination in housing and wages; women often dismissed from jobs at the war's end.
Disagree (improvement): Executive Order 8802 and the Fair Employment Practices Committee; new industrial jobs and higher wages; growth of NAACP membership and the Double V campaign; Randolph's pressure on the government; Truman's 1948 order to desegregate the armed forces; foundations for later civil rights; expanded work for women.
Example student-voice sentences: 'The war clearly harmed Japanese Americans, who lost their homes after Executive Order 9066, but for African Americans it opened doors such as the Fair Employment Practices Committee.' / 'Overall the statement is only partly convincing because the war's damage was uneven while its role in laying foundations for civil rights was significant.'

Choose two distinct features and give a supporting detail for each. Feature 1: Early raids were hit-and-run attacks by small groups in longships, which were fast and shallow-drafted so they could land on beaches and travel up rivers. Monasteries were prime targets because they were isolated, undefended and held treasure; the attack on Lindisfarne in 793 is the best-known example. Feature 2: By the mid-ninth century raiding became larger and more organised. Armies such as the Great Heathen Army (865) wintered in England, defeated the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of Northumbria, East Anglia and Mercia, and began to settle and farm land, creating the Danelaw. Other valid features include the taking of slaves and the demanding of payments (Danegeld) from kings.

4 marks: two features, each worth 1 mark for identification plus 1 mark for supporting development (specific detail or example).

Feature 1 (up to 2): 1 mark for identifying a valid feature, e.g. surprise coastal or river attacks using longships; targeting of monasteries and other poorly defended wealthy sites; seizing treasure and slaves; later demands for Danegeld. 1 further mark for development, e.g. Lindisfarne 793; Jarrow and Iona; longships able to land in shallow water; payments made by Anglo-Saxon kings.

Feature 2 (up to 2): as above, or a shift from raiding to conquest and settlement, e.g. the Great Heathen Army 865, overwintering, conquest of Northumbria, East Anglia and Mercia, the creation of the Danelaw.

Notes: Award a maximum of 2 marks if the answer gives only one feature, however developed. Do not credit two versions of the same feature as separate features. Generic answers about 'invaders' with no period-specific content gain no more than 1 mark per feature. Do not credit events outside the period unrelated to the question (e.g. the Norman Conquest). All content is indicative only and any other correct examples should also be credited; any other historically valid content is acceptable.

Model approach: Identify two impacts and develop each with specific knowledge.

Impact 1 - Loss of life and disruption: England experienced very high casualties relative to population, with large numbers of soldiers killed in battle and many more dying of disease. Families were broken up as men were recruited or conscripted by either side, leaving women to run farms and businesses. Towns that were besieged, such as Colchester in 1648, suffered starvation and destruction, and civilians were caught up in fighting and plundering.

Impact 2 - Financial burdens and damage to livelihoods: Both sides raised money through heavy taxation, such as the Parliamentary assessment and excise, and through forced loans and fines. Soldiers were quartered in civilian homes, and armies took food, horses and crops, which harmed farmers. Trade was disrupted and some people's property was sequestered or destroyed. Poor harvests in the later 1640s made hardship worse.

Other valid impacts: the breakdown of religious uniformity, as the Church of England's Prayer Book was banned and new groups such as Quakers and Baptists grew; the Clubmen movement showing local communities trying to protect themselves from both armies.

Levels (8 marks, AO1 4 + AO2 4):

Level 5 (7-8 marks): Explains two impacts, both supported by accurate and relevant detail. Shows clear understanding of consequence. Nutshell: two developed impacts.

Level 4 (5-6 marks): Explains one impact in a developed way and identifies or partly explains a second. Nutshell: one developed impact.

Level 3 (3-4 marks): Describes the Civil Wars or their effects with some accurate knowledge but does not fully explain impact on ordinary people. Nutshell: description, not explanation.

Level 2 (2 marks): Narrative of the wars or an undeveloped identification of an impact. Nutshell: undeveloped identification.

Level 1 (1 mark): General assertion with little or no relevant knowledge, e.g. 'People suffered because there was fighting.' Nutshell: general assertion.

Marks within a level: bottom of level for borderline, middle for just enough, top for consistent achievement.

Indicative content (student voice examples): 'Many ordinary people died. Perhaps 3-4% of the population of England was killed, and families lost fathers and sons, so women often had to run farms alone.' 'People also faced heavy taxes. Both Parliament and the King demanded money and goods, and soldiers were quartered in homes and took food, which left some families poor.' 'Towns under siege such as Colchester suffered starvation.' 'Religious change affected parishes as the Prayer Book was banned.'

All content is indicative only and any other historically valid content is acceptable. No reward can be given for wider knowledge unrelated to the topic, e.g. detailed accounts of battles that do not link to ordinary people.

Plan: (1) Significance of the Second World War: Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1940 gave government sweeping control; conscription from 1939 extended to women in 1941; Bevin's direction of labour; rationing from 1940 covering food, clothing and fuel; evacuation of children from cities; Ministry of Information propaganda; Blitz and civil defence (ARP, Home Guard). These reached into daily life far more than in any earlier war. (2) Built on earlier change: the Napoleonic wars saw volunteer forces, militia ballots and income tax introduced in 1799; the Crimean and Boer Wars exposed weaknesses and prompted army and public health reform; the First World War introduced the Defence of the Realm Act 1914, conscription in 1916, rationing in 1918 and the beginnings of 'total war', so the Second World War was in part a repeat and refinement of these controls. (3) Later wars: Cold War Britain in the 1950s-60s involved civil defence planning and National Service until 1960, but no comparable control of daily life; IRA campaigns 1969-1994 and the 2003 Iraq War/post-2003 counter-terrorism brought security legislation (e.g. Prevention of Terrorism Acts) but little direct control over civilians' work and food. (4) Judgement: the Second World War was the most significant for the extent and depth of control and its lasting legacy (e.g. expectation of a bigger state role after 1945), but its importance lies in completing a trend begun in 1914 or earlier.

AO1 (knowledge and understanding) 6 marks; AO2 (second-order concept of significance, explanation and analysis) 8 marks. Total 14. Levels apply to the whole answer; use best fit.

Level 5 (13-14 marks): Sustained, well-supported analysis of significance that considers the Second World War over the whole period c.1750-c.2010, comparing it with other wars/periods; accurate, detailed and relevant knowledge; a clear, reasoned judgement that is justified. Nutshell: a supported judgement on significance across the period.
Level 4 (10-12 marks): Analyses significance with mostly accurate and detailed knowledge; considers at least two periods or wars beyond the Second World War, with a judgement that is only partly justified or lacks full range. Nutshell: analysis of significance with some comparison.
Level 3 (7-9 marks): Explains some ways the Second World War changed government control, with accurate knowledge, but limited or no comparison with other wars; judgement is simple or asserted. Nutshell: explanation of change without evaluation.
Level 2 (4-6 marks): Describes some relevant features of the Second World War or other wars with limited links to government control or significance. Nutshell: description or narrative.
Level 1 (1-3 marks): General or very limited statements with little accurate knowledge. Nutshell: general assertion.
Level 0: No creditable response.

Indicative content (all content is indicative only and any other historically valid content is acceptable; no reward can be given for wider knowledge unrelated to the topic):
- Significant: Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1940; conscription of men and from 1941 of women; direction of labour under Bevin; rationing from 1940; evacuation; propaganda and censorship; Blitz, ARP and Home Guard. Example student voice: 'The Second World War was highly significant because for the first time almost every adult was directed into war work, and government decided what people ate and wore.'
- Earlier wars: militia ballots, volunteers and income tax 1799 (Napoleonic wars); reforms after Crimean and Boer Wars; DORA 1914, conscription 1916, rationing 1918 in the First World War, so the Second World War built on existing 'total war' foundations.
- Later wars: National Service to 1960 and Cold War civil defence; Prevention of Terrorism Acts during IRA campaigns; counter-terrorism laws after 2003. Less direct control over daily life.
- Judgement: credit any reasoned view, e.g. most significant in scale but a culmination rather than a beginning.

Award the bottom of a level for borderline responses, the middle for just enough, and the top for consistent achievement of the descriptor. Cap at Level 3 if there is no consideration of the wider period c.1750-c.2010.

Suggested approach.

Introduction: war created pressure on rulers for money, men and control, so central power often grew, but the outcome depended on whether the ruler could win and pay for the war.

For (increase in central power):
- c.790-c.1500: Viking raids pushed Anglo-Saxon kings to organise defence (burhs, taxation, a more organised army), strengthening royal authority. After the Norman Conquest William I used castles and the feudal system to tie lords to the crown through military service.
- c.1500-c.1750: Elizabeth I's war with Spain justified heavier taxation and the use of the navy and privateers under royal direction. The Parliamentary side in the Civil Wars built a powerful state with a large army and the excise.
- c.1750-c.2010: Napoleonic wars saw income tax and expanded armed forces. In the First World War the Defence of the Realm Act, conscription (1916) and state control of industry and food greatly expanded central power. The Second World War saw even greater control (rationing, direction of labour, Emergency Powers).

Against (limits on or loss of central power):
- Under Stephen the breakdown of feudal relations and civil war weakened the crown; John's failed wars and heavy taxation led to baronial rebellion and Magna Carta (1215). Rising costs of medieval warfare made kings dependent on Parliament for taxes.
- Civil Wars 1642-51: war destroyed royal power under Charles I, producing execution and a republic; Parliament's control of finance was strengthened.
- Modern period: war increased expectations of democracy and welfare (1918 votes for women, 1945 Labour government), meaning government was held more accountable. After the wars many controls were removed.
- The Jacobite Wars and Cold War/IRA/Iraq War periods show government sometimes facing opposition rather than greater power.

Conclusion: to a large extent war increased central power at the time (especially in the world wars and in the Norman period), but a significant pattern was that war also exposed weak rulers and shifted power towards Parliament and the people, so the statement is only partly convincing. Credit any reasoned overall judgement.

AO1 8 marks, AO2 16 marks (24 in total). Mark with the following levels. All content is indicative only and any other historically valid content is acceptable. No reward can be given for wider knowledge unrelated to the topic.

Level 5 (21-24 marks): Sustained analysis of both sides of the argument, covering at least two of the three periods, with accurate and detailed knowledge. A clear, well-supported judgement on 'how far' is reached by weighing the evidence, and the answer shows an understanding of change and continuity over time. Nutshell: sustained, balanced and fully supported judgement.

Level 4 (16-20 marks): Analysis of both sides with mostly accurate and relevant knowledge from at least two periods. A judgement is reached and supported, though weighing may be uneven or the explanation of change over time less secure. Nutshell: developed analysis and a supported judgement.

Level 3 (11-15 marks): Some analysis of at least one side with relevant knowledge, and some attempt at the other side. Judgement may be asserted or only partly supported; may cover only one period. Nutshell: some analysis, limited balance.

Level 2 (6-10 marks): Descriptive or narrative response with some relevant knowledge. Links to the question are implicit or undeveloped; no real judgement. Nutshell: narrative with limited focus.

Level 1 (1-5 marks): Simple, general statements about war with little accurate knowledge; little or no link to government or power. Nutshell: general assertion.

0 marks: no creditable response.

Within a level: bottom of the level for borderline, middle for just enough, top for consistent achievement. Where only one period is covered, cap at Level 3.

Indicative content (student voice examples): 'After 1066 William used castles and the feudal system to force lords to fight for him, so war strengthened the king.' / 'However, John's costly failed wars led the barons to force him to sign Magna Carta, so war reduced royal power.' / 'In the First World War DORA and conscription gave the government control over daily life, which shows central power growing.' / 'Yet the Civil Wars ended with the king executed, showing war can destroy central authority.' Other relevant examples include the Viking raids and Alfred, Stephen's reign, Elizabeth I and Spain, the Napoleonic Wars, the Second World War, Cold War Britain and counter-terrorism after 2003.

Reason 1: Moral and social interference. In 1655, after Penruddock's Rising, Cromwell divided England into districts under army officers. The Major Generals were told to enforce godly reformation: they closed many alehouses, suppressed horse racing, cockfighting and bear-baiting, and punished swearing and drunkenness. Ordinary people and many gentry resented this intrusion into traditional leisure, and Christmas celebrations were also discouraged.

Reason 2: Financial burden. The Major Generals collected the decimation tax, a 10% levy on the income of former Royalists, to pay for the militia. This punished people who had not rebelled and was regarded as unfair, breaking the promise of an Act of Oblivion. It made Royalists and many moderates hostile to the regime.

Reason 3: Military rule and loss of local power. The Major Generals were often outsiders of lower social status who bypassed Justices of the Peace and local gentry. Many saw this as arbitrary army government, contrary to the Instrument of Government and the rule of law. In the 1656 Parliament, MPs attacked the system, and the proposal to make the decimation tax permanent was rejected in January 1657. The experiment ended soon after, which showed how unpopular it was.

A strong answer explains at least two of these reasons with specific knowledge and links each back to unpopularity.

AO1 (5) + AO2 (5). Explain question marked on five levels. All content is indicative only and any other historically valid content is acceptable. No reward can be given for wider knowledge unrelated to the topic.

Level 5 (9-10 marks): Explains two or more reasons, with developed, accurate and specific supporting knowledge, and the answer clearly links each to the unpopularity of the Major Generals. Nutshell: two developed reasons. Bottom of level for two reasons with limited development; top for consistently well-developed reasons.

Level 4 (7-8 marks): Explains one reason in a developed way, with accurate and relevant knowledge, and may identify a second reason without full development. Nutshell: one developed reason.

Level 3 (5-6 marks): Describes relevant features of the Major Generals (e.g. districts, role, enforcement of morality) with accurate knowledge, but does not fully link them to unpopularity. Nutshell: description without full explanation.

Level 2 (3-4 marks): Narrative of events or undeveloped identification of reasons (e.g. 'people did not like the army'). Nutshell: narrative or undeveloped identification.

Level 1 (1-2 marks): General assertion with little or no relevant knowledge. Nutshell: general assertion.

Level 0: No creditable response.

Indicative content (student voice examples): 'The Major Generals shut alehouses and banned bear-baiting and horse racing, so ordinary people felt that their traditional entertainment was being taken away'; 'The decimation tax of 10% was charged on all former Royalists, even those who had not joined Penruddock's Rising, which made them feel unfairly punished'; 'Local gentry felt that army officers were taking power from them as Justices of the Peace, which looked like military dictatorship'. Also creditable: Parliament's rejection of the decimation tax in January 1657, the link to Penruddock's Rising of 1655, the Instrument of Government.

Marks within a level: bottom of level for borderline, middle for just enough, top for consistent achievement.

Source A (supports the view): The Major General is a soldier who replaces civilian justices, uses horse to keep order and raises a decimation tax on former Royalists, and regulates behaviour (alehouses, race meetings). The writer is a hostile gentleman writing privately, so is likely to exaggerate, but the details are accurate to the Major Generals system of 1655-57: 11 regions, militia horse, the 10 per cent tax on Royalists, moral reform. Context: after Penruddock's Rising (March 1655) Cromwell used the army to police the localities. Limit: it shows local, not national, government, and says nothing of Parliament.

Source B (mixed): Cromwell states that Parliament should act freely and make the laws, which supports the idea that Parliament had a role. Yet he threatens to act if the settlement is undone, and defends soldiers placed in counties, showing reliance on force. Provenance: a public speech by the head of state in the Second Protectorate Parliament, so it is designed to justify his rule and reassure MPs. Context: the Instrument of Government (1653) gave Parliament a legislative role but with a Council and Protector holding substantial power; MPs had been excluded in 1656 by the Council; Cromwell's supporters in the army were dominant.

Source C (challenges the view): The petition seeks a King, a second House, protection of Members from exclusion by force or the Council, regular Parliaments and army pay under Commons control. It shows civilian politicians trying to subordinate the army to Parliament, implying the army was too powerful, but also that Parliament was active and sought a legal basis. Provenance: written by MPs and merchants, so it represents the civilian, conservative view, and it was presented to Cromwell, who later refused the crown (May 1657) largely because of army opposition, which supports the army-power view. Context: the Humble Petition and Advice replaced the Instrument and ended the Major Generals after Parliament had rejected the militia bill (January 1657, John Desborough's bill, opposed by Sir Ashley Cooper and others).

Own knowledge: Cromwell had himself been the army's commander; the Rump was dissolved in April 1653 by the army, Barebone's Parliament resigned in December 1653, and the army's officers drafted the Instrument of Government (Lambert). The first Protectorate Parliament (1654) was purged by a recognition requirement; the second saw exclusion of about 100 Members. However, Parliaments did meet, pass laws and debate, taxation needed their grant, and the Major Generals were unpopular so Cromwell dropped them. The Protectorate was therefore a hybrid military-civilian regime, with military force as the ultimate basis.

Judgement: the view is substantially supported for 1655-56 but over-simplified for the whole period 1653-58, as the sources reveal a struggle over limits on military rule.

Total 25 marks: AO1 5, AO2 5, AO3 10 (20 marks) plus SPaG 5. Mark the 20 marks first using the levels below, then add the SPaG mark. All content is indicative only and any other historically valid content is acceptable. No reward can be given for wider knowledge unrelated to the topic.

Level 5 (17-20): Sustained, evaluative answer. Uses all three sources, analysing content, provenance and context, to test the view and reaches a supported, balanced judgement. Knowledge is accurate, detailed and integrated with the sources (e.g. Instrument of Government, Penruddock's Rising, decimation tax, exclusion of Members 1656, Humble Petition and Advice, refusal of the crown). Nutshell: focused judgement, sources and knowledge fully integrated.

Level 4 (13-16): Clear analysis of the sources for and against the view with relevant knowledge; judgement is supported but may be less developed, or provenance/context is used for only some sources. Nutshell: sources and knowledge used well, balance partly developed.

Level 3 (9-12): Uses sources and knowledge to support and/or challenge the view, but with limited analysis; sources are mainly paraphrased or knowledge is added as a separate section; judgement is asserted. Nutshell: some analysis, mostly description.

Level 2 (5-8): Simple statements about the sources and/or some general knowledge; mostly one-sided or lists points. Nutshell: undeveloped, one-sided.

Level 1 (1-4): Very general assertions, copying of sources or misunderstanding of the question. Nutshell: general assertion.

Indicative content, in student voice: 'Source A convinces me the army ruled, because the Major General replaces the justices and uses horse to enforce the decimation tax, which matches what happened in 1655-57 after Penruddock's Rising.' 'Source B suggests Parliament still had a role, as Cromwell says it should make the laws freely, but his threat to act shows force lay behind it; as a speech by Cromwell it is intended to justify his government.' 'Source C challenges the view because MPs were trying to subordinate the army to the Commons, so Parliament was active, yet the need to ban exclusion by force shows how far the army and Council had overridden Members.' 'Cromwell dropped the Major Generals when Parliament rejected the militia bill in January 1657, which shows Parliament could influence the army's role.'

If the answer addresses only one or two sources the maximum is Level 3 (12 marks). Without any own knowledge the maximum is Level 3. Without reference to the view the maximum is Level 2.

SPaG (5 marks, separate from the above): High performance 4-5 marks - spelling and punctuation are consistently accurate, grammar is controlled, meaning is clear and a wide range of specialist terms is used accurately (e.g. Protectorate, Instrument of Government, decimation, Major Generals, Humble Petition and Advice). Intermediate performance 2-3 marks - spelling and punctuation are mostly accurate, grammar is mainly controlled, and some specialist terms are used. Threshold performance 1 mark - basic accuracy, with errors that sometimes hinder meaning, and limited use of specialist terms. No marks if the response is not worthy of credit or shows no relevant historical content.

A strong answer picks two or more distinct changes and explains why each happened, linking the change in appearance/layout to the castle's changing function or owners.

Reason 1 - Military strengthening (c.1120-1215): the de Clintons built a stone keep in the 12th century. King John, who valued the castle as a royal stronghold in the Midlands, spent heavily on an outer curtain wall with towers and created the Mere, a large lake which formed a water defence on several sides. The castle became a formidable fortress, as shown by its six-month siege in 1266 during the baronial rebellion linked to Simon de Montfort.

Reason 2 - Move to palace-residence (14th century): John of Gaunt, one of the most powerful men in England, rebuilt the inner court with a large great hall, new private chambers and a strong tower. The emphasis shifted from defence to display of wealth, hospitality and royal-scale lordship.

Reason 3 - Elizabethan showpiece (1570s): Robert Dudley added a new residential block, remodelled the gatehouse, built stables and a formal garden, all designed to impress Elizabeth I, who visited in 1575. Layout became outward-looking, with large windows and pleasure grounds.

Reason 4 - Destruction (1649-50): after the Civil Wars Parliament ordered the castle slighted so that it could not be used again as a stronghold. Walls were breached, the Mere was drained and buildings were stripped, producing the ruin seen afterwards.

Any other valid change (e.g. Henry V's Pleasance, the garrison use in the 1640s) is acceptable.

AO1 5 + AO2 5 = 10 marks. Level descriptors (five-level grid):

Level 5 (9-10): Explains two or more changes in appearance or layout, with developed reasons for each, supported by accurate and specific knowledge of Kenilworth at different times. Shows clear understanding of change over time.
Level 4 (7-8): Explains one change in appearance/layout in a developed way, with accurate knowledge; may identify a second.
Level 3 (5-6): Describes changes accurately but with limited explanation of why or how they happened; or a mainly descriptive account of one period.
Level 2 (3-4): Narrative or undeveloped identification of one or more changes, with some relevant knowledge.
Level 1 (1-2): General assertion about castles or the site, with little or no specific knowledge of Kenilworth.
Level 0: No creditable response.

Marks within a level: bottom of level for borderline, middle for just enough, top for consistent achievement.

Indicative content (student voice, any other historically valid content is acceptable):
- 'In the 12th century the de Clintons built a stone keep, so the castle became a strong fortress.'
- 'King John added an outer curtain wall and the Mere, which made attack very difficult. This was because he wanted a strong royal base in the Midlands.'
- 'John of Gaunt built a new great hall and apartments, so the layout became more about comfort and showing his power than defence.'
- 'Dudley built new lodgings, a gatehouse and gardens to impress Elizabeth I, so the castle became a showpiece rather than a fortress.'
- 'After the Civil War Parliament slighted the castle and drained the Mere so it could not be used again, leaving a ruin.'

No reward can be given for wider knowledge unrelated to the topic or to the change in appearance and layout. All content is indicative only and any other correct examples should also be credited.

Nutshell: Level 5 = two developed reasons/changes; Level 4 = one developed; Level 3 = description without full explanation; Level 2 = narrative or undeveloped; Level 1 = general assertion.

Source A: Useful for the course of the siege and the human side: the royal army used siege engines day and night; the garrison made sorties and burned siege works, showing active defence; the defenders were worn down by sickness and lack of food and surrendered on terms set by the king's council (linked to the Dictum of Kenilworth, 1266). It is written about a year later by a monk who was not present, so it relies on second-hand accounts and may reflect the views of the Church or the winning side; it says nothing about the castle's layout. It was written for a monastic readership, not as a military report.

Source B: Useful for the castle's form and function: the Mere and strong keep made it very hard to attack, which explains why the siege lasted about six months. It adds archaeological evidence (stone shot) that supports Source A's claim about siege engines. It puts the siege in context as the end of resistance by de Montfort's supporters. It was written about 750 years later for visitors, so it is simplified, is selective and may be dramatised ('longest in English history'). It has hindsight and access to modern research, but no direct contemporary knowledge.

Context/own knowledge: Kenilworth was held by the rebel barons after Simon de Montfort's death at Evesham in 1265; the garrison under Henry de Hastings held out against Henry III; the defences were strengthened by King John and the de Clintons earlier; the surrender led to the Dictum of Kenilworth.

Judgement: Source B is probably more useful overall for understanding why the siege was so long and what physical evidence survives, but Source A is more useful for the siege's events and experience since it is near-contemporary. Either conclusion is acceptable if justified by content, provenance and context.

AO3, 10 marks. Three-level grid (one overall judgement required for the top level).

Level 3 (8-10 marks): Evaluates both sources in depth, using content, provenance (author, date, purpose, how the author knows) and own knowledge of the context to reach a supported judgement about which is more useful for studying the siege of 1266. Compares the sources directly. Bottom of level: judgement is asserted with limited comparison; top of level: consistent, sustained evaluation of both sources with a reasoned conclusion.
Nutshell: Evaluates both sources fully and reaches a justified judgement on relative utility.

Level 2 (4-7 marks): Evaluates one source well or both sources partly. Uses content and/or provenance to explain usefulness, but own knowledge or a comparative judgement is missing or weak. Mark at 4 for one source only, 5-6 for both with limited development, 7 for both well developed without a clear judgement.
Nutshell: Some evaluation of utility, but unbalanced or lacking judgement.

Level 1 (1-3 marks): Describes or paraphrases the sources, or makes generic comments (for example 'it was written at the time so is reliable'). Little or no link to the siege or the question.
Nutshell: Describes the sources without judging their utility.

0 marks: No relevant content.

Indicative content (student voice examples):
- Source A: 'The monk says the defenders burned the siege works, which shows the garrison were active and not just waiting. But he was not there, so details may be exaggerated.'
- Source A: 'The surrender on terms set by the king's council fits what I know about the Dictum of Kenilworth after the rebels lost at Evesham.'
- Source B: 'The Mere explains why the siege lasted six months because it kept siege towers away, which Source A does not mention.'
- Source B: 'Stone shot found by archaeologists backs up Source A's claim about siege engines, so the two sources support each other.'
- Source B: 'It is written for tourists so it is simplified and may stress dramatic claims like the longest siege.'
- Judgement: 'Source B is more useful for the castle's defences, but Source A is more useful for what happened inside the siege.'

All content is indicative only and any other correct examples should also be credited. Any other historically valid content is acceptable. No reward can be given for wider knowledge unrelated to the topic. Do not credit knowledge of the siege that is not used to evaluate the sources. Either source may be judged more useful if the reasoning is sound.