2025 Cambridge IAL History (9489) Practice Paper with Answers

In comparing and contrasting Source A and Source B regarding the prospects for European peace, several key similarities and differences emerge:

**Similarities:**
* Both sources acknowledge the immense international significance of the Locarno Treaties signed in December 1925.
* Both sources recognize that the treaties aimed to resolve the security crisis and hostility between France and Germany.
* Both sources make central use of the term "spirit of Locarno" when discussing the diplomatic atmosphere of the era.

**Differences:**
* **Idealism vs. Realism:** Source A presents an idealistic view of the treaties, claiming they have "outlawed war" and established a "profound moral commitment." Source B adopts a realist approach, warning that the treaties lack practical military backing and may blind politicians to looming security threats.
* **Geographical Scope of Peace:** Source A views the peace as comprehensive and continental ("securing the future of our continent"). Source B argues that the peace is geographically limited and unbalanced because Germany refused to guarantee its eastern borders with Poland and Czechoslovakia, leaving Eastern Europe open to future German revisionism.
* **The Cost of Commitments:** Source B worries about the military implications for Britain, which is now committed to defending Western European borders without a corresponding increase in military forces. Source A ignores these strategic military liabilities, focusing purely on arbitration and goodwill.

**Evaluation and Contextualization:**
* **Source A's Provenance:** As French Foreign Minister, Aristide Briand was the co-author of the Locarno Treaties. He had a powerful interest in promoting the agreements as a triumphant success to secure his own political standing, quieten domestic French critics who favored a hardline approach to Germany, and reassure a French public deeply anxious about security.
* **Source B's Provenance:** As a British conservative publication, *The Daily Mail* reflects traditional British isolationism and caution regarding open-ended military commitments on the continent. Its realistic critique of Germany's refusal to sign an "Eastern Locarno" correctly identified a major structural flaw in the 1920s peace settlement, which would later be exploited by Germany.

**Band 1 (1–3 marks):** Describes the content of one or both sources without explicit or structured comparison. Identifies surface-level points.

**Band 2 (4–7 marks):** Identifies valid similarities OR differences regarding the prospects for European peace, supported by selective referencing from the texts.

**Band 3 (8–11 marks):** Identifies both valid similarities AND differences regarding the prospects for European peace, showing a clear comparative structure and appropriate source support.

**Band 4 (12–15 marks):** Evaluates the sources in their historical context to explain the similarities and differences in perspective. Candidates will analyze the provenance of the sources (e.g., Briand's political interests as an architect of the treaty in Source A, versus the conservative British isolationist/realist press perspective in Source B) to explain why their assessments of the Locarno Treaties and European peace differ so significantly.

**Source Analysis:**
- **Source A** argues against the prompt. It denies that the League failed or was paralyzed by self-interest. Instead, Lord Lytton insists that the League acted with 'deliberate care' due to the extreme complexity of Sino-Japanese relations. He portrays the League's caution as a virtue of 'international justice' rather than an act of cowardice or self-interest.
- **Source B** strongly supports the prompt. It directly accuses Britain and France of failing to act due to self-interest, specifically citing their fear of domestic economic difficulties and their desire to protect imperial trade and colonies (Shanghai and Hong Kong). It argues that the major powers used procedural delays as a shield for their lack of collective will.
- **Source C** supports the view that the major powers acted out of self-interest (resisting sanctions), but it views this behavior positively. Japan praises London and Paris for their 'cautious attitude' and resistance to the 'clamor of minor states,' interpreting this non-intervention as a realistic and wise acknowledgement of the limits of League power.
- **Source D** offers a nuanced perspective that partially supports and partially challenges the prompt. It acknowledges that France and Britain refused to act because of domestic crises (the Great Depression, German threat, military overextension) and the absence of US support. However, it strongly rejects the term 'selfishness,' arguing instead that their inaction was a matter of 'absolute necessity' to ensure domestic survival and prevent a wider war.

**Source Evaluation and Synthesis:**
- **Source A** must be evaluated in light of its author. Lord Lytton was appointed by the League; thus, he has a clear motive to defend the League’s integrity and justify the time taken by his commission to produce its report. His perspective downplays the political calculations of Britain and France.
- **Source B** represents contemporary left-wing British opinion (*The Daily Herald*), which was highly critical of the National Government's foreign policy. While it accurately identifies the commercial interests of Britain and France in East Asia, it may underestimate the genuine military risks of confronting Japan during a global economic depression.
- **Source C** is highly biased as an official Japanese government statement. Japan’s praise of Anglo-French caution is a diplomatic maneuver to widen the rift between the major powers and the minor states in the League, aiming to prevent the implementation of sanctions.
- **Source D** is a retrospective defense written by a key French actor after WWII. While Paul-Boncour has a motive to exonerate his own actions and those of France from the charge of appeasement, his memoir provides valuable insight into the severe strategic and economic constraints faced by democratic leaders in the early 1930s.

**Conclusion:**
On balance, the sources provide substantial evidence that national self-interest—whether interpreted as commercial greed (Source B), strategic realism (Source C), or existential domestic necessity (Source D)—prevented the League's major powers from taking decisive action. Only the official, self-justifying perspective of the League itself (Source A) rejects this explanation in favor of procedural diligence.

**Level 5 (21–25 marks):**
- Evaluates all four sources using developed historical context and provenance.
- Grouping and contrasting are sophisticated, demonstrating how sources support, reject, or modify the prompt's premise.
- Reaches a clear, balanced, and synthesised conclusion.

**Level 4 (16–20 marks):**
- Analyzes the sources to show both support and opposition to the prompt.
- Evaluates the reliability/usefulness of most sources based on provenance and context.
- Shows clear understanding of the historical debate.

**Level 3 (11–15 marks):**
- Uses the content of the sources to identify points of support and opposition.
- Contains basic or generalized evaluation of source reliability.
- Focuses on the sources rather than general knowledge.

**Level 2 (6–10 marks):**
- Shows a basic understanding of what the sources say in relation to the prompt, but tends to accept them at face value.
- Explains only one side of the argument (either support or oppose) or treats sources in isolation.

**Level 1 (1–5 marks):**
- Writes a general essay on the Manchurian Crisis with little or no direct reference to the provided sources.

The Frankfurt Parliament of 1848–49 failed to achieve German unification for several interconnected reasons. Firstly, there were deep internal divisions among the liberal and nationalist delegates. They spent months debating the geographical definition of Germany, split between the 'Grossdeutsch' (Greater Germany, including Austria) and 'Kleindeutsch' (Lesser Germany, excluding Austria) solutions, which wasted critical political momentum. Secondly, the Parliament lacked 'real' power. It possessed no military forces of its own and had no administrative machinery to enforce its decisions, leaving it completely dependent on the cooperation of the major German states, particularly Prussia and Austria. Thirdly, the resurgence of conservative forces across Europe in late 1848 restored the confidence of traditional rulers, who gradually reasserted control. Finally, when the Parliament settled on a Kleindeutsch constitution and offered the imperial German crown to King Frederick William IV of Prussia in April 1849, he rejected it, declaring he would not accept a crown offered by a popularly elected body. Without Prussian leadership and military backing, the Parliament dissolved, and the attempt at liberal unification collapsed.

Level 4 (8–10 marks): Explains at least two distinct reasons for the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament (e.g., lack of military power, ideological divisions, opposition from Prussia/Austria) with clear, analytical focus on how these factors directly caused the collapse of the unification attempt. Level 3 (5–7 marks): Identifies several reasons but only fully explains one, or explains multiple reasons in a descriptive rather than highly analytical manner. Level 2 (3–4 marks): Identifies or describes reasons for the failure (e.g., Frederick William IV's rejection) but lacks clear causal analysis or depth. Level 1 (1–2 marks): Offers a vague, generalized response with limited historical knowledge of the 1848–49 events.

The Populist (or People's) Party emerged in the early 1890s primarily as a response to severe economic hardships faced by American farmers, combined with a sense of political abandonment. Firstly, farmers in the South and West suffered from a prolonged agricultural depression characterized by falling crop prices, high interest rates from banks, and extortionate freight rates charged by monopolistic railroad companies. Secondly, the prevailing monetary policy, which adhered strictly to the gold standard, restricted the money supply and exacerbated deflation, making it harder for debt-ridden farmers to pay off their loans. This led to a strong demand for 'free silver' (bimetallism) to inflate the currency. Thirdly, existing agrarian organizations, such as the Farmers' Alliances, realized that regional cooperative efforts were insufficient to challenge corporate power, concluding that national political action was necessary. Finally, there was widespread disillusionment with the two main political parties; both Democrats and Republicans were perceived as corrupt and beholden to northeastern financial and industrial elites (the Gilded Age trusts), leaving working-class agriculturalists without an effective political voice.

Level 4 (8–10 marks): Explains multiple distinct causes for the emergence of the Populists (e.g., agricultural depression, grievances against railroads/banks, the currency/gold standard issue, and political disillusionment) with clear analytical links to why a new political party was formed. Level 3 (5–7 marks): Explains one factor clearly or identifies several but lacks deep analytical links showing why they culminated in a new national political party. Level 2 (3–4 marks): Identifies relevant grievances (e.g., high railway rates, debt) but presents them in a descriptive narrative rather than an explanatory analysis. Level 1 (1–2 marks): Presents a weak or highly generalized response about Gilded Age problems with minimal specific reference to the Populist Party.

To answer this question effectively, a balanced argument must be constructed that evaluates the relative importance of different causes. Points in favor of nationalism being the primary cause: The growth of a collective German identity had been rising among the educated middle classes and student groups (Burschenschaften) since the Napoleonic Wars. Events like the Hambach Festival of 1832 demonstrated widespread desire for a unified nation-state. Intellectuals argued that Germany's lack of unity hindered economic and political progress. However, there are strong arguments for alternative causes: 1. Economic distress was arguably the immediate spark. The 'Hungry Forties' brought devastating potato blights and poor harvests (1846-1847), leading to skyrocketing food prices, starvation, and bread riots. Urbanization and rapid population growth had created a desperate underclass of artisans and industrial workers facing low wages and high unemployment. It was this desperate working-class population, rather than middle-class nationalists, who built the barricades and fought the soldiers in March 1848. 2. Liberal political grievances: There was widespread demand for constitutional reform, freedom of the press, trial by jury, and the end of absolute rule. In conclusion, while nationalism provided a unifying framework and a political goal for the middle-class leaders who formed the Frankfurt Parliament, it was not the primary cause of the popular uprisings. The revolutions were driven and sustained by the severe socio-economic crises of the 1840s and the political frustrations of liberals seeking constitutional limitations on absolute rulers.

Level 5 (16-20 marks): Answers show a clear and detailed understanding of the complexity of the causes of the 1848 revolutions in Germany. There is a sustained, balanced evaluation that compares nationalist sentiment with economic distress and liberal political aims, leading to a well-supported analytical conclusion. Level 4 (11-15 marks): Answers provide a clear explanation of multiple causes, including nationalism, economic crisis, and liberal demands. There is some attempt at evaluation, though it may lack depth or balance. Level 3 (6-10 marks): Answers are primarily descriptive, outlining the events of 1848 or listing the causes without clear analytical evaluation or comparison of their relative significance. Level 2 (3-5 marks): Answers show limited knowledge of the topic, perhaps focusing on a single factor with little detail or showing chronological confusion. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Answers offer only vague assertions or highly generalized comments about the revolutions. Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable response is provided.

This essay requires an evaluation of the Compromise of 1850's outcomes. Points showing it was successful: 1. It averted an immediate secession crisis and potential civil war in 1850. Radical southern delegates at the Nashville Convention failed to gain broad support for secession because of the compromise. 2. It achieved peaceful legislative compromise by admitting California as a free state, resolving the Texas boundary dispute, and establishing popular sovereignty in the Utah and New Mexico territories, while also banning the slave trade in Washington D.C. This preserved the union for another decade, allowing the North to grow stronger economically and industrially. Points showing it was unsuccessful: 1. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, a central piece of the compromise, deeply angered northern public opinion. It forced ordinary northern citizens to assist in slave-catching and led many northern states to pass Personal Liberty Laws to nullify the act, escalating tensions rather than reducing them. 2. Popular sovereignty was an ambiguous concept that postponed rather than solved the question of slavery's expansion, setting a volatile precedent that later caused conflict in Kansas. 3. It failed to address the core ideological and moral differences over slavery. In conclusion, the Compromise of 1850 was a temporary truce rather than a successful long-term resolution. While it succeeded in delaying armed conflict for ten years, it actually intensified sectional animosity in the long run, particularly due to the outrage generated by the Fugitive Slave Act.

Level 5 (16-20 marks): Answers demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of the Compromise of 1850. There is a balanced, sustained analysis comparing its short-term success in preserving the Union with its long-term failure to resolve sectional conflict, leading to a highly reasoned historical judgement. Level 4 (11-15 marks): Answers explain both the positive and negative outcomes of the compromise with good historical detail, though the analysis or final evaluation may not be fully integrated. Level 3 (6-10 marks): Answers describe the terms of the Compromise of 1850 and some of its effects, but lack a clear analytical focus on the concept of 'success' or present a one-sided argument. Level 2 (3-5 marks): Answers show basic knowledge of the compromise but contain significant gaps, generalizations, or chronological confusion. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Answers contain only superficial or highly generalized assertions about the pre-Civil War period. Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable response is provided.

Candidates should identify and explain the historian's interpretation, which is clearly aligned with the Functionalist/Structuralist school of thought, specifically emphasizing 'cumulative radicalisation' (a concept popularized by Hans Mommsen and Ian Kershaw).

Key points of the historian's interpretation to analyze:
- **No Pre-war Blueprint:** The historian argues that the Final Solution was not a 'straight line' planned in advance by Hitler.
- **The Role of Hitler:** Hitler is seen as providing the general 'ideological sanction' (antisemitism) rather than issuing direct, detailed commands for total extermination from the beginning.
- **Polycratic State and 'Working Towards the Führer':** The historian stresses the role of administrative competition, where ambitious bureaucrats and regional leaders (like Gauleiters in occupied Poland) took local initiatives to solve the 'logistical nightmare' of Jewish populations, competing to offer the most extreme solutions.
- **Impact of the War:** The invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa) and its stalling in late 1941 is presented as the catalyst. The failure to secure a rapid victory blocked deportation schemes (like the Madagascar Plan or Siberia), transforming localized, ad hoc massacres by the Einsatzgruppen into a systematic, continental programme of industrialized murder.

**Evaluation using own knowledge:**
- **Supporting the interpretation:** Candidates can point to the lack of a written, signed order from Hitler for the Final Solution. They can discuss the failure of earlier emigration and deportation schemes (such as Nisko, Lublin, or the Madagascar Plan), showing that extermination was a fallback option once wartime realities blocked these territorial 'solutions'. They can highlight the rivalries between Himmler, Heydrich, Frank, and Goebbels, and how regional initiatives (like Globocnik in the Lublin district) shaped the development of death camps before the Wannsee Conference.
- **Challenging the interpretation (Intentionalist counter-arguments):** Candidates can argue that this underplays Hitler's central role, absolute authority, and consistency of intent. They can cite his early writings in *Mein Kampf*, his public threat in the Reichstag speech of January 30, 1939 ('prophecy'), and the rapid execution of the killing process once Operation Barbarossa began as evidence of a premeditated plan that only awaited the right geopolitical opportunity.

This question is assessed out of 40 marks using the standard Cambridge Assessment International Education A Level History marking criteria for Paper 3.

**Level 5 (33–40 marks):** Answers demonstrate a precise, comprehensive understanding of the historian’s interpretation, correctly identifying it as Functionalist/Structuralist or focused on 'cumulative radicalisation'. The evaluation of this interpretation is sustained, analytical, and supported by deep, highly accurate historical knowledge. It balances support for the functionalist view (e.g., failure of deportation plans, administrative chaos, regional initiatives) against critical limitations (e.g., the intentionalist focus on Hitler's ideological centrality, early rhetoric, and ultimate decision-making power).

**Level 4 (25–32 marks):** Answers show a clear understanding of the historian's interpretation and its core arguments. Evaluates the interpretation using appropriate historical knowledge. There may be some unevenness in the balance of support vs. challenge, but the response remains analytical rather than purely narrative.

**Level 3 (17–24 marks):** Answers understand the main thrust of the extract but may struggle to fully articulate the historiographical context (e.g., categorising it clearly as Functionalist/Structuralist). Relies more on describing the narrative of the Holocaust rather than critically evaluating the extract's specific arguments.

**Level 2 (9–16 marks):** Answers identify some aspects of the extract's view (such as the impact of the Soviet invasion or the role of administrators) but offer limited or superficial evaluation. The use of historical knowledge is generic or restricted.

**Level 1 (1–8 marks):** Answers write generally about the Holocaust or simply paraphrase/copy parts of the extract without demonstrating real historical understanding of the interpretation.

To address this question, candidates should evaluate both the successes and failures of Stalin's industrialisation and collectivisation policies between 1928 and 1941. Arguments in support of 'success' should focus on the achievements of the Five-Year Plans: the rapid expansion of heavy industries (coal, iron, steel, electricity), the establishment of new industrial centers such as Magnitogorsk, the modernization of infrastructure (like the Moscow Metro and canals), and the creation of a powerful military-industrial base that proved essential for surviving the Second World War. From the state's perspective, collectivisation also succeeded in bringing the peasantry under tight party control, eliminating the Kulaks as a class, and securing grain requisitioning to feed the growing urban workforce. Arguments against 'success' must highlight the immense human cost: the devastating famine of 1932–33 (Holodomor), the slaughter of livestock by peasants resisting collectivisation, and the long-term stagnation of Soviet agricultural productivity. Candidates should also mention the poor quality of consumer goods, the systemic inefficiency and falsification of production figures, and the widespread use of forced labor (the Gulag system) to construct major industrial projects. Stronger responses will conclude by weighing these contrasting aspects, perhaps arguing that while the economic policies met Stalin’s geopolitical and military goals of state survival, they failed to improve the standard of living for the Soviet population and caused catastrophic structural damage to the agricultural sector.

Level 5 (25–30 marks): Answers will show a deeply analytical and comprehensive understanding of the prompt. They will provide a balanced evaluation of both industrialisation and collectivisation, supported by precise historical evidence (such as specific production targets, demographic impacts, and institutional changes). The argument will be sustained and lead to a clear, well-supported conclusion.
Level 4 (19–24 marks): Answers will be clearly structured and analytical, identifying key arguments on both sides of the success debate. There will be good historical coverage of both agricultural and industrial policies, though one may be treated in slightly more depth than the other.
Level 3 (13–18 marks): Answers will describe the main features of the Five-Year Plans and collectivisation. While there will be some attempt to evaluate 'success', the essay may lean towards a narrative account of Stalin's policies rather than a balanced analysis.
Level 2 (7–12 marks): Answers will offer limited or generalized knowledge. They may focus purely on either industrialisation or collectivisation, or contain narrative descriptions without addressing the concept of 'success' in a meaningful way.
Level 1 (1–6 marks): Answers will be fragmentary, containing major chronological errors or a lack of historical focus.
Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response is provided.

In evaluating this question, candidates should contrast the early phase of the civil rights movement (1954–1965) with its later, more radical phase (1965–1968). In terms of goals: early campaigns led by mainstream organizations like the NAACP, SCLC, and early SNCC focused primarily on de jure segregation, voting rights, and legal equality in the South (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education, Montgomery Bus Boycott, Selma). After 1965, the focus shifted to de facto segregation, housing discrimination, poverty, and economic injustice in northern and western urban areas (e.g., MLK's Chicago Campaign). Furthermore, the rise of the Black Power movement (led by figures like Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, and the Black Panthers) introduced goals of black nationalism, self-determination, and cultural pride. In terms of methods: the early period relied heavily on constitutional litigation and non-violent direct action (sit-ins, freedom rides, marches). Post-1965, disillusionment with slow political progress led to the adoption of more confrontational methods, including armed self-defense, community social programs outside federal channels, and an increase in urban rebellions (e.g., Watts, Detroit). To offer a balanced perspective, candidates should also discuss continuities: non-violence remained a primary tactic for Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers until his death in 1968, and economic justice had always been a undercurrent of the movement (as seen in the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom).

Level 5 (25–30 marks): Answers will demonstrate a highly sophisticated understanding of the changes and continuities in the civil rights movement's methods and goals. They will provide a balanced comparison across the entire 1954–1968 timeframe, supported by specific details of campaigns, organizations, and ideological shifts, culminating in a clear, analytical conclusion.
Level 4 (19–24 marks): Answers will present a well-structured argument evaluating changes in both methods and goals. There will be good historical coverage of both the Southern non-violent phase and the Northern, more militant phase, though minor imbalances in detail may exist.
Level 3 (13–18 marks): Answers will describe the different stages of the movement (e.g., King's campaigns versus the Black Power movement) but may be more descriptive than analytical, failing to fully distinguish between changes in 'methods' versus changes in 'goals'.
Level 2 (7–12 marks): Answers will be generalized and rely on a basic narrative of civil rights events, with limited analytical focus on the transition of methods or goals over the specified period.
Level 1 (1–6 marks): Answers will show poor historical knowledge, lacking structure, with major chronological confusion.
Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response is provided.