Cambridge IAS-Level · Thinka-original Practice Paper

2023 Cambridge IAS-Level History (9489) Practice Paper with Answers

Thinka Jun 2023 (V3) Cambridge International A Level-Style Mock — History (9489)

100 marks180 mins2023

An original Thinka practice paper modelled on the structure and difficulty of the Jun 2023 (V3) Cambridge International A Level History (9489) paper. Not affiliated with or reproduced from Cambridge.

Paper 1 Document Question

Answer both parts of one question from Section A, B, or C.

2 Question · 40 marks

Question 1 · Source Comparison (Part a)

15 marks

Read Sources A and B. Compare and contrast the views expressed in Sources A and B regarding the League of Nations' response to the Manchurian Crisis.

Source A: From an editorial in The Times (London), October 1931.

'The situation in Manchuria demands patience and mediation rather than hasty threats of coercion. The League of Nations was founded to preserve peace, not to ignite wider conflicts by imposing reckless economic or military sanctions. Japan has legitimate, long-standing economic interests in Manchuria and is acting to restore order amidst Chinese instability. For the League to attempt a heavy-handed intervention would not only damage global trade during this economic depression but would also alienate a major power whose cooperation is vital for East Asian stability.'

Source B: From a speech by Dr. Wellington Koo, Chinese representative to the League of Nations, Geneva, December 1932.

'If the League of Nations is to survive as an instrument of collective security, it cannot remain a passive spectator to open aggression. Japan has violated the Covenant, yet the League hesitates, offering empty commissions instead of decisive action. If the League fails to enforce sanctions and restore China’s territorial integrity, it will signal to every expansionist power that the international order can be defied with impunity. The choice before the League is simple: enforce the Covenant now, or watch the entire system of collective security collapse into lawlessness.'

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

Similarities:

- Both sources acknowledge that the League of Nations has a crucial role and responsibility in dealing with the international crisis in Manchuria.

- Both sources recognize that the League's response to the crisis will have far-reaching global consequences, whether on international economic stability (Source A) or the survival of the global system of collective security (Source B).

Differences:

- Action required: Source A advocates for a cautious, non-coercive approach, emphasizing patience, mediation, and avoiding economic or military sanctions. In contrast, Source B demands immediate, robust, and decisive action, specifically calling for the enforcement of sanctions against Japan.

- View of Japan: Source A portrays Japan sympathetically, describing its actions as a legitimate attempt to preserve its long-standing economic interests and 'restore order' in the face of 'Chinese instability'. Source B, however, characterizes Japan's actions unambiguously as 'open aggression' and a violation of the League's Covenant.

- View of the League's purpose: Source A argues that the League's primary purpose is to preserve peace and avoid wider conflicts, warning against heavy-handed intervention that could disrupt trade or alienate major powers. Source B argues that the League's fundamental purpose is to uphold 'collective security' and territorial integrity, warning that hesitation will destroy its credibility and lead to global lawlessness.

Contextual Evaluation:

- The difference in perspective can be explained by the origins of the sources. Source A is a British newspaper writing in the immediate aftermath of the initial incident in late 1931, reflecting the British government's desire to avoid costly international entanglements during the Great Depression, as well as a general Western reluctance to confront Japan. Source B, representing China, is the victim of the aggression. Speaking a year later in late 1932, China's representative is desperate to secure international intervention to halt Japanese expansion and recover lost territory, hence the urgent demand for strict enforcement of the League Covenant.

Marking scheme

Level 1 (1-3 marks): Identifies basic information from the sources but does not compare them directly on the specific topic. Answers may summarize each source individually without a clear comparison of views.

Level 2 (4-7 marks): Identifies similarities OR differences between the sources. Direct comparisons are made, but they are limited or unevenly supported by source detail.

Level 3 (8-11 marks): Identifies both similarities and differences in the views expressed in both sources, supported by precise textual reference and quotes from both documents.

Level 4 (12-15 marks): Offers a clear and balanced comparison of both similarities and differences, and evaluates these views by placing them in their historical context (e.g., explaining why a British source in 1931 favored caution due to the depression, whereas a Chinese source in 1932 demanded immediate action to defend its sovereignty against ongoing invasion).

Question 2 · Source Evaluation and Synthesis

25 marks

Section A: International Option. The League of Nations and the Abyssinian Crisis, 1935-1936. Source A: From a speech by Emperor Haile Selassie of Abyssinia to the League of Nations Assembly, June 1936: 'I assert that the problem submitted to the Assembly today is not merely a question of settlement of Italian aggression. It is collective security: it is the very existence of the League of Nations. Trusting in the treaties, I mobilized my people. But the great powers, who dominate the League, chose to delay sanctions, to limit them, and to negotiate behind our backs. By placing their own selfish imperial interests and fear of war above their covenant obligations, Britain and France have signed the death warrant of this institution.' Source B: From a British Cabinet memorandum, November 1935: 'Our first duty must remain the maintenance of European peace and the prevention of a wider conflict. If we impose oil sanctions, Mussolini will likely declare war, forcing us into a conflict for which our public is unprepared and our military unready. Furthermore, driving Italy into the arms of a revisionist Germany would destroy the Stresa Front and endanger European stability. The League's mechanism is not designed to compel action when member states are collectively unwilling to bear the ultimate cost of war.' Source C: From an editorial in Il Popolo d'Italia, an Italian state-controlled newspaper, October 1935: 'The League of Nations has shown itself to be nothing more than a tool of Anglo-French imperialism. These two nations, sated with vast colonial empires stolen from others, now seek to deny Italy its rightful place in the sun under the hypocritical guise of peace and collective security. It is their arrogance and monopoly over global wealth, rather than any action of Italy, that is tearing the League apart.' Source D: From the memoirs of a French diplomat, published in 1939: 'In retrospect, the tragedy of 1935 was a collective failure of international will, not merely a failure of Paris and London. The League's Covenant itself was fundamentally flawed, relying on a consensus that never existed. Small states clamored for sanctions but refused to offer military contributions. While British and French hesitation to alienate Italy was disastrous, they were merely representing the profound reluctance of all European democracies to risk another catastrophic war for a distant territory.' Question: Read Sources A to D. How far do these sources support the view that Great Britain and France were entirely responsible for the failure of the League of Nations to resolve the Abyssinian Crisis?

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

In analyzing the sources, a strong response will group and evaluate the evidence as follows: 1. Sources supporting the hypothesis (Britain and France were responsible): Source A directly blames the 'great powers' (specifically naming Britain and France) for delaying sanctions and negotiating behind Abyssinia's back (alluding to the Hoare-Laval Pact). The source is highly reliable for showing the perspective of the victim, though emotionally charged. Source C also blames Anglo-French imperialism, portraying them as hypocritical monopolists of global wealth. As a state-controlled Italian organ, Source C is highly biased propaganda trying to deflect blame from Italy's aggressive actions, yet it aligns with the view that Anglo-French control dictated League policy. 2. Sources challenging the hypothesis (other factors or collective responsibility): Source B argues that Britain acted rationally to prevent a wider European war and protect the Stresa Front against Germany, noting the League's structural limitation in enforcing action without military consensus. Source D, written retrospectively in 1939, argues that the failure was collective, arising from a flawed Covenant and the reluctance of all member democracies, including small states, to risk war. 3. Synthesis: While Britain and France's search for compromise (like the Hoare-Laval Pact) fatally undermined the League's credibility, the sources collectively demonstrate that their actions were constrained by wider structural flaws within the Covenant, a general international aversion to war, and aggressive Italian revisionism.

Marking scheme

Level 5 [21-25 marks]: Evaluates sources to decide how far they support the hypothesis. Explores both sides of the argument using detailed source evaluation (context, provenance, reliability) to reach a sustained and balanced conclusion. Level 4 [16-20 marks]: Identifies support and contradiction, evaluating the reliability of at least some sources to explain the differences. Level 3 [11-15 marks]: Identifies both supporting and contradicting evidence from the sources, but with limited or superficial evaluation of their reliability. Level 2 [6-10 marks]: Identifies support OR contradiction from the sources, treating the sources as factual statements. Level 1 [1-5 marks]: Writes generally about the topic with little or no direct source-based analysis.

Paper 2 Outline Study

Answer part (a) and part (b) of two questions from your chosen section.

4 Question · 60 marks

Question 1 · Outline Causal Explanation

10 marks

Explain why the Frankfurt Parliament of 1848–49 failed to achieve German unification.

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

The Frankfurt Parliament's attempt to unify Germany failed due to several interconnected factors:

1. **Internal Divisions (The Territorial Question):** The delegates were deeply divided over whether the new German state should include Austria (the 'Grossdeutsch' or Greater German solution) or exclude Austria to be led by Prussia (the 'Kleindeutsch' or Lesser German solution). This debate wasted critical months, allowing the old ruling elites to recover their confidence and power.

2. **Lack of Executive and Military Power:** The Parliament had no army, no taxation system, and no administrative bureaucracy of its own. It was completely dependent on the cooperation of the individual German states, particularly Prussia and Austria. When these states chose to ignore or suppress its decrees, the Parliament had no means of coercion.

3. **Rejection of the Crown:** In April 1849, the Parliament finally completed its constitution and offered the imperial crown to King Frederick William IV of Prussia. However, he refused to accept a 'crown from the gutter' (a crown offered by a popularly elected assembly rather than by his fellow monarchs), effectively destroying the constitutional project.

4. **The Revival of Conservative Forces:** By the time the Parliament had drafted its constitution, the conservative rulers of Austria and Prussia had successfully reasserted control over their own territories and militarily crushed the revolutionary movements that had initially forced them to agree to the Parliament.

Marking scheme

Award marks based on the following levels of response:

**Level 4 (9–10 marks):** Explains two or more distinct factors in depth (e.g., internal divisions, lack of military power, Frederick William IV's rejection). The answer is focused, well-structured, and demonstrates precise historical knowledge.

**Level 3 (6–8 marks):** Explains one factor in depth or provides a weaker/partial explanation of multiple factors. The connection to the failure of unification is clear but lacks some analytical depth.

**Level 2 (3–5 marks):** Identifies relevant factors (e.g., they couldn't agree on Austria, the Prussian king said no) but relies on narrative or description rather than sustained causal explanation.

**Level 1 (1–2 marks):** Offers general or vague assertions about German unification with little or no relevant historical details.

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

Question 2 · Outline Causal Explanation

10 marks

Explain why the Populist Party failed to win the US presidential election of 1896.

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

The failure of the Populist (People's) Party to win the pivotal 1896 presidential election can be attributed to several key causes:

1. **The Dilemma of 'Fusion' Politics:** In 1896, the Democratic Party co-opted the Populist Party's central platform of free silver and nominated William Jennings Bryan. The Populists faced a dilemma: run their own candidate and split the silverite vote, or support Bryan. They chose to support Bryan (fusion), which effectively submerged their independent party identity and alienated more radical Populists who wanted broader structural reforms (such as government ownership of railroads).

2. **Lack of Appeal to Urban Industrial Workers:** The Populist platform, centered heavily on the free coinage of silver to inflate agricultural prices, did not resonate with northern urban workers. These workers feared that inflation would erode the purchasing power of their wages, and they favored the Republican policy of high protective tariffs to safeguard their industrial jobs.

3. **Superior Republican Strategy and Funding:** The Republican campaign, managed by Marcus Hanna, raised unprecedented amounts of money from corporate interests who feared Populist radicalism. Hanna used these funds to launch a highly organized campaign, distributing pamphlets in multiple languages and sending speakers across the country, while William McKinley ran a dignified 'front-porch' campaign that portrayed the Populist-Democratic alliance as dangerous extremists.

4. **Regional Limitations:** The Populist base was largely confined to the agricultural South and West. They were unable to build a truly national coalition that bridged rural farmers and urban wage-earners.

Marking scheme

Award marks based on the following levels of response:

**Level 4 (9–10 marks):** Explains multiple reasons for the defeat in 1896 (such as the fusion strategy, failure to capture the urban working-class vote, and Republican campaign advantages) with high analytical clarity and specific historical details.

**Level 3 (6–8 marks):** Explains one reason in depth or provides a broader but less developed explanation of multiple causes. Shows a good understanding of the 1896 campaign dynamic.

**Level 2 (3–5 marks):** Identifies reasons (e.g., they joined the Democrats, they lacked money) but the response is largely descriptive rather than analytical.

**Level 1 (1–2 marks):** Makes general statements about the Populists or the election of 1896 without addressing the causes of the failure in a meaningful way.

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

Question 3 · Outline Balanced Essay (Part b)

20 marks

To what extent was the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte to power by 1799 due to the political weakness of the Directory?

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

To answer this question, candidates must evaluate the relative importance of the Directory's failures against Napoleon's personal appeal and actions. On one hand, the Directory (1795-1799) suffered from profound political weaknesses. It lacked popular support, sitting between Jacobin radicals and royalists, leading to the manipulation of election results (e.g., Coups of Fructidor and Floreal) which undermined its democratic legitimacy. It also faced persistent economic crises, inflation, and corruption, making the French public yearn for stability. Crucially, the Directory's reliance on the army to suppress domestic uprisings (like the Vendemiaire uprising) politicized the military and set a precedent for army intervention. On the other hand, Napoleon's rise cannot be explained solely by a political vacuum. His spectacular military victories in Italy (1796-97) and his highly publicized Egyptian campaign built a formidable reputation as a national savior. He was also a master of self-promotion, using bulletins to craft his own legend. Furthermore, the Coup of Brumaire in 1799 was not solely his doing; it was initiated by political insiders like Abbe Sieyes who needed a 'sword' to secure their own positions. Napoleon's ability to outmaneuver these co-conspirators and establish himself as First Consul demonstrated exceptional political skill. In conclusion, while the Directory's weaknesses created the structural instability and the need for a strongman, it was Napoleon's unique combination of military glory, charisma, and political cunning that allowed him to seize the opportunity.

Marking scheme

Level 5 (17-20 marks): Answers show a clear and detailed understanding of the complexity of the topic. They provide a balanced, well-argued, and analytical response that thoroughly evaluates both the weaknesses of the Directory and Napoleon's individual attributes, leading to a well-supported judgment. Level 4 (13-16 marks): Answers are focused on the question and provide a balanced narrative/explanation of both sides, though one side may be stronger than the other. There is a clear attempt to weigh the political failures of the Directory against Napoleon's personal factors. Level 3 (9-12 marks): Answers provide a descriptive account of the period, explaining either the weaknesses of the Directory or Napoleon's rise, but lack balance or deep analytical evaluation. Level 2 (5-8 marks): Answers are limited in scope, focusing on general narratives of the French Revolution or Napoleon's military campaigns with little direct link to the analytical demands of the question. Level 1 (1-4 marks): Answers show some basic knowledge but are highly generalized or irrelevant. Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

Question 4 · Outline Balanced Essay (Part b)

20 marks

How far was the rapid expansion of railroads the main driver of US industrial growth in the late nineteenth century?

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

This question requires candidates to balance the significance of the railroad boom against other factors that powered the Gilded Age industrial expansion. In support of the statement, the rapid expansion of railroads (transcontinental lines) created a genuinely national market, allowing goods to be transported efficiently and cheaply across the continent. Railroads were also massive consumers of coal, wood, and steel, thereby directly stimulating these vital industrial sectors. Additionally, the financing of railroads pioneered modern corporate structures, capital-raising techniques (Wall Street), and professional management systems. Conversely, other drivers were essential. The US possessed vast, untapped natural resources, such as iron ore in the Mesabi Range, oil in Pennsylvania and Texas, and coal in the Appalachians. Technological innovations-such as the Bessemer process, electricity (Edison), and telephone communication (Bell)-fundamentally altered production and business efficiency. A massive influx of immigrants provided a cheap, flexible labor force and expanded the domestic consumer market. Furthermore, government policies played a key role: high protective tariffs shielded domestic industries from foreign competition, while a laissez-faire regulatory environment and court rulings favored capital over labor. In conclusion, while railroads provided the essential logistical and structural framework for a continental economy, they functioned as part of a wider, interdependent system of resources, labor, technology, and government encouragement.

Marking scheme

Level 5 (17-20 marks): Answers show a clear and detailed understanding of the complexity of the topic. They provide a balanced, well-argued, and analytical response that thoroughly evaluates the role of railroads alongside other major factors of industrial growth, leading to a well-supported judgment. Level 4 (13-16 marks): Answers are focused on the question and provide a balanced narrative/explanation of both the role of railroads and alternative factors, though one side may be more developed. There is a clear attempt to weigh the relative importance of these drivers. Level 3 (9-12 marks): Answers provide a descriptive account of industrial growth, explaining the impact of railroads or other factors (like inventors and entrepreneurs) but lack a balanced, analytical comparison. Level 2 (5-8 marks): Answers are limited, offering basic descriptions of Gilded Age economic growth with minimal analytical focus on the prompt. Level 1 (1-4 marks): Answers show some basic knowledge but are highly generalized, perhaps only mentioning names like Rockefeller or Carnegie without structuring an argument. Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

Wondering how well you actually know this?

Thinka is an AI practice app for DSE students — unlimited questions, instant auto-marking, and detailed step-by-step solutions. 100,000+ students use it to confirm they actually know it, not just think they do.

Start Practising Free See pricing

Want more questions like this? Practice unlimited on Thinka — instant answers included.

Start Practising Free