2025 Cambridge IAS-Level History (9489) Practice Paper with Answers

### Analysis of Similarities:
* **Role of Collective Action:** Both sources acknowledge that British policy and the League's effectiveness depend on collective participation. Source A notes "if the burden is to be borne, it must be borne collectively," while Source B recognizes that Britain cannot act without others, noting that "neither we nor the French are prepared to supply" military force.
* **Involvement in League Processes:** Both sources acknowledge that the British government is publicly and formally participating in the League's mechanisms (Source A refers to "unwavering fidelity to the League" and the "machinery of Geneva," while Source B references the "high-sounding rhetoric at Geneva" and the agreement to "economic sanctions").

### Analysis of Differences:
* **Genuine Commitment vs. Political Hypocrisy:** Source A insists that Britain's commitment to the League and collective security is genuine, calling it "unwavering fidelity." Conversely, Source B characterizes this commitment as a sham, calling the public rhetoric "nothing but a screen to placate the peace ballot voters at home."
* **Belief in the League's Strength:** Source A expresses absolute confidence in the League as the "only guarantee of lasting peace" and asserts that "the rule of law [will prevail] over the rule of force." Source B, however, dismisses the League as a "broken reed" that is utterly incapable of enforcing its will.
* **Willingness to Act:** Source A implies a firm resolve to resist aggression ("steady and collective resistance"). Source B explicitly states there is "not the slightest intention of going to war" and labels the agreed sanctions as "half-hearted" measures designed to avoid provoking Mussolini.

### Evaluation of Provenance and Context (Level 4):
* **Source A** is a formal, public address by the British Foreign Secretary delivered directly to the League of Nations Assembly. Its purpose is diplomatic and political: to project an image of British moral leadership, reassure international allies, deter Italian aggression through public warnings, and satisfy the pro-League British public (who had recently voted overwhelmingly in favor of collective security in the 1935 Peace Ballot).
* **Source B** is a confidential, private letter between two diplomats. Free from the constraints of public scrutiny, the writer can speak candidly about the actual priorities of British foreign policy. This source reveals the pragmatic calculations of the Foreign Office, where avoiding a European war with Italy and preserving the Stresa Front took precedence over protecting Abyssinia or upholding the principles of the League.

**Level 4 (12–15 marks):** Identifies both similarities and differences, and evaluates the sources using historical context and/or provenance to explain why the accounts differ. Candidates must explain how the contrast between Sir Samuel Hoare's public diplomatic posturing (Source A) and the private, pragmatic realities of British foreign policy (Source B) accounts for the conflicting views of British commitment.

**Level 3 (8–11 marks):** Identifies both similarities and differences in the views expressed in the sources. The comparison is balanced, but there is limited or no attempt to evaluate the sources based on provenance or context.

**Level 2 (4–7 marks):** Identifies either similarities OR differences between the sources. Alternatively, compares the sources but focuses on superficial elements rather than the core arguments.

**Level 1 (1–3 marks):** Writes about the topic or the sources but offers no valid comparative analysis. May summarize each source individually without linking them.

Analyzing the Sources:
- Source A: Supports the hypothesis. It argues that the League's mechanism for peace is 'robust and reliable,' pointing to successes in Upper Silesia and the Aaland Islands.
*Evaluation/Context:* Lord Cecil was a passionate advocate for the League. As a British representative speaking to the League Assembly in 1924, his purpose is to defend the institution's reputation and rally support. While his examples are factually accurate, his tone is highly optimistic and downplays the League's structural weaknesses.
- Source B: Rejects the hypothesis. It portrays the League as 'impotent' during the Corfu incident of 1923, claiming that the real diplomatic work was done by the Conference of Ambassadors.
*Evaluation/Context:* Written by a French nationalist newspaper in 1923, reflecting France's traditional skepticism toward internationalism in favor of strong bilateral alliances and military power. The source accurately identifies the League's marginalization in the Corfu crisis, but its hostile nationalist tone aims to discredit the League rather than offer an objective assessment.
- Source C: Challenges the hypothesis by redefining the League's function. Stresemann views the League not as an effective instrument of global collective peace, but as a vehicle for pursuing Germany's revisionist foreign policy objectives (Rhineland, Versailles revision).
*Evaluation/Context:* A private letter by Stresemann, meaning it is likely highly reliable in revealing his genuine, pragmatic motives rather than his public pro-League rhetoric (like his Nobel Peace Prize speech). It shows that behind the scenes, major powers viewed the League through the lens of self-interest.
- Source D: Provides a balanced synthesis. It supports the hypothesis for minor disputes (Greece-Bulgaria in 1925) but challenges it regarding disputes involving major powers (Corfu, Ruhr).
*Evaluation/Context:* Written by an American historian in 1932. As a retrospective academic source, it has the benefit of hindsight and access to archival material, making it more objective, though the date (1932) is on the cusp of the League's collapse in the Manchurian/Abyssinian crises, reflecting early disillusionment.

Synthesis/Grouping:
- Supporting the view: Source A, Source D (partially - regarding minor powers).
- Challenging the view: Source B, Source C, Source D (partially - regarding major powers).

Conclusion:
The sources show that the League's effectiveness in the 1920s was highly conditional. While Source A presents an optimistic view of success in minor territorial arbitrations, Sources B, C, and D reveal that the League was largely ineffective when dealing with major powers, who either bypassed its authority (Source B) or sought to exploit it for narrow national advantages (Source C).

Generic Marking Scheme for Paper 1 Part (b) (25 Marks)

Level 5 (21–25 marks):
- Answers are well-focused on the question and show a clear, analytical understanding of the sources.
- Sources are evaluated effectively using historical context, provenance, and cross-referencing to assess credibility and weight.
- A balanced, nuanced conclusion is reached regarding the hypothesis.

Level 4 (16–20 marks):
- Answers show a clear understanding of the sources and the hypothesis.
- Both sides of the argument (support and challenge) are explained using source details.
- There is an attempt to evaluate the sources (e.g., considering provenance or context), but this may not be applied consistently to all sources.

Level 3 (11–15 marks):
- Answers identify which sources support and which sources challenge the hypothesis.
- Sources are largely accepted at face value, with little or no effective evaluation of their reliability or utility.

Level 2 (6–10 marks):
- Answers contain some relevant points from the sources but lack a developed structure.
- May only look at one side of the argument (only support or only challenge) or struggle to link source details directly to the hypothesis.

Level 1 (1–5 marks):
- Writes about the topic or the sources without directly addressing the prompt or the analytical requirements of the question.

The instability and opposition faced by the Directory between 1795 and 1799 can be attributed to several interrelated political, economic, and structural factors: First, the constitutional design of the Directory was inherently unstable. To avoid the dictatorship of a single group, the Constitution of Year V created a system of annual elections for a third of the legislative councils. This meant France was in a state of near-constant electoral campaigning, which prevented long-term policy consistency and kept political divisions raw. Second, the Directory was plagued by extreme political polarization. It occupied a fragile middle ground, facing constant threats from both the radical Left (such as the Jacobins and Babeuf's Conspiracy of the Equals in 1796) and the resurgent Right (Royalists who sought a restoration of the monarchy, as seen in the Vendémiaire uprising of 1795). Third, severe economic problems undermined public confidence. The hyperinflation of the assignats led to their collapse, and the replacement currency, the mandats territoriaux, failed almost immediately. This, combined with high food prices and poor harvests, alienated the urban working class. Fourth, the Directory relied heavily on the military to maintain power. When elections yielded unfavorable results, such as the royalist victories in 1797 or Jacobin gains in 1798, the Directors used military force to purge the councils (the coups of Fructidor and Floréal). This reliance on the army destroyed the regime's democratic legitimacy and paved the way for the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Level 4 (8-10 marks): Explains multiple causal factors, demonstrating how they linked together to cause continuous instability (e.g., how economic grievances fueled political extremism, which forced the Directory to rely on the military, thereby undermining its own constitutional legitimacy). Level 3 (5-7 marks): Explains one or more factors in detail (e.g., focusing on the coups or the economic crisis) but may lack a fully integrated explanation of why this led to continuous instability throughout the period. Level 2 (3-4 marks): Identifies relevant factors (such as the threat of royalists, inflation, or Bonaparte's ambition) but does not fully explain how they caused instability. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Descriptive narrative of the Directory period with little focus on the analytical question. Level 0 (0 marks): No response or response contains no relevant historical knowledge.

The emergence of the Populist Party (or People's Party) in the early 1890s was the culmination of deep-seated economic, social, and political grievances among American farmers, particularly in the South and the Great Plains. First, farmers faced a severe agricultural depression driven by overproduction and global competition, which caused crop prices (such as wheat and cotton) to plummet. To survive, many farmers took out heavy mortgages, falling into a cycle of inescapable debt. Second, farmers felt exploited by powerful monopolies, particularly railroad corporations. Since railroads held monopolies in rural areas, they charged extortionate freight rates to transport crops to market. Grain elevator operators similarly exploited farmers. Third, the federal government's monetary policy exacerbated these hardships. By adhering strictly to the gold standard (and ending the coinage of silver, known to populists as the 'Crime of '73'), the government restricted the money supply. This deflationary policy made it far harder for debtors to pay off their loans. Farmers demanded bimetallism (the free coinage of silver) to inflate the currency and ease their debt burden. Fourth, both the Democratic and Republican parties appeared indifferent to these struggles, being seen as dominated by northeastern banking, industrial, and railroad elites. Building on earlier movements like the Grangers and the Farmers' Alliances, agrarian reformers realized they needed independent political organization to enact structural reforms, leading to the formal creation of the Populist Party in 1892.

Level 4 (8-10 marks): Explains multiple reasons for the emergence of the Populist Party, demonstrating how economic hardships, corporate exploitation, and political neglect converged to convince farmers that a third-party movement was necessary. Level 3 (5-7 marks): Explains one or two factors (such as the monetary debate or railroad rates) but lacks a comprehensive explanation of how these factors led directly to political organization. Level 2 (3-4 marks): Identifies reasons (e.g., farmers were poor, railroads were expensive) but without explaining how these led to the creation of the party. Level 1 (1-2 marks): General assertions or broad description of Gilded Age politics without addressing the specific origins of the Populists. Level 0 (0 marks): No response or response contains no relevant historical knowledge.

An analytical response should evaluate the relative significance of the Civil Code of 1804 alongside other key domestic achievements of Napoleon. Arguments supporting the Civil Code as the most significant achievement: It replaced a confusing patchwork of feudal laws with a single, uniform legal system across France. It codified and preserved key legal achievements of the French Revolution, such as the abolition of feudalism, religious toleration, equality before the law, and freedom of career choices. It had an enduring legacy, outlasting Napoleon's empire and forming the basis of civil law systems globally. Arguments pointing to other domestic achievements as more or equally significant: The Concordat of 1801 reconciled the state with the Roman Catholic Church, ending a deep source of social and counter-revolutionary division in France. Financial reforms, including the establishment of the Bank of France (1800) and the stabilization of the currency, brought long-term economic stability and restored investor confidence. Administrative centralization, particularly the prefect system, created an incredibly efficient bureaucratic state machinery that enhanced direct control from Paris. Educational reforms, such as the creation of the Lycées, successfully produced a loyal administrative and military elite based on merit rather than birth. Conclusion: Candidates should provide a balanced assessment, weighing the long-term legal and social impact of the Civil Code against the immediate stabilizing impact of the Concordat and administrative reforms.

Level 5 (16-20 marks): Demonstrates clear, balanced, and analytical understanding of the question. Evaluates the Civil Code alongside multiple other domestic reforms, offering a well-supported judgment on which was the most significant. Level 4 (11-15 marks): Provides a focused and mostly analytical response. Explains the significance of the Civil Code and details other achievements (such as the Concordat or financial reforms) with clear links to the question, though the balance or depth of evaluation may be slightly uneven. Level 3 (6-10 marks): Descriptive response that outlines Napoleon's domestic reforms, including the Civil Code. There is some attempt to evaluate significance, but the argument lacks analytical depth or balanced comparison. Level 2 (3-5 marks): General, unstructured narrative of Napoleon's rule with limited detail on specific domestic policies. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Minimally relevant response with little or no historical knowledge or focus on the question.

An analytical response should assess the success and limitations of Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson in tackling the influence of monopolies, trusts, and corporate power. Arguments demonstrating success: Theodore Roosevelt's 'Square Deal' initiated active federal intervention, using the Sherman Antitrust Act to break up harmful monopolies, starting with the Northern Securities Company (1904). He also strengthened railroad regulation through the Elkins Act (1903) and Hepburn Act (1906). Taft continued and expanded this work, initiating twice as many antitrust suits as Roosevelt, including the landmark breakup of Standard Oil in 1911. Woodrow Wilson's 'New Freedom' established the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 1914 to investigate unfair business practices and passed the Clayton Antitrust Act (1914) to strengthen labor protections and clarify illegal corporate practices. Arguments demonstrating limitations or failure: Despite trust-busting efforts, big business and finance remained extremely powerful, with corporations finding new legal structures (such as holding companies) to maintain market dominance. The Supreme Court's 'rule of reason' decision in 1911 weakened antitrust efforts by allowing 'reasonable' monopolies to persist. Regulatory agencies, including the FTC, were often underfunded, understaffed, or staffed by former corporate executives, leading to regulatory capture. The underlying capitalist structure was never fundamentally threatened, and the economic inequality of the Gilded Age persisted despite these regulatory interventions. Conclusion: Candidates should weigh these viewpoints to conclude how far the power of big business was genuinely curtailed versus merely managed and legalized.

Level 5 (16-20 marks): Shows a clear, balanced, and highly analytical understanding of the achievements and limits of all three Progressive presidents. Evaluates the depth of regulation versus the structural resilience of big business to reach a well-supported conclusion. Level 4 (11-15 marks): Explains specific legislative and executive actions taken by the presidents (Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson) and begins to analyze their limitations, though the balance between the presidents or the evaluation of their limitations may be slightly uneven. Level 3 (6-10 marks): Describes the antitrust actions and reforms of the period, but the response tends to be more narrative than analytical, with limited assessment of the overall success or failure. Level 2 (3-5 marks): General assertions about the Progressive Era or the Gilded Age with limited specific knowledge of presidential policies or big business. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Offers minimal relevant points with little connection to the prompt.