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

### Analysis of Similarities:
- **Avoidance of extreme measures:** Both sources acknowledge that the League refrained from imposing the toughest sanctions. Source A notes the decision not to 'deny oil' or 'close the Suez Canal', while Source B points to the failure to 'impose effective sanctions, such as an embargo on oil'.
- **Focus on European peace:** Both sources link the League's actions to the preservation of European peace. Source A explicitly states that the primary duty is to 'keep the peace in Europe', while Source B argues that the powers chose this path because they did not want to 'risk your own comfort' or disrupt their own peace.

### Analysis of Differences:
- **Assessment of the League's responsibility:** Source A views the League's approach as highly responsible and balanced, arguing it successfully condemned aggression without triggering a wider war. Source B views the response as irresponsible and treacherous, accusing the powers of trying to 'appease the aggressor' and 'partition' Ethiopia.
- **The effectiveness of collective security:** Source A argues that the economic sanctions applied showed a clear 'commitment to the principles of collective security'. Source B, on the other hand, dismisses collective security as a 'hollow phrase' that failed in practice, leaving the weak at the mercy of the strong.
- **The ultimate outcome:** Source A believes the League's actions protected continental peace. Source B argues that this policy failed to secure peace and instead 'ensured the death of the League itself'.

### Contextual Evaluation and Synthesis:
- **Source A** reflects the official British perspective in late 1935, during the period of the Hoare-Laval Pact discussions. The British government was anxious to avoid pushing Mussolini into an alliance with Hitler (maintaining the Stresa Front), which explains the emphasis on preserving European peace and avoiding provocative measures like oil sanctions.
- **Source B** represents the perspective of the victim of Italian aggression after the fall of Addis Ababa in 1936. Haile Selassie's bitter tone reflects the reality that the League's half-measures failed to save his country, highlighting the inherent contradiction in the League's policy of trying to satisfy collective security without risking military confrontation.

### Marking Scheme Breakdown:

* **Level 4 (12–15 marks):** Identifies both similarities and differences, and evaluates the sources' utility/reliability using historical context or provenance to explain why their perspectives differ.
* *To achieve this level:* Students should explain the differing motives behind the British MP's justification (Stresa Front, fear of European war, appeasement policy) and Haile Selassie's condemnation (the total conquest of Abyssinia, betrayal by the Great Powers).

* **Level 3 (8–11 marks):** Identifies both similarities and differences through direct, textual comparison. Well-supported with quotes/references.
* *To achieve this level:* Must clearly contrast the positive view of collective security in Source A with the negative view in Source B, while also noting their agreement on the omission of oil sanctions.

* **Level 2 (4–7 marks):** Identifies only similarities OR only differences, or makes a basic comparison with limited source support.

* **Level 1 (1–3 marks):** Writes about the sources but does not make valid, direct comparisons, or simply summarizes each source individually.

### Analysis of the Sources

* **Source A**: Supports the hypothesis. It praises the League's settlement of the Åland Islands dispute between Sweden and Finland as a "brilliant vindication" of its methods. It argues that moral authority successfully triumphed over national passions.
* *Context and Evaluation*: Written by Lord Robert Cecil, a passionate advocate and co-architect of the League. His position means he has an interest in promoting the League's successes to secure public and political support. However, his assessment is historically accurate; the Åland Islands dispute was indeed a lasting success where both parties accepted a peaceful arbitration.

* **Source B**: Challenges the hypothesis. Mussolini rejects the League's authority over the Corfu incident, claiming it has "no right to interfere" in matters of national honour. He threatens withdrawal and asserts that great powers should bypass the League in favour of bodies like the Conference of Ambassadors.
* *Context and Evaluation*: This is a highly biased public statement by a nationalist dictator designed to assert Italian prestige and justify aggressive action. However, it accurately reveals a critical structural weakness of the League: its inability to discipline a major power (Italy) which successfully bypassed the League by utilizing the Conference of Ambassadors.

* **Source C**: Challenges the hypothesis. The Lithuanian diplomat argues that the League was "powerless" and showed a "complete lack of resolve" in the Vilna dispute, failing to stop Polish aggression because Poland was backed by powerful Council members (specifically France, which wanted a strong ally against Germany and Russia).
* *Context and Evaluation*: The source is from a Lithuanian perspective, which is naturally bitter and partisan given Lithuania's loss of Vilna. Nevertheless, the criticism is valid. The League failed to act decisively because major powers (Britain and France) were unwilling to enforce the League's authority against a key strategic ally, demonstrating that geopolitical interests overrode collective security.

* **Source D**: Supports the hypothesis. The official report on the Greek-Bulgarian dispute of 1925 describes the League's intervention as prompt, decisive, and successful in preventing a war, showing that the "machinery" of the League works effectively when respected.
* *Context and Evaluation*: As an official League of Nations document, it has an interest in presenting the League's actions in a positive light. However, the facts of the case support the source: the League successfully ordered a ceasefire and forced Greece to pay reparations, demonstrating that the League could resolve disputes effectively when dealing with smaller powers.

### Synthesis and Conclusion

The sources offer a balanced and nuanced view. When resolving disputes between smaller nations where no major power's core strategic interests were threatened (such as the Åland Islands in Source A and the Greek-Bulgarian conflict in Source D), the League operated highly effectively, using moral authority, commissions of inquiry, and swift diplomatic pressure.

Conversely, when a dispute directly involved a major power (such as Italy in Source B) or impacted the geopolitical interests of major Council members (such as France's alliance with Poland over Vilna in Source C), the League was bypassed, ignored, or rendered impotent. Therefore, the sources collectively suggest that while the League had successful conflict-resolution mechanisms, its success was conditional and severely limited by the realities of great power politics.

**Mark Scheme for Part (b) (25 Marks)**

* **Level 5 (21–25 marks)**: Answers co-ordinate source utility/reliability and historical context to provide a balanced and well-substantiated judgment on the hypothesis. Candidates will evaluate the provenance of the sources (e.g., Cecil's idealism in Source A, Mussolini's nationalist posturing in Source B, Lithuanian desperation in Source C, and the institutional self-congratulation of Source D) to explain the discrepancy between the successes and failures of the League.
* **Level 4 (16–20 marks)**: Answers analyze the sources to show both support and challenge to the view. Candidates will begin to evaluate the sources for reliability, motive, or context to resolve the tension between them (e.g., noting that the League succeeded with smaller powers but failed when major powers were involved).
* **Level 3 (11–15 marks)**: Answers identify which sources support the view (A and D) and which challenge it (B and C). Candidates use details/quotes from the sources to explain how they support or challenge the hypothesis, but there is limited or no source evaluation.
* **Level 2 (6–10 marks)**: Answers are structured but focus on only one side of the argument (e.g., only explaining how the sources show the League was successful, or only how they show it failed), or offer a basic sequential summary of the sources with minimal links to the question.
* **Level 1 (1–5 marks)**: Answers write a general narrative about the League of Nations' successes and failures in the 1920s without directly using or analyzing the provided sources.
* **Level 0 (0 marks)**: No response or response does not meet the criteria.

The Frankfurt Parliament, convened in May 1848, failed to achieve German unification due to several key factors: 1. Lack of Real Power and Military Support: The parliament had no army of its own and lacked the administrative machinery to enforce its decisions. It relied on the goodwill of the existing German states, particularly Prussia and Austria, which were eventually able to reassert their authority. 2. Internal Divisions: The delegates, mostly middle-class intellectuals and professionals, were divided over critical issues. The most significant debate was between the 'Grossdeutschland' (Large Germany, including Austria) and 'Kleindeutschland' (Small Germany, excluding Austria) solutions. This debate delayed progress for months, allowing conservative forces to regroup. 3. Rejection of the Crown: When the parliament finally settled on a Kleindeutschland constitution and offered the imperial crown to King Frederick William IV of Prussia in March 1849, he rejected it. He famously stated he would not accept a 'crown from the gutter' offered by an elected assembly, undermining the entire constitutional project. 4. Conservative Resurgence: By late 1848, the rulers of Austria and Prussia had regained control of their militaries and crushed radical uprisings, rendering the liberal parliament politically obsolete and leading to its eventual dissolution.

Level 4 (8–10 marks): Explains multiple reasons for the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament, showing clear analytical links between these factors and the outcome. Answers will demonstrate deep historical understanding of the period. Level 3 (6–7 marks): Explains at least one key factor in detail (e.g., the role of Frederick William IV or the Grossdeutschland/Kleindeutschland debate) but other factors are only identified or described rather than explained. Level 2 (3–5 marks): Identifies reasons for the failure of the Parliament but lacks deep analysis or relies on narrative description of the 1848 revolutions. Level 1 (1–2 marks): Offers general assertions about the revolutions of 1848 with little specific historical knowledge of the Frankfurt Parliament. Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

The Compromise of 1850 was a temporary truce rather than a permanent solution to the sectional crisis for several reasons: 1. The Fugitive Slave Act: This was the most controversial component of the compromise. It forced citizens in free states to assist in the capture of runaway slaves under penalty of law. This direct federal intervention outraged Northern abolitionists, led to the passage of 'personal liberty laws' in several northern states, and intensified moral opposition to slavery, as highlighted by the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin in 1852. 2. Popular Sovereignty: The compromise left the status of slavery in the New Mexico and Utah territories to be decided by 'popular sovereignty' (local voters). Rather than settling the issue, this established a dangerous precedent that would directly lead to violent conflict in Kansas just a few years later. 3. Political Realignment: The struggle over the compromise weakened the national political parties (the Whigs and the Democrats), paving the way for the rise of sectional parties like the Republican Party, which was committed to stopping the expansion of slavery. 4. Temporary Consensus: The bills were passed individually by a shifting coalition led by Stephen Douglas, meaning there was never a true national consensus or shared vision of compromise between Northern and Southern politicians.

Level 4 (8–10 marks): Explains multiple reasons for the failure of the Compromise of 1850, linking specific provisions (especially the Fugitive Slave Act and popular sovereignty) to the escalation of sectional tensions. Level 3 (6–7 marks): Explains at least one reason in detail, but describes others without fully analyzing their contribution to the breakdown of the compromise. Level 2 (3–5 marks): Identifies elements of the Compromise of 1850 but focuses more on describing the terms of the compromise rather than explaining why it failed to last. Level 1 (1–2 marks): Shows basic knowledge of the sectional conflict but lacks specific focus on the 1850 compromise. Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

To answer this question effectively, candidates should construct a balanced essay that compares economic factors with military and political/diplomatic factors:

1. **Arguments for Economic Strength:**
- The **Zollverein** (customs union) established Prussian economic hegemony over the German states, excluding Austria. This created a de facto economic unity long before political unification.
- Rapid industrialization, especially in the Ruhr valley, provided Prussia with the financial and material resources to build a modern infrastructure.
- The development of an extensive railway network allowed for rapid mobilization of troops and supplies, which proved decisive in the wars of unification.
- Krupp steel and industrial capacity ensured that the Prussian army was better equipped than its rivals.

2. **Arguments for Military Superiority and Other Factors:**
- **Military Reforms:** The reforms initiated by Albrecht von Roon (minister of war) and Helmuth von Moltke (chief of the general staff) in the 1860s transformed the Prussian army. The introduction of the needle gun, intensive training, and systematic organization were critical in defeating Denmark (1864), Austria (1866), and France (1870-71).
- **Bismarck's Diplomacy:** Bismarck's opportunistic diplomacy exploited international rivalries, isolated Austria (Treaty of Prague), provoked France (Ems Telegram), and secured the support of the southern German states.
- **Nationalist Sentiment:** Popular German nationalism, which had grown since 1848, was harnessed by Bismarck to legitimize Prussian dominance.

**Conclusion:**
While economic strength created the essential foundation and structural advantages that made Prussian dominance possible, it was Prussian military superiority and Bismarck's diplomatic strategy that converted this potential into actual political unification through 'blood and iron'.

Level 5: 16–20 marks
- Answers show a clear understanding of the complexity of the question.
- Demonstrates well-selected and highly relevant historical knowledge.
- Sustains a balanced, analytical argument that directly addresses the 'how far' aspect of the prompt.

Level 4: 11–15 marks
- Answers display good historical knowledge and attempt to construct a balanced argument.
- Explains both economic and military/diplomatic factors but may favor one over the other in detail.

Level 3: 6–10 marks
- Answers contain some relevant knowledge but tend to be descriptive rather than analytical.
- May focus heavily on Bismarck or military battles without adequately addressing the economic aspect (or vice versa).

Level 2: 3–5 marks
- Answers show limited understanding of the topic, containing superficial or highly generalized assertions.

Level 1: 1–2 marks
- Answers offer fragmented, irrelevant, or inaccurate information.

Candidates should analyze the components and the impact of the Compromise of 1850 to assess its success:

1. **Arguments that it was successful (mostly short-term):**
- **Averted Immediate Conflict:** It defused a major constitutional crisis and delayed the outbreak of civil war for a decade, giving the North more time to industrialize and grow in population.
- **Balanced Admissions:** California was admitted as a free state, which satisfied the North, while New Mexico and Utah territories were organized with popular sovereignty, offering a compromise on the expansion of slavery.
- **Settled Texas Boundaries:** Texas relinquished its claims to New Mexico in exchange for federal debt assumption, resolving a dangerous border dispute.
- **Banned Slave Trade in D.C.:** The abolition of the slave trade in Washington, D.C., was a symbolic victory for abolitionists.

2. **Arguments that it failed (mostly long-term):**
- **The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850:** This was the most controversial element. It forced northern citizens to assist in capturing runaway slaves and denied accused runaways a jury trial. This outraged northern public opinion, led to personal liberty laws, and fueled the rise of abolitionism (further boosted by the publication of *Uncle Tom's Cabin* in 1852).
- **Inherent Flaws of Popular Sovereignty:** By leaving the decision of slavery to local territorial populations, it set a dangerous precedent that directly led to violence in 'Bleeding Kansas' following the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.
- **Temporary Truce, Not a Cure:** It did not resolve the moral and political incompatibility of the free-labor and slave-labor systems, only postponing the inevitable clash.

**Conclusion:**
While the Compromise of 1850 successfully maintained the Union in the short term, its reliance on the highly divisive Fugitive Slave Act and the ambiguous doctrine of popular sovereignty ultimately exacerbated sectional polarization, making a peaceful resolution of the slavery issue more difficult in the long run.

Level 5: 16–20 marks
- Demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the provisions of the Compromise of 1850 and their consequences.
- Constructs a highly analytical and balanced argument evaluating both success (averting war) and failure (deepening divisions, particularly via the Fugitive Slave Act).

Level 4: 11–15 marks
- Displays good knowledge of the key terms of the Compromise.
- Provides a balanced explanation of its short-term benefits and long-term failures, though one side may be more developed than the other.

Level 3: 6–10 marks
- Offers a descriptive account of the Compromise of 1850 without fully analyzing its success or failure.
- May focus too heavily on general causes of the Civil War without specific reference to the 1850 terms.

Level 2: 3–5 marks
- Shows limited or superficial knowledge of the Compromise of 1850, often confusing it with other compromises (e.g., Missouri Compromise of 1820).

Level 1: 1–2 marks
- Fragmented, inaccurate, or irrelevant response.