2023 Cambridge IGCSE History (0470) Practice Paper with Answers

The Brezhnev Doctrine was introduced after the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. It stated that the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact allies had the right to intervene militarily in any socialist country where communist rule was under threat. It was used to justify the invasion of Czechoslovakia and to maintain strict Soviet control over its satellite states in Eastern Europe.

Level 1: One mark for each relevant point; additional mark for supporting detail (1-4 marks). Relevant points: - Announced after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. - It stated that the Soviet Union would intervene if communism was threatened in any Eastern European country. - It was designed to keep the Soviet bloc united and loyal to Moscow. - It was used to justify the suppression of reform movements (like the Prague Spring). - It made it clear that no Eastern European state could leave the Warsaw Pact. Level 0: No evidence submitted or response does not address the question (0 marks).

The Swing Youth rejected the regimented nature of the Hitler Youth. They gathered in dance halls, played American jazz and swing music, and adopted English and American fashion. They wore long hair, oversized jackets, and makeup, directly defying the traditional and nationalistic standards promoted by the Nazi regime.

Level 1: One mark for each relevant point; additional mark for supporting detail (1-4 marks). Relevant points: - They listened to and played jazz and swing music, which the Nazis banned as 'degenerate' (Entartete Musik). - They wore English-style clothing, such as long jackets, bowler hats, and umbrellas, or American-style clothes. - They refused to join the Hitler Youth and boycotted its activities. - They gathered in bars, private apartments, or dance halls to dance and socialize. - Members grew their hair long (for boys) and girls wore excessive makeup. - Their actions were a cultural rebellion against the regimentation and militarism of Nazi society. Level 0: No evidence submitted or response does not address the question (0 marks).

The Aaland Islands, historically Swedish-speaking, wanted to belong to Sweden rather than Finland after Finland gained independence. The League of Nations intervened, investigated, and decided that the islands should remain part of Finland but be demilitarized, with Swedish cultural rights guaranteed. Both countries accepted this decision, making it an early success for the League.

Level 1: One mark for each relevant point; additional mark for supporting detail (1-4 marks). Relevant points: - It was a dispute between Sweden and Finland over who should own the islands. - The islands were populated mostly by Swedish speakers but belonged to Finland. - Both countries appealed to the League of Nations in 1920 to avoid war. - The League decided in 1921 that the islands should remain Finnish territory. - The League insisted that Finland guarantee the islanders' Swedish culture and language. - The islands were ordered to be demilitarized. - Both nations accepted the decision, representing an early diplomatic success for the League. Level 0: No evidence submitted or response does not address the question (0 marks).

One major reason the League of Nations failed to resolve the Corfu Incident successfully was the intervention of the Conference of Ambassadors. Mussolini refused to accept the League's authority to mediate the dispute and threatened to withdraw Italy from the organization. To prevent this, the Conference of Ambassadors took over the case and ultimately forced Greece to apologize and pay 50 million lire in compensation directly to Italy, undermining the League's credibility and showing that powerful nations could bully smaller ones. Another reason was the lack of cooperation between Britain and France, the League's main leaders. France refused to support sanctions against Italy because French troops were currently occupying the Ruhr and France needed Mussolini's diplomatic backing. Britain was unwilling to act alone against Italy without French support, meaning the League was paralyzed by the self-interest of its most powerful members.

Level 4: Explains TWO reasons [6]
Level 3: Explains ONE reason [4-5] (4 marks for a basic explanation, 5 marks for a fully developed explanation)
Level 2: Identifies and/or describes reasons [2-3] (e.g. Mussolini threatened to leave the League; France was occupying the Ruhr; the Conference of Ambassadors made Greece pay; Britain would not act alone)
Level 1: General answer lacking specific contextual knowledge [1] (e.g. The League was weak and could not stop Italy)
Level 0: No evidence submitted or response does not address the question [0]

The primary reason the Nazis changed their policies towards women after 1937 was the severe labor shortage caused by rapid industrial mobilization and rearmament. Initially, the Nazis promoted the traditional role of women focusing strictly on domestic life and child-rearing ('Kinder, Küche, Kirche') and offered marriage loans to encourage them to leave employment. However, as the Four-Year Plan expanded heavy industry and weapons production, the German economy desperately needed workers, leading the regime to abolish the marriage loan restriction on female employment and actively encourage women back into factories. Another reason was the preparation for war and the introduction of conscription, which drafted millions of young men into the military. To ensure agricultural and industrial output did not collapse when men left for the front, the Nazis introduced the Duty Year ('Pflichtjahr') in 1937, requiring young women to complete a year of compulsory agricultural or domestic labor, effectively reversing their previous anti-work propaganda.

Level 4: Explains TWO reasons [6]
Level 3: Explains ONE reason [4-5] (4 marks for a basic explanation, 5 marks for a fully developed explanation)
Level 2: Identifies and/or describes reasons [2-3] (e.g. There was a labor shortage; rearmament required more factory workers; conscription took men away from jobs; the Duty Year was introduced in 1937)
Level 1: General answer lacking specific contextual knowledge [1] (e.g. Germany needed women to help because of the war)
Level 0: No evidence submitted or response does not address the question [0]

One key reason the Berlin Wall was built in 1961 was to halt the devastating 'brain drain' of professional and highly skilled workers from East Germany to the West. West Berlin was a gateway to freedom, and by 1961, over 2.6 million East Germans had defected. Many of those fleeing were young, educated elites, such as doctors, engineers, and teachers, whose departure severely weakened East Germany's economy and undermined the communist regime's claim of creating a worker's paradise. Another reason was to counter Western espionage and subversion. West Berlin acted as a capitalist enclave deep within communist-controlled East Germany, allowing Western intelligence agencies to easily spy on Soviet bloc activities and spread anti-communist propaganda. Building the wall allowed Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and East German leader Walter Ulbricht to secure the border, consolidate communist control, and assert geopolitical power against the US administration under John F. Kennedy.

Level 4: Explains TWO reasons [6]
Level 3: Explains ONE reason [4-5] (4 marks for a basic explanation, 5 marks for a fully developed explanation)
Level 2: Identifies and/or describes reasons [2-3] (e.g. To stop skilled workers leaving; to end the brain drain; to stop spying from the West; Khrushchev wanted to show strength to President Kennedy)
Level 1: General answer lacking specific contextual knowledge [1] (e.g. To separate the communist East from the capitalist West)
Level 0: No evidence submitted or response does not address the question [0]

To achieve a high level, candidates must construct a balanced response explaining both sides of the statement and provide an evaluative conclusion.

**Arguments for the statement (cooperation of Britain and France):**
- As the most powerful permanent members of the Council, the cooperation of Britain and France was essential to back up the League's decisions with authority and the threat of sanctions. For example, in the Greco-Bulgarian dispute of 1925, British and French cooperation in condemning Greece and threatening economic sanctions forced the Greek forces to withdraw.
- When Britain and France were united in their approach, the League functioned effectively as a diplomatic instrument, as they could use their global influence and navies to project collective security in minor disputes.

**Arguments against the statement (other factors/lack of cooperation):**
- Many successes in the 1920s were due to the willingness of the disputing nations to accept arbitration rather than British and French pressure. For instance, in the Aaland Islands dispute (1921), Sweden and Finland willingly accepted the League's decision because they preferred a peaceful resolution to war.
- The success of the League's humanitarian work, such as the Refugees Commission run by Fridtjof Nansen, was independent of British and French political cooperation and succeeded due to the dedication of individual administrators and NGOs.
- Conversely, when Britain and France did not cooperate or prioritized their own interests over the League (such as in the Corfu Crisis of 1923, where France supported Italy because of the Ruhr occupation), the League failed, demonstrating that successes only occurred when self-interests did not clash.

Level 5 [10 marks]: Explains both sides of the argument and reaches a supported evaluative judgment on 'how far' Britain and France's cooperation was the primary factor.

Level 4 [7–9 marks]: Explains both sides of the argument. A minimum of three explanations is required (2 on one side, 1 on the other).

Level 3 [4–6 marks]: Explains one side of the argument OR provides one explanation of both sides.

Level 2 [2–3 marks]: Identifies and/or describes factors (e.g., mentions the Aaland Islands, Corfu, or the Greco-Bulgarian war) but fails to explain how or why they relate to British and French cooperation.

Level 1 [1 mark]: General answer lacking specific contextual knowledge or simply asserting agreement/disagreement.

Level 0 [0 marks]: No evidence submitted or response does not address the question.

To achieve a high level, candidates must construct a balanced response explaining both sides of the statement and provide an evaluative conclusion.

**Arguments for the statement (the radical nature of Nagy's reforms):**
- Imre Nagy proposed reforms that crossed critical Soviet 'red lines'. Crucially, he announced Hungary’s withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact and declared its neutrality. This threatened the military buffer zone that was vital to the Soviet Union's security.
- Nagy also announced the abolition of the one-party state and planned to introduce multi-party elections. This challenged the core Marxist-Leninist principle of Communist Party supremacy. By contrast, Poland's leader, Władysław Gomułka, reassured Khrushchev that Poland would remain a loyal member of the Warsaw Pact and maintain Communist monopoly on power, which prevented Soviet military intervention.

**Arguments against the statement (other reasons for intervention/non-intervention):**
- The nature of the protests and public order differed significantly. In Hungary, the uprising became violent, with protestors lynching secret police officers and destroying communist symbols, which Khrushchev viewed as an active 'counter-revolution' that had to be crushed to prevent the collapse of communism.
- In Poland, Gomułka managed to maintain control over the domestic reforms and kept public protests peaceful, proving to Moscow that the Polish government was still in command of the situation.
- Soviet internal politics and international context also played a role. During the Hungarian crisis, the Suez Crisis distracted Western powers, giving the USSR a free hand to use force in Budapest without fear of Western intervention.

Level 5 [10 marks]: Explains both sides of the argument and reaches a supported evaluative judgment on whether the radical nature of Nagy's reforms was the primary cause of the difference in Soviet response.

Level 4 [7–9 marks]: Explains both sides of the argument. A minimum of three explanations is required (2 on one side, 1 on the other).

Level 3 [4–6 marks]: Explains one side of the argument OR provides one explanation of both sides.

Level 2 [2–3 marks]: Identifies and/or describes the reforms in Hungary and Poland (e.g., Gomulka's appointment, Nagy leaving the Warsaw Pact) but does not explain how these factors caused or prevented intervention.

Level 1 [1 mark]: General answer lacking specific contextual knowledge.

Level 0 [0 marks]: No evidence submitted or response does not address the question.

To achieve a high level, candidates must construct a balanced response explaining both sides of the statement and provide an evaluative conclusion.

**Arguments for the statement (effectiveness of the RAD):**
- The RAD made it compulsory for young men aged 18 to 25 to serve for six months, which immediately absorbed millions of young unemployed men, taking them off the streets and removing them from the official unemployment register.
- Men in the RAD worked on massive state-funded public works schemes, such as planting forests, digging drainage ditches, and constructing the new network of motorways (Autobahns), which helped modernise Germany's infrastructure while instilling Nazi discipline.

**Arguments against the statement (other, more effective methods):**
- Rearmament and the expansion of the military were far more significant. The reintroduction of conscription in 1935 absorbed over a million young men into the regular army, while massive state spending on munitions, aircraft, and tanks created millions of heavy industry jobs.
- The Nazi regime used artificial 'invisible unemployment' methods to lower the figures, such as removing Jews and married women from the official registers and forcing them out of jobs, which were then given to unemployed German men.
- Public works programs like the Reinhardt Program (1933) offered tax breaks and subsidies for private housing construction and agricultural improvements, which generated widespread, sustainable economic activity outside of state labour camps.

Level 5 [10 marks]: Explains both sides of the argument and reaches a supported evaluative judgment comparing the effectiveness of the RAD against other methods (such as rearmament or invisible unemployment).

Level 4 [7–9 marks]: Explains both sides of the argument. A minimum of three explanations is required (2 on one side, 1 on the other).

Level 3 [4–6 marks]: Explains one side of the argument OR provides one explanation of both sides.

Level 2 [2–3 marks]: Identifies and/or describes Nazi economic policies or the RAD (e.g., mentions Autobahns, conscription, or women being forced out of work) but does not explain how these policies actually reduced unemployment figures.

Level 1 [1 mark]: General answer lacking specific contextual knowledge.

Level 0 [0 marks]: No evidence submitted or response does not address the question.

To find agreements, look at the fate of the League: both sources accept that the League of Nations failed to prevent major conflicts and maintain peace. To find disagreements, compare their explanations: Source A focuses on built-in structural limitations (absence of key powers, reliance on voluntary sanctions, lack of direct military power) as making failure inevitable. Source B argues these structures were sufficient to resolve disputes when members cooperated (as shown in the 1920s) and blames the collapse of international order in the 1930s on the cowardice of British and French leaders who abandoned collective security during the Great Depression.

Level 1: Writes about the sources but makes no valid comparison [1 mark]. Level 2: Identifies information that is in one source but not the other OR states that the sources are about the same subject without direct comparison [2-3 marks]. Level 3: Explains agreements or disagreements of details [4-5 marks]. Level 4: Compares overall arguments/big messages [6-7 marks].

The cartoon was published in the context of 1920, immediately after the US Senate's refusal to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which kept the USA out of the League. The visual details (John Bull and the missing keystone of the bridge) show the anxiety of European powers. The purpose of publication is to condemn isolationist sentiment in the USA and warn that without American participation, any system of collective security would be structurally unsound and doomed to collapse.

Level 1: Surface description of the cartoon [1 mark]. Level 2: Explains the context of 1920 but not linked to the purpose of publication [2 marks]. Level 3: Explains a sub-message of the cartoon [3-5 marks]. Level 4: Explains the big message (the League is unstable and likely to collapse without the US) [6 marks]. Level 5: Explains the purpose of the cartoon in the context of 1920 (to criticize US isolationism and warn of the consequences to international stability) [7-8 marks].

Evaluate surprise by comparing the content of Cecil's speech with historical reality. It is not surprising because Cecil's reputation and role as a leading figure in the League of Nations Union made him a public advocate who needed to maintain faith in the organization. However, it is highly surprising because his reliance on 'moral force' directly contradicted the ongoing failure of the League to stop Japan in Manchuria, where the Lytton Commission's moral condemnation did nothing to halt Japanese military aggression.

Level 1: Writes about the source but does not address surprise [1 mark]. Level 2: Identifies what is surprising/not surprising but fails to explain why [2-3 marks]. Level 3: Explains surprise OR lack of surprise based on Lord Cecil's role as a League supporter OR the reality of the Manchurian Crisis [4-5 marks]. Level 4: Explains both surprise and lack of surprise by contrasting Cecil's ideological bias with the harsh reality of the Japanese defiance in Manchuria [6-7 marks]. Level 5: Uses specific contextual knowledge/cross-reference to evaluate Cecil's reliability, resolving the surprise [8 marks].

Analyze the source to show how the secret memo reveals Britain's internal motivations: prioritizing domestic defense and avoiding conflict with Italy. This directly undermined the League's collective security mechanism, proving British complicity. To balance, explain that other factors also caused the failure: French self-interest, the structural lack of an independent military force, and the aggressive actions of Mussolini and Hitler which overwhelmed a weak international system.

Level 1: Writes about the source but makes no valid evaluation [1 mark]. Level 2: Evaluates the source based on its provenance (secret memo) but not linked to the question [2-3 marks]. Level 3: Explains how the source shows Britain's blame [4-5 marks]. Level 4: Explains both how the source proves Britain's blame and how other factors/countries were also responsible, utilizing contextual knowledge of the Abyssinian Crisis to reach a balanced judgement [6-7 marks].

First, establish the common ground: both cartoonists portray the League of Nations as structurally ineffective and unable to act as a shield for peace. Next, identify the contrast: the cartoonist of Source C (1920) views the failure as structural and due to US isolationism. The cartoonist of Source G (1935) focuses on the moral cowardice of Britain and France during the Abyssinian Crisis, showing that their active betrayal (such as the Hoare-Laval Pact) finalized the League's destruction.

Level 1: Surface descriptions of both cartoons with no valid comparison [1 mark]. Level 2: Compares details/provenance of the cartoons [2-3 marks]. Level 3: Compares valid sub-messages [4-5 marks]. Level 4: Compares overall messages/points of view on the causes of the League's weakness [6-7 marks]. Level 5: Evaluates the cartoonists' viewpoints in their historical contexts (1920 vs. 1935) to show a deeper level of agreement on the League's ultimate failure [8 marks].

Categorize the sources into two groups: those supporting the hypothesis (structural weaknesses) and those challenging it (behavior of member states). Sources A, C, and D emphasize structural flaws such as the missing USA, the lack of enforcement mechanisms, and the weakness of relying solely on moral authority. Conversely, Sources B, F, and G demonstrate that the League's structures could work when supported, but failed because key members (Britain and France) prioritized national self-interest, refused to enforce sanctions, and actively appeased aggressors.

Level 1: No valid source use, or general assertions about the League's failure [1-3 marks]. Level 2: Uses sources to support OR reject the statement [4-6 marks]. Level 3: Uses sources to support AND reject the statement, explaining how specific sources show structural weaknesses (A, C, D) and others show the behavior of member states (B, F, G) [7-10 marks]. Award up to 2 bonus marks for evaluation of sources (maximum of 12 marks overall).

### Indicative Content

**Yes (Importance of the Night of the Long Knives):**
- It eliminated the threat of Ernst Röhm and the SA leadership, who demanded a 'second revolution' and desired to merge with the regular army, posing a direct threat to Hitler's authority and his alliances with conservative elites.
- By destroying the SA power base, Hitler won the vital support of the regular army (Reichswehr), leading directly to the army oath of loyalty in August 1934, securing his position as Commander-in-Chief.
- It reassured conservative forces, big business owners, and industrialists that Hitler would respect traditional social and economic structures rather than succumb to SA radicalism.
- It eliminated non-SA political rivals and critics, including former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and associates of Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen.
- It demonstrated to the public and potential dissidents that Hitler would use ruthless, extrajudicial violence to maintain order and authority.

**No (Other factors were more important/significant):**
- The Reichstag Fire Decree (February 1933) suspended constitutional civil liberties, allowing for the legal arrest and persecution of communists, socialists, and other political opponents.
- The Enabling Act (March 1933) granted Hitler the power to pass laws without the Reichstag’s consent, effectively ending the democratic Weimar Republic and establishing legal dictatorship.
- The policy of Gleichschaltung (Coordination) systematically took control of state governments, banned independent trade unions (replacing them with the German Labour Front), and outlawed all political parties except the NSDAP by July 1933.
- The development of the police state, including the establishment of the Gestapo and early concentration camps (such as Dachau), created a system of fear and surveillance.
- The death of President Hindenburg in August 1934 allowed Hitler to merge the offices of Chancellor and President into the single role of Führer, removing the final constitutional check on his power.

**Level 5 [33–40 marks]:**
Candidates produce well-balanced and well-developed explanations that directly assess the importance of the Night of the Long Knives versus other factors to reach substantial, supported judgements and conclusions. They deploy a wide range of in-depth contextual knowledge with precision and succinctness.

**Level 4 [25–32 marks]:**
Candidates produce well-balanced and partially developed explanations that assess the importance of the Night of the Long Knives alongside other consolidation factors, though some of these may be implicit. Contextual knowledge demonstrates range and depth.

**Level 3 [17–24 marks]:**
Candidates produce balanced and developed descriptions of the events of the consolidation of power OR produce one-sided, well-developed explanations focusing solely on either the Night of the Long Knives or other factors.

**Level 2 [9–16 marks]:**
Candidates produce balanced but limited descriptions of the consolidation of Nazi power, or a narrative of the period from 1933 to 1934 that is largely descriptive and lacks analytical focus.

**Level 1 [1–8 marks]:**
Candidates produce responses that show limited contextual knowledge, listing a few basic features of the Night of the Long Knives or Hitler's rise to power, with little understanding of the question.

**Level 0 [0 marks]:**
No evidence submitted or response does not address the question.