2025 Cambridge IGCSE History (0470) Practice Paper with Answers

The Refugee Commission of the League of Nations carried out vital humanitarian work in the aftermath of the First World War:
- It was headed by the Norwegian explorer Fridtjof Nansen.
- It helped to repatriate approximately 400,000 prisoners of war, mostly from Russia and Germany, back to their homes.
- It created and distributed the 'Nansen Passport', which allowed stateless refugees to cross international borders safely.
- It organized emergency camps, food, and housing for hundreds of thousands of refugees following the Greco-Turkish War in 1922.
- It worked to prevent and control outbreaks of typhus, cholera, and other deadly diseases in overcrowded refugee camps.

Award 1 mark for each relevant factually accurate point up to a maximum of 4 marks:
- It was led/headed by Fridtjof Nansen. (1 mark)
- It returned/repatriated about 400,000 prisoners of war to their homes. (1 mark)
- It introduced the 'Nansen Passport' for stateless people/refugees. (1 mark)
- It helped resettle refugees from the war in Turkey/Greece. (1 mark)
- It provided food, clothing, and shelter to refugees. (1 mark)
- It helped clear and prevent epidemics of disease in the camps. (1 mark)

The Freikorps were right-wing paramilitary groups composed of demobilised soldiers who played a violent role in the early years of the Weimar Republic:
- In January 1919, they were deployed by the Defence Minister, Gustav Noske, to crush the Spartacist Uprising in Berlin.
- They arrested, tortured, and murdered the prominent communist leaders Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.
- In May 1919, they brutally suppressed the newly declared Soviet Republic in Bavaria.
- In March 1920, when the government attempted to disband them, the Marinebrigade Ehrhardt marched on Berlin in support of the Kapp Putsch to overthrow the Weimar government.

Award 1 mark for each relevant factually accurate point up to a maximum of 4 marks:
- They put down/suppressed the Spartacist Uprising in January 1919. (1 mark)
- They killed/executed Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht. (1 mark)
- They crushed the Bavarian Soviet Republic in May 1919. (1 mark)
- They fought left-wing/communist uprisings on behalf of Ebert's government. (1 mark)
- They were used by Noske (the Defence Minister). (1 mark)
- They marched on Berlin in March 1920 as part of the Kapp Putsch. (1 mark)

One major reason was that the permanent members of the Council (Britain, France, Italy, and Japan) each possessed a veto. This meant that if a permanent member, or one of their close diplomatic allies, committed an act of aggression, they could use their veto to block any decisive action or economic sanctions proposed by the Council. This effectively paralyzed the League when dealing with major powers, as seen later in the 1930s.

Another key structural issue was the requirement for unanimous decisions among all members of the Council. Achieving total agreement was extremely difficult because different nations had conflicting national interests and foreign policy priorities. This made decision-making slow and tedious, preventing the League from responding rapidly to sudden outbreaks of hostility before they escalated into wider conflicts.

Level 4 [6 marks]: Explains two reasons.
- Two fully developed explanations showing how Council structural weaknesses directly caused failure in preserving peace.

Level 3 [4-5 marks]: Explains one reason.
- One developed explanation (e.g., explaining how the veto power allowed permanent members to protect their own interests, rendering the Council ineffective) [4 marks].
- Supported with specific contextual details [5 marks].

Level 2 [2-3 marks]: Identifies or describes valid reasons but does not explain.
- e.g. 'The Council members had veto power.'
- e.g. 'Decisions had to be unanimous.'
- e.g. 'The Council met infrequently.'
- e.g. 'Not all major countries were represented.'
(One mark for each identification up to 3 marks)

Level 1 [1 mark]: General assertions about the League of Nations without addressing the Council's structure.
- e.g. 'The League was generally weak and had no army.'

Level 0 [0 marks]: No creditable response.

Ebert signed the pact because he feared a radical left-wing Bolshevik-style revolution in Germany. Following the Kaiser's abdication and the end of the First World War, there was widespread civil unrest. Ebert was determined to establish a moderate democratic republic and knew that radical groups like the Spartacists wanted a communist state. By securing Groener's commitment, Ebert ensured he had the backing of the German army to crush any potential armed uprising.

Furthermore, Ebert needed to preserve administrative order and stability. The new provisional government was highly fragile and lacked a formal constitution or established authority. By forming an alliance with the army's high command, Ebert ensured that the existing officer class and military structure remained loyal to the state, allowing him to maintain basic public services and food distribution while preparing for democratic elections.

Level 4 [6 marks]: Explains two reasons.
- Two fully developed explanations of why the pact was signed (e.g., both the fear of communism and the need for stability/order).

Level 3 [4-5 marks]: Explains one reason.
- One developed explanation (e.g., explaining how the fear of a Bolshevik-style takeover led Ebert to align with the army to suppress revolutionary unrest) [4 marks].
- Supported with specific contextual details [5 marks].

Level 2 [2-3 marks]: Identifies or describes valid reasons but does not explain.
- e.g. 'He wanted to prevent a communist revolution.'
- e.g. 'The army promised to support the new government.'
- e.g. 'Ebert needed to maintain daily order.'
- e.g. 'The government was very weak after the Kaiser left.'
(One mark for each identification up to 3 marks)

Level 1 [1 mark]: General assertions about the end of World War I or the start of the Weimar Republic.
- e.g. 'Germany was in chaos in 1918.'

Level 0 [0 marks]: No creditable response.

### Level 5 (10 marks)
Explains both sides and supports a valid judgement on ‘how far’ by showing how structural flaws (like lack of an army and the veto) interacted with external events (like the Great Depression and aggression of major powers).

### Level 4 (7–9 marks)
Explains both sides. Candidates must have at least one explanation on each side.
- **Supporting the statement (structural weaknesses):** The veto power given to all members of the Council and Assembly meant that decisive action was easily blocked, as seen during the Manchurian Crisis where unanimous agreement was impossible to achieve quickly. Additionally, the lack of a standing army meant the League relied entirely on the voluntary contributions of troops from members, who were highly reluctant to commit forces.
- **Opposing the statement (other factors):** The Great Depression from 1929 onwards destroyed the spirit of international cooperation. Faced with massive economic collapse, Britain and France prioritized their own empires and resorted to appeasement rather than enforcing collective security during the Abyssinian Crisis. The rise of ruthless expansionist dictators like Mussolini and Hitler, who were determined to break treaties, also made the League's peaceful mediation obsolete.

### Level 3 (4–6 marks)
Explains one side of the argument.

### Level 2 (2–3 marks)
Identifies or describes valid points but does not explain them (e.g., lists structural issues like the absence of the USA, or events like the Abyssinian crisis without linking them to the question of success/failure).

### Level 1 (1 mark)
Writes about the topic but does not address the question directly.

### Level 0 (0 marks)
No creditable response.

**Marking Criteria:**
- **Level 5 [10]:** Balanced evaluation of both structural weaknesses and other factors (such as the Great Depression or self-interest of leading powers), with a well-reasoned conclusion on relative importance.
- **Level 4 [7-9]:** Explains at least one structural weakness AND at least one external factor that caused the League's failure.
- **Level 3 [4-6]:** Explains only one side of the debate (either why structural flaws caused the failure, or why external factors did).
- **Level 2 [2-3]:** Identifies valid points but fails to explain them conceptually.
- **Level 1 [1]:** Shows general knowledge of the League but does not answer the prompt.

### Level 5 (10 marks)
Explains both sides and supports a valid judgement on ‘how far’ by weighing the superficial stability (the "Golden Age" under Stresemann) against the deep-seated political issues (coalition instability, growth of paramilitary groups, Hindenburg's election) that remained unresolved.

### Level 4 (7–9 marks)
Explains both sides. Candidates must have at least one explanation on each side.
- **Supporting the statement (stability):** Under the foreign policy leadership of Gustav Stresemann, Germany achieved international respectability by signing the Locarno Treaties (1925) and entering the League of Nations (1926). This international success reduced the nationalist outrage that had previously threatened the republic. Domestically, support for extremist parties plummeted in the 1924 and 1928 Reichstag elections, while moderate pro-democratic parties flourished. There were also no attempted coups or political assassinations during this era, unlike the turbulent early years.
- **Opposing the statement (instability):** No single party could secure a parliamentary majority, which forced the republic to rely on fragile coalition governments. There were six different cabinets between 1924 and 1929, indicating constant internal political shifting and an inability to agree on major policies. Furthermore, the election of Paul von Hindenburg—a conservative, anti-republican war hero—as president in 1925 showed that many Germans still longed for an authoritarian leader. Extremist groups like the Nazi Party did not disappear; they spent these years quietly building up their grassroots organizations and the SA, ready to exploit any future national crisis.

### Level 3 (4–6 marks)
Explains one side of the argument.

### Level 2 (2–3 marks)
Identifies or describes valid points but does not explain them (e.g., describes Stresemann's work or mentions the Nazi party without linking them to political stability).

### Level 1 (1 mark)
Writes about the topic but does not address the question directly.

### Level 0 (0 marks)
No creditable response.

**Marking Criteria:**
- **Level 5 [10]:** Balanced evaluation of Weimar's political stability and underlying instability, culminating in a clear, supported conclusion.
- **Level 4 [7-9]:** Explains at least one factor showing political stability AND at least one factor showing underlying political weakness.
- **Level 3 [4-6]:** Explains only one side of the debate (either why Weimar was stable or why it remained weak and unstable).
- **Level 2 [2-3]:** Identifies political features of the Golden Age (like Stresemann's policies, elections, or Hindenburg) but does not construct an explanation.
- **Level 1 [1]:** Writes generally about the Weimar Republic but lacks focus on the years 1924–1929.

To obtain full marks, candidates should describe at least four distinct actions, characteristics, or responsibilities of the Cheka during the Civil War. For example, mentioning its establishment as the Bolshevik secret police under Felix Dzerzhinsky, its role in executing class enemies during the Red Terror, its enforcement of grain requisitioning, and its suppression of political strikes and independent newspapers.

Award 1 mark for each relevant factual point described, up to a maximum of 4 marks.

Points may include:
* It was the Bolshevik secret police force, established to defend the revolution.
* It was set up and led by Felix Dzerzhinsky.
* It was used to suppress and eliminate counter-revolutionaries and political opponents.
* It executed suspects and political enemies without trial, especially during the 'Red Terror'.
* It enforced grain requisitioning (taking food from peasants under War Communism).
* It shut down anti-Bolshevik and opposition newspapers.
* It ran early forced labor camps to detain strikers and political prisoners.

One reason the Rentenmark was introduced was to halt hyperinflation, which had completely ruined the German economy by late 1923. The government had printed vast sums of money to pay striking workers during the French occupation of the Ruhr, causing prices to spiral so rapidly that the Mark became worthless. Introducing the Rentenmark replaced the old, inflated currency and stabilized prices.

Another reason was to restore public and international confidence in German money. Unlike the old Mark, which had no real backing, the Rentenmark was backed by a mortgage on all German land and industrial resources. Because its supply was strictly limited and it possessed tangible backing, people trusted its value, which encouraged them to save and trade normally again.

Level 4: Explains two reasons [6 marks]
- Candidates must provide two fully developed explanations of why the Rentenmark was introduced (e.g., addressing both the resolution of hyperinflation and the restoration of public confidence through asset-backing).

Level 3: Explains one reason [4–5 marks]
- Four marks for one explanation (e.g., explaining how hyperinflation made a new currency necessary).
- Five marks for an explanation supported by specific contextual knowledge (e.g., mentioning Stresemann or the specific backing of agricultural and industrial land).

Level 2: Identifies or describes valid reason(s); addresses the question but does not explain [2–3 marks]
- One Level 2 mark for each identification/description.
- Points may include: hyperinflation had made the old Mark worthless; to restore confidence; the new currency was backed by land/industry; to stabilize prices.

Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question [1 mark]
- General statements about the economic problems of 1923 without explaining the introduction of the Rentenmark.

Level 0: No creditable response [0 marks]

Bolshevik victory was heavily supported by the profound weaknesses and divisions of the Whites, but also depended greatly on Bolshevik military, geographical, and political advantages.

Arguments agreeing that White divisions were key:
- **Political fragmentation**: The Whites were a loose coalition of monarchists, liberals, moderate socialists, and foreign interventionists. They had no common cause or vision for Russia's future, preventing unified coordination.
- **Geographical and military fragmentation**: White forces were scattered around the periphery of Russia (Kolchak in Siberia, Denikin in the south, Yudenich in the north-west). This made communication and co-ordinated planning almost impossible.
- **Loss of popular support**: White commanders often treated the local peasant populations brutally and promised to return land to former landowners, alienating the majority of the population whose support was vital.

Arguments disagreeing (focusing on Bolshevik strengths):
- **Geographical advantages**: The Reds controlled the central hub of Russia, including major cities like Moscow and Petrograd. This gave them control over the railway network to move troops quickly and direct access to major munitions factories.
- **Trotsky's leadership**: Trotsky created a disciplined fighting force of over five million men, utilizing former Tsarist officers for expertise while ensuring political loyalty via political commissars.
- **War Communism**: This economic policy ensured that food and resources were forcefully requisitioned from peasants to keep the Red Army well-fed and supplied, regardless of the hardship caused to civilians.
- **Effective propaganda**: The Bolsheviks successfully framed themselves as defenders of Russian soil against foreign invaders and the return of landlordism.

Judgement:
While Bolshevik strengths were immense, the fundamental divisions among the Whites were the ultimate deciding factor. Had the Whites presented a unified, coordinated threat with a single political goal, they could have overwhelmed the central Red forces. Instead, their divisions allowed the Reds to defeat them in detail, one front at a time.

Use Table B (10-mark part c questions) to award marks:

- **Level 5 (10 marks)**: Explains both sides and supports a valid judgement on 'how far'. Candidates must present at least one explanation on each side and a clear, substantiated conclusion.
- **Level 4 (7–9 marks)**: Explains both sides. One explanation on each side receives 7 marks; additional explanations on either side can gain up to 9 marks.
- **Level 3 (4–6 marks)**: Explains one side. One level 3 explanation receives 4 marks; additional explanations of the same side receive up to 6 marks.
- **Level 2 (2–3 marks)**: Identifies or describes valid points but does not explain (e.g., 'The Whites were scattered geographically', 'Trotsky used conscription to build the Red Army'). One mark per identification/description.
- **Level 1 (1 mark)**: General assertions or writes about the topic but fails to address the question directly.
- **Level 0 (0 marks)**: No creditable response.

To answer this question effectively, candidates must compare the content of both sources to find agreements and disagreements, and then make a summative judgment on how far they agree.

1. Agreements: Both sources agree on the basic outcome of the Aland Islands dispute. Specifically, they agree that the League decided the islands should remain under Finnish sovereignty, that Swedish minority rights were protected/guaranteed, and that both Sweden and Finland accepted the League's decision.

2. Disagreements: The sources disagree sharply on the historical assessment of this event. Source A presents the resolution as a major success and a model for international arbitration. Conversely, Source B argues that this interpretation is misleading, characterizing it as a minor dispute between small states that did not want a war anyway. Furthermore, Source B highlights the League's failure in Vilna to demonstrate its weakness, a point omitted by Source A.

Level 5 [7 marks]: Overall judgment on how far the sources agree.
Candidates must compare agreements AND disagreements and provide a clear, summative judgment on the extent of their agreement (e.g., they agree on the facts of the Aland Islands case but disagree fundamentally on what it proved about the League's effectiveness).

Level 4 [5–6 marks]: Explains agreements AND disagreements.
- 5 marks for one agreement and one disagreement.
- 6 marks for multiple agreements and disagreements.

Level 3 [3–4 marks]: Explains agreement(s) OR disagreement(s).
- Agreements include: both agree Finland kept the islands; both agree Swedish minority rights were protected; both agree both nations accepted the ruling.
- Disagreements include: Source A claims it was a major success, Source B says this is misleading; Source A says it proved international arbitration works, Source B says it only worked because the states were small and did not want war; Source B contrasts it with Vilna, which Source A does not mention.

Level 2 [2 marks]: Identifies information from one source that is not in the other, OR compares the provenance/date of the sources without comparing content.

Level 1 [1 mark]: Writes about the topic but makes no valid comparison.

Level 0 [0 marks]: No creditable response.

Level 4 (7–8 marks):
Compares the cartoonists' opinions/points of view on the League. Candidates explain that while both sources criticize the League's effectiveness due to US absence, Source C blames American indifference for undermining a constructive international project, while Source D views US isolationism as a rational decision to avoid foreign storms.

Level 3 (4–6 marks):
Compares valid messages of the cartoons (e.g., both show that the League is weak or incomplete without the USA, but missing the cartoonists' deeper opinions or national perspectives).

Level 2 (2–3 marks):
Explains the message/point of view of only one source, OR makes a simple comparison based on surface details without explaining the historical context.

Level 1 (1 mark):
Identifies simple similarities or differences based on surface details, or writes about the League without using the sources.

Level 0 (0 marks):
No creditable response.

Level 4: 7–8 marks. Award 7 marks for comparing the cartoonists' opinions with support, and 8 marks for a fully developed comparison of both perspectives/national contexts.
Level 3: 4–6 marks. Award 4 marks for one valid comparison of message (e.g., both agree US absence makes the League weak), and 5–6 marks depending on depth and support from the source details.
Level 2: 2–3 marks. Award 2 marks for explaining one source's message, or 3 marks for interpreting both but failing to establish a valid comparative link.
Level 1: 1 mark. Simple non-historical comparisons of details (e.g., 'both have Uncle Sam').
Level 0: 0 marks. No creditable response.

Level 5 (8 marks):
Evaluates at least one of the sources in its historical context (e.g., the Ebert-Groener Pact, political divisions in Weimar Germany) to explain why E is not surprising despite the claims of unity in D.

Level 4 (7 marks):
Contextual explanation of why E is or is not surprising on its own, but does not explicitly contrast/compare it with the claims in D.

Level 3 (3–6 marks):
Compares the messages of the two sources to decide if D makes E surprising (e.g., 'Yes, it is surprising because D says everyone was united, but E shows deep divisions and a call for revolution'). Award 3–4 marks for basic comparison, 5–6 marks for well-developed comparison of messages.

Level 2 (2 marks):
Compares and analyses the sources but fails to state clearly whether Source E is surprising, OR explains something in E that is/is not surprising without reference to D.

Level 1 (1 mark):
Makes simple assertions based on provenance or makes a surface comparison of details.

Level 0 (0 marks):
No creditable response.

Level 5: 8 marks. Clear comparison of messages combined with a robust evaluation of Ebert's alliance with the military (Ebert-Groener Pact) to show why the Spartacist anger was expected.
Level 4: 7 marks. Detailed contextual explanation of Spartacist motives or SPD policies in 1918, but lacks direct comparison of the two texts.
Level 3: 3–6 marks. Marks awarded based on how clearly and effectively the contrast between SPD's optimism and Spartacist's hostility is articulated.
Level 2: 2 marks. Partial comparison or one-sided analysis with no clear conclusion on surprise.
Level 1: 1 mark. Surface comparisons (e.g., 'they were written in the same year').
Level 0: 0 marks. Uncredited or irrelevant responses.

Level 5 (7–8 marks):
Evaluates Source F by considering its purpose in the context of the Soviet Union in 1938 (Stalinist propaganda, rewriting of history, purging of Trotsky) and compares it with known historical facts about the actual events of October 1917.

Level 4 (5–6 marks):
Evaluates the reliability of the source's content by cross-referencing it with historical knowledge (e.g., explaining Trotsky's actual role vs. Stalin's, or the lack of real resistance at the Winter Palace) but does not fully link this to the 1938 context or Stalinist propaganda goals.

Level 3 (4 marks):
Explains why the source is untrustworthy based on its official Soviet origin and date (1938) but without specific historical cross-references or detailed context of the purges.

Level 2 (3 marks):
Identifies reasons to doubt the source based on everyday empathy or simple provenance (e.g., 'it is a government publication so it will be biased' or 'it was written long after the event').

Level 1 (1–2 marks):
Selects details from the source that seem exaggerated or unrealistic but without any valid historical explanation or contextual evaluation.

Level 0 (0 marks):
No creditable response.

Level 5: 7–8 marks. Award 7 marks for explaining the bias and Stalin's motivation to erase Trotsky; award 8 marks for a fully developed answer linking the 1938 context (purges/cult of personality) to the specific inaccuracies in the text.
Level 4: 5–6 marks. Award 5 marks for pointing out one historical error (like Trotsky's role); 6 marks if multiple historical inconsistencies are clearly cross-referenced.
Level 3: 4 marks. Focuses mostly on the date (1938) and the political nature of the source, but lacks specific details on the actual coup or Trotsky.
Level 2: 3 marks. Simplistic evaluation based on 'propaganda' or 'bias' without specific historical support.
Level 1: 1–2 marks. Simple assertion of trust/distrust based on text details only (e.g., 'it sounds too dramatic').
Level 0: 0 marks. No creditable response.

To answer this synthesis question successfully, candidates must classify and explain how the provided sources either support or counter the view that the League of Nations was successful in resolving disputes during the 1920s:

- **Supporting the statement (Success):**
- **Source A** (Aaland Islands, 1921): Shows a clear success where both Sweden and Finland accepted the League's ruling, preventing a potential war.
- **Source C** (Greco-Bulgarian War, 1925): Demonstrates swift, decisive action by the League's Council in demanding and achieving a ceasefire and withdrawal of Greek troops.
- **Source E** (League official's speech, 1926): Argues that despite structural challenges, the League had established a working framework of arbitration that successfully defused several localized tensions before they escalated.

- **Rejecting the statement (Failure):**
- **Source B** (Vilna dispute, 1920): Highlights the League's inability to act when Poland illegally seized Vilna, showing it was powerless against defiance from a major regional actor.
- **Source D** (Corfu Incident, 1923): Illustrates how Italy successfully bypassed the League by pressuring the Conference of Ambassadors, forcing Greece to pay compensation despite Italy being the aggressor.
- **Source E** (League official's speech, 1926): Admits that the League's success depended heavily on the voluntary cooperation of major powers, pointing to its underlying weaknesses.

Award marks based on the following levels of response:

- **Level 4 (6–9 marks):** Uses the sources to support AND reject the statement.
- Candidates must explicitly reference and explain how at least one source supports (e.g., Sources A, C, or E) and at least one source rejects (e.g., Sources B, D, or E) the claim.
- *Note:* Maximum of 7 marks if the explanation is one-sided or lacking depth in one direction. Award 8–9 marks for balanced, detailed cross-reference of all five sources.

- **Level 3 (3–5 marks):** Uses the sources to support OR reject the statement.
- Evaluates sources one-sidely, focusing only on the successes (Sources A and C) or only on the failures (Sources B and D).

- **Level 2 (2 marks):** Identifies relevant points from the sources but fails to link them directly to the hypothesis of the League's success.

- **Level 1 (1 mark):** Writes general narrative about the League of Nations in the 1920s without using the sources as evidence.

- **Level 0 (0 marks):** No creditable response.

By 1918, the Bolshevik regime faced an existential threat from the White armies in the Russian Civil War, alongside a collapsing economy and severe food shortages in the cities. To ensure the Red Army was supplied and the urban proletariat was fed, Lenin's government implemented a series of radical, centralized economic policies known as War Communism. A central pillar of this policy was grain requisitioning (prodrazvyorstka). Armed requisition squads from the Cheka and the military were sent into the countryside to seize 'surplus' grain from the peasantry. Peasants resisted fiercely, often hiding or destroying their crops, which resulted in violent clashes and a drastic decline in agricultural production. Additionally, the state rapidly nationalised all major industries, putting factories, mines, and workshops under the direct administration of the Supreme Soviet of the National Economy (Vesenkha). Private enterprise and commerce were entirely banned, which led to a thriving black market managed by 'bagmen' who smuggled food into starving cities. Hyperinflation soon rendered the rouble virtually worthless, prompting the government to abolish monetary transactions in favor of a state-controlled rationing system, where food and goods were distributed based on social class, with soldiers and industrial workers receiving the highest rations. Labor was militarised, making work compulsory for all citizens aged 16 to 50, and strikes were strictly outlawed. While War Communism succeeded in keeping the Red Army supplied to win the Civil War, its social cost was devastating. It triggered a catastrophic famine in 1921 that claimed millions of lives, caused widespread industrial strikes, sparked major peasant uprisings such as the Tambov Rebellion, and eventually provoked the Kronstadt Mutiny. This widespread unrest forced Lenin to abandon the policy in 1921 in favor of the New Economic Policy (NEP).

Table A Mark Scheme: Level 3 (11–15 marks): The account includes the main events/developments of War Communism and directly addresses the prompt. It is consistently supported by accurate historical knowledge and is logically sequenced. Level 2 (6–10 marks): The account describes some events/developments relevant to War Communism, supported by general historical knowledge, but lacks a fully structured or comprehensive approach. Level 1 (1–5 marks): The response has limited relevance to the question, showing sparse historical knowledge with unconnected points. Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable material. Indicative content may include: Context of the Civil War and the urgent need to supply the Red Army and feed industrial cities. Grain requisitioning (prodrazvyorstka) and the deployment of armed squads. Nationalisation of all key industries under Vesenkha control. Banning of private trade, leading to black markets. Abolition of money due to hyperinflation and the creation of a class-based rationing system. Militarisation of labor, compulsory work service, and the banning of strikes. The role of the Cheka in brutally enforcing these policies. Social consequences: Famine of 1921, peasant resistance (Tambov Rebellion), and the Kronstadt Mutiny which forced the transition to the NEP.

Candidates may discuss a range of factors to evaluate the extent to which the Treaty of Versailles was responsible for the political instability of the Weimar Republic between 1919 and 1923.

Arguments that the Treaty of Versailles was primarily responsible:
- The 'stab-in-the-back' myth (Dolchstoßlegende) was fueled by the signing of the Treaty, which right-wing opponents used to delegitimize the Weimar politicians (the 'November Criminals').
- The harsh terms of the treaty, such as the War Guilt Clause (Article 231) and massive reparations of £6.6 billion, caused immense public outrage and unified nationalist opposition.
- Territorial losses (such as Alsace-Lorraine and West Prussia) and the demilitarization of the Rhineland weakened national pride and security, fostering paramilitary violence.
- The economic strain of reparations contributed directly to the financial difficulties of the early republic, culminating in the hyperinflation crisis of 1923 after the French occupation of the Ruhr.

Arguments that other factors were responsible:
- Flaws in the Weimar Constitution: Proportional representation allowed extremist, anti-democratic parties to enter the Reichstag, leading to weak and unstable coalition governments. Article 48 gave the President emergency powers that could bypass democratic processes.
- Left-wing extremism: The Spartacist Uprising (1919) and other communist revolts (such as in Bavaria and the Ruhr) created a fear of a Bolshevik-style revolution, destabilizing the country from the left.
- Right-wing militarism: The Kapp Putsch (1920) and Munich Putsch (1923) demonstrated that large sections of the military and nationalist groups were actively hostile to the Republic.
- Traditional elites: The Republic inherited conservative elites (judges, civil servants, army officers) who remained loyal to the old Kaiserreich and refused to support the new democratic system.

Level 5 (21–25 marks): Both sides of the argument are fully explained and supported by precise historical detail. There is a clear, convincing, and substantiated judgment on the extent to which the Treaty of Versailles was the primary cause of instability compared to other factors.

Level 4 (16–20 marks): Both sides of the discussion are presented with supporting explanations, but the final judgment may be less developed or only partially supported.

Level 3 (11–15 marks): The response focuses heavily on one side of the argument (either emphasizing the impact of the Treaty of Versailles or focusing entirely on other internal political/economic factors) with clear explanations.

Level 2 (6–10 marks): The candidate identifies relevant points on one or both sides but relies on description or assertion rather than developed historical explanation.

Level 1 (1–5 marks): The answer shows general knowledge of the Weimar Republic between 1919 and 1923 but lacks focus on the specific question. Points are unconnected or descriptive.

Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable material.

Candidates may discuss a range of factors to evaluate the extent to which the Treaty of Versailles was responsible for the political instability of the Weimar Republic between 1919 and 1923.

Arguments that the Treaty of Versailles was primarily responsible:
- The 'stab-in-the-back' myth (Dolchstoßlegende) was fueled by the signing of the Treaty, which right-wing opponents used to delegitimize the Weimar politicians (the 'November Criminals').
- The harsh terms of the treaty, such as the War Guilt Clause (Article 231) and massive reparations of £6.6 billion, caused immense public outrage and unified nationalist opposition.
- Territorial losses (such as Alsace-Lorraine and West Prussia) and the demilitarization of the Rhineland weakened national pride and security, fostering paramilitary violence.
- The economic strain of reparations contributed directly to the financial difficulties of the early republic, culminating in the hyperinflation crisis of 1923 after the French occupation of the Ruhr.

Arguments that other factors were responsible:
- Flaws in the Weimar Constitution: Proportional representation allowed extremist, anti-democratic parties to enter the Reichstag, leading to weak and unstable coalition governments. Article 48 gave the President emergency powers that could bypass democratic processes.
- Left-wing extremism: The Spartacist Uprising (1919) and other communist revolts (such as in Bavaria and the Ruhr) created a fear of a Bolshevik-style revolution, destabilizing the country from the left.
- Right-wing militarism: The Kapp Putsch (1920) and Munich Putsch (1923) demonstrated that large sections of the military and nationalist groups were actively hostile to the Republic.
- Traditional elites: The Republic inherited conservative elites (judges, civil servants, army officers) who remained loyal to the old Kaiserreich and refused to support the new democratic system.

Level 5 (21–25 marks): Both sides of the argument are fully explained and supported by precise historical detail. There is a clear, convincing, and substantiated judgment on the extent to which the Treaty of Versailles was the primary cause of instability compared to other factors.

Level 4 (16–20 marks): Both sides of the discussion are presented with supporting explanations, but the final judgment may be less developed or only partially supported.

Level 3 (11–15 marks): The response focuses heavily on one side of the argument (either emphasizing the impact of the Treaty of Versailles or focusing entirely on other internal political/economic factors) with clear explanations.

Level 2 (6–10 marks): The candidate identifies relevant points on one or both sides but relies on description or assertion rather than developed historical explanation.

Level 1 (1–5 marks): The answer shows general knowledge of the Weimar Republic between 1919 and 1923 but lacks focus on the specific question. Points are unconnected or descriptive.

Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable material.