2025 Cambridge IGCSE History (0470) Practice Paper with Answers

The Aaland Islands, situated between Sweden and Finland, were claimed by both nations after Finland achieved independence. Although the majority of the islanders wished to join Sweden, the League of Nations investigated and decided in 1921 that the islands should belong to Finland. However, the League placed conditions on this ruling: the islands had to be completely demilitarised, and the Finnish government had to guarantee the protection of the Swedish culture, language, and local customs of the inhabitants. Both countries accepted this peaceful settlement.

Award 1 mark for each relevant detail, up to a maximum of 4 marks:
- The dispute was between Sweden and Finland over the ownership of the Aaland Islands. (1 mark)
- The vast majority of the island's population spoke Swedish and wanted to be part of Sweden. (1 mark)
- The League intervened to prevent a potential military conflict. (1 mark)
- The League ruled that the islands should remain under Finnish sovereignty. (1 mark)
- It specified that no military personnel or fortifications could be placed on the islands (demilitarisation). (1 mark)
- It required Finland to guarantee the preservation of the inhabitants' Swedish language and culture. (1 mark)
- Both Sweden and Finland accepted the League's decision peacefully. (1 mark)

Signed in June 1935, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement was a bilateral pact between Britain and Germany. It established that the German navy (Kriegsmarine) could expand to a maximum of 35% of the total tonnage of the British Royal Navy. Additionally, Germany was permitted to build submarines (U-boats) up to 45% of the British submarine tonnage (with provision to increase to 100% in exceptional circumstances). Crucially, Britain signed this agreement without consulting its Stresa Front allies, France and Italy, thereby formally condoning Germany's violation of the Treaty of Versailles.

Award 1 mark for each relevant detail, up to a maximum of 4 marks:
- It was signed in June 1935 as a bilateral agreement between Great Britain and Germany. (1 mark)
- It limited the total tonnage of the German navy to 35% of that of the British Royal Navy. (1 mark)
- It allowed Germany to build submarines (U-boats) up to 45% (and potentially up to 100%) of the British submarine tonnage. (1 mark)
- The agreement was made without the consultation or consent of France or Italy. (1 mark)
- It effectively legalised and condoned Germany's rearmament in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. (1 mark)
- It severely weakened the Stresa Front against German expansionism. (1 mark)

One reason the League was successful was that both Sweden and Finland were willing to accept the League's arbitration. Neither nation wanted to go to war over the islands, and they respected the authority of the newly created international organisation to deliver a peaceful resolution.

Another reason was that the League offered a highly satisfactory compromise. While it ruled that the Aaland Islands belonged to Finland, it also decreed that the islands must remain demilitarised and that the Swedish language, culture, and local customs of the islanders must be legally protected. This addressed Sweden's primary humanitarian concerns while maintaining Finland's territorial integrity, satisfying both parties.

Level 4: Explains two reasons (6 marks)
Level 3: Explains one reason (4-5 marks)
- 4 marks for one basic explanation
- 5 marks for an explanation supported by precise contextual knowledge
Level 2: Identifies or describes valid reasons but does not explain (2-3 marks)
- Both nations agreed to let the League settle the dispute.
- Neither country wanted to start a war.
- The League proposed a compromise protecting Swedish culture.
- The islands were declared demilitarised.
Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question (1 mark)
- The dispute was settled in 1921.
Level 0: No creditable response (0 marks)

One reason Hitler signed the pact was to avoid a war on two fronts. Hitler was determined to invade Poland, but he knew that if the Soviet Union intervened to protect Poland, Germany would face a major military struggle in both the east and the west simultaneously. By securing Soviet neutrality, Hitler ensured he could focus his military forces on Poland and the Western Allies.

Another reason was to secure the partition of Poland. The pact contained a secret protocol that outlined how Poland would be divided between Germany and the USSR. This gave Hitler the freedom to conquer western Poland rapidly without the risk of Soviet military opposition, while also temporarily appeasing Stalin by offering him eastern Polish territories.

Level 4: Explains two reasons (6 marks)
Level 3: Explains one reason (4-5 marks)
- 4 marks for one basic explanation
- 5 marks for an explanation supported by precise contextual knowledge
Level 2: Identifies or describes valid reasons but does not explain (2-3 marks)
- To avoid fighting on two fronts.
- To ensure Soviet neutrality during the invasion of Poland.
- To divide Polish territory with the Soviet Union.
- To prevent a potential alliance between Britain, France, and the USSR.
Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question (1 mark)
- The pact was signed on 23 August 1939.
Level 0: No creditable response (0 marks)

On one hand, military restrictions deeply wounded German national pride and left them feeling vulnerable. The reduction of the army to 100,000 men, the ban on conscription, the demilitarisation of the Rhineland, and the prohibition of submarines and planes meant a proud military nation was virtually defenseless, surrounded by heavily armed neighbors.

On the other hand, other terms caused equal or greater resentment. The 'War Guilt Clause' (Article 231) forced Germany to accept sole responsibility for the conflict, which many Germans felt was unjust and humiliating. This clause was the legal basis for reparations, set in 1921 at £6.6 billion, which caused severe economic hardship, including the hyperinflation of 1923. Furthermore, territorial losses, such as the creation of the Polish Corridor which split Germany in two and placed millions of Germans under foreign rule, violated the principle of self-determination.

In conclusion, while the military cuts severely damaged German status and security, the combination of Article 231 and reparations was more significant. It directly caused the economic ruin that affected daily life, making it the primary driver of long-term German bitter resentment.

Level 5: Explains both sides and supports a valid judgement on ‘how far’. (10 marks)
- One explanation or more on each side, with a clear, reasoned evaluation of relative importance.

Level 4: Explains both sides. (7–9 marks)
- Requires at least one explained point supporting the premise (military restrictions) and at least one explained point on another cause of anger (e.g., reparations, Article 231, territorial losses).
- Seven marks for one explanation on each side; one additional mark for each additional explanation on either side.

Level 3: Explains one side. (4–6 marks)
- One Level 3 mark for each explanation.
- Candidate explains either why military restrictions caused anger OR why other factors (reparations/War Guilt/territory) caused anger.

Level 2: Identifies or describes valid points; addresses the question but does not explain. (2–3 marks)
- One Level 2 mark for each identification/description.
- Points: Army reduced to 100,000; navy restricted; Rhineland demilitarised; Article 231 forced them to accept blame; reparations of £6.6 billion; loss of Alsace-Lorraine or Polish Corridor.

Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question. (1 mark)
- e.g., The Big Three met at Versailles to decide Germany's fate.

Level 0: No creditable response. (0 marks)

On one hand, the policy of appeasement pursued by Britain and France in the 1930s can be blamed because it repeatedly gave in to Hitler's aggressive demands. By allowing him to remilitarise the Rhineland, annex Austria, and take the Sudetenland at the Munich Conference, France and Britain convinced Hitler that they would never fight. This encouraged him to make further demands, such as on Poland, ultimately making war inevitable when Britain and France finally drew a line.

On the other hand, the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939 was the immediate trigger for war. By signing a non-aggression agreement, Germany and the USSR secretly agreed to partition Poland. This was crucial because it removed the threat of a war on two fronts for Germany, giving Hitler the confidence to launch his invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, knowing that the Soviet Union would not intervene.

In conclusion, while appeasement prepared the ground by making Hitler bold and powerful, the Nazi-Soviet Pact was more directly to blame for the actual outbreak of war in September 1939. Without the security of a one-front war guaranteed by the pact, Hitler would likely have hesitated to risk a general conflict over Poland.

Level 5: Explains both sides and supports a valid judgement on ‘how far’. (10 marks)
- Explains both sides and provides a balanced conclusion evaluating whether appeasement or the Nazi-Soviet Pact played the greater role in bringing about war.

Level 4: Explains both sides. (7–9 marks)
- Candidates must provide one explanation of how appeasement caused the war and one explanation of how the Nazi-Soviet Pact caused the war.
- Seven marks for one explanation on each side; one additional mark for each additional explanation on either side.

Level 3: Explains one side. (4–6 marks)
- One Level 3 mark for each explanation.
- Explains either the role of appeasement (e.g., encouraging Hitler's expansionism, demonstrating weakness) OR the role of the Nazi-Soviet Pact (e.g., preventing a two-front war, dividing Poland).

Level 2: Identifies or describes valid points; addresses the question but does not explain. (2–3 marks)
- One Level 2 mark for each identification/description.
- Points: Chamberlain followed appeasement; Munich Agreement gave Hitler the Sudetenland; Hitler broke his promises; Hitler and Stalin signed a pact; Poland was divided; it avoided a two-front war for Germany.

Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question. (1 mark)
- e.g., War broke out in September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland.

Level 0: No creditable response. (0 marks)

Candidates should identify up to four distinct activities of the Edelweiss Pirates. These include social non-conformity (camping, singing banned songs, wearing distinct clothing, avoiding the Hitler Youth) and active resistance (confronting Hitler Youth members, distributing pamphlets, aiding deserters, or committing sabotage during the war).

One mark for each relevant point. Responses may include the following:
- They went on weekend hikes and camping trips to escape Nazi authority.
- They sang anti-Nazi songs or parodies of Hitler Youth songs.
- They wore non-regulation clothes (like checked shirts) and edelweiss badges.
- They hung around on street corners to show independence.
- They physically attacked or beat up members of the Hitler Youth.
- During WWII, some distributed anti-Nazi leaflets.
- Some sheltered deserters and escaped prisoners.
- Some engaged in sabotage of railways or military equipment.

...

...

Example response:
One key reason the KdF was introduced was to win the support and gratitude of the working class following the destruction of their trade unions in May 1933. By offering affordable, subsidized benefits such as theater tickets, concerts, sports events, and cruise holidays that had previously been reserved for the wealthy, the regime successfully kept workers satisfied and compliant. This made them less likely to oppose the government or rebel against low wages and long working hours, which was crucial for maintaining high productivity for rearmament.

Another major reason was to control and supervise the free time of German citizens to prevent any subversive activity. By organizing collective and highly structured leisure activities, the Nazis ensured that workers spent their off-duty hours under state influence rather than in private gatherings where they might criticize the regime. This complete regulation of daily life was a fundamental tool of totalitarian control and ideological indoctrination.

Level 4: Explains two reasons [6 marks]
Level 3: Explains one reason [4–5 marks]
- Four marks for one explanation, five marks for an explanation supported by specific contextual knowledge.

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:
- To keep workers happy and loyal to the Nazi regime.
- To compensate for the loss of independent trade unions after they were banned in 1933.
- To regulate and control the leisure hours of citizens.
- To prevent anti-regime discussions during workers' free time.
- To promote social equality ('Volksgemeinschaft') by making luxury activities available to the working class.
- To run schemes like the Volkswagen ('People's Car') savings program.

Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question [1 mark]
- e.g., It was run by the German Labour Front (DAF) under Robert Ley.

Level 0: No creditable response [0 marks]

### Agree: Fear of Communism as the Main Driver
- **The Reichstag Fire (February 1933):** Blamed on a Dutch communist, Marinus van der Lubbe. This allowed Hitler to cultivate widespread panic about a communist uprising.
- **Emergency Decree (Reichstag Fire Decree):** Hitler used the panic to persuade President Hindenburg to sign the decree. This suspended basic civil rights (freedom of speech, press, assembly) and allowed the regime to arrest communist politicians, ban their newspapers, and break up their meetings, effectively destroying the main left-wing opposition before the March election.
- **Middle-Class Support:** Many middle-class Germans, wealthy industrialists, and traditional conservatives supported or tolerated Hitler’s aggressive consolidation of power because they viewed the Nazis as the only strong bulwark against a Bolshevik-style revolution.

### Disagree: Other Factors Were More Important
- **The Enabling Act (March 1933):** This legal measure gave Hitler’s cabinet the power to bypass the Reichstag and pass laws independently for four years, transforming his government into a legal dictatorship.
- **The Night of the Long Knives (June 1934):** This eliminated internal threats within the Nazi Party, specifically Ernst Röhm and the leadership of the SA. In doing so, Hitler gained the crucial support of the regular German army (*Wehrmacht*), who feared a takeover by the SA.
- **Gleichschaltung (Coordination):** The systematic banning of trade unions and all non-Nazi political parties, along with the establishment of concentration camps like Dachau, forced German society into complete conformity.
- **The Death of Hindenburg (August 1934):** This final constitutional event allowed Hitler to merge the offices of Chancellor and President, declaring himself *Führer* and securing an oath of personal loyalty from every soldier in the armed forces.

**Level 5 [10 marks]:** Explains both sides and supports a valid, balanced judgement on 'how far'.
- Must include at least one clear, developed explanation on the role of the fear of communism, and at least one explanation of other factors (e.g., the Enabling Act, the Night of the Long Knives, or the death of Hindenburg).
- Reaches a substantiated conclusion.

**Level 4 [7–9 marks]:** Explains both sides.
- **7 marks:** One developed explanation on each side.
- **8–9 marks:** Additional developed explanation(s) on either side.

**Level 3 [4–6 marks]:** Explains one side.
- **4 marks:** One developed explanation on one side (either agreeing with the communism focus or focusing on other factors).
- **5–6 marks:** Additional developed explanation(s) on that same side.

**Level 2 [2–3 marks]:** Identifies or describes valid points but does not explain them in a historical context.
- *e.g., "The Reichstag Fire happened in 1933." or "The Night of the Long Knives got rid of the SA."
- Award 1 mark per identified/described point.

**Level 1 [1 mark]:** Writes about the topic generally but does not directly address the question.
- *e.g., "Hitler was a strong dictator who hated his opponents."

**Level 0 [0 marks]:** No creditable response.

To answer this question successfully, you must identify both agreements and disagreements of detail between the two sources:

**Agreements include:**
- Both sources agree that German troops entered Austria in March 1938.
- Both sources agree that the event resulted in a political union or annexation of Austria by Germany.
- Both sources agree that there was no military battle or active resistance by the Austrian army (Source A says 'not a single shot was fired' and Source B mentions the troops entered and Schuschnigg resigned without a military conflict described).

**Disagreements include:**
- **The nature of the entry:** Source A claims it was not an invasion of force but a peaceful entry ('not with the intention of using force'), whereas Source B states it was a 'brutal annexation' and 'nothing less than an armed invasion'.
- **The reaction of the Austrian people:** Source A asserts that the population welcomed the soldiers with 'immense joy and relief', whereas Source B argues that any enthusiasm was merely 'a result of fear' under threat of the Gestapo.
- **The justification/cause:** Source A claims the union represents the 'democratic will' of the people, while Source B indicates it was forced upon them through 'military violence' and the bullying of Chancellor Schuschnigg.

**Level 4 (6–7 marks):** Answers that compare agreement(s) AND disagreement(s) using specific details from both sources.
- *Example:* Both sources agree that German troops entered Austria to bring about a union of the two countries. However, they disagree on how this was received. Source A claims the Austrians welcomed the soldiers with joy, whereas Source B argues that any public enthusiasm was driven by fear of the Gestapo.

**Level 3 (3–5 marks):** Answers that compare agreement(s) OR disagreement(s) using specific details from the sources.
- *Example:* The sources disagree entirely on how the union was achieved. Source A says Germany did not use force and that the union was democratic, but Source B says it was an armed invasion where Schuschnigg was bullied and threatened with violence.

**Level 2 (2 marks):** Identifies information that is in one source but not in the other, or compares the provenance of the sources without comparing the actual content.
- *Example:* Source A is written by Adolf Hitler just after the event, while Source B is an editorial from a British newspaper.

**Level 1 (1 mark):** Writes about the topic or the sources but makes no valid comparison.

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

The cartoonist’s message is a strong criticism of the Munich Agreement and the policy of appeasement pursued by Britain and France.

- **Cartoonist's Point of View:** The cartoonist strongly disapproves of Chamberlain and Daladier's actions. Depicting them as blindfolded and walking away suggests they are willfully ignoring the reality of German expansionism and abandoning Czechoslovakia to be carved up by Hitler.
- **The Big Message:** Appeasement did not bring genuine peace; rather, it was a shameful sacrifice of a sovereign nation that fed Hitler's territorial ambitions, represented by him aggressively carving up the map with a giant knife.
- **Contextual Knowledge:** In September 1938, the Munich Conference took place where Britain and France agreed to let Germany annex the Sudetenland in exchange for a promise of no further territorial demands. Chamberlain famously declared it 'peace for our time'. Critics, including the cartoonist, argued that this appeasement only weakened the Allies, betrayed a democratic partner, and made future conflict inevitable.

**Level 5 [7–8 marks]:** Explains the cartoonist’s point of view/tone (criticism of appeasement and the betrayal of Czechoslovakia) supported by specific details from the cartoon and relevant historical context.

**Level 4 [6 marks]:** Explains the big message (e.g., that the Munich Agreement was a failure or did not bring real peace) but lacks a complete explanation of the cartoonist's critical stance or specific context.

**Level 3 [3–5 marks]:** Explains valid sub-messages of the cartoon (e.g., Hitler is taking Czechoslovakian land by force; Britain and France are ignoring the threat; Chamberlain believed he achieved peace).

**Level 2 [2 marks]:** Misinterprets the cartoon (e.g., claims it supports the Munich Agreement) or makes unsupported assertions.

**Level 1 [1 mark]:** Describes surface details of the cartoon without interpreting their symbolic meaning (e.g., there is a man with a knife and two men with blindfolds).

**Level 0 [0 marks]:** No creditable response.

To gain full marks (7-8 marks), candidates must explain the cartoonist's purpose in the context of October 1938.

**Context:** In late September 1938, Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement, allowing Germany to annex the Sudetenland. Chamberlain returned to Britain claiming he had secured 'peace for our time' and successfully averted war.

**Analysis of Source:** The cartoon challenges Chamberlain's optimistic claim (expressed ironically in the caption). By showing Hitler already holding keys to the 'Rhineland' and 'Austria' (representing his previous successful aggression), the cartoonist argues that the Sudetenland is simply another concession ('just one more key') in a continuous sequence. The bound Czechoslovakian soldier emphasizes the betrayal of Britain's democratic ally.

**Purpose:** The cartoon was published to actively undermine Chamberlain's policy, warn the British public that Hitler was insatiable, and persuade them that appeasement was a dangerous failure that would lead to further aggression rather than preventing war.

**Level 5 (7-8 marks):** Explains the purpose of the cartoonist in the context of the Munich Agreement (specifically targeting public trust in Chamberlain's 'peace for our time' claim) and the intended impact on the British audience (to turn public opinion against appeasement and warn them not to trust Hitler).

**Level 4 (6 marks):** Explains the big message of the cartoon as the reason for publication (i.e., that Chamberlain's appeasement policy is foolish and will not stop Hitler).

**Level 3 (4-5 marks):** Explains a sub-message of the cartoon as the reason for publication (e.g., that Czechoslovakia has been betrayed, or that Hitler has already broken treaties regarding the Rhineland and Austria).

**Level 2 (2-3 marks):** Explains the context of October 1938 but does not link it to the cartoonist's specific intent OR interprets the cartoon's message but does not state it as a reason for publication.

**Level 1 (1 mark):** Surface description of the cartoon details without historical context or valid analysis.

To evaluate if Source G can be trusted, candidates must look beyond simple trust based on the private nature of the letter (Level 3) and evaluate the content using contextual knowledge (Level 4) or analyze the specific purpose of Chamberlain in this private context (Level 5).

On one hand, the letter can be trusted (highly reliable) because it represents a private correspondence to his sister, where Chamberlain had no need to maintain the public facade of "peace for our time." It reveals his realistic, pragmatic calculation that Britain was militarily unprepared—a claim supported by historical facts, such as the vulnerability of London to air attacks in 1938 and the subsequent mobilization of radar defences and fighter production (spitfires and hurricanes) during the "bought time" of 1938–39.

On the other hand, a critical reading might suggest Chamberlain was self-justifying his actions after facing significant domestic criticism from figures like Winston Churchill and the British public, who saw Munich as a shameful betrayal of Czechoslovakia. Thus, even in a private letter, he may be seeking to reassure his family (and himself) that his policies were a strategic success rather than a moral failure.

**Level 5 [7–8 marks]**
Evaluates Source G by considering Chamberlain’s purpose in writing to his sister in the context of the aftermath of the Munich Agreement.
*e.g., 'Source G is highly trustworthy as an explanation of his motives because, in a private letter to his sister, Chamberlain has no political need to pretend he achieved "peace in our time." Instead, he candidly confesses his fear of military weakness. However, we must also recognize his need to self-justify his controversial capitulation at Munich to his family in the face of growing domestic criticism.'*

**Level 4 [5–6 marks]**
Evaluates the claims in Source G by cross-referencing to contextual knowledge of British military preparedness in 1938.
*e.g., 'We can trust his explanation because British military records from 1938 confirm that the RAF was not yet ready to combat the Luftwaffe, and Chamberlain spent the year after Munich rapidly expanding fighter aircraft production and implementing radar defenses.'*

**Level 3 [3–4 marks]**
Answers based on the private nature of the source (undeveloped use of provenance) or everyday empathy.
*e.g., 'The source can be trusted because it is a private letter to his sister, so he would be honest with her and has no reason to lie to his own family.'*

**Level 2 [2 marks]**
Identifies what can/cannot be trusted but does not explain using context or purpose, OR analyzes the content without addressing trust.

**Level 1 [1 mark]**
Unsupported assertions.

**Level 0 [0 marks]**
No creditable response.

To evaluate if Source G can be trusted, candidates must look beyond simple trust based on the private nature of the letter (Level 3) and evaluate the content using contextual knowledge (Level 4) or analyze the specific purpose of Chamberlain in this private context (Level 5).

On one hand, the letter can be trusted (highly reliable) because it represents a private correspondence to his sister, where Chamberlain had no need to maintain the public facade of "peace for our time." It reveals his realistic, pragmatic calculation that Britain was militarily unprepared—a claim supported by historical facts, such as the vulnerability of London to air attacks in 1938 and the subsequent mobilization of radar defences and fighter production (spitfires and hurricanes) during the "bought time" of 1938–39.

On the other hand, a critical reading might suggest Chamberlain was self-justifying his actions after facing significant domestic criticism from figures like Winston Churchill and the British public, who saw Munich as a shameful betrayal of Czechoslovakia. Thus, even in a private letter, he may be seeking to reassure his family (and himself) that his policies were a strategic success rather than a moral failure.

**Level 5 [7–8 marks]**
Evaluates Source G by considering Chamberlain’s purpose in writing to his sister in the context of the aftermath of the Munich Agreement.
*e.g., 'Source G is highly trustworthy as an explanation of his motives because, in a private letter to his sister, Chamberlain has no political need to pretend he achieved "peace in our time." Instead, he candidly confesses his fear of military weakness. However, we must also recognize his need to self-justify his controversial capitulation at Munich to his family in the face of growing domestic criticism.'*

**Level 4 [5–6 marks]**
Evaluates the claims in Source G by cross-referencing to contextual knowledge of British military preparedness in 1938.
*e.g., 'We can trust his explanation because British military records from 1938 confirm that the RAF was not yet ready to combat the Luftwaffe, and Chamberlain spent the year after Munich rapidly expanding fighter aircraft production and implementing radar defenses.'*

**Level 3 [3–4 marks]**
Answers based on the private nature of the source (undeveloped use of provenance) or everyday empathy.
*e.g., 'The source can be trusted because it is a private letter to his sister, so he would be honest with her and has no reason to lie to his own family.'*

**Level 2 [2 marks]**
Identifies what can/cannot be trusted but does not explain using context or purpose, OR analyzes the content without addressing trust.

**Level 1 [1 mark]**
Unsupported assertions.

**Level 0 [0 marks]**
No creditable response.

To achieve the highest marks (Level 4, 6–9 marks), candidates must systematically group and analyze the sources to show how some support the hypothesis while others challenge it or highlight alternative causes. Sources supporting the hypothesis (Hitler's aggressive foreign policy as the main cause): - Source C (the Nazi-Soviet Pact's secret protocol) demonstrates clear, premeditated aggression to partition Poland, proving Hitler's direct responsibility. - Source D (the French diplomat's warning) explicitly identifies Hitler's long-term design for total European domination as the primary threat to peace. Sources challenging the hypothesis (offering alternative explanations or blaming other factors/nations): - Source A (Hitler's speech) argues that his demands are limited and peaceful, blaming Polish obstinacy and British encirclement for the escalating crisis. - Source B (the British cartoon) blames the policy of appeasement for enabling and encouraging German expansion, sharing the responsibility with British leadership. - Source E (the historical extract) argues that the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles created deep-seated structural instabilities that made war highly likely, irrespective of Hitler's specific actions. - Source F (the Soviet statement) blames the Western powers' failure to establish a collective security alliance, which forced the USSR into the pact, thus sharing the blame for the breakdown of diplomacy.

Level 1: Writes about the topic of the 1939 outbreak of war but makes no direct use of the sources. [1 mark] Level 2: Describes or references the sources but fails to use them to directly test the hypothesis. [2 marks] Level 3: Evaluates the sources to argue only one side of the hypothesis (either supporting it using Sources C and D, or challenging it using Sources A, B, E, and F). [3–5 marks] Level 4: Explains both sides of the hypothesis by showing how some sources support the claim (C, D) while others challenge it (A, B, E, F), supported by specific source evaluation or contextual knowledge. [6–9 marks] Note: Up to 7 marks for explaining one source on each side; 8–9 marks for explaining multiple sources on both sides and providing a balanced, evaluated conclusion.

Accounts may include the following details of Stresemann's policies: 1. Economic stabilization: The introduction of the Rentenmark in late 1923, which was backed by agricultural and industrial land, successfully brought hyperinflation to an end. This was replaced by the Reichsmark in August 1924, restoring international and domestic confidence in the currency. 2. The Dawes Plan (1924): This agreement restructured Germany's reparations payments to start at 1 billion marks annually and gradually rise to 2.5 billion. Crucially, it secured 800 million gold marks in loans from the USA, which stimulated industrial expansion and allowed public investment in infrastructure. 3. The Young Plan (1929): This deal lowered Germany's total reparations bill from £6.6 billion to £2 billion and granted 59 more years to pay, easing long-term national debt. 4. Foreign Policy and Locarno Treaties (1925): Germany agreed to its western borders with France and Belgium, leading to improved relations and French withdrawal from the Ruhr. 5. League of Nations (1926): Germany was accepted into the League of Nations as a great power with a permanent seat on the Council, reversing its post-war isolation. 6. Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928): Germany signed this pact alongside 61 other nations, promising to solve international disputes peacefully.

Level 3 (11-15 marks): Account includes the main events/developments and directly addresses the question. Account is consistently supported by accurate historical knowledge. Account is logically sequenced. Level 2 (6-10 marks): Account describes some events/developments relevant to the question. Account is mostly supported by accurate historical knowledge. Account is structured in its approach. Level 1 (1-5 marks): Response has limited relevance to the question. Response includes some accurate historical knowledge. Points made are generally unconnected. Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable response.

### Indicative Content

**Arguments demonstrating the importance of economic recovery and job creation:**
* **Reduction of Unemployment:** In 1933, Germany faced an unemployment crisis with around 6 million out of work. By 1939, the Nazi regime had achieved virtual full employment. This dramatic turnaround restored economic security, self-respect, and stability to millions of working-class families, creating genuine popularity for Hitler.
* **Public Works and Rearmament:** Infrastructure projects like the construction of the autobahns and, from 1935, rapid rearmament created thousands of jobs and stimulated industrial growth, winning the support of both industrial workers and wealthy industrialists.
* **The German Labour Front (DAF) and Strength through Joy (KdF):** Although independent trade unions were banned, the DAF's KdF program provided cheap leisure activities, subsidized holidays, theater trips, and sports events. The *Beauty of Labour* (SDA) scheme improved workplace conditions (better lighting, ventilation, and canteens). These programs made workers feel valued and helped reconcile them to the loss of their political rights and unions.

**Arguments demonstrating other factors/limitations (counter-perspectives):**
* **Limitations of the Economic 'Miracle':** Real wages did not rise significantly above pre-Depression levels, working hours increased (from 43 hours a week in 1933 to 47 hours in 1939), and trade unions were stripped of the right to strike. Conscription and the National Labour Service (RAD) artificially reduced unemployment figures. Thus, economic satisfaction was not universal.
* **The Role of Propaganda:** Joseph Goebbels' Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda successfully projected an image of a united, prosperous Germany. The 'Hitler Myth' portrayed the Führer as a national savior responsible for every success, which heavily reinforced popularity independent of economic reality.
* **Foreign Policy Successes:** Hitler's popular foreign policy achievements—such as rebuilding the military, the reoccupation of the Rhineland (1936), and the Anschluss with Austria (1938)—restored national pride and made the regime highly popular.
* **The Role of Terror and Coercion:** Apparent 'popularity' was also maintained by fear. The Gestapo, SS, and concentration camps effectively crushed any open dissent, meaning those who were unhappy with Nazi policies had to conform out of fear of arrest.

**Level 5 (21–25 marks):**
* The answer presents a balanced discussion with more than one facet (the significance of economic policies/achievements vs. other factors like propaganda, terror, or foreign policy).
* Uses well-supported, detailed historical explanations on both sides.
* Reaches a clear, convincing, and substantiated judgment on the relative importance of economic recovery to Nazi popularity.

**Level 4 (16–20 marks):**
* The answer presents more than one facet of the discussion with explanations supporting both sides.
* May attempt a judgment, but it is partially supported or lacks depth.

**Level 3 (11–15 marks):**
* The answer is one-sided, explaining only the importance of economic recovery/job creation OR explaining only other factors (e.g., terror/propaganda).
* Supported by relevant historical knowledge but lacks balance.

**Level 2 (6–10 marks):**
* The answer identifies relevant points on one or both sides but relies on assertion rather than developed historical explanation.
* Points are mostly descriptive or implicit.

**Level 1 (1–5 marks):**
* Displays generalized knowledge of Nazi Germany with limited focus on the question. No analytical discussion or judgment.

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