2025 Cambridge IGCSE History (0470) Practice Paper with Answers

To obtain full marks, candidates should provide four distinct factual details about the raid, or develop points in detail:
- John Brown led an armed raid on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, in October 1859.
- His aim was to seize weapons to arm enslaved people and spark a massive slave rebellion.
- The raiders succeeded in capturing the arsenal but were quickly trapped inside by local militia.
- US Marines, commanded by Robert E. Lee, captured Brown and his surviving men.
- John Brown was tried for treason, sentenced to death, and hanged, becoming a martyr for the abolitionist movement.

Award 1 mark for each relevant correct point described (up to a maximum of 4 marks):
- Seizure of the federal armory/arsenal (1 mark)
- Location: Harpers Ferry, Virginia (1 mark)
- Aim to spark a slave uprising/arm slaves (1 mark)
- Involvement of Robert E. Lee/US Marines in capturing Brown (1 mark)
- Trial and execution/hanging of John Brown (1 mark)
- Impact: Increased tensions between North and South / Brown became an abolitionist martyr (1 mark)

To obtain full marks, candidates should outline four factual details regarding the plebiscite:
- The Saar was an industrial region run by the League of Nations for 15 years under the Treaty of Versailles.
- In January 1935, the status of the territory was put to a democratic vote (plebiscite).
- Voters were given three choices: return to Germany, join France, or remain under League control.
- The result was an overwhelming victory for Germany, with over 90% voting to reunite.
- This was a major propaganda victory for Adolf Hitler and boosted his regime's domestic popularity.

Award 1 mark for each relevant correct point described (up to a maximum of 4 marks):
- Saar had been under League of Nations control for 15 years (1 mark)
- Mandated by the Treaty of Versailles (1 mark)
- Held in January 1935 (1 mark)
- Three options on the ballot: Germany, France, or League control (1 mark)
- Over 90% voted to return to Germany (1 mark)
- Used as a major propaganda success by Adolf Hitler / validated Nazi rule (1 mark)

To obtain full marks, candidates should provide four distinct features of the trench system:
- Trenches were dug in a zigzag pattern to limit the impact of artillery shells and prevent clear lines of sight for the enemy.
- The system consisted of parallel lines: front-line trenches, support trenches, and reserve trenches.
- Communication trenches connected the various lines to allow safe movement of soldiers, supplies, and casualties.
- Defensive features included barbed wire entanglements in front of the trenches and sandbags (parapets) for protection.
- Internal features included duckboards at the bottom to keep soldiers out of mud and water, and firesteps for soldiers to stand on when shooting.

Award 1 mark for each relevant correct point described (up to a maximum of 4 marks):
- Zigzag layout/pattern (1 mark)
- Parallel lines (front-line, support, and reserve trenches) (1 mark)
- Connected by communication trenches (1 mark)
- Fronted by No Man's Land / barbed wire (1 mark)
- Use of duckboards on trench floors (1 mark)
- Use of sandbags/parapets/firesteps (1 mark)
- Presence of dugouts/shelters for protection from artillery (1 mark)

1. It declared that Congress had no constitutional power to ban slavery in any US territory, effectively invalidating the Missouri Compromise. This outraged Northern politicians and abolitionists who feared that slavery would now spread unchecked across the West.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, were not citizens of the United States and therefore could not sue in federal courts. This shocked Northerners as it suggested that free blacks in Northern states had no legal rights under the US Constitution, deepening regional distrust and fear of a Southern slaveholder conspiracy.

Level 4 (6 marks): Explains two reasons.
Level 3 (4-5 marks): Explains one reason. Four marks for one explanation, five marks for an explanation supported by specific contextual knowledge.
Level 2 (2-3 marks): Identifies or describes valid reasons but does not explain (e.g., ruled that slaves were property, invalidated the Missouri Compromise, stated blacks were not citizens).
Level 1 (1 mark): Writes about the topic but does not address the question.
Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable response.

1. Hitler wanted to avoid a two-front war. By securing a non-aggression agreement with the Soviet Union, he ensured that if Germany invaded Poland, the USSR would not intervene, allowing Germany to focus its forces entirely against Poland and the Western Allies.
2. The secret clauses of the pact agreed to partition Poland and split Eastern Europe into spheres of influence. This gave Hitler a guaranteed share of Polish territory and economic resources without having to fight the Soviet Union immediately to obtain them.

Level 4 (6 marks): Explains two reasons.
Level 3 (4-5 marks): Explains one reason. Four marks for one explanation, five marks for an explanation supported by specific contextual knowledge.
Level 2 (2-3 marks): Identifies or describes valid reasons but does not explain (e.g., to avoid a two-front war, to partition Poland, to gain resources, to keep Stalin neutral).
Level 1 (1 mark): Writes about the topic but does not address the question.
Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable response.

1. The stubborn defence of Belgian fortresses, particularly at Liège, delayed the German advance by several critical days. This lost time allowed the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) to land in France and march north to Mons, disrupting the precise German timetable.
2. The fierce resistance forced the German high command to pull several divisions away from the main strike force to besiege and occupy Belgian cities. This significantly weakened the right wing of the German army, which was crucial for executing the sweeping envelopment of Paris.

Level 4 (6 marks): Explains two reasons.
Level 3 (4-5 marks): Explains one reason. Four marks for one explanation, five marks for an explanation supported by specific contextual knowledge.
Level 2 (2-3 marks): Identifies or describes valid reasons but does not explain (e.g., delayed the German timetable, allowed the BEF to mobilize, weakened the German right wing).
Level 1 (1 mark): Writes about the topic but does not address the question.
Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable response.

This question requires balanced coverage of both the role of Abraham Lincoln's election in triggering the Civil War and other long-term causes that contributed to the conflict.

Arguments agreeing that Lincoln's election was the main cause:
- His election was the immediate catalyst for the secession of the Southern states, starting with South Carolina in December 1860, as Southern states believed his Republican platform threatened the institution of slavery.
- Southern leaders argued that Lincoln's victory made compromise impossible because he represented a sectional party dedicated to halting the expansion of slavery.
- His victory convinced many Southerners that they no longer had a voice in the federal government.

Arguments disagreeing / identifying other main causes:
- Long-term economic differences: The industrialising, tariff-supporting North and the agrarian, slave-dependent South had incompatible economic systems.
- The issue of states' rights vs. federal authority: The ongoing constitutional debate over whether states had the right to secede or nullify federal laws.
- The moral and political conflict over slavery: Deep-seated tensions surrounding the expansion of slavery into new territories (e.g., Kansas-Nebraska Act, Dred Scott decision, John Brown's raid) had been building for decades, making war likely regardless of who won in 1860.

Level 5 [10 marks]: Explains both sides and supports a valid judgement on 'how far'.
Level 4 [7–9 marks]: Explains both sides. For 7 marks, there must be one clear explanation on each side. Additional marks are awarded for more explanations on either side.
Level 3 [4–6 marks]: Explains one side (either agreeing that Lincoln's election was the main cause, or arguing that other factors were more important).
Level 2 [2–3 marks]: Identifies or describes valid points on either side but does not explain them.
Level 1 [1 mark]: Writes about the topic but does not address the specific question.
Level 0 [0 marks]: No creditable response.

This question requires candidates to weigh the impact of British and French appeasement policy against Adolf Hitler's foreign policy objectives in causing the Second World War.

Arguments agreeing that appeasement was more responsible:
- Appeasement gave Hitler the impression that Britain and France would not fight to stop his expansionism, encouraging him to make bolder demands (e.g., remilitarisation of the Rhineland, Anschluss with Austria, annexation of the Sudetenland).
- By conceding to Hitler's demands at Munich, Britain and France sacrificed Czechoslovakia's strong defensive border and industrial capacity, severely weakening any collective security resistance.
- The policy alienated the USSR, making Joseph Stalin suspicious of Western motives and directly leading to the Nazi-Soviet Pact, which paved the way for the invasion of Poland.

Arguments disagreeing / identifying Hitler's aims as more responsible:
- Hitler's foreign policy was explicitly aggressive and expansionist from the start, as detailed in Mein Kampf (achieving Lebensraum, destroying the Treaty of Versailles, and uniting all German speakers).
- Hitler was determined to expand eastward and destroy Poland and the USSR regardless of Western policy; appeasement merely delayed a conflict he was actively planning.
- Hitler deliberately broke his promises (e.g., invading the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939), showing that his goals could never be satisfied by concessions.

Level 5 [10 marks]: Explains both sides and supports a valid judgement on 'how far'.
Level 4 [7–9 marks]: Explains both sides. For 7 marks, there must be one clear explanation on each side. Additional marks are awarded for more explanations on either side.
Level 3 [4–6 marks]: Explains one side (either explaining the role of appeasement or Hitler's expansionist aims).
Level 2 [2–3 marks]: Identifies or describes valid points on either side but does not explain them.
Level 1 [1 mark]: Writes about the topic but does not address the specific question.
Level 0 [0 marks]: No creditable response.

This question requires candidates to construct a balanced argument comparing the role of terror and coercion with other methods of control, such as popularity, economic success, and propaganda, in maintaining the Nazi regime.

Arguments agreeing that terror and force was the main reason:
- The Gestapo, the SS, and the SD created an atmosphere of fear where any opposition could lead to arrest, imprisonment in concentration camps, or execution.
- The banning of trade unions and opposition parties, along with the Night of the Long Knives in 1934, systematically eliminated potential organised resistance.
- The use of block wardens and encouragement of denunciation ensured that even private dissent was highly risky, forcing compliance from the civilian population.

Arguments disagreeing / identifying other factors as more important:
- Popularity and consent: Many Germans genuinely supported Hitler because he restored economic stability, reduced unemployment (through public works and rearmament), and rebuilt national pride by challenging the Treaty of Versailles.
- Propaganda and indoctrination: Goebbels' Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda successfully controlled the press, radio, and cinema to cultivate the 'Führer myth' and win over public support.
- Indoctrination of youth: Organisations like the Hitler Youth and League of German Maidens, combined with control of the education system, secured the loyalty of the younger generation without relying solely on force.

Level 5 [10 marks]: Explains both sides and supports a valid judgement on 'how far'.
Level 4 [7–9 marks]: Explains both sides. For 7 marks, there must be one clear explanation on each side. Additional marks are awarded for more explanations on either side.
Level 3 [4–6 marks]: Explains one side (either explaining the role of terror and force or other factors like propaganda and economic success).
Level 2 [2–3 marks]: Identifies or describes valid points on either side but does not explain them.
Level 1 [1 mark]: Writes about the topic but does not address the specific question.
Level 0 [0 marks]: No creditable response.

To answer this question effectively, candidates must analyze both the points of agreement and disagreement between the two sources, leading to a comparison of their main messages.

**Agreements include:**
- Both sources focus on the Munich Agreement and the resolution of the Czechoslovakian crisis.
- Both sources connect the outcome of the agreement directly to the future prospects of peace or war in Europe.

**Disagreements include:**
- Source A argues that the Munich Agreement has successfully secured long-term peace ("peace for our time"), while Source B argues that war is still inevitable ("we shall have war anyway").
- Source A views the negotiations as a triumph of diplomacy and peaceful resolution, whereas Source B views them as a surrender ("throwing a small state to the wolves") and a "total and unmitigated defeat."
- Source A implies that Germany under Hitler is reasonable and willing to discuss grievances, whereas Source B claims that Hitler's promises are completely worthless and that he will only respond to force.

**Big Picture Comparison:**
Ultimately, the two sources represent opposing British perspectives in 1938. Source A represents the celebratory, optimistic view of appeasement as a stabilizer for European peace, while Source B represents the realistic, critical view that appeasement has weakened Britain's position and made war more certain.

**Level 5 [7 marks]:** Answers that compare the big messages of the two sources.
- Candidates must identify that Source A is optimistic about the Munich Agreement, believing it has secured peace through reasonable diplomacy, while Source B is highly pessimistic, viewing it as a total defeat that makes war inevitable because Germany cannot be trusted. Must be supported with source details.

**Level 4 [5–6 marks]:** Answers that compare agreement(s) AND disagreement(s) of detail.

**Level 3 [3–4 marks]:** Answers that compare agreement(s) OR disagreement(s) of detail.
- *Agreements:* Both concern the Munich Agreement/Czechoslovakia; both discuss the likelihood of war.
- *Disagreements:* Source A says it brings peace, Source B says war is coming; Source A thinks diplomacy worked, Source B thinks it was a defeat; Source A trust Hitler's willingness to negotiate, Source B says his promises are worthless.

**Level 2 [2 marks]:** Answers based on information that is in one source but not in the other OR Answers that compare the provenance/dates of the sources.

**Level 1 [1 mark]:** Answers that attempt to compare the sources but make no valid comparison.

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

This source is not surprising because it is highly consistent with Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. Throughout the late 1930s, Chamberlain genuinely believed that Hitler's demands were limited and could be negotiated peacefully to avoid another catastrophic European war. His private letters to his sister often reflected his true personal beliefs and relief, matching his public declaration at Heston Aerodrome where he waved the joint Anglo-German declaration and announced 'peace for our time'.

However, it could be argued to be surprising in hindsight or from the perspective of critics like Winston Churchill, who warned that Hitler could not be trusted and that the Munich Agreement was a defeat. It is also surprising that an experienced statesman could be so easily deceived by Hitler's promises, given Hitler's prior violations of treaties (such as the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936 and the Anschluss with Austria in early 1938) and his clear expansionist goals outlined in Mein Kampf.

Ultimately, contextually, the source is not surprising as it reveals Chamberlain's sincere, if naive, conviction in October 1938 that his diplomatic efforts had successfully averted war.

Level 5 [8 marks]: Contextual explanation of why it is NOT surprising because Chamberlain genuinely believed in appeasement and the success of the Munich Agreement, supported by cross-reference to his public declarations (e.g., 'peace for our time' speech) or his general foreign policy goals of avoiding war.

Level 4 [7 marks]: Explains why it is surprising AND why it is not surprising, using contextual knowledge of Chamberlain's beliefs versus Hitler's past actions or contemporary criticisms (e.g., Churchill's views).

Level 3 [4-6 marks]: Explains why it is surprising (e.g., because Hitler had already broken several treaties/promises like the Rhineland and Anschluss, or because of hindsight) OR explains why it is not surprising based on Chamberlain's known policy of appeasement, but lacks fully developed contextual depth.

Level 2 [2-3 marks]: Identifies reasons for surprise/lack of surprise based on simple reading of the source text, or makes general assertions without clear contextual support.

Level 1 [1 mark]: Identifies whether it is surprising or not but provides no valid explanation, or misinterprets the source.

Level 0 [0 marks]: No creditable response.

Source B must be evaluated with high skepticism regarding its objective reliability. As a political speech by Jefferson Davis to the newly formed Confederate Congress just weeks after the attack on Fort Sumter, its primary purpose is propaganda: to justify secession, rally Southern support, and portray the Confederacy as the peaceful, victimised defender of constitutional rights ('We ask only to be let alone').

Davis frames the conflict around 'constitutional rights to self-government' and 'control of our domestic affairs'. However, contextual knowledge reveals this is a sanitised euphemism designed to obscure the core issue driving secession: the preservation and expansion of the institution of slavery. Southern states seceded because they feared Lincoln's Republican administration would restrict slavery, which they viewed as essential to their economy and society. The 'property' Davis refers to directly includes enslaved people.

While the source is highly reliable as evidence of how the Confederate leadership wanted to present their cause to their own congress and potential foreign allies (like Britain and France), it is unreliable as an objective account of the causes of the war, as it deliberately omits the central role of slavery and ignores the South's aggressive action in firing on Fort Sumter to start the war.

Level 5 [8 marks]: Evaluates reliability by analyzing Davis's political purpose in April 1861 (to justify secession, gain foreign recognition, and rally domestic support) in the context of the outbreak of the Civil War, exposing his euphemistic language ('domestic affairs', 'property') as covers for the defense of slavery.

Level 4 [7 marks]: Evaluates reliability by cross-referencing the content with contextual knowledge of the causes of the Civil War (e.g., the central conflict over slavery and states' rights), but lacks a fully developed discussion of the author's specific purpose/audience.

Level 3 [4-6 marks]: Explains why the source is reliable (as an authentic record of the Confederate perspective/ideology) OR unreliable (pointing out bias or omissions regarding slavery and the firing on Fort Sumter), using contextual knowledge.

Level 2 [2-3 marks]: Discusses reliability based purely on the provenance (e.g., 'he was the President so he would know' or 'he is biased because he was the leader of the South') without developing the argument using contextual knowledge.

Level 1 [1 mark]: Makes simple assertions about reliability based on surface features of the text, or misinterprets the source.

Level 0 [0 marks]: No creditable response.

This source is not surprising because foreign diplomats and objective observers in Germany at the time were highly skeptical of Nazi propaganda. The speed with which Hitler used the Reichstag Fire of 27 February 1933 to pressure President Hindenburg into signing the Reichstag Fire Decree (which suspended key Weimar civil liberties and allowed for the mass arrest of communists) made it obvious that the Nazis were the primary beneficiaries of the disaster. Given this context, it is natural that a British diplomat, writing a secret, candid report to his government, would analyze the situation critically and report the widespread suspicion that the Nazis had set the fire themselves.

However, the source could be seen as surprising because the consensus among most modern historians is actually that Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutch communist, did act alone in setting the fire, and that the Nazis did not plan it but simply capitalized on the opportunity with remarkable speed. Therefore, the diplomat's claim that there was a 'growing consensus' that Goering and the Nazis executed the fire themselves is technically incorrect in light of historical hindsight, though it accurately reflects the intense suspicion and rumors circulating in Berlin in March 1933.

In conclusion, the source is not surprising as a reflection of contemporary diplomatic skepticism towards Nazi claims, even if its specific theory about Goering's direct involvement remains unproven.

Level 5 [8 marks]: Contextual explanation of why it is NOT surprising that a British diplomat would report these suspicions secretly, given the immediate political advantages Hitler gained (the Reichstag Fire Decree and suppression of opposition before the March elections), showing an understanding of diplomat duties and the contemporary climate of fear and suspicion.

Level 4 [7 marks]: Explains why it is surprising (referencing modern historical consensus that Van der Lubbe acted alone) AND why it is not surprising (referencing the immediate political benefits the Nazis derived and the suspicion of Nazi methods).

Level 3 [4-6 marks]: Explains why it is surprising OR why it is not surprising using specific contextual knowledge of the Reichstag Fire and its consequences (e.g., the Reichstag Fire Decree, the March 1933 election, or the role of Van der Lubbe).

Level 2 [2-3 marks]: Identifies surprising/not surprising elements based on a simple reading of the source, or makes general assertions about British/Nazi relations without specific context.

Level 1 [1 mark]: Makes simple assertions with no valid explanation or context, or misinterprets the source.

Level 0 [0 marks]: No creditable response.

On one hand, several sources provide strong evidence that Chamberlain's policy of appeasement was a total failure. Source B, a contemporary cartoon, critically depicts Chamberlain handing Czechoslovakia over to a ravenous German wolf, conveying the message that appeasement was a cowardly surrender that would fail to satisfy Hitler's aggression. This perspective is reinforced by Winston Churchill in Source D, who condemns the Munich Agreement as a 'total and unmitigated defeat,' arguing that the policy surrendered Czechoslovakia’s fortified line and industrial strength without gaining real peace. Furthermore, Source F, a modern historical textbook, provides objective proof of this failure by explaining how Germany's bloodless takeover of Czechoslovakia yielded vast military resources and state-of-the-art factories (like the Skoda works), thereby directly strengthening the Nazi war machine for the outbreak of war in 1939.

On the other hand, other sources reject the claim that appeasement was a total failure, showing it was either a successful attempt to preserve peace or a necessary, pragmatic strategy. In Source A, Chamberlain himself defends his policy, asserting that it successfully averted a catastrophic war and established a basis for resolving disputes through peaceful diplomacy rather than violence. Source E, a diary entry of an ordinary British citizen, supports this by showing that the policy achieved a major moral victory for the public, who were desperately relieved to avoid the horrors of bombing. Most importantly, Source C, the secret memorandum from British military chiefs, demonstrates that Britain’s air defences were dangerously unprepared for conflict in 1938. This indicates that appeasement was not a failure, but a vital and successful strategic delay that bought Britain the indispensable time needed to rearm before facing Germany in 1939.

In conclusion, while sources B, D, and F show that appeasement failed to stop Nazi expansion and ultimately strengthened Germany, sources A, C, and E show that it was not a total failure as it successfully aligned with public desire and bought critical time for Britain's military preparations.

Level 4 (6–9 marks)
Uses the sources to support AND reject the statement.
- 6 marks for one source on each side.
- 7-8 marks for multiple sources on both sides.
- 9 marks for fully developed explanations of multiple sources on both sides.

Note: Candidates must explicitly reference the sources by letter, description, or quotation, and explain how the content of the source either shows that appeasement was a failure or was not a failure.

Supporting (Appeasement was a failure):
- Source B: The cartoon shows that appeasement is futile and cowardly, as it depicts Chamberlain feeding a helpless Czechoslovakia to the German wolf, suggesting it will not lead to real peace.
- Source D: Churchill strongly argues that the policy has resulted in a 'total and unmitigated defeat' where Britain has surrendered strategic positions without preventing the threat.
- Source F: The textbook demonstrates that the policy failed because Germany's annexation of Czechoslovakian factories and military supplies directly strengthened Germany's capability to wage war in 1939.

Not supporting / Rejecting (Appeasement was NOT a failure / was justified):
- Source A: Chamberlain argues that the policy was a success because it preserved European peace, avoided immediate catastrophe, and opened a path to peaceful negotiations.
- Source C: The military chiefs' memorandum reveals that Britain's air defences were critically inadequate in 1938, showing that appeasement was not a failure but a successful tactical delay to allow for essential rearmament.
- Source E: The citizen's diary shows that appeasement was successful in achieving the democratic goal of avoiding war and sparing civilian populations from devastation.

Level 3 (3–5 marks)
Uses the sources to support OR reject the statement.
- 3 marks for one source.
- 4-5 marks for multiple sources.

Level 2 (2 marks)
Uses the sources but fails to use them to test the statement (e.g. merely summarising the source content without addressing the question of whether appeasement was a failure).

Level 1 (1 mark)
Writes about the topic but makes no use of the sources.

Level 0 (0 marks)
No creditable response.

Candidate accounts may include the following:

- **The Concordat (July 1933):** Hitler signed an agreement with the Catholic Church, represented by Pope Pius XI. Under this treaty, the Church agreed to keep out of political matters, and in return, the Nazi regime promised to respect religious freedom, Catholic schools, and Catholic youth organizations.
- **Violation of the Concordat:** The Nazis quickly began breaking this agreement by closing down Catholic schools, shuting down Catholic youth clubs, and harassing priests who spoke out against the regime.
- **Papal Opposition:** In 1937, Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical *Mit brennender Sorge* ('With Burning Anxiety'), which was smuggled into Germany and read from Catholic pulpits, condemning Nazi racism and violations of the Concordat.
- **The Reich Church (German Christians):** To control the fragmented Protestant churches, the Nazis united them into a single state-controlled National Reich Church under Reich Bishop Ludwig Müller. They attempted to remove the Old Testament from the Bible, exclude non-Aryans, and align church teachings with Nazi racial ideology.
- **The Confessional Church:** Led by Martin Niemöller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a group of Protestant pastors established the Confessional Church in 1934 to resist the Nazification of Christian theology and defend traditional biblical doctrines.
- **Persecution and Suppression:** As the regime consolidated control, many dissenting clergy members (both Catholic and Protestant) were arrested, harassed, and sent to concentration camps (e.g., Martin Niemöller). Alternative neo-pagan movements like the German Faith Movement were promoted by some high-ranking Nazis to replace Christianity entirely.

**Table A**
Use this table to give marks for each candidate response for AO1 for part (a) of each question.

- **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 material.

Responses may consider the following facets:

- **Importance of propaganda:** Goebbels' Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda successfully controlled information through the Reich Chamber of Culture, ensuring radio, press, art, and cinema aligned with Nazi ideology. Events like the Nuremberg rallies and public rituals fostered a sense of national unity (Volksgemeinschaft) and actively indoctrinated the public, cultivating the 'Hitler Myth' which portrayed the Führer as a flawless, selfless leader.

- **The role of terror and repression (counter-argument/other facet):** The regime's survival and control relied heavily on the fear of coercive organisations. The SS, Gestapo, and concentration camps silenced opposition and created an atmosphere of mutual suspicion, ensuring passive conformity even if active loyalty was absent.

- **Economic and social achievements (other facet):** Public support was sustained by tangible benefits. Work creation schemes, the construction of the Autobahns, and the introduction of the Kraft durch Freude (KdF) organisation improved working-class living conditions and reduced massive unemployment, which many Germans valued more than political freedom.

- **Foreign policy successes (other facet):** Dismantling elements of the hated Treaty of Versailles (e.g., the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, the Anschluss with Austria) restored national pride and achieved widespread popular approval without the need for active propaganda to manufacture it.

**Conclusion/Judgement:** Candidates should weigh these factors. While propaganda was essential for shaping active enthusiasm and building the 'Hitler Myth', it worked in tandem with terror to prevent dissent. Economic recovery and national rejuvenation were the foundations of genuine popularity that made propaganda believable.

Award marks according to the following levels-based criteria:

- **Level 5 (21–25 marks):** Assesses more than one facet of the discussion (e.g., explains both the role of propaganda and alternative factors like terror or economic success). Demonstrates well-supported historical explanations and delivers a clear, substantiated, and nuanced judgement on the relative importance of propaganda compared to other factors.
- **Level 4 (16–20 marks):** Discusses and explains both sides of the argument (propaganda vs other factors), but the final conclusion or judgement may be partially supported or less well-substantiated.
- **Level 3 (11–15 marks):** Focuses primarily on one facet of the debate, either thoroughly explaining the role of propaganda or explaining other factors, without adequately balancing both. Any attempt at a comparative judgement is unsupported.
- **Level 2 (6–10 marks):** Identifies relevant points or facets of Nazi control (e.g., Goebbels, Gestapo, work creation) but relies on general assertions without analytical explanation. Ideas are undeveloped or implicit.
- **Level 1 (1–5 marks):** Displays basic narrative knowledge of Nazi Germany, describing facts about propaganda or the regime with limited focus on the analytical question of control. No clear structure or analysis is present.
- **Level 0 (0 marks):** No creditable response.