2023 Cambridge IGCSE History (0470) 模拟试题及答案详解

During the 1920s, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) aimed to improve working conditions globally. It successfully banned the use of toxic white lead in paint. It campaigned for a maximum 48-hour working week and an eight-hour working day, though many member states chose not to adopt this. It also worked to restrict child labor, recommended minimum age limits for employment, and established databases to collect and publish statistics on employment and safety at work.

Award 1 mark for each relevant point described, up to a maximum of 4 marks. An additional mark may be awarded for supporting detail.

Points to include:
- It collected and published data on work practices and employment conditions around the world.
- It successfully banned the use of poisonous white lead in paint.
- It campaigned for an eight-hour working day and a 48-hour working week.
- It worked to limit child labor and established recommended minimum ages for employment.
- It introduced guidelines to improve safety at work and promote pensions/sickness benefits.

In January 1919, the Spartacists, led by Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, attempted to overthrow Friedrich Ebert's provisional government. They organized protests and called for a general strike, which was supported by over 100,000 workers in Berlin. They took control of several key public buildings, including telegraph offices and newspaper headquarters. They also erected barricades on the streets and engaged in armed clashes against the Freikorps and government forces.

Award 1 mark for each relevant point described, up to a maximum of 4 marks. An additional mark may be awarded for supporting detail.

Points to include:
- They launched an armed uprising in Berlin in January 1919.
- They called for a general strike of workers to paralyze the capital.
- They seized control of key public buildings, such as newspaper and telegraph offices.
- They erected street barricades to defend their positions.
- They declared a revolutionary committee and attempted to establish a soviet-style government.
- They engaged in street fighting against the Freikorps and government troops.

To achieve full marks, a candidate must explain at least two reasons.

Reason 1: It showed that major powers could successfully bypass the League. Mussolini refused to accept the League's jurisdiction over the dispute and insisted that the Conference of Ambassadors handle it. Because the Conference of Ambassadors ultimately settled the crisis in Italy's favor, it proved that the League could be easily sidelined by powerful nations.

Reason 2: It exposed the weakness of collective security when Britain and France refused to act. France was reluctant to offend Italy because it needed Mussolini's support to enforce the Ruhr occupation, while Britain refused to act militarily without French backing. This proved the League was toothless if its leading members put their national self-interest ahead of international justice.

Level 4: Explains TWO reasons [6 marks]
Level 3: Explains ONE reason [4–5 marks]
(4 marks for one explanation, 5 marks for full/detailed explanation)
Level 2: Identifies AND / OR describes reasons [2–3 marks]
(One mark for each identification/description, e.g., 'Mussolini refused to accept the League's authority', 'The Conference of Ambassadors made the final decision', 'Greece was forced to pay compensation directly to Italy', 'Britain and France did not want to oppose Italy', 'Italian troops occupied the island of Corfu.')
Level 1: General answer lacking specific contextual knowledge [1 mark]
Level 0: No evidence submitted or response does not address the question [0 marks]

To achieve full marks, a candidate must explain at least two reasons.

Reason 1: Stalin believed the Plan was a form of 'dollar imperialism' designed to establish American economic hegemony over Europe. By offering financial aid, the United States aimed to promote free-market capitalism, which Stalin feared would undermine communist ideology and draw Eastern European satellite states into the American political orbit.

Reason 2: Accepting the aid required countries to open up their economic records and collaborate on economic integration. Stalin refused to allow Western scrutiny of Soviet-controlled economies and wanted to keep the Eastern bloc economically dependent on Moscow rather than integrated with the West. Consequently, he blocked satellite states like Poland and Czechoslovakia from participating.

Level 4: Explains TWO reasons [6 marks]
Level 3: Explains ONE reason [4–5 marks]
(4 marks for one explanation, 5 marks for full/detailed explanation)
Level 2: Identifies AND / OR describes reasons [2–3 marks]
(One mark for each identification/description, e.g., 'Stalin called it dollar imperialism', 'The USA wanted to promote capitalism and stop communism', 'Accepting aid required opening up economic records', 'Stalin banned Eastern European countries from accepting the aid', 'It was seen as a way to weaken Soviet control over Eastern Europe.')
Level 1: General answer lacking specific contextual knowledge [1 mark]
Level 0: No evidence submitted or response does not address the question [0 marks]

(a) The Health Organisation worked to control diseases by establishing research institutions to standardize vaccines. It successfully organized a massive campaign to combat the typhus epidemic in Russia and Siberia. It also worked globally to reduce the incidence of malaria and leprosy, and coordinated international research on deadly epidemics. (b) The League's response to the Abyssinian crisis failed because Britain and France wanted to keep Mussolini as an ally against Hitler, leading to the secret Hoare-Laval Pact. Furthermore, the League was slow to act, delaying oil sanctions and keeping the crucial Suez Canal open, which allowed Italian supply ships to reach Abyssinia easily. (c) The absence of the USA severely undermined collective security because the League lacked the economic clout of the world's largest financial power, making economic sanctions largely ineffective against aggressive states. However, other factors also caused the failure, such as the inherent structural weaknesses of the League (unanimity rule and lack of a standing army) and the self-serving actions of Britain and France, who pursued appeasement and prioritised their own empires over League principles.

Part (a) [4 marks]: Award 1 mark for each relevant point, and an additional mark for supporting detail. Part (b) [6 marks]: Level 4 (6 marks) explains two reasons; Level 3 (4-5 marks) explains one reason; Level 2 (2-3 marks) identifies/describes reasons; Level 1 (1 mark) general answer. Part (c) [10 marks]: Level 5 (10 marks) explains both sides with evaluation; Level 4 (7-9 marks) explains both sides; Level 3 (4-6 marks) explains one side; Level 2 (2-3 marks) identifies/describes factors; Level 1 (1 mark) general answer.

(a) The Freikorps, composed of demobilized right-wing soldiers, fought against left-wing revolutionaries in early Weimar Germany. They brutally crushed the communist Spartacist Uprising in Berlin in January 1919, executing Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. They were also used by the government to put down the Bavarian Soviet Republic, and later participated in the right-wing Kapp Putsch of 1920. (b) The French occupation of the Ruhr led the German government to order passive resistance, paying workers to go on strike. To cover these wages without industrial production, the government printed massive quantities of paper marks. This flood of unbacked currency rapidly devalued the mark, causing hyperinflation where prices skyrocketed and savings became worthless. (c) The Spartacist Uprising was a significant threat because it was a violent, early attempt to establish a communist state in the capital. However, other threats were arguably more serious; the Kapp Putsch of 1920 forced the government to flee Berlin and was only stopped by a general strike, showing that the army could not be trusted. Furthermore, the hyperinflation crisis of 1923 devastated the middle class and deeply undermined long-term confidence in democratic institutions, posing a broader threat than the short-lived communist rebellion.

Part (a) [4 marks]: Award 1 mark for each relevant point, and an additional mark for supporting detail. Part (b) [6 marks]: Level 4 (6 marks) explains two reasons; Level 3 (4-5 marks) explains one reason; Level 2 (2-3 marks) identifies/describes reasons; Level 1 (1 mark) general answer. Part (c) [10 marks]: Level 5 (10 marks) explains both sides with evaluation; Level 4 (7-9 marks) explains both sides; Level 3 (4-6 marks) explains one side; Level 2 (2-3 marks) identifies/describes factors; Level 1 (1 mark) general answer.

The League of German Maidens (Bund Deutscher Mädel, or BDM) was the girls' wing of the Nazi youth movement. Its activities were designed to prepare girls for their future roles as wives and mothers. Key activities included: 1. Physical training: Girls participated in gymnastics, athletics, and swimming to ensure they remained healthy and fit for motherhood. 2. Domestic education: They were taught home economics, cooking, sewing, and childcare. 3. Political indoctrination: They attended lectures and study groups to learn about Nazi ideology, racial purity, and obedience to the Führer. 4. Outdoor activities: They went on hikes, marched, and attended summer camps to foster comradeship and connection to the German land. 5. Community service: They participated in charity collections, such as the Winter Relief fund, and helped on farms during harvest season.

Level 1: One mark for each relevant point; additional mark for supporting detail (1-4 marks). - Girls were prepared for motherhood through physical training like gymnastics. - They were trained to be housewives by learning domestic skills such as cooking and sewing. - They attended political lectures to learn about Nazi ideas and racial theories. - They took part in outdoor activities like camping, hiking, and marching. - They performed community service, such as collecting money for the Winter Relief charity. - During the war, they helped with the war effort by assisting in hospitals or agriculture. Level 0: No evidence submitted or response does not address the question.

Proportional representation allowed many small political parties to gain seats in the Reichstag, which meant no single party could secure an absolute majority to govern alone. Consequently, governments had to be formed through coalitions of multiple parties. These coalitions were highly unstable because the parties often had conflicting aims, leading to frequent disagreements, political gridlock, and the collapse of governments. This weakened public faith in democracy as chancellors changed constantly. Additionally, Article 48 of the constitution gave the President the power to suspend civil liberties and rule by emergency decree without the consent of the Reichstag. While intended for crises, this power was used increasingly to bypass parliamentary blockages, which undermined democratic processes and prepared Germans for authoritarian rule.

Level 4: Explains TWO reasons (6 marks). Candidates must fully explain two distinct points, such as the mechanism of proportional representation leading to unstable coalitions, and how Article 48 undermined democratic rule. Level 3: Explains ONE reason (4-5 marks). Explains one reason in detail (4 marks for one explanation, 5 marks for full development). Level 2: Identifies and/or describes reasons (2-3 marks). One mark for each identification/description (e.g., 'Proportional representation was used', 'Article 48 allowed the President to rule by decree', 'It resulted in coalition governments that fell apart easily'). Level 1: General answer lacking specific contextual knowledge (1 mark). (e.g., 'It had rules that made the government weak'). Level 0: No evidence submitted or response does not address the question (0 marks).

Proportional representation allowed many small political parties to gain seats in the Reichstag, which meant no single party could secure an absolute majority to govern alone. Consequently, governments had to be formed through coalitions of multiple parties. These coalitions were highly unstable because the parties often had conflicting aims, leading to frequent disagreements, political gridlock, and the collapse of governments. This weakened public faith in democracy as chancellors changed constantly. Additionally, Article 48 of the constitution gave the President the power to suspend civil liberties and rule by emergency decree without the consent of the Reichstag. While intended for crises, this power was used increasingly to bypass parliamentary blockages, which undermined democratic processes and prepared Germans for authoritarian rule.

Level 4: Explains TWO reasons (6 marks). Candidates must fully explain two distinct points, such as the mechanism of proportional representation leading to unstable coalitions, and how Article 48 undermined democratic rule. Level 3: Explains ONE reason (4-5 marks). Explains one reason in detail (4 marks for one explanation, 5 marks for full development). Level 2: Identifies and/or describes reasons (2-3 marks). One mark for each identification/description (e.g., 'Proportional representation was used', 'Article 48 allowed the President to rule by decree', 'It resulted in coalition governments that fell apart easily'). Level 1: General answer lacking specific contextual knowledge (1 mark). (e.g., 'It had rules that made the government weak'). Level 0: No evidence submitted or response does not address the question (0 marks).

(a) The Hitler Youth prepared boys for military service through rigorous physical and mental preparation. Boys wore military-style uniforms and practiced military drills and marching to instil obedience. They engaged in outdoor activities such as map-reading, compass navigation, and survival camping to develop practical combat skills. They also completed strenuous physical fitness training, including cross-country runs and obstacle courses, to build endurance. Furthermore, they were trained in rifle shooting and were exposed to constant political lectures designed to foster aggressive nationalism and militarist values.

(b) The Reich Labour Service (RAD) was introduced in 1935 for several key reasons. Firstly, it aimed to artificially reduce the high unemployment figures by forcing young men aged 18 to 25 to complete six months of manual labor, effectively removing them from the unemployment register. Secondly, it provided the regime with a massive source of cheap labor to execute public works projects, such as building the new autobahns, draining marshes, and planting forests. Thirdly, it served as an ideal environment for intensive ideological indoctrination; by living in communal barracks under military-style discipline, young men could be thoroughly brainwashed with national socialist beliefs before they entered compulsory military service.

(c) On the one hand, there is evidence that industrial workers supported the regime. The rapid elimination of unemployment by 1939 gave millions of workers a steady wage and job security after the despair of the Great Depression. The 'Strength through Joy' (KdF) organization won praise by providing workers with cheap theater tickets, sports events, and highly subsidized holidays and cruise trips. Additionally, the 'Beauty of Labour' (SdA) campaign improved the physical working environment by upgrading factory ventilation, lighting, canteens, and washrooms, which made workers feel valued.

On the other hand, many workers were highly dissatisfied. Trade unions were banned, and the German Labour Front (DAF) stripped workers of their right to strike or collectively negotiate for higher wages. Working hours under the DAF rose from an average of 43 hours in 1933 to 47 hours in 1939, while real wages did not increase substantially. Furthermore, the 'People's Car' (Volkswagen) savings scheme turned out to be a deception, as workers' weekly savings deposits were confiscated to fund military rearmament instead of producing civilian cars. Thus, while the material security was welcomed, many workers felt exploited and resented the loss of basic freedoms.

Part (a): [4 marks]
Award 1 mark for each relevant point described; award an additional mark for supporting detail up to a maximum of 4 marks.
Points include:
- Military drills and marching (1 mark) to instil discipline (1 mark).
- Outdoor survival and navigation skills such as map-reading and camping (1 mark).
- Intense physical training, including obstacle courses, cross-country runs, and sports (1 mark).
- Firing weapons/rifle practice (1 mark).

Part (b): [6 marks]
- Level 4 (5-6 marks): Explains two or more reasons (e.g., explains how it artificially reduced unemployment figures AND how it was used to legislate and enforce barracks discipline and indoctrination).
- Level 3 (3-4 marks): Explains one reason with historical detail (e.g., explains how the RAD provided cheap labor for state infrastructure projects like the autobahns).
- Level 2 (2 marks): Identifies reasons without explanation (e.g., 'to build autobahns', 'to brainwash people').
- Level 1 (1 mark): General answer lacking specific context.

Part (c): [10 marks]
- Level 5 (10 marks): Explains both sides in detail and reaches a balanced, evaluative conclusion answering 'how far'.
- Level 4 (7-9 marks): Explains both sides of the argument (at least one detailed explanation on each side).
- Level 3 (4-6 marks): One-sided explanation OR very basic explanation of both sides.
- Level 2 (2-3 marks): Identifies benefits/drawbacks for workers without explaining how they linked to support or opposition.
- Level 1 (1 mark): General assertion without historical facts.

(a) The Hitler Youth prepared boys for military service through rigorous physical and mental preparation. Boys wore military-style uniforms and practiced military drills and marching to instil obedience. They engaged in outdoor activities such as map-reading, compass navigation, and survival camping to develop practical combat skills. They also completed strenuous physical fitness training, including cross-country runs and obstacle courses, to build endurance. Furthermore, they were trained in rifle shooting and were exposed to constant political lectures designed to foster aggressive nationalism and militarist values.

(b) The Reich Labour Service (RAD) was introduced in 1935 for several key reasons. Firstly, it aimed to artificially reduce the high unemployment figures by forcing young men aged 18 to 25 to complete six months of manual labor, effectively removing them from the unemployment register. Secondly, it provided the regime with a massive source of cheap labor to execute public works projects, such as building the new autobahns, draining marshes, and planting forests. Thirdly, it served as an ideal environment for intensive ideological indoctrination; by living in communal barracks under military-style discipline, young men could be thoroughly brainwashed with national socialist beliefs before they entered compulsory military service.

(c) On the one hand, there is evidence that industrial workers supported the regime. The rapid elimination of unemployment by 1939 gave millions of workers a steady wage and job security after the despair of the Great Depression. The 'Strength through Joy' (KdF) organization won praise by providing workers with cheap theater tickets, sports events, and highly subsidized holidays and cruise trips. Additionally, the 'Beauty of Labour' (SdA) campaign improved the physical working environment by upgrading factory ventilation, lighting, canteens, and washrooms, which made workers feel valued.

On the other hand, many workers were highly dissatisfied. Trade unions were banned, and the German Labour Front (DAF) stripped workers of their right to strike or collectively negotiate for higher wages. Working hours under the DAF rose from an average of 43 hours in 1933 to 47 hours in 1939, while real wages did not increase substantially. Furthermore, the 'People's Car' (Volkswagen) savings scheme turned out to be a deception, as workers' weekly savings deposits were confiscated to fund military rearmament instead of producing civilian cars. Thus, while the material security was welcomed, many workers felt exploited and resented the loss of basic freedoms.

Part (a): [4 marks]
Award 1 mark for each relevant point described; award an additional mark for supporting detail up to a maximum of 4 marks.
Points include:
- Military drills and marching (1 mark) to instil discipline (1 mark).
- Outdoor survival and navigation skills such as map-reading and camping (1 mark).
- Intense physical training, including obstacle courses, cross-country runs, and sports (1 mark).
- Firing weapons/rifle practice (1 mark).

Part (b): [6 marks]
- Level 4 (5-6 marks): Explains two or more reasons (e.g., explains how it artificially reduced unemployment figures AND how it was used to legislate and enforce barracks discipline and indoctrination).
- Level 3 (3-4 marks): Explains one reason with historical detail (e.g., explains how the RAD provided cheap labor for state infrastructure projects like the autobahns).
- Level 2 (2 marks): Identifies reasons without explanation (e.g., 'to build autobahns', 'to brainwash people').
- Level 1 (1 mark): General answer lacking specific context.

Part (c): [10 marks]
- Level 5 (10 marks): Explains both sides in detail and reaches a balanced, evaluative conclusion answering 'how far'.
- Level 4 (7-9 marks): Explains both sides of the argument (at least one detailed explanation on each side).
- Level 3 (4-6 marks): One-sided explanation OR very basic explanation of both sides.
- Level 2 (2-3 marks): Identifies benefits/drawbacks for workers without explaining how they linked to support or opposition.
- Level 1 (1 mark): General assertion without historical facts.

To answer this question effectively, you must compare the details of both sources to find agreements and disagreements, and also compare their main arguments (the 'big message').

**Agreements include:**
- Both sources discuss Chamberlain's policy of appeasement during the Munich crisis of September 1938.
- Both sources address the concept of buying time for military preparation (Source A says Chamberlain bought invaluable time to rearm, while Source B discusses whether useful time was bought).
- Both sources acknowledge the role of British public opinion in Chamberlain's decision-making process.

**Disagreements include:**
- **Overall assessment:** Source A strongly supports Chamberlain's actions, calling them a 'courageous attempt to save Europe' and 'realistic and deeply moral'. Source B strongly condemns them, describing Munich as a 'shameful betrayal' and a 'catastrophic failure'.
- **Buying time:** Source A claims Chamberlain successfully bought invaluable time to rearm. Source B argues that the delay did not buy useful time but instead strengthened Germany's military power through the acquisition of Czechoslovakia's resources.
- **Public opinion:** Source A states the British public was passionately opposed to going to war, suggesting unity. Source B claims public opinion was deeply divided and many felt humiliated.

**Generic IGCSE Marking Scheme for Source Comparison (7 Marks):**

- **Level 5 [7 Marks]:** Compares the 'big messages' of the two sources. (Author of Source A is sympathetic to Chamberlain/appeasement and argues it was a necessary and moral success, whereas the author of Source B is highly critical and argues it was a disastrous failure/betrayal). Must be supported with details from both sources.
- **Level 4 [5-6 Marks]:** Explains both agreements AND disagreements of details/sub-messages. (e.g. they agree that public opinion mattered, but disagree on whether public opinion was united or divided; they disagree on whether the delay helped Britain or Germany).
- **Level 3 [3-4 Marks]:** Explains agreement OR disagreement of details/sub-messages.
- **Level 2 [2 Marks]:** Identifies information that is in one source but not the other, OR compares the provenance/date of the sources, OR makes undeveloped/surface comparisons.
- **Level 1 [1 Mark]:** Writes about the sources but makes no valid comparison.
- **Level 0 [0 Marks]:** No evidence submitted or response does not address the question.

Level 1 (1–2 marks): Writes about the source but fails to address reliability, or makes unsupported assertions (e.g., 'It is reliable because Ebert was the President').

Level 2 (3–4 marks): Evaluates reliability based on undeveloped provenance (e.g., 'It is unreliable because Ebert wanted to make his government look good as he was the President').

Level 3 (5–6 marks): Evaluates reliability by comparing the claims in the source to contextual knowledge of the period (e.g., referencing the Spartacist Uprising in January 1919, the reliance on the Freikorps to crush workers' revolts, or widespread disillusionment with the 'stab-in-the-back' myth, to show Ebert is downplaying the severity of opposition).

Level 4 (7–8 marks): Evaluates reliability by analyzing Ebert’s purpose in making this speech at the National Assembly in February 1919 (e.g., to reassure the delegates, secure international recognition, and project an image of stability to the Allies during the peace negotiations).

Level 1: Unsupported assertions or simple paraphrasing of the source. [1-2 marks]
Level 2: Simple evaluation based on provenance (author, date, audience) without deep contextual development. [3-4 marks]
Level 3: Explanation of reliability or unreliability using specific contextual knowledge (e.g., Spartacist revolt, Freikorps violence, political instability). [5-6 marks]
Level 4: Sophisticated evaluation of reliability by examining the author's purpose, motive, and audience in the context of February 1919. [7-8 marks]

Level 1 (1–2 marks): Simple assertions or describes the sources without addressing whether Hitler should be believed.

Level 2 (3–4 marks): Answers based on undeveloped provenance (e.g., 'I do not believe Hitler because he was a dictator and the British journalist is more trustworthy').

Level 3 (5–6 marks): Explains reasons to disbelieve Hitler by comparing the disagreements between the sources (e.g., Source B claims peace is secured and Hitler has no further ambitions, whereas Source C claims it is a betrayal that opens the road to total domination).

Level 4 (7–8 marks): Evaluates the reliability/credibility of one or both sources using detailed contextual knowledge of the period (e.g., Hitler's invasion of the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, which proved his claims of 'no more territorial ambitions' were lies, or evaluating Source C as a highly accurate prediction of future events).

Level 1: Simple description of sources or assertions without a clear argument on credibility. [1-2 marks]
Level 2: Basic comparison of claims or simple rejection/acceptance based on source origin. [3-4 marks]
Level 3: Developed explanation of why Source C makes Hitler’s claims in Source B hard to believe, using cross-reference/contextual knowledge. [5-6 marks]
Level 4: Excellent evaluation of both sources, showing how subsequent events (March 1939 invasion of Prague) confirm the journalist's assessment and prove Hitler was lying to deceive the public and appease the West. [7-8 marks]

Level 1 (1–2 marks): Describes the source or asserts usefulness without development (e.g., 'It is useful because it tells us about the Aaland Islands').

Level 2 (3–4 marks): Explains that the source is not useful because it is biased/propaganda produced by the League itself to make itself look good.

Level 3 (5–6 marks): Explains how the source is useful as evidence of the League's actual success in the Aaland Islands in 1921, using contextual knowledge to confirm the details of the dispute.

Level 4 (7–8 marks): Explains that the source is useful not just for the factual detail of the Aaland Islands, but as evidence of how the League wished to project its image and promote the concept of collective security in its early years, or evaluates its usefulness in light of its limitations (e.g., the League succeeded here because both sides were small and willing to cooperate, unlike later disputes involving major powers).

Level 1: Simple surface-level utility or irrelevant comments. [1-2 marks]
Level 2: Rejection of utility based purely on the source being 'biased' official propaganda. [3-4 marks]
Level 3: Balanced discussion of utility by cross-referencing with knowledge of the Aaland Islands dispute (1920-21). [5-6 marks]
Level 4: Sophisticated evaluation showing that the source is highly useful as evidence of the League's self-image and propaganda strategies in the early 1920s, while recognizing its limitations in depicting the League's overall effectiveness when dealing with major powers. [7-8 marks]

Level 1 (1–2 marks): Gives a surface-level explanation based on the text (e.g., 'It was delivered to criticize the Marshall Plan').

Level 2 (3–4 marks): Explains the context of 1947 (the introduction of the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan earlier that year) but does not link this to Zhdanov's specific purpose/motive.

Level 3 (5–6 marks): Explains the message/argument of the speech (the Soviet view that the Marshall Plan was imperialist/expansionist) in the context of the growing division of Europe.

Level 4 (7–8 marks): Explains the purpose of the speech in September 1947: it was delivered at the founding of Cominform to mobilize communist parties across Europe (especially in Eastern Europe and countries like France and Italy) to reject the Marshall Plan, unify the Soviet bloc under Stalin's control, and counter American containment policy.

Level 1: Simple description of the speech content or vague context. [1-2 marks]
Level 2: Basic contextualization of the Cold War in 1947 (Truman Doctrine, Marshall Plan) without identifying the specific purpose. [3-4 marks]
Level 3: Explanation of the message of the speech (Soviet hostility to the Marshall Plan as economic imperialism). [5-6 marks]
Level 4: Clear explanation of purpose: to justify the creation of Cominform, enforce ideological conformity among Eastern European satellites, and coordinate the rejection of the Marshall Plan to maintain Soviet influence. [7-8 marks]

A strong response will systematically examine both sides of the argument using the sources:

**Arguments supporting the League's success (Agree):**
- **Source A** demonstrates a clear triumph of the League in the Aaland Islands dispute (1921). It shows that when two sovereign states (Sweden and Finland) accepted the League’s mediation, conflict was prevented.
- **Source B** shows how the League maintained peace in a highly volatile region by organizing a plebiscite in Upper Silesia (1921) and successfully dividing the territory in a way that both Germany and Poland accepted.
- **Source C** visually supports the claim, illustrating the League as a powerful and respected authority that successfully intervened to stop hostilities between Greece and Bulgaria in 1925.
- **Source G** offers further positive evidence of the League's ability to stabilize post-war disputes by successfully managing massive humanitarian crises resulting from border adjustments.

**Arguments challenging the League's success (Disagree):**
- **Source D** serves as a direct contradiction, revealing the League's absolute failure in Vilna (1920) when a major power's ally (Poland) simply ignored the League's directives, and the League proved powerless to enforce its decision.
- **Source E** and **Source F** both expose the League's failure during the Corfu Incident (1923). Source E shows the public perception of the League's weakness when challenged by a great power (Italy), while Source F documents Mussolini's direct contempt for the League's arbitration, which forced the dispute to be settled outside the League's framework (via the Conference of Ambassadors).
- **Source H** provides an overarching critical perspective, arguing that any 'success' in the 1920s was superficial because the League was only capable of acting when the interests of Great Powers were not directly threatened.

**Conclusion:**
While the League of Nations enjoyed notable successes in resolving disputes among smaller nations when they consented to arbitration (Sources A, B, and C), the sources collectively demonstrate that its power was highly conditional. It failed consistently whenever a Great Power chose to act aggressively or ignore its mandates (Sources D, E, and F), rendering the claim of overall success in the 1920s unconvincing.

**Level 3: Uses sources to support and reject the statement [7–10 marks]**
- Candidates must refer to specific sources by letter, provenance, or direct quote.
- There must be clear explanations of how the chosen sources either support or reject the hypothesis.
- Max 8 marks if only one side of the argument is developed using the sources.
- **Agree (\checkmark):** Sources A, B, C, G
- **Disagree (x):** Sources D, E, F, H

**Level 2: Uses sources to support OR reject the statement [4–6 marks]**
- Candidates explain the view of sources on one side of the argument only.

**Level 1: No valid source use [1–3 marks]**
- General narrative about the League of Nations' disputes in the 1920s with no specific reference to the sources, or mere listing of source letters without explanation.

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

*Note: Award up to 2 bonus marks for the evaluation of individual sources (no more than 1 mark per source, up to a maximum of 12 marks total for the question).* For example, evaluating Mussolini's purpose in Source F or the political bias of the German cartoon in Source E.

Candidates should structure their essay with a balanced argument, assessing the importance of propaganda while contrasting it with other mechanisms of control, such as terror, economic policies, and foreign successes. Use of specific terminology and historical examples is required to access higher levels.

**Yes (Propaganda was highly significant):**
- Under Goebbels and the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, the regime established absolute control over all media forms: newspapers, literature, art, and cinema (e.g., films like 'Triumph of the Will').
- The 'People's Receiver' (Volksempfänger) made cheap radios widely available, ensuring Hitler's speeches directly reached millions in their homes and workplaces.
- Rallies and spectacles, such as the annual Nuremberg Rallies, projected overwhelming power, unity, and order, converting passive acceptance into active patriotism.
- Youth organisations (Hitler Youth and League of German Maidens) and a heavily coordinated school curriculum successfully brainwashed the younger generation, securing long-term loyalty.

**No (Other factors were more or equally significant):**
- The role of terror and repression was fundamental. The Gestapo, SS, SD, and block wardens created an atmosphere of fear where any dissent was highly dangerous. Concentration camps like Dachau silenced political opponents (communists and socialists) very early in the regime.
- Economic stability and success earned the regime genuine popularity. The rapid reduction of unemployment through public work schemes (e.g., autobahns), rearmament, and conscription made many Germans tolerate the dictatorship.
- 'Strength through Joy' (KdF) and 'Beauty of Labour' (SdA) offered material benefits, holidays, and leisure opportunities that satisfied the working classes.
- Foreign policy successes, such as the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, the Anschluss, and the recovery of the Saar, restored national pride and reconciled many traditional nationalists to Nazi rule without requiring propaganda to convince them.

Band 5 (33–40 marks): Candidates produce a well-balanced and well-developed essay that directly assesses the significance of propaganda alongside other factors to reach a supported and analytical conclusion. Extensive and precise historical detail is deployed.

Band 4 (25–32 marks): Candidates produce a balanced but partially developed explanation of the factors. Some arguments may be implicit, but the candidate demonstrates a sound understanding of both the impact of propaganda and other methods of control.

Band 3 (17–24 marks): Candidates produce a one-sided explanation focusing almost entirely on propaganda, or write a balanced but predominantly descriptive account of Nazi methods of control without analytical development.

Band 2 (9–16 marks): Candidates produce a limited description of Nazi propaganda or terror, often narrative in style, lacking depth and clear focus on the analytical question.

Band 1 (1–8 marks): Candidates write briefly with largely inaccurate or irrelevant material, showing minimal historical understanding.