2024 Cambridge IGCSE History (0470) 模拟试题及答案详解

The Freikorps were paramilitary units consisting primarily of right-wing, demobilised World War I soldiers. Between 1918 and 1920, they played a significant role in the political instability of the early Weimar Republic. They were deployed by the socialist government to crush far-left uprisings, most notably the Spartacist Revolt in Berlin in January 1919, where they captured and executed Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. In May 1919, they crushed the Bavarian Soviet Republic. However, their loyalty to the republic was short-lived, as many members participated in the Kapp Putsch of March 1920 in an attempt to overthrow the democratic government.

One mark for each relevant point. Responses may include the following: - They were right-wing paramilitary units made up of ex-soldiers. - They fought against communist and socialist groups in Germany. - They crushed the Spartacist Revolt in Berlin (January 1919). - They executed the Spartacist leaders, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht. - They defeated the Bavarian Soviet Republic in May 1919. - They participated in the Kapp Putsch of March 1920 in an attempt to overthrow the Weimar government.

Following the North Korean invasion of South Korea in June 1950, the United States took immediate action. Under President Harry Truman, the US brought the issue to the United Nations Security Council, securing a resolution that called on member states to assist South Korea. The US committed its own air, naval, and land forces to the conflict. General Douglas MacArthur was appointed to lead the unified United Nations Command. In September 1950, US forces launched a highly successful amphibious assault at Inchon, which cut off North Korean supply lines and allowed UN forces to push the invaders back across the 38th parallel.

One mark for each relevant point. Responses may include the following: - The US brought the invasion to the UN Security Council to secure military assistance for South Korea. - President Truman ordered US naval and air support to South Korean forces. - American ground troops were sent to Korea to defend the Pusan Perimeter. - General Douglas MacArthur was appointed to command the UN forces (which were mostly American). - The US launched a successful amphibious invasion at Inchon in September 1950. - US-led forces drove North Korean troops back across the 38th parallel and advanced towards the Chinese border.

### Possible Explanations:

* **Refusal of the military to defend the government:** The Reichswehr (regular army) refused to suppress the rebellion. When ordered by the government to fire on the mutinous Freikorps brigade marching on Berlin, General von Seeckt declared that 'Reichswehr does not fire upon Reichswehr.' This meant the democratically elected government was completely defenseless and had to flee to Stuttgart, exposing the extreme fragility of the republic's control over its own armed forces.

* **High motivation and power of right-wing militarists:** The instigators of the Putsch, including Wolfgang Kapp and Freikorps leader Hermann Ehrhardt, were deeply hostile to the democratic Weimar system and angered by the government's attempt to disband Freikorps units to comply with the demobilization requirements of the Treaty of Versailles. Because these highly trained and armed military groups wanted to restore an authoritarian regime or monarchy, their rebellion represented a coordinated attempt to completely overthrow the new constitutional order.

**Level 4 (6 marks):** Explains two reasons.
**Level 3 (4–5 marks):** Explains one reason. (4 marks for one explanation; 5 marks for explanation supported by specific contextual knowledge.)
**Level 2 (2–3 marks):** Identifies or describes valid reason(s); addresses the question but does not explain.
* e.g. The army refused to help the government.
* e.g. The Freikorps were ordered to disband under the Treaty of Versailles.
* e.g. The politicians had to flee Berlin.
* e.g. Right-wing nationalists wanted to bring back the Kaiser.
**Level 1 (1 mark):** Writes about the topic but does not address the question.
**Level 0 (0 marks):** No creditable response.

### Possible Explanations:

* **Commitment to the policy of containment:** Following the announcement of the Truman Doctrine in 1947, the United States was deeply committed to preventing any further expansion of communism. When communist North Korean forces invaded capitalist South Korea in June 1950, President Truman viewed this as a direct challenge by Soviet-backed forces. He believed that if South Korea fell, it would trigger a 'domino effect' where other democratic nations in Asia would fall to communism next, making intervention necessary to contain its spread.

* **Desire to uphold the authority of the United Nations:** The United States wanted to ensure that the newly formed United Nations did not suffer the same fate as the League of Nations, which had failed to prevent aggression in the 1930s. Truman believed that if the UN failed to act collectively against blatant aggression in Korea, the organization would lose all credibility and international security would collapse. By leading a UN-approved military coalition, the US aimed to preserve the principle of collective security.

**Level 4 (6 marks):** Explains two reasons.
**Level 3 (4–5 marks):** Explains one reason. (4 marks for one explanation; 5 marks for explanation supported by specific contextual knowledge.)
**Level 2 (2–3 marks):** Identifies or describes valid reason(s); addresses the question but does not explain.
* e.g. To stop the spread of communism (containment).
* e.g. Because North Korea invaded South Korea.
* e.g. They wanted to make sure the United Nations succeeded where the League of Nations failed.
* e.g. Truman believed in the Domino Theory.
**Level 1 (1 mark):** Writes about the topic but does not address the question.
**Level 0 (0 marks):** No creditable response.

Weimar government's decisions (agree side):
- Printing of money: The government decided to fund its passive resistance campaign in the Ruhr by printing paper money to pay striking workers. This rapidly devalued the Mark, as there was no increase in goods or economic production to back up the currency.
- Previous financial policies: The Weimar government already had massive budget deficits and war debts that it failed to manage through increased taxation, choosing instead to print money even before 1923, making the economy highly vulnerable to shocks.

Occupation of the Ruhr (disagree side):
- Direct economic paralysis: The French and Belgian occupation of the Ruhr cut off Germany's most productive coal and steel region. This halted tax revenues from the area and caused severe resource shortages across Germany.
- Catalyst for crisis: Passive resistance was a direct reaction to foreign invasion; without the occupation, the government would not have had to pay striking workers, meaning the sudden hyperinflationary spiral of 1923 would not have been triggered at that moment.

Level 5: Explains both sides and supports a valid judgement on 'how far'. (10 marks)
Level 4: Explains both sides (one explanation on each side: 7-8 marks; additional explanations: 9 marks).
Level 3: Explains one side (4-6 marks).
Level 2: Identifies or describes valid points but does not explain (2-3 marks).
Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question (1 mark).
Level 0: No creditable response (0 marks).

Successful containment (agree side):
- Defense of South Korea: The primary objective was to stop the North Korean communist invasion. By the end of the conflict in 1953, the border was re-established near the 38th parallel, successfully keeping South Korea free of communist control.
- Global deterrence: US action showed the USSR and China that the USA and the UN were willing to use military force to resist expansion, thereby containing communist aggression in other parts of Asia.

Unsuccessful containment (disagree side):
- Failure to roll back communism: The US attempt to invade North Korea and unify the peninsula under a democratic government failed when Chinese intervention forced UN troops back to the 38th parallel.
- High costs and division: Containment was achieved at a massive cost of over 30,000 US lives, millions of Korean casualties, and left Korea permanently divided and tense, rather than achieving a stable peace.

Level 5: Explains both sides and supports a valid judgement on 'how far'. (10 marks)
Level 4: Explains both sides (one explanation on each side: 7-8 marks; additional explanations: 9 marks).
Level 3: Explains one side (4-6 marks).
Level 2: Identifies or describes valid points but does not explain (2-3 marks).
Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question (1 mark).
Level 0: No creditable response (0 marks).

The Freikorps performed several key actions in Germany between 1918 and 1920:
1. They crushed the Spartacist Revolt in Berlin in January 1919 under the orders of the defense minister, Gustav Noske.
2. They executed communist leaders Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg.
3. They defeated the Bavarian Soviet Republic in May 1919 to restore Weimar government control.
4. They took part in the Kapp Putsch of March 1920 in an attempt to overthrow the Weimar Republic.

Award 1 mark for each valid, historically accurate point identifying or describing an action of the Freikorps between 1918 and 1920 (up to a maximum of 4 marks).

Points may include:
- They crushed the Spartacist Revolt in January 1919.
- They arrested and executed Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg.
- They suppressed the Bavarian Soviet Republic/communist government in Munich (May 1919).
- They fought against Baltic nationalists and Bolsheviks in the Baltic states (1918–1919).
- They participated in the Kapp Putsch in March 1920 in Berlin.
- They put down left-wing strikes and uprisings in the Ruhr valley (April 1920).
- They acted on behalf of the Weimar government/Ebert to restore order from left-wing threats.

The Kapp Putsch of 1920 posed a critical threat to the Weimar Republic for several key reasons:

First, it exposed the dangerous political unreliability of the regular German army (Reichswehr). When the Weimar government ordered the military to suppress the rebellion led by Wolfgang Kapp and the Freikorps, the head of the army, General von Seeckt, refused to act, famously declaring that 'Reichswehr does not fire on Reichswehr.' This demonstrated that the Republic's primary defensive force was highly sympathetic to right-wing nationalists and could not be trusted to protect the democratic constitution, leaving the government defenseless against right-wing uprisings.

Second, the putsch proved how vulnerable the government was by forcing it to flee its own capital. President Ebert and the cabinet had to relocate to Stuttgart to escape the armed insurgents. Unable to count on the military, the government had to appeal to the general public and trade unions to organize a mass general strike. While the strike successfully paralyzed Berlin and collapsed the putsch, the episode revealed to the German public and its enemies that the democratic government lacked the physical security and authority to control Berlin on its own.

Level 4: Explains two reasons [6 marks]

Level 3: Explains one reason [4–5 marks]
(Four marks for one explanation, five marks for 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.
- The army (Reichswehr) refused to fire on the Freikorps rebels.
- The Weimar government was forced to flee Berlin to Stuttgart.
- It showed that the republic was highly vulnerable to armed right-wing nationalist rebellions.
- The government had to rely on a civilian general strike rather than its own defense forces to survive.

Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question [1 mark]
- The Kapp Putsch took place in Berlin in March 1920, led by Wolfgang Kapp.

Level 0: No creditable response [0 marks]

### Arguments agreeing that stability was merely an illusion:
- **Economic Dependency:** The economic prosperity of the Golden Years was built on fragile foundations, relying heavily on short-term US loans under the Dawes Plan (1924). This made the political stability highly vulnerable to any external financial shock.
- **Coalition Weakness:** Despite calmer waters, coalition governments remained weak and fragile. There were six different coalition cabinets between 1924 and 1929, often collapsing over minor disputes, which showed that parliamentary democracy had not truly matured.
- **Elitist and Institutional Hostility:** Key pillars of the German state, such as the judiciary, the civil service, and the army (Reichswehr), remained deeply conservative and hostile to republican democracy. They were loyal to the old authoritarian order rather than the Weimar Constitution.
- **Extremism on the Fringe:** Although support for radical parties like the NSDAP (Nazis) fell in elections, they did not disappear. Instead, they reorganized and built a highly disciplined nationwide structure, ready to exploit any future economic downturn.
- **Hindenburg's Election:** The election of Paul von Hindenburg—a nationalist, monarchist war hero—as President in 1925 showed that millions of Germans still yearned for a return to authoritarian rule.

### Arguments disagreeing with the statement (stability was real):
- **Reduction in Political Extremism:** In the Reichstag elections of May 1928, democratic parties supporting the Republic won over 70% of the vote, while the Nazis won just 2.6% (12 seats). This indicated a strong public turn toward moderate republican democracy.
- **Stresemann's Foreign Policy Successes:** The international prestige gained through the Locarno Treaties (1925) and Germany's admission into the League of Nations (1926) made Germans feel proud of their democratic state and undermined nationalist complaints.
- **Social Welfare Reforms:** The introduction of a state unemployment insurance scheme in 1927 and heavy investment in public housing showed that the Republic was actively improving the lives of ordinary citizens, fostering genuine loyalty to the democratic system.
- **The Grand Coalition:** The formation of the Grand Coalition in 1928 under Hermann Müller showed that moderate parties of both the left and right could cooperate effectively to govern.

**Level 5 [10 marks]:** Explains both sides and supports a valid, nuanced judgment on 'how far' political stability was an illusion.
- Must provide at least one clear, well-supported explanation on both sides.

**Level 4 [7–9 marks]:** Explains both sides.
- One explanation on each side = 7 marks; one additional explanation on either side up to 9 marks.

**Level 3 [4–6 marks]:** Explains one side.
- 4 marks for a basic explanation; 5–6 marks for an explanation supported by precise contextual knowledge of the Weimar Golden Years (1924–1929).

**Level 2 [2–3 marks]:** Identifies or describes valid points addressing the question but fails to explain them conceptually.
- *e.g., Mentions the Dawes Plan, Hindenburg's election, 1928 election results, or Coalition governments without showing how they prove or disprove the 'illusion' of stability.*

**Level 1 [1 mark]:** Writes about the Weimar Republic but does not address the prompt directly.

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

To answer this question effectively, candidates need to identify agreements and disagreements between the two sources, leading to a summative comparison of their core arguments.

**Agreements include:**
- Both sources agree that economic aid was linked to political stability and influence in Europe.
- Both sources agree that the Marshall Plan aid was offered to, or could have involved, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
- Both sources agree that the Soviet Union and Eastern European nations ultimately rejected the aid.

**Disagreements include:**
- Source A argues the US acted out of humanitarian generosity, while Source B claims the US acted out of a selfish desire to prevent its own economic crisis and dump surplus goods.
- Source A states the plan aimed to preserve democracy and peace, whereas Source B claims it aimed to force European nations to surrender their independence and build a bloc against the USSR.
- Source A claims the Eastern bloc rejected the aid because Moscow feared losing control, while Source B argues the rejection was a rightful defense of national sovereignty against humiliating conditions.

**Summative Comparison (Big Picture):**
Source A presents the Marshall Plan as a benevolent, defensive shield to reconstruct a ruined Europe and secure peace. Conversely, Source B depicts the plan as a hostile, offensive instrument of US dollar imperialism designed to divide Europe and subjugate its nations.

**Level 4 [7 marks]**
Overall summative judgement: Compares the overarching arguments/messages of the two sources. (A sees the Plan as a benevolent, protective shield for European recovery; B sees it as aggressive American economic imperialism designed to split Europe and expand US power).

**Level 3 [5–6 marks]**
Compares agreement(s) AND disagreement(s) using specific details from both sources.

**Level 2 [2–4 marks]**
Compares agreement(s) OR disagreement(s) using specific details from the sources.

**Level 1 [1 mark]**
Identifies points in one or both sources without direct comparison, or compares only the provenance (dates/authors) of the sources without explaining how they agree/disagree.

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

In November 1923, Germany was emerging from its worst economic crisis, marked by hyperinflation. Gustav Stresemann, acting as Chancellor, had taken two major and controversial steps to stabilize the country: he called off the policy of passive resistance in the Ruhr in September 1923 (which angered nationalists and left-wingers alike who saw it as a surrender to France) and introduced the Rentenmark in mid-November 1923 to replace the worthless paper Mark.

The SPD's newspaper, *Vorwärts*, published this article to criticize these policies from a socialist perspective. While Stresemann's measures did eventually stabilize the economy, the immediate aftermath caused significant hardship for the working class, including high unemployment, wage cuts, and the loss of state welfare benefits due to government spending cuts.

The primary purpose of publishing this article at this specific time was to turn public opinion, particularly working-class voters and trade unionists, against Stresemann's coalition government. By framing the Rentenmark as a 'desperate gamble' that mortgaged German land to 'wealthy landowners and foreign capitalists' and calling the end of passive resistance a 'betrayal,' the newspaper sought to pressure the government into implementing social safety nets, protect workers' wages, and prevent the shifting of the economic burden entirely onto the working class.

**Level 6 [7–8 marks]:**
Explains the purpose of the source in the context of November 1923. Answers must include a valid message, context, and the intended impact of the publication on the target audience (e.g., to mobilize the working class to oppose Stresemann's fiscal reforms and pressure the coalition government to protect labor rights during currency stabilization).

**Level 5 [6 marks]:**
Explains the purpose of the article (e.g., to turn working-class opinion against Stresemann's government and protect workers from the social costs of stabilization) but lacks the complete historical integration of Level 6.

**Level 4 [4–5 marks]:**
Explains the big message of the article as a reason for publication (e.g., the article was published to show that the Rentenmark and ending passive resistance in the Ruhr are betrayals of the workers to benefit the rich and foreign capitalists).

**Level 3 [3 marks]:**
Explains the context of late 1923 as the reason for publication (e.g., hyperinflation, the Ruhr occupation, the introduction of the Rentenmark, and Stresemann ending passive resistance) OR explains a valid sub-message (e.g., that the Rentenmark is not backed by gold).

**Level 2 [2 marks]:**
Interprets the source or explains the context of 1923, but does not use this to explain *why* it was published.

**Level 1 [1 mark]:**
Asserts general points based on provenance, or offers a purely surface description of the text.

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

How far Source D makes Source E surprising can be answered by exploring both sides of the argument:

**Yes, it is surprising:**
- In Source D, Khrushchev indicates that if the US offers guarantees not to invade Cuba, the presence of Soviet weapons will no longer be necessary. This suggests that Cuban security concerns would be fully settled by such assurances.
- In contrast, Source E reveals that Castro placed no faith in these 'verbal promises' and viewed the outcome with 'profound disappointment', which is surprising if one assumes both allies were working towards the same security goals.

**No, it is not surprising:**
- Source D is a direct exchange between the US and USSR. There is no mention of Cuban input, which directly aligns with Castro's complaint in Source E that the decision was made 'without consulting the Cuban government'.
- Castro's ideological position as a radical communist leader makes his intense distrust of 'imperialist' US promises in Source E completely expected, regardless of Khrushchev's willingness to compromise in Source D.

**Level 6 [7–8 marks]:** Explains surprise/no surprise by comparing the sources AND evaluating the context/provenance of at least one source (e.g., Khrushchev's need to avoid nuclear war vs. Castro's need to maintain revolutionary zeal and national pride after being sidelined).

**Level 5 [6 marks]:** Explains how Source D's unilateral diplomacy makes Castro's anger and sense of betrayal in Source E not surprising.

**Level 4 [5 marks]:** Compares the details of both sources to explain why Source E is surprising OR not surprising (focusing on the contrast between Khrushchev accepting US assurances and Castro rejecting them).

**Level 3 [3–4 marks]:** Explains surprise/no surprise of Source E using contextual knowledge of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but with no direct reference to Source D.

**Level 2 [2 marks]:** Identifies surprise/non-surprise based on simple source assertions, or compares the sources but fails to evaluate surprise.

**Level 1 [1 mark]:** Writes about the sources/crisis but makes no valid comparison or analysis of surprise.

An excellent response will evaluate the utility of the source by addressing both its content and its value as primary evidence of right-wing nationalist propaganda in 1920:

On the one hand, the source is useful for details about the justifications Kapp used to launch the coup. He points directly to the 'shameful dictates of our foreign enemies' and the 'dissolution of our brave defense forces.' From contextual knowledge, we know this refers to the Treaty of Versailles' military restrictions, which required the Weimar government to disband Freikorps units like the Ehrhardt Brigade, triggering the rebellion. Kapp's mention that the government had 'fled' is also historically accurate, as Ebert and his ministers fled Berlin for Dresden and then Stuttgart.

However, the source's utility is limited if used uncritically to describe the actual situation. As a manifesto, its purpose is highly political propaganda designed to legitimize an illegal armed coup. Kapp's claims that they 'do not seek a civil war' are contradicted by the armed militarism of the Freikorps marching into Berlin.

Ultimately, the source is highly useful to a historian because of—rather than in spite of—its bias. It provides direct evidence of the nationalist rhetoric, anti-republican sentiment, and anti-communist fearmongering used by the extreme right to exploit public anger over Versailles in their attempt to overthrow the young Weimar democracy.

Level 6 (8 marks): Answers that evaluate the usefulness of the source by explaining its purpose in the historical context of March 1920. It shows how the source is useful as evidence of right-wing nationalist propaganda and rhetoric.

Level 5 (6–7 marks): Not useful: evaluates the source's reliability by focusing on Kapp's motive/purpose (propaganda) to reject it as objective historical fact.

Level 4 (4–5 marks): Uses contextual knowledge or cross-reference to verify or challenge the claims made in Source F (e.g., the Weimar government fleeing Berlin, the disbandment of military units under Versailles).

Level 3 (3 marks): Explains how the source is useful because of what it reveals about Kapp's official goals/arguments OR explains that it is not useful because Kapp is extremely biased as the leader of the putsch.

Level 2 (2 marks): Useful for information: uncritical acceptance of the details in the source. Candidates must specify which details are being used (e.g., it tells us the government fled, they wanted to establish order, etc.).

Level 1 (1 mark): Undeveloped use of provenance (e.g., 'it is useful because it was written at the time'), failure to address 'usefulness', or unsupported assertions.

Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable response.

To answer this question successfully, candidates must analyze how each of the sources (A, B, C, D, E, and F) either supports or contradicts the view that the Weimar Republic was doomed from its very beginning.

- Sources supporting the view that the Weimar Republic was doomed:
- Source A: A right-wing politician's 1919 speech claims the Republic is illegitimate, born of betrayal ('stab-in-the-back'), suggesting its foundations were too weak to survive.
- Source C: A Berlin resident's 1923 diary entry portrays total economic and political collapse during hyperinflation, demonstrating that the system was unworkable.

- Sources opposing the view (showing the Republic was not doomed):
- Source B: A modern historian argues that Weimar was highly resilient, surviving massive shocks (like the Kapp Putsch) that would have collapsed lesser states, showing it was not destined to fail.
- Source D: Statistical evidence of economic growth and stability from 1924 to 1928 shows that the Republic was capable of recovery and prospering.
- Source E: A 1919 cartoon depicts the Weimar coalition successfully holding off extremist threats, indicating contemporary confidence in its strength.
- Source F: A 1920 government proclamation demonstrates the state's effective use of authority and force to suppress left-wing threats, showing it was capable of defending itself.

To obtain the highest marks, candidates must balance both sides using specific source details and evaluate the sources in their historical context.

Level 4 (6–9 marks): Uses the sources to support AND reject the statement.
- Must explicitly use source content to argue both sides.
- 6 marks for one source on each side; up to 9 marks for multiple well-explained sources on both sides and/or source evaluation.
- Supporting: Sources A, C.
- Rejecting: Sources B, D, E, F.

Level 3 (3–5 marks): Uses the sources to support OR reject the statement.
- Explains only one side of the argument using source content.
- 3 marks for one source; 4-5 marks for multiple sources on one side.

Level 2 (2 marks): Uses the sources but fails to use them to test the statement.
- General descriptions of the sources without directly linking them to the hypothesis.

Level 1 (1 mark): Writes about the topic but makes no use of the sources.
- General contextual knowledge about the early Weimar Republic with no reference to the sources.

Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable response.

### Indicative Content

Accounts may include the following:

* **Origins and Goals:** The Spartacists were a radical left-wing faction led by Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. Inspired by the Russian Revolution of 1917, they wanted to overthrow the temporary post-war government led by Friedrich Ebert and establish a communist state based on workers' soviets.
* **Formation of the KPD:** In late December 1918, the Spartacists formalised their movement by establishing the Communist Party of Germany (KPD).
* **The Trigger:** In early January 1919, the social-democratic government dismissed Emil Eichhorn, the popular Chief of Police in Berlin who was sympathetic to the radical left. This decision provoked widespread outrage and mass demonstrations.
* **The Outbreak:** On 5 January 1919, hundreds of thousands of workers went on strike. Seizing the momentum, the Spartacists launched an armed rebellion, occupying key buildings, including telegraph offices, railway stations, and the printing offices of the Social Democratic party newspaper, *Vorwärts*.
* **The Government's Response:** President Ebert and Defense Minister Gustav Noske did not have enough regular troops to put down the rebellion. Out of desperation, they formed an alliance with the Freikorps—paramilitary units composed of highly nationalistic, anti-communist demobilised World War I soldiers.
* **Suppression:** From 10 to 15 January, the Freikorps launched a brutal counter-offensive. They used heavy artillery and machine guns to clear barricades and recapture occupied buildings in Berlin, resulting in the deaths of over a hundred workers.
* **The End of the Leaders:** On 15 January 1919, Liebknecht and Luxemburg were captured by Freikorps officers. After being beaten and interrogated, both were executed; Luxemburg's body was dumped in the Landwehr Canal.
* **Consequences:** The suppression of the revolt permanently alienated the working-class left from the SPD, creating a deep division that weakened the Weimar Republic. It also demonstrated the new government's reliance on right-wing military elements for survival.

### 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.

Indicative Content: Candidates should evaluate more than one facet of the Weimar Republic's recovery from 1924 to 1929 to assess the relative importance of Stresemann's foreign policy. One facet to consider is the success of Stresemann's foreign policies: The Locarno Treaties (1925) secured Germany's western borders and improved relations with France, leading to the withdrawal of French troops from the Ruhr. Germany's admission into the League of Nations (1926) restored its status as a respected great power. The Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) demonstrated Germany's commitment to peaceful international relations. The Young Plan (1929) further reduced total reparations payments and secured the complete evacuation of the Rhineland by Allied troops. Another facet is other contributing factors to Weimar's recovery: Economic stabilization was achieved primarily through domestic reforms, such as Hjalmar Schacht's introduction of the Rentenmark in late 1923, which successfully halted hyperinflation. The Dawes Plan (1924) provided substantial American loans that stimulated industrial rebuilding, funded public works, and facilitated reparations payments. Domestic political stabilization occurred as coalition governments functioned with greater stability during these 'Golden Years,' reducing support for extremist parties. Cultural achievements, though divisive, contributed to a sense of social dynamism and modernization. In conclusion, while Stresemann's foreign policy was crucial in restoring Germany's international prestige and ending foreign occupation, it was deeply interconnected with and dependent on the economic stability brought about by the Dawes Plan and the Rentenmark. Without economic recovery, Stresemann would have lacked the leverage to negotiate major international treaties.

Level 5 (21-25 marks): An answer that presents more than one facet of the discussion. Uses well-supported explanations in support of more than one facet of the discussion (e.g., both the diplomatic achievements of Stresemann's foreign policy and the significance of domestic economic and political factors). Reaches a clear, convincing, and substantiated judgement on the relative importance of these factors. Level 4 (16-20 marks): An answer that presents more than one facet of the discussion. Explanations are used to support the facets presented. May attempt a judgement, which is partially supported. Level 3 (11-15 marks): An answer that presents one or more facets of the discussion. Explanation(s) are used to support only one of the facets presented (e.g., explains only the diplomatic successes). May attempt a judgement, which is unsupported. Level 2 (6-10 marks): An answer that attempts to address one or more facets but only using assertion. May include relevant comments linked to a facet but these will be undeveloped or implicit. Level 1 (1-5 marks): An answer that presents general knowledge of the topic. Describes or identifies some points with limited focus. No attempt at judgement. Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable material.

Indicative Content: Candidates should evaluate more than one facet of the Weimar Republic's recovery from 1924 to 1929 to assess the relative importance of Stresemann's foreign policy. One facet to consider is the success of Stresemann's foreign policies: The Locarno Treaties (1925) secured Germany's western borders and improved relations with France, leading to the withdrawal of French troops from the Ruhr. Germany's admission into the League of Nations (1926) restored its status as a respected great power. The Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) demonstrated Germany's commitment to peaceful international relations. The Young Plan (1929) further reduced total reparations payments and secured the complete evacuation of the Rhineland by Allied troops. Another facet is other contributing factors to Weimar's recovery: Economic stabilization was achieved primarily through domestic reforms, such as Hjalmar Schacht's introduction of the Rentenmark in late 1923, which successfully halted hyperinflation. The Dawes Plan (1924) provided substantial American loans that stimulated industrial rebuilding, funded public works, and facilitated reparations payments. Domestic political stabilization occurred as coalition governments functioned with greater stability during these 'Golden Years,' reducing support for extremist parties. Cultural achievements, though divisive, contributed to a sense of social dynamism and modernization. In conclusion, while Stresemann's foreign policy was crucial in restoring Germany's international prestige and ending foreign occupation, it was deeply interconnected with and dependent on the economic stability brought about by the Dawes Plan and the Rentenmark. Without economic recovery, Stresemann would have lacked the leverage to negotiate major international treaties.

Level 5 (21-25 marks): An answer that presents more than one facet of the discussion. Uses well-supported explanations in support of more than one facet of the discussion (e.g., both the diplomatic achievements of Stresemann's foreign policy and the significance of domestic economic and political factors). Reaches a clear, convincing, and substantiated judgement on the relative importance of these factors. Level 4 (16-20 marks): An answer that presents more than one facet of the discussion. Explanations are used to support the facets presented. May attempt a judgement, which is partially supported. Level 3 (11-15 marks): An answer that presents one or more facets of the discussion. Explanation(s) are used to support only one of the facets presented (e.g., explains only the diplomatic successes). May attempt a judgement, which is unsupported. Level 2 (6-10 marks): An answer that attempts to address one or more facets but only using assertion. May include relevant comments linked to a facet but these will be undeveloped or implicit. Level 1 (1-5 marks): An answer that presents general knowledge of the topic. Describes or identifies some points with limited focus. No attempt at judgement. Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable material.