2025 OCR GCSE History A (Explaining the Modern World) - J410 模拟试题及答案详解

A strong answer outlines several linked points. (1) Germany, France and Belgium accepted their common frontiers as fixed, including the demilitarised Rhineland set by Versailles, so Germany gave up hopes of regaining Alsace-Lorraine by force. (2) Britain and Italy promised to act as guarantors and to support whichever side was attacked, which reassured France. (3) Germany was welcomed back as an equal: it joined the League of Nations in 1926 with a permanent Council seat. (4) The 'Locarno spirit' improved the atmosphere between Stresemann, Briand and Chamberlain; the three shared the Nobel Peace Prize and talk of disarmament and further agreements, such as Kellogg-Briand in 1928, followed. (5) Limits: Germany's eastern borders with Poland and Czechoslovakia were only covered by arbitration treaties, not guaranteed, leaving possible future tension; some in Germany and France opposed the deal.

Points marking, AO1 (5 marks). Award 1 mark for each accurate, relevant point outlining how Locarno affected relations, and a second mark for a point developed with specific supporting detail. Maximum 5. Any other valid point is credited.

Example of historically valid content: western borders accepted by Germany, France and Belgium (1+1 for Rhineland demilitarisation or renunciation of Alsace-Lorraine claims); Britain and Italy as guarantors (1); Germany joined the League in 1926 with a Council seat (1+1); the 'Locarno spirit' of improved trust and Stresemann/Briand/Chamberlain co-operation (1); led towards later agreements such as Kellogg-Briand (1); eastern borders not guaranteed, leaving unease in Poland and Czechoslovakia (1+1).

Bottom/middle/top rule within levels. Level 1 (1-2): simple, generic statements, e.g. 'countries agreed to be friendlier'. Level 2 (3-4): accurate outline with some specific detail. Level 3 (5): a developed outline of several points with precise, accurate detail.

NB: Knowledge unrelated to Locarno, such as a long account of the Treaty of Versailles terms or events after 1929, is not credited. Do not credit points on the Dawes Plan unless clearly linked to the effect of Locarno.

Nutshell: a developed outline of Locarno's effects on European relations with accurate, specific detail.

Reason 1: the depression. After the 1929 Wall Street Crash the USA recalled loans to Germany, ending the flow of money that had underpinned the Dawes Plan (1924) and the Young Plan (1929) and the spirit of Locarno (1925). Countries raised tariffs and protected their own industries, trade collapsed and unemployment soared. Governments focused on domestic problems rather than collective agreements, and extremist parties gained support, notably the Nazis in Germany, who rejected the Versailles settlement. In Japan, the army and nationalists argued that expansion was the answer to economic hardship.

Reason 2: the weakness of the League. Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931. The League sent the Lytton Commission, which took a year to report, and its condemnation in 1933 was ignored as Japan simply left the League. Britain and France, themselves hit by the depression, were unwilling to impose economic sanctions or use force, and the USA was not a member. The World Disarmament Conference (1932–34) collapsed after Hitler withdrew Germany from it and from the League in October 1933. Each failure showed that aggression went unpunished, so countries relied on rearmament and their own alliances rather than collective security.

A strong answer links the two: the depression weakened the will of League members to act, which in turn encouraged aggressive states.

AO1 (5) + AO2 (5). Level-of-response marking. Credit knowledge only where it is tied to explaining why co-operation became harder.

Level 5 (9–10): Explains two causes fully, with accurate and specific supporting knowledge, and shows how the causes link or relate to the overall question. Bottom 9 = both causes explained but links limited; top 10 = consistent, sustained explanation of both with a clear link.
Level 4 (7–8): Explains two causes with accurate, relevant knowledge, but one may be less developed, or there is one fully developed cause and one reasonably developed.
Level 3 (5–6): Explains one cause well, or begins to explain two with some knowledge and some analysis.
Level 2 (3–4): Identifies one or two causes with some supporting knowledge but mostly description or assertion.
Level 1 (1–2): Generic or limited statements with little knowledge; no relevant explanation.
0: No creditworthy response.
Within a level: bottom mark for borderline, middle for slight inconsistency, top for consistent performance.

An example of historically valid content (any valid alternative is credited): the depression and US loan withdrawal ending the Dawes/Young Plan prosperity; protective tariffs and nationalism; rise of extremist governments (Nazis); League failure over Manchuria 1931–33 (Lytton Report, Japan leaving the League); Britain and France unwilling to impose sanctions; collapse of the Disarmament Conference 1933 and Germany leaving the League; the lack of US membership.

NB: Answers that give only a single reason are capped at Level 3. Material unrelated to the 1929–1935 focus is not rewarded.

Nutshell: Level 5 = two fully explained, linked causes; Level 1 = general comment with little knowledge.

Plan: (1) Identify the view in A: appeasement was weakness, it encouraged aggression, and British leaders are to blame for the war. (2) Use own knowledge to support A: Hitler's remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936 went unopposed; Anschluss in March 1938; the Munich Agreement of September 1938 gave the Sudetenland to Germany without Czech involvement; Hitler occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, breaking the Munich promises; Britain and France earlier ignored breaches of Versailles such as conscription in 1935 and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement; the League failed over Manchuria and Abyssinia. (3) Challenge A using B and C: the Depression and the cost of rearmament, fear of bombing, public opinion strongly pacifist after 1918, Dominions reluctant, the Chiefs of Staff warning of war on three fronts, and the USA's isolationism. Munich bought time for rearmament (radar, Hurricane and Spitfire production). Some thought the Treaty of Versailles had been harsh, so revising it seemed justified. Blame also lies with Hitler, with Stalin (Nazi-Soviet Pact 1939) and with French weakness. (4) Evaluate provenance: A was written in 1946 in the shadow of the war, with hindsight and the legacy of the 'Guilty Men' mood; it is a textbook for schools, so it simplifies. B (1965) reflects a revisionist view with some sympathy; C (2008) draws on newly opened records, so it is well evidenced, but it also admits the hope was misjudged, which partly supports A. (5) Reach a supported judgement: A is fair on the effect of concessions but unfair in suggesting the policy was simply weakness and in assigning all blame to British leaders.

AO4 (20 marks) plus AO1 knowledge (5 marks), 25 in total. Level of response; mark within a level by the bottom/middle/top rule (borderline / slight inconsistency / consistent performance).

Level 5 (21-25): Sustained, well-substantiated evaluation of the fairness of A. Uses B and C and own knowledge to test A's view, considers how and why the interpretations differ (date, purpose, evidence available), and reaches a fully supported overall judgement. Knowledge is precise and tied to the argument. Nutshell: a convincing, evidence-based judgement on fairness.

Level 4 (16-20): Evaluates A with B and C and own knowledge, with some consideration of provenance or context, and reaches a supported judgement, but the analysis is less sustained or not fully balanced. Nutshell: a supported but less developed judgement.

Level 3 (11-15): Some analysis of A's view, with some use of B and C and own knowledge, mostly by agreement or disagreement. Judgement is stated with limited support. Nutshell: some analysis, limited evaluation.

Level 2 (6-10): Identifies A's view and some other views, with basic or generalised knowledge; mostly description or assertion. Nutshell: simple comments.

Level 1 (1-5): Limited or inaccurate comments about A, or about the topic generally. Nutshell: very basic.

0: Nothing creditworthy.

An example of historically valid content (any valid alternative is credited): For fairness: Rhineland 1936, Anschluss 1938, Munich 1938, occupation of Czechoslovakia March 1939; concessions encouraged further demands; C admits the hope in Hitler was misjudged. Against: Depression, public opinion, weak armed forces, Dominions' attitude, US isolation, rearmament and time bought, Versailles seen as harsh, share of blame for Hitler, Stalin and France; B and C stress limits and strategy. Provenance: A written in 1946 with hindsight; B in 1965 and more sympathetic; C in 2008 with access to new records.

NB: If A is misunderstood, for example by treating it as a source from the 1930s, cap at Level 2. Credit for knowledge is only given when tied to analysis of fairness; unrelated material (for example detailed events of the Second World War after 1939) is not rewarded.

Worked outline of a Level 5 response.

1. Identify the difference. A presents Appeasement as cowardly and as making war certain. B presents it as a realistic policy that bought time and showed the public that peace had been tried.

2. Context of writing. A was written in 1946, immediately after the Second World War. The author knows the war has happened, and the mood was one of blaming the leaders who had not stopped Hitler. 'Guilty Men' style criticism was widespread, and the journalist-historian is writing for a general audience with the war fresh in memory. B was written in 1995, when historians could look at events with more distance, after the end of the Cold War and with new questions about Britain's decline and limited power.

3. Evidence. A relies on the visible pattern of Hitler's actions: remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936, the Anschluss in March 1938, the Sudetenland crisis, the Munich Agreement in September 1938, and the occupation of Prague in March 1939. B uses government papers released under the thirty-year rule, which show military advice about RAF and army readiness, financial limits on rearmament, the Chiefs of Staff warnings about fighting Germany, Italy and Japan together, and Dominion reluctance.

4. Focus and selection. A focuses on moral failure and leadership, and on what was lost (the Czech army and the Skoda works, the Sudeten defences). B focuses on constraints and on the benefit of the year gained (Hurricane and Spitfire production, radar chain, the Air Raid precautions). Each interpretation omits what the other stresses: A ignores British weakness and public support for peace; B ignores the loss of Czechoslovakia's resources and Hitler's tearing up of agreements.

5. Judgement. Views differ mainly because of when and why they were written and what evidence was available, but also because of what each author chooses to emphasise. Neither is wholly wrong: both are partial and valid readings of a complex policy.

SPaG (5 marks): assessed separately on accuracy of spelling, punctuation and grammar, clarity of meaning, and use of specialist terms such as Appeasement, rearmament, Anschluss, Sudetenland, interpretation, hindsight.

Total 25 marks: 20 marks for AO4 (with AO1 knowledge used to support it) and 5 marks for SPaG.

AO4 (20 marks) - level of response. Credit knowledge only when it is tied to explaining why the interpretations differ. Any other valid content is credited.

Level 5 (17-20): Sustained, well-supported explanation of why the interpretations differ, using several reasons (for example date and context of writing, evidence available, purpose or audience, focus and selection), with detailed and accurate own knowledge linked to both interpretations. Shows understanding of how historical debate develops. Nutshell: a sustained explanation of why views differ, using more than one reason and supported by precise knowledge.
Level 4 (13-16): Developed explanation of why the interpretations differ using at least two reasons, supported by accurate knowledge, with some precise detail, though one interpretation may be treated less fully. Nutshell: developed explanation with good support.
Level 3 (9-12): Some explanation of why the interpretations differ, using one or two reasons with some relevant knowledge, but explanation or support is partial or generalised. Nutshell: some explanation with limited support.
Level 2 (5-8): Identifies a difference between the interpretations and makes simple comments on reasons (for example 'they were written at different times') with limited knowledge. Nutshell: identifies difference, simple reasons.
Level 1 (1-4): Describes or repeats the interpretations or offers basic knowledge about Appeasement without explaining why views differ. Nutshell: describes content only.
Level 0 (0): No creditable response.

Marks within a level: bottom of the level for a borderline response, middle for slight inconsistency, top for consistent performance at that level.

NB: If an interpretation is misunderstood, for example if the candidate reads B as condemning Appeasement, cap at Level 2.
NB: Answers that only assess which interpretation is more convincing, with no explanation of why they differ, cap at Level 2.

An example of historically valid content: A (1946) was written in the immediate aftermath of the war with hindsight and a mood of blame; B (1995) uses released government papers on military unreadiness and takes a longer view. A stresses Hitler's violations (Rhineland 1936, Anschluss, Munich, Prague) and the surrender of Czechoslovakia; B stresses the Depression, imperial overstretch, Dominion opposition, RAF unreadiness and the time gained for rearmament, radar and Spitfire and Hurricane production.

SPaG (5 marks):
High performance (4-5): spelling and punctuation consistently accurate; grammar controlled; meaning clear throughout; wide and accurate use of specialist terms. 5 for consistently excellent, 4 for generally accurate with minor slips.
Intermediate performance (2-3): spelling and punctuation generally accurate; some control of grammar; meaning generally clear; adequate specialist vocabulary.
Threshold performance (1): spelling and punctuation accurate in places; some errors that may hinder meaning; limited specialist vocabulary.
No marks (0): errors prevent meaning being understood, or no response worthy of credit.
SPaG is awarded only where the response addresses the question.

The question asks for one feature only. A strong answer gives a general accurate point about the movement and then supports it with specific detail. Example: the movement stressed black pride and self-reliance, rejecting white-led liberal groups. This was developed through SASO, formed by black university students in 1968 and led by Steve Biko, which urged Black people to free their minds from feelings of inferiority.

Points marking, 2 marks: 1 mark for a valid, generic feature; a second mark for specific supporting detail relevant to that feature. Do not award more than 2 marks, and a second feature does not earn extra marks.

An example of historically valid content (any other valid feature is credited):
- It promoted black pride, unity and self-reliance (1), for example through the slogan 'Black is Beautiful' or by encouraging psychological liberation from feelings of inferiority (1).
- It was led by students and intellectuals (1), for example SASO, formed in 1968 and led by Steve Biko (1).
- It used community projects and education (1), such as health clinics and literacy programmes run by black organisations (1).
- It excluded white members from leadership (1), arguing that black people must lead their own liberation (1).
- It inspired young people to resist (1), influencing the 1976 Soweto uprising (1).

NB: Generic comments with no link to the Black Consciousness Movement (e.g. 'it opposed apartheid') score 0 or at most 1 mark. Describing events after the 1970s without a link to the movement is not credited.

A strong answer explains several causes and links each to the growth of resistance.

1. Black Consciousness: After the banning of the ANC and PAC in 1960 and the Rivonia Trial of 1964, open opposition was weak. Steve Biko and SASO (formed 1968) encouraged Black people to take pride in themselves and reject feelings of inferiority. This spread through universities, churches and community projects and created a new generation of politically aware activists who were not reliant on the banned organisations.

2. Economic grievances and trade unions: The 1973 Durban strikes involved tens of thousands of workers demanding higher wages. Their success showed that Black workers could win concessions through collective action, encouraged the growth of independent Black trade unions and widened resistance beyond political groups.

3. Education and youth anger: Bantu Education gave Black children poor facilities and limited opportunities. The 1976 decision to teach some subjects in Afrikaans, seen as the language of the oppressor, provoked the Soweto uprising. Police shooting of schoolchildren, including Hector Pieterson, led to protests spreading across the country and radicalised thousands of young people, many of whom left to join the ANC and Umkhonto we Sizwe in exile.

4. Repression and wider support: Government crackdowns, such as the banning of Black Consciousness organisations and Biko's death in police custody in 1977, produced anger and martyrs rather than silence. Women's groups, the ANC in exile and the international Anti-Apartheid Movement kept up pressure and gave resistance publicity and support.

Overall, resistance grew because new ideas, economic pressure and the anger of the young combined, while repression failed to remove the causes of discontent.

AO1 (5 marks) knowledge and understanding; AO2 (5 marks) explanation and analysis of causation. Level of response.

Level 5 (9-10 marks): Sustained, well-developed explanation of several causes, using the stimulus points and the candidate's own knowledge. Causes are clearly linked to the growth of resistance and to each other; may make a judgement about relative importance. Typically: explains how Black Consciousness and SASO built pride and activism AND how the Durban strikes and Bantu Education/Soweto shifted resistance towards workers and youth, with accurate specific detail. Bottom/middle/top: 9 = reasonable explanation of the factors with some detail uneven; 10 = consistently developed and linked. Nutshell: sustained, developed explanation of causes with accurate and relevant detail.

Level 4 (7-8 marks): Explains at least two causes with accurate supporting knowledge, with some links to the question. Might include own knowledge beyond the stimulus. Nutshell: developed explanation of causes.

Level 3 (5-6 marks): Explains one cause well or two causes in limited depth; relevant accurate knowledge, with some analysis. Nutshell: some explanation of cause(s).

Level 2 (3-4 marks): Describes relevant factors with some accurate knowledge but explanation is limited or implicit. Nutshell: descriptive, limited explanation.

Level 1 (1-2 marks): General or fragmentary statements about apartheid or resistance with little accurate knowledge. Nutshell: simple statements.

Level 0: No creditable response.

Marks within a level follow the bottom/middle/top rule for borderline, slight inconsistency and consistent performance.

Indicative content (an example of historically valid content; any other valid alternative is credited): Black Consciousness Movement, Biko and SASO; Durban strikes 1973 and growth of trade unions; Bantu Education and Afrikaans medium decree leading to Soweto 1976; banned ANC/PAC leaving a gap; ANC in exile and Umkhonto we Sizwe recruiting Soweto youth; women's groups; Anti-Apartheid Movement; the death of Biko 1977 and state repression provoking further anger.

NB: Knowledge is credited only when tied to explaining why resistance grew. Accounts that only narrate events (e.g. the Soweto uprising) without explaining causation cannot exceed Level 2. Material from outside the 1970s focus is not rewarded unless linked to the question. Candidates need not use the stimulus points but should include their own knowledge to reach the higher levels.

Content: The speaker argues that Black people must first overcome a sense of inferiority ('throw away shame') before they can demand their rights. This shows a new emphasis on pride and self-belief in resistance, which matches Black Consciousness ideas. The rejection of white liberals shows a shift from earlier multiracial cooperation. The criticism of separate schools and universities links to Bantu Education and the regime's policy of Separate Development.

Provenance: The speech is by a student at a SASO meeting in 1971, so it reflects the thinking of the young generation who formed the Black Consciousness Movement after the ANC and PAC were banned. It was copied and passed around campuses, which shows ideas were spreading and being shared despite repression. Because it was written for a Black student audience it is likely to be honest about aims, but it is persuasive and represents only one speaker and a student viewpoint, not the whole of the resistance (e.g. trade unions, women's groups, the ANC in exile).

Own knowledge: SASO was founded in 1968 and was later associated with Steve Biko's ideas. Its influence on school pupils helped prepare the ground for the 1976 Soweto uprising, and the regime later responded with bannings and repression. The 1973 Durban strikes show resistance also grew in other forms.

5 marks, Levels 1-3, AO3.

Level 3 (4-5 marks): Explains how the source is useful, supporting the judgement with BOTH content and provenance (author, date, audience, purpose, type) and using own knowledge to test or support the usefulness. Typically: links the call for self-belief and rejection of white leadership to Black Consciousness and SASO; recognises the 1971 student context and the spread of the speech across campuses; may note limits, e.g. one speaker, persuasive purpose. Top of level (5): consistent, sustained evaluation of usefulness for the stated enquiry. Middle (4): slight inconsistency or one aspect less developed. Bottom (4): borderline Level 2/3.
Nutshell: Evaluates the source's usefulness using content, provenance and knowledge.

Level 2 (2-3 marks): Explains usefulness using content OR provenance, or uses both only in a generalised way. Typically: 'It is useful because it shows students wanted Black people to believe in themselves' (content only), or 'It is useful because it is from a SASO meeting' (provenance only), with some supporting knowledge. Top (3): developed; bottom (2): limited development.
Nutshell: Some explanation of usefulness, limited in scope.

Level 1 (1 mark): Describes or paraphrases the source, or makes a basic, unsupported claim about usefulness (e.g. 'it is useful because it is from 1971').
Nutshell: Describes the source.

0 marks: no valid response.

NB: Credit is given for knowledge only when tied to the source and the question; unrelated knowledge about apartheid is not rewarded. If the source is clearly misunderstood, cap at Level 1. Any other valid historically supported point is credited; there is no single correct answer.

Message: the government believes force keeps Black South Africans under control, but repression is only suppressing a pressure that will eventually burst out.

Use of the source: the kettle marked 'BLACK ANGER' shows resentment building; the rifle butt on the lid shows the regime relies on armed force; the escaping steam labelled 'SCHOOL PROTEST' and 'STRIKES' shows resistance already leaking out; the cracks show the system is weakening; the confident caption 'Everything is under control' is ironic, so the cartoonist mocks the government's complacency and denial.

Context: in June 1976 thousands of schoolchildren in Soweto protested against being taught in Afrikaans. Police opened fire, and Hector Pieterson was among those killed. Protests spread to other townships and the government responded with arrests and shootings. Black Consciousness ideas, spread by Steve Biko and SASO, had raised political confidence among young people. Strikes since the 1973 Durban strike showed workers were also organising. Many young people left to join the ANC in exile. International criticism increased, which supports the cartoonist's view that the government's hold was not as secure as it claimed. Repression, such as the 1977 death in custody of Biko, did not end resistance.

Level 3 (5 marks): Identifies a message and supports it with a developed analysis of several details of the source, such as the kettle, the rifle butt, the steam, the cracks and the ironic caption, and with relevant, accurate contextual knowledge that explains why the cartoonist holds this view. Typically 5 marks for consistent, well-supported explanation and 4 marks where one strand is less developed.

Level 2 (3-4 marks): Identifies a message and supports it by explaining details of the source OR by using context, but not combining both fully. Typically 4 marks where both are used with some imbalance, 3 marks where one is largely descriptive or the context is general.

Level 1 (1-2 marks): Describes the cartoon, or gives an undeveloped or generalised message, such as 'the government is bad', with little or no use of context. Typically 2 marks for a valid message with a detail, 1 mark for description only.

Level 0: Nothing relevant.

Nutshell: the higher the level, the more the answer explains the message from the source details and the context together.

An example of historically valid content (any valid alternative is credited): the cartoonist is showing that force will not hold back Black resistance; the kettle shows pressure building; the caption is ironic; Soweto 1976 and the Afrikaans protests; Black Consciousness; the 1973 Durban strikes; the ANC in exile; international criticism.

NB: Cap at Level 1 (maximum 2 marks) if the answer misunderstands the source, for example by treating the cartoon as supporting the government, or if it uses only the source or only own knowledge with no message. Knowledge that is not tied to the message of the cartoon is not credited. Marks within a level follow the bottom/middle/top rule for borderline, slight inconsistency and consistent performance.

Model approach: Introduce a line of argument. Paragraph 1 (agree): the 1976 Soweto uprising began when schoolchildren protested against the compulsory use of Afrikaans in lessons; the police shot into the crowd and the killing of children, including Hector Pieterson, shocked people at home and abroad. Protest spread to townships across South Africa and lasted months; hundreds were killed. Many young people fled abroad and joined the ANC and Umkhonto we Sizwe, strengthening the exiled movement, and foreign governments and the Anti-Apartheid Movement increased pressure. Paragraph 2 (disagree - ideas): the Black Consciousness Movement, led by Steve Biko and SASO, had since the late 1960s encouraged black South Africans to take pride in themselves and reject inferiority; its ideas influenced the students who organised the 1976 protest, so Soweto was partly an outcome of earlier developments. Paragraph 3 (disagree - workers and others): the 1973 Durban strikes showed that black workers could win concessions through collective action, and independent trade unions grew afterwards; women's groups and church organisations also became more active. Paragraph 4 (other factors): the ANC in exile kept its cause alive and the international Anti-Apartheid Movement kept up pressure, while repression (bannings, the death of Biko in 1977) pushed more people towards resistance. Conclusion: judge the relative weight of 1976 against these factors, e.g. 1976 transformed the scale and character of resistance and gave it international attention, but without Black Consciousness and earlier worker action the uprising is hard to explain, so it was a key turning point rather than the sole main reason.

AO1 (7 marks) and AO2 (11 marks). Level-of-response marking, Levels 1-5. Credit for knowledge only when tied to analysis of the question. Any other valid alternative is credited.

Level 5 (16-18): Sustained, well-developed analysis of the extent to which 1976 was the main reason for growing resistance, compared with other factors. Knowledge is accurate, detailed and well selected. A convincing, supported judgement is reached that weighs factors against each other. Bottom 16 = borderline; middle 17 = slight inconsistency; top 18 = consistent performance.
Level 4 (13-15): Developed analysis of 1976 and at least one other factor, with mostly accurate and relevant knowledge. A judgement is given and supported, though the weighing may be uneven. Bottom 13, middle 14, top 15.
Level 3 (9-12): Some analysis; explains 1976 and/or other factors with relevant knowledge, but links to 'how far' are partial; judgement is asserted or weakly supported. Bottom 9, middle 10-11, top 12.
Level 2 (5-8): Descriptive answer with some relevant knowledge, with limited or implicit links to the question; judgement is simple or missing. Bottom 5, middle 6-7, top 8.
Level 1 (1-4): Generalised or fragmentary statements with little accurate knowledge and no real focus on the question. Bottom 1, middle 2-3, top 4.
0: No creditable response.

Nutshell: L5 convincing weighed judgement; L4 developed and supported; L3 some analysis; L2 description; L1 simple statements.

Indicative content (an example of historically valid content; not a checklist): Soweto uprising, Afrikaans Medium Decree, Hector Pieterson, spread of protest, exile of young people to ANC, international response; Black Consciousness Movement, Biko, SASO; 1973 Durban strikes and trade unions; women's groups; ANC in exile; Anti-Apartheid Movement; state repression and death of Biko 1977.

NB: Answers that only describe events of the 1960s, or that cover only one factor with no reference to the statement, should not go beyond Level 2. Knowledge unrelated to the question is not rewarded.

The feudal system tied land ownership to military duty. The king, William I, owned all land and rewarded his Norman followers with estates (a generic point). In return, each tenant-in-chief had to supply a fixed number of knights when the king demanded, which gave the king an army without paying a standing force (a specific detail). Knights in turn held land from the barons and served for a limited period each year, usually about 40 days. Castles built by lords in conquered areas, for example in the north after the Harrying, helped them hold land and raise troops. Two distinct features, each developed, are enough for full marks.

Points marking. Award up to 2 marks for each of two features: 1 mark for a valid, generic feature of the feudal system in relation to war; 1 further mark for specific supporting detail or an accurate example developing that feature. Maximum 4 marks. Do not award a second feature if it only repeats the first. Examples of historically valid content: land granted by the king in return for knight service; a fixed quota of knights owed by each baron; knights holding land from barons (sub-infeudation); about 40 days' annual service; castles built to control conquered land; oaths of loyalty/homage to the lord and king; payment of scutage as an alternative to service (later). Any other valid alternative is credited. Do not credit descriptions of Viking raids or general Norman victory at Hastings unless linked to how the feudal system organised warfare. Nutshell: accurate features of feudal military obligation, supported by specific detail.

The Norman Conquest changed who held power and land. After Hastings, William faced resistance and rewarded his followers by granting estates as fiefs, creating the feudal system. Tenants-in-chief owed the king knight service and swore oaths of loyalty, while peasants were tied to the land they worked. Within a generation most Anglo-Saxon earls and thegns had lost their estates, so the ruling class became largely Norman-French. To hold down a hostile population, William built motte-and-bailey castles in towns and strategic places such as London, York and Exeter. Revolts, especially in 1069-70, were met with the Harrying of the North, which devastated crops and villages and caused famine. In 1086 the Domesday survey recorded land, people and resources, which strengthened royal taxation and control. Norman appointments in the Church, such as Lanfranc replacing Stigand, tied the Church closely to the new regime. Overall, English society became more tightly controlled, with a new landowning elite, new obligations and a lasting sense of conquest.

AO1 4 marks, AO2 4 marks. Levels-of-response (Levels 1-4 across 8 marks). Level 1 (1-2 marks): generic statements about the Conquest with little link to its impact on society. Level 2 (3-4 marks): describes one or more impacts with some accurate knowledge, but explanation of consequence is limited or implicit. Level 3 (5-6 marks): explains at least one impact with developed, accurate knowledge, showing how the Conquest led to change in society. Level 4 (7-8 marks): explains two or more impacts in a sustained, well-supported way, showing clear understanding of consequence (the effect on different groups, such as the English nobility, peasants and the Church, and the long-term importance). Bottom of level: borderline; middle: slight inconsistency; top: consistent performance. Nutshell: the higher the level, the more the response explains consequences rather than just describing events. An example of historically valid content (any other valid alternative is credited): feudal system and land redistribution; castle building; Harrying of the North; Domesday Book; changes in the Church; loss of English language status in government. NB: knowledge is rewarded only when tied to the impact on society. Narrative of the Battle of Hastings or events after c.1100 without a link to impact on society should not be credited.

Plan: make a judgement on significance, weigh the First World War against other wars in the period c.1750-c.2010, and reach a supported conclusion.

First World War (significant): before 1914 Britain had relied on a volunteer army and limited state intervention. The Defence of the Realm Act (1914) gave government wide powers over censorship, working hours and property. Conscription began in 1916 (Military Service Acts) after voluntary recruitment fell short, with conscientious objectors and tribunals. Government took over key industries such as coal and shipping, set up the Ministry of Munitions, and introduced rationing in 1918 after U-boat attacks on food supplies. Propaganda and censorship shaped opinion. These changes created the idea of 'total war' and the precedent that the state could direct civilian life.

Limits and comparison: during the Napoleonic Wars (to 1815) there was a militia, income tax (1799) and fear of invasion, but the state's reach was far smaller. Most DORA controls and conscription ended after 1918. The Second World War went further: conscription from the start (1939), the direction of labour including women under Bevin, the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939, mass evacuation, tight rationing lasting to 1954, and Churchill's coalition government. Civilians were directly targeted by the Blitz. The Cold War brought civil defence and nuclear preparations, and post-2003 counter-terrorism laws (e.g. extended detention, surveillance) increased state powers over liberty in a different way. The Crimean and Boer Wars exposed inefficiency and led to reforms of the army and health but not wide control of civilians.

Conclusion: the First World War was very significant as the turning point at which the state first took extensive control over daily life, but its significance is partly that it set a precedent that the Second World War then fully developed.

AO1 (4 marks): knowledge and understanding of the period. AO2 (10 marks): explanation and analysis using the second-order concept of significance. Total 14. Mark using levels.

Level 4 (11-14 marks): A developed, sustained judgement on the significance of the First World War, supported by precise and accurate knowledge, which compares it with other wars across the long time span and reaches a reasoned conclusion. Typically, the response weighs the First World War against the Second World War and at least one other conflict, and explains why significance can be judged in different ways. Nutshell: a sustained, well-supported evaluation of significance.

Level 3 (7-10 marks): A developed explanation of how significant the First World War was, with accurate knowledge, but limited comparison with other periods; the judgement is stated but not fully sustained. Nutshell: explanation with some evaluation.

Level 2 (4-6 marks): Describes some relevant features (e.g. conscription, rationing) with some links to the question and little or no judgement. Nutshell: some relevant description.

Level 1 (1-3 marks): Simple or general statements about war with limited accurate knowledge, little link to government power. Nutshell: simple statements.

0 marks: no creditable response.

Within each level: bottom of the level for borderline, middle for slight inconsistency, top for consistent performance.

Indicative content (an example of historically valid content; any valid alternative is credited): DORA 1914; Military Service Acts 1916 and conscientious objectors; Ministry of Munitions; control of coal, shipping and food; rationing 1918; propaganda and censorship; comparison with the Napoleonic Wars (militia, income tax), the Second World War (Emergency Powers Act, direction of labour, evacuation, rationing to 1954), the Cold War and post-2003 counter-terrorism powers.

NB: knowledge is credited only where tied to the question and to analysis; knowledge unrelated to government power over civilians or to the stated period is not rewarded. Answers that only describe one war and make no judgement of significance cannot go above Level 2.

Planning: compare two strands (impact on people vs impact on government and politics) across the three eras (c.790-c.1500, c.1500-c.1750, c.1750-c.2010), then reach a judgement.

Agree (impact on people more):
- Viking raids c.790 onwards: villages, monasteries and farmland attacked; people killed, enslaved or forced to pay Danegeld. Government response (burhs, fyrd, taxation) was more limited in scope than the disruption to ordinary lives.
- Civil Wars 1642-1651: sieges, plundering, free quarter for soldiers, high taxes such as the excise, and the loss of a large share of the male population in some areas; divided families and communities.
- First World War: volunteering then conscription (1916), food shortages and rationing (1918), Zeppelin and naval bombardment raids, women in war work, mass bereavement.
- Second World War: evacuation, the Blitz, rationing, billeting, ID cards, and direct labour controls, so almost no one's daily routine was untouched. Later: Cold War nuclear fears in the 1950s-60s, IRA bombings 1969-1994, post-2003 counter-terrorism and security measures.

Disagree (government changed more):
- Norman Conquest and feudal system: the whole structure of landholding and obligation to the king was reorganised through war. Breakdown of feudal relations under Stephen and John led to Magna Carta limiting royal power.
- Rising cost of medieval warfare pushed kings to seek taxation and consent, strengthening Parliament.
- Civil Wars: the king was defeated and executed (1649), monarchy was abolished and a Republic declared; Parliament's claim to control taxation and the army was established.
- Total war in the twentieth century: the state took unprecedented powers (DORA 1914, Emergency Powers Act 1940), ran industry and food supply, ministries multiplied, coalition governments formed, and women's suffrage in 1918 was linked to war service. The post-1945 welfare state followed from wartime planning.

Judgement: in short wars or distant wars (Seven Years War, Crimean War) government change was often modest while taxpayers and soldiers bore the cost; in total war, both were transformed together. The strongest answers weigh immediacy and breadth (daily life) against long-term and structural change (government), and make clear which they find more significant and why.

AO1 (8 marks) and AO2 (16 marks). Level-of-response marking; credit knowledge only when tied to analysis of the focus (impact on people vs impact on government) and the stated period.

Level 5 (21-24): Sustained, well-supported evaluation. Analyses both sides across a long time span using accurate, specific knowledge from at least three eras or wars; reaches a fully justified judgement on 'how far', weighing the two kinds of impact against each other. Bottom/middle/top of level: borderline / slight inconsistency / consistent performance.
Level 4 (16-20): Developed analysis of both sides with mostly accurate and specific knowledge, covering a good range of the period; judgement is supported but may not fully weigh the factors.
Level 3 (11-15): Some analysis of both sides, or detailed analysis of one side with some attempt at the other; knowledge is accurate but may be uneven in range or period coverage; a judgement is given but is only partly supported.
Level 2 (6-10): Mostly descriptive or one-sided; some relevant knowledge with limited analysis; asserted or generic judgement.
Level 1 (1-5): Simple, general statements about war with little accurate knowledge or link to the question.
0: No creditable response.

NB: Answers covering only one era should not exceed Level 3. Knowledge not linked to the question is not credited. Any valid alternative content is credited. Indicative content (an example of historically valid content): Viking raids and Danegeld; Norman feudal system; Magna Carta; Civil Wars, excise, execution of Charles I; conscription 1916; DORA; rationing; Blitz and evacuation; wartime state control; welfare state; Cold War and IRA/counter-terrorism impacts.
Nutshell: Level 5 weighs the two impacts across time and reaches a justified overall judgement.

A strong answer explains several linked causes.

1. Long Parliament's attack on the Personal Rule: Charles had to recall Parliament in 1640 because he needed money for the Scottish war. MPs such as Pym demanded redress of grievances (ship money, forced loans and Laud's religious policies). Strafford was executed in 1641 and Laud imprisoned. Charles felt his royal authority was being stripped away, while MPs felt they could not trust him not to return to ruling without Parliament.

2. The Irish rebellion (October 1641): news of the rebellion meant an army was needed. MPs feared that if Charles controlled it he might use it against them, so they argued Parliament should control the army. Charles saw this as an attack on his traditional right as king to command the armed forces.

3. The Grand Remonstrance (November 1641): this listed grievances against Charles's rule and demanded ministers acceptable to Parliament. It passed by only a narrow margin, showing Parliament itself was divided. Moderates who feared radical religious change and the loss of royal power began to move towards the King, while the King saw it as a public insult.

4. The Five Members (January 1642): Charles entered the Commons with armed men to arrest Pym and four others and failed because they had escaped. This seemed to confirm MPs' fears that he would use force, and it was a breach of parliamentary privilege. He left London soon after.

5. Militia Ordinance and Nineteen Propositions (1642): Parliament claimed control of the militia without royal consent, and Charles rejected terms that would have made him subordinate. Both sides began raising troops.

Links and judgement: the Irish rebellion and the Five Members turned a political dispute into a question of control of force, and the Five Members was the point at which trust collapsed completely, making war very likely.

10 marks: AO1 (5) knowledge and understanding; AO2 (5) explanation of cause. Level of response. Credit knowledge only where tied to explanation of why relations broke down. Any other valid historical content is credited.

Level 1 (1–2 marks): a simple statement or description of events with little or no link to the breakdown of relations. Typically lists facts, or states that the King and Parliament disagreed.

Level 2 (3–4 marks): identifies and describes one or more causes with some relevant knowledge, but explanation is limited or lacks a clear link to the outcome. Typically describes the Grand Remonstrance or the Five Members attempt without explaining why it mattered.

Level 3 (5–6 marks): explains one cause in detail, or two causes with some explanation of how each helped to bring about the breakdown. Knowledge is mostly accurate and relevant.

Level 4 (7–8 marks): explains at least two causes with accurate, specific knowledge and shows how they connect to the outcome. May use the stimulus points and at least one point of the candidate's own knowledge.

Level 5 (9–10 marks): a sustained, well-supported explanation of several causes, with clear links between them (for example how the Irish rebellion made the dispute about control of the army, and how the Five Members then destroyed trust) and some judgement about their relative importance. Accurate, precise knowledge throughout.

Within each level: bottom = borderline or limited; middle = slight inconsistency; top = consistently meets the descriptor.

Indicative content (an example of historically valid content; any valid alternative is credited): Long Parliament and the Personal Rule; fall of Strafford and Laud; Irish rebellion and control of the army; Grand Remonstrance and its narrow vote; Five Members incident; Militia Ordinance; Nineteen Propositions; Parliamentary divisions and the formation of a royalist party.

NB: Do not reward narrative of the Civil War itself after August 1642, or general knowledge of the Personal Rule with no link to 1640–42.

Nutshell: the higher the level, the more developed and linked the explanation of causes.

Sample approach: choose several key phases and, for each, say what changed in the buildings or layout and why. 1) Early period: the de Clintons built a stone keep in the 1120s on the site, showing their status and giving them a strong defensive base. 2) 13th century: King John spent heavily on the castle, adding a stronger outer curtain wall and towers, and the Great Mere (a large artificial lake) formed a water barrier on most sides. This changed the layout so that the castle was surrounded by water and defences, which helped it resist the long siege of 1266 after the baronial rebellion of Simon de Montfort. 3) Late 14th century: John of Gaunt turned a fortress into a palace-fortress, building a large Great Hall with big windows and improved private chambers for entertaining and royal-style living. So the emphasis shifted from defence to comfort and display. 4) Elizabethan period: Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, added a new gatehouse, modern lodgings (Leicester's Building), stables and a garden, partly to prepare for Elizabeth I's visit in 1575, so the castle's appearance became that of a fashionable Tudor courtly residence, with large windows rather than military features. Conclusion: change was driven by the owners' needs, the arrival of new roles (royal residence, entertainment) and decreasing military need, and the pace of change was greatest under powerful owners such as King John, John of Gaunt and Dudley.

AO1 (5) + AO2 (5). Level-of-response marking. Credit for knowledge only when tied to explaining change over time. Any other valid example is credited.

Level 5 (9-10 marks): Developed, well-supported explanation of change across the whole period, with accurate and specific detail of at least three phases, and explicit analysis of the reasons for and nature of change (for example from defence to display, or from fortress to palace). Typically links changes to owners and events. Nutshell: Sustained, specific explanation of change over time.
Level 4 (7-8 marks): Explains change in at least two phases with accurate, relevant detail and some analysis of reasons or the scale of change. Nutshell: Explanation with some analysis.
Level 3 (5-6 marks): Some explanation of change, with some accurate detail, but the explanation is partial or one-sided, or is mostly description of two periods. Nutshell: Some explanation, limited development.
Level 2 (3-4 marks): Describes some relevant features of the castle at one or more times, with limited explanation of change. Nutshell: Description, little explanation.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): Simple, generalised statements about castles or the site, with little or no accurate detail. Nutshell: Simple statements.
Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable response.

Within a level: bottom of the level for borderline, middle for slight inconsistency, top for consistent performance.

An example of historically valid content (any valid alternative is credited): de Clinton keep (Caesar's Tower) and 1120s foundation; King John's outer curtain wall and the Great Mere; 1266 siege after the baronial rebellion; Lancaster/John of Gaunt's Great Hall and private apartments c.1390s; Dudley's gatehouse, Leicester's Building, stables and garden c.1570s; Elizabeth I's 1575 visit; change from military to residential/display use.

NB: Responses that only describe the castle at one time cannot go above Level 2. Knowledge unrelated to the appearance and layout of Kenilworth (for example general accounts of other castles) is not rewarded unless explicitly linked to change at Kenilworth. Dates outside c.1120-c.1600 may be credited only as context.

Source A: content - a new stone lodging with large windows, a garden with fountains and aviary, a new gatehouse, the old keep still standing, approach across the mere. Shows the castle in 1575 as transformed by Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, from a medieval fortress into a palatial residence for entertaining Elizabeth I. Provenance - an eyewitness guest, so detailed and first-hand, but a courtier writing to impress a friend and flatter the host, likely to emphasise splendour and play down defensive features; it covers only the 1570s so shows nothing of later change. Context - Dudley's building work c.1570-75 (the new residential block, stables, gatehouse, garden), the Great Mere and tiltyard retained from the medieval castle.

Source B: content - the great tower battered, curtain walls slighted, the mere to be drained, the Earl's lodging stripped, stables sold, the gatehouse intact and lived in. Shows the castle at its end point in 1649-50, after the Civil War. Provenance - an official survey for Parliament's commissioners, written to assess the value and military risk of the site, so it is practical and likely accurate about condition, though it concentrates on damage and value rather than describing the original layout; it is a plan for the future, not only a record. Context - Kenilworth's Civil War use as a garrison, Parliament's policy of slighting castles so they could not be held again, and the subsequent dwelling of the site by officers and later owners.

Judgement: A is useful for the starting point and for what was added; B for the outcome and for what survived. Neither covers the whole 1570-1650 period alone. A reasoned choice is credited, e.g. B more useful because it shows what changed and what remained, with the gatehouse a link back to A, or A more useful because the buildings it describes explain the layout that B then describes being damaged.

AO3 - 10 marks. Level-of-response. Credit for knowledge only when tied to evaluating the usefulness of the sources. Any other valid historically supported alternative is credited.

Level 1 (1-2 marks): Describes or paraphrases the sources, or makes undeveloped comments about usefulness (e.g. 'A is useful because it was written by someone who was there'). Typically: copies content; generic comments on provenance. Nutshell: Sources described, not evaluated.

Level 2 (3-5 marks): Explains usefulness of one or both sources using content OR provenance, with some link to the question. Typically: notes that A shows new buildings and garden and B shows slighting; states that a guest saw it first-hand or that B is an official survey, without developing the point. Nutshell: Some analysis of usefulness, undeveloped or one-sided.

Level 3 (6-8 marks): Evaluates both sources for usefulness, using content and provenance and some contextual knowledge, focused on changes in appearance and layout 1570-1650. Typically: A's 1570s detail on Dudley's lodging, gatehouse and garden set against B's evidence of Civil War slighting and draining of the mere; notes courtier bias in A and the purpose of the survey in B. A comparison or judgement may be attempted but is not fully supported. Nutshell: Both sources evaluated in context.

Level 4 (9-10 marks): Sustained, balanced evaluation of both sources, with provenance, content and secure own knowledge integrated to reach a supported judgement on which is more useful for the stated enquiry. Typically: recognises that each covers only one end of the period, weighs purpose and limits (flattery in A; focus on damage and value in B), uses knowledge such as Dudley's building work, the Civil War garrison and the policy of slighting, and explains why one is the more useful. Nutshell: Convincing, supported judgement.

Marks within a level: bottom of level = borderline or inconsistent; middle = some inconsistency; top = consistent performance across the level.

NB: If the sources are misunderstood or the answer is not focused on appearance and layout, cap at Level 2. A response that evaluates only one source cannot exceed Level 2 (5 marks). No credit for unrelated knowledge about Kenilworth.