2023 Cambridge IGCSE History (0470) 模擬試題連答案詳解

In early 1938, Hitler ordered Austrian Nazis to stage protests and stir up trouble to destabilise the Austrian government. Chancellor Kurt von Schuschnigg met with Hitler at Berchtesgaden in February 1938, where Hitler bullied him into appointing Arthur Seyss-Inquart, an Austrian Nazi, as Minister of the Interior. Schuschnigg attempted to retain independence by organizing a referendum on the issue. This angered Hitler, who demanded the referendum be called off and that Schuschnigg resign. Facing the threat of immediate invasion, Schuschnigg resigned, and Seyss-Inquart took over, immediately requesting German troops to enter Austria to restore order. On 12 March 1938, the German army entered Austria, and a plebiscite was organized in April, where 99.7% voted in favour of the Anschluss under heavily policed conditions.

Award 1 mark for each relevant historical detail or point identified (up to a maximum of 4 marks):
- Hitler ordered Austrian Nazis to stage demonstrations and cause disruption.
- Schuschnigg was pressured by Hitler at Berchtesgaden (February 1938) to appoint Nazi Arthur Seyss-Inquart as Minister of the Interior.
- Schuschnigg announced a referendum/plebiscite on Austrian independence to resist Hitler.
- Hitler demanded the cancellation of the referendum and Schuschnigg's resignation.
- German troops were ordered to invade/march into Austria on 12 March 1938.
- Seyss-Inquart invited the German army in to restore order.
- A public plebiscite was held in April 1938 which returned a 99.7% 'Yes' vote to union under Nazi supervision.

The Refugee Commission was set up by the League of Nations to deal with the millions of displaced persons following the First World War and the Russian Civil War. Under the leadership of the Norwegian explorer Fridtjof Nansen, the Commission successfully returned around 400,000 prisoners of war and displaced persons back to their homes. It introduced the 'Nansen Passport' in 1922, which was the first internationally recognized identity document for stateless refugees, allowing them to cross borders to seek employment or rejoin families. During the 1922 Greco-Turkish War crisis, the Commission built temporary camps and successfully delivered food, clean water, and medicine to hundreds of thousands of refugees, preventing massive outbreaks of deadly diseases like typhus and cholera.

Award 1 mark for each relevant historical detail or point identified (up to a maximum of 4 marks):
- Led by the Norwegian explorer Fridtjof Nansen.
- Helped return/repatriate approximately 400,000 prisoners of war and refugees after WWI.
- Created the 'Nansen Passport' to give stateless refugees an official identity and cross borders.
- Provided emergency relief (food, clothing, shelter) to hundreds of thousands of refugees during the 1922 Greek refugee crisis.
- Actively worked to prevent the outbreak of diseases (like cholera, dysentery, or typhus) in refugee camps.
- Assisted refugees in finding work and integrating into new countries.

One key reason Britain followed a policy of appeasement was the overwhelming public dread of another war. The memories of the devastation and loss of life during the First World War (1914-1918) were still fresh. British public opinion was strongly pacifist, and politicians like Neville Chamberlain knew that electors would not support going to war over territorial disputes in Central Europe, especially before all diplomatic options had been exhausted.

Another major reason was military unreadiness. During the early and mid-1930s, Britain's armed forces were neglected and lacked the modern aircraft, tanks, and ships needed to fight a major European power like Germany. Chamberlain used appeasement as a tactic to buy crucial time to rearm, particularly to strengthen the Royal Air Force (RAF) and develop air defenses (such as radar), ensuring Britain could defend itself if conflict eventually became inevitable.

Level 1 [1 mark]: Identifies a simple reason without explanation.
- E.g., 'They wanted to avoid war' or 'Britain was not ready to fight.'

Level 2 [2-3 marks]: Identifies and describes reasons but does not fully explain them.
- E.g., 'Many people in Britain felt the Treaty of Versailles had been too harsh on Germany, so they thought Hitler's demands were reasonable. Also, Britain's army was very weak at the time.'

Level 3 [4-6 marks]: Explains one or more reasons with specific historical detail.
- 4 marks for one fully explained reason.
- 5 marks for one explained reason and one described reason.
- 6 marks for two or more fully explained reasons (e.g., explaining both the dread of repeating the horrors of WWI/pacifism and the military necessity of buying time for rearmament).

One reason the League failed was the slow and ineffective response of its investigation system. After Japan invaded Manchuria in September 1931, the League appointed the Lytton Commission to investigate. It took the Commission over a year to travel to Asia, assess the situation, and publish its report in October 1932. By the time the League formally voted to condemn Japan's actions, Japan had already established a firm military grip and set up the puppet state of Manchukuo, making diplomatic pressure obsolete.

Another critical reason was the economic impact of the Great Depression on the major European powers, particularly Britain and France. Both countries were facing high unemployment and severe financial crises. They were unwilling to impose economic sanctions on Japan because they did not want to lose valuable trade. Furthermore, Britain and France were reluctant to commit their military forces to a distant conflict in East Asia when they could not afford the cost of war and feared risking their own colonies in the Pacific.

Level 1 [1 mark]: Identifies a simple reason without explanation.
- E.g., 'Manchuria was too far away' or 'They took too long to make a report.'

Level 2 [2-3 marks]: Identifies and describes reasons but lacks deep explanation.
- E.g., 'The League sent Lord Lytton but his report took a whole year. Meanwhile, Britain and France did not want to risk their navies or stop trading because of the economic depression.'

Level 3 [4-6 marks]: Explains one or more reasons with specific historical detail.
- 4 marks for one fully explained reason.
- 5 marks for one explained reason and one described reason.
- 6 marks for two or more fully explained reasons (e.g., explaining how the Lytton Commission's delay allowed Japan to consolidate power, and how the Great Depression made European powers unwilling to risk sanctions or military actions).

To answer this question effectively, a balanced argument must be constructed:

**Arguments supporting the statement (The Nazi-Soviet Pact as the main cause):**
- It directly cleared the path for Hitler to invade Poland on September 1, 1939, without the fear of fighting a two-front war against the USSR and the Western Allies simultaneously.
- The secret protocol of the pact divided Poland and Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence, making the partition of Poland inevitable.
- It convinced Hitler that Britain and France would not honor their guarantees to Poland, or that even if they did, they could do little without Soviet help.

**Arguments against the statement (Other major causes):**
- **Hitler's long-term foreign policy goals:** His aims of dismantling the Treaty of Versailles, acquiring *Lebensraum* (living space) in Eastern Europe, and defeating communism made war highly likely regardless of the pact.
- **The policy of Appeasement:** By allowing Hitler to remilitarize the Rhineland, annex Austria (Anschluss), and take the Sudetenland and the rest of Czechoslovakia, Britain and France demonstrated weakness, encouraging Hitler to make further aggressive demands.
- **The failure of the League of Nations:** The League's failure to handle crises in Manchuria and Abyssinia destroyed its credibility and collective security, proving to aggressors that territorial expansion would go unpunished.

**Conclusion:**
While Hitler's underlying expansionist ideology made conflict inevitable in the long run, the Nazi-Soviet Pact served as the immediate trigger. It provided Hitler with the tactical security he needed to launch the invasion of Poland, knowing his eastern flank was secure, which directly forced Britain and France to declare war.

Award marks based on the following levels:

**Level 1 (1-2 marks):** Simple, generalized assertions or unsupported opinions.
*e.g., 'The Nazi-Soviet Pact was important because it allowed Hitler and Stalin to split Poland and start the war.'*

**Level 2 (3-4 marks):** Identification or description of factors without analytical explanation.
*e.g., Describes the terms of the Nazi-Soviet Pact or lists other factors like the policy of Appeasement or Hitler's aims in Versailles without linking them directly to why war broke out in 1939.*

**Level 3 (5-7 marks):** Explains one side of the argument. Either explains how the Nazi-Soviet Pact caused the war OR explains how other factors (e.g., Appeasement, Hitler's long-term goals) caused the war. (Maximum 7 marks for a highly developed one-sided argument).

**Level 4 (8-9 marks):** Balanced, two-sided explanation. Analyzes both how the Nazi-Soviet Pact led to war AND explains the role of alternative factors (such as the legacy of Versailles, Appeasement, or Germany's expansionist foreign policy).

**Level 5 (10 marks):** Meets Level 4 criteria and includes a clear, well-supported evaluative conclusion that directly addresses 'how far' and weighs the relative importance of the factors discussed.

To answer this question effectively, a balanced argument must be constructed:

**Arguments supporting the statement (Versailles as the primary cause of doom):**
- **The 'Stab-in-the-Back' Myth (Dolchstoßlegende):** The Weimar politicians who signed the Treaty were permanently branded 'November Criminals'. This crippled the Republic's legitimacy from the start, especially among the military and conservative elites.
- **Economic Devastation:** The massive reparations burden of £6.6 billion, combined with the loss of industrial territories (like the Saar and Upper Silesia), structurally weakened Germany's economy, leading directly to the hyperinflation crisis of 1923.
- **National Humiliation:** The war guilt clause (Article 231) and severe military restrictions fostered deep-seated resentment that right-wing extremists, including the Nazis, successfully exploited throughout the 1920s and early 1930s.

**Arguments against the statement (Other causes / Republic was not doomed):**
- **The Golden Years (1924–1929):** Under Gustav Stresemann's leadership, the Republic stabilized. The Dawes Plan (1924) and Young Plan (1929) renegotiated reparations, the Locarno Treaties integrated Germany back into Europe, and cultural life flourished. This proves the Republic was not inevitably 'doomed from the start'.
- **Flaws in the Weimar Constitution:** Proportional representation led to weak, unstable coalition governments. Article 48 gave the President emergency powers to rule by decree, which ultimately allowed democratic institutions to be bypassed by Hindenburg and Schleicher.
- **The Wall Street Crash (1929):** The Great Depression was an external economic shock. Without the sudden withdrawal of American loans, the Republic might have survived. It was this crisis, rather than Versailles alone, that caused mass unemployment and drove voters to extremist parties.

**Conclusion:**
While the Treaty of Versailles inflicted severe political and economic damage that weakened the Republic's foundations, it was not entirely doomed from the start, as demonstrated by the stability of the Stresemann era. The collapse of Weimar democracy was ultimately caused by the fatal combination of the Great Depression and the structural constitutional flaws that allowed conservative elites and Adolf Hitler to dismantle democracy from within.

Award marks based on the following levels:

**Level 1 (1-2 marks):** Simple, generalized assertions or unsupported opinions.
*e.g., 'The Treaty of Versailles made Germans angry and they hated the Weimar government for signing it, so it was always going to fail.'*

**Level 2 (3-4 marks):** Identification or description of factors without analytical explanation.
*e.g., Identifies terms of the Treaty of Versailles (reparations, military cuts) or lists other events (Spartacist Uprising, Hyperinflation, Stresemann, Wall Street Crash) without linking them directly to why the Republic failed or survived.*

**Level 3 (5-7 marks):** Explains one side of the argument. Either explains how the Treaty of Versailles undermined and doomed the Republic OR explains how other factors (e.g., Stresemann's successes, constitutional flaws, the Great Depression) determined its fate. (Maximum 7 marks for a highly developed one-sided argument).

**Level 4 (8-9 marks):** Balanced, two-sided explanation. Analyzes both how Versailles fatally weakened the Republic from its inception AND explains other factors or periods of stability that show it was not necessarily doomed from the beginning.

**Level 5 (10 marks):** Meets Level 4 criteria and includes a clear, well-supported evaluative conclusion that directly addresses 'how far' and weighs the relative impact of Versailles against other political and economic factors.

To achieve full marks (4 marks), a candidate must state four clear, accurate points about the immigration restrictions, or develop fewer points with specific detail. Correct points include: 1. The Emergency Quota Act was passed in 1921. 2. This act limited annual immigration from any country to 3% of the number of people from that country living in the USA in 1910. 3. The National Origins Act was passed in 1924. 4. This act reduced the quota to 2% and changed the comparison year to 1890 to restrict southern and eastern Europeans. 5. In 1929, a total limit of 150,000 immigrants per year was introduced. 6. Immigration from Asia (especially Japan) was completely banned.

Award 1 mark for each relevant historical fact or detail provided, up to a maximum of 4 marks. For example: - The Emergency Quota Act of 1921 (1 mark). - It restricted immigration to 3% of the 1910 census population for each nationality (1 mark). - The National Origins Act of 1924 (1 mark). - It lowered the limit to 2% of the 1890 census (1 mark). - It discriminated against Southern and Eastern Europeans (1 mark). - It banned Asian immigration completely (1 mark). - In 1929, a cap of 150,000 per year was imposed (1 mark).

The Weimar Republic experienced hyperinflation in 1923 due to a combination of international conflict, industrial stoppage, and reckless monetary policy.

Firstly, the crisis was triggered by the occupation of the Ruhr. By late 1922, Germany had defaulted on its reparations payments under the Treaty of Versailles. In response, French and Belgian troops occupied Germany's primary industrial heartland, the Ruhr, in January 1923 to confiscate coal and steel as payment. The German government reacted by ordering 'passive resistance' (a general strike), which halted all industrial production in the region. To support the striking workers and their families, the government had to pay their wages despite having lost its primary source of tax revenue. It chose to do this by printing massive amounts of paper money, which flooded the economy without any real economic output to back it.

Secondly, the government printed excess money to pay off its substantial wartime debts. Because the German Mark was no longer tied to gold reserves, printing more notes simply eroded the value of the existing currency. As the volume of money in circulation surged while the supply of goods plummeted due to the Ruhr strikes, prices rose astronomically. This created a catastrophic inflationary spiral where the government printed increasingly higher denominations of banknotes to keep pace, eventually rendering the Mark completely worthless by autumn 1923.

Level 1 (1 mark): General assertion or simple statement. e.g., 'Because the government printed too much paper money.'

Level 2 (2-3 marks): Identifies or describes reasons without fully explaining them.
- 2 marks for one identified factor; 3 marks for two or more.
e.g., 'The French army occupied the Ruhr because Germany missed its reparations payments.' or 'The German workers went on strike, and the government had to pay them.'

Level 3 (4-6 marks): Explains reasons.
- 4-5 marks for one clearly explained reason showing how it directly caused hyperinflation.
- 6 marks for explaining two or more distinct reasons.
e.g., Candidates must explain the causal link between the passive resistance in the Ruhr, the government printing money without gold backing or production support, and the resulting devaluation of the currency that caused prices to spiral.

On one hand, the hyperinflation crisis of 1923 pushed the Weimar Republic to the brink of collapse. Triggered by the French occupation of the Ruhr and the subsequent policy of passive resistance, the government printed money excessively to pay striking workers. This caused the German Mark to become completely worthless. The economic devastation wiped out the savings of the middle class - the very demographic needed to anchor a stable democracy. This led to widespread anger, strikes, and opportunistic political rebellions, most notably Hitler's Munich Putsch in November 1923, which sought to exploit the absolute loss of confidence in the Weimar government. On the other hand, severe instability existed long before 1923 due to political and structural issues. From its birth, the Republic was tainted by the 'stab-in-the-back' myth (Dolchstosslegende) and the signing of the hated Treaty of Versailles in 1919, which permanently associated the democratic government with national humiliation and crippling reparations. Furthermore, political violence plagued Germany from 1919 onward. Left-wing threats like the Spartacist Uprising (1919) and right-wing attempts like the Kapp Putsch (1920), along with political assassinations of key figures like Walther Rathenau, demonstrated that large segments of the population and the military did not support the republic. The constitution itself, with its system of proportional representation, led to weak coalition governments, while Article 48 allowed rule by emergency decree, creating structural vulnerabilities. In conclusion, while hyperinflation in 1923 brought Germany to its most acute economic and social crisis, it was not the sole or primary reason for Weimar's early instability. Hyperinflation merely exacerbated the pre-existing, deep-seated political polarization, lack of democratic legitimacy, and constitutional weaknesses that had undermined the Republic since its inception in 1919.

Level 5 [10 marks]: Evaluative conclusion and a balanced argument explaining both sides. The candidate evaluates the relative importance of hyperinflation against other factors. Level 4 [8-9 marks]: Explains both sides of the argument. Candidates must explain how hyperinflation caused instability AND how other factors (such as the Treaty of Versailles, political uprisings, or constitutional issues) did so. Level 3 [5-7 marks]: Explains one side of the argument (e.g., only explains how hyperinflation caused instability, or only explains the other factors). Level 2 [3-4 marks]: Identifies or describes factors but does not explain them (e.g., lists the Ruhr crisis, Spartacist Uprising, or Kapp Putsch without explaining how they caused instability). Level 1 [1-2 marks]: Simple, generalized assertions without historical support. Level 0 [0 marks]: No creditworthy response.

To answer this question successfully, candidates need to look for both agreements and disagreements of detail, and ultimately compare the overall attitude/stance of the two sources.

**Agreements of detail include:**
- Both sources discuss the Munich Agreement and its impact on Czechoslovakia (Source A mentions Sudeten Germans being 'reunited with their homeland'; Source B mentions the 'Czechoslovak state has been broken').
- Both sources identify Germany/Hitler as the central actor receiving territorial concessions.
- Both sources focus on the critical issue of whether war will break out in Europe.

**Disagreements of detail include:**
- Source A argues that the Munich Agreement has brought peace ('War has been averted'), whereas Source B argues that war is inevitable ('we shall have war').
- Source A believes Hitler's territorial demands have ended ('this is his last territorial ambition'), whereas Source B believes German expansion will continue ('the path... is now wide open to German expansion').
- Source A views Chamberlain's policy as a massive success ('triumph of reason', 'peace with honour'), while Source B views it as a catastrophic failure ('total and unmitigated defeat', 'dishour').

**Comparison of overall attitude (Level 4):**
Source A is highly supportive of appeasement, optimistic about Anglo-German relations, and trusting of Hitler's promises. In contrast, Source B is deeply critical of appeasement, pessimistic about the future, and views the Munich Agreement as a dishonourable surrender that has weakened Britain's strategic position.

**Level 1: Writes about the sources but makes no valid comparison.** [1 mark]
*Candidate describes the content of one or both sources without addressing agreements or disagreements.*

**Level 2: Identifies agreement OR disagreement of detail.** [2-3 marks]
*Candidate points out specific points where the sources agree or disagree, supported by quotes or paraphrasing from the text. (Maximum 3 marks if only agreements or only disagreements are identified).*

**Level 3: Identifies agreement AND disagreement of detail.** [4-5 marks]
*Candidate points out specific points of both agreement and disagreement, supported by quotes or paraphrasing from both texts.*

**Level 4: Compares the overall attitudes/arguments of the sources.** [6-7 marks]
*Candidate identifies that the two sources have fundamentally opposing viewpoints: Source A is an endorsement of Munich and appeasement, arguing peace has been secured, while Source B is a thorough condemnation, arguing that Munich is a defeat that makes war inevitable. To reach 7 marks, this must be supported by precise references to both sources.*

To assess utility, a strong response must evaluate both what the source tells us (its content) and what its limitations are (its provenance and purpose). Chamberlain is speaking to the House of Commons immediately after returning from Munich, seeking to defend his policy and secure parliamentary and public support. The source is useful because it reveals how the government chose to frame the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia as a noble act that 'avoided a great catastrophe.' However, its utility is restricted if taken as an objective account of 'British attitudes' as a whole. Candidates should use their own knowledge of the period to point out that public opinion was divided: while there was initial relief that war had been averted ('peace for our time'), there was also deep shame, anxiety, and vocal political opposition (such as Churchill's speech calling the Munich Agreement a 'total and unmitigated defeat'). Therefore, the source is extremely useful for understanding official propaganda and the rationale behind appeasement, but unreliable as a neutral reflection of national opinion.

Level 1 [1-2 marks]: Simple, undeveloped assertions about utility, or literal extraction of the source content without evaluation. Level 2 [3-4 marks]: Evaluates utility based on content alone, explaining what the source tells us about Chamberlain's desire for peace, without considering limitations or context. Level 3 [5-6 marks]: Evaluates utility by addressing the provenance and purpose of the source, explaining that Chamberlain had a political motive to present the agreement as a triumph to justify his policies to Parliament. Level 4 [7-7.5 marks]: Provides a balanced evaluation of utility by cross-referencing Chamberlain's claims with contextual knowledge of the wider, divided British reactions to Munich (e.g., the relief vs. the opposition of critics like Churchill), showing that its ultimate value is in demonstrating official self-justification rather than objective public opinion.

The candidate needs to evaluate 'how far' the source serves as proof of weakness. On one hand, the source provides direct evidence of extreme weakness: the physical flight of Ebert's government to Stuttgart and the army's refusal to fight ('Reichswehr does not fire on Reichswehr'). On the other hand, the source demonstrates that the Weimar Republic was not entirely helpless, as the social democratic labor movement possessed the power to mobilize a general strike that completely paralyzed the capital, making it impossible for Wolfgang Kapp's regime to govern. The provenance of the source—a private diary of an SPD insider—makes it highly reliable for showing the contemporary sense of vulnerability and frustration among Weimar's own supporters, even as they acted to save it.

Level 1 [1-2 marks]: Simple comprehension of the source, stating it proves weakness because the government fled. Level 2 [3-4 marks]: Explains how the source shows weakness by cross-referencing with historical knowledge of the Kapp Putsch and the actions of military leaders like Seeckt. Level 3 [5-6 marks]: Explains the dual nature of the source's evidence, showing that while it proves military and executive weakness, it also demonstrates the strength of the republic's popular support via the general strike. Level 4 [7-7.5 marks]: Evaluates the reliability of the source as a private diary entry to explain why its perspective is valuable (providing an authentic, unpolished insider view of the panic and resolve of the democratic parties) while noting its limitations in assessing the long-term stability of the republic.

To answer this question, candidates must evaluate the utility of the source by examining both its content and its provenance. The source paints a picture of total success, claiming that jails are emptying and moral degradation has ended. Candidates must use their own knowledge to challenge these claims, noting that Prohibition actually led to an explosion of organized crime (e.g., Al Capone), widespread lawbreaking through speakeasies, massive corruption of police and politicians, and a rise in prison populations due to alcohol-related offenses. Crucially, the candidate must evaluate the provenance: the Anti-Saloon League was the primary lobbying group responsible for pushing Prohibition. They had a massive vested interest in portraying the policy as a triumph to justify their existence and maintain the law. Thus, the source is extremely useful for showing how dry advocates tried to influence public perception, but useless as an objective measure of Prohibition's practical enforcement.

Level 1 [1-2 marks]: Accept the source at face value, asserting it is useful because it lists positive outcomes like emptying jails. Level 2 [3-4 marks]: Identifies that the source is biased because it comes from a temperance group, but does not use specific contextual knowledge to disprove its claims. Level 3 [5-6 marks]: Evaluates the utility of the source by cross-referencing its claims with specific historical details of the failures of Prohibition (e.g., bootlegging, speakeasies, rise of gangsters, corruption of the law). Level 4 [7-7.5 marks]: Synthesizes these points to argue that the source's utility lies not in its historical accuracy, but in its value as primary evidence of the propaganda techniques and political defensiveness of the Anti-Saloon League in the 1920s.

The question asks if the candidate is surprised by the cartoon. To answer effectively, the candidate must explain why they are NOT surprised by contextualizing the cartoon's message. In October 1935, Italy invaded Abyssinia. The League of Nations declared Italy the aggressor and imposed economic sanctions, but these sanctions were weak and hollow—they did not ban oil (which Mussolini later admitted would have stopped him within a week), coal, or steel, and the Suez Canal was kept open for Italian troops. The cartoon accurately captures this futility by depicting sanctions as a fragile 'thread' trying to restrain a giant, heavily armed soldier. British public opinion was highly skeptical of the League's actual commitment to collective security, especially as Britain and France were secretively trying to appease Mussolini to keep him as an ally against Germany (which culminated in the Hoare-Laval Pact later that year). Therefore, the cartoonist's critical stance is completely expected and typical of contemporary British observers.

Level 1 [1-2 marks]: Simple, personal expressions of surprise or lack of surprise, or simple description of the cartoon's visual details without context. Level 2 [3-4 marks]: Explains surprise/lack of surprise based on the cartoon's message alone (e.g., 'I am surprised because the League of Nations was supposed to be powerful, but here it is shown as weak'). Level 3 [5-6 marks]: Explains lack of surprise by applying historical knowledge of the Abyssinian Crisis, specifically referencing the weakness of the economic sanctions and the refusal to block vital resources or close the Suez Canal. Level 4 [7-7.5 marks]: Demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the historical context of late 1935, explaining why a British publication would express such deep skepticism toward the League's actions, linking the cartoon to the wider collapse of confidence in collective security.

An excellent response will analyze the sources systematically:

**Sources that support the hypothesis (Hitler was solely responsible):**
* **Source A** outlines Hitler's long-term ideological vision of conquering Lebensraum in the East, proving he had a premeditated plan for war.
* **Source D** (Hossbach Memorandum) provides concrete evidence of Hitler preparing the German military for expansionist conflicts in the near future.
* **Source E** (Chamberlain's war declaration) places the blame entirely on Hitler's aggressive actions in Poland, stating that his decisions made peace impossible.

**Sources that challenge the hypothesis (pointing to other factors/responsibilities):**
* **Source B** highlights Chamberlain's policy of appeasement, suggesting that Britain's concession of Czechoslovakia encouraged Hitler's aggression.
* **Source C** demonstrates that Stalin shared responsibility, as the Nazi-Soviet Pact paved the way for the invasion of Poland and eliminated the threat of a two-front war for Germany.
* **Source F** presents a revisionist historical view, arguing that the war resulted from mutual diplomatic failures and that Hitler was merely exploiting opportunities created by Western weakness rather than executing a master plan.

**Synthesis and Evaluation:**
A Level 5 response will evaluate these sources. For example, it might argue that Source E is highly biased as a wartime address designed to mobilize British public support, while Source D, being a secret memorandum, is a more reliable reflection of Hitler's early intentions. Ultimately, while Hitler's expansionist policies were the primary catalyst, the enabling actions of other major powers make the claim of 'sole' responsibility too simplistic.

**Level 1 (1–2 marks):** Writes about the outbreak of war in 1939 but does not use the sources, or makes simple, unsupported assertions about the sources.

**Level 2 (3–5 marks):** Uses sources to support OR challenge the hypothesis. (e.g., 'Sources A and D show Hitler wanted war because...'). Max 4 marks if sources are not cited by letter.

**Level 3 (6–8 marks):** Uses sources to support AND challenge the hypothesis. Candidates must show how some sources agree with the statement and others disagree.

**Level 4 (9–10 marks):** Evaluates the sources to show how far they are reliable or useful for testing the hypothesis (e.g., considering the political purpose of Chamberlain's speeches or the limitations of Mein Kampf as a plan for 1939).

**Level 5 (11–12 marks):** Explains both sides of the argument using the sources, evaluates source reliability/utility, and reaches a clear, balanced conclusion focusing on the word 'solely'.

To structure a high-level response, candidates should evaluate both sides of the prompt. On one hand, the weaknesses of the Republic's opponents were central to its survival: 1) Left-wing insurgencies (such as the Spartacist Uprising of 1919 and the Ruhr Uprising of 1920) lacked a broad national base of support, were poorly organized, and suffered from divided leadership, making them relatively easy to isolate and crush. 2) Right-wing putsches were plagued by major strategic errors. The Kapp Putsch of 1920 failed because the leaders, Wolfgang Kapp and Walther von Lüttwitz, failed to win the cooperation of the civil service and could not cope with a total general strike. 3) The Munich Putsch of 1923, led by Adolf Hitler and General Ludendorff, was a disaster because of poor planning, miscalculations about the loyalty of local Bavarian leaders (like Kahr and Lossow) who ultimately withdrew support, and a failure to secure the backing of the local army and police forces. On the other hand, the Republic's survival was also due to active defensive measures: 1) President Ebert's pragmatism, notably the Ebert-Groener Pact of November 1918, secured the backing of the regular army against extreme left-wing threats. 2) The Weimar government mobilized the Freikorps (nationalist ex-soldiers) to brutally suppress communist uprisings. 3) During the Kapp Putsch, the Weimar government successfully called upon the trade unions to launch a massive general strike, which paralyzed Berlin's utilities and transport, making it impossible for the putschists to govern. 4) President Ebert made effective and frequent use of Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution to govern by decree during crises, allowing the state to take swift measures to restore order. Conclusion: While the weaknesses and disorganization of both the extreme left and right prevented them from seizing power permanently, the Republic would not have survived without the proactive defense mounted by Ebert, the strategic mobilization of the trade unions, and the temporary alignment of the army and Freikorps with the government.

Level 5 (33-40 marks): Sustained, balanced, and analytical essay that fully evaluates both the weaknesses of the opponents (left and right) and alternative factors (Ebert's actions, army support, general strike, Article 48). Candidates use precise historical detail to support their arguments and provide a clear, well-reasoned conclusion. Level 4 (25-32 marks): Explains both sides of the argument with good historical details. The essay may be slightly unbalanced, focusing more on one side, but demonstrates a clear understanding of the complexity of Weimar's survival. Level 3 (17-24 marks): One-sided analysis or a mostly descriptive/narrative account of the early Weimar crises (Spartacists, Kapp Putsch, Munich Putsch, hyperinflation) with limited analytical focus on the 'why' of survival. Level 2 (9-16 marks): Limited, generalized comments about the early Weimar Republic with sparse historical details. Level 1 (1-8 marks): Very brief, inaccurate, or irrelevant response. Level 0 (0 marks): No response or response does not address the question.